Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Special Meeting Approved Minutes 03/29/2012
SPECIAL SALEM PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3/29/12

A special meeting of the Salem Planning Board was held on Thursday, March 29, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Room 313, Third Floor, at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts.

Those present were: Chuck Puleo, Chair, George McCabe, Tim Ready, Mark George, Lewis Beilman, Tim Kavanagh, and Helen Sides.  Also present: Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, Danielle McKnight, Staff Planner, and Beth Gerard, Planning Board Recording Clerk. Absent: John Moustakis, Vice Chair and Randy Clarke.

Chuck Puleo opened the meeting at 7:13 pm.      

North River Canal Corridor Transportation Study – Public Meeting #2
Discussion of transportation issues within the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) area.  The City has engaged Fay, Spofford & Thorndike as consultants to examine the traffic impacts of the redevelopment of key sites and to recommend transportation improvements for the area.  This second public meeting will include a discussion of draft recommendations.

Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, gave an overview of the project.  She explained that this project was undertaken because the Board wanted to look at the NRCC area more comprehensively, since several developments have been proposed in the neighborhood.  The purpose of the study is to look at proposed developments and their impacts, and determine what transportation improvements are needed, as well as to determine cost estimates.  Based on comments received at the first public meeting, the city has scheduled a third public meeting (only two had originally been proposed).  She thanked the Board for holding this special meeting and introduced Gary Hebert of Fay, Spofford and Thorndike.  

Gary Hebert, Transportation Engineer with Fay, Spofford, and Thorndike, noted that he had received very helpful comments from the public after the first meeting.  Tonight’s presentation will include an amalgamation of all the studies and comments they have heard, and present recommendations for improvements.  At the next meeting, he will discuss costs and order of magnitude for priorities.

He reviewed questions from previous meetings including:
  • Are there enough intersections included in the study area? He said the answer was yes – relative to the impacts of the five sites we’re looking at – the study area included the important arteries and intersections impacted by the proposed developments.
  • How did the newly regionalized Ruane Court/ MBTA parking expansion affect the background traffic for this study?    He responded that after the MBTA expansion, traffic should be improved on Bridge Street.  He noted that in considering traffic, they have added background traffic from the MBTA expansion as well as the future five developments.
  • Why don’t all the 2003 NRCC Master Plan recommendations still apply?  Not only have changes have occurred since the master plan was completed, but we must also look at this project through a new lens since there were important considerations such as grading, etc. that must be contemplated when moving from a planning study to a design, based on what conditions actually are.  
Mr. Hebert then showed and explained the study area overview to the audience highlighting where the upcoming projects/ redevelopment parcels will be located, which included the Riverview, Gateway, and North River (28 Goodhue) Sites, which have already been approved, and which represent about 72% of the potential new traffic to be added to the area.  He then discussed the intersections and corridors that are being addressed.  He noted that they were going to look at 6 intersections and they ended up looking at 12.  He described the programmed mitigation, including traffic lights that could be added to Tremont, Mason and Flint Streets, and included roadway modifications, as well as striping modifications.  He then stated that they looked at different traffic options at all of the intersections.

Mr. Hebert then gave an overview of the proposed recommendations:
  • Mason Street traffic calming, which includes restriping crosswalks, changing the intersection with Tremont Street and making a right turn lane;
  • Possible all way traffic stop at Mason Street and Tremont Street;  
  • At Flint Street, an all way stop at Flint and Mason; consider how to help cyclists to get to the station as well as discourage car usage;
  • Restriping the Friend Street & Mason Street intersection;
  • Grove Street corridor changes, including a huge increase in green space.  They are considering a roundabout which will make it better for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers;
  • New connection between Bridge Street and the end of Goodhue & Grove Streets which will have a strong impact on access for both new and current residents;
  • Restripe Bridge Street with bike lanes on both sides of the street which will also accommodate left and right turns in order to make the intersection work for all users;
  • Improve the intersection of Bridge and Boston Streets;
  • On Aborn Street he recommended adding some geometric modifications for better pedestrian access and safety;
  • Bridge Street widening;
  • On Boston Street, they are considering small flush medians and neck-downs as well as widening the sidewalks, and bicycle improvements.
Mr. Hebert then went into detail describing each of the major recommendations for Mason Street calming; Flint Street; Harmony Grove Rd., Grove Street and Goodhue Street; Bridge Street; Boston Street; and Aborn at Boston Street.

For Mason Street, Mr. Hebert acknowledged the crash problems, particularly at Flint and Mason Streets.  He looked at slightly raising the crosswalks, and more advanced markings for the safety of pedestrians.  He also looked at alternating block to block on-street parking with crosswalk enhancements.  At the intersection of Buffum Street and Mason Street he recommended changing the striping to slow the traffic down and enhancing the intersections.  Because Tremont Street is 34 feet wide, it does not need to be widened, but does have to be redone to fit a right turn lane properly.  He then showed mock-up photos of how the striping could create the turning lanes on Tremont St.

For the intersection at Flint and Mason Streets, he described the various current issues including Flint Street not allowing enough room to drive and park, as well as poor sight lines.  He reviewed the various options considered.  They recommended an all-way stop with three-foot curb extensions and bump-outs.  He said the best option would be to relocate the on-street parking, but understanding difficulties associated with this, he said the next best option would be to make the street one way toward Bridge St.  He acknowledged this solution would also increase volumes elsewhere.   

On Mason Street at the curve by Friend Street, he recommended added striping that would warn drivers of the curve and define the edge.  He recommended talking to neighbors about the geometry of the area.

At the intersection of Mason Street, Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road, he presented a slide that showed what the area would look like with a roundabout.  He said that he believes it could fit there, but it has to be engineered to confirm it would accommodate all vehicles.  He then presented another configuration of the intersection as an alternative to the roundabout.

He showed current pictures of the area of Grove Street, between Harmony Grove Road and Beaver Street and said that this area needs work.  He recommended an infrastructure upgrade, which included sidewalks and railroads that need to be brought up to current standards.  He recommended repaving Grove Street, keeping sidewalks as continuous as possible and using in-laid concrete sidewalks across driveways.

He recommended a mini roundabout at Goodhue and Grove Streets at Beaver Street, and said he considered the flooding issues that impact this neighborhood when he was designing this.  He also offered a recommendation of a T-intersection and added green space.  He explained that roundabouts are designed to make the traffic flow with fewer delays.  He recommended exploring the potential Grove and Goodhue Streets to Bridge Street connector.  He then showed a graphic highlighting the potential development of the intersection to connect with the multi-use path and a traffic signal.  

Mr. Hebert then showed potential options for Goodhue Street at Boston and Proctor Streets, which included making Goodhue St. two ways, which he specifically did not recommend.  He described a phase 1 recommendation for the intersection that included a new connector, shorter crossings and more green space.  

He then showed graphics on Aborn and Boston Streets which allowed for more pedestrian crossings and bike lanes.  He noted that Boston Street is typically 54 feet wide, which allows for enough room for bike lanes.

Next, he presented slides on Boston Street, to which he recommended making improvements, but noted that they will take longer than 5 years.  He then described improvements which included a flush median, bike lanes and signalized crosswalks.  

Mr. Puleo asked for comments from the Board first and then the public on each of the major recommendations:

Mason Street
Mark George asked about the locations of the three way stops and noted that they would be about a block from each other.  He asked Mr. Hebert what the impact of traffic will be if those are installed.  Mr. Hebert stated that it is not as bad as the current situation.  He said it could become difficult with heavy traffic.  He thinks it is going to make things a lot safer for pedestrians but noted that it will be more difficult in the morning rush.

Mr. George said that something has to happen with Flint Street as it is a scary situation, and asked how he recommended diverting traffic if Flint St. was made one-way.  Mr. Hebert said that they could go down to Goodhue Street or the potentially new street and he described possible routes.

George McCabe asked if he looked at the other side of the park, on Grove and Tremont Streets.  Mr. Hebert said it’s currently an all way stop, and he thinks it works a lot better than it used to prior to having an all way stop, but does need some work.

Helen Sides stated that she appreciates all of the work he has done and she sees the potential for a real psychological change for how people drive through the city.  She feels that they have got to slow people down and the calming approach is a great idea.  She thinks it will be a great transformation for the area.  She noted the importance of having all the developers provide proper sidewalks.  

Tim Ready stated that he shares Ms. Sides’ statements but notes that it will be essential to maintain any new striping indefinitely.  Whatever the city invests in must be done with the long-term in mind.  He thinks it’s a wonderful plan and it will change the culture of how people use the roads.  Mr. Hebert said that whenever striping is discussed there are annual maintenance costs that have to be considered and have to be built into the plan.

Mr. Puleo asked about Mason Street at Tremont, in particular if there is parking available going up the hill.  Mr. Hebert stated that there is parking, though some would be impacted by striping the turning lanes.  Mr. Puleo then asked Mr. Hebert if he would make any speed limit recommendations.  Mr. Hebert said that getting the average speed down to about 25 mph would be ideal.

Mr. Puleo then asked about Mason Street from Flint Street to Harmony Grove Road, and described the narrowness of the road and safety issues – there is no curb, sidewalk or street lights.  He asked if Mr. Hebert would recommend anything else for the safety of the road.  Mr. Hebert stated that ideally, he would recommend a sidewalk all around Mack Park, but that is an expensive proposition.  Mr. Puleo stated that this would have been to the Board’s benefit to have something like this study to think about this area prior to earlier NRCC project proposals.  He noted that Mason Street needs some serious improvements after it crosses Flint Street.  

Mr. Puleo requested comments from the public on the first item, Mason Street calming.

Tom Lauducci, 95 Boston Street, would like to see the maps as Mr. Hebert addresses these issues; Mr. Hebert presents the overview slide.

Lisa Joubert, 70 School Street, stated that she had a question about the all-way stop recommended at Flint Street and Mason Street.  She noted that if you make a right onto Mason there, you can’t then take a left from Mason onto North Street.  Mr. Hebert said that was correct and was considered in his analysis.  

Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that he was impressed with the presentation.  He inquired about the number of parking spaces were problematic on Flint Street to which Mr. Hebert said that he wasn’t sure, but didn’t think it was more than 10 to 12 spaces.  He then asked if Mr. Hebert was no longer addressing the Commercial Street extension.  Mr. Hebert stated that this would have a very negative impact on the neighbors in that area and he was concerned about its operation.  He continued, stating that from a feasibility perspective, it didn’t seem like it would work with two driveways so close together, and it would also be difficult given the Riverview project.  Mr. Treadwell stated that his final comment was that once Riverview was constructed, then a lot of other options would be off the table.

Flint Street
Mr. Puleo asked members of the board if they had any questions about the Flint Street recommendations.

Tim Kavanagh discussed the three way stop at Flint and Mason Streets, and stated that if a traffic signal were put there and traffic stays two ways, it is going to be very difficult getting down Flint Street.  He noted that if the three way stop is implemented then there can’t be any parking around there.  Mr. Hebert stated that he would never recommend something like that as it would not allow for a safe sight line and is not a standard situation.  His feeling is if we can relocate the parking or make the street one way, then the three-way stop will work.  However, the one-way traffic flow solution is more problematic.

Mr. Puleo asked for public comments on the Flint Street recommendations.

Ward 6 Councilor Paul Prevey, 26 Tremont Street, asked Mr. Hebert if the direction of Flint St. were changed to Bridge Street to Mason St….Mr. Hebert clarified that he is recommending the opposite, from Mason St. to Bridge St.  Councilor Prevey asked where access would be – Goodhue St.?  Mr. Hebert said if you were coming from Flint Street and turning right onto Bridge Street, make a right at Goodhue and then left to Harmony Grove, or else continue on Bridge St. if you were traveling in that direction.  Councilor Prevey noted that there was an easement provided by the storage facility on Goodhue Street – was that something that was looked at in order to create a right turn lane at the intersection?  Mr. Hebert stated that they looked at this possibility, but noted that this does not benefit pedestrian flow, and there are going to be a lot more pedestrians in the future than there are right now.

Melissa Sabean, 30B Silver Street, asked where people on Flint St. would park, since they had no driveways.  Mr. Hebert explained that Riverview Place was supposed to create parking just for those residents.  He explained how the designated parking would be relocated.  Mr. Hebert stated that parking relocation is his first choice over than one way traffic, since if the street were made one way, thousands of cars would be diverted.

Lisa Joubert, 70 School Street, asked if a bike path had been considered on Flint Street as there are sidewalks on both sides.  Mr. Hebert stated that Flint Street is too small as a two way street to have a bike lane, but they are trying to accommodate the bikes traveling to the MBTA station.  She stated that it is currently difficult to get to the MBTA station by bike, to which Mr. Hebert agreed.  Ms. Joubert asked about an bike path extension previously recommended that went through Leslie’s Retreat and along where the bait shop is.  Mr. Hebert stated that he has been struggling with bike access in this area.  He said the first step would be to get bikes across the street where the signal is, then perhaps a lane on the right side under the underpass, but it may be tight under there.

Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, recommended talking with the bike path committee, to which Mr. Hebert stated that he has worked with them before and will be meeting with them again.  Mr. Treadwell said in the NRCC plan, there was a street planned under the overpass that also accommodated bikes.

Jim Kearney, 1 ½ Cambridge Street, stated that he liked the presentation but he winced when Mr. Hebert said that the people driving through Flint St. would have primary rights over the property owners.  

Harmony Grove Rd./Goodhue Street
Mr. Puleo asked members of the Board if they had any questions about Harmony Grove Road and Goodhue Street.

Lisa Joubert stated that she was confused about the directional options for Goodhue Street at the intersection.  Mr. Hebert explained: he showed the storage facility and described the proposed new road connection to Bridge St.  He described possible changes to the driveways to 28 Goodhue, with one of them being relocated, and reorientation of the driveway to Bridge St. into the new street, so it all came out one curb cut.  There wouldn’t be two curb cuts too close together.  

Mr. Puleo stated that some land was left aside for the path that goes along the North River and asked if this proposed road is public or private property.  28 Goodhue is supposed to land is private property or is it city land.  Mr. Hebert stated that the land is on the 28 Goodhue site.  He says he is having an engineer look at this in further detail, at the city’s request.  He says it appears you can accomplish this without removing any parking, which is important, and that it is side by side with the bike lane with a green space dividing it.  It does appear that on the surface that there enough space.  The question is, does it make sense for the owners?

Ms. Duncan stated that they didn’t want to be in the situation with these recommendations that they were in with the Commercial Street connector – delving into a recommendation without doing the engineering work to see if it was feasible to do, and finding out if the landowners were willing to do it, since that land is privately owned.  In consideration of this proposed connector street, the City has increased the scope for FST’s study and asked Mr. Hebert to create a conceptual plan.  They are looking at the impact and are trying to figure out what the impact to the owners would be and how to approach them.

Mr. Treadwell stated that this would be very expensive, and it would be a bike lane rather than a path.  Mr. Hebert clarified that it would be a path, not a lane, exactly the same as the one proposed for 28 Goodhue.  
He noted that the intersection at Boston, Proctor and Bridge Streets should be improved and is the preferable alternative.  He also stated that the proposed traffic access into the Gateway project might require a signal – why not put in a pedestrian signal there for crossing Bridge Street, rather than putting in an entire new street?  Mr. Hebert explained that the reasons for the new street are to increase both pedestrian and vehicle safety. Mr. Treadwell asked about the traffic volume moving south on Bridge to West on Goodhue Street to Harmony Grove;  Mr. Hebert stated that he doesn’t have the data readily available here, but what they are talking about is making lefts out of Boston to Bridge and rights coming out of Bridge Street onto Boston at the same time – right now you can’t do that.  The same is true of the other direction.

Katrina Patterson, 2 Beaver Street, stated that Mr. Hebert noted the current entrances and exits proposed for the Salem Oil & Grease redevelopment project.  She asked whether any traffic lights would be needed.  Mr. Hebert stated that he is peer reviewing that project currently and this will be covered in his review letter.  Ms. Patterson stated that the connection Beaver Street from Grove to Boston wasn’t really addressed and asked if he would make any recommendations.  Mr. Hebert stated that, while he hasn’t looked at this in detail, a little bulb out at the end of the street to make the intersection more clear might be considered.  Ms. Patterson says she is concerned about people cutting through the neighborhood, as people are trying to avoid North Street.  With the changes to Flint St., will more people be diverted to Goodhue or Boston?  Mr. Hebert stated that if Flint Street was one way, traffic would be was diverted to Goodhue and Harmony Grove Rd. instead of coming from Mason.  It changes the traffic pattern in the area.  Ms. Patterson said that it looks great, but the flow of traffic will be heavily impacted by the determination for the direction for Goodhue Street.  She was surprised that the traffic lights for the Legacy Park entry have not been addressed.  Mr. Hebert stated that there isn’t enough traffic for that area to warrant a traffic signal.

Several members of the public asked to see slides on Goodhue/ Grove/ Beaver Streets and asked Mr. Hebert which option he preferred.  He stated that he preferred the T-intersection rather than the roundabout because he is concerned about the flood storage capacity of the area.  However, yield controls associated with a roundabout allow for efficient traffic flow.

Mr. Treadwell stated that in the early stages of flood mitigation for Peabody, at one point they had discussed the Grove Street Bridge over the canal.  

Ms. Sides and Mr. George stated that they like the T- intersection the best because of the green space and it will help with flood runoff.  Mr. Hebert noted that you could still accommodate some on-street parking on Grove Street.  

Mr. Puleo had a question on Bridge Street modifications, particularly from Flint Street to the new MBTA station.  He asked if the expansion to four lanes is still part of the final plan.  Ms. Duncan stated that it is, although the City does not yet have 25% design plans yet.  Mr. Puleo asked how the intersections on Flint Street should be handled.  Mr. Hebert described offsetting left turn lanes, which allows cars and cyclists to turn, from the MBTA station to Flint St.  Mr. Hebert suggested considering a three lane cross section instead of four, allowing us to shave off 6 feet in width, which makes a huge difference for conservation and green space.  He recommends this from the MBTA ramps to Flint St. Mr. Puleo stated that the worst backup on Bridge Street is between Flint and River Street and asked Mr. Hebert if he would recommend leaving the intersections wider.  Mr. Hebert said that they could actually change the flow of the street at different times of day, called reversible lanes, though that is not typically used in Massachusetts, and in order to do something like that the road in question would have to have a significant flow rate.  In this case, it would make a difference to take the left turns out of the stream as you approach Federal Street – these hurt the flow a lot, backing up lanes of traffic.    

Trisha Lauducci, 95 Boston Street, thanked him for not recommending extending Hanson Street, as that is the corner where her home is located.  She then asked about the Route 128 Corridor report.  Mr. Hebert stated that he read the report, and one difference he would suggest would be bike lanes rather than sharrows, and the only problem we would have with that would be the narrow section of Boston Street.  He noted where there could be some issues, particularly at Hanson Street, and recommended areas with high visibility crosswalks, bulb-outs, and bike lanes to enhance Boston Street.  Ms. Lauducci stated that there are no speed limit signs and would like at like at least one.

Mr. Lauducci asked about traffic increases and Mr. Hebert stated that they took into account the traffic from the new developments in this area.  Mr. Lauducci asked about the signals and Mr. Hebert stated that they looked at other signals and the signals have to be modified to work with the expected enhanced traffic.  He noted that Hanson Street was not an ideal intersection due to the grading and the location of the signals.

Boston St. and Aborn St.

Mr. Puleo then asked members of the board if they had any questions about Aborn at Boston Street.

Mr. Puleo asked about the right turn lane at Boston for the Gateway Center and asked if there was anything he recommended.  Mr. Hebert stated that it’s already an approved plan but if he had his druthers that he would create the new street, and that’s where their exit drive would be.  That could not have been forseen, however.  They have enough movements going in there that a three lane cross section would work better for them than a four lane.   Mr. Puleo stated that the intersection at Boston and Proctor Streets is a problem – if you want to take a left on Proctor, you have the same signal you have coming into Salem, and you can never get across.  He says he thinks developers are changing the lights and putting in a pedestrian cycle.  Mr. Hebert said the alignment is such that it gets tricky to jog the intersection – it’s sometimes okay if you want to slow cars down.  If you do widen, there could be a right turn lane and a short left turn lane.  

Ms. Sides noted that the Aborn and Boston intersection is really awful.

Mr. Puleo asked Ms. Duncan if the approval for the Stop and Shop included the lights and improvements over time.  Ms. Duncan stated that they are still holding monies from that project and she will look further into that.  Mr. Puleo noted that it’s one of the worst intersections for accidents.  Mr. Hebert noted that the engineering department is also looking at that intersection.

Ms. Sides asked Ms. Duncan if there is any chance that they could alter what the Gateway Center is obliged to do to the intersection of Boston and Bridge Streets with the right turning lane, if Mr. Hebert’s recommendations are preferred.  Ms. Duncan said that if they didn’t think the free right turn lane was a good idea, then we could say they are not required to build it.  If other measures were going to be taken, the may need to come back to the Planning Board, however, and that could cause permitting and building delays. The moving of the driveway is only necessary if the Goodhue/Bridge connector is feasible.  A lot of the improvements he’s recommending are tied to doing the Goodhue and Bridge Street connector.  Mr. Hebert stated that it is worth thinking about what would happen if the connector is not possible; you could still do the first alternative, but now traffic is going down Goodhue St., down Harmony Grove and Boston.  Ms. Duncan stated that it would be helpful to have that alterative included.  Mr. Hebert says the diagram showing this is included.  Ms. Duncan says if there was an equal substitution – if it would cost a certain amount to do the decel lane and we would rather take that money to do something else to the intersection, that might be possible.  Ms. Sides says that rather than doing something twice – it might make sense even to forfeit their obligation if it’s not necessary – if it would be preferable do something else, such as shortening the intersection as you’re coming down that vast wasteland below Dunkin’ Donuts – it feels and looks awful.  Ms. Duncan says it sounds like if it’s outside their site and doesn’t involve changing their site plan, it’s much easier to do, and this is a good idea to consider.  

Ms. Joubert asked what Mr. Hebert thought of the traffic problems and crash data of North Salem; she says on Tremont, Dunlap, etc., the problems are very bad.  Much of the traffic comes from cars trying to escape North Street.  Mr. Hebert stated that he has seen this data before, and he the Mason St. calming was done because of the crash rates.  He says North St. has more crashes because it has more traffic, and that’s to be expected.  At some point, tthey should look at the other streets as well.  Ms. Sides notes the top of School St. needs attention – it’s way too wide.  Ms. Joubert says the traffic is terrible, and there isn’t enough police coverage to deal with the high speeds on School Street.    Ms. Joubert asked if he thought the traffic calming would cause diversions, to which he said no, since this calming is done not for the purpose of changing traffic patterns, but for changing speeds.

Mr. Treadwell asked when the PowerPoint would be posted.  Ms. Duncan said that it could be posted Monday.



Adjournment
George McCabe made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mark George.  All approved 7-0.  Chuck Puleo adjourned the meeting at 9:40 pm.


Respectfully submitted,
Beth Gerard, Recording Clerk

Approved by the Planning Board 5/3/12