ERVING — Residents gave mixed reviews on two proposed roadway reconstruction concepts for North and Church streets last week.
Designers from the engineering firm Green International Affiliates presented two roadway designs during a feedback session at the Erving Senior & Community Center that took into account previous public feedback on topics like vehicle speed and pedestrian access.
The town is still seeking additional resident input on these concepts, which are not finalized, and comments can be directed to Town Planner Glenn Johnson-Mussad at glenn.johnson-mussad@erving-ma.gov.
The town will seek funding from the state’s Complete Streets Funding Program to pay for the project, although the plan for an Aug. 7 submission will likely be postponed until the spring to allow for additional feedback, according to Town Administrator Bryan Smith.
The proposals
Per the presentation, the goal is to make the two roadways in Erving Center “safer, more accessible and easier to navigate.”
The main points were to evaluate traffic flows on both streets; expand the sidewalks; add pedestrian crossings, roadway signs and flashing beacons; and add chicanes on North Street. According to the state Department of Transportation, chicanes are a series of curb extensions that alternate from one side of the street to the other, forming S-shaped curves that essentially narrow the roadway width and create an effect that slows down traffic.
With these ideas in mind, the two designs presented involve making North Street a one-way street heading north, and raising the existing crosswalks on Church and North streets and at Church Street for access to the Bembury Park playground.
Some of the differences in the designs for North Street include adding 5-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides of the street that would reduce the roadway to 11 feet wide in design Alternative 1, versus having one 8-foot-wide sidewalk on the west side of the street in Alternative 2.
Alternative 1 has 2-foot “mountable” chicanes, which allow larger vehicles like plows and fire trucks to travel over the structure if needed, and Alternative 2 has 4-foot chicanes. Alternative 1 features an 11-foot-wide travel lane for North Street, compared to a 14-foot-wide travel lane in Alternative 2.
Other differences in the designs include leaving Church Street as a two-way road in Alternative 1, versus making it a southbound one-way road in Alternative 2. Alternative 2 also seeks to widen the existing sidewalk on Church Street by 10 feet to create a shared-use path. Neither option calls for land taking from residents.
In a project memo provided to the Selectboard, Green International Affiliates expands upon predicted traffic changes within the two options, along with what may happen to traffic in the future if there are no changes made to the roadway.
Traffic changes are more pronounced in Alternative 2, with North Street volumes expected to “increase significantly” during peak morning traffic by as much as 130%, and Church Street to increase by as much as 93% in peak evening traffic.
The memo states that both alternatives would maintain “acceptable overall intersection operations” with Route 2 at both North and Church streets. However, it notes that the southbound Church Street approach would still see delays in both alternatives due to traffic being redistributed because of the new one-way southbound direction.
In terms of price, Alternative 1 is a $1.7 million project, whereas Alternative 2 is expected to cost $2 million.
The memo makes the conclusion that, based on Green International Affiliates’ analysis of “safety, multimodal accommodations, project cost, traffic calming and transportation system performance,” Alternative 1 is the preferred of the two proposals since it “best advances the project’s goals while maintaining acceptable traffic operations.”
Feedback
Residents didn’t wait to jump in with questions and comments about the proposed designs. A large part of the conversation related to traffic flow at the turns from Route 2 onto Church and North streets, along with vehicle access to adjacent roads.
Highway Department Superintendent Glenn McCrory shared his personal concern for making Church Street southbound-only, due to access issues to Highland Avenue that having a narrower road would create for delivery vehicles, including a vehicle owned by a resident there. Other residents echoed this sentiment.
“The only way you get into Highland now is if you go up North [Street] on Church Street that way,” said Jacquelyn Boyden, who serves on the Selectboard. “The road’s too narrow and the angle’s too steep.”
Kathryn Gaudet expressed concern about how children would navigate the larger chicanes, and she worries that they may potentially jaywalk across the street to get to the west side of the road where the sidewalk is located in Alternative 2, given that access on the non-sidewalk side is “very tight,” especially farther up the road.
Boyden noted her preference for Alternative 1 due to the neighborhood feeling that having the double sidewalk provides. Gaudet agreed, adding that it offers an extra level of safety.
On top of these concerns, others wanted to see about the possibility of adding more traffic-calming features along Church Street, with some sharing anecdotes of observing speeds well above the posted 25 mph.
By the end of Wednesday’s discussion, attendees had reached a general consensus that Alternative 1 is preferred. Smith explained that after this meeting, an additional opportunity for public feedback on a single design will be available.
A recording of the meeting is available at tinyurl.com/y44tjj4x.
