HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Lexington We Want: Transportation Element 2003 -rpt The Lexington We Want
Transportation Element
Project History And Context
Existing Conditions
Strategies
Implementing Actions
LEXINGTON PLANNING BOARD LEXINGTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Anthony Galaitsis, Chairman Glenn Garber, Planning Director
Thomas Harden, Vice Chairman Maryann McCall-Taylor, Assistant Director
Karl Kastorf, Clerk Elissa Tap, Administrative Assistant
John Davies Elizabeth Machek, Planning Intern
Sara Chase
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Howard Muise,Project Manager
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
GLOSSARY OF TERMS & ACRONYMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................i
CHAPTER L• PROJECT HISTORY AND CONTEXT..........................................................1
CHAPTER II: EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................................7
CHAPTER III: STRATEGIES ........................................................................................31
CHAPTER IV: IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS...................................................................65
APPENDIX A: ARTICLE XII OF THE ZONING BYLAW...............................................79
APPENDIX B: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICY.........................85
APPENDIX C: PUBLIC COMMENT...............................................................................97
On June 2, 2003, a special election was held to determine whether the citizens would
approve an override of Proposition 21/2. The override did not pass, with the result that
funding for the LEXPRESS in-town bus service and the position of Transportation
Coordinator was eliminated. This has drastically changed the range of transportation
services available for fiscal year 2004 and will delay the implementation of
recommended strategies. This Transportation Element is part of a long-range (20-year)
plan and is being published with the assumption that this funding will be restored in the
future, at least in some form. This occurrence in no way invalidates the substantive
content of this document and its proposed implementation actions. On the contrary, the
plan, as produced, stands as a signpost for where the town needs to be to begin
meaningful transportation mitigation.
C;0611 _e
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Map1: Roadway Network ........................................................................................10
Map 2: Problem Intersections Analyzed...................................................................13
Table 1: Intersection Accident Summary 1999-2002 .................................................18
Map3: Bus Routes....................................................................................................21
Table 2: LEXPRESS Ridership by Rider Type ..........................................................22
Table 3: Alewife Shuttle Ridership, 2002, Lexington Stops .....................................24
Map 4: Bike Routes and Trails, Existing and Proposed ...........................................28
Map5: Sidewalk Inventory.......................................................................................29
TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES
Table 3: Intersection Improvement Evaluation...........................................................35
Map 6: Regional Transportation Network: Major Roads and Commuter Rail.........40
Table 4: Highest Scoring TDM Commute Trip Measures..........................................44
Table 5: Other High Scoring Commute Trip Measures..............................................45
Table 7: Highest Scoring TDM Non-Commute Trip Measures..................................45
Table 8: Other High Scoring Non-Commute Trip Measures .....................................45
Table 9: TDM Measures By Trip Type ......................................................................49
Map 7: Town Center Locus Map ..............................................................................56
Map 8: East Lexington Locus Map ..........................................................................57
Map 9: Hayden/Spring Locus Map...........................................................................58
Map 10: Hartwell Avenue Locus Map .......................................................................59
Map 11: Bedford/Route 128 Locus Map ....................................................................60
Map 12: Marrett/Waltham Locus Map .......................................................................61
Map 13: Battle Rd/2A Corridor Locus Map ...............................................................62
Map 14: Countryside Locus Map ...............................................................................63
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
Table 10: Implementation Time Frames ......................................................................66
Betterment District-A betterment offers a means for the municipality to be reimbursed
for the cost of constructing capital improvements in the infrastructure, particularly those
of a linear nature, such as a street, sidewalk, sewer or water line. Abutting private
properties, each in their fair share, are assessed payments on some kind of regular
schedule.
BID - Business Improvement District
CARAVAN for Commuters—A statewide commuter services organization funded by
MassHighway and the Federal Highway Administration
Carsharing—A program that allows for short-term rental of a distributed network of
automobiles, usually on a membership basis.
Channelization—A traffic planning term referring to the separation of turn lanes from
through lanes by traffic islands or pavement markings.
CTPS— Central Transportation Planning Staff—A technical and policy-analysis group
for Boston Metropolitan area transportation planning
DPW—Department of Public Works
FAR—Floor-Area-Ratio—A measure of density that compares the total square footage
of a building to the size of its lot.
Guaranteed Ride Home -A Guaranteed Ride Home program ensures that employees
will be able to get home even if they have to leave in the middle of the day or work late,
thus missing a shuttle bus or carpool departure. Such services may be provided by taxi
vouchers or an on-call paratransit service.
HATS—Hanscom Area Towns Committee—A committee comprised of four members
from each of Hanscom's four abutting towns: Concord, Bedford, Lincoln, and Lexington.
LOS—Level of Service—A measure of traffic volumes by the road's capacity used in
traffic planning. LOS ranges from A to F, with F being failure. An LOS of A or B is not
desirable, as it indicates that the road has excessive capacity for the volume of traffic that
it serves.
LBAC— Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee
MAGIC— Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination—Lexington's MAPC
subregion
MAPC—Metropolitan Area Planning Council—The regional planning agency for the
Boston Metropolitan Area
MPO— Metropolitan Planning Organization—The regional transportation planning
agency for the Boston Metropolitan area, established to carry out federally funded plans
and programs
Neckdown— Reduced lane width at intersections or mid-block crossings to facilitate
pedestrian movement and safety. Also known as bulb-out or curb extension.
Overlay District—a zoning district that adds an additional layer of land use controls
without replacing the underlying zoning. The overlay may or may not be contiguous with
preexisting zoning districts.
Paratransit— `Paratransit' covers a range of services which fall somewhere between
public transportation and private transportation. Paratransit services typically do not have
a fixed route or schedule and include taxis, dial-a-ride,jitneys and others.
PUD—Planned Unit Development
SOV— Single Occupancy Vehicle
SPGA— Special Permit Granting Authority
TEAC— Transportation Element Advisory Committee
TDM— Transportation Demand Management
TMA/TMO— Transportation Management Association/Organization
Traffic Calming—A method of using physical infrastructure to moderate driver behavior
Traffic Platform—A traffic calming device. Similar to a speed bump, but significantly
wider, a traffic platform both calms traffic and causes less damage to automobiles than
traditional speed bumps.
VMT—Vehicle Miles Traveled
ZBA—Zoning Board of Appeals
poll
INTRODUCTION
This document is the sixth element in the Town of Lexington's Comprehensive Plan, produced
by the Planning Board in the past 2 %2 years. The previously adopted elements as defined by the
state planning statutes (section 81 D of Chapter 41 of the MA General Laws) include: Land use,
Natural and Cultural Resources, Housing, Economic Development and a detailed
Implementation plan that integrates the preceding elements.
This document can stand on its own, however, as a long range transportation policy plan for the
community.
The Transportation Element was accompanied by extensive and broad-based public
participation, in the form of the Transportation Element Advisory Committee (TEAC),which
included citizens,public officials and key committee members, relevant town employees,
representatives of business, various guests, and the Planning Board. Working with the consulting
team from Vanasse Hangen Brustlin(VHB), staff organized five structured workshops focusing
on the transportation modes, between September 2002 and January, 2003. Following this,the
TEAC had extensive input into the actual drafting of the document.
This document is structured around and driven by goals and objectives pertaining to the broad
issues of quality of life and public services and facilities. These goals and objectives were
articulated in three sources: 1)the previous elements of the Comprehensive Plan; 2)the
Selectmen's Vision 2020 project that preceded it; and 3) modifications to the preceding from the
TEAL, emanating from the public participation process.
The Vision for Alternative Transportation
It is important at the outset to understand the inspiration and assumptions for this document. It is
emphatically not a study for upgrading the town's street and highway system, although some
infrastructure improvement is unavoidable over time. Instead, it is an attempt to identify and
think through feasible implementation measures that will offer a real alternative in the coming
years and decades to relentless automobile dependency. The following is an excerpt from the
2002 Request for Proposals for the consulting services that were employed to assist this project:
The issue of traffic and its impact on the quality of life in Lexington is not a new concern. It is
merely a worsening one here, and nearly everywhere else in populous regions. The hope in
establishing a transportation element is to make available policies, programs and regulations
that can provide transportation alternatives (to single occupancy vehicular trips) which, if
implemented extensively enough over time, can improve the quality of life by reducing vehicular
trips to at least a discernible degree The transportation element (is intended) to be a document
that explores aspects of how Lexington can help to shape its future...A (Transportation Element)
will require a truly regional approach, as traffic does not begin and end at Lexington's borders,
but rather, is the result of a complex network of people traveling to and from work, to and from
schools and shops, as well as those passing through Lexington on longer trips....This element
should propose bold but feasible implementing measures that start from the premise that traffic
difficulties do nothing to improve the community's well being, benefiting neither the
environment, the economy, public safety,family life or efficiency of people circulation, and that
this reality is both local and regional in nature.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The consultants and planning staff gathered data from the US Census, MassHighway, the
Lexington Police Department,the MBTA and other sources, and conducted interviews with
relevant officials, committees, and interested parties. The results were analyzed to gain an
understanding of the present status of transportation service and infrastructure in Lexington
today. This data forms the basis of the strategies and actions proposed in following chapters and
summarized at the end of this section.
Traffic Patterns
Lexington is predominantly a residential community with pockets of retail, office, and light
industrial development. Major sources of traffic generation in Lexington include the Town
Center, Hartwell Avenue, and Hayden Avenue/Spring Street employment centers, public
schools, the Minuteman National Historical Park, and the Lexington Battle Green historic area.
Of Lexington residents who are working, approximately 24%work in Lexington, with the result
that more than 75% commute to jobs outside of the town.
Lexingtonians have the option to travel by walking, biking, local or regional bus,paratransit, or
taxi. The predominant means of transportation in Lexington, however, is the private automobile.
This is increasingly the case throughout the country; the number of vehicles miles traveled by
passenger car in the United States rose 12% during the 1990s.' Automobile ownership has
increased as well: 24% of households now have more vehicles than licensed drivers.2 The result
is clear: approximately 80% of Lexingtomans commute to work, whether within or beyond
Lexington's borders, by driving alone.
Roadway Network
The town is located at the intersection of two major limited access regional highways: the I-
95/Route 128 circumferential highway and Route 2, a major radial highway emanating from
1 Bureau of Transportation Statistics: "National Transportation Statistics 2002"
2 2001 National Household Transportation Survey
........j.j.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................�...J...................................
T CG9.P:Ll �iX.P!�fi/LP c��tli/%(/%l,Q/IiG1
_8L11;,11 W111.411II&I 2DD3
Boston. Other state-numbered roadways through town include Route 2A and Routes 4/225.
Route 2A is a generally east-west route connecting Arlington to Lincoln. It follows Summer
Street, Lowell Street, Maple Street, Marrett Road, and Massachusetts Avenue. Route 4/225 runs
between Route 2 near the Arlington town line and I-95/Route 128 and the Town of Bedford. It
follows Watertown Street, Pleasant Street, Massachusetts Avenue, and Bedford Street.
Massachusetts Avenue, which begins in Boston and continues out towards Central
Massachusetts, functions in Lexington as the town's main street.
Various traffic data were analyzed to produce a list of intersections to be studied for
improvement. Data sources included accident records, recent traffic studies for individual
development projects and conversations with the Department of Public Works regarding
operating conditions, including congestion, delay, queuing and levels of service. Proposed
improvements were later debated in public meetings, those that were advanced for inclusion in
the plan appear at the end of the `implementing actions' summary below.
Map 2.
Problem
- Intersections
aas Analyzed
*2
X17 X 13 1.Bedford St and Hartwell Ave
2.Bedford St and Eldred St
3.Mass Ave/Old Mass Ave/Wood St
4.Bedford St and Worthen Rd
/, J 5.Mass Ave and Woburn Rd
6.Maple St and Lowell St
7.Spring St and Marren Rd
t 8.Waltham St and Marrett Rd
2\ 9.Maple and Mass Ave
i 10 A.Mass Ave and Pleasant St
11.W altham St and Concord Ave
I �,1*4 \ 12.Pleasant St and Watertown St
3yc ?�14 13.Bedford St at Rte 128
a a e X 16 14.Bedford St at Harrington Rd and Hancock St
II 19 mil[..rAassarn�s 1 r 15.Waltham St and Hayden Ave
16.Lowell St and Woburn St
�F *6 17.Hartwell Ave and Maguire Rd
X18 18.Marren Rd at Rte 128
19.Mass Ave/Old Mass Ave/Marrett Rd
20.Lowell St and East St
Fa 21.Mass Ave and Grant St
*7 Legend
E10,assa"w,� Study Intersections
t a/
3 � proposetl improvements
X13 12 X analyzed.no Improvements proposed
ae
1co�tlq� e�
2000 0 2000 4000 Feet
Prepared by Lexington Planning Department.Source:MassGIS,Town of Lexington
Transit
Lexington's transit service consists of MBTA intercity bus service (via Route 62/76),the
LEXPRESS in-town bus service, some demand-responsive van services for the elderly and
disabled, and a commuter shuttle operated by the 128 Business Council, a transportation
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................�.J...............................
�/X.Pfill�l�l.P�i[li//Ti/7T.QAiL/ TC/,9,P i!i(i(
management association. Of these, MBTA Route 62/76 carries by far the highest number of
passengers. LEXPRESS attracts fewer riders in total, but carries a large number of Lexington's
youth and elderly.
While Lexington has a number of options for a town of its size and population density,the
existing transit network is limited in its usefulness. LEXPRESS ends operations by 7:00 P.M. at
the latest on weekdays, which is a handicap in attracting commuters who keep irregular hours.
The relative infrequency of transit service during the hours in which it operates further reduces
its attractiveness. Another limitation is the lack of Sunday service by any public transportation
provider in the area. Most residents cannot depend wholly on existing public transit and maintain
their current quality of life. For those who cannot or do not wish to drive, however, the existing
public transit system is immensely valuable.
Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Demand Management(TDM) is a set of policies and strategies that focus on the
reduction of transportation demand and the provision of alternative means of travel to driving
alone in a car. Lexington has both a Transportation Demand Management Bylaw and Policy,
which provide developers with the option of creating a TDM plan as a mitigation for negative
traffic impacts of a development. Many fulfill this condition by joining the 128 Business
Council, a Transportation Management Association serving the Route 128 area. The 128
Business Council operates the Alewife Shuttle, which is an employer-subsidized shuttle from the
MBTA Red Line Alewife station to offices on Hayden Avenue and Spring Street.
The Lexington Transportation Coordinator heads local TDM efforts, as well as coordinating
LEXPRESS, municipal parking, and paratransit service. Since 1996, Transportation
Coordinators have made three attempts to establish a TMA on Hartwell Avenue area. The most
recent effort began in the autumn of 2001 and continues. Current Hartwell TMA planning is a
joint effort of the Transportation Coordinator, Economic Development Officer, and the 128
Business Council.
Walking and Bicycling
Lexington has a network of bicycle trails and designated routes and sidewalks that facilitate
bicycling and walking not only as a form of recreation but also as a mode of travel. These modes
not only function as environmentally and health-friendly transportation options in their own
right,but also facilitate the use of public transportation. The Town is fortunate to have the
Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee (LBAC), which has done much to expand the bicycle
network and inventory the sidewalk network. More generally it provides active support and
encouragement of bicycle use and walking.
The existing bicycle network is divided into off-road bicycle trails and on-road recommended
routes. The latter are generally, but not always, marked with road signs. Recommended routes
are judged to be both relatively convenient to major destinations and fairly safe, although caution
is urged at all times. Bicycle trails are generally on town-owned land or easements through
private land and offer access to recreational facilities and open space.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
_8L11;,11 W111.411II&I 2DD3
The most well known bicycle facility in the community is the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway
which runs generally north of, and parallel to, Massachusetts Avenue through much of the town.
The Bikeway is a production of the Rails to Trails program and follows the former B & M rail
corridor.
Map 4.
Bike Routes
and Trails,
Existing and
Proposed.
Nenhs�
� 128 a Fne
� Leh,. � ��„����„�, •
'Recommended Routes'are roads which
1 'e are recommended for cyclists,while
'Bicycle Trails'are off-road paths
generally dosed to motorized vehicles.
Many links in the proposed network
���.....�.,.,„ e° .'• ••
do et y exist.
3� e�
ekPe•S
I hub Goa •• ry�ncFestei
�nie s
�� Py .at;e4•an..
Legend
a
.""^�, �•• f '�„„„,�, Recommended Routes
W
•, ; •• � Bicycle Trails
.••••• Future Routes
Cancartl4, Q em
' ������������� Future Trails
® 2000 0 2000 Feet
Prepared by Lexington Planning Department.Source:MassGIS,Town of Lexington
Sidewalks are concentrated in the town center and nearby neighborhoods and adjacent to public
schools. The presence of sidewalks in other areas is less uniform with some lower density
residential areas having few if any sidewalks.
IMPLEMENTATION
Analysis of the existing conditions led to the proposal of a slate of implementation measures,
which constitute the body of the plan. The measures that are included were selected after debate
by the TEAC.
Implementation of the recommended measures over a considerable period of years is entirely a
function of the collective will of all the "actors” involved with these issues. Their willingness to
focus on these complex but important policies and to devote time and resources to them will
determine if significant parts of the Element are implemented. There is no single entity, whether
the Planning Board, Transportation Coordinator, Transportation Advisory Committee, Traffic
................................................................J....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................J...�......................
Safety Advisory Committee, Public Works Department, Board of Selectmen, the business
community, or whomever, that possesses sufficient capacity, authority and resources to carry this
effort forward unilaterally. It will take a determined cooperative effort to achieve some success.
Below is an abbreviated summary of the implementing actions proposed by the TEAL. Actions
are assigned to primary and secondary implementers, as well as to one of four timeframes—
Ongoing,Near Term, Intermediate Term, or Long Term. As intersection improvements are
numerous, they appear separately at the end of the section. A list of designated actors follows for
reference purposes. In the full document, all relevant actors are assigned to specific
implementation measures.
Designated Actors
Board of Selectmen Economic Development Officer
Planning Board Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee
Board of Health Traffic Safety Advisory Committee
Zoning Board of Appeals Transportation Advisory Committee
128 Business Council Historic Districts Commission
Town Manager Design Advisory Committee
HATS Capital Budget Committee
MPO Representative Transportation Coordinator
Business Community Department of Public Works
School Committee MAGIC Representative
Implementation Time Frames
Category Ongoing Near Term (NT) Intermediate Long Term (LT)
Term (IT)
Difficulty Varies Least Constraint Medium High Constraint
Constraint
Initiating Time Continuous 1-2 years 2-5 years 5+years
Frame
Cost Varies Low Medium High
Ongoing
• Seek easements from public and private landowners to extend bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.
• Rigorously implement the Town's TDM Policy and Article XII, Traffic, of the Zoning
Bylaw.
• Promote use of LEXPRESS for transportation from after-school activities
• Maintain consistency in pedestrian and bicycle facilities
• Enforce snow removal policies
• Incorporate bicycle needs and priorities in roadway projects
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................�...v...................................
• Coordinate with Boston MPO and MPO Advisory Committee to monitor regional
projects.
• Monitor Hanscom/Massport transportation impacts
• Communicate directly with abutting towns on traffic aspects of developments of regional
impact
• Participate in MAGIC's regional transportation planning efforts
Near Term
• Initiate limited bus service between Hartwell Avenue and the Lowell Commuter Rail
Line at Anderson RTC in Woburn.
• Initiate bus service between Waltham Center and Lexington Center to access the
Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line
• Incorporate bicycle route plan in Comprehensive Plan and update regularly
• Update bicycle route signage
• Encourage pedestrian and bicycle amenities at key locations
• Identify satellite `park and bike' locations
• Define flexible standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities that respect community
character
• Develop and implement zoning regulations to support walking and bicycling
• Review and revise Article XII of the Zoning Bylaw for better enforcement and
monitoring
• Support carpooling by Lexington residents and by employees working in Lexington
• Provide information on alternative commuting choices.
• Work with other officials to enhance the transportation section of the Town's website
• Provide small-scale services in office parks
• Pursue an education, encouragement, and enforcement program for students and the
larger community in walking and biking
• Implement a pilot Safe Routes to School program
• Investigate feasibility of providing incentives for students to commute by walking,
biking, bus, or carpool
• Initiate planning for long-term roadway improvements at the intersections of Marrett
Road and Waltham Street and Bedford Street and Hartwell Avenue.
• Write and adopt policy on importance of creating and maintaining sidewalks for safety,
health, and mobility.
• Update and maintain sidewalk inventory
• Develop prioritization strategies and screening criteria for sidewalk improvements
• Plan for the future of the former Raytheon site (141 Spring St).
Intermediate Term
• Investigate feasibility of extending the hours of operation and increasing frequency of
service of LEXPRESS.
• Provide incentives for alternative modes of travel
• Establish TMA services; assist employers in joining existing and new TMA's.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• Investigate providing improvements by means of a betterment district along the length of
Hartwell Avenue
• Study existing parking regulations to assess impact on transportation choice
• Provide incentives to reduce parking demand and automobile use
• Consider identifying criteria for roadways where sidewalks may be constructed on only
one side
• Create Task Force to study a retrofit of Hayden Avenue and the commercial areas of
Spring Street and Hartwell Avenue with non-automotive infrastructure
• Consider creating a Business Improvement District to address transportation and parking
issues in the Town Center
• Create an Overlay District in Hartwell Avenue that ties density to traffic management
• Allow small-scale, service-oriented commercial uses in office parks
• Investigate feasibility of establishing mixed-use development at commercial nodes.
• Encourage transit and pedestrian-friendly redevelopment in East Lexington along the
Massachusetts Avenue commercial corridor
• Promote greater use intensity at the commercial node on Bedford Street north of Route
128
• Plan for the future of the StrideRite site (191 Spring Street)
• Initiate revision of home occupation permitted uses in the Zoning Bylaw
• Initiate action to establish housing as an allowed use in upper stories in the Town Center
and East Lexington.
Long Term
• Initiate bus service between Winchester Center(Lowell Commuter Rail Line) and
Lexington center, connect to MBTA routes.
• Advocate for extension of MBTA bus route 478 to Hayden Avenue and route # 77 to
Lexington Center
• Advocate for increase in frequency of service on MBTA bus routes in Lexington.
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Near Term
Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street
• Modify the traffic signal phasing to provide separate phases for the eastbound Hartwell
Avenue and westbound Bedford Street jughandle approaches.
• Allow right turns from the southbound jughandle approach.
Waltham Street and Marrett Road
Install a "Yield" sign at the channelized right turn on southbound Waltham Street.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
_8L11;'11 W111.141"I&I 2DD3
Maple Street and Lowell Street
• Paint gore (zebra) striping around the islands with signal posts to better delineate the
islands
• Paint a left-turn lane on Maple Street(lane is already in operation).
Worthen Road and Bedford Street
• Paint a crosswalk across Camelia Drive (sidewalk and ramps already in place).
Intermediate Term
Marrett Road at Waltham Street
• Consolidate driveway access at Gulf Station on southwest corner and provide sidewalk.
• Install signal ahead sign on southbound Waltham Street due to limited sight distance.
Maple Street at Lowell Street
• Upgrade signal equipment to provide protected left-turn phasing on northbound Lowell
Street approach and pedestrian crossings.
• Upgrade pedestrian crossings to be ADA-compliant.
Concord Avenue at Waltham Street
• Upgrade signal equipment to provide protected left-turn phases on Waltham Street.
Spring Street at Marrett Road
• Install an island on northbound Spring Street to better channelize vehicles entering and
exiting Spring Street.
• Extend northwest corner of Spring Street to reduce the width of eastbound Marrett Road
and to improve channelization.
• Extend curb from one-way Bridge Street toward Marrett Road to reduce the amount of
pavement and to better channelize vehicles.
• Investigate the feasibility of providing a separate left-turn lane on westbound Marrett
Street within the existing right-of-way.
Worthen Road at Bedford Street
• Provide an exclusive left-turn lane on northbound Bedford Street.
Massachusetts Avenue at Woburn Street/Winthrop Street
• Install bulb-out on Woburn Street to reduce amount of pavement at the intersection and to
slow and better channelize vehicles exiting Woburn Street onto Massachusetts Avenue.
Extend island westward to prohibit vehicles from crossing
Long Term
Bedford Street at Hartwell Avenue
• Widen the jughandle approach to provide three lanes (a shared left-turn/through lane, a
through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane).
• Widen the Hartwell Avenue approach to four lanes (two exclusive left-turn lanes and two
exclusive right-turn lanes)
• Widen the Bedford Street approaches to two full lanes in each direction.
• Upgrade traffic signal equipment and implement new phasing and timing(including a
split phase for Hartwell Avenue and the jughandle).
Bedford Street at Eldred Street
T..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................�..j..........................
/X.Pfill l�Il.P �.li//Ti/77.QAiL/ C/ _2;Y
• Install traffic signal and coordinate with signal at Hartwell Avenue.3
• Widen Bedford Street northbound approach to three lanes.
• Install detectors to monitor queues from the southbound I-95/Route 128 exit ramp.
Marrett Road at Waltham Street
• Re-stripe the Waltham Street northbound and southbound approaches to provide an
exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane.
• Provide two approach lanes on eastbound Marrett Road(an exclusive left-turn lane and a
shared through/right-turn lane).
• Upgrade the signal equipment, including installation of pedestrian signal heads, and
adjust signal timing and phasing.
Maple Street at Massachusetts Avenue
• Install traffic signal.
• Consider signalizing Marrett Street at Massachusetts Ave and coordinating the two
systems.
Maple Street at Lowell Street
• Investigate limited widening of Lowell Street approaches to provide an exclusive left-
turn lane in each direction and determine if widening can be accomplished with little or
no impact to adjacent properties.
• Investigate limited widening of Winchester Street approach to provide an additional lane
and determine if widening can be accomplished with little or no impact to adjacent
properties.
• Reconfigure channelized right-turn lanes to slow traffic and provide easier pedestrian
crossings.
Concord Avenue at Waltham Street
• Widen westbound Concord Avenue to provide two lanes. Additional traffic analysis will
be necessary to determine the appropriate lane utilization for the widened approach.
Massachusetts Avenue at Woburn Street/Winthrop Street
• Install traffic signal or modern roundabout.
Pleasant Street at Massachusetts Avenue
• Install traffic signal or modern roundabout.
Pleasant Street at Watertown Street
• Install traffic signal or modern roundabout.
Spring Street at Marrett Road
• Install modern roundabout
3 There is concern that this will attract cut-through traffic to Eldred St,which could impact its status as a proposed
bicycle route. Any signalization project should study this possible and its impacts.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
9 ,
i
Streets should not he efficient traffic sewers. They are places for human encounter
Robert Campbell, Boston Globe
If freeways solved transportation problems, Los Angeles would be heaven"
Paul Basha, Scottsdale's Traffic Engineer, in The Arizona Republic,
...she comes pulling out in a Bla:er. I start pedaling and she comes up and she whacks me and
she's goes 'Ohh!'She got all like scared and everything, and then tells me that I should watch
where I'm going. It's a tough town if you don't got a car. Can't get around.
Ed Martinez, a bicycler, from the film
Making Sense Of Place, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
With such thoughts in mind, but tempered by a pragmatic viewpoint of what is attainable,the
Lexington Transportation Element held its kickoff meeting on September 9, 2002. An intensive
program of public participation occurred over the next several months, fueled by the extensive
research that staff and consultant were assembling in support of this process. Education and
research efforts funneled into discussions about alternative transportation policies and mitigation
measures.
It is important to understand that the Transportation Element is a part of a larger comprehensive
planning effort that was begun by the Planning Board, at the behest of Town Meeting, at the end
of the year 2000. These efforts have continued to date. With the adoption of the first part of the
Comprehensive Plan by the Planning Board on January 30, 2002—consisting of four elements
(Land Use, Natural And Cultural Resources, Housing and Economic Development, plus part of
the Implementation Element that integrates in detail all of these topical sections)—this
transportation piece, with its related implementation measures, completes the Comprehensive
Plan for Lexington. These six elements are required in the state planning statute, Chapter 41,
Section 81D. On August 22, 2002, the adopted elements received official certification by the
Commonwealth as an acceptable community development plan, under the Executive Order 418
planning and housing initiative originally signed by Governor Cellucci in January, 2000.
It is equally important to discuss the Board of Selectmen's Vision 2020 process, an intensive,
citizen-driven visioning project that involved scores of residents and which took place over a
period of approximately 18 months throughout 1999 and into 2000. Vision 2020 pursued a slate
of community goals and objectives in five topical areas, one of which was transportation. The
conceptual framework and consensus that emanated from Vision 2020 has been drawn upon
directly and extensively throughout the Planning Board's comprehensive planning work, both in
the multiple elements adopted in 2002, and in the present transportation element. The Board's
Comprehensive Plan became the ideal, more detailed follow-up to the more conceptual Vision
2020, with each complementing the other in a well timed segue.
In summer, 2002, the engineering firm Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), of Watertown, MA,
was hired to assist the Board and staff with this complex and technical transportation project.
After a contractual scope of services was established, a broad-based advisory committee was set
up to drive the process. This group, referred to as the Transportation Element Advisory
Committee (TEAC) included representatives of business, key departments of town government,
pertinent committees, particularly the Transportation Advisory committee, and the full Planning
Board. The TEAC participated in five themed, structured workshops organized around the
different transportation modes, these workshops were: 1) Overview and Analysis of the Existing
Transportation System, all modes, 2) Transportation Demand Management and the Land Use
Connection; 4) Traffic Analysis/Infrastructure Improvements; 5) Bicycle/Pedestrian Modes.
Following this phase, the TEAC worked interactively with staff on the drafting of each part of
the document, offering detailed comments throughout the drafting process. All such comments
were incorporated or otherwise addressed in the multiple revisions of the chapter drafts by staff
and consultant.
The Transportation Element is organized as follows:
CHAPTER I: PROJECT HISTORY AND CONTEXT
Important background information on where the Transportation Element fits into the larger
long-range planning activities of the Town of Lexington. Includes a brief summary of
process, participants and the workshops and meetings that drove the effort.
CHAPTER II: EXISTING CONDITIONS
A detailed description and critical analysis of the local and regional transportation system in
all travel modes—automobile and roadway network; transit and paratransit; transportation
demand management, bicycle and walking.
CHAPTER III: CONSIDERATION OF TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES
The key planning phase connecting the analysis of existing conditions with the detailed future
implementation plan. It is driven by the goals and objectives of the public participation
process and structured around debate over alternative transportation improvement and
mitigation measures in all modes, as well as land use policies.
CHAPTER IV: IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
The final slate of recommended implementation measures offered by the TEAC and Planning
Board, organized strategically around goals and objectives, prioritized in terms of ease of
implementation (and secondarily by time duration, and identifying likely primary and
secondary players who might logically lead the effort around each proposed transportation
measure.
APPENDICES
Various helpful information too detailed, lengthy or peripheral to the process to warrant
inclusion in the main body of the document, but still necessary to provide to afford greater
depth to the Plan.
Composite Goals and Objectives from Vision 2020 and Comprehensive Plan (original, pre-
process version)
The following composite goals and objectives are included for background reference, to make
clearer the conceptual wellsprings of this Element. They are provided in their original, unedited
form, as they appeared at the beginning of this transportation planning process. To see how they
were incorporated, modified or expanded in this document, see the chapters further on entitled:
Consideration of Transportation Strategies, and Implementing Actions, chapters three and four,
respectively.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
COMPOSITE GOALS& OBJECT]VESFROM VISION 2 012 0 & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
I. Preserve the quality of life in Lexington through improved traffic management.
• Reduce peak hour commuter traffic and tie-ups
• Improve transit services
• Promote public transportation
• Pursue TDM/trip reduction techniques
• Monitor and attempt to mitigate impacts from all proposed development and air travel
expansion at the Hanscom civil airport
• Ensure that Lexington will stay in the information loop on all Hanscom matters.
• Require tie-in of expansion with road improvements and environmental
coordination.
• Improve traffic safety in high-accident locations
2. Increase transportation alternatives available to single occupancy vehicles
• Increase availability of public transportation(local, regional and intercity).
• Increase number of routes to major work sites and circumferential highways.
• Better coordination of routes (with neighboring towns, "T", commuter rail).
• Work to establish more employer-based transit links & shared transit links.
• Increase use of bicycles.
• Educate public.
• Encourage students to bicycle to school through incentive programs and secure
bike parking.
• Designate a bicycle route system and implement it.
• Increase employer based transportation demand management programs and employee
incentives to use them.
• Increase pedestrian activity.
o Improve infrastructure.
• Increase school bus usage and reduce traffic at schools. Discourage driving to school by
providing incentives to use other anodes.
3. Use parking strategies to help achieve transportation goals at certain locations
• Amend parking requirements so as to avoid excessive parking requirements for
commercial and industrial uses.
• Reduce vehicular trips from High School.
• Increase parking fees (yearly fees, add parking meters).
• Encourage use of buses and alternative modes; provide early education in the use
of Lexpress.
4. Improve and better maintain the infrastructure
• Institute a capital improvements plan for traffic calming at strategic locations.
• Improve road conditions.
• Adhere to town study for 5-year repair and reconstruction plan.
• Repair in a timely fashion.
• Improve and expand sidewalk network.
• Survey conditions and prioritize repairs.
• Repair in a timely fashion.
• Survey existing network and develop plan for expanding network.
• Improve bicycle path conditions.
o Survey bicycle path conditions and prioritize repairs.
5. Involve Lexington in local and regional transportation planning
• Adhere to the process to evaluate Lexington's transportation infrastructure.
o Use the existing infrastructure survey process consistently.
• Increase Lexington's involvement in regional planning.
• Participate in regional planning organizations (HATS, MAPC/MAGIC, MAPC,
Minuteman Group or other inter-local coordination).
• Establish intermodal transportation routes connecting Lexington with
transportation centers.
• Improve access and coordination with regional transportation centers and airports (i.e.
Woburn, Alewife, Route 128)
6. Investigate Land Use Policies that can assist with Transportation Goals
• Identify nodes and areas served by public transportation that might be logical for
prudent planned development designations and greater mix of uses.
• Update home occupation provisions in zoning,to reflect changing economic
activity and eliminate commuters (but with protective controls).
• Consider feasibility of adding limited housing uses at certain non-residential
locations.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
PARTICIPATION PROCESS
Initial Planning Board Meetings on Comprehensive Plan
May 6, 8 and 15; June 15 and 19; August 7 and 21, 2002
Planninz Board and Transportation Element Advisory Committee Thematic Workshops
September 9, 2002 Kickoff Meeting, Discover Perspectives, Look for Common Themes
October 15, 2002 Transportation Demand Management/Land Use-Transportation
Connections
November 14, 2002 Transportation Demand Management/Transit
December 18, 2002 Traffic/Infrastructural Improvement Program/Policy Development
January 22, 2003 Bicycle-Pedestrian Improvement Program/Final Land Use/Transportation
Policies
External Groups
November 20, 2002 Presentation to the Annual Meeting of the South Lexington Transportation
Task Force
February 4, 2003 Presentation to the Lexington Business Partnership
Active Participants
Planning Board and Staff
Sara Chase, John Davies, Anthony Galaitsis, Thomas Harden and Karl Kastorf, Planning Board;
Glenn Garber, Elizabeth Machek, Maryann McCall-Taylor; Elissa Tap,Planning Staff; Mary Jo
Bohart, Economic Development Officer, David Carbonneau, Assistant Town Engineer, Gail
Wagner, Transportation Coordinator, Michael Young, Management Intern
Consultants
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Watertown, MA: Howard Muise, Project Manager; Heidi
Richards, Susan Sloane-Rossiter; Steve McNeill; William Cranshaw; Ken Schwartz and Galeeb
Kachra
Transportation Element Advisory Committee (TEAC)
Residents: Lawrence Belvin, Robert Burbidge, Julian Bussgang, Richard Canale, Jacquelyn
Davison, Thomas DeNoto, Elaine Dratch, Ed Ganshirt, Donald Graham, Ed Grant, Marita
Hartshorn, Stewart Kennedy, Jeanne Krieger, William Levison, Wendy Manz, Michael
Schroeder and Jerry Van Hook
Business: Charles Kalauskas, BSC Group; Alison McLaughlin, F. W. Dodge; Peter Nichols, The
Beal Companies, Melissa Riccio, Ipswitch, Inc.; James Rosenfeld, Boston Properties, Roger
Sudbury, MIT Lincoln Labs
k
r,r„ li
INTRODUCTION
Overview
This chapter describes the existing transportation system in all modes—automotive travel and the
street and highway network supporting it; the available transit and related services, transportation
demand management(TDM) programs to reduce vehicular trips among employees in town; and
non-vehicular modes—walking and bicycling. In explaining this network and all of its
component parts, deficiencies as well as positive opportunities in the system will become
apparent.
While some of the movement associated with the different travel modes is internal to Lexington
(beginning and ending within town borders), it is also important to note that the transportation
system is integrated into a vast regional system in Greater Boston, whereby the origin or
destination of automotive,transit, TDM and even pedestrian trips involves a geographic area that
is metropolitan in scope. Ultimately, however, from the viewpoint of residents and workers in
Lexington, the issue is one of quality of life, largely as it is negatively impacted by traffic
congestion. The utter dominance of the automobile as a single occupancy vehicle in the existing
transportation system presents a great challenge to the community.
Lexington residents have the option to travel by walking, biking, local or regional bus,
paratransit, or taxi. The predominant means of transportation in Lexington, however, is the
private automobile. This is increasingly the case throughout the country; the number of vehicles
miles traveled by passenger car in the United States rose 12% during the 1990s.1 Automobile
ownership has increased as well: 24% of households now have more vehicles than licensed
drivers.
While the automobile offers flexibility and convenience for individual users, it has negative
personal and environmental impacts when used en masse. Exhaust gases, time spent in traffic
congestion, noise pollution, and fossil fuel consumption are just a few of these. Recently,the
Center for Disease Control, along with other public health organizations, has begun to study the
role of the private automobile in the rise of obesity in the United States.
' Bureau of Transportation Statistics: "National Transportation Statistics 2002"
2 2001 National Household Transportation Survey
In Lexington, the repercussions of automobile dependency are being felt by residents stuck in
traffic, neighborhoods experiencing high traffic volumes on local streets, and by schoolchildren
whose parents feel it is too dangerous to allow them to walk to school. Existing road networks
are nearing capacity, many intersections fail in level of service for hours each day, and there is
no community support for the construction of major new roads. Even if there were, there is
relatively little land available in this mature suburb.
To better understand the nature of the problem, we began with a survey of existing conditions in
Lexington. This data forms the basis of the strategies and actions proposed in following
chapters.
Travel Patterns
Lexington is predominantly a residential community with pockets of retail, office, and light
industrial development. The major residential type is multistory single-family homes. There is a
growing number of condominium developments, and a stable number of multifamily homes, and
apartments as well. There is some small-scale retail in the Town Center, as well along
Massachusetts Avenue toward Arlington and at scattered sites throughout the town, including the
intersections of Bedford Street and Worthen Road and Lowell Street and Worthen Road. The
major centers of employment are the Hayden Avenue /Spring Street area and the Hartwell
Avenue/Hanscom area. Both have easy access to major highways. The latter is home to the
Hanscom Air Force Base and the Massport-run Hanscom Field Civil Airport, which together
generate more than 13,000 vehicle trips each day. The Town Center also contains a significant
number of employers, although on a smaller scale. The Town Center is also home to the Battle
Green and several buildings of historical interest. Along with the Minuteman National Historical
Park and the National Heritage Museum, Lexington Center is a major tourist destination. The
major attractions, which include schools and recreation areas, tend naturally to generate the most
traffic.
People make many different kinds of trips during the course of a day. These include commuting,
shopping, attending events and functions, socializing, running errands and many others. While
commuting accounted for only 14.8% of all travel in 2001, an analysis of commuting patterns is
still a useful way to understand the dimensions of the problem in a given area. Since the home-
work trip typically occurs on a regular schedule, it is also the easiest kind of trip to address
through transit or transportation demand management. The decennial Census includes questions
about commuting under the heading Journey-to-work'. The following paragraphs summarize
Census 2000 journey-to-work data for Lexington and compare it with 1990 data.
From 1990 to 2000, the total number of workers living in Lexington decreased from 15,082 to
14,482,yet the average length of the commute trip increased from 24.87 to 28.75 minutes. This
could be due to increased traffic volumes, further separation of the home and workplace, or both.
The mode of transportation data from 1990 to 2000 was relatively unchanged. Approximately
80% of Lexingtomans commute to work by driving alone. The biggest change percentage change
3 National Household Travel Survey,2001; both shopping and family/personal trips were more frequent
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
over the period was in the number of people working at home (and thus not commuting), an
increase of 2.3%.
Of the 14,482 workers living in Lexington in the year 2000, 23.91% worked in Lexington,
76.09% outside of Lexington. 27.1% of workers living in Lexington worked outside of
Middlesex County.4 These numbers are fairly similar to those recorded in the 1990 Census. The
total number of people who both live and work in Lexington has declined slightly, from 3,700 to
3,463. The total number of those living in Lexington but working outside of Middlesex County
increased slightly, from 3,412 to 3,638.
As of this writing(April 2003), detailed (place-to-place) commuting data from the Census 2000
had not yet been released.' Data from the 1990 Census has been examined to give some
indication of commuting patterns to and from Lexington. The general similarities noted above
give some hope that these patterns are indicative of current conditions. Knowing where people
who work in Lexington live, and where people who live in Lexington work, can be helpful in
deciding what measures might be effective in addressing peak hour travel demands.
In 1990, 24,042 people worked in Lexington and 15,082 workers lived in Lexington. The largest
employment destination of people living in Lexington was Lexington (24.9%), followed by
Boston (13.6%), Cambridge (11.5%), Waltham (7.3%), and Burlington (6.1%). The largest
group of people working in Lexington also lived in Lexington (16.4%), followed by those living
in Arlington (4.9%), Waltham (4.2%), Bedford (3.9%), and Boston (3.8%). While the majority
of workers living in Lexington worked in the state, their workplaces were scattered among some
100 different Massachusetts cities and towns. People working in Lexington lived in 171
Massachusetts cities and towns, and 88 out-of-state locations.
These numbers indicate there is no very large concentration of employees coming from one
particular community. Further analysis of the data indicates that workers commuting to
Lexington from any one particular community work in a variety of places throughout the town.
A focus on programs for residents of Lexington is likely to make more of an impact than a focus
on programs for workers commuting to Lexington from other communities. Not only are there
larger numbers of people going to the same area, but Boston and Cambridge,the second and
third most common destinations, have strong public transportation systems.
ROADWAYS
Roadway Network
The Town of Lexington is located about 11 miles northwest of Boston at the intersection of two
major limited access regional highways: the 1-95/Route 128 circumferential highway and Route
2, a major radial highway emanating from Boston(see Map 1). The Town's location allows for
4 The Census data that has been released to date is restricted to place,MSA, county,and state level data.
s If the Census Transportation Planning Package is released in time,detailed data from the Census 2000 will be
included in this Element.
................................................../....7................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Map 1 .
0
(D Roadway
Network:
Lexington ,
Massachusetts
East
Mass,&,chus obucn
f
0
Legend
2a'5 S a Interstates and Numbered Routes
f Major Roads
Hayden
Local Streets
Concor
3000 0 3000 6000 Feet
Prepared by Lexington Planning Department.Source: MassGIS, Town of Lexington
easy highway access. I-95/Route 128 provides access to all major radial highways from greater
Boston, including Route 3 to Cape Cod, I-95 to Rhode Island and points south, Route 24 to New
Bedford/Fall River, the Massachusetts Turnpike (1-90) to the west, and I-93 and I-95 to New
Hampshire and points north. Route 2 provides access to Boston and points west of Lexington.
Other state-numbered roadways through town include Route 2A and Routes 4/225. Route 2A is a
generally east-west route connecting Arlington to Lincoln. It follows Summer Street, Lowell
Street, Maple Street, Marrett Road, and Massachusetts Avenue. Route 4/225 runs between
Route 2 near the Arlington town line and 1-95/Route 128 and the Town of Bedford. It follows
Watertown Street,Pleasant Street, Massachusetts Avenue, and Bedford Street.
There are several other significant roadways through and within the town. Massachusetts
Avenue, which begins in Boston and continues out towards Central Massachusetts, functions in
Lexington as the town's main street. It is the main roadway through the Town Center and is the
location of the Town's major retail area and Town government offices. It is generally a two-lane
roadway but widens to four lanes through the Town Center.
Waltham Street, Bedford Street, and Woburn Street are all two-lane roadways that connect
Lexington Town Center with the centers of Waltham, Bedford and Woburn, respectively.
Important roadways providing access to major employment centers include Hartwell
Avenue/Maguire Road, which borders Hanscom Field, and Hayden Avenue, which parallels
Route 2.
Intersections
The focus of roadway improvements in the Lexington Transportation Element is to provide for
more efficient utilization of the existing roadway infrastructure. The first step in developing a
roadway improvement action plan was to identify a list of intersections to be considered for
improvements. This list was developed through discussions with the Town's Planning and
Engineering Departments and an assessment of the safety characteristics of the intersections
within the Town. To better understand the magnitude of the traffic issues at the study
intersections, the following traffic data were collected and reviewed:
o Accident data for the most recent three-year period
• Physical characteristics
• Geometric conditions
• Adjacent land uses
• Current operating conditions
• Traffic volumes (where available)
In order to identify accident trends, safety concerns, and/or roadway deficiencies, accident data
were obtained for the three and a half-year period from January 1999 to mid-2002,the most
recent data available. The Planning Department and VHB collected this information from the
Police Department records. A summary of the accident data is presented in Table 1. Typically an
accident(crash)rate is also calculated for each intersection. The rate represents the ratio of the
................................................../....7................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
✓a�� (<� o�ra �a�.P 77
number of accidents to the total volume of traffic traveling through the intersection. This is
usually an effective tool to measure safety hazards. As part of this study, however, traffic counts
were not conducted at the study intersections and therefore a crash rate cannot be calculated.
There is,however, a rule of thumb that 5 or more accidents per year establish that an intersection
should be reviewed for safety issues. The traffic thresholds for the possible installation of a
traffic signal or four-way STOP control use the 5 accidents per year as a factor in determining if
installation is warranted.6
Other data sources were recent traffic studies for individual development projects and
conversations with the Department of Public Works regarding operating conditions, including
congestion, delay, queuing and levels of service.
This list identifies those intersections that were evaluated and indicates whether or not they were
considered for capital improvements. Specifics of proposed improvements appear in Chapters III
and IV.
1. Bedford Street(Route 4/225) at Hartwell Avenue is a signalized "T" intersection with a jug-
handle provided along Bedford Street northbound for U-turns and left turns onto Hartwell
Avenue. There is extensive queuing on Bedford Street during the peak hours, particularly on
the southbound approach. Next to the Bedford Street interchange with 1-95/Route 128, this
intersection is the highest accident intersection. There were 83 accidents recorded in a three
and one-half year period and many of the accidents are likely due to the limited sight distance
on the Hartwell Avenue approach. Vehicles approaching the intersection from Hartwell
Avenue, which has a green signal indication at the same time as the jug handle approach,
have difficulty seeing the approaching traffic from the jug handle. Field observations
revealed many near collisions of vehicles making a left turn from Hartwell Avenue with
vehicles going straight from the jug handle. Bedford Street is a state numbered route but is
under Town jurisdiction.
2. Eldred Street at Bedford Street(Route 4/225) is a"T" intersection with Bedford Street as the
major roadway. As at the previous intersection, Bedford Street at this location is a state
numbered route but is under Town jurisdiction. Eldred Street connects to the residential area
east of Bedford Street and north of Route 128. The Eldred Street approach, which is under
STOP sign control, consists of one shared left-turn/right-turn lane. Left turns from Eldred
Street onto Bedford Street are currently prohibited during peak hours. Bedford Street
provides two lanes in each direction. The intersection is also one of the highest accident
intersections. Because of heavy volumes and relatively high speeds along Bedford Street it is
difficult for traffic to exit Eldred Street. Southbound Bedford Street traffic turning left into
Eldred Street must use the left-through lane, another potential cause of accidents.
3. Massachusetts Avenue at Wood Street is a three-legged intersection with Wood Street under
STOP Sign control. The intersection falls within the Minuteman National Historic Park.
1-95/Route 128 is approximately 150 feet to the east of the intersection with Massachusetts
6 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device;Millennium Edition;Federal Highway Administration;Washington DC,2001.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................../..�..........................................
Map 2.
Problem
Intersections
12a�` Analyzed
X17 X 13 Bedford St and Hartwell Ave
2.Bedford St and Eldred St
3.Mass Ave/Old Mass Ave/Wood St
4.Bedford St and Worthen Rd
e� 128 N 5.Mass Ave and Woburn Rd
Ha 6.Maple St and Lowell St
7.Spring St and Marrett Rd
8.Waltham St and Marrett Rd
20 9.Maple St and Mass Ave
i 10.Mass Ave and Pleasant St
11.Waltham St and Concord Ave
14 12.Pleasant St and Watertown St
J' X 14 \ 13.Bedford St at Rte 128
X 16 14.Bedford St at Harrington Rd and Hancock St
-,I w Massach�s etts Piet Woburn St 15.Waltham St and Hayden Ave
19 TT 16.Lowell St and Woburn St
X 5
*6 17.Hartwell Ave and Maguire Rd
X18 18.Marrett Rd at Rte 128
19.Mass Ave/Old Mass Ave/Marrett Rd
\e5 20.Lowell St and East St
tae 21.Mass Ave and Grant St
Lincoln St Marrett Rtl
8 *g
�� Legend
�� NOMassach� Study Intersections
E. s Av
, proposed improvements
OX13 12 X analyzed,no improvements proposed
err. Qua ate��o
Tlolcora q ve ��
N �
® 2000 0 200 @000 Feet
Prepared by Lexington Planning Department.Source: MassGIS,Town of Lexington
Avenue spanning the interstate highway. The intersection of Old Mass Avenue and Wood
Street is approximately 300 feet north of the intersection. Old Mass Avenue is used as a cut-
through from Hanscom Airfield. Vehicles travel at fairly high speeds along Massachusetts
Avenue making it difficult to exit Wood Street onto Massachusetts Avenue. The Wood Street
approach provides one lane and is fairly narrow, making it difficult for right turning vehicles
to squeeze by left-turning vehicles.
4. Bedford Street at Worthen Road and Camellia Place is a four-legged signalized intersection.
The traffic signal operates with the Bedford Street approaches moving together and Worthen
Road and Camel lia Place moving at the same time. Bedford Street southbound approach
provides an exclusive right turn lane and a through-left lane. The northbound Bedford Street
approach and Camellia Place each have only one general lane. Camellia Place is a low
volume road that operates more as a driveway. The Worthen Road approach provides two
approach lanes (neither of them striped). The traffic signal is equipped with an Opticom
emergency preemption system for the fire station located approximately 100-150 feet south
of the intersection. There are several retail establishments on the corners of the intersection.
There are crosswalks provided on the Bedford Street and Worthen Road approaches and the
traffic signal has an exclusive pedestrian phase available with push-button control.
5. The intersection of Massachusetts Avenue at Woburn Street, Winthrop Street and Fletcher
Avenue has STOP sign control on Winthrop Street, Fletcher Street and Woburn Street.
Massachusetts Avenue is uncontrolled. There is a large triangular traffic island with two-way
traffic permitted on all sides. All approaches have a single general lane and there is parking
permitted along both sides of Massachusetts Avenue to the west of the intersection. Winthrop
Street enters Massachusetts Avenue from the south and provides a cut-through for traffic
coming from Waltham Street headed north or east, avoiding the intersection of
Massachusetts Avenue at Waltham Street. The movements from Winthrop Street, across
Massachusetts Avenue, to Woburn Street are dangerous, with difficult sight distance out of
Winthrop Street and higher speed traffic on Massachusetts Avenue. There is an expanse of
pavement where Massachusetts Avenue and Woburn Street connect. Two-way operations on
all sides of the island create several locations where there are conflicting and potentially
confusing traffic movements.
6. Maple Street at Lowell Street is a signalized four-legged intersection with very large
channelized right turn lanes on the Maple Street eastbound approach and the Lowell Street
southbound approach. These channelized right-turn lanes allow drivers to make turns at
relatively high speed,posing a hazard to pedestrians trying to cross the Maple Street
eastbound approach.
7. The Spring Street at Marrett Road intersection is an unsignalized intersection. Marrett Road
extends east-west with Bridge Street and Spring Street intersecting it adjacent to each other
along the south side. Both of the side streets are controlled by STOP signs. Bridge Street
operates one-way northbound into Marrett Road. Marrett Road is designated as State
Route 2A and is under state jurisdiction. There are generally residential properties along
Bridge Street and east of the intersection along Marrett Road,while there are commercial
developments west of the intersection. This intersection is open, with a large expanse of
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
pavement. According to a traffic analysis conducted in 1997, this intersection operates at
Level Of Service (LOS)F during both the morning and evening peak hours.7 This condition
applies to northbound Spring Street traffic, which has difficulty exiting onto Marrett Road.
8. Marrett Road (Route 2A) at Waltham Street is a four-legged signalized intersection. Marrett
Road is state numbered Route 2A and is under state jurisdiction. Marrett Square, a small
retail center, is located on the northwest corner of the intersection, a Dunkin Donuts is on the
northeast corner, a Gulf gas station and Mobil gas station are on the southwest and southeast
corners,respectively. Each of the approaches to the intersection is striped as one lane with
the exception of Waltham Street southbound, which has a through/left-turn lane and a small
channelized right-turn lane. Because of the roadway width, vehicles are able to operate in
two lanes (a left-turn lane and a through/right-turn lane) on both Waltham Street approaches.
The curb cuts along the Gulf gas station property are wide open with confusing right-of-
way/direction of vehicular travel. The pedestrian crossing signal equipment is outdated and
consists of pedestrian buttons that trigger the traffic signal to turn yellow and red
simultaneously. There are no pedestrian signal heads. There are fairly long queues on
Waltham Street and Marrett Road eastbound during peak hours.
9. Maple Street at Massachusetts Avenue is a"T" intersection with the Maple Street approach
under STOP sign control. Maple Street is designated as State Route 2A and is under state
jurisdiction. Massachusetts Avenue is designated as State Route 4/225 and is under local
jurisdiction. There is a large circular island in the center of the Maple Street approach. All
vehicles approaching Massachusetts Avenue from Maple Street travel on the west side of the
island while all vehicles turning from Massachusetts Avenue to Maple Street travel on the
east side of the island. The correct direction of travel at this intersection is unclear and the
high accident rate may reflect driver confusion. There is peak hour queuing on the Maple
Street approach because of the high volume of traffic on Massachusetts Avenue and the high
number of vehicles turning left from Massachusetts Avenue eastbound onto Maple Street.
Vehicles slowing to make this move block vehicles trying to exit Maple Street.
10. Pleasant Street at Massachusetts Avenue and Follen Road essentially operates as a rotary
with STOP sign control on the Pleasant Street and Follen Road approaches. Each of the
approaches provides one general purpose lane with the exception of Massachusetts Avenue
westbound which provides as an exclusive left turn lane and a through lane. During the peak
hours, it is difficult for vehicles to exit Pleasant Street and Follen Road onto Massachusetts
Avenue. Pleasant Street generates long queues during the peak hours. Pedestrian crossings
within the vicinity of this intersection are difficult. There is a large expanse of pavement
within the limits of this intersection adding to driver confusion and the difficult pedestrian
crossings.
11. Concord Avenue at Waltham Street is a four-legged signalized intersection located
approximately 1,000 feet south of the Route 2 Waltham Street ramps. Each approach to the
intersection provides a single general through lane although both Waltham Street approaches,
which are approximately 43 feet wide, are used as two lanes. The southbound approach is
used as a left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The northbound approach is
7 Office Expansion, 55 Hayden Avenue Lexington,Massachusetts, Abend Associates,January 10, 1997.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
used as a shared through/left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. The traffic signal
operates as a semi-actuated, two-phase operation. Land uses that abut the intersection
include a day care center, a gas station, medical offices and residential. Crosswalks are
provided on all approaches.
12. Pleasant Street at Watertown Street is a"Y" intersection with the Pleasant Street southbound
approach forming the base of the Y. The northbound Pleasant Street approach is STOP sign
controlled at a traffic island. The island essentially directs traffic to and from the southern
Pleasant Street leg to and from Watertown Street and creates driver confusion for vehicles
traveling through the intersection. The southern Pleasant Street leg enters Watertown
Street/Pleasant Street at a sharp angle that creates sight distance issues for vehicles exiting
Pleasant Street northbound. Field observations revealed that vehicles queue up along Pleasant
Street northbound and can block vehicles attempting to enter Pleasant Street southbound
from Watertown Street.
13. Bedford Street at Route 128: Bedford Street at Route 128 was rated as the highest accident
location in Lexington with 134 accidents over the three and one-half year period analyzed
(see below). This location is a full cloverleaf interchange providing only right turns onto and
off of the Route 128 ramps to and from Bedford Street. There are no traffic signals at any of
the ramp junctions. Because the interchange is under MassHighway jurisdiction, it was not
reviewed for improvements as part of the Town's Transportation Element. The intersection
of Bedford Street at Hartwell Avenue was reviewed for possible improvements that could
also have positive impacts on the 128 interchange.
14. Bedford Street at Harrington Road/Hancock Street: This is a four-way intersection adjacent
to the Battle Green. Bedford Street is the main street with Harrington Road and Hancock
Street controlled by STOP signs. Exiting the side streets can be difficult during periods of
heavy traffic flow on Bedford Street. Because the intersection is on the National Register of
Historic Places and is within the Historic District, it was not deemed a desirable location to
make improvements.
15. Waltham Street at Hayden Avenue: This intersection is a T-type intersection adjacent to the
Route 2 interchange with Waltham Street. Hayden Avenue provides access to and through a
major business area along Route 2 between Waltham Street and Spring Street. Hayden
Avenue is STOP-controlled at Waltham Street. Because the intersection is very close to the
Route 2 westbound off-ramp to Waltham Street northbound, it creates a difficult maneuver
for traffic exiting Route 2 and turning left onto Hayden Avenue. Channelization
improvements were implemented in 1999-2000 and the intersection was not reanalyzed as
part of this study.
16. Lowell Street at Woburn Street: This is a four-way intersection with commercial land uses
on each corner. It is signal controlled and was recently reconstructed. As a result it was not
analyzed for improvements as part of the Transportation Element.
17. Hartwell Avenue at Maguire Road: This is a T-type intersection in the middle of the
Hartwell Avenue/Maguire Road business area. Maguire Road is STOP-controlled at Hartwell
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
;Z;., 16
Avenue and exiting Maguire Road can be difficult during busy times. The intersection is a
short distance from the Minuteman Bikeway crossing of Hartwell Avenue. Design and
permitting for intersection improvements were complete prior to this study; however, no
funding is currently available for construction.
18. Marrett Road (Route 2A) at Route 128: This location is a full cloverleaf interchange
providing only right turns onto and off of the Route 128 ramps to and from Marrett Road.
There are no traffic signals at any of the ramp junctions. Because the interchange is under
MassHighway jurisdiction, it was not reviewed for improvements as part of the Town's
Transportation Element.
19. Massachusetts Avenue at Marrett Road: This is a four-way intersection with the fourth leg
providing access to the Minuteman Vocational Technical School. It is a signalized
intersection operating at generally good levels of service. The intersection had a lower
number of accidents. Because of these two factors it was not analyzed for improvements.
20. Lowell Street at East Street: This fully signalized intersection in a single family residential
area has pedestrian on-demand crossings, sidewalks with granite curbing on Lowell and one
side of East, and a channel island facilitating the right hand turn movement from southeast-
running Lowell onto East. Lowell becomes a major commercial arterial, the Middlesex
Turnpike,just over the nearby Burlington town line, while East is a significant feeder from
central and northwest parts of Lexington to the Turnpike retail and employment areas.
Accident data reveals that the intersection functions with a fairly high degree of safety due to
the controls.
21. Massachusetts Avenue at Grant Street: This is a T-type of intersection in the Town Center. It
is unsignalized, with STOP control on the Grant Street approach. Massachusetts Avenue has
four travel lanes in this section. Exiting Grant Street can be difficult during times of heavy
traffic flow on Massachusetts Avenue. The traffic signal at Waltham Street and
Massachusetts Avenue sometimes provides breaks in traffic flow that can make it easier for
vehicles to exit Grant Street. This intersection had a lower number of accidents and was not
analyzed for this study.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Table 1 Intersection Accident Summary—1999.2002
Bedford Bedford Bedford Street Marrett Maple Lowell Waltham Lowell Bedford
Bedford Street at Street at at Harrington Road at Street at Street at Street at Street at Street at
Street at Hartwell Eldred Road& Waltham Mass Maple Hayden Woburn Worthen
Scenario Route 128 Avenue Street Hancock Street Street Avenue Street Avenue Street Road
Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
1999 49 31 21 3 15 20 17 11 15 8
2000 42 20 16 19 12 12 12 12 9 9
2001 38 28 13 18 18 10 7 5 5 10
2002' 5 4 5 11 2 2 4 3 2 3
Total 134 83 55 51 47 44 40 31 31 30
Type
Motor vehicle in traffic 129 79 53 50 38 42 37 27 28 27
Unknown—Other 5 4 2 1 9 2 3 4 3 3
Severity
Property Damage Only 86 57 23 38 38 34 26 17 24 26
Personal Injury 48 26 32 13 9 10 14 14 7 4
Fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pavement/Weather
Dry 110 60 45 44 42 42 33 25 23 25
Wet 17 20 10 6 5 2 5 5 6 4
Snow/Ice 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 5 3 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 1
Time of Day
7:00 to 10:00 AM 39 12 11 15 13 15 11 12 4 5
3:00 to 6:00 PM 33 22 12 16 9 9 13 9 9 8
Other 62 49 32 20 25 20 16 10 18 17
Source: Compiled by The Town of Lexington Planning Department and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,(VHB)Inc.from Town of Lexington Police Department records
1 Data for 2002 are for the first half of the year.
Table 1 (cont.) Intersection Accident Summary— 1999.2002
Old Mass
Woburn Avenue/
Concord Hartwell Street/Mass Mass Pleasant Mass Avenue/ Pleasant Mass Marrett
Avenue at Avenue at Marrett Avenue at Avenue at Street at Old Mass Street at Lowell Avenue/ Road at
Waltham Maguire Road at Fletcher Grant Mass Avenue/Marrett Watertown Street at Wood Spring
Scenario Street Road Route 128 Avenue Street Avenue Road Street East Street Street Street
Rating 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Year
1999 11 10 11 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 2
2000 8 9 7 10 4 6 2 4 5 2 3
2001 7 7 6 4 13 5 5 5 2 4 1
20021 2 2 3 6 1 2 5 2 1 1 1
Total 28 28 27 26 23 18 17 13 12 11 7
Type
Motor vehicle in traffic 27 27 23 22 21 15 15 10 11 7 4
Unknown—Other 1 1 4 4 2 3 2 3 1 4 3
Severity
Property Damage Only(Over$1,000) 19 12 21 20 19 17 8 12 7 7 4
Personal Injury 9 16 6 6 4 1 9 1 5 4 3
Fatality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pavement/Weather
Dry 20 25 21 21 20 14 14 12 8 8 7
Wet 6 2 5 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 0
Snow/Ice 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 0
Time of Day
7:00 to 10:00 AM 8 12 11 7 5 5 4 2 4 3 2
3:00 to 6:00 PM 9 7 6 7 7 5 3 4 2 3 0
Other 11 9 10 12 11 8 10 7 6 5 5
Source: Compiled by The Town of Lexington Planning Department and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,(VHB)Inc.from Town of Lexington Police Department records
1 Data for 2002 are for the first half of the year.
TRANSIT
Lexington's transit service consists of MBTA intercity bus service, the LEXPRESS in-town bus
service, some demand-responsive van services for the elderly and disabled, and a commuter
shuttle operated by the 128 Business Council, a transportation management association. Of these,
MBTA Route 62/76 carries by far the highest number of passengers.
While Lexington has a number of options for a town of its size and population density,the
existing transit network is limited in its usefulness. LEXPRESS ends operations by 7:00 P.M. at
the latest on weekdays, which is a handicap in attracting commuters who keep irregular hours.
The relative infrequency of transit service during the hours in which it operates further reduces
its attractiveness. Another limitation is the lack of Sunday service by any public transportation
provider in the area. Most residents cannot depend wholly on existing public transit and maintain
their current quality of life. For those who cannot or do not wish to drive, however, the existing
public transit system is immensely valuable.
MBTA Transit Service
The MBTA operates the Route 62/76 service through Lexington on weekdays and Saturdays.
Both routes operate between the Town Center and Alewife Station. Route 62 operates between
the Center and the Bedford V.A. Hospital while Route 76 operates between the Center and
Hanscom Field and the Air Force Base (AFB).
The routes provide weekday service between the Center and Alewife Station from 6:00 AM to
1 0:00 PM. Both routes operate on 30-minute headways during peak hours,providing 15 to 20-
minute frequency between the Center and Alewife Station. Off-peak service is hourly on each
route, with 25 to 35-minute frequency between the Center and Alewife Station. Scheduled travel
time between the Center and Alewife Station is typically 22 minutes. Saturday service is
provided hourly, from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM. There is no service on Sundays.
In addition to the connection to the Red Line at Alewife Station, the MBTA bus service provides
limited connections to other bus routes. The Route 62 bus travels through Arlington Heights and
connects to the terminus of Route 77 and Route 79, which serve the Massachusetts Avenue
corridor through Arlington and into Cambridge.
A 1998 ridership survey performed by the MBTA found that out of 2,050 trips/day on the Route
62/76 bus, 1368 had their origin or destination in Lexington. The 76 branch carried somewhat
more of these trips-778—than the 62, which carried 590. Inbound and outbound trips were fairly
well balanced.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Map 3 : Bus Routes
Legend
% c
To Bedford V.A.Hospital �4 5 LEXPRESS Bus Route
6 62 MBTA Bus Route
Transfer Point
Burlington Mall
62
5
0
rn
128
76 6
5�
5
P v
1
76 I 4 6
5
� o Depot 5 \
I �� s� Square
Massa�nusetts urn
I i �rct)ester
4 3
1
62
76
4
i� M tt
m �
N /
N
2 \C,
VI
l6
Hayden ®, c 76 �
\eaya / To Arlington Heights
\ con�ora O p v and Alewife
Co"Cora
2
76
Waltham / To Alewife \\L
Li ne
4000 0 4000 8000 Feet
Connections:
Budingt on Mall:Bud ington B-Line,LRTA,Lexpress,MBTA R 3501351
Depot Square:Lexpress,MBTA Rt 62/76
Prepared by Lexington Planning Department. Source: MassGIS, Town of Lexington Waltham Line:Lexpress,Waltham Citibus
LEXPRESS Transit Service
LEXPRESS is a Town supported in-town service created in 1979 amidst growing concerns over
the fuel crisis and energy consumption. Since its inception, LEXPRESS has been an especially
important resource for children and the elderly, who may otherwise have significant difficulty in
getting around town. Scheduling incorporates the provision of transportation for students who
participate in after-school activities.
The LEXPRESS service uses three minibuses operating on three pairs of routes. The routes are
circular through various neighborhoods and to the Burlington Mall. Each routes takes 30 minutes
to complete and the use of one bus to serve two routes results in hourly headways on each route.
Buses operate out of a hub at Depot Square in the Town Center. The MBTA bus routes described
above have stops at Depot Square. LEXPRESS weekday routes start at 6:45/7:15 AM and end at
6:00/6:30 PM. Saturday routes start at 10:00/10:30 AM and end at 5:00/5:30 PM. There is no
Sunday service and no Saturday service during July and August.
LEXPRESS provides limited connections to bus services in neighboring communities. There are
connections at the Burlington Mall (Route 6)to the Lowell Regional Transit Service and to
Burlington's B-Line. The connecting times are 20 to 30 minutes. The Route 2 bus provides
connecting service to the Waltham Citibus at Avalon at Lexington on Waltham Street.
Connecting times to Waltham are 15 minutes and connecting times from Waltham are 10
minutes. Travel time, including connections, is 45 minutes to Waltham Center and 35 minutes
from Waltham Center.
LEXPRESS carries over 300 passengers each weekday and approximately 80,000 passengers
annually. Ridership rebounded in fiscal year 2002 after a steady decline the previous three years
(see Table 2). The majority of passengers (61 percent) are students. Eighteen percent are seniors
and 21 percent are adult riders. There are typically 10 to 15 transfers each day between
LEXPRESS buses and one or two transfers each day between LEXPRESS buses and the
Waltham Citibus or the Burlington B-Line service.
Table 2
LEXPRESS Ridership by Rider Type
Rider Type FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02
Adults 19,423 21,971 17,161 16,537
Students 51,075 40,042 43,929 47,323
Seniors 15,822 15,246 13,841 13,787
Children 1,265 1,257 511 424
Total Ridership 87,585 78,516 75,442 78,071
As of this writing, LEXPRESS funding for the fiscal year 2004 is in jeopardy. If the budget
override is not approved by residents, LEXPRESS will lose its funding. Securing adequate
funding is a perennial concern in public transportation. Budget uncertainties complicate the
process of maintaining and strengthening service. Currently, 25 percent of LEXPRESS's budget
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
is dependent upon the tax levy. Grant money from the MBTA and fare collection account for 25
percent each of the total budget, while another quarter comes from municipal parking revenues.
The loss of nearly a quarter of the budget would likely necessitate the suspension or, possibly,
termination of service. If service were interrupted, reinstituting it would be a politically complex
and expensive prospect. The Town of Lexington was an area leader in recognizing the
importance of local transit service and it is to be hoped that residents will continue to support this
valuable service.
Paratransit Service
In addition to the MBTA-run"Ride",two other paratransit services are available to Lexington
residents. The Chair Car complements the LEXPRESS service for those physically unable to
access the fixed route service. The other service is a volunteer-run program known as "FISH"
(Friendly Instant Sympathetic Help).
The Chair Car program operates Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9:30AM to 2:30PM. Ridership
was 834 in FY2001 and 382 in FY2002. The majority of ridership occurs on the weekly
shopping trip to Stop & Shop.
The FISH program provides occasional rides to doctor's offices and grocery stores.
Commuter TMA Service
The 128 Business Council is a regional transportation management association (TMA) of firms,
residential complexes and office parks. The Council operates six commuter shuttle routes for its
member companies which subsidize the service. Employees can ride free or purchase tickets,
depending on the amount subsidized by the company.
Several Lexington locations are served by the 128 Council's Alewife Shuttle. The route
provides service between the Alewife MBTA Red Line station in Cambridge and
Waltham/Lexington companies along the Spring Street and Hayden Street corridor. The service
operates nine runs between 6:40 and 10:05 AM, and has four trips in the evening between 4:15
and 7:15 PM. Travel time between Hayden Avenue and Alewife station is approximately 15
minutes.
...................................................../�...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................j..�'...........................j....?
�/x/Z(�CPlg (i.�6.lZC(ili(i109Z.9 TC/.9�P<J
Table 3.Alewife Shuttle Ridership,2002,
Lexington Stops
Total An examination of Alewife Shuttle ridership
Ridership, Daily data for the year 2002 clearly shows that
Address Stop 2002 Average existing programs are having relatively little
33 Hayden Ave Mercer 1287 5.148 impact on the total volume of personal
45 Hayden Ave Spyglass 891 3.564 automobile trips. While the Shuttle is not
Hayden totally ineffective, current usage is not of a
55 Hayden Ave woods 159 0.636 scale to significantly improve traffic
65 Hayden Ave Cubist 4245 16.98 conditions.
92 Hayden Ave HCP 743 2.972
92 Hayden Ave Other 177 0.708
Fresenius
Medical
95 Hayden Ave Care 2464 9.856
95 Hayden Ave Other 20 0.08
95 Hayden Ave Verbind 180 0.72
191 Spring St StrideRide 3175 12.7
128 Spring St Phylos 1097 4.388
All Lex. Stops 14438 57.752
Liberty Ride
While tourism has many benefits for Lexington, the issues of parking availability in Lexington
Center, and a lack of appropriate parking for tour buses in particular, can be problematic. To
address these issues, as well as to support tourism, the Liberty Ride, a shuttle bus offering on-
board narration and stops at multiple tourist destinations, was instituted in the summer of 2002.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
;'�'k"" �� 6n A/a.1mIX./y, 20D3
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) focuses on providing alternative means of travel to
driving alone in a car. The purpose of TDM is to enhance mobility by providing an expanded
array of travel options and to reduce the demand for roadway improvements by reducing
automobile travel. The latter is accomplished by inducing drivers to shift to non-driving modes
or by encouraging people who drive alone to share a ride. TDM programs support and
encourage ridesharing, transit use, walking, and bicycling. TDM programs are often
implemented by groups of employers with a large number of employees in an identifiable area.
Employers often pool their resources by establishing a Transportation Management Association
(TMA), which can be the vehicle for delivering TDM services.
TDM Bylaw and TDM Policy
Unlike many other communities in Eastern Massachusetts, Lexington many years ago recognized
the need to consider the transportation impacts of new development and to encourage and
support the implementation of TDM measures.
Article XII of Chapter 135 of the Code of the Town of Lexington, Traffic, sets out minimum
criteria for requiring traffic studies and mitigation of traffic impacts caused by a proposed
development. For applicable developments, building permits shall not be granted until the
SPGA8 has determined that there is adequate traffic capacity for the new development.
Applicable developments include commercial establishments over 100,000 square feet, new
housing developments with 25 units or more, and other activity that generates 50 or more new
vehicle trips per day, Where negative impacts occur, a variety of mitigations, from signalization
of intersections to membership in a Transportation Management Association, can be required.
In addition, in March 1997,the Planning Board adopted a TDM Policy, which is much more
detailed than Article XII. The thresholds for TDM are the same as those triggering traffic impact
studies. Developers must provide a written TDM plan, which includes measures selected from a
variety of transportation services outlined in nine categories in the policy. These include site
design, transportation information, and connections to transit. A reporting component is detailed
in the policy.
Monitoring and enforcement of special permit conditions under Article XII have been
complicated by the lack of a clear and funded enforcement responsibility in the municipal
organization. While Article XII and the TDM Policy are fairly clear on the reporting procedure,
special permit conditions as actually written have varied significantly from case to case. As some
developers are instructed to submit annual transportation reports to multiple departments, no one
department has taken responsibility for ensuring that reports are submitted promptly and in
sufficient detail. Similar confusion surrounds other special permit conditions. The result of this is
that many existing developments are not fully complying with special permit conditions.
Transportation Management Association
a Special Permit Granting Authority—The SPGA is usually the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The 128 Business Council operates employer shuttles in the 128/West area and assists employers
with their employee commuting needs. In Lexington, the 128 Business Council has worked with
employers on Spring Street and Hayden Avenue to establish transportation options, including
shuttles, Guaranteed Ride Home programs, establishment of carpools and vanpools, hold
transportation awareness fairs, and assist the designated employer transportation coordinators for
individual firms.
Since 1996, Transportation Coordinators have made three attempts to establish a TMA on
Hartwell Avenue area. The most recent effort began in the autumn of 2001 and continues.
Current Hartwell TMA planning is a joint effort of the Transportation Coordinator, Economic
Development Officer, and the 128 Business Council.
The need for such an organization is clear. The Hartwell area is comprised of more than 140
businesses. Approximately 10,000 commuters travel to and from the area daily. By and large,
these commuters drive single-occupancy vehicles. Traffic is problematic during peak commute
hours, particularly at the intersection of Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street. A TMA presence
would be a great boon to the area.
Other TDM Related Measures and Information
The success of TDM measures depends heavily on the existence of complementary services and
infrastructure. These include a well-planned and maintained sidewalk and street network,
provision of local and regional transit, and complementary land uses that provide increased
opportunity to walk and bicycle, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities. If these services and facilities
are limited or non-existing, TDM support measures will be limited or ineffective For employees
to be able to use private shuttle buses, they will first have to get to the shuttle—perhaps by train
or bicycle. If there are shops and services within walking distance of their workplace, employees
will be more willing to commute by alternative means of transportation.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
BICYCLING AND WALKING
Lexington has a network of bicycle trails and paths and sidewalks that facilitate bicycling and
walking not only as a form of recreation but also as a mode of travel. The Town is fortunate to
have the Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee (LBAC), which has done much to expand the
bicycle network and inventory the sidewalk network. More generally it provides active support
and encouragement of bicycle use and walking.
The existing bicycle network is divided into off-road bicycle trails and on-road recommended
routes. Recommended routes are judged to be both relatively convenient to major destinations
and fairly safe, although caution is urged at all times. Bicycle trails are generally on town-owned
land or easements through private land and offer access to recreational facilities and open space.
The most well known bicycle facility in the community is the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway
which runs generally north of, and parallel to, Massachusetts Avenue through much of the town.
The Bikeway is a production of the Rails to Trails program and follows the former B & M rail
corridor. The Bikeway runs from the MBTA Alewife Red Line station in Cambridge to Bedford.
It traverses Lexington from Arlington just north of Massachusetts Avenue to Bedford just north
of Maquire Road. It runs through Lexington Center just behind Depot Square. It is a heavily used
facility that draws large summertime crowds to Lexington Center. In the wintertime, it is not
plowed so that it can be used by cross-country skiers. While ridership figures are unavailable for
the Minuteman Bikeway, it is generally reputed to be among the most successful rail trail
conversions in the country.
The town has developed additional off-road paths and on-street routes to link Lexington
neighborhoods with the Town Center and the Minuteman Bikeway. Map 4 shows a plan of
existing bike routes and bikeways in town.
The LBAC is continually involved in efforts to identify and secure additional routes with an
emphasis on serving major in town attractions such as public schools. This is made difficult both
by Lexington's physical form and political tradition. Lexington is a mature suburb, and as such,
has relatively little space for infrastructure expansion. Streets are typically narrow,houses are
fairly close to the street, and much remaining undeveloped land is reserved for conservation. The
question of whether bike trails are appropriate uses in conservation areas has not been fully
settled. In addition, certain neighborhoods have opposed the construction of sidewalks or bike
lanes in the past. Future efforts will need to clearly state the need for such improvements and
work to gain community support.
A recent major effort of the committee focused on a sign inventory. The purpose was to identify
where signage needed to be replaced or added to make sure there was clear identification of the
existing bike route system.
The town has also been using Geographic Information System to develop a sidewalk inventory
which is shown on Map 5. Sidewalks are concentrated in the town center and nearby
neighborhoods and adjacent to public schools. The presence of sidewalks in other areas is less
uniform with some lower density residential areas having few if any sidewalks. The Town has no
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Map 4.
N
Bike Routes
and Trails ,
Existing and
Proposed .
N
�• � forth St
East 'Recommended Routes'are roads which
I fee are recommended for cyclists,while
I o 'Bicycle Trails'are off-road paths
generally closed to motorized vehicles.
Many links in the proposed network
do not yet exist.
M as Pie � Massa:husetts Pie•�
I assachu se ..
Gtae .. --,gchester 0r
m
0 3y
0
xel �e
�a
Lincoln Si
•�e�a• •Mac�et�Rd..
Legend
Recommended Routes
aNaydenwoas
jBicycle Trails
......
Future Routes
Concordgve e Future Trails
3 /
c
i6
2000 0 2000 Feet
Prepared by Lexington Planning Department.Source. MassGIS, Town of Lexington
Map 5 : Sidew
al Inventory
Legend
�\\ Sidewalks
\ r
I� D
'T7
��— Manl5ki
IF L� r
� qzrl
While we believe this map
to be substantially correct, it
4000 0 4000 8000 Feet should be noted that it has
not been field-checked.
Prepared by Lexington Planning Department. Source: MassGIS, Town of Lexington, MassHighway, B ston Edison
capital program or plan for expanding the sidewalk network. Subdivision regulations establish
requirements for sidewalks in new development but with much of the Town already developed, a
plan and program will be needed to insure the expansion of sidewalks into areas which need
them or should have them.
The opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian improvements are many. Bicycling and walking are
low-cost, healthy, environmentally friendly means of transportation and recreation. They also
play an important role when other modes of transportation are used, whether one bikes to the bus
stop or walks from a municipal parking lot.
CONCLUSION
In general, Lexington is fairly well-provided with transportation options. It is nevertheless
experiencing growing traffic congestion and associated problems. This is due in some part to
larger social and regional trends, and in some part to the choices that the town has made.
Nationally, people have been making more trips, traveling longer distances, and spending more
time behind the wheel. Regionally,the high cost of housing has pushed residential development
further and further out, creating longer commutes. Locally, Lexington has failed to advance a
proactive agenda to make alternative transportation a more attractive prospect. Major sidewalk
improvements, for example, have been repeatedly postponed over the last 20 years. An
investment made in 1983 could have resulted in a more walkable community by 2003.
While limited funding and political realities will make hard choices necessary, the threat to
quality of life in Lexington needs to be addressed. Improvements must be made in order to allow
greater access to existing transportation options, to improve the quality of those options, and to
mitigate safety and operational problems with the roadway system. These improvements cannot
be made by the municipal government acting alone. The transportation system is of such
complexity that collaboration with private businesses, community groups, and regional, state,
and possibly federal authorities is necessary. In the following chapters, we analyze possible
strategies and develop recommended courses of action.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
In this section, analysis is translated into a set of proposed actions. After examining existing
conditions in the transportation network for all modes, the Transportation Element Advisory
Committee (TEAC)then began the next phase of its work, which was the consideration of
alternative strategies for addressing the transportation problems identified. The intent, as with all
planning processes, was to modify and narrow down that list, eventually ending up with a final
set of priority recommendations.
The section is generally organized by transportation mode (transportation demand management
(TDM),transit,bicycling and walking, and roadways, as well as land use), each of which was
considered by the advisory committee. The measures were developed in consideration of the
existing transportation system and services in Lexington, as well as the land use and travel
patterns (see Existing Conditions). For each mode, emphasis was placed on complementing
existing services or making more efficient use of existing infrastructure. The data were analyzed
to determine where new or expanded transportation services might fill a need and be at least
somewhat competitive with automobile use. Greater detail is offered below.
Not all actions discussed in this section were deemed by the TEAC to be of sufficient priority in
relation to the other proposed measures to proceed into the final Implementing Actions Plan
outlined in the last section of this document. This exclusion in no way precludes their
consideration for future action.
ROADWAYS
The Selectmen's 1999 Vision 2020 project, along with the 2002 ComPlan, set forth a strategy
that has informed this transportation planning process—that the road network should only be
`fixed' where doing so is unavoidable. Transportation planners maintain that the construction or
improvement of new roads can only temporarily improve traffic conditions. The improved travel
times, safety, or accessibility of new areas created by improved infrastructure induce greater
travel demand, which quickly consumes the new vehicular capacity. In this plan, this concept has
led to a focus on the intersections where level of service failure and safety are so problematic
that there is little choice but to make improvements wherein traffic flow and safety may be
improved. The assumption has also been that excessive increases to intersection vehicular
capacity, as well as construction of grade-separated intersections, were to be avoided.
Potential roadway improvements were identified based on a strategy of maximizing the efficient
use of existing roadway infrastructure. This strategy complements another important one of
restraining traffic growth and the need for roadway improvements, by providing alternatives to
driving alone, such as TDM and transit. A key objective in all of this is to maintain the existing
community character of Lexington. As a result, no new roadways or major roadway widenings
were considered. The types of improvements considered included:
❖ Lane use changes at intersections
❖ Intersection geometry improvements
❖ Traffic signal timing and phasing changes
❖ Addition of new traffic signals
❖ Traffic calming measures, including roundabouts, bulbouts, and traffic islands
Traffic calming is a method of using physical infrastructure to moderate driver behavior. It
generally slows vehicle speeds by carefully introducing features such as roundabouts,
neckdowns, traffic platforms, curves or other measures, which creates a safer environment for
drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike.
Since traffic calming measures slow vehicle speeds,they can be ideal solutions to the problem of
through traffic on local streets, or `cut-throughs'. Consistent congestion on arterial roads can
divert fast-moving commuter traffic to local streets, creating both quality-of-life and safety
issues for residents. Many residents demand that their streets be made one-way, or closed
entirely to non-local traffic. Not only do both of these solutions create new problems on other
local streets, but the latter might also create legal issues. A public street network cannot be
selectively privatized. The best solution is to reduce the systemic traffic congestion, which would
then remove the incentive for commuters to use local streets. Where this is not possible,traffic
calming can be introduced to slow vehicle speeds. This both increases safety and reduces the
attractiveness of the local street as a `cut-through'. This must be done cautiously,however, so as
not to unduly impact other local streets.
Traffic signals have only been proposed after much thought. Transportation engineers maintain
that, for an intersection with ongoing level-of-service failure, signalization is preferable to stop-
sign control and police control in both safety and traffic operation. Stop-sign control can be
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
dysfunctional and dangerous with high vehicular volumes. Police detail control offers a quick
traffic control mitigation but is subject to human inconsistency and error, the vagaries of weather
and the uncertainties of personnel availability. While some residents may object to signalization
based on the perceived nuisance impacts of traffic queuing, these concerns can be partially
allayed with optimum signal timing that is demand-triggered.
Criteria for selecting intersections to be analyzed for possible improvement included: incidence
of accidents at the location; peak hour delays and queues; and geometric deficiencies. The
number of intersections that could be reviewed for possible improvement as part of the
development of the Transportation Element was limited. The twelve intersections listed below
were advanced for review based on their accident history and the other statistical measures, as
well as discussions with the Town of Lexington Planning and Engineering Departments.
The remaining intersections listed, although important locations with a variety of traffic issues,
were not proposed for improvement at this time. Some of these secondary intersections have
been the subject of earlier analyses and planning efforts. Others did not rank as high in the need
for improvements but might well be strong candidates for consideration for upgrading at a later
time.
Intersections Reviewed For Possible Improvements
1. Bedford Street at Hartwell Avenue
2. Bedford Street at Eldred Street
3. Maple Street at Mass. Avenue
4. Lowell Street at Maple Street
5. Bedford Street at Worthen Road
6. Concord Avenue at Waltham Street
7. Marrett Road at Waltham Street
8. Woburn Street/Mass. Avenue at Fletcher Avenue
9. Pleasant Street at Mass. Avenue
10. Pleasant Street at Watertown Street
11. Old Mass. Avenue/Mass. Avenue/Wood Street
12. Marrett Road at Spring Street
Intersections Reviewed But Reason
Not Designated for Inclusion in Implementation
1. Bedford Street at Route 128 Highway interchanges
2. Bedford Street at Harrington Road National Register, historic district
and Hancock Street
Bedford Street at Route 128 was rated as the highest accident location. This location is a full clover-leaf
interchange and is under MassHighway jurisdiction. This interchange was not reviewed for improvements as part of
this scope; however it is recognized that the number of accidents warrants further review. It is also recognized that
this intersection has impacts on the intersection of Bedford Street at Hartwell Avenue and vice versa. The
intersection of Bedford at Hartwell will be reviewed for possible improvements and those improvements could have
positive impacts on the interchange.
....../..,�...............................................................................�...v.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................�..j..............................
3. Waltham Street at Hayden Avenue Channelization improvements
implemented 1999-2000
4. Lowell Street at Woburn Street Reconstructed
5. Hartwell Avenue at Maguire Road Design and permitting complete.
No funding for construction
6. Marrett Road at Route 128 Highway interchange
7. Mass. Avenue/Old Mass. Avenue/Marrett Road Lower number of accidents
8. Lowell Street at East Street Lower number of accidents
9. Mass Avenue at Grant Street Lower number of accidents
The criteria used to evaluate the improvements considered as part of the screening process
included:
❖ Roadway safety/accident record
❖ Vehicular capacity
❖ Cost of likely improvements
❖ Impact on or constraints imposed by community character
❖ Pedestrian and bicycle safety
❖ Impacts to adjacent land uses outside of the existing right-of-way (ROW)
❖ Maintenance requirements
Each action was identified as a near term, intermediate term, or long term action item for
implementation. The time line utilized for these recommendations is as follows:
Table 3 lists the actions considered for each intersection, the likely timeframe for each action, the
number of accidents at each intersection, and the evaluation of each improvement. The time
frames are defined as follows: Near Term— 1-2 Years; Intermediate—2-5 years; Long-Term—
5+years.
Near Term Action improvements are low in cost and can be quickly implemented. Intermediate
Actions require more time to implement and involve greater cost than Near Term Actions.
Long-Term Actions entail high capital investments, might involve additional major players at
every step (e.g., MassHighway), or may have a longer process to be planned, designed,permitted
and constructed. Such projects are likely to involve further complications such as Environmental
Impact Reports. For some intersections, different improvements were identified in separate time
frames.
Most of the actions were carried into the plan with minor changes and reference Goals 4.A and
4.13. Any improvements at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Wood Street were
eliminated because of concerns about adverse impacts on the Minuteman National Historical
Park.
............................................/......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................•..................................................../...................................................
Table 3: Intersection Improvement Alternatives
Currently Number of
Unsignalized t a� aQ °'p
Intersection orSianalized Action Items Accidents2 ��� Qa G Q� G° pc Q° ��� tS`a Comments
Ll Significantly
(U/s) Significantly improvec Significantly improve Low Improves character enhanced No impact Low maintenance
X Moderate X
Slightly improved Slightly improved Moderate Maintains character Slightly enhanced Minor impact maintenance
Not improved Not improved High Diminishes character Not enhanced Major impacts High maintenance
Bedford Street S Modify phasing split eastbound Hartwell and westbound 83 Increases delay on mainline
Bedford jughandle so they run separate Term) ❑ • ❑ ❑ ❑ (Bedford Street).State numbered
at Hartwell x X rote.
Avenue
Provide three lanes on the jughandle(a shared left- Increases delay on mainline
turn/through lane and two through lanes)and four lanes c (Bedford Street).State numbered
Hartwell(two exclusive ell lanes and two exclusive route.
right-turn lanes).Upgrade traffic signal equipment. ❑ ❑ • ❑ •
Implement new phasing and timing(including a split ph.,
for Hartwell Avenue and the jug hand le).(LOng Termj'
Bedford Street U
Install traffic signal.Coordinate with signal at Hartwell Depending an volumes,third lane
Avenue.Widen Bedford to three lanes northbound. Instal 55 could come directly from Route 128
at Eldred Street detectors to monitor queues from the southbound I- ❑ ❑ • X ❑ • x southbound off-ramp.Slate
95/Route 128 exit ramp(Long Term)' numbered route.
Marrett Road at S Install"Yield"sign at channelized right turn on southboun 47 State jurisdiction)slate process
X
Waltham Street
Waltham.(Near Term) �/ • ❑ • ❑ ❑ required.
^ ^
Consolidate driveway access at Gulf Stalion on southwes State jurisdiction)state process
corner and provide sldewalk.(Intermediate Term) v v ❑ ❑ v v ❑ required.
Install signal warning on southbound Waltham Street due ^ ^ ^ ^ State jurisdiction)state process
to limited sight distance.(Options:Graphic signal ahead • • • ❑ required.
sign or"Red Signal Ahead"automated sign)(Inlermediat
Term)
Re-stripe Waltham Street northbound and southbound to State jurisdiction)state process
provide an exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/rig required.
turn lane.Install pedestrian heads and phasing Long the signal ❑ •
equipment.Adjust signal timing and phasing(Long TermJ'.
Provide two approach lanes on eastbound Marretl Road Provides opportunity for a right-turn
(an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through/rIght-turt overlap from southbound Waltham
lane).(Long Term) ❑ ❑ • • • ❑ esst jurisdiction)slate
process process required.
fatall traffic signal.Consider signalizing Marretl at Difficult turns during peaks,unsafe
Maple Street at U assachusetts Ave and coordinate the two syslems(Lon 44 ❑ ❑ • • ❑ X x pedestrian crossings.Stale
Massachusetts erm)s numbered route.
1 Represents accidents occurring from 1999 through part of 2002.Compiled by the Town of Lexington Planning Department and Vanasse Hangen Brustlin from Town of Lexington Police Department records.
2 Near Term Actions represent items to be provided within 1-2 years.Consist of fairly low cost and easily installed improvements.The Near
Term Action Items wIlI most likely constitute improvements that are low In cost and high in effectiveness.The time line for Intermediate Term
Action Items is 2-5 years. Long-Term Action items will be improvements that are high in capital investments,Involve various parties(i.e.
MassHighway,etc.),or may have a longer process to get implemented(i.e.,require an Environmental Impact Report,etc.).The time line for the
long-term improvements is 5 years or more.
3 A decision must be made on the left turn lane on Marrett Road prior to these improvements being carried forward so the intersection is
designed accordingly.
4 Traffic counts and Intersection analysis would need to be conducted to determine more details in the design of these improvements.
5 All signal installations should consider incorporating ornamental signal equipment.
6 Detailed traffic analysis would need to be conducted to determine the exact effectiveness these Improvements would have on traffic operations.
7 A more detailed review of the curb lines and a determination of the location of the right-of-way would need to be conducted to determine the full impact on adjacent parcels of land.
Table 3: Intersection Improvement Alternatives
0
yll a�Il a�'``e o
y � Jy ay
Currently Number of o�y � �v�Baca �eoa�
Unsignalized C a� aQ o�
Intersection or Signalized Action Items Accidents2 ��� Qa G Q� G° pc Qo ��� �`y Comments
❑ Significantly
(U/$) Significantly improvec Significantly Improved Low Improves character enhanced No impact Low maintenance
X Moderate X
Slightly improved Slightly improved Moderate Maintains character Slightly enhanced Minor impact maintenance
Not improved Not improved High Diminishes character Not enhanced Major impacts High maintenance
Paint gore(zebra)striping around the islands with signal Ped push buttons do not function.
Maple Street at S 40
posts to better delineate the islands.(Near Term) Non ADACOmpllant ped zing.No
mast arms post mounted).No left
Lowell Street X X
arrow indication NS
Paint left-turn lane on Maple Street(lane is already in
operation)(NearTerm) X X ❑ X X ❑ ❑
Upgrade signal equipment to provide protected left-turn Ped push buttons do not function.
phasing on northbound Lowell approach and pedestrian Non ADA-compliant ped zing.Post
crossings.Upgrade pedestrian crossings to be ADA- ❑ ❑ X X ❑ ❑ ❑ mounted signals.No left arrow
compllant(Inlermetliale Term).' indication northbound.State
numbered route.
Investlgate limited widening of Lowell Street approaches State numbered route.
to provide an exclusive left-turn lane in each direction.
Further analysis will be required to determine if widening
can accomplished with little or no Impact to adjacent ❑ ❑ X X X • ❑
properties.(Long Term)
Investigate limited widening of Wnchester Street State numbered route.
approach to provide an additional lane.Further analysis
will be required i
determne If widening can be ❑ ❑ X X X • ❑
accomplished with little no impact to adjacent
propertles.(Long Term)
Move channelized right-turn lanes closer to approaches. Reduces the number of conflict
(Long Term) points and slows vehicles prior to
X X X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ school pedestrian crossing o Mapl
west of the Intersection.Provides a
large swath for landscaping,etc.
State numbered route.
Worthen Road S Paint a crosswalk across Camelia Drive(sidewalk and 30 State numbered route.
at Bedford ramps already provided)(Near Term) • • ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Street
Restripe the Worthen Road approach with an exclusive Could delay Bedford Street a little
left-turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane. when Camelia Drive approach is
Implement a split phase operation of the traffic signal for ❑ • ❑ X ❑ • ❑ called.State numbered route.
Worthen Road and Camelia Drive.(Near Term)
Provide an exclusive left-turn lane on northbound Bedford State numbered route.
Road onto Worthen Road.(Intermedlate Term) ❑ X ❑ X X X ❑
Concord Avenue S Restripe Waltham Streetapproaches for an exclusive left 2$
turn and a shared through/right-turn lane.Approaches ar
at Waltham approximatey43 feet wide.Retime traffic signal to El El El X X [:1 1:1
Street Term) more time for westbound Concord Avenue.(Near
Upgrade signal equipment to provide protected left-turn
phases on Waltham S(ree[(Intermediate Term):s
❑ ❑ X X ❑ ❑ ❑
Table 3: Intersection Improvement Alternatives
0
oa o� a�Il a Q'``e o
o � Jy ao
Currently Number of o�0 5 � �v�Baca �eoa�
Unsignalized C a� aQ o�
Intersection or Signalized Action Items Accidents2 ��Q Pa �' Q� Go P� Qo `�Q �`y Comments
❑ Significantly
(U/S) Significantly improvec Significantly improve Low Improves character enhanced No impact Low maintenance
X Moderate X
Slightly improved Slightly improved Moderate Maintains character Slightly enhanced Minor impact maintenance
Not improved Not improved High Diminishes character Not enhanced Major impacts High maintenance
Widen westbound Concord Avenue to provide two lanes.
Additional analysis would be necessary to determine the
lane utilization of this approach(Long Term. ❑ ❑ X • X X X
Massachusetts U Install bulb-out on Woburn Street to reduce amount of 26
pavement at the intersection and to slow and better ❑ • X ❑ ❑ ❑ X
Avenue at channelize vehicles exiting Woburn Street onto
Woburn Massachusetts Avenue.(Near Term)
Street/Winthrop Extend island westward to prohibit vehlcles from crossing Restricts access for Winthrop Road,
Street Massachusetts Avenue be ween Winthrop Street and ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Woburn Street.(Near Term)
Implement a right-in/right-out only policy on Winthrop Restricts access for Winthrop Road.
Street.Restrict left turns from Massachusetts Avenue ont
Woburn Street via the eastern leg of triangle by extending ❑ ❑ X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
the Island.(Near Term)
Paint left-turn lane on eastbound Massachusetts Parking may need to be removed.
Avenue.(Near Term) X X ❑ X X ❑ ❑
Install modern roundabout(Long Term)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ X X
Install traffic slgnal(Long Terms
❑ ❑ ❑ X X
Pleasant Street U Install modern roundabout(Long Term) 18 Difficult turns during peaks,unsafe
at ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ X X pedestrian crossings.
Massachusetts Install traffic signal.Extend curb lines to better delineate Difficult turns during peaks,unsafe
Avenue intersection(Long Term)' ❑ ❑ • • ❑ X X pedestrian crossings.
Pleasant Street U Install modern roundabout(Long Term) 13
/� /�
at Watertown ❑ ❑ • ❑ ❑ X X
Street
Install traffic slgnal(LOng Termg ❑ ❑ • • ❑ Sight distance issues,Queues block
XX turning movements,driver indecision
Massachusetts U install a short right-turn lane on Wood Street with posalibl, 11
limited widening.(Intermediate Term)
Avenue at Wood
Street X X X • X X ❑
Table 3: Intersection Improvement Alternatives
a� `o o�ti ey
°a�\ wo aJ5 coo
Currently Number of o°o a`oy�Qao�
Unsianalized t
Intersection or Signalized Action Items Accidents2 ��� Qa rj Quo 6°y p�° Qoa ��Q �S`a� Comments
❑ Significantly
(U/S) Significantly improve Significantly improve Low Improves character enhanced No impact Low maintenance
X Moderate X
Slightly improved Slightly improved Moderate Maintains character Slightly enhanced Minor impact maintenance
Not improved Not improved High Diminishes character Not enhanced Major impacts High maintenance
Widen Wood Street to provide two full approach lanes(a
left-turn lane and a right-turn lane)and an adequate
departure lane.Widen toward-95/Route 128.(Lang ❑ X • • X • ❑
Term)
Spring Street at U Install an island on northbound Spring Street to better 7
channelize vehicles entering and exiting Spring Street. El X X ❑ ❑ ❑ X
Marrett Road (Intermediate Term)
Extend northwest corner of Spring Street to reduce the
width el eastbound Marrett Road and to improve El X X ❑ ❑ ❑ X
channeliz ation.(Intermediate Term)
Extend curb from one-way Bridge Street toward Morrell
Road reduce the amount of pavement and to better El X X El El El X
channel elize vehicles.(Intermediate Term)
Provide a separate left-turn lane on westbound Marrett
Street.(Intermediate Term)
❑ X X X X X ❑
Install modern roundabout(Lang Term)
❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ X X
TRANSIT
Strategies
While the MBTA is the major provider of transit service in the area, it cannot be relied upon to
significantly increase service to Lexington in the near future. This is due both to the MBTA's
current financial struggles and Lexington's relatively low population density and outlying
position in the MBTA service area. Consequently, transit strategies that could be implemented
locally have been emphasized. The actions listed below generally focus on making connections
between existing transit nodes, employment centers, and other activity centers. Those
connections could be made by a variety of services, which could be anything from an expanded
LEXPRESS service to a sub-regional transit provider, to privately funded services like the
existing Alewife Shuttle.
The transit strategies considered include:
❖ Establish Regional Commuting Links to Lexington
Establish links to Lexington from regional transit services to provide additional transit
alternatives for regional commuters to Lexington. These alternatives could be established
by providing connections to commuter rail stations in nearby communities.
❖ Improve Commuting to Lexington from Nearby Communities
Improve connections between Lexington and nearby communities to provide additional
transit options for commuters from nearby towns.
❖ Expand Commuting and Non-Work Trip Options for Lexington Residents
Provide additional services within Lexington to enhance non-automotive travel options
for work and non-work trips for Lexington residents.
Based on the transit strategies described above, as well as analysis of relevant data,potential
actions were identified and evaluated for inclusion in the Transportation Element. The following
sections describe the actions listed above and indicate whether the TEAC supported inclusion of
the measure in the plan.
Potential Actions—Regional Commuting Links
❖ Establish Link To Lowell Commuter Rail Line at the Anderson Regional
Transportation Center in Woburn
This measure would establish shuttle service between the major employment center on
Hartwell Avenue and the Lowell Commuter Rail Line. The measure would provide
service between the town's major employment center and a major regional catchment
area along the 1-93 corridor in northern Massachusetts and New Hampshire. This regional
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Map 6.
Regional
Transportation
Anderson RTC
Network:
3 Major Roads
BE
and
22 L Commuter Rail
."
Line
4
12
Winche er Center
Legend
ARIL —OU
mm 2
Lincoln Intermodal Facilities
Commuter Rail Stations
Fitchburg
Line � � alewife Train
Station:
Red Line
&Buses_ Municipal Boundaries
Waverly
Waltha
5000 0 5000 10000
Prepared by Lexington Planning Department.Source: MassGIS,Town of Lexington
advantage will increase when Lowell commuter rail service is extended to Nashua,New
Hampshire. One potential drawback is that the shuttle must travel in heavy traffic on
Route 128. The town's Transportation Coordinator is investigating the possible use of
buses that currently are deadheading from Woburn in the morning and returning in the
evening. The committee supported this concept because of the large workforce in the
Hartwell Avenue area and the number of commuters from the north. Included in
Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.1.
❖ Establish Link To Lowell Commuter Rail Line at Winchester Center
This measure would establish shuttle service between the Lexington Town Center and the
Lowell Commuter Rail Line. It would serve local areas in Lexington (Countryside) and
Winchester. It would entail less travel through traffic congestion than the Woburn
connection but would require a longer train ride for suburban commuters. It would
benefit from the extension of the Lowell Line to Nashua,New Hampshire. The
committee accepted this measure as a long-term action. Included in Implementing
Actions; Goal 2.A.4.
❖ Establish Link To Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line from Lincoln
This would establish a connection from the Lincoln Commuter Rail station to Hartwell
Avenue and Lexington Center. It would provide the best connection to the Hartwell
Avenue area from the Fitchburg Line but would not provide any other transit connections
or service for local residents. This measure would have little impact on traffic conditions
in Lexington because it would serve commuters coming from the west to Hartwell
Avenue. Because of its limited transit connections and limited impact on traffic
conditions within the town, the committee did not support its inclusion in the plan. Not
Designated for Inclusion in Implementing Actions.
❖ Establish Link To Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line from Waltham
This would establish a direct connection from the Waltham Commuter Rail station in
Waltham Center to Hayden/Spring and Lexington Center. Currently, riders between
Waltham Center and Lexington Center must transfer between LEXPRESS and the
Waltham CitiBus. This action would also provide connections to other transit services in
Waltham Center and would serve a significant local catchment area in Waltham. It could
provide all day service to Lexington Center and peak hour service to Hayden/Spring. The
committee believes this measure provides the most promising link to the Fitchburg
Commuter Rail Line and supported its inclusion in the plan. In addition, it could enhance
transit service along Waltham Street for Lexington residents (see Use Commuter Rail
Connection to Waltham Center to Provide Local Service to Waltham). Included in
Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.2.
2 The process of a train or bus returning empty(with no passengers)to the yard or garage.
....../...�...............................................................................�...v.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................�..j..............................
❖ Establish Link To Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line from Belmont
This would establish a connection from the Waverly Commuter Rail station in Belmont
to Hayden/Spring and/or Lexington Center. Because this measure would provide
connections to limited transit services in Waverly Square and would entail a longer train
ride to reach Waverly for commuters, the committee did not include it in the plan. Not
Designated for Inclusion in Implementing Actions.
❖ Establish Link To Worcester Commuter Rail Line from Auburndale
This would connect Auburndale (Riverside Station intermodal facility)to Hayden/Spring
and Lexington Center. This could involve a possible extension of the Waltham
connection described above. Since not all trains stop at Auburndale and there are no other
transit connections available, the committee did not include this measure in the plan. Not
Designated for Inclusion in implementing Actions.
Potential Actions—Links to Nearby Communities
❖ Provide Connection To Green Line at Riverside
This action provides service between the Riverside Green Line stop and Hartwell Avenue
or Hayden/Spring. It could serve reverse commuters from Brookline and Boston as well
as a local catchment area in Newton. Because the shuttle bus would compete with auto
traffic on local roadways and there would be no "guaranteed connection" due to the
uncertainty of the Green Line schedule this measure was not adopted by the committee.
Not Designated for Inclusion in Implementing Actions.
❖ Extend MBTA Bus Route #78 (Arlmont Village—Harvard Station)
Extend MBTA bus route #78 to Hayden/Spring during peak hours. Since this measure
would be similar to the 128 Business Council TMA Alewife Shuttle service which
currently provides peak hour service to Hayden/Spring, it is included in the plan in the
event the 128 Business Council service is reduced or eliminated. Included in
Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.5.
❖ Extend MBTA Bus Route #77 (Arlington Heights—Harvard Station)
Extend MBTA bus route #77 to Lexington Center to provide more direct service for
Arlington residents. This measure is an extension of an existing route and would be
simple and relatively inexpensive to implement. The committee recommended this
action. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.6.
❖ Use Proposed Connection to Commuter Rail at Waltham to Provide Local Service
To Waltham
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The Waltham Center—Lexington Center Connection(as described above) could provide
local service to the Lexington Street/Waltham Street corridor including a connection with
other buses in Waltham Center. This measure was included in the plan because it uses
one service to support regional commuting as well as improve service for residents.
Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.2.
❖ Use Proposed Connections To Commuter Rail at Winchester Center to Provide
Local Service To Winchester
The Winchester Center—Lexington Center Connection (as described above)would
provide limited local service and very limited service to other buses. As a result,the
committee did not include it in the plan. Not Designated for Inclusion in Implementing
Actions.
Potential Actions—Expand Options for Lexington Residents
❖ Extend Hours of Operation for LEXPRESS
Extended hours for LEXPRESS could provide an option for Lexington commuters who
need service before or after existing service hours. Commuter use may be limited by the
need for transfers. The potential increase in ridership might not offset the increased cost
of operating this service. Because of current fiscal limitations,the committee included
this measure as a long-term action. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.3.
❖ Expand Frequency of Service for LEXPRESS
More frequent service would provide greater flexibility for Lexington commuters and
non-commuting riders. Commuter use may be limited by the need for transfers and the
potential increase in ridership might not offset the increased cost of operating this service.
As with extended hours of operation,the committee recommended this measure as a long
term action. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.A.3.
❖ Provide Express Buses from Lexington Center to Boston
This measure would resurrect a service that was once provided. It would require
expanded parking in the Town Center or an extensive neighborhood collector bus service
to the Town Center(see LEXPRESS service improvements above). This may not provide
faster service to downtown Boston than existing connections to Alewife or proposed
connections to commuter rail and it would compete with existing service to the Red Line
at Alewife station. As a result, the committee did not include it in its recommendations.
Not Designated for Inclusion in Implementing Actions.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is an array of strategies and actions that focus on
supporting and encouraging the use of alternatives to driving alone. These include a wide variety
of measures to promote carpools, vanpools, mass transit, bicycling, walking, and more. They
also include actions to reduce the total amount of travel, especially during peak travel times.
Table 9, at the end of this sections, provides a list of common TDM measures and the type of trip
they can effectively serve. A number of TDM measures are already being implemented in
Lexington (see Existing Conditions section) and some TDM measures are not particularly
applicable to Lexington's needs. The emphasis in this plan is on reinforcing or strengthening
existing actions and implementing new actions that can reasonably be expected to have an effect
for this community.
Due to the fact that existing programs in Lexington are quite limited, and that many strategies
under the TDM umbrella are available, the participation process delved into these alternative
transportation policies in considerable detail.
To determine the appropriate measures for Lexington, the TEAC began by brainstorming
answers to the question, "What would it take to get you out of your car?" To avoid limiting the
discussion to preconceived ideas, this was done before the formal presentation of the "toolbox"
of TDM measures generally available. Two lists were developed: one for commute trips and one
for non-commute (all other)trips. Once the lists were developed, the group then voted for the
five measures they thought should be the highest priority for Lexington, and prioritized them. In
the next session, the survey results were used to guide a group discussion of a range of common
TDM measures and their suitability to Lexington. For both the commute and the non-commute
trip, frequency and reliability of service were highly ranked.
TDM Measures— Survey Results for Commute Trips
A total of 27 suggestions were made for discouraging single-occupancy vehicle commuting.
Each member voted for five measures, assigning them a value between 1 (low priority) and 5
(high priority). The number of votes reflects how many committee members voted for the
measure and the score reflects the total value assigned to the measure by the members voting on
it. The top five suggestions by both frequency and priority are listed in Table 4. Other measures
with one or more scores of"4" or "5" (the highest priorities) are listed in Table 5. Four of the top
five measures suggest improvements to transit service; the fifth suggests more convenient
ridesharing. While the top four measures are perhaps directed at mass transit, they also suggest
improvements for paratransit services such as shuttle buses and vanpools.
Table 4. Highest Scoring TDM Commute Trip Measures
Measure Votes Score
❖ Frequent service for flexibility 13 48
❖ Better access to transit 10 27
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
❖ Reliability 8 28
❖ Reasonable time 7 22
❖ Close car ooler 5 19
Table 5. Other High Scoring Commute Trip Measures
Measure Votes Score
❖ Information about choices 5 15
❖ Public priority 4 15
❖ Increase in parking costs 5 14
❖ Door to door service 3 13
❖ Shower at work 5 11
❖ Transit link to commuter rail 4 9
❖ Safe bike route 4 9
❖ Financial incentive 3 8
❖ Employer leadership 2 7
❖ Regular work hours 3 6
❖ Control over own schedule 2 6
❖ Work at home 2 5
❖ Live closer to work 1 5
TDM Measures— Survey Results for Non-Commute Trips
A total of 15 suggestions were made for TDM measures related to non-commute trips (all trips
other than trips to work). The measures with the most votes and highest scores are listed in Table
6. As with commute trips, there was a desire for more frequent transit service but there was also
a focus on mixed land use to facilitate shorter, non-automotive trips. Other measures with one or
more scores of"4" or"5" (the highest priorities) are listed in Table 7.
Table 6. Highest Scoring TDM Non-Commute Tri Measures
Votes Score
❖ Frequency of service 15 67
d• Variety in town center 12 37
❖ Pick-up and delivery 10 28
❖ Live closer to shop and errands 8 26
❖ More/off-peak park and ride 6 26
Table 7. Other High Scoria Non-Commute Trip Measures
Measures Votes Score
❖ Night service to entertainment 10 25
❖ Sunday Service 7 20
❖ Safety on the T 6 16
❖ Urban ring/circumferential transit 6 15
❖ Convenient and secure bike facilities 7 13
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
��
Potential Actions
Based on the results of the exercise, existing TDM measures in Lexington, and the range of
measures generally available, the following strategies and actions were recommended for
implementation by the TEAC.
❖ Provide Information on Commuting Choices
A continuing theme with the TEAC was the need to educate the public, especially
commuters, on the options available and the advantages of those options. This strategy
focuses on helping commuters and others make informed decisions about their travel
modes. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.C.3.
• Work with the Transportation Coordinator and other officials, as well as private
sources, to establish an effective and comprehensive marketing program utilizing:
1. Flyers 4. Information kiosks
2. Posters in the Town Center, 5. Posters in office lobbies
Community Centers,Public 6. Flyers mailed with bills
Buildings, etc. 7. Lexington Minuteman or
3. Transportation fairs other newspapers
• Work with the Transportation Coordinator and other officials to enhance the
Transportation section of the Town's Website. Provide all transportation measures
and services in addition to LEXPRESS schedules and maps. Include links to
other resources including MBTA, CARAVAN, the Route 128 Business Council,
etc.
❖ Strengthen Article XII (Traffic) of the Zoning Bylaw
Article XII, (Art. XII, 135-71-73), while a commendable tool, is unclear as to the
enforcement and monitoring of special permit conditions that are established under it. A
revised policy would give the Town more `teeth' vis-a-vis TDM,traffic mitigations, and
private developers. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.C.I.
❖ Support Carpooling
The emphasis in this strategy is to take immediate, low cost action to foster increased
ridesharing. The actions build on existing efforts and focus on education and providing
formal support for carpoolers. Many people reject carpooling because they perceive it as
inconvenient, or are unaware of potential carpoolers in their area. Building on existing
public and private programs to support carpooling extends scarce resources. One
relatively new option is carsharing, which provides convenient, short-term rental of an
automobile for subscribers. Rentals may be from anywhere between 30 minutes and 24
hours. Zipcar, a private company in the Boston, DC, and NYC areas, uses the internet to
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
manage rental of a network of cars stored at reserved parking places in urban
neighborhoods and at transit stations. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.C.2.
• Begin by incorporating and building upon existing local initiatives by the town of
Lexington and private sources.
• Promote ridematching services offered by CARAVAN for Commuters and/or the
Route 128 Business Council.
• Collect information, conduct outreach and implement marketing strategies.
• Seek financial incentives for carpoolers/vanpoolers.
• Serve both Lexington residents and Lexington employees.
• Explore options for carsharing programs such as Zipcar
❖ Provide Financial Incentives for Alternative Modes of Travel
Other financial incentives to alter automobile use and shift to other modes of travel also
exist. A few strategies are listed below. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.C.5.
• Create a town-wide program that encourages alternative travel using credits
and/or lotteries.
• Extend credits through employers or retail establishments to those who do not
drive alone. Credits can be used for actual gifts or for a regular lottery drawing.
• Obtain gifts or lottery prizes from sponsors and from the Town. Should include
transportation-related gifts including bicycles, sneakers, T-Passes, LEXPRESS
tickets, gas coupons for carpoolers, etc.
• Have program work on an honor system with the disincentive for cheating being
the advertising of the winners.
• Explore alternative sources of funds for financial incentives.
❖ Establish TMA Services
Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) are alternative transportation
implementing groups that take advantage of economies of scale among employers who
wish to provide supportive service for commuters who do not drive. Employers
contribute funds and provide other kinds of support(from office space to internet
services)to a central organization, which in turn may provide ridematching services,run
shuttle buses, organize a Guaranteed Ride Home program, or distribute bicycle maps.
Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.C.6
• Encourage or mandate all employers (over a threshold number of employees)to
join a TMA
• Encourage formation of Hartwell Avenue TMA to serve Hanscom Field,
Hanscom AFB, and area businesses.
3 A Guaranteed Ride Home program ensures that employees will be able to get home even if they have to leave in
the middle of the day or work late,thus missing a shuttle bus or carpool departure. Such services may be provided
by taxi vouchers or an on-call paratransit service.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
'x7
❖ Provide Small-Scale Services in Office Parks
This strategy focuses on providing opportunities to reduce the incidence of vehicular trips
or eliminate the need to travel by car altogether and to allow travel needs to be served by
walking. Some commuters may feel that they need to use their automobile during the
workday. Providing a range of on-site or nearby options for lunches, dry cleaning, day
care, and convenience shopping will remove one constraint to using alternative modes.
Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 2.C.7.
• Establish mixed use districts and associated zoning changes as a long-term
measure.
• Encourage small businesses to use lunch trucks to bring lunch to the employees
rather than employees going to lunch.
• Provide a number of trucks, offering a variety of cuisines, which visit a different
office park or Town Center daily, providing variety to the employees.
❖ Provide Incentives to Reduce Parking Demand (and Automobile Use)
This strategy is aimed at providing financial incentives to reduce automobile use by
focusing on paying commuters not to park instead of subsidizing their parking. One
`hidden subsidy' to SOV commuting is the provision of free parking. The employer
nearly always pays the cost of obtaining land, constructing parking lots or garages, and
maintaining them. If employees are given a choice of receiving this benefit in the form of
a parking space, a significant cash payment, or other attractive benefit, they will have a
further incentive not to drive. Restricting the total parking supply reinforces this
incentive. In addition, Lexington's regulations should be examined to ensure that they do
not create unnecessarily large numbers of parking spaces. Included in Implementing
Actions; Goal 3.A.1 and Goal 3.A.2.
• Establish a parking cash-out 4 program for employers.
• Explore Federal, State, or Local tax breaks or other sources of funds for
reimbursing employers based on actual cash-back.
• Review minimum parking standards in the Zoning Bylaw
4 Parking cash-out refers both to a California state program and to a project under the Federal Commuter Choice
program. Both establish standards for employers to offer employees a choice of cash or a free parking space.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................../...�...............................................................................�...v.....................................
0
° y y cad v y
H _ �
E O v ° v o y °
e
Car Sharing(e.g.,ZpCar) X X i
Company car available during the day for work trips X X
Guaranteed Ride Horne X X X X
Bike Discounts,Tncentives,Facilities(showers/lockers) X X X X X
Bike Lanes,paths and Parking X X X X X X
Carpool/Vanpool Program X X X X X X
Scho+alpool X
Priority parking(especially in Town Center) X X
e
Convenience retail,on site,(resident al,and office), X
Delivery services(retail)including online shopping X
Transit pass purchase(pre-tax) X X X
Transit pass subsidy X X X X X X X X
Local hiring program
Location efficient mortgages X X X
Local shuttle service(LEXPRESS)including night/weekend service, X X X, X,
Express buses and other transit services/links X X
Park,cStRidefacilities X X
Site design X X X X X
Mixed use and variety of services and retail X X X X X '
Graduated parking rates(to Am center vs. Satellite lots vs. office parks) X X X
Transit/T1I Infarination(bczoths,pesters,marketing) X X X X X X X
Financial Incentives X X X X X X X X
Table 9: TDM Measures By Trip Type
BICYCLING AND WALKING
An early-morning walk is a blessing for the whole day. Henry David Thoreau
A vigorous five-mile walk will do more good for an unhappy but otherwise healthy adult than all
the medicine and psychology in the world. Paul Dudley White
In addition to the land use changes described above that would foster walking and bicycling, the
TEAC also considered improvements to sidewalks, walkways, and bicycle paths that would
provide increased opportunities for walking and bicycling. The principal thrust of this was to
consider incorporation of previous work of the Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee into the
Transportation Element, including the bicycle network plan and the sidewalk inventory
developed by the committee. The element would support the further expansion of the Town's
bicycle network and sidewalks consistent with the network plan and sidewalk inventory.
Development of formal on-road bike lanes and off-road trails is constrained in Lexington, as the
Town is nearly built out. With this in mind, incremental infrastructure improvements, regulation,
and educational programs are urged.
One excellent educational program is offered by Safe Routes to Schools, an international
organization devoted to creating safe routes for children to walk or bicycle to school. Their aims
are to increase children's health and fitness and decrease traffic congestion created by parents
driving their children to school.
The group also considered several additional actions, including the following:
❖ Confirm and Support Townwide Bicycle Network
The existing network of routes, trails, and paths provides opportunities for recreational
cycling, dog-walking, inline skating, a convenient way to get to work or school, or to
provide the first or last leg of a multi-modal journey. There are many neighborhoods,
however, which are `land-locked' by busy intersections, highways, or conservation lands.
The proposed additions to the network have been chosen to create pedestrian and bicycle-
friendly links between neighborhoods, elementary schools, and major employment and
shopping areas. Included in Implementing Actions; Goals 2.13, 4.C, and 4.D.
• Update bicycle route signage— The Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee has
recently completed an inventory of existing signing to allow for upgrading and
expanding network signs.
• Develop "spot" improvement program—The network plan can be used to identify
locations where specific physical improvements can be made to eliminate
deficiencies in the network
• Incorporate bicycle "needs" in roadway projects—Roadway improvements should
explicitly recognize and consider the needs of bicyclists.
• Use bicycle needs to help prioritize roadway improvement— Incorporating bicycle
needs into roadway improvements should be a factor in establishing priorities for
roadway improvements.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• Maintain synergy with neighboring communities— coordination with adjacent
communities will allow for an integrated regional network.
• Encourage bicycle amenities (bike racks/lockers) at key locations—it is important
to provide storage and other amenities to facilitate the use of bikeways.
❖ Adopt Townwide bicycle and sidewalk standards and policies
Consistency in bicycle and pedestrian facilities is important both for safety and
aesthetics. Sudden changes in the width or texture of a path or sidewalk could throw a
user off balance, creating a potentially dangerous situation. A sidewalk that abruptly ends
may force a pedestrian to walk on a busy road. Maintaining design consistency also
creates a more aesthetically pleasing environment, in harmony with Lexington's existing
character. Included in Implementing Actions; Goals 2.11.7, 2.11.8
• Write and adopt policy on the importance of creating and maintaining sidewalks
for safety, health, and mobility
• Define standards for various bicycle facilities—Minimal standards should be
established for various types of facilities to assure that no substandard segments
of the network are created.
• Maintain consistency between facilities—establishment of minimum standards
will provide for consistency between facilities of the same type and increase
safety by removing sudden changes in quality of facilities.
• Enforce snow removal policies—where appropriate', bicycle and pedestrian
facilities should be kept clear of snow to facilitate year round use.
❖ Develop prioritization strategies for sidewalk improvements
When planning sidewalk improvements, the prioritization system typically reflects the
confluence of the physical condition of the sidewalk with its area or townwide
importance as a pedestrian link. The Lexington Department of Public Works, in its
annual capital budgeting process, employs a system that functions along these lines,but
the methodology could be standardized for maximum consistency. The selection process
also can be greatly aided by keeping the sidewalk inventory up-to-date and considering
the impact of surrounding land uses and traffic conditions. Included in Implementing
Actions; Goals 4.C.2 and 4.C.3.
• Update sidewalk inventory— The sidewalk inventory should be kept up-to-date to
facilitate avoiding breaks in the network.
• Develop screening criteria— criteria should be developed for establishing what
sidewalk improvements should be made.
'There is some debate between clearing bike paths so that bicycle commuters can use them year-round,as opposed
to leaving them snow-covered for cross-country skiing. A compromise may be possible,so that more isolated paths
(which are less suitable for commuter use)are reserved for skiers and major paths cleared for other users. There
needs to be dialogue around this issue, possibly with the Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee playing a key role.
....../...�...............................................................................�...v.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................�..j..............................
❖ Vigorously implement the Town's Transportation Demand Management Policy and
Traffic Bylaw to support walking and bicycling in and around public and private
development and redevelopment sites.
When a property being developed meets the thresholds set by Article XII, Traffic, of the
Zoning Bylaw, appropriate pedestrian and bicycle mitigations may be required, to the
degree practicable. This is of benefit to both the town and the developer, as the former
receives improved infrastructure and the latter is able to reduce the traffic impacts of the
development. In addition, the marginal costs of constructing sidewalks,recreational trails,
bike racks, or showers are relatively low. Included in Implementing Actions; 2.11.2.
❖ Develop and implement zoning regulations to support and encourage walking and
bicycling.
Zoning and subdivision regulations govern the physical infrastructure that can either
encourage or discourage walking and bicycling. In general, wider streets, a lack of
sidewalks and crosswalks, and large building setbacks tend to make a `pedestrian-
unfriendly' environment. Compared to newer suburban communities, Lexington's zoning
bylaw is fairly supportive of alternative modes. Improvements could be made in many
areas, however. Some examples are listed below. Included in Implementing Actions;
2.B.8.
• Require that bike lockers and showers be provided for employees in new
commercial buildings over a certain size.
• Limit waivers for sidewalks in new construction.
❖ Pursue 3E Programs (Education, Encouragement, Enforcement) in support of
walking and bicycling.
Education for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians is a simple and inexpensive way to
increase safety for all. Programs may be taught in schools, community centers, or other
civic and social facilities. Included in Implementing Actions; 2.D.2.
❖ Develop local Safe Routes to School program
Safe Routes to School is an international program that works to develop safe walking and
biking routes to elementary through high schools. The program is designed to both
decrease traffic congestion and increase children's health and fitness. Included in
Implementing Actions; 2.E.2.
o Consider pilot program— establish a pilot program to test the feasibility and
public acceptance of the program as a pilot for possible townwide adoption.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
❖ Keep informed of emerging technologies
o In addition to these actions,the committee also discussed the potential for human
transporters (i.e. the Segway)to impact the transportation system. While
acknowledging the possibilities, the committee felt that the transporters are in an
early stage of development and no consensus has emerged among experts as to an
appropriate role for them in the transportation system. The committee agreed that
the evolution of this invention should be monitored and appropriate actions
should be included in updates of the plan when the functions of transporters
become more clearly defined. Not Designated for Inclusion in Implementing
Actions.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
LAND USE
Land use and transportation are incontrovertibly linked. The availability of transportation affects
how land develops and the prevailing land use affects what transportation systems and services
can be effective and where improvements will be situated. One common example of the
relationship between land use and transportation is the highway interchange. When first built,
interchanges were typically located in rural locations surrounded by large amounts of vacant
land. The sudden increase in accessibility to these areas eventually made them desirable
locations for shopping centers, office parks, and light industrial growth, as well as the sprawling
subdivisions ringing the commercial nodes. The zoning that was put in place in mid-20` century
America usually reinforced this pattern rather than controlling it.
In reaction to increasing traffic, longer commutes, and the sprawling development style that is
largely dependent on the automobile, communities around the country have begun to reexamine
their policies on land use and transportation. The typically rigid and land-consuming separation
of residences from employment, commercial and institutional uses, induces the maximum use of
automobiles. In response, some localities, in areas where it makes sense to do so, have begun to
implement creative approaches to zoning that are more likely to mix uses, link to transit, and/or
be designed so as to minimize traffic generation, by encouraging complementary changes in land
use. The effects of such regulatory strategies are very gradual and incremental, but they should
not be ignored as a component in the transportation tool kit.
Highway interchanges are only one type of location where changes in land use policy might be
considered. Another example is offered by the central business district, where the zoning could
be changed to allow apartments on the upper stories of commercial buildings, thus providing
built-in customers and placing those people where there is transit. A third hypothetical location
might involve modernizing the list of allowed home occupations, to remove commuters from
local streets. A fourth would be to liberalize the creation of small-scale commercial service and
food businesses in districts where the land use is predominantly large scale office or research and
development use, for the purpose of reducing mid-day car trips or to minimize the incentive to
bring an automobile to work in the first place.
Other types of land use policies that impact transportation might involve community
improvement programs, accompanied by modifications to design standards, such as street
widths, setbacks, sidewalks, parking lots, and density, all of which have an effect on the
`walkability' of a place. Lexington Center, with its mix of commercial uses, wide sidewalks,
pedestrian amenities, frequent crosswalks, and traffic-calming design, is often bustling with
pedestrians and cyclists. Hartwell Avenue, by contrast, with extremely high traffic volumes, no
sidewalks, and deep building setbacks, is clearly auto-dominated.
Under any circumstance, it is important to see the retrofitting of land use at certain nodes or
locations as a secondary transportation and planning tool, one that helps only over time and in a
modest way. This is due to the fact that Lexington is a mostly built-out community, a mature
suburb where the development patterns are largely established, in contrast to more outlying
localities that are only partially developed and where growth might often occur at a more
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
sweeping scale. The objectives with these kinds of land use/transportation strategies are more
modest for an established community.
Further, any policies of this type that are considered for Lexington must be bound by some
precautions. Smallness of scale and compatibility with neighborhood character must be primary
considerations, and the link to transportation objectives must be present. The proposed changes
must be acceptable to those in the vicinity and to the community and seen as a benefit.
The Transportation Element planning process considered several actions involving land use
decisions that would support the goal of providing alternatives to driving alone. These actions
involve encouraging a mix of uses within certain nodes to reduce the need to travel by
automobile and allow greater use of walking, bicycling, transit, or TDM measures such as
ridesharing. Eight land use nodes were identified as locations where greater mixing of uses
would be both desirable and possible. The TEAC incorporated recommended land use changes in
each of these areas in the Implementing Actions for the plan. Descriptions of these areas and
potential actions are described in the sections that follow.
LAND USE NODES
Town Center
Map 7:
Town Center Town Center
Massachusetts /' yo5 eROyana FRA�k<� YORK ' Locus Map
0
lT
mQO�o G�Fk o
�PRq�NGj���. g�PPg G¢Pa�
'41 w
PARK
PARK
u\�l� �OPT� w�NTHR°P efF'��p
Issues/Observations
• Follows traditional New England town center form (scale, uses, etc.).
• Local and regional attractions (shopping, bikeway,restaurants, theater, historic sites)
• Multi-modal village:
• LEXPRESS transfer point at Depot Square
• MBTA bus routes
• Minuteman bike trail
• Extensive sidewalks
• Parking
• Traffic congestion.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• Lack of appropriate parking for tour buses
Potential Actions
• Establish housing as an allowed use in upper stories. Pursue this initiative in the next
year or two, because it will be years before the resultant market activity actually has an
impact. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.C.
• Introduction of new residential uses may require expansion of parking. Consider benefits
of structured parking as a catalyst for residential use and for the Center in general
Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.C.
• Consider creating a Business Improvement District to address transportation and parking
issues, among others. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.A.2.
East Lexington (Massachusetts Avenue)
Map 8:
East o - RqW East Lexington
Lexington, SQm
Massachusetts ' m Locus Map
WINN.
O
C
z
0
O
�c ASS
9RgOh,�s�TT � m
q�R
Oqk T9FT�� �
Je
l
Issues/Observations
• Offers more urban character than most of Lexington.
• On MBTA and LEXPRESS bus routes
Potential Action
• Encourage housing as an allowed use in upper stories. Included in Implementing
Actions; Goal 6.A.6.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Hayden Avenue and Spring Street
Map 9:
Hayden Ave& sy s. Hayden and Spring
Spring St,
Lexington, Locus Map
Massachusetts woe �o
gy22o��P GoQG
3
O
�z N9�FN
GG�G�gO B�N�AMI
Issues/Observations
• Range of density and intensity along Hayden/Spring (high) and Spring Street(low).
• Large front setbacks along Spring Street; variable setbacks along Hayden/Spring.
• Automobile focused.
• Lacks sidewalks.
• Dominated by two large corporate uses (Raytheon, Stride Rite).
• Address future of Raytheon parcel (6 of 96 acres zoned residential)
• Route 128 Shuttle Bus to Alewife Red Line station.
• Served by LEXPRESS.
• No MBTA bus service.
Potential Actions
• Retrofit with non-automotive infrastructure: Included in Implementing Actions; Goal
6.A.3.
• Provide multi-purpose trails for pedestrians and bikes
• Reduce front setbacks,both by way of zoning and physical retrofitting to allow
for transit, TDM and pedestrian facilities.
• Orient building entrances to street
• Provide bus pullouts and shelters
• Establish a mixed-use node along Spring Street and Hayden/Spring tied to CD rezoning
process and traffic mitigation(via Overlay District as a regulatory incentive or enhanced
base zoning). There is a generally more land area along Spring Street to accommodate
mixed development than along Hayden/Spring. Not specifically identified in
Implementing Actions but is suggested by Goal 6.A.4.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• Plan for near-term future of Raytheon parcel: potential for mixed-use development
(office, limited commercial, conservation/recreation and housing). Consider cohesive
mixed-use development approach. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.A.1.
• Plan for long-term future of Stride Rite parcel: mixed use with or without housing.
Consider cohesive mixed-use development approach. Included in Implementing
Actions; Goal 6.A.8.
Hartwell Avenue
Map 10:
Hartwell Ave, w Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, : Locus Map
Massachusetts
va
'.
9 eoFF
ell
e
s
® / o
L� P
Issues/Observations
• Low density, automobile focused development area.
• Large front setbacks from street.
• Lacks sidewalks.
• Significant employment area(over 2,000 employees have addresses along Hartwell
Avenue,plus additional employees on Wood Street, Hanscom AFB, Hanscom Field).
• Lack of transit service to the area(No LEXPRESS service, no MBTA service, except on
Saturday)
Potential Actions
• Retrofit with non-automotive infrastructure: Included in Implementing Actions; Goal
6.A.3.
• Provide multi-purpose trails for pedestrians and bikes
• Reduce front setbacks
• Orient building entrances to street
• Provide bus pullouts and shelters
• Provide for on-site multi-passenger vehicle drop-off/pickup areas
at individual businesses.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• Provide improvements possibly by means of a betterment district along the length of
Hartwell Avenue and Maguire Road. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.A.3.
• Create an Overlay District that allows a modest floor area ratio (FAR) increase if tied to a
commitment for an overall TDM strategy. Allow small density increases with mitigation
tied to transportation improvements (i.e., TDM, fixing the Bedford Street/Hartwell
Avenue jug handle intersection, etc.). Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.A.3.
• As an alternative or complementary policy, businesses wanting to add space along
Hartwell Avenue would be required to pay a fee that goes towards a fund dedicated to
implementing transit programs and/or infrastructure improvements along Hartwell
Avenue. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.A.3.
• Allow secondary commercial uses (day care,restaurant, small service businesses, etc.)to
create synergy between employers and service-type uses and to reduce auto trips.
Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 6.A.4.
Bedford Street/Route 128
Map 11:
Bedford St Bedford and 128
&Route 128, E
Lexington, Locus Map
Massachusetts
0
Fy p m
O
Q,
p
® PP�PP Np.
Sip...
WyPAPN
apd
'�W0.UANS �SpN F
F
L aGi 5\MpN�PR,.N"�p�5
q�{� j y2 ry0UL0ER
S
GU A ft
Issues/Observations
• Excellent regional highway access.
• Significantly underdeveloped, given location and access.
• Area of significant untapped potential.
• Served by MBTA bus
• No LEXPRESS service
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Potential Action
• Promote greater use intensity, if town chooses to talce such action for economic
development/tax base enhancement purposes. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal
6.A.7.
Marrett Road (Route 2A)/Waltham Street
Map 12:
Marrett Rd 2 Marrett and
&Waltham St,
Lexington, goNp g Waltham
Massachusetts o LOCUS Map
Z N�
G,
OQ�i/�� ➢ R "ire
0�jj �D<<O
v
2 R?SS<
f/�OSD S� �NQ BROOKSIDE
N
i
v
p, c z
Issues/Observations
• Automobile-oriented retail node (Dunkin Donuts, gas station, etc.)
• Poorly functioning parking/circulation pattern.
• Traffic congestion— intersection improvement planned.
• Served by MBTA and LEXPRESS transit.
Potential Action
• Implement physical access improvements to reduce direct access to parking spaces from
street. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal 4.13.3.1.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
�a�� 60
Battle Rd/2A Corridor
Map 13:
Battle Road Noe Battle Rd/2A
Corridor Near y
Minuteman P¢� oao Locus Map
National ooQ
Historic Park
�P�APR 4Q. Pe
Z
v
MASSACHUSETTS
l
m�
O�
4
1 \�
Issues/Observations
• Heavy through-traffic volumes
• Significant traffic to/from Massport-Hanscom AFB
• Possible expansion of existing commercial development(hotel, office park, Minuteman
Voc-Tech)
• Popular with cyclists
Potential Actions
• Support National Park Service efforts to provide alternative transportation, particularly a
corridor shuttle bus. Not Designated for Inclusion in Implementing Actions;
recommended for future consideration
• Monitor development proposals and resultant traffic impact at Massport/Hanscom,
coordinate responses and negotiation with other underlying towns. Included in
Implementing Actions; Goal 5.B.
• Monitor trip generation impacts of proposed developments in area. Included in
Implementing Actions; Goal 5.A.2.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Countryside
(Lowell Street/Woburn Street)
Map 14:
Marrett Rd 2 Countryside
&Waltham St, o o
Lexington, e040 e 4 Locus Map
Massachusetts
x o
T N
Z
o �^
f
oo�ry�c G"RAp��NF
s
6ROQKSIDE
1
1j'/ J
Y
V/ /l' ,Q Z
Issues/Observations
• Limited retail development area, with some office and abutting attached housing.
• On LEXPRESS route.
Potential Action
• On a small-scale basis create more uniform zoning pattern, with regulatory incentives to
have more campus and less strip-mall development over time. Not designated for
inclusion in Implementing Actions.
Land Use Measures Applying Townwide
(no specific geographic location)
The following measures were discussed in the transportation planning process as land use actions
that might have a long term positive impact on traffic management:
• Modernize Allowed Home Occupations in Zoning Bylaw, to encompass contemporary
home based business types and technology. Included in Implementing Actions; Goal
6.13.
• Study the viability of a regulatory amendment linking the floor area entitlement in large
scale commercial development to traffic trip generation, with the possible outcome of
establishing formulae specific to relevant zoning districts. Not designated for inclusion
in Implementing Actions.
Other Upcoming Land Use Issues
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
201 Bedford Street: Now occupied by the Public Works Department, a town-solicited concept
proposal to sell the site, move the department to its Hartwell Avenue property, and develop 201
for mixed income housing and a new town senior center, was recently debated at town meeting.
The nature of a senior center is such that accessibility for all seniors, whether they can drive or
not, is important to its operation. The 201 Bedford St site is located on an MBTA bus line,
LEXPRESS Route 4, and is near the Route 128 interchange. Bedford St itself has sidewalks, but
they are less common in surrounding neighborhoods.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
y
IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
Implementation is a critical piece of any planning study. All too often,plan recommendations are
ignored in day-to-day decision-making. To ensure that the research, analysis, and consensus
building that went into this plan inform policy at multiple levels, we have set out the action items
that emerged from this transportation planning process
The slate of short, medium and long term measures laid out in this document requires
collaboration between constantly shifting sets of actors. We have attempted to identify primary
and secondary actors for each action item. No single set of collaborators on a given measure is
necessarily complete or ideal, but these designations are at least a start in identifying the
"players" who can make it happen.
This section also is organized around the strategic goals and objectives that emerged from the
process. This strategic aspect is the bond that ties all of the actions together, that allows the
collective set of measures to make sense and work cohesively. Finally, the actions are further
organized into time frames that represent the degree of constraint involved in getting the measure
underway; some items can be achieved in a year or two, while some might take a decade or
more. It does not mean that short term items are more important as public policy than the
medium or long term ones; it simply makes sense to set the more easily achieved measures in
motion. These time frames are further explained below.
Implementing actions in the Transportation Element are listed under four time frames for
implementation: Ongoing,Near Term; Intermediate Term; and Long Term. Ongoing actions are
those of a continuous nature with no set end date. Some of these measures might already exist, at
least to a degree. Near Term actions are relatively simple, low cost measures, which can be
undertaken in a short period of time with a limited amount of planning and permitting. Included
with Near Term actions also are steps to initiate the planning and permitting processes required
to implement Intermediate and Long Term actions. Intermediate Term actions are somewhat
more costly and more difficult to implement than Near Term actions. Some design and
permitting may be needed before they can be implemented. Intermediate Term actions could be
implemented within a two to five year time frame. As with Near Term actions, some
Intermediate Term actions may include initiating the development of Long Term actions.
Actions anticipated to take longer than five years to bring to fruition are Long Term actions.
They generally are higher cost actions requiring more extensive study, planning and permitting.
Because of the long lead time required to complete these actions, initiating the process to
develop the actions may be included as a Near Term or Intermediate Term action.
It should be noted that the time frames in this element are somewhat longer than those in the first
four elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as transportation improvements tend to not only
involve multiple parties, but also complex land assembly and engineering and extensive public
process.
Table 10. Implementation Time Frames
Category Ongoing Near Term (NT) Intermediate Long Term (LT)
Term (IT)
Difficulty Varies Least Constraint Medium High Constraint
Constraint
Initiating Time Continuous 1-2 years 2-5 years 5+years
Frame
Cost Varies Low Medium High
Implementing actions are identified by goal, by implementing actor, and by time frame. The
boards or officials that would best be responsible for initiating the action are identified in italics,
followed by the time frame. These boards and officials include the Board of Selectmen, the
Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA),the Town Manager, the Transportation
Coordinator, and the Department of Public Works (DPW). Interested committees include the
Lexington Bicycle Advisory Committee (LBAC), the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, the
Transportation Advisory Committee, the Historic Districts Commission, and the Design
Advisory Committee. Under each board or official and within each category of action, actions
are listed in order of priority, as established by the transportation planning process. The actor or
actors in bold should be considered the lead in implementation.
It should be noted that these Implementing Actions assume an increased staffing level in the
Transportation Services Section of the DPW. In the past,the section has been staffed by a full-
time Coordinator and a half-time assistant. At that level, they were fully occupied by a wide
range of duties - from municipal parking to paratransit. The Transportation Coordinator position,
along with the LEXPRESS bus service, was eliminated for fiscal year 2004. Consequently,
many of the action items listed below will need to be postponed until Transportation Services
funding is again available.
1. GOAL: PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN LEXINGTON THROUGH
IMPROVED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.
A. Reduce peak hour commuter traffic and tie-ups
B. Improve traffic safety in high-accident locations
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
The preceding two objectives are presented as they were articulated in the Vision 2020 process
and the first four elements of the Comprehensive Plan. While important goals, they are so broad
in scope that they encompass the majority of implementing actions below. To avoid redundancy,
those actions are not repeated here.
See: Goals, Objectives, and Actions to follow throughout this section.
2. GOAL: INCREASE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES TO SINGLE
OCCUPANCY VEHICLE TRIPS.
A. Increase availability of public transportation (local, regional and intercity).
1) Initiate limited bus service between Hartwell Avenue and the Lowell Commuter Rail Line at
the Anderson Regional Transit Center in Woburn to test the feasibility of providing more
extensive service. This could be combined with the route suggested in 44. Transportation
Advisory Committee, Board of Selectmen, Town Manager, Transportation Coordinator,
MPO Representative, Planning Board; NT
2) Initiate bus service between Waltham Center and Lexington Center to provide access to the
Waltham stop on the Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line; to provide peak hour service to Hayden
Avenue and all day service to the Waltham Street/Lexington Street corridor; and to provide
access to MBTA buses in Waltham Center. Transportation Advisory Committee,
Transportation Coordinator; NT/IT
3) Investigate the feasibility of extending the hours of operation and increasing frequency of
service of Lexpress to serve a larger share of the town's population, including commuters.
Transportation Advisory Committee, Transportation Coordinator; IT
4) Initiate bus service between Winchester Center and Lexington Center to provide access to the
Lowell Commuter Rail Line, which is planned to be extended to Nashua,New Hampshire;
service to Countryside, Lexington Center and some Winchester neighborhoods; and connect
with Winchester MBTA bus routes. Transportation Advisory Committee, Transportation
Coordinator; MPO Representative, Business Community; LT
5) Advocate for extension of MBTA bus route #78 to Hayden Avenue during peak hours in the
event the 128 Council TMA Alewife Shuttle service is reduced or eliminated.
Transportation Advisory Committee, Transportation Coordinator; MPO Representative; LT
6) Advocate for extension of MBTA bus route#77 to Lexington Center to provide service for
Arlington residents who work in Lexington. Transportation Advisory Committee,
Transportation Coordinator, MPO Representative; LT
7) Advocate for an increase in the frequency of service on MBTA routes 62 and 76,particularly
during peak hours, to improve access between Alewife station and Lexington.
Transportation Advisory Committee, Transportation Coordinator, MPO Representative; LT
................................................................................./�../...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
B. Increase use of bicycles.
1) Seek easements from public and private landowners to extend bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. LBAC, ZBA, Planning Board; Ongoing
2) Rigorously implement Town's Transportation Demand Management Policy to support
walking and bicycling in and around new development and redeveloped sites.
Transportation Coordinator, LBAC Planning Board ZBA, Town Manager; Ongoing
3) Incorporate bicycle route plan map in the Comprehensive Plan and update regularly to reflect
changing needs and opportunities. Planning Board LBAC; NT
4) Update bicycle route signage. DPW and LBAC,- NT
5) Encourage pedestrian and bicycle amenities, such as benches, bike racks, and bicycle lockers,
at key locations especially along the Minuteman Bikeway. LBAC, Planning Board, ZBA,
DPW;NT
6) Identify satellite "park and bike"locations on the outskirts of town along the Minuteman
Bike Path to relieve parking demand in the Town Center. LBAC, Planning Board, DPW; NT
7) Define flexible standards for various types of bicycle and sidewalk facilties that are tailored
to reflect the character of the community Design Advisory Committee and LBAC, DPW, PB,
Historic Districts Commission:NT
8) Develop and implement zoning regulations to support and encourage walking and bicycling.
Planning Board LBAC, Economic Development; NT
C. Increase employer based transportation demand management programs and employee
incentives to use them.
1) Review and revise Article X11 of the Zoning Bylaw' for better enforcement and monitoring.
Planning Board, ZBA
2) Support carpooling by Lexington residents and by employees working in Lexington.
Transportation Coordinator and Business Community, Transportation Advisory
Committee, Planning Board; NT
• Expand on existing area programs
• Promote ridematching services offered by CARAVAN for Commuters and/or the 128
Business Council
• Collect information, conduct outreach, and implement marketing strategies.
• Seek financial incentives for carpoolers/vanpoolers.
1 Article XII,Traffic,sets thresholds for development,beyond which traffic studies,mitigations,and TDM measures
can be required.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................../../.........................
3) Provide information on alternative commuting choices. Transportation Coordinator and
Business Community, Route 128 Business Council;NT
• Work with other officials, as well as private sources,to establish an effective and
comprehensive marketing program utilizing a variety of methods.
4) Work with other officials to enhance the Transportation section of the Town's Website.
Provide all transportation measures and services in addition to Lexpress schedules and maps.
Include links to other transportation resources, including MBTA, CARAVAN, and the 128
Business Council. Transportation Coordinator, Transportation Advisory Committee,
Business Community, Route 128 Business Council, MIS;NT
5) Provide financial and non-financial incentives for alternative modes of travel by offering T-
passes, Lexpress tickets, gas coupons or preferential parking for carpoolers, or other means.
Transportation Coordinator and Business Community;IT
6) Establish TMA Services: assist employers in joining Transportation Management
Associations or forming new ones where appropriate. Transportation Coordinator and
Business Community, Transportation Advisory Committee, 128 Business Council; IT
7) Provide small-scale services in office parks.Business Community, Economic Development
Officer, Planning Board; NT
• Encourage small businesses to use lunch trucks to bring lunch to employees to
provide an option to driving to lunch.
• Encourage small businesses, such as day care, ATM, dry cleaning, snacks and
sundries to locate within office parks. (see also Goal 6, Objective A)
8) Investigate providing improvements by means of a betterment district along the length of
Hartwell Avenue and Maguire Road. Board of Selectmen and DPW, IT
D. Increase pedestrian activity.
1) Develop and implement zoning regulations to support and encourage walking and bicycling.
Planning Board, LBAC, Economic Development;NT
2) Pursue a 3E(Education, Encouragement and Enforcement)program for students and the
larger community in support of walking and bicycling to encourage a comprehensive
approach. School Committee, LBAC, Transportation Coordinator, Board of Health; NT
See also: Goal 4, Objective C
E. Increase school bus usage and reduce traffic at schools. Discourage driving to school by
providing incentives to use other modes.
................................................................................./�../...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1) Promote use of LEXPRESS for transportation from after-school activities. School
Committee, Transportation Advisory Committee, Transportation Coordinator; Ongoing
2) Implement a pilot Safe Routes to School Program to test the concept for possible adoption of
a town wide program. School Committee and LBAC, Transportation Coordinator, Board of
Health, PTO; NT
3) Investigate feasibility of providing incentives for students to commute by walking, biking,
bus, or carpool through preferential dismissal or other means. School Committee, PTO,
Transportation Coordinator;NT
3. GOAL: USE PARKING STRATEGIES TO HELP ACHIEVE TRANSPORTATION
GOALS AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS
A. Amend parking requirements so as to avoid excessive parking supply for commercial
and industrial uses.
1) Study existing parking regulations to assess impact on transportation choice; consider
revision. Planning Board, Business Community; IT
2) Provide incentives to reduce parking demand and automobile use. Planning Board,
Transportation Coordinator; IT
• Explore federal, state, or local tax breaks or other sources of funds for reimbursing
employers based on actual cash-back
• Establish a parking cash-out program for employers.
B. Reduce vehicular trips from High School.
See: Goal 2, Section E
4. GOAL: IMPROVE AND BETTER MAINTAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE
A. Institute a capital improvements plan for traffic calming at strategic locations.
See: Goal 4, Objective B, particularly as regards roundabouts, bulb-outs, and crosswalks.
B. Improve road conditions.
l) Initiate planning for the following long-term roadway improvement(DPW, Board of
Selectmen, Capital Budget Committee;NT):
• Improvements at Marrett Road and Waltham Street(currently underway)
• Improvements at Bedford Street and Hartwell Avenue (see description under long-term
improvements)
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2) Implement traffic improvements at the following intersections (DPW, Board of Selectmen,
Town Manager):
Near Term
Hartwell Avenue and Bedford Street
• Modify the traffic signal phasing to provide separate phases for the eastbound Hartwell
Avenue and westbound Bedford Street jughandle approaches.
• Allow right turns from the southbound jughandle approach.
Waltham Street and Marrett Road
Install a "Yield" sign at the channelized right turn on southbound Waltham Street.
Maple Street and Lowell Street
• Paint gore (zebra) striping around the islands with signal posts to better delineate the
islands
• Paint a left-turn lane on Maple Street(lane is already in operation).
Worthen Road and Bedford Street
• Paint a crosswalk across Camelia Drive (sidewalk and ramps already in place).
Intermediate Term
Marrett Road at Waltham Street
• Consolidate driveway access at Gulf Station on southwest corner and provide sidewalk.
• Install signal ahead sign on southbound Waltham Street due to limited sight distance.
Maple Street at Lowell Street
• Upgrade signal equipment to provide protected left-turn phasing on northbound Lowell
Street approach and pedestrian crossings.
• Upgrade pedestrian crossings to be ADA-compliant.
Concord Avenue at Waltham Street
• Upgrade signal equipment to provide protected left-turn phases on Waltham Street.
Spring Street at Marrett Road
• Install an island on northbound Spring Street to better channelize vehicles entering and
exiting Spring Street.
• Extend northwest corner of Spring Street to reduce the width of eastbound Marrett Road
and to improve channelization.
• Extend curb from one-way Bridge Street toward Marrett Road to reduce the amount of
pavement and to better channelize vehicles.
• Investigate the feasibility of providing a separate left-turn lane on westbound Marrett
Street within the existing right-of-way.
Worthen Road at Bedford Street
• Provide an exclusive left-turn lane on northbound Bedford Street.
Massachusetts Avenue at Woburn Street/Winthrop Street
• Install bulb-out on Woburn Street to reduce amount of pavement at the intersection and to
slow and better channelize vehicles exiting Woburn Street onto Massachusetts Avenue.
• Extend island westward to prohibit vehicles from crossing
................................................................................./�../...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Long Term
Bedford Street at Hartwell Avenue
• Widen the jughandle approach to provide three lanes (a shared left-turn/through lane, a
through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane).
• Widen the Hartwell Avenue approach to four lanes (two exclusive left-turn lanes and two
exclusive right-turn lanes)
• Widen the Bedford Street approaches to two full lanes in each direction.
• Upgrade traffic signal equipment and implement new phasing and timing (including a
split phase for Hartwell Avenue and the jughandle).
Bedford Street at Eldred Street
• Install traffic signal and coordinate with signal at Hartwell Avenue.
• Widen Bedford Street northbound approach to three lanes.
• Install detectors to monitor queues from the southbound I-95/Route 128 exit ramp.
Marrett Road at Waltham Street
• Re-stripe the Waltham Street northbound and southbound approaches to provide an
exclusive left-turn lane and shared through/right-turn lane.
• Provide two approach lanes on eastbound Marrett Road(an exclusive left-turn lane and a
shared through/right-turn lane).
• Upgrade the signal equipment, including installation of pedestrian signal heads, and
adjust signal timing and phasing.
Maple Street at Massachusetts Avenue
• Install traffic signal.
• Consider signalizing Marrett Street at Massachusetts Ave and coordinating the two
systems.
Maple Street at Lowell Street
• Investigate limited widening of Lowell Street approaches to provide an exclusive left-
turn lane in each direction and determine if widening can be accomplished with little or
no impact to adjacent properties.
• Investigate limited widening of Winchester Street approach to provide an additional lane
and determine if widening can be accomplished with little or no impact to adjacent
properties.
• Reconfigure channelized right-turn lanes to slow traffic and provide easier pedestrian
crossings.
Concord Avenue at Waltham Street
• Widen westbound Concord Avenue to provide two lanes. Additional traffic analysis will
be necessary to determine the appropriate lane utilization for the widened approach.
Massachusetts Avenue at Woburn Street/Winthrop Street
• Install traffic signal or modern roundabout.
Pleasant Street at Massachusetts Avenue
• Install traffic signal or modern roundabout.
Pleasant Street at Watertown Street
2 There is concern that this will attract cut-through traffic to Eldred St,which could impact its status as a proposed
bicycle route. Any signalization project should study this possibility and its impacts.
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................../../.........................
�a�P 72m �mer fii t1%rra
• Install traffic signal or modern roundabout.
Spring Street at Marrett Road
• Install modern roundabout
C. Improve and expand sidewalk network.
1) Write and adopt policy on importance of creating and maintaining sidewalks for safety,
health, and mobility. Planning Board and Board of Selectmen and DPW; NT
2) Update and maintain sidewalk inventory DPW- IT
3) Develop prioritization strategies and screening criteria for sidewalk improvements DPW;IT
• Include consideration of major pedestrian generators such as schools and senior centers.
• Consider pedestrian safety.
4) Consider identifying criteria for roadways where sidewalks may be constructed on only one
side. Planning Board, LBAC, DPW;IT
5) Create Task Force to study retrofit of Hayden Avenue, the commercial area of Spring Street,
and the Hartwell Avenue commercial area with non-automotive infrastructure. Economic
Development Officer, Board of Selectmen, Business Community, DPW; IT
• Provide multi-purpose trails for pedestrians and bikes
• Reduce front setbacks to encourage transit, TDM and pedestrian use
• Orient building entrances to the street
• Provide bus pullouts and shelters
• Provide for on-site multi-passenger vehicle drop-off/pick-up areas at individual
businesses.
D. Improve bicycle path conditions.
1) Maintain consistency in bicycle and pedestrian facilities. DPW and LBAC; Ongoing
2) Enforce snow removal policies and provide periodic sweeping of such facilities. Town
Manager DPW,private abutters; Ongoing
3) Incorporate bicycle needs in roadway projects. DPW, Capital Budget Committee, Planning
Board, LBAC; Ongoing
4) Use bicycle needs in weighing priorities for roadway projects. DPW, Capital Budget
Committee, Planning Board LBAC; Ongoing
................................................................................./�../...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. GOAL: INVOLVE LEXINGTON IN LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING
A. Increase involvement by Lexington in regional planning.
I) Coordinate with Boston MPO and MPO Advisory Committee to monitor regional projects.
MPO Representative; Ongoing
2) Monitor Hanscom/Massport transportation impacts. Planning Board, HATS; Ongoing
3) Communicate directly with abutting towns on traffic aspects of developments of regional
impact. Planning Board; Ongoing
4) Participate in MAGIC3 regional transportation planning efforts. MAGIC Representative,
Transportation Coordinator, Transportation Advisory Committee; Ongoing
B. Improve access and coordination with regional transportation centers and airports (i.e.
Woburn, Alewife, Route 128)
See: Goal 2, Objective A: "Increase availability of public transportation (local, regional, and
intercity."
C. Coordinate local planning efforts.
Coordinate implementation and updating efforts with the Selectmen's ongoing Vision 2020 long-
range planning effort. Planning Board, Board of Selectmen, 2020 vision Implementation
Committee; Ongoing
6. GOAL: INVESTIGATE LAND USE POLICIES THAT CAN ASSIST WITH
TRANSPORTATION GOALS
A. Identify nodes and areas served by public transportation that might be logical for
prudent planned development designations and greater mix of uses.
1) Plan for the future of the former Raytheon site (141 Spring St)with potential for a cohesive
mixed-use development including office, limited commercial, R&D, and
conservation/recreation uses. Economic Development Officer, Planning Board;NT
2) Consider creating a Business Improvement District to address transportation and parking
issues, among others, in the Town Center. Economic Development Officer, Board of
Selectmen, Lexington Center Committee, Chamber of Commerce, Traffic Safety Advisory
Committee; IT
3 Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination,a subset of the Boston Metropolitan Planning
Organization
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................../../.........................
3) Create an Overlay District for Hartwell Avenue Area that allows a modest Floor-Area-Ratio
(FAR) increase if tied to a commitment for an overall TDM strategy and improvements at the
Bedford Street/Hartwell Avenue intersection. As an alternative or complementary policy,
businesses wanting to add space along Hartwell Avenue would be required to pay a fee that
goes towards a fund dedicated to implementing transit programs and/or infrastructure
improvements along Hartwell Avenue. Economic Development Officer, Planning Board,
Massport, US Dept of Defense, Business Community, HATS;IT
4) Allow small-scale, service-oriented commercial uses in office parks to create synergy
between employers and service-type uses to reduce auto trips. Planning Board, Business
Community:IT
5) Investigate feasibility of establishing mixed-use development at commercial nodes. Planning
Board Business Community;IT
6) Encourage redevelopment in East Lexington along the Massachusetts Avenue commercial
corridor that is transit and pedestrian friendly by supporting reduced setbacks and parking
behind buildings. Economic Development Officer, Planning Board;IT
7) Promote greater use intensity at the commercial node on Bedford Street north of Route 128.
Planning Board and Business Community;IT
8) Plan for the future of the StrideRite Site (191 Spring St), explore potential for a cohesive
mixed use development with or without housing. Planning Board and Economic
Development Officer;IT
B. Update home occupation provisions in zoning, to reflect changing economic activity and
reduce commuting (but with protective controls).
1) Initiate revision of home occupation permitted uses in Zoning Bylaw to reflect changing
work patterns and technologies. Planning Board; IT
C. Consider feasibility of adding limited housing uses at certain non-residential locations.
1) Initiate action to establish housing as an allowed use in upper stories in the Town Center and
East Lexington. Establishing housing in the Town Center requires expansion of parking. The
benefits of structured parking as a catalyst for residential use and for the Town Center in
general should be considered. Planning Board and Lexington Center Committee, Traffic
Safety Advisory Committee;IT
................................................................................./�../...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
�a�P 76m �mer1%rra
A. Article XII of Chapter 135 of the Code of the Town of Lexington
B. Transportation Demand Management Policy
C. Public Comment
ARTICLE XII, Traffic [Added May 5, 1987[
§ 135-71. Objectives and applicability.
A. The provisions of this article are intended to achieve the following purposes:
(1) To permit vehicular traffic on Lexington streets to move in an efficient manner
without excessive delay or congestion;
(2) To permit emergency vehicles to reach homes and businesses with a minimum of
delay;
(3) To reduce motor vehicle and pedestrian accidents on the town's streets;
(4) To consider and allow for safe and convenient routes for pedestrians and
bicyclists;
(5) To promote cleaner air and to reduce automotive exhaust emissions caused by
vehicles standing and idling for an excessive time;
(6) To promote the efficient use of the town's arterial and collector streets so that use
of local and neighborhood streets as shortcuts can be discouraged;
(7) To avoid excessive traffic demand on town streets that necessitates extraordinary
town expenditures to maintain adequate and safe traffic flow;
(8) To maintain a balance between the traffic-generating capacity of dwellings and
businesses in the town and the traffic-carrying capacity of streets and
intersections;
(9) To encourage alternative methods of transporting people, through public
transportation, car pools and van pools,bicycling and walking,rather than near
exclusive reliance on single-occupant automobiles;
(10) To encourage the use of good traffic engineering principles and design standards
consistent with a predominantly residential suburban town;
(11) To encourage the positive management of traffic flow consistent with the town's
other stated objectives;
(12) To encourage private sector participation in dealing with the town's traffic
problems;
(13) To expand the town's inventory of data about traffic conditions on town streets.
B. No building permit shall be granted for the erection of a new building or the
enlargement or renovation of an existing building with the result that there are
10,000 square feet or more of gross floor area on the lot, including any existing
floor area, but not including any floor area devoted to residential use or to off-
street parking, or there are 50 or more dwelling units, or their equivalent, in a
development, including any existing dwelling units, the number of parking spaces
is increased by 25 or more and there are 50 or more parking spaces, including any
existing parking spaces, on the lot, unless a special permit with site plan review
has been granted and the SPGA has made a determination that the streets and
intersections affected by the proposed development have, or will have as a result
of traffic improvements, adequate capacity, as set forth in § 135-73, to
accommodate the increased traffic from the development. The requirement for a
special permit with site plan review(SPS) does not apply to a religious or
nonprofit educational use, as described in § 135-9E(l). [Amended 4-6-1988 ATM
by Art. 38; 3-27-1991 ATM by Art. 30; 3-30-1998 ATM by Art. 381
§ 135-72. Traffic study required.
A. A traffic study shall be submitted with each application for a building permit,
special permit or special permit with site plan review to which § 135-71B is
applicable, or where required by any other provision of this By-Law.
B. The traffic study shall be conducted by a traffic engineer who will certify that
he/she qualifies for the position of member of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE).
C. For the purposes of this analysis, the terms below shall have the meaning
indicated. The morning and evening "peak period" shall usually be the two hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
respectively. The morning and evening "peak hour" shall be that consecutive
sixty-minute segment within the peak period in which the highest traffic count
occurs as determined by traffic counts of the peak period divided into fifteen-
minute segments. For uses which have an exceptional hourly, daily or seasonal
peak period, the SPGA may require that the analysis be conducted for that
extraordinary peak period. A street or intersection "likely to be affected by the
development" is one which has an average daily traffic (ADT) of 2,000 vehicles
or more and either:
(1) Carries 10% or more of the estimated trips generated by the development, or
(2) In the case of an intersection only, traffic from the proposed development will add
5% or more to the approach volumes. [Amended 4-6-1988 ATM by Art. 38]
D. The traffic study shall include:
(1) An estimate of trip generation for the proposed development showing the
projected inbound and outbound vehicular trips for the morning and evening peak
periods and a typical one hour not in the peak period. Where there is existing
development of the same type of use on the site, actual counts of trip generation
shall be submitted. Trip generation rates may be based on:
(a) [Amended 5-8-1996 ATM by Art. 291 The "Trip Generation Manual, Fifth
Edition" prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers; and, if applicable,
(b) Data about similar developments in Massachusetts; or
(c) Data from professional planning or transportation publications, provided the
methodology and relevance of the data from Subsection D(1)(b) or(c) is
documented.
(2) An estimate of the directional distribution of new trips by approach streets and an
explanation of the basis of that estimate. Where there is existing development of
the same type of use on the site, actual counts of trip directional distribution shall
be submitted.
(3) An assignment of the new trips to be generated by the proposed development to
the segments of the Town street network, which shall include state highways in
Lexington, which are likely to be affected by the proposed development(see
Subsection Q.
(4) Average daily traffic (ADT) on the streets likely to be affected by the
development(see Subsection C), counted for a twenty-four-hour period.
(5) Intersection turning movement counts of the morning and evening peak periods at
the intersections likely to be affected by the proposed development(see
Subsection C). In special circumstances where the peak traffic impacts are likely
to occur at times other than the usual morning and evening peak periods, the
SPGA may require counts for those other peak periods.
(6) An inventory of roadway characteristics of the principal approach streets adjacent
to the development site and of the streets in the intersections at which turning
movement counts are taken showing the width of the right-of-way and of the
traveled way, traffic control devices, obstructions to adequate sight distance, the
location of driveways or access drives within 500 feet of the entrance to the site
for uses that are substantial trip generators, and the presence or absence of
sidewalks and their condition.
(7) In the case of a development in an abutting city or town which will have a traffic
impact on a street or intersection in Lexington which is one that is likely to be
affected by the proposed development for which the traffic study is being
prepared, the traffic impact of the development in the abutting city or town shall
be included in the traffic study provided:
(a) That traffic impact is equal to or greater than that set forth in the test in
Subsection C;
(b) The development has been approved by official action of that abutting city or
town but has not opened for use prior to the date that the traffic counts required by
this section were taken; and
(c) Data on the traffic impact of that development, comparable to that required by this
section, is available.
(8) An analysis of the effect on the capacity of those intersections in the Lexington
street system likely to be affected by the development(see Subsection C) during
peak periods of:
(a) The additional traffic generated by the development; and
(b) Additional traffic from other developments previously approved by the Town of
Lexington for which a traffic study was required, or by an abutting city or town as
provided in Subsection D(7) above, which have not yet been opened for use prior
to the date that the traffic counts required by this section were taken. Analysis of
the capacity of intersections shall be based on traffic levels of service as described
in the "Highway Capacity Manual, 1985 Edition" published by the Transportation
Research Board. This analysis may include an intersection of an access drive
serving a development and a segment of the Lexington street system.
(9) Where mitigating measures or trip reduction programs are proposed, they shall be
proposed by the applicant and shall accompany the traffic study at the time of
filing of the application. Where the proposed mitigating measure is the
construction of a traffic engineering improvement, evidence, such as letters of
support, or commitment, or approval, or the award of a contract, may be
submitted to show that construction of the traffic improvement is likely to occur.
[Amended 4-6-1988 ATM by Art. 38]
(10) An estimate of the time and amount of peak accumulation of off-street parking.
The counts referred to above shall have been taken within the 12 months prior to
the filing of the application. Upon request,the traffic engineer shall furnish an
explanation of the methodology of the traffic study and additional data, as needed.
§ 135-73. Adequate traffic capacity.
A. Prior to granting a special permit or special permit with site plan review in those
cases covered by § 135-71B or as may be required elsewhere in this By-Law, the
SPGA shall determine that the streets and intersections likely to be affected by the
proposed development currently have, or will have as a result of traffic
improvements, adequate capacity, as defined in Subsection B. In making its
determination of adequate capacity, the SPGA shall consider at least the
cumulative effect on a street or intersection likely to be affected by the
development, as provided in § 135-72C, of:
(1) Existing traffic conditions;
(2) Estimates of traffic from other proposed developments which have already been
approved in part or in whole by the Town of Lexington for which a traffic study
was required, or by official action of an abutting city or town, which have not yet
been opened for use prior to the date that the traffic counts required by this article
were taken; and
(3) Estimates of traffic from the proposed development.
B. Adequate capacity defined by level of service. Adequate capacity shall mean level
of service "D" or better as described in the "Highway Capacity Manual, 1985
Edition" published by the Transportation Research Board. If the level of service
that would result from the cumulative effect, referred to in Subsection A, is "E" or
below,the SPGA shall determine there is not adequate capacity and shall deny the
application.
C. Mitigating measures to improve capacity. [Amended 4-11-1988 ATM by Art. 381
(1) The SPGA shall consider that various traffic engineering improvements, or other
method of positive traffic control, such as a traffic control officer, can improve
the traffic-carrying capacity of an intersection or street and improve the level of
service rating to a higher and acceptable value. The SPGA shall consider such
improvements, or other method of traffic control, in its determination and may
make a conditional determination that adequate capacity is dependent upon the
construction of the traffic engineering improvement, or other method of traffic
control.
(2) The SPGA may make a condition of its approval of the special permit or special
permit with site plan review that the start, or any stage, of the construction of the
development, or the occupancy thereof, is dependent upon the start or completion
of the traffic engineering improvement or of the start of another method of
positive traffic control, such as a traffic control officer, on a permanent basis. A
conditional approval shall be dependent upon at least a start of the physical
construction of the traffic engineering improvement or the execution of an
agreement with the Town of Lexington for another method of traffic control.
Letters of support, or commitment, or approval, or the award of a contract are not
considered as a start of construction. However, as the basis for making a
conditional determination of adequacy, the SPGA may consider as evidence that
the traffic-carrying capacity will be improved to a higher level of service, such
letters of support, or commitment, or approval, or the award of a contract for
construction of the traffic engineering improvement, or a proposed agreement
with the Town of Lexington for another method of traffic control.
D. Trip reduction requirements. [Amended 4-4-1990 ATM by Art. 36]
(1) As a condition of its approval of a special permit or a special permit with site plan
review, the SPGA may require actions and programs by the owner and/or
manager of a development to reduce the number of single-occupant automobile
trips made to a development, particularly during peak traffic hours. Such actions
and programs may include:
(a) Providing a pass to employees for use on a public transportation system that
serves the development site;
(b) Use of car pools and van pools;
(c) Scheduling of hours of operation such as flex-time, staggered work hours, and
spread scheduling that reduces trips during peak traffic hours,
(d) Preferential parking locations and arrangements for vehicles other than single-
occupant automobiles,
(e) Restrictions on access to, or egress from, off-street parking areas during peak
traffic hours; or
(f) Bicycle parking facilities and other measures such as locker and shower facilities
to encourage bicycle commuting.
(2) Where such conditions are included, they shall include a reporting system which
monitors the effectiveness of the trip reduction program. The SPGA may make a
condition of the granting of the special permit or special permit with site plan
review that:
(a) Such monitor be directly responsible to and report to the Building Commissioner
or designee; and
(b) The applicant be responsible for the cost of providing such monitoring system.
(3) If the Building Commissioner or designee determines that the conditions of the
special permit or special permit with site plan review are not being met, he/she
shall order the applicant to bring the development into compliance or shall take
such other corrective enforcement action as may be needed to ensure compliance.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT POLICY
Adopted by vote of the Planning Board, September 16, 1998
Originally adopted March 10, 1997
OBJECTIVES:
This Policy focuses on meeting the transportation needs of Lexington by a variety of
measures that affect the demand for, and use of, various modes of travel rather than
changes in the supply of transportation facilities, such as the construction of roadways
and multi-level off-street parking facilities.
The Policy seeks to reduce the use of automobiles, particularly single occupant vehicles
(SOV), in order to:
1. permit vehicular traffic on Lexington streets to move in an efficient manner
without excessive delay or congestion,
2. reduce motor vehicle and pedestrian accidents on the town's streets,
3. permit emergency vehicles to reach homes and businesses with a minimum of
delay,
4. reduce the awareness of and impact from vehicular traffic on a predominantly
residential town,
5. promote safe and convenient routes for pedestrians and bicyclists,
6. promote cleaner air and reduce automotive exhaust emissions caused by vehicles
standing and idling for an excessive time,
7. maintain a balance between the traffic generating capacity of businesses and
residential development in the town and the traffic carrying capacity of streets
and intersections.
The Policy also seeks to:
1. assure adequate opportunities for mobility for all Lexington residents, workers
and visitors, and
2. expand the Town's inventory of data about transportation needs and
transportation utilization.
The Policy seeks to aid Lexington businesses and other establishments to:
3. reduce the cost of operations for Lexington companies and establishments
caused by delays in vehicular traffic,
4. expand the pool of potential employees who can reach places of work in
Lexington more easily and economically,
5. employ a more efficient and satisfied work force less concerned at the work
place by the frustrations of transportation, particularly commuting,
6. permit potential customers and clients to reach places of business in Lexington
more easily and economically,
7. provide transportation services more effectively in collaboration with other
businesses and with the Town.
TERMINOLOGY: DEFINITIONS OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS AND
CONCEPTS
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES: Alternatives to the use of the single
occupant automobile including but not necessarily limited to public transit, ride-sharing,
van pooling, and use of pedestrian or bike ways.
CONGESTED INTERSECTION: an intersection of two or more streets that meets the
test set forth in paragraph 12.2.3. of the Zoning Bylaw for an intersection "likely to be
affected by the proposed development" that now has, or is projected to have, a traffic
level of service of"C" or below or has experienced that level in the past.
FIXED ROUTE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS: a transportation service that operates
on a specific route according to a pre-determined schedule. (See subsection 3 on page 5
for a description of these services.) Other "demand responsive" services are flexible,
respond to calls for service from customers and do not have a specific schedule.
TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS): a method of evaluating the degree of congestion
of intersections as described in the "Highway Capacity Manual, 1985 Edition" published
by the Transportation Research Board. The system has six levels from "A" to "F" with
"A" being the least congested and "F" being near failure.
TRANSPORTATION HANDICAPPED: any of several classes of people who are not
able to use private automobiles, or in some cases regular public transportation, due to
age, economic condition or physical disability. The term typically applies to children who
do not have a driver's license, older people no longer able to drive, those unable to afford
a private automobile and those with various physical disabilities.
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION: a non-profit group formed by
local businesses, corporate employers, owners/developers of properties, and civic leaders
to address community transportation problems that can be dealt with more efficiently on a
collective basis. Some are single purpose organizations formed specifically to address
transportation concerns to facilitate private sector involvement in addressing
transportation issues. Others are elements of broader multi-purpose civic organizations.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM): various services and
programs to affect the behavior of motorists and encourage them to use alternatives to
driving alone. Transportation Demand Management strategies focus on reduction of
vehicle trips, especially commuter trips during peak travel periods.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (TSM): a program to improve the
efficiency of the existing transportation system by more effective use of facilities or
resources.
TOWN TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR: The person appointed under the
Lexington Selectmen/Town Manager Act to be the Transportation Coordinator.
APPLICABILITY
Inclusionary Transportation Services
In order to obtain a favorable recommendation, or where applicable, a favorable action,
by the Planning Board on construction or other activity that will increase transportation
demand, each:
a. commercial establishment with 10,000 square feet or more of gross floor area on
the lot, (including any existing floor area, but not including any floor area devoted
to residential use or to off-street parking), or
b. new housing development, with 25 or more dwelling units, which gains an
increase in density greater than that previously allowed by right' in the zoning
district in which it is located, or
C. other activity that might not include new construction, such as a change of use,
that increases the number of vehicular trips by 50 or more trips per day,
shall provide transportation services as described in this Policy.
COMPENSATORY BENEFIT: Where an action of the Town increases the value of a
property, by permitting more intensive commercial development or a higher density of
residential development, or reduces an owner's or developer's expense, by granting a
waiver or variance from normal standards, the Town should receive a benefit, such as
some type of transportation demand management program in return. Further, the Town
should refrain from actions which increase value, or reduce expenses, unless it does
receive such a benefit.
Written Transportation Demand Management Plan Required
A developer or property owner:
a. constructing a more intensive commercial development or
b. constructing a higher density of residential development or
C. that proposes another activity that increases the number of vehicular trips by 50 or
more trips per day,
shall be responsible for preparing and administering a written Transportation Demand
Management Plan. [This responsibility may be delegated to a company or other tenant of
a building.]
The developer may also propose alternative transportation infrastructure improvements
and alternative transportation services in the event that the principal proposed facilities
and services cannot be successfully achieved.
This does not apply to residential developments in cluster subdivisions with fewer
than 25 dwelling units that are permitted under Section 9 of the Zoning Bylaw.
Another consideration is that some cluster subdivisions may have a higher density, as
measured by the number of dwelling units, but not have a greater impact in vehicular
trips than a conventional subdivision otherwise permitted by right.
It will usually be necessary to enter into a written agreement with the Town to insure that
the provisions of the Transportation Demand Management Plan are carried out by the
developer and subsequent occupants or owners.
NOTE: Later sections of this Policy contain additional provisions for annual
reporting and monitoring of compliance with the written Transportation Demand
Management Plan.
Once approved, the Transportation Demand Management Plan, shall apply to any
successors or assigns, to any subsequent developer, property owner or business. The
provisions of the Plan shall run with the property.
PROGRAM REQUIRED
The Transportation Demand Management Plan shall provide a program of transportation
services, drawn from each of the nine categories below. The Plan shall generally include
each of the numbered services in each of the nine categories except that the Planning
Board may permit exceptions on a case by case basis. These new transportation services
shall be a parallel program to any proposed intersection improvements to mitigate traffic
congestion as required by subsection 12.3 of the Zoning Bylaw.
If a proposed development is near an intersection "likely to be affected by the proposed
development" (as defined in ZBL 12.2.3.) that is a "congested" intersection, the Planning
Board may require additional efforts in some of the nine categories - as listed below
under "congested intersections". A "congested" intersection is one that now has, or is
projected to have, a traffic level of service of"C" or below, or has experienced that level
in the past.
1. Site Design
1.1 Include transportation infrastructure elements in the site design, such as
a. Adequate street and driveway widths, turning radii, and vertical clearance (if
applicable)to accommodate alternative transportation services vehicles.
b. Bus stops, turnarounds and/or pull-offs.
c. Bus stop shelters and benches. These may be provided in a building, such as part
of a lobby area adjacent to a bus route/stop. Or they may be provided adjacent to
the street in a comfortable, all weather passenger shelter. When not included in a
building, a passenger shelter shall have lighting, landscaping, seating or other
amenities for riders.
d. Drop-off and pick-up for alternative transportation services other than buses.
e. A number of off-street parking spaces that shall not exceed the minimum
number of parking spaces required by Section 11.3 of the Zoning Bylaw unless
the applicant can demonstrate that a greater number of parking spaces is required
to serve the public interest.
f. Suitable signage.
g. Pedestrian routes that deal adequately with potential points of conflict with
vehicular traffic.
h. Taxi stands (if applicable).
�lJ �� � 7,f, e9
l.2 Provide preferential parking locations and arrangements closest to a building for
vehicles other than single occupant automobiles. See ZBL 12.3.4 4)
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also
require the developer or applicant to:
1.3 Participate in a site development that provides more concentrated development
that is served more easily by alternate transportation services. [In some cases, this
is likely to transcend property lines and require modification of traditional zoning
and site development requirements.]
2. Transportation Information
2.1 Designate a transportation coordinator for each property. The transportation
coordinator for the property shall coordinate the provision of transportation
services with each business with five or more employees on the property.
2.2 The transportation coordinator for the property shall:
a. Provide a data center where prospective users of alternative transportation
services can locate others with whom they can ride.
b. Maintain and promote information about alternative transportation services. This
includes both an office and informational bulletin boards or a kiosk. It includes
assisting the promotional activities of others, such as LEXPRESS, MBTA or
transportation management associations that serve the site.
3. Connection to Existing Public Fixed Route Transportation Systems
In the context of this Policy,Public Fixed Route Transportation Systems includes:
• the MBTA Red Line rail rapid transit service with a terminal at the Alewife
station and all other parts of the MBTA rail rapid transit service that connect to it,
• the MBTA Green Line light rail transit service with a terminal at the Riverside
station and all other parts of the MBTA rail rapid transit service that connect to it;
• the MBTA Commuter Rail service with nearby stations in Belmont, Waltham,
Lincoln, Concord,Woburn and Winchester;
• MBTA buses that have part of their route in Lexington, or at the Alewife Red
Line terminal or the Riverside Green Line terminal, or
• the Lexington LEXPRESS service.
Elsewhere in the Policy there are references to cities and towns served by Existing Public
Fixed Route Transportation Systems. That includes:
• the metropolitan core, i.e., cities and towns with:
•MBTA rail rapid transit service that have access to the Alewife Red Line
terminal,
•MBTA light rail transit service that have access to the Riverside terminal, and
•any other parts of the MBTA rail rapid or light rail services that connect to the
Alewife or Riverside terminals.
• communities, such as Arlington, Belmont, Concord, Lincoln, Waltham, Woburn
or Winchester through which MBTA bus routes or commuter rail routes pass, and
• Lexington.
3.1 The transportation coordinator for the property shall maintain and promote
information about public fixed route transportation services. Route and schedule
information for all public fixed route transportation systems and any transit
service, such as the Alewife Shuttle, (operated by the 128 Business Council) that
connects to an MBTA or LEXPRESS service, shall be displayed.
3.2 The property owner or tenant shall financially assist (paying at least half the cost
of a pass) for any employee requesting a pass for use on:
a. a fixed route public transportation system, as described above, or
b. any transit service, such as the Alewife Shuttle, (operated by the 128 Business
Council)that connects to an MBTA or LEXPRESS service. See ZBL 12.3.4 1).
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also
require the developer or applicant to:
3.3 Pay the full cost of a pass for any employee requesting one for use on:
a. a fixed route public transportation system, as described above, or
b. any transit service, such as the Alewife Shuttle, (operated by the 128 Business
Council) that connects to an MBTA or LEXPRESS service. See ZBL 12.3.4. 1).
3.4 Contribute financially annually and for an extended period to a transportation fund
devoted to assuring the continued provision of transportation services by the
Town. This includes both transportation coordination services and LEXPRESS.
3.5 Contribute financially annually and for an extended period to allow LEXPRESS
service to serve the site or for the frequency of LEXPRESS service to be
increased.
3.6 Make a capital investment in a public transportation service such as purchase of a
LEXPRESS bus.
4. Outreach to Areas Not Serviced Well by Existing Public Transportation
Systems
In the context of this Policy, Areas Not Serviced Well by Existing Public Transportation
Systems means suburban towns and cities that are not serviced by Existing Public Fixed
Route Transportation Systems, as described above. They are typically west, north and
south of Lexington.
4.1 Encourage use of carpools, ridesharing and vanpools by a continuous program of
education of employees, and visitors on the need for, and existence of, alternative
transportation services and by marketing these transportation services to
encourage greater use by them. The transportation services may be operated by
others. See ZBL 12.3.4 1)
4.2 Provide preferential parking locations and arrangements closest to a building for
vehicles other than single occupant automobiles See ZBL 12.3.4 4)
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also
require the developer or applicant to:
4.3 Actively participate in, including financial support of, an organization that
operates car pools and vanpools.
4.4 Actively participate in promotional activities for alternative transportation
services whether provided by transportation management associations or by the
Town.
4.5 Provide, or contribute to the provision of, day care services on or near the site and
encourage greater use of car pools, ride sharing and vanpools for those with child
care or elder care responsibilities.
4.6 Provide, at the developer's or business' expense, vans or automobiles for use by
own employees in vanpools or car pools.
4.7 Reduce the number of parking spaces to the minimum number required by the
Zoning Bylaw or to fewer than those required by using the special permit
provision for a reserved parking area.
5. Other Trip Reduction Techniques
5.1 Provide only a minimum number of parking spaces that meet minimum Town
requirements rather than more spaces than are required.
Comment: The Planning Board needs to review the parking standards in the
Zoning Bylaw to be sure that they are the minimum.
5.2 Utilize the special permit provision in the Zoning Bylaw (paragraph 11.8.a.) to
construct fewer parking spaces than the minimum number otherwise required if a
plan shows there is a "reserve area" where parking spaces could be built if needed.
5.3 Encourage employees to work at home and "telecommute" to the company by
electronic means for some parts of the day, particularly during peak travel hours,
or parts of the week.
5.4 Schedule hours of operation, such as flex-time, staggered work hours, and spread
scheduling that reduces trips during peal-, traffic hours See ZBL 12.3.4 3) while
still reducing the total number of single occupant vehicles (SOV).
Comment: Flex-time is an effective technique for reducing trips during peak
hours. It may not result in an absolute reduction of, but a shift in, SOV trips to
another time period. The applicant shall consider, and address in the
Transportation Demand Management Plan, the possibility that flex-time can be
competitive to, and reduce utilization, of other alternative transportation services
that depend on a group of riders necessary to make alternative transportation
services feasible. A developer or property owner preparing a transportation
demand management plan needs to address the potential conflict between flex-
time and alternative transportation services in the Plan so that flex time still
permits a reduction in the total number of single occupant vehicles (SOV).
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also
require the developer or applicant to:
5.5 Provide, or contribute financially to an organization that provides, vans or a
shuttle bus service to restaurants, banks or other mid-day employee needs that are
not available within walking distance of the work site.
5.6 Adopt a formal Trip Reduction Plan with a specific target percentage of single
occupant vehicles (SOV) accessing the site. The penalty could be a financial
charge to the company - deposited into a fund for alternative services
transportation operated by the Town or by a non-profit association.
5.7 Arrange for car rentals, operate delivery and passenger shuttles, consolidate
courier or mail pick-up services to reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from
the property.
5.8 Provide employee incentives, such as prizes, trips, time off etc., for using
alternative transportation services.
5.9 Place restrictions on access to, or egress from, off-street parking areas during peak
traffic hours. See ZBL 12.3.4 5)
6. Other Travel Modes
6.1 Provide bicycle parking facilities that are secure and protected from the weather,
and other measures such as locker and shower facilities to encourage bicycle
commuting. See ZBL 12.3.4 6)
6.2 Construct a sidewalk or a bicycle/pedestrian path on own property that connects to
a larger network of sidewalks, or bicycle/pedestrian paths in the area.
(Connections to a larger network that is planned but is not yet constructed in its
entirety are included.)
6.3 Provide for the issuance of taxi vouchers, or other means to aid the mobility of
"transportation handicapped" (see Terminology) site occupants or visitors who do
not use private automobiles.
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also
require the developer or applicant to:
6.4 Construct, or make a financial contribution to, a sidewalk or a bicycle/pedestrian
path off their own site that is part of a larger network of sidewalks, or
bicycle/pedestrian paths in the area. (Contribution to a fund for maintenance or
security in that network is included.)
7. Coordination With Other Transportation Demand Management Activities
7.1 Be a contributing, dues paying member of a Transportation Management
Association or of a transit service, such as the Alewife Shuttle, (operated by the
128 Business Council) that connects to an MBTA or LEXPRESS service. See
ZBL 12.3.4 1)
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also
require the developer or applicant to:
7.2 Take a leadership role in organizing a Transportation Management Association, or
a transit service, such as the Alewife Shuttle, (operated by the 128 Business
Council)that connects to an MBTA or LEXPRESS service. See ZBL 12.3.4 1)
7.3 Make a financial contribution to a private association or to the Town for
establishing or maintaining activities that promote one or more transportation
management association(s) in Lexington.
8. Related Development Actions
8.1 Include basic support services for employees and business operations on site so
they do not have to drive elsewhere to obtain those services. These include food
service establishments, automatic teller machines and other convenience goods
and day care.
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also
require the developer or applicant to:
8.2 Include additional support services for employees and business operations on site
so they or the employees of other nearby establishments do not have to drive
elsewhere to obtain those services. These include restaurants and other food
service establishments, banks, dry cleaners, convenience goods, day care, elder
care and auto repair.
9. Transportation Reporting
The transportation coordinator for the property shall:
9.1 Prepare an Annual Transportation Report that shall be submitted to the Town's
Transportation Coordinator with information on:
a. compliance with the Transportation Demand Management Plan,
b. the number of persons regularly employed on the site and the zip code of the
home of each such employee on the site. [Name and home address of employee
not included.]
9.2 If the property owner or business files a Rideshare report to the Department of
Environmental Protection, provide a copy of that report with the material
submitted to the Town's Transportation Coordinator.
In the case of a "congested intersection" (see Terminology), the Planning Board may also
require the developer or applicant to:
9.3 The transportation coordinator for the property shall include in the Annual
Transportation Report:
a. A survey of the mode of travel of each person regularly employed on the site
showing those arriving at the site by:
•single occupant automobile
•carpool
•vanpool
•public transportation- MBTA or LEXPRESS
•private transit service, such as the Alewife shuttle
•bicycle
•walking
In the case of employees who work at home and/or "telecommute" to the property,
the Report may include a tabulation of the time that those employees are off the
property.
b. A survey of the time of arrival and departure of persons regularly employed on the
site.
9.4 As needed, the property owner shall provide funds necessary for independent
monitoring of compliance with any special features of the Transportation Demand
Management Plan for the development.
OTHER POLICIES
The transportation management services and programs shall not be discriminatory. They
shall be designed and operated to maximize convenience of use for the primary on-site
users but the services and programs shall be available for use by all.
The transportation management services and programs shall be consistent with, and
mutually supportive of, other transportation management services and programs in the
Town. Any questions on inconsistency shall be resolved in consultation with the Town
Transportation Coordinator.
Through the execution of appropriate written agreements, the transportation management
services provided by the developer shall remain operational and in use for an indefinite
period, and be subject to the annual review and approval of the Transportation
Coordinator. The written agreements shall provide penalties, which may be financial, for
failure to provide the transportation management services included in the Transportation
Demand Management Plan.
The developer shall be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the on site
and off site transportation infrastructure elements included in the Transportation Demand
Management Plan. Off site facilities may be constructed and maintained by the Town or
by others, with the costs thereof borne by the developer or its successor.
The Planning Board will not make a recommendation on a proposed development subject
to the requirements for Inclusionary Transportation Services until it has provided an
opportunity for the Town's Transportation Coordinator to make a recommendation to the
Board. If either the Board or the Transportation Coordinator requests, the Transportation
Advisory Committee or designated representative(s) shall be provided an opportunity for
the Town's Transportation Coordinator to make a recommendation to the Board as well.
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u m
On June 4, 2003, the Lexington Planning Board held a Public Hearing on the Draft
Transportation Element. Mr. John Davies, Mr. Karl Kastorf, Mr. Tom Harden, and Mr.
Anthony Galaitsis were present, as were staff members Garber, McCall-Taylor, and
Machek. There were 10 people in the audience, including 5 members of the
Transportation Element Advisory Committee.
Mr. Galaitsis began by welcoming the audience and asking Mr. Garber to briefly
summarize the Draft Transportation Element. After Mr. Garber did so, Mr. Galaitsis
turned to members of the Board for their comments.
Mr. Davies began by stating the need to amend the plan in light of the June 2 vote on the
override. It was decided that a narrative would be inserted at the beginning of the plan to
note that funding for the LEXPRESS bus service and transportation coordinator position
had been cut. He went on to note that the numeration of Map 2 did not match that of the
accompanying text and that Alewife station should be labeled as a Red Line station.
Mr. Harden suggested that the transportation aspects of the possible DPW relocation
from 201 Bedford Street should be discussed in the plan.
From the audience, Mr. Richard Canale asked how often the Element would be updated.
Mr. Garber replied that it had not yet been decided, but that 5 years had been discussed in
the Land Use Reform Act group. Also, various initiatives from the plan will be
implemented over the next few years.
Mr. Stewart Kennedy commented that labeling the intersection of Hayden Avenue and
Spring Street as "Hayden/Spring& Spring" is confusing. It was decided that that label
would be changed. He also asked about the term `betterment district."Mr. Garber defined
the term as a means of abutting landowners to reimburse the town for a linear capital
improvement. It was decided to add the term to the glossary.
Mr. Ed Ganshirt asked if termination of the LEXPRESS bus service would invalidate the
TDM Bylaw. Ms. Machek answered that it would not, as developers would be able to
contribute to privately-run Transportation Management Associations or make physical
improvements.
Mr. William Levison asked about the term Overlay District. Mr. Garber defined the term
for him and it was decided that the term would be added to the glossary.
Ms. Elaine Dratch stated that she feels that all references to LEXPRESS and the
Transportation Coordinator should remain in the plan, as she believes the town should
return to its past level of service in the future.
Mr. Michael Martignetti stated that he believes traffic constraints to be a major obstacle
to commercial development in Lexington and inquired into the study of problem
intersections that Mr. Garber had spoken of at Town Meeting. He also stated that he
believes the current FAR limits are too restrictive. Some discussion of FAR followed.
Mr. Garber responded that the intersection study was included in the plan and that
implementation of the significant portions of the plan in regard to alternative
transportation will make business expansion more feasible.
Ms. Dratch asked whether the plan included links to the recent Vision 2020 meeting. Mr.
Garber responded that the chief connection to Vision 2020 is that the transportation goals
and objectives are much part of this document. Mr. Harden added that the Vision 2020
Implementation Committee is also considering an update of the goals and objectives, and
Mr. Garber indicated that links to Vision 2020 Implementation needed to be established
for the comprehensive plan in general.
Mr. Canale added that he had asked about the updating schedule because of things like
the Governor's Smart Growth initiatives.
Mr. Kastorf moved that the Transportation Element be adopted with changes discussed
that evening. Mr. Harden seconded the motion. It was voted unanimously to adopt the
Transportation Element.