exxon redevelopment regional traffic study

8/14/2019 Exxon Redevelopment Regional Traffic Study

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/exxon-redevelopment-regional-traffic-study 1/125

Submitted by:

THE Louis Berger Group, INC.

412 Mount Kemble Avenue

P.O. Box 1946

Morristown, NJ 07962-1946

Submitted to:

Department of Engineering

County of Morris10 Court Street

P.O. Box 900

Morristown, New Jersey 07963-0900

January 2010

Review of Existing & Future Conditions

to Various Intersections within the Borough of Florham Park, Borough of Madison,

Hanover Township, Morris Township, Chatham Borough

and the Town of Morristown

Due to the Potential Redevelopment of

the Former Exxon Research Facilityon Park Avenue in the Borough of Florham Park

Final Report for



R ev

i ew

t oV

ar i o

B

or o u

gh of

C

h a t h am B o

D u e t o

of t

h eF

o

nP ar k Av e

Final Report for



The Louis Berge r Group , Inc . Red eve lopme nt o f the Forme r Exxon Resea rch Fac ility Site

Fina l Reg iona l Traffic Stud y

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................................... 6

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS....................................................................................................... 8

3.1 DATA COLLECTION...................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 INTERSECTION DESCRIPTIONS ..................................................................................................... 9 3.3 EXISTING TRUCK ROUTES INVESTIGATION ............................................................................... 16 3.4 ORIGIN & DESTINATION (O/D) LICENSE PLATE SURVEY ......................................................... 18 3.5 2008 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 19 3.6 OPERATIONAL AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 26 3.7 2008 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS RESULTS................................................ 27

3.8 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES .................................................................................................... 36 4.0 COMMUTER SURVEY ........................................................................................................ 47

5.0 FUTURE VOLUME DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 50

5.1 BACKGROUND GROWTH RATES ................................................................................................ 50 5.2 TRIP GENERATION: SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTS ................................................................. 51 5.3 TRIP ASSIGNMENT ..................................................................................................................... 55

6.0 YEAR 2010 FUTURE YEAR CONDITIONS ANALYSES ....................................................... 57

6.1 2010 NO BUILD VOLUMES......................................................................................................... 57 6.2 2010 NO BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 57 6.3 2010 BUILD VOLUMES............................................................................................................... 57 6.4 2010 BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 70 6.5 2010 BUILD WITH SHORT-TERM MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................ 70

7.0 YEAR 2028 FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSES ................................................................... 85

7.1 2028 NO BUILD VOLUMES......................................................................................................... 85 7.2 2028 NO BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 85 7.3 2028 BUILD VOLUMES............................................................................................................... 85 7.4 2028 BUILD LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 98 7.5 2028 BUILD WITH LONG-TERM MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................... 98





LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1-1: Status of Previously Recommended Improvements .............................................................. 3 Table 3-1: Existing Intersection Truck Percentages .............................................................................. 18 Table 3-2: License Plate Survey Results (September 2008) .................................................................. 19 Table 3-3: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ................................................................ 26 Table 3-4: Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Criteria.......................................................... 27 Table 3-5: 2008 Existing LOS Analysis Results (Chatham Borough) .................................................. 29 Table 3-6: 2008 Existing LOS Analysis Results (Madison) ................................................................... 31 Table 3-7: 2008 Existing LOS Analysis Results (Morris Township) .................................................... 33 Table 3-8: 2008 Existing LOS Analysis Results (Morristown) ............................................................. 34 Table 3-9: 2008 Existing LOS Analysis Results (Hanover) ................................................................... 35 Table 3-10: Average Ridership Morris-Essex Line Stations ................................................................. 38 Table 3-11: Existing Parking Facilities at Railroad Stations on Morris-Essex Line .......................... 39

Table 3-12: NJ TRANSIT Bus Ridership for Buses #70 and 73 ........................................................... 40

Table 5-1: 2010 Population & Employment Growth Projections ......................................................... 50 Table 5-2: 2028 Population & Employment Growth Projections ......................................................... 51 Table 5-3: 2010 No Build Proposed Developments ................................................................................ 52 Table 5-4: 2028 No Build Proposed Developments ................................................................................ 52 Table 5-5: Proposed GDP-The Green at Florham Park Build Developments .................................... 54 Table 5-6: GDP-The Green at Florham Park Development Traffic for 2010 and 2028 Build .......... 56 Table 6-1: 2010 Level of Service Summary Results (Chatham Borough) ........................................... 71 Table 6-2: 2010 Level of Service Summary Results (Madison) ............................................................ 72 Table 6-3: 2010 Level of Service Summary Results (Morris Township) ............................................. 73 Table 6-4: 2010 Level of Service Summary Results (Morristown) ....................................................... 74 Table 6-5: 2010 Level of Service Summary Results (Hanover) ............................................................ 75 Table 7-1: 2028 Level of Service Summary Results (Chatham Borough) ........................................... 99





Table 8-4: Morristown: Intersection Improvement Matrix ................................................................ 117 Table 8-5: Hanover Township: Intersection Improvement Matrix.................................................... 118 Table 8-6: Transportation Alternative Recommendations ................................................................. 119

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE

Figure 2-1: Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3-1: National Network and NJ Access Network Roadways within the Study Area ................ 17 Figure 3-2: 2008 Existing AM/PM/Sat Traffic Volumes (Chatham Borough) .................................... 20 Figure 3-3A: 2008 Existing AM/PM/Sat Traffic Volumes (Madison) .................................................. 21 Figure 3-3B: 2008 Existing AM/PM/Sat Traffic Volumes (Madison) .................................................. 22 Figure 3-4: 2008 Existing AM/PM/Sat Traffic Volumes (Morris Township) ...................................... 23 Figure 3-5: 2008 Existing AM/PM/Sat Traffic Volumes (Morristown) ............................................... 24 Figure 3-6: 2008 Existing AM/PM/Sat Traffic Volumes (Hanover) ..................................................... 25 Figure 3-7: Transit Facilities in the Study Area ..................................................................................... 37 Figure 4-1: Exxon Site Commuter Survey Estimated Trip Distribution ............................................. 48 Figure 4-2: Survey Distribution – Commuter Arrival Times ............................................................... 49 Figure 4-3: Survey Distribution – Commuter Departure Times .......................................................... 49 Figure 6-1: 2010 No Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Chatham Borough)................................................ 58 Figure 6-2A: 2010 No Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Madison) .............................................................. 59 Figure 6-2B: 2010 No Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Madison) .............................................................. 60 Figure 6-3: 2010 No Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Morris Township).................................................. 61 Figure 6-4: 2010 No Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Morristown) ........................................................... 62 Figure 6-5: 2010 No Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Hanover) ................................................................ 63 Figure 6-6: 2010 Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Chatham Borough) 64





Figure 6-11B: 2010 Short-Term Intersection Improvement Concept (Chatham Borough) .............. 78 Figure 6-12: 2010 Short-Term Intersection Improvement Concept (Madison) .................................. 80 Figure 6-13: 2010 Short-Term Intersection Improvement Concept (Madison) .................................. 81 Figure 6-14: 2010 Short-Term Intersection Improvement Concept (Morris) ..................................... 82 Figure 6-15: 2010 Short-Term Intersection Improvement Concept (Morristown) ............................ 84 Figure 7-1: 2028 No Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Chatham Borough)................................................ 86 Figure 7-2A: 2028 No Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Madison) .............................................................. 87 Figure 7-2B: 2028 No Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Madison) .............................................................. 88 Figure 7-3: 2028 No Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Morris Township).................................................. 89 Figure 7-4: 2028 No Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Morristown) ........................................................... 90 Figure 7-5: 2028 No Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Hanover) ................................................................ 91 Figure 7-6: 2028 Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Chatham Borough) ..................................................... 92 Figure 7-7A: 2028 Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Madison) ................................................................... 93 Figure 7-7B: 2028 Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Madison) .................................................................... 94 Figure 7-8: 2028 Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Morris Township) ....................................................... 95 Figure 7-9: 2028 Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Morristown) ................................................................. 96 Figure 7-10: 2028 Build AM/PM/Sat Volumes (Hanover) .................................................................... 97 Figure 7-11: 2028 Long-Term Intersection Improvement Concept (Chatham Borough) ................ 105 Figure 7-12: 2028 Long-Term Intersection Improvement Concept (Madison) ................................. 106 Figure 7-13A: 2028 Long-Term Intersection Improvement Concept (Morris Township) ............... 108 Figure 7-13B: 2028 Long-Term Intersection Improvement Concept (Morris Township) ............... 109 Figure 7-13C: 2028 Long-Term Intersection Improvement Concept (Morris Township) ............... 110 Figure 7-14: 2028 Long-Term Intersection Improvement Concept (Morristown) ........................... 111 Figure 7-15: Traffic Calming Measures ................................................................................................ 112





1.0 INTRODUCTION

In October 2000, the Rockefeller Group Development Corporation of New York City and Gale &

Wentworth of Florham Park (Rock-GW LLC) announced that they had jointly acquired the former 260-

acre Exxon Research Facility (Exxon Site) and had preliminary plans to create a mixed-use development,

named “The Green at Florham Park”. The former Exxon property, vacant since 1999, is situated in the

midst of several other office complexes and residential neighborhoods on Park Avenue within Florham

Park Borough. The development site is also located next to a cluster of large academic institutions,

including the Florham-Madison Campus of Fairleigh Dickinson University, the Academy and College of

Saint Elizabeth and Drew University.

The County of Morris, in cooperation with area municipalities, including Florham Park Borough,

Borough of Madison, Morris Township, Hanover Township, Chatham Borough and the Town of

Morristown, retained The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) to perform a regional traffic study to

determine existing and future deficiencies, and identify potential improvements necessary to several

roadway corridors and intersections, due to the proposed redevelopment of the Exxon Site.

Currently the training facility for the New York Jets professional football team has been constructed and

is operational on the site. The proposed mixed-use development, The Green at Florham Park, is expected

to be completed in several phases. These developments can be divided into the following land uses:

o 250-room Hotel with 75,000 SF fitness center/health club;

o 100,000 SF Sports Medicine Institute;

o 600,000 SF Office Repopulation;

o 130,000 SF of General Office Space; and

o 425 Age-Restricted Residential Units (55 years of age and above).

The purpose of this study was to examine the traffic impacts associated with the redevelopment of theformer Exxon site to the outlying areas not included in previous analyses. Within the general project

area, several studies have been completed in recent years. One of these studies included the 2027

Transportation Needs Assessment Study, dated December 23, 2007 and prepared by Greenman-Pederson

Inc. (GPI) for the Borough of Florham Park, which focused on impacts along State Route 24, Columbia

Turnpike, Ridgedale Avenue and Park Avenue. The study produced an analysis of 2007 traffic

operations, and provided traffic projections and operations analysis for the year 2027 on roads in the

study area. The study also recommended improvements to mitigate future traffic impact. The 2027

Transportation Needs Assessment Study examined the following intersections:

Columbia Road & Normandy Parkway

Columbia Road & Normandy Heights

Columbia Turnpike & W. Honeywell Dwy

Columbia Turnpike & Park Avenue

Columbia Turnpike & Algonquin Parkway

Ridgedale Avenue & James Street

Ridgedale Avenue & Municipal Complex

Ridgedale Avenue & Park Street

Ridgedale Avenue & Greenwood Avenue

Park Avenue & Campus Drive





Madison Avenue & Loantaka Way

Main Street & Central Avenue

Main Street & Green Village Road

Main Street & Greenwood Avenue

Similarly, Stantec Inc. prepared a Traffic Impact Study, dated March 2008, for the redevelopment of the

former Exxon property. The study, General Development Plan: The Green at Florham Park (GDP), was

prepared for the developer of the site, Rock-GW, LLC. The traffic study primarily focused on impacts

along Park Ave and potential roadway and intersection improvements. The General Development Plan:

The Green at Florham Park study examined the following intersections:

Park Avenue & Columbia Turnpike

Park Avenue & Park PlacePark Avenue & Punch Bowl Road / Ward Place

Park Avenue & Campus Drive

Park Avenue & Main Site Driveway / Florham Road

Park Avenue & Danforth Road

Park Avenue & Ridgedale Avenue

Park Avenue & Madison Avenue

Each of these studies examined specific areas which were not to be reexamined as part of this study. SeeTable 1-1 for a list of the recommendations presented as part of these two studies. The recommendations

presented in the Table 1-1 were not duplicated as part of this study and are not included in the “Handoff”

Matrices present at the conclusion of this report.

In addition to standard measurements of roadway performance such as Level of Service (LOS), the

existing transportation system’s performance was evaluated to reduce congestion within Florham Park

Borough, Madison Borough, Hanover Township, Morris Township, Chatham Borough and the Town of

Morristown due to the potential redevelopment of the former Exxon Site. It is recognized that relying

upon the existing transit system alone would not be sufficient to eliminate future congestion within theproject area. However, transit improvements, in concert with roadway improvements, can improve the

mobility, accessibility, reliability and cost-effectiveness of the overall transportation system. Therefore, a

goal of this study is to seek ways to increase capacity at select intersections and increase passenger trips

while reducing the drive-alone trips within the study area. To accomplish these goals, it is important to

understand existing travel patterns within the project area. The following sections of this report

summarize the methodology and findings for the project area.



Table 1-1: Status of Previously Recommended Improvements

Columbia Turnpike and Cali Driveway Add a NB left turn arrow and a third WB lane. 2027 Transportation Needs Assessment Not currently scheduled

Columbia Turnpike and Triumph

Driveway

Add an exclusive SB right turn lane with overlap

green arrow that runs concurrently with EB left turns

and three WB through lanes.

2027 Transportation Needs Assessment Not currently scheduled

Columbia Turnpike and James Street

Add a third WB lane through this intersection, and

this should be extended through Ridgedale Ave,

Park St and then Triumph Square

2027 Transportation Needs Assessment Not currently scheduled

1. Split phase the NB and SB approaches, and

allow the center lane to turn left or proceed straight

through.

2. Replace intersection equipment. Design & Construction

1. Add NB left turn lane.

2. Replace intersection equipment.

1. Reconstruct intersection with an EB left turn lane.

2. Replace intersection equipment.

1. Signalize intersection.

2. At the entrance to the jughandle, the center SB

lane should allow traffic to turn right or proceed

straight.1. Widen Punch Bowl Rd approach to provide an

EB right turn lane.

2. Widen SB approach from approximately 400 FT

north of Punch Bowl Rd, continuously to the three

lane section by Campus Dr

3. The signal will require reconstruction as part of

these improvements.

Park Avenue and Exxon/Hamilton Park

Conference Center Driveway

Modify WB right turns in one of two ways - create a

double right turn movement and control it with the

signal, or create an acceleration lane for the WB

right turn lane.

2027 Transportation Needs AssessmentDeveloper to implement

some of the improvements

Park Avenue and Danforth RoadAdd a SB right turn lane, a WB right turn lane, an

EB left turn lane, and an EB left turn arrow.2027 Transportation Needs Assessment

Developer to implement


Main Street (Route 124) and Central

Avenue/Waverly Place

Create east-west left turn lanes by eliminating some

on street parking. Eliminate the NB left arrow.2027 Transportation Needs Assessment Not currently scheduled

1. Eliminate the EB right turn lane and crosswalk on

the west side of the intersection.

2. Create two WB lanes to Park Ave, allow left

turns from the NB right lane.

Main Street (Route 124) and Greenwood

Avenue/Prospect Street

Create eastwest left turn lanes and add a SB left

turn arrow.2027 Transportation Needs Assessment Not currently scheduled

Six Alternatives Presented:

1. Signalize Ramp from EB NJ 24

2. New Ramp from EB NJ24

3. New Bypass Road

4. Jughandle

5 G d S ti

Columbia Turnpike and Ridgedale

Avenue2027 Transportation Needs Assessment

Columbia Turnpike and Hanover Road 2027 Transportation Needs Assessment

Ridgedale Avenue and James Street 2027 Transportation Needs Assessment

Columbia Turnpike and Park Avenue 2027 Transportation Needs Assessment

Hanover Avenue and James Street 2027 Transportation Needs Assessment

Park Avenue and Punch Bowl

Road/Ward Place2027 Transportation Needs Assessment

Main Street (Route 124) and Village

Green Road2027 Transportation Needs Assessment

INTERSECTION

IMPROVEMENT STUDY STATUS

Not currently scheduled

County is progressing with

bypass road alternative

2009 -2010




Developer to implement




Table 1-1 (Continued): Status of Previously Recommended Improvements

INTERSECTION

IMPROVEMENT STUDY STATUS

Morris County Metro Bus Service

Reduce headways on the existing NJT/Morris

County Metro 3 bus route, and modify routing to

include Columbia Tpk and Park Ave. Also,

investigate providing new bus service to/from the

north.

2027 Transportation Needs AssessmentRequires Further

Investigation

General Transit Enhancements

Create bus stops with shelters and schedules at

strategic locations. Create an integrated transit map

and schedule for the area, and distribute copies of

it as part of a transit marketing campaign.


Investigation

Land Use Strategies

Ensure that new development is designed and built

at pedestrian scale by providing sidewalks

throughout, and locating buildings close to streets

and parking in back.


Investigation

Bicycle / Pedestrian Accommodation

Provide sidewalks, showers, and bicycle lockers at

new commercial developments. Pursue a new

pedestrian and bicycle bridge over NJ 24.


Investigation

Other Initiatives

Enhance existing ride matching services and

guaranteed ride home strategies for office

complexes in the study area. Also, implement

preferred parking for car pools at office complexes,

and maintain a ride share coordinator.


Investigation

Columbia Turnpike and Cali Driveway

Intersection

In order to accommodate Phase I of Triumph

Square, a jughandle from EB Columbia Tpk is bein

added to this intersection, and the north leg is beingupgraded for two-way operation.

2027 Transportation Needs Assessment –

Citing planned Triumph Square Improvements

To be constructed with

Triumph Development

Columbia Turnpike and Triumph Square

Driveway Intersection

In order to accommodate Phase II of Triumph

Square, a new signalized intersection will be added

to Columbia Tpk between the Cali Driveway and

Park St. This intersection will include EB double left

turn lanes, a WB right turn lane, a free flowing SB

right turn lane (with a receiving lane), and double

SB left turn lanes.

2027 Transportation Needs Assessment –

Citing planned Triumph Square Improvements

To be constructed with

Triumph Development

Columbia Turnpike Improvementsbetween Cali Driveway and Park Street

As part of the above intersection improvements, a

center island is to be created along the above

section of Columbia Tpk. As well, an auxiliary WBlane is going to be added between the proposed

Triumph Square driveway and the jughandle ramp

for the Cali driveway intersection.

2027 Transportation Needs Assessment – Citing planned Triumph Square Improvements

To be constructed withTriumph Development

1. Install a three-phase, semi-actuated traffic signal

with a 90-second cycle length and coordinate the

timing with the adjacent traffic signals along Park

Ave. The signal phasing would include a Park Ave

NB/SB lead left-turns phase, a Park Ave NB/SB

phase, and a Danforth Rd EB/WB phase.

2. Widen the Park Ave SB approach to provide foran exclusive right-turn bay 245 feet in length.

3. Restripe the Park Ave NB approach to provide a

left-turn bay 175 ft in length (the existing, closed

driveway leading into the Exxon Property would be

eliminated as part of the age-restricted housing

development).

Phased construction is

under designPark Avenue / Danforth Road

The Green at Florham Park General

Development Plan Traffic Impact Study





2.0 STUDYAREA

Generally, the study area, depicted in Figure 2-1, consists of varied land uses, primarily commercial,institutional, residential and recreational land uses. The area studied encompasses the section of Morris

County surrounding the corridor of NJ Route 124 and NJ Route 24 extending from Chatham Borough

west to Morristown. NJ Route 24 serves the area as a limited access freeway with full interchanges at exit

2 (Columbia Turnpike) and exit 7 (NJ 124/River Road/JFK Parkway) and with a partial interchange at

exit 1 (Whippany Road). NJ Route 124, along with Whippany Road, Park Avenue, and Columbia

Turnpike consist of the main arterial roads through the study area. NJ Route 124 known locally as

Madison Avenue and Main Street services downtown Chatham Borough, downtown Madison, Drew

University, Morristown Memorial Hospital, and the corporate headquarters on Giralda Farms. Locatedbetween Madison Avenue and Park Avenue are Fairleigh Dickinson University, the College of St.

Elizabeth, and the Morris County Golf Club. Columbia Turnpike and Park Avenue provide access to the

Honeywell Corporate Headquarters, Morristown Municipal Airport, the NY Jets Training Facility with

associated redevelopment, and other major office parks such as the office complex along Campus Drive.

To accommodate economic growth, prosperity and the needs of the region, an expansive transportation

network is in place, consisting of major state, county and local roadways, as well as commuter rail and

bus transit. Previous studies have determined that most of the regional traffic travels along the region’s

two major freeways: Route 287 in the north-south direction and Route 24 in the east-west direction.Shorter, more localized trips occur on Route 124 (Main Street/Madison Avenue), Park Avenue and

Ridgedale Avenue. However, similar to other metropolitan regions, local roads are increasingly carrying

regional traffic due to congested conditions on major highways.





3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Readily available transportation data from previous studies (e.g., traffic data, transit data, traffic impactdocuments for other developments, and agency planning documents) pertaining to the study area were

utilized whenever possible. See Appendix A for a list of documents reviewed as part of this study. Berger

performed a physical inventory of all roadways within the study area. Data and information obtained

from all supplemental sources (e.g., the municipalities) within the project area were compiled and

photographs of physical features were obtained. This inventory information included the following:

3.1 Data Collection

Upon initiation of the project, Berger requested existing traffic and transportation related information in

the project study area. A project kick-off meeting was held at Berger’s office with members of the local

municipalities, County officials, NJ TRANSIT and the project team. Documents from the municipalities

were received at this meeting and a list of these documents is shown in the Appendix A.

Berger performed a series of Manual Turning Movement Counts (MTMC) during the peak periods in

early May 2008 to determine the existing peak activity at the 24 study intersections selected by the

County and local municipalities. Traffic counts were performed from 7:00 AM to 9:00AM and 4:00 PM

to 6:00 PM on a typical weekday; either Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday and during typical Saturday

peak hours from 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM. Manual turning movement counts included vehicle classification

and were performed at 15-minute increments. Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATRs) were placed at

roadway locations to supplement and verify the manual counts. The data were grouped into 60-minute

continuous counts to develop hourly traffic volumes. Peak hour factors have been computed based on the

information collected.

The count data sheets are included in Appendix B. The traffic count data was collected at the following

intersection study locations:

Madison

1. Park Ave (CR 623) and Chateau Thierry Ave (Unsignalized)

2. Ridgedale Ave and Burnet Road (Unsignalized)

3. Madison Ave (NJ 124) and Danforth Road (Unsignalized)

4. Madison Ave (NJ 124) and Loantaka Way (CR 636) (Signalized)

5. Park Ave (CR 623) and Elm Street (Unsignalized)

6. Madison Ave (NJ 124) / Main St (NJ 124) and Kings Rd (Signalized)

7. Main St (NJ 124) and Green Village Rd (CR 647) (Signalized)

8. Main St (NJ 124) and Central Ave (CR 608) / Waverly Pl (Signalized)

9. Main St (NJ 124) and Rosedale Ave / Cross St (Signalized)

Morris Township

10 East Hanover Ave (CR 650) Whippany Rd (CR 511) and NJ 24 Ramp (Signalized)





Chatham Borough

17. Watchung Avenue (CR 646) and Lafayette Ave (Signalized)

18. Main St (NJ 124) and Hillside Ave (Signalized)19. Main St (NJ 124) and Lafayette Ave (Signalized)

20. Main St (NJ 124) and Fairmount Ave (CR 638) (Signalized)

21. Main St (NJ 124) and Passaic Ave (CR 607) (Signalized)

Hanover Township

22. Park Ave (CR 623) and Whippany Rd (CR 511) (Signalized)

23. Whippany Road and Ford Hill Rd (Unsignalized)

24. Park Ave (CR 623) and Ford Hill Rd (Signalized)

3.2 Intersection Descriptions

Berger performed a physical inventory of all roadways within the study area, which is used to establish

accurate existing network link characteristics. The goal of this task is to document the existing roadway

geometry and traffic control regulations along travel routes for use in the development of improvement

concepts.

Madison1. Intersection of Park Avenue (CR 623) and Chateau Thierry Avenue (unsignalized)

This is an unsignalized, “T”-intersection with Park Avenue running along the east-west direction

and Chateau Thierry Avenue along the north-south

direction. The Park Avenue westbound approach

operates with one lane containing through and right-turn

movements. The eastbound approach has one through

lane and a 175-foot left-turn lane. Chateau Thierry

Avenue extends off to the north of Park Avenue. Itconsists of approximately 40 feet of curb-to-curb

roadway width. The intersection approach has

approximately a 20-foot lane, allowing left and right turn

movements, controlled with a stop bar and stop sign.

2. Intersection of Ridgedale Avenue and Burnet Road (unsignalized)

This is an unsignalized, “T”-intersection with Ridgedale Avenue running along the north-south

direction and Burnet Avenue extending off to the west,

running along the east-west direction. Ridgedale

Avenue consists of two lanes, approximately 32 feet

wide, curb-to-curb. The northbound approach has a

shared left and through lane, while the southbound has

View southbound from ChateauThierr Avenue to Park Avenue





View eastbound along Madison Avenue

at Loantaka Way

3. Intersection of Madison Avenue (NJ 124) and Danforth Road/Dodge Drive (signalized)

This is a four-legged intersection with Madison Avenue running along the east-west direction with

Danforth Road extending north and Dodge Drive extending south. Madison Avenue is four laneswide with a striped center median. The eastboundapproach consists of two through lanes and one

exclusive left turn lane, approximately 200 feet in

length. The westbound approach consists of two

through lanes, with restricted left turns onto Dodge

Drive. U-turns and vehicles needing to access DodgeDrive from the westbound approach occur via a farside

jug-handle. Dodge Drive traverses the Giralda Farms

Office Complex and allows access to the corporateoffices on the site. It consists of four lanes with a grass

median and a security gate house 140 feet to the south of the intersection. Dodge Drive approaches the intersection as three lanes, one exclusive right-turn

lane, one exclusive left-turn lane, and one shared through/left-turn lane. The Danforth Road

approach consists of two lanes: one lane from the jughandle and one lane from the road to the north.

The intersection is controlled by a three-phase signal with a cycle length of 90 seconds. The

northbound and southbound approaches operate independently, with exclusive signal phases, while

the eastbound and westbound approaches operate concurrently.

4. Intersection of Madison Avenue (NJ 124) and Loantaka Way (CR 636) (signalized)

This is a signalized, “T”-intersection with Madison

Avenue running along the east-west direction and

Loantaka Way branching off to the south, running

along the north-south direction. Madison Avenue is

four lanes wide and tapers to two lanes east of the

intersection. The eastbound approach consists of one

shared left-through lane and one lane for throughmovements. The westbound approach widens from

two travel lanes to three approach lanes, with a tapered

right-turn lane. Approaching the intersection,

Loantaka Way is two lanes with a channelized right

turn controlled by a yield sign. The intersection is

controlled by a three-phase signal with a 100-second signal cycle length. Westbound left turns are

permitted and protected. Eastbound right turns are protected and overlap with the phase that

services Loantaka Way.

5. Intersection of Park Avenue (CR 623) and Elm Street (unsignalized)

This is an unsignalized “T”-intersection with Park

Avenue running east-west and Elm Street running

north-south, extending off to the south of Park

A P k A i t f t l

View westbound along Madison Avenue atDanforth Road / Dod e Drive





View westbound along Main Street atRosedale / Cross Street

View of the intersection from EastHanover Avenue, facing east.

9. Intersection of Main Street (NJ 124) and Rosedale Avenue / Cross Street (signalized)

This is a four-legged, signalized intersection with Main

Street running along the east-west direction andRosedale Avenue and Cross Street running along the

north-south direction. Main Street has two 11-foot lanes

and nine-foot wide shoulders. The eastbound and

westbound approaches consist of one shared left,

through and right-turn lane, with tapered shoulders,

allowing for vehicles to navigate around left-turning

vehicles. Rosedale Avenue extends north from Main

Street and at the intersection has a left only lane along

with a shared through and right lane. Cross Streetextends south from Main Street. It consists of one

shared left, through and right lane. The intersection is controlled by a semi-actuated, three-phase

signal. Southbound left turns are permitted and protected. The cycle length is 90 seconds.

Morris Township

10. Intersection of East Hanover Avenue (CR 650),

Whippany Road (CR 511) and NJ 24 Ramp (signalized) Whippany Road is four lanes wide in the north-south

direction with additional left- and right-turn lanes both

north and southbound. Hanover Avenue is two lanes

wide with an additional channelized right-turn lane and

extends west from Whippany Road. One lane of

eastbound Hanover Avenue becomes left-turn only. A

single-lane entrance ramp for NJ Route 24 extends east

from Whippany Road. The intersection is controlled by

a three-phase signal. The two left turns from Whippany Road are protected and are able to operateindependently. The cycle length is 120 seconds.

11. Intersection of Madison Avenue (NJ 124) and Punch Bowl Road / Canfield Road (unsignalized)

This is a four-legged intersection with Madison Avenue running along the east-west direction and

both Punch Bowl Road and Canfield Road running in the north-south direction. Madison Avenue

is two lanes wide. Both the northbound and southbound approaches have a shared left, through and

right lane. Punch Bowl Road is two lanes wide, with a shared left, through and right lane, and

extends north from Madison Avenue. Canfield Road is two lanes wide, with a shared left, throughand right lane, and extends south from Madison Avenue. The intersection is controlled by stop bars

and stop signs on Punch Bowl Road and Canfield Road.

12. Intersection of Madison Avenue (NJ 124) and Old Glen

Road/Kahn Road (signalized)

This is a four legged intersection with Madison Avenue





View westbound from Main Street at

Lafayette Avenue / Van Doren

View of intersection from Main Street,

Chatham Borough

17. Intersection of Watchung Avenue (CR 646) / Shunpike Road (CR 646) and Lafayette Avenue(signalized)

This is a four-legged intersection with Watchung Avenue and Shunpike Road running along the

east-west direction and Lafayette Avenue running in the north-south direction. Watchung Avenue

approaches the intersection from the east and is two lanes wide; left, through and right. Shunpike

Road has the same approach from the west. Lafayette Avenue has left-turn lanes for both

northbound and southbound traffic, along with a shared through and right-turn lane. The

intersection is controlled by a two-phase controller. The cycle length is 90 seconds.

18. Intersection of Main Street (NJ 124) and Hillside Avenue(signalized)

This is a four-legged intersection with Main Street running

along the east-west direction and Hillside Avenue running

along the north-south direction. Main Street is two lanes

wide with a shared left, through and right-turn lane. At the

intersection, northbound Hillside Avenue has a right-turn-

only lane and a shared left-turn and through lane, while

southbound has a shared left-turn, through and right-turnlane. The intersection is controlled by a two-phase

controller. The cycle length is 90 seconds.

19. Intersection of Main Street (NJ 124) and Lafayette Avenue / Van Doren Avenue (signalized)

This is a four-legged intersection with Main Street

running along the east-west direction and Lafayette

Avenue and Van Doren Avenue running along the north-

south direction. Main Street is two lanes wide. The

intersection has a left-turn lane and a shared through andright-turn lane, in both the east and westbound

directions. Lafayette Avenue approaches the

intersection from the south with two lanes. At the

intersection, there is a left-turn lane and a shared through

and right-turn lane. Van Doren Avenue approaches the

intersection from the north with two lanes. At the

intersection, there is a left-turn lane and a shared through and right-turn lane. The intersection is

controlled by a three-phase controller. The northbound left turn is protected and permitted. Thecycle length is 94 seconds.

20. Intersection of Main Street (NJ 124) and Fairmount Avenue (CR 638) (signalized)

This is a three-legged intersection with Main Street running along the east-west direction and

Fairmount Avenue running along the north-south route. Main Street is two lanes wide. At the

intersection eastbound Main Street has a shared through and right turn lane while westbound a





View of the intersection from WhippanyRoad, facing west

View of intersection from Ford Hill Road,

facing west

three-phase controller. Southbound left turns are protected and permitted. The cycle length is 89

seconds.

Hanover Township

22. Intersection of Park Avenue (CR 623) and Whippany Road (CR 511) (signalized) This is a four-legged intersection with Whippany Road

running along the east-west direction and Park Avenue

running along the north-south direction. Whippany

Road is four lanes wide. Park Avenue is four lanes

wide south of Whippany Road. West of Whippany

Road, northbound Park Avenue tapers from two lanesto one, while southbound widens to add a left-turn

lane. Whippany Road has left-turn lanes in both

directions, a through lane and a shared through and

right lane. At the intersection, both north and

southbound Park Avenue have left-only lanes.

Northbound right turns from Park Avenue onto Whippany Road are channelized with a restricting

signal. The intersection is controlled by a four-phase controller. Left turns from Whippany Road

are protected and are serviced concurrently and are capable of independent operation. Left turns

from Park Avenue are protected and permitted. The cycle length is 108 seconds.

23. Intersection of Whippany Road and Ford Hill Road

(unsignalized)

This is a three-legged intersection with Whippany Road

running along the east-west direction and Ford Hill Road

running along the north-south direction. Whippany

Road is four lanes wide; at the intersection, the left lane

is shared for left turns and through traffic. Ford HillRoad is two lanes wide, extending south from Whippany

Road. Right turns from Ford Hill Road onto Whippany

Road are channelized with a restricting yield sign. The

intersection is controlled by a stop sign and stop bar at

Ford Hill Road.

24. Intersection of Park Avenue (CR 623) and Ford Hill

Road (signalized) This is a three-legged intersection with Park Avenue

running in the northwest-southeast direction and Ford

Hill Road extending north from Park Avenue. Park

Avenue is four lanes wide and Ford Hill Road is two.

Right turns from Park Avenue onto Ford Hill Road are

channelized with an added right turn lane and are





3.3 Existing Truck Routes Investigation

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) has established a hierarchy of roadways fortruck travel within the State of New Jersey, including double-trailer truck combinations and 102-inch

wide standard trucks. This hierarchy, detailed in the New Jersey Administrative Code (Title 16, Chapter

32), states that all trucks that travel within New Jersey should be made on National Network roadways.

Trucks should then travel on the New Jersey Access Network roadways only to access terminals, and

lastly on all other unrestricted roadways within the State. Local unrestricted roadways should only be

used to access terminals, and residential areas should be avoided when possible.

The New Jersey Access Network provides connections to the National Network and terminal facilities.

Roadways in the study area that are part of the National Network are I-78, I-80, I-280 and I-287. Withinthe study area, several roadways are part of the New Jersey Access Network. These roadways provide

connections throughout the County. The following is a list of roadways which are part of the New Jersey

Access Network:

Route 24

Route 10

Route 53

Route 124

Route 202

County Route 510

County Route 511

Essex County Route 649

As part of the study efforts for this report, Berger plotted the location of the National Network and New

Jersey Access Network roadways within the study area (see Figure 3-1). As part of this figure, area

zoning designations are also shown to illustrate areas where the National Network and New Jersey Access

Network roadways coincide with zoned areas that traditionally generate truck traffic. As can be seen in

Figure 3-1, the areas zoned for Business/Industrial land uses are predominantly located along both the

National and New Jersey Access Networks, which assists in keeping truck traffic from the local road and

residential areas within the study area.

As part of the study process, Berger collected traffic data as previously detailed in this report. Manual

turning movement counts were conducted at the 24 study locations during May and June of 2008. These

manual turning movement counts were conducted during the weekday morning and evening peak periods,

and the Saturday midday peak period. The manual turning movement counts included vehicle

classifications for passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The percentage of trucks observed during these

peak periods was calculated for each intersection. These percentages are shown in Table 3-1.

As can be seen from Table 3-1, the truck percentages observed at each of the study locations weregenerally below five (5) percent of the total traffic volumes. It was observed that during the AM peak

hour, truck percentages were found to be higher than the evening and Saturday peak times. During the

AM peak hour, approximately eight intersections showed truck percentages greater than four (4) percent.

During other times, truck percentages were generally between one and two percent. Given the study area

land uses, these truck percentages were reasonable. With the redevelopment of the former Exxon site, it



_̂

MORRIS TWP

HARDING TWP

HANOVER TWP

CHATHAM TWP

FLORHAM PARK BORO

MADISON BORO

EAST HANOVER TWPMORRISTOWN

CHATHAM BORO

SUMMIT CITY

SITELOCATION

4

1 0 10.5

Miles

SITELOCATION

§̈¦287

£¤202

Æ·24

Æ·10

Æÿ510

Æ·124

Æÿ510

Æ·53

Æÿ511

M a i n S t r e e t

M a d i s o n A v e n u e

C o l umb i a T ur np i k e

Æÿ649





peak period (2:00 PM to 6:00 PM). For location #1 personnel were stationed at the intersection of Park

Ave and Chateau Thierry Avenue and recorded the license plate numbers of traffic turning into and out of

Chateau Thierry Avenue. Similarly, at the intersection of Ridgedale Avenue and Burnet Road, license

plate numbers were recorded for traffic turning into and out of Burnet Road. License plate numbers were

then matched up to determine the number of through vehicles that did not have an origin or destination

within the neighborhood. It should be noted that during the matching processes, a window of five minutes

was given to establish if a vehicle was utilizing these roadways as a cut-through. If the time separating the

entrance and exit to the neighborhood was greater than this time, it was determined that the vehicle had an

origin or destination within the neighborhood. This same exercise was conducted for location number 2.

The study results are shown in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: License Plate Survey Results (September 2008)

As can be seen from the table above, Chateau Thierry Ave during the morning peak period had a total of

62 vehicles utilizing this route as a cut-through. Of the 62 vehicles 50 came from Ridgedale Ave and 12

from Park Ave. This trend was reversed in the PM peak period with 72 vehicles coming from Park Aveand 8 from Ridgedale Ave. The high number of vehicles in the PM peak utilizing this route may be due to

the delays incurred at the intersection of Ridgedale and Park Ave. This intersection is not studied under

this project, but was studied as part of the Florham Park Study and improvements are recommended at

this site. For Old Glen Road the number of cut-through vehicles both in quantity and percentage of total

vehicles were low and does not require mitigation. Traffic calming measures could be employed to deter

cut through traffic which are further discussed in Section 7 of this report.

3.5 2008 Existing Traffic Volume DevelopmentAfter completing the traffic counts, the existing volumes were compiled to obtain 2008 existing peak hourvolumes for each intersection. Volumes at intersections located adjacent to each other, or within close

proximity, were aggregated to have a common peak hour. These intersections are primarily located in

downtown Chatham Borough and Madison. The existing traffic data were also compared to other studies

d t t t d t l t d i t Th d t d f i t

Locations

AM Peak Mid-day PM Peak

No of Thru Veh.

% of Total Traf

No of Thru Veh.

% of TotalTraf

No of Thru

Veh.

% of Total

Traf

Chateau Thierry Avenue and Burnet

Road (between Park Ave. and

Ridgedale Ave.)

62 23% 25 12% 80 15%

South Street to Woodland Avenue to

Old Glen Road (between I-287 and

Rt. 124)

26 6.4% 3 2.1% 20 3.7%



The Louis Berge r Group Inc Red eve lopme nt o f the Forme r Exxon Resea rch Fac ility Site





3.6 Operational and Capacity Analysis Methodology

Detailed capacity analyses were conducted at the key studied signalized and unsignalized intersectionsusing the traffic analysis software SYNCHRO. The SYNCHRO model was used for the analysis because

of its ability to:

Analyze closely spaced intersections with blocking and lane change problems.

Model networks of signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Coordinate signalized intersections and produce realistic vehicle simulation.

Simulate the effects of signals on nearby unsignalized intersections and driveways.

Analyze the operation of intersections under heavy congestion.

The traffic volumes developed for existing and future conditions were used to perform these capacity

analyses. To develop the SYNCHRO model for AM, PM, and SAT peak hour conditions, peak hour

networks were developed. Key intersections, both signalized and unsignalized, and major roadways

within the study area are coded as nodes and links. Data that is needed as part of the model’s

development, such as congested speeds, link lengths, saturation flow rates, etc., are incorporated into the

peak hour networks. The criteria used to define Level of Service (LOS) for each type of facility is based

on the analytical procedures described in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000, published by the

Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Signalized Intersection

The LOS for a signalized intersection is defined in terms of control delay per vehicle (seconds per

vehicle). Control delay is the portion of total delay experienced by a motorist that is attributable to the

traffic signal. It is comprised of initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final

acceleration delay. The LOS criteria for signalized intersections presented in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria

LOSControl Delay per Vehicle

(Seconds Per Vehicle)A < 10B > 10 to 20C > 20 to 35D > 35 to 55E > 55 to 80

F > 80Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000

LOS A describes operations with minimal delays, up to 10 seconds per vehicle, while LOS F describes

operations with delays in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle Under LOS F excessive delays and longer






Unsignalized Intersection

The LOS for a stop sign controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay

and is defined for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole. The LOS

criteria for unsignalized intersections are presented in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4: Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Criteria

LOSAverage Control Delay(Seconds Per Vehicle)

A <10

B >10 to 15C >15 to 25

D >25 to 35

E >35 to 50

F >50

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000

3.7 2008 Existing Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Results

To assess the operating conditions of the twenty-four (24) signalized and unsignalized intersections

within the study area, a detailed LOS analysis was conducted. The 2008 Existing LOS Analysis Results

have been tabulated in Tables 3-5 through 3-9 for each time period, followed by a brief discussion on the

existing operational issues. These tables are each divided into signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Levels of Service deemed poor or unacceptable have been highlighted. A poor Level of Service and high

delay per vehicle results in intersection congestion, long queues, and general congestion of the

surrounding thoroughfares. Analysis worksheets are shown in Appendix C-1 through C-3.

Chatham Borough

The operational analysis results showed that the majority of intersections in Chatham Borough are

operating at or over capacity with poor service levels. See Table 3-5 for a summary of analysis results.

All, but one (1) intersection is located in the commercial business district of Chatham. During the peak

periods, Main Street traffic travels at slow speeds with congested conditions and vehicular queues

exceeding beyond the study intersections. Field observations revealed long queues during the three (3)

study periods, primarily attributed to frequent parking maneuvers, left turning traffic, and vehicles and

buses blocking traffic. The following key intersections operate as follows:

Main Street & Hillside Avenue

High volume on Main Street exceeds capacity at the intersection. Westbound traffic queues between

Passaic Avenue and Hillside Avenue.

Main Street & Lafayette Avenue / Van Doren Avenue




g p , p y


Main Street & Passaic Avenue

Volume is near capacity for intersection. Spillback between Fairmount Avenue and Passaic Avenue

eastbound and westbound results in reduced capacity of both intersections for all approaches.

Madison BoroughMadison’s business district is primarily situated along Main Street. Similar to Chatham Borough, Main

Street in Madison experiences similar conflicts with frequent parking maneuvers, insufficient storage

lanes for left turning vehicles resulting in long queue. Although most intersections operate at acceptable

LOS, queues are exceeded on several intersection approaches. See Table 3-6 for a summary of analysis

results. The following key intersections operate as follows:

Main Street & Rosedale Avenue / Cross Street

Volume exceeds capacity for the southbound, eastbound and westbound approaches.

Main Street & Green Village Road

During morning rush hour volume exceeds capacity for left turns from Green Village Road onto Main

Street.

Main Street & Central Avenue / Waverly Place

Although the levels of service are acceptable, queues exceed the storage length between intersections;specifically eastbound traffic impacts the intersection of Green Village Road and Main Street.

Park Avenue & Elm Street

High traffic volumes on Park Avenue cause delays for turning vehicles on Elm Street. Additionally,

poor sight distance increases the time vehicles take to make the necessary turn movements.

Ridgedale Avenue & Burnet Road

High traffic volumes on Ridgedale Avenue cause delays for turning vehicles on Burnet Road

Morris Township

Generally, the Morris Township intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. Several movements

at the Hanover Road/Whippany Road and Madison Avenue & Punch Bowl/Canfield Road intersections

exceed capacity and queue lengths. The Madison Avenue & Punch Bowl intersection also has heavy

eastbound left turn traffic in the AM peak period, which causes sudden stops and unsafe maneuvers. See

Table 3-7 for a summary of analysis results.

Town of MorristownTwo (2) intersections located in Morristown operate with poor levels of service at one or more

approaches. See Table 3-8 for a summary of analysis results.

Madison Avenue & Normandy Parkway

Volume exceeds capacity at the intersection primarily during the evening peak period Field




Table 3-5 (Continued): 2008 Existing LOS Analysis Results (Chatham Borough)

Intersection and Approach

2008 Existing

LaneGroup

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Sat Peak Hour

v/cRatio

Delay(sec.)

LOSv/c

RatioDelay(sec.)

LOSv/c

RatioDelay(sec.)

LOS

Main Street & Passaic Avenue(Signalized)

Eastbound Main St LTR 0.88 14.3 B 0.96 25.9 C 0.59 6.4 A

Westbound Main St LTR 1.01 41.9 D 0.76 12.7 B 0.62 8.9 ANorthbound Passaic Ave LTR 0.77 61.7 E 0.91 85.2 F 0.83 71.8 E

Southbound Passaic Ave LTR 1.72 393.0 F 1.43 269.7 F 0.42 45.5 D

Overall Intersection 74.4 E 55.9 E 16.8 B

Notes:

(*) Intersection or Approach exceeds capacity and delay.

Shading represents movements with poor operational conditions, LOS E & F.

L: Left, R: Right, T: Through, TR: Shared Through/Right, LT: Shared Left/Through; LR: Shared Left/Right; LTR: Shared Left/Through/Right

Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (2008)





Table 3-6: 2008 Existing LOS Analysis Results (Madison)


2008 Existing

LaneGroup


v/cRatio

Delay(sec.)

LOSv/c

RatioDelay(sec.)

LOSv/c

RatioDelay(sec.)

LOS

Madison Avenue & DanforthRoad / Dodge Drive (Signalized)

Eastbound Madison Ave L 0.32 14.5 B 0.22 13.8 B 0.09 4.4 A

TTR 0.44 12.5 B 0.43 14.8 B 0.24 4.8 AWestbound Madison Ave TTR 0.50 13.1 B 0.32 13.7 B 0.27 5.0 A

Northbound Dodge Drive L 0.10 31.8 C 0.32 30.7 C 0.07 42.1 D

LT 0.10 31.8 C 0.32 30.7 C 0.07 42.0 D

R 0.10 31.9 C 0.01 28.6 C 0.03 41.7 D

Southbound Danforth Rd LTTR 0.44 26.2 C 2.22 31.3 C 1.29 35.9 D

Overall Intersection 15.5 B 18.9 B 6.8 A

Madison Ave & Loantaka Way(Signalized)

Westbound Madison Ave LT 0.29 6.1 A 0.31 6.4 A 0.26 6.0 AEastbound Madison Ave TT 0.27 12.8 B 0.27 12.9 B 0.31 13.2 B

R 0.11 2.4 A 0.32 3.3 A 0.08 2.3 A

Northbound Loantaka Way LLR 0.56 33.4 C 0.23 28.6 C 0.25 28.8 C

Overall Intersection 15.0 B 11.0 B 12.2 B

Madison Avenue & Kings Road(Signalized)

Eastbound Madison Ave T 0.18 6.2 A 0.31 6.0 A 0.44 8.1 AR 0.08 5.6 A 0.19 5.2 A 0.15 5.8 A

Westbound Madison Ave LT 0.35 7.5 A 0.68 11.9 B 0.88 24.0 CNorthbound Kings Rd L 0.67 29.5 C 0.59 28.9 C 0.66 29.3 C

R 0.03 21.6 C 0.03 23.1 C 0.03 21.7 C


Main Street & Green Village Road(Signalized)

Eastbound Main St T 0.70 21.8 C 0.62 16.1 B 0.72 16.8 B

R 0.07 11.3 B 0.15 9.6 A 0.16 8.1 A

Westbound Main St LT 0.91 31.4 C 0.56 9.4 A 0.73 11.8 BNorthbound Green Village Rd L 1.23 155.0 F 0.72 36.3 D 0.59 32.3 C

R 0.05 23.2 C 0.06 25.1 C 0.10 26.7 C

Overall Intersection 62.7 E 16.5 B 16.1 B

Main Street & Central Avenue /Waverly Place (Signalized)


Fi l R i l T ffi St d




Table 3-6 (Continued): 2008 Existing LOS Analysis Results (Madison)


2008 Existing

LaneGroup


v/cRatio

Delay(sec.)

LOSv/c

RatioDelay(sec.)

LOSv/c

RatioDelay(sec.)

LOS

Main Street & Rosedale Avenue /Cross Street (Signalized)

Eastbound Main St LTR 0.82 23.2 C 1.30 164.7 F 0.70 15.4 B

Westbound Main St LTR 1.06 65.1 E 1.61 298.8 F 0.74 16.6 BNorthbound Cross St LTR 0.71 36.3 D 0.77 39.8 D 0.58 32.7 C

Southbound Rosedale Ave L 0.67 29.7 C 1.03 88.4 F 0.57 24.8 D

TR 0.21 19.3 B 0.42 20.9 C 0.19 20.3 C

Overall Intersection 42.7 D 184.1 F 18.8 B

Park Avenue & Chateau ThierryAvenue (Unsignalized)

Southbound Chateau Thierry Ave LR 0.42 19.2 C 0.48 25.9 D 0.11 13.0 B

Eastbound Park Ave LT 0.03 8.8 A 0.05 8.4 A 0.01 8.0 AOverall Intersection 3.0 A 3.6 A 1.0 A

Ridgedale Avenue & Burnet Road(Unsignalized)

Northbound Ridgedale Ave LT 0.02 0.6 A 0.02 0.5 A 0.01 0.4 A

Eastbound Burnet Rd LR 0.48 23.8 C 0.74 40.5 E 0.09 11.5 B

Overall Intersection 3.5 A 8.6 A 1.4 A

Park Avenue & Elm Street(Unsignalized)

Southbound Elm St LR 0.33 18.9 C 0.60 39.0 E 0.22 15.8 C

Westbound Park Ave LT 0.10 2.3 A 0.22 5.1 A 0.08 2.4 A


Notes:










Table 3-7: 2008 Existing LOS Analysis Results (Morris Township)


2008 Existing

LaneGroup


v/cRatio

Delay(sec.)

LOSv/c

RatioDelay(sec.)

LOSv/c

RatioDelay(sec.)

LOS

Hanover Avenue / NJ 24 Ramp &Whippany Road (Signalized)

Eastbound Hanover Avenue Rd L 0.48 20.1 C 0.40 23.9 C 0.42 23.6 C

T 0.99 56.5 E 0.89 44.4 D 0.76 32.3 CNorthbound Whippany Rd L 0.51 48.8 D 0.81 58.0 E 0.50 36.9 D

TT 0.32 33.6 C 0.27 30.1 C 0.09 15.3 B

R 0.04 31.0 C 0.04 27.8 C 0.01 14.7 B

Southbound Whippany Rd L 0.66 48.8 D 0.81 59.0 E 0.48 36.9 D

TT 0.48 32.2 C 0.44 33.0 C 0.09 15.6 B

R 0.44 33.1 C 0.74 45.0 D 0.31 18.3 B

Overall Intersection 39.2 D 41.7 D 24.6 C

Madison Avenue & Old GlenRoad / Kahn Road (Signalized)

Eastbound Madison Ave L 0.21 6.9 A 0.07 2.8 A 0.02 1.2 A

TR 0.87 19.8 B 0.63 6.3 A 0.39 2.5 A

Westbound Madison Ave L 0.31 12.7 B 0.18 3.6 A 0.04 1.4 A

TR 0.63 10.7 B 0.73 8.1 A 0.41 2.6 A

Northbound Old Glen Rd LTR 0.90 52.7 D 0.31 30.9 C 0.29 43.8 D

Southbound Kahn Rd LTR 0.04 24.6 C 0.34 30.5 C 0.01 41.9 D

Overall Intersection 23.0 C 10.4 B 5.2 A

Madison Avenue & Punch BowlRoad / Canfield Road

(Unsignalized)

Northbound Punch Bowl Rd LTR 3.23 * F 4.67 * F 0.70 101.9 F

Southbound Punch Bowl Rd LTR 3.04 * F 1.71 385.4 F 0.82 80.5 F

Westbound Madison Ave LTR 0.03 0.9 A 0.04 1.2 A 0.02 0.5 A

Eastbound Madison Ave LTR 0.37 1.0 A 0.13 3.3 A 0.07 1.9 A

Overall Intersection 653.9 F 462.0 F 10.9 B

Notes:








Table 3-8: 2008 Existing LOS Analysis Results (Morristown)


2008 Existing

LaneGroup


v/cRatio

Delay(sec.)

LOSv/c

RatioDelay(sec.)

LOSv/c

RatioDelay(sec.)

LOS

Madison Avenue & NormandyParkway (Signalized)

Eastbound Madison Ave L 0.81 53.4 D 0.99 84.6 F 0.57 44.1 D

TR 0.67 11.0 B 0.48 5.4 A 0.35 4.7 AWestbound Madison Ave L 0.02 13.5 B 0.00 11.5 B 0.00 0.0 A

T 0.79 28.6 C 1.09 79.6 E 0.52 11.4 B

R 0.13 0.2 A 0.14 0.2 A 0.06 0.1 A

Northbound (Driveway) LTR 0.01 31.2 C 0.12 38.3 D 0.00 0.0 A

Southbound Normandy Pkwy LT 0.72 43.1 D 0.75 53.5 D 0.10 37.1 D

R 0.30 0.5 A 0.32 0.5 A 0.08 0.1 A

Overall Intersection 19.9 B 42.5 D 12.5 B

South Street & I-287 Ramp(Signalized)

Eastbound Ramp L 0.73 33.7 C 0.71 33.0 C 0.54 28.6 C

R 0.06 22.9 C 0.07 23.3 C 0.03 24.3 C

Northbound South St LT 0.59 8.0 A 0.51 6.7 A 0.19 3.7 A

Southbound South St T 0.34 6.5 A 0.45 7.2 A 0.21 4.1 A

Overall Intersection 12.1 B 11.9 B 9.3 A

Morris Avenue & WashingtonAvenue (Unsignalized)

Northbound Washington Ave R 0.19 14.7 B 0.23 12.7 B 0.12 10.3 B


Morris Avenue & I-287 X36ARamp (Unsignalized)

Northbound Ramp R 0.85 35.6 E 0.44 13.5 B 0.19 10.1 B

Overall Intersection 11.3 B 4.2 A 2.6 A

Notes:









a eg o a a c Stud y

Table 3-9: 2008 Existing LOS Analysis Results (Hanover)


2008 Existing

LaneGroup


v/cRatio

Delay(sec.)

LOSv/c

RatioDelay(sec.)

LOSv/c

RatioDelay(sec.)

LOS

Park Avenue & Whippany Rd(Signalized)

Eastbound Park Ave L 0.04 13.5 B 0.26 10.6 B 0.07 8.4 A

TR 0.71 24.7 C 0.54 18.5 B 0.13 9.8 AWestbound Park Ave L 0.35 11.0 B 0.41 8.4 A 0.17 5.3 A

TR 0.51 15.3 B 0.71 20.8 C 0.16 8.1 A

Northbound Whippany Rd L 0.70 27.6 C 0.60 24.7 C 0.14 17.4 B

TTR 0.59 20.3 C 0.50 20 C 0.35 18.4 B

Southbound Whippany Rd L 0.25 17.3 B 0.13 17.6 B 0.08 16.9 B

TTR 0.36 17.7 B 0.46 19.5 B 0.25 17.7 B


Park Avenue & Ford Hill Rd(Signalized)

Eastbound Park Ave TT 0.26 6.6 A 0.23 4.7 A 0.09 2.9 A

Westbound Park Ave TT 0.21 6.3 A 0.38 5.5 A 0.16 3.2 A

R 0.09 5.7 A 0.25 5.1 A 0.06 2.9 A

Southbound Ford Hill Rd LR 0.61 25.9 C 0.48 26.2 C 0.42 31.2 C

Overall Intersection 10.7 B 7.3 A 7.4 A

Whippany Road & Ford Hill Road

(Unsignalized)Southbound Whippany Rd L 0.24 7.1 A 0.14 4.5 A 0.08 3.9 A

Westbound Ford Hill Rd L 0.14 14.6 B 0.66 22.3 C 0.11 10.6 B


Notes:







!!

EAST HANOVER TWP 4Æ·



!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! !!

!!

!!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!

!

"

"

"

"

"Æb

Æb

Æb

Æb

_̂

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

MORRIS TWP

FLORHAM PARKBORO

MADISONBORO

MORRISTOWN

CHATHAM BORO

Chatham

Madison

Morristown

Convent Station

SITE LOCATION

0.5 0 0.50.25

Miles

Potential Improvements to Various Intersections within:Florham Park, Borough of Madison, Hanover Township, Morris Township, Chatham Borough and the Town of Morristown

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.412 Mt. Kemble AveMorristown, NJ 07962

Figure3-7

£¤202

Æ·24

Æ·10

Æÿ510

Æ·124

Transit Facilities

§̈¦287

C O LU M B I A T U R N P I K E

M A I N S T R E E T

M A D I S O N A V E N U E

D O D G E D R I V E

P A R K A V E

C A M P U

S D R

P U N C H B

O W L R D K A

H N R D

D A N F O

R T H

R D

CAMPUS DRIVE

HONEYWELL

COLLEGE OF

ST. ELIZABETH

FAIRLEIGH

DICKINSONUNIVERSITY

GIRALDA FARMS

DREW

UNIVERSITY

S O U T H

S T R E E

T

*MCM = Morris County Metro

Legend Roads

MunicipalBoundary

CountyBoundary

Study Area

Æb Train Station

NJ Transit Rail

" Park-N-Rides

Bus Stop

Office Complexes/Universitieskj

!

Bus Routes

Convent Station Employer Shuttle (Wheels 966)

Dover-Honeywell (MCM-4)

Greystone Park-Livingston Mall (MCM-3)

Morristown Municipal Bus

Morristown-County College (MCM-2)

Morristown-Rockaway Mall (MCM-5)

Morristown-Willowbrook Mall (MCM-1)

New York City (Midtown)

TransOptions - Convent Station Shuttle

AT&T

Page 37





Table 3-10: Average Ridership Morris-Essex Line Stations

Average Weekday Rail Passenger Boarding

Station New Jersey Transit Fiscal Year2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Chatham Borough 1,310 1,309 1,315 1,323 1,405 1,489Madison 1,423 1,307 1,344 1,374 1,464 1,488Convent 1,188 1,196 1,245 1,211 1,254 1,363Morristown 1,982 1,911 1,949 2,013 2,142 2,222Morris Plains 687 679 694 645 809 829

Total Trips on Morristown Line(thousands)

11,203.2 10,971.4 11,196.6 11,463.0 11,919.2 12,468.5

Source: NJ TRANSIT Ridership Analysis & Fare Policy


Fina l Dra ft Reg iona l Traffic Stud y



Pag e 39

Table 3-11: Existing Parking Facilities at Railroad Stations on Morris-Essex Line

Station Parking Lot Regulations Type of Parking & Fees

# Location Capacity Evenings Nights Weekends On-Street Permit Daily

Regular ADA ResidentsNon-

ResidentsResidents

Non-residents

ChathamBorough

1Fairmount Ave &Railroad Plaza S

297 8Free after 4:00

PMAdvise Police Free Short Term Limits $300/yr - $4/day $4/day

2Bond St &

Fairmount Ave

113 2

Madison

1 Station Lot 73 9 Free Allowed Free Short Term Limits - - $2/day $2/day

2 Kings Rd Lot 1 98 1Free 4 PM to 2

AMNo Parking 2AM to 6 AM

PermitRequired

Short Term Limits$400/yr No Parking

- -

3 Kings Rd Lot 3 53 0 Must Pay Allowed Must Pay Short Term Limits - -

ConventStation

1Convent Rd & OldTurnpike Rd

244 9 Free after 6 PM Allowed Free No Parking $300/yr $600/yr $3/day $3/day

2 Old Turnpike Rd 108 0 Free after 6 PM Allowed Free No Parking - - $3/day $3/day3 Convent Rd 48 0 Free after 6 PM Allowed Free No Parking $300/yr No Parking

4 Convent Rd 125 0 Free after 6 PM Allowed Free No Parking $300/yr $600/yr $3/day $3/day

Morristown

1 Morris Street 51 6 Must Pay AllowedSat/pay;Sun/free

Short Term Limits

(no parking onMorris Ave)

$50/mth $50/mth $3/day $3/day2Lackawanna Pl &Lafayette Ave

99 2Must Pay until 7

PMAllowed

Sat/pay;Sun/free

Short Term Limits

3Headquarters Plaza- Water StreetEntrance

297 0Must Pay until

last Shuttle(8:30 PM)

No OvernightParking

No Shuttle No Parking

Morris Plains1

Littleton Rd &Speedwell Ave

114 3 Free Allowed Must Pay Short Term Limits - - $3/day $3/day

2Littleton Rd & MtTabor Rd

76 0 Free Allowed Must Pay Short Term Limits $40/mth $40/mth - -

Source: NJ TRANSIT





NJ TRANSIT Passenger Bus Service

A number of fixed-route and flexible-route passenger services currently operate on roadways within the

study area. These services, along with other categories of services currently operating in the area, aredescribed below. See Table 3-12 for NJ TRANSIT Bus Ridership for Bus Routes #70 and #73.

New Jersey Transit (NJT) Route 70 (Newark - Livingston/Florham Park): NJT Route 70

provides passenger bus service between Newark Penn Station and the Livingston Mall, with a

stop in Florham Park. Buses making this trip travel westbound from Newark Penn Station to the

Livingston Mall, then to Florham Park and back to the Livingston Mall, completing what is

known as the “Florham Park Loop”. Buses making the Loop stop at the NJT bus stop on Vreeland

Road and Hanover Road in Florham Park.

NJT Route 73 (Newark - Orange – Livingston): Route 73 travels between Newark Penn Station

and the Livingston Mall by way of the Oranges with a stop in Florham Park at Vreeland Road and

Hanover Road. Passenger service is provided every day.

Table 3-12: NJ TRANSIT Bus Ridership for Bus #70 and #73

Annual Passenger Trips

NJT Bus Routes NJT Fiscal Year2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

70 1,775,465 1,752,295 1,781,076 1,823,997 1,898,922 1,967,80673 836,151 848,264 872,634 966,950 1,021,224 1,048,022

SOURCE: NJ TRANSIT Ridership Analysis & Fare Policy

NJT WHEELS Suburban Transport Service

Passenger Bus service on NJT WHEELS Suburban Transport is operated by First Student, Inc., undercontract to NJ TRANSIT. The service is marketed by TransOptions and is provided Monday through

Friday along two routes: the Convent Station Employer Shuttle and the Sparta Diamond Express

operating between Sparta and Parsippany. For both NJT Wheels service routes, there is no service on

Saturdays, Sundays or major holidays. Passengers are required to have exact fare when boarding buses.

Wheels 966 (Convent Station Employer Shuttle): This is the Convent Station Employer Shuttle

which provides passenger service to area employers. This shuttle operates two bus routes. Route 1

provides passenger service to Crum & Foster, Honeywell and Campus Drive. There are six AMtrips and five PM trips. Route 2 provides passenger service to the Fairleigh Dickinson University

(FDU) Campus, Verizon and AT&T in the mornings and evenings. There are five bus trips in the

mornings and five bus trips in the evenings.

The Morris County Metro (MCM)





Private Commuter Services

Community Coach USA provides commuter bus service (CoachUSA Route 77) between Morristown’s

Headquarters Plaza (Morristown Green) on Speedwell Avenue and New York City Port Authority BusTerminal (NYPA) making a stop in Florham Park.

Agency Based Transportation Services

Several circulator/shuttle services currently serve the southeastern Morris County area. They include the

following: The Morris Area Paratransit System (MAPS), Morris On the Move (M.O.M.), Colonial Coach,

The Last Mile Shuttle, and the Parsippany Free Transit System.

The Morris Area Paratransit System (MAPS): The Morris Area Paratransit System (MAPS) isMorris County's transportation service for senior citizens and people with disabilities, operated by

the Morris County Department of Human Services. MAPS service vehicles operate from Monday

through Friday, 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM, providing transportation to county residents for medical

appointments, social services, adult day care and employment. Passengers can use MAPS if they

are a resident of Morris County age 60 or older or if they have a physical or mental disability that

includes functional limitations.

Colonial Coach: The Town of Morristown Department of Public Works operates two ColonialCoach Bus routes in and around Morristown making round trips from Headquarters Plaza. The

Colonial Coach bus is a free transportation service provided by the Township of Morris and the

Town of Morristown. Any resident of the Township or Town is eligible to utilize this service.

This bus service operates Monday through Saturday between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM.

There is no service on Sundays and public holidays.

The Last Mile Shuttle (Morris Plains Shuttle): This Shuttle provides employee transport between

the Morris Plains Railroad Station and several area employers (Weichert Realty, Delta Dental,

Intel, GlaxoSmithKlein). There are four shuttle buses in the morning and five shuttle buses in theevening. This program is managed by TransOptions.

Park-and-Ride Areas

Park-and-Ride lots make it easier for commuters to use mass transit, carpool or vanpool by providing a

secure place for them to leave their cars. Similar to the railroad station parking facilities discussed above,

most Park-and-Ride lots offer daily parking for a fee to non-residents, usually available on a first come,

first serve basis, while residents can purchase a monthly or annual permit. There are some 22 New JerseyDepartment of Transportation (NJDOT) Park-and-Ride facilities along I-80, I-287 and Route 23 in Morris

County. None of these are located close to the project area.

Proposed Improvements





Short-term and long-term alternatives for expanding and enhancing the transit network are discussed

below. An effective strategy for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) to reduce vehicular travel

demand for the Study Area will require investments in the following areas:

1. Commuter Rail Service

2. Passenger Bus Service

3. Park-and-Ride Facilities

4. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

5. Carpooling / Vanpooling Alternatives

1. Commuter Rail Services - The Morris & Essex line provides commuter rail services to the

Study Area. A NJ TRANSIT Quarterly Ridership Trends report shows that this rail line increased

ridership by 4.5% between the fourth quarter of 2006 and first quarter of 20071. Stations withinthe Study Area (Morristown, Convent Station, Madison and Chatham Borough) were identified to

be heavily used with an average weekday passenger boarding of over 1600 in 2007.

Additionally, Convent Station, which is the nearest rail station to the proposed ‘Green at Florham

Park’, has seen a ridership increase of 8.7% between 2006 and 2007.2

These growing ridership

numbers indicate that increasing train service (especially during weekday peak-hours) will benefit

commuters and potentially encourage transit ridership.

This recent increase in ridership is further supported by NJ TRANSIT’s transit ridership forecastsfor the Outer Morristown Rail Line Segment (which extends from Hackettstown to Chatham

Borough Stations)3. Overall, ridership is estimated to increase by a total of more than 3% over

the next 20 years (by 2030) along this segment, suggesting that expanded services both from the

Hoboken Division and the Midtown Direct trains may be necessary.

Rail Station Improvements

All four rail stations within the Study Area have commuter park-and-ride lots, and bus/shuttle

connections. Madison and Morristown Stations provide ADA compliant accessible boarding. A

windshield survey conducted by the Study Team indicates that minor improvements cansignificantly improve the station layout and better accommodate the projected ridership increases.

Since the ‘Green at Florham Park’ site is closest to Convent Station, detailed recommendations

are focused on this particular station, along with general ideas for improving the other three

stations within the Study Area. Pedestrian improvements should be considered as part of any

planned redevelopment around the stations. Such improvements are required by existing zoning

regulations for the local municipalities.

Convent Station:Convent Station is located off Old Turnpike Road, a block west of Route 124/Madison Avenue.

The following steps can be taken to improve the station’s layout and ADA accessibility:

Provide additional signage directing commuters to the rail station from Route

124/Madison Avenue and Park Avenue

Reorganize the parking area in front of the station to allow better flow of vehicles





Clearly designate an area for shuttles and buses. They currently park in front of the

station with other passenger cars drop-offs

Designate a taxi queuing area to reduce vehicular congestion in front of the station

The other three rail stations within the Study Area would also benefit from short-term

improvements to the pedestrian environment, traffic circulation and signage. Specific

recommendations include:

Morristown Station:

Midblock crosswalks connecting the eastern entrance of the rail station to the station

parking lot at Lackawanna Place. Currently crosswalks are present where Lackawanna

Place intersects with Lafayette Avenue and Morris Street. However, many pedestrians

access the station by crossing directly in front of the station entrance, which could causevehicular-pedestrian conflicts.

Lighting improvements within the park-and-ride facility

Madison Station:

Improved signage directing commuters from Route 124/Main Street to the station

Mid-block crosswalk in front of the station entrance on Lincoln Place. This will allow

safe and direct pedestrian access from the station to the retail located on Lincoln Place.

Chatham Borough Station:

Provide ADA compliant facilities.

Signs to reduce speed and cut-through traffic along Bond Street at the western side of the

rail station.

Improved signage directing commuters from Route 124/Main Street to the station

Reconfiguration of the vehicular entrance at Front Street. This entrance currently has a

narrow turning radius and low visibility of pedestrian movement.

2. NJ TRANSIT’s Passenger Bus Service - NJ TRANSIT provides fixed-route and flexible routepassenger services within the Study Area. Only Routes 70 and 73 serve Florham Park and the

only bus stop within the Study Area is located at the intersection of Vreeland Road and Hanover

Road. This bus stop is about four miles from the proposed ‘Green at Florham Park’ site. While it

may not be easily accomplished, possible service adjustments to these routes to access the ‘Green

at Florham Park’ site may be an option. This will allow commuters access to and from downtown

Newark and Newark Penn Station.

The Wheels 966/Convent Station Employer Shuttle, using two routes, provides connectionsbetween Convent Station and local employment centers directly adjacent to the ‘Green at

Florham Park’ site. Similarly, the ‘Last Mile Shuttle’ provided by TransOptions connects

employees at Giralda Farms to Convent Station. Results from a survey conducted for the on-

going NJTPA/NJ TRANSIT’s Northwest New Jersey Bus Study4

reflect the Convent Station

Employer Shuttle’s success in encouraging local employees in using transit for commuting





the residential complex within the proposed redevelopment. New bus shelter locations and

expanded bus schedules could be introduced in phases as various components of the

redevelopment are completed and occupied.

Another opportunity for reducing vehicular traffic would be to introduce a “Lunch Time

Shuttle” connecting office parks to the downtown main-street area around the Madison and

Morristown Stations. This area has a large concentration of restaurants and retail stores, which

would also benefit from the increased business. The shuttle system would also reduce parking

congestion along Route 124/Main Street during the lunch hours. Such a program could be

established by the developer as an amenity to the site, or in partnership with NJ TRANSIT and/or

the local municipalities.

Morris County Metro Route 3 (MCM3) serves passengers along Route 124/Main Street, withbus stops close to the rail stations at Chatham Borough, Madison and Convent Station. This route

could be expanded to include some peak-period trips along Park Avenue, between Madison

Station and Columbia Turnpike to serve office developments and educational institutions in the

area. Detailed study of transit commute patterns would be required to understand the viability of

such changes to the existing route.

Improving bus transit connections to the ‘Green at Florham Park’ site will necessitate additional

investments such as bus shelters along Park Avenue, which could support potential serviceexpansions of Route 70 and 73, MCM3 and shuttle buses. These bus shelters could be equipped

with printed schedules and route maps. In addition, construction of pedestrian connections from

the bus shelter to the surrounding businesses along Park Avenue, such as Verizon and the

Hamilton Park Hotel and Conference Center are also critical.

3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity - A safe and extensive pedestrian and bicycle network

encourages people to use transit. All four stations within the Study Area have sidewalks

connecting to the main station buildings. But a long-term strategy of providing sidewalks within a

quarter-mile radius (which usually equates to a five-minute walk), will encourage residents in thesurrounding communities to use transit. Towns in the study area, such as Madison, have invested

in providing sidewalks and bike lanes for area residents. For example, Convent Station has good

sidewalks between Route 124, and providing sidewalks from the College of St. Elizabeth campus

(on Convent Road) and along Punch Bowl Road will improve overall connectivity for

pedestrians. These type of improvements should be continued to be implemented which will

improve the quality of life in the study area and reduce needs for future parking requirements but

will only provide minimal benefits to traffic congestion.

Bicycles are the other effective non-motorized commuting option. Bicycle usage around Convent

Station and the surrounding area may be limited due to the area’s hilly terrain, but providing

bicycle facilities will encourage some users to access rail stations. While there are limited

dedicated bicycle paths within the Study Area, many residential and local roads around the rail

stations provide a safe environment for bicyclists



L tl i il t b d t i t bik h ld b bli i d t t f



Lastly, similar to bus and train route maps, bikeway maps should be publicized to promote safe

bicycle access to the transit station. The Morris County Division of Transportation has prepared a

Bicycle and Pedestrian User Guide, which is on the County website and is expected to be updated

in digital form in 2010.

4. Park-and-Ride Facilities - Parking facilities for commuters are an important component of

effective transit service. Within the Study Area, all the stations include park-and-ride lots. A

windshield survey conducted for this Study shows that the park-and-ride lots at all four stations

were well utilized during work days. The lots were typically full (or almost full) by morning rush-

hour. These results confirmed a 2005 parking inventory conducted by TransOptions, which

showed that the Chatham Borough and Madison Stations were at 100% capacity and Morristown

and Convent Station were approaching maximum capacity.

As these stations are located in suburban locations, the demand for parking will continue to

increase with a rise in train ridership. In addition to the existing parking, described below are

some recommendations for long-term expansions of park-and-ride lots at rail stations within the

Study Area:

Convent Station-- There are two adjacent private parking lots, the Madison Hotel lot and

a private parking lot for the office building located west of Old Turnpike Road, that are

currently underutilized. The existing park-and-ride could potentially be expanded byacquiring some of this under-utilized land, adjacent to the park-ride currently in place.

Morris Township also owns property close to the Station, which could be utilized for

expanding parking capacity. But currently no plans for such expansions are underway.

Madison Station -- The area around Madison Station is densely developed with few

vacant sites. But agreements with local retailers to share under-utilized sections of their

parking lots during weekdays, may allow for new parking spaces. The Stop and Shop, off

Prospect Street near Madison Station, is one example for a potential joint-use agreement.

The Borough of Madison has submitted a TIGER (Transportation Investment GeneratingEconomic Recovery) grant application to construct a 506-space structured parking deck

at their rail station. The deck will result in an additional 200 parking spaces if approved

for funding.

Chatham Borough Station – The station is surrounded by single family neighborhoods

and community facilities (school and community center). These land uses make it

difficult to support any park-and-ride expansions. Additionally, steep grades on the

western edge of the parking lot also limit potential expansion.

Morristown Station – The ongoing construction of ‘the Highlands at Morristown Station’

development project is expected to replace the 297-space NJ Transit parking lot with a

724-space parking deck structure; 415 of the spaces in this new deck will be permanently

dedicated to NJ TRANSIT commuters Hence it is unlikely that additional expansion of



Employers can contribute towards carpool and vanpool programs by providing priority parking



Employers can contribute towards carpool and vanpool programs by providing priority parking.

They can also support efforts by TransOptions by sponsoring ‘lunch and learn’ sessions about

available programs.

Summary

A safe, efficient and cost-effective transit experience will attract new users. Such a transit system

entails flexibility, commuting options, and efficient transfers between transit modes. It also requires

partnerships and cooperation between public and private providers as well as support from local

municipalities. The Study Area already has a good transit network in place. The ‘Green at Florham

Park’ project, however, is an opportunity to create new incentive for expanding and improving

commuter options in the Study Area.



4 0 COMMUTER SURVEY



4.0 COMMUTER SURVEY

As discussed in previous chapters, measuring the number of existing transit users for similar facilities

within the study area is an important step in exploring the potential base of ridership for the proposeddevelopment. In addition to examining the population and employment densities within the proposed

project area, Berger performed a simple transportation-oriented Origin and Destination Survey at some of

the similar developments within the study area. Surveys were distributed at the Giralda Farms Office Park

and the Campus Drive Office Campus. In doing this, current and accurate data about actual users of the

roadways and transit systems was inventoried. This provided current information as to how the

transportation system is utilized and allowed the Berger team to accurately estimate new trip routes to the

project area, given the proposed development and future development in the project area. Additionally,

Berger contacted NJ TRANSIT to coordinate a recent bus ridership survey they conducted. Informationwas received from NJ TRANSIT but since the project area of this study was only a very small portion of

the NJ Transit study results from the NJ Transit study could not be directly applied to this study.

The commuter survey created by Berger was developed to better understand the commuting habits in the

study area. The survey asked commuters their place of residence and questions pertaining to their typical

work hours, mode of transportation, and travel route to work. Building management of area office parks

were contacted for distribution of the survey. Surveys were only permitted to be posted in a common area

of the different office buildings. Commuters could then complete the survey and drop it in the provided

receipt box for use in the study. Commuters were also given an opportunity to comment on specific areasof their commutes where they experience poor traffic conditions on a regular basis. A copy of the survey

is included in Appendix D.

Surveys were completed by 126 respondents of 18 businesses located at the Giralda Farms Office Park

and the Campus Drive Office Campus. The surveys were tabulated and summarized. The travel patterns

exhibited by the commuters were used to develop a general distribution map for commuters traveling to

the study area. This distribution, as shown on Figure 4-1, will be used in the development of the future

Build traffic volumes to accurately distribute the traffic generated by the proposed mixed-usedevelopment throughout the study area.

The survey provided additional information about the commuters’ work hours, modes of transportation,

and reasons for choosing specific routes and travel methods. The findings are summarized below:

Work Hours and Flexibility – Of the respondents, 96 percent work full-time shifts, Monday

through Friday. 35 percent of the commuters said their work hours were flexible. In the

comment section of the survey, several commuters said they choose to leave early for work to

avoid poor traffic conditions. As shown on Figure 4-2, arrival times of employees are steadyfrom 7:00 AM through 9:00 AM, with the majority of employers arriving between 7:30 AM and

8:00 AM. Figure 4-3 illustrates that in the evening, the majority of commuters leave between

5:00 PM and 6:00 PM.




Fina l Reg iona l Traff ic Stud y

Figure 4-2: Survey Distribution – Commuter Arrival Times



gu e : Su vey st but o Co ute va es

Figure 4-3: Survey Distribution – Commuter Departure Times

The respondents were also able to comment on specific problems which they encounter regularly on their

commute. Although it is not part of this report’s study area, it is also important to note that theintersection of Columbia Turnpike and Park Avenue received the most comments on the survey. The

following were comments made about locations within the study area:

A traffic signal is needed at the intersection of Madison Avenue and Punch Bowl Road.

The traffic signal at Park Avenue and Punch Bowl Road is very dim, and sometimes drivers do

not see the left-turn signal. Installing a brighter light is recommended.

A ramp should be constructed to access Route 24 directly from Campus Drive.

Park Avenue is dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. It is suggested that sidewalks and bicyclelanes be constructed along Park Avenue to allow safe travel from the Borough of Madison to the

office complexes in Florham Park.

There is poor visibility at the left-turn movement from Danforth Road to Park Avenue.

The information gathered from this survey helped to better understand the existing travel patterns of

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

After 9:00 AM

8:30 - 9:00 AM

8:00 - 8:30 AM

7:30 - 8:00 AM

7:00 - 7:30 AM

Before 7:00 AM

P e r c e n t a g e o f C o m m u t e r s A r r i v a l T i m e s o f C o m m u t e r s

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

After 6:00 PM

5:30 - 6:00 PM

5:00 - 5:30 PM4:30 - 5:00 PM

4:00 - 4:30 AM

Before 4:00 PM

P e r c e n t a g e o f C o m m u t e r s

D e p a r t u r e

T i m e s o f

C o m m u t e r s



5 0 FUTURE VOLUME DEVELOPMENT



5.0 FUTURE VOLUME DEVELOPMENT

A key element in developing a future traffic model is to have a comprehensive understanding of planned

projects and anticipated employment and population growth in the study area. Any planned and approvedprojects within the study area that would contribute additional vehicular trips in the future were obtained

and those trips added to the study intersections. This study looked at several traffic analyses scenarios as

it pertains to the Exxon Site to determine operational conditions in future years. The analysis scenarios

include the following:

o 2010 No Build

o 2010 Build

o 2010 Build with Mitigation

o 2028 No Build

o 2028 Build

o 2028 Build with Mitigation

Year 2010 and 2028 No Build traffic volumes were developed using the background growth rate and site-

specific developments assuming the Exxon Site would not be fully redeveloped. The 2010 and 2028

Build traffic volumes were developed using the background growth rate, site-specific developments andtrips generated by the full build out of the Exxon Site as presented in the GDP Study.

The 2010 and 2028 Build with Mitigation used the same volumes developed for the Build scenario

considering proposed short-term and long-term improvements to the study intersections.

5.1 Background Growth Rates

The annual growth rates were developed using U.S. Census data, such as population and household

growth estimates, employment trends and forecasts for each municipality and the county. Based on the

available data, an average annual growth rate of 0.65% compounded for a period of two (2) years wouldoccur between 2008 and 2010 to the existing volumes. The growth was applied to the 2008 existing base

condition. Table 5-1: 2010 Population & Employment Growth Projections presents the summary data

results.

Table 5-1: 2010 Population & Employment Growth Projections

Municipality/County

Population Employment

2005 2010% Annual

2005 2010% Annual

Growth Growth

2005-2010 2005-2010

Chatham Borough 6,910 6,860 -0.15% 4,050 4,120 0.34%

Hanover Township 13,380 13,500 0.18% 31,910 33,030 0.69%





Similarly, for year 2028 an average annual growth rate of 0.50% compounded was applied to the existing

volumes for a period of eighteen (18) years between 2010 and 2028. Table 5-2: 2028 Population &

Employment Growth Projections presents the summary data results.

Table 5-2: 2028 Population & Employment Growth Projections

Municipality/County

Population Employment

2010 2030

% Annual

2010 2030

% Annual

Growth Growth

2010-2030 2010-2030

Chatham Borough 6,860 6,620 -0.18% 4,120 4,490 0.43%

Hanover Township 13,500 13,830 0.12% 33,030 35,810 0.40%

Madison Borough 16,600 17,380 0.23% 6,290 7,300 0.75%

Morris Township 21,610 23,950 0.52% 14,250 16,630 0.78%

Morristown 19,620 20,150 0.13% 17,840 19,770 0.51%

Florham Park 15,970 18,320 0.69% 14,400 17,030 0.84%

Average Growth (Municipality) 94,160 100,250 0.31% 89,930 101,030 0.58%

Average Growth (Morris County) 492,100 522,200 0.30% 309,100 358,700 0.75%

Source: U.S Census Data

5.2 Trip Generation: Site-Specific Developments

As part of the data collection effort, the planning/engineering departments of the county and study area

municipalities provided any proposed developments in the vicinity of the study area. There are several

proposed developments in the area that were considered in the future analysis. Since the additional traffic

that could be generated by occupying proposed or vacant office space, traffic volumes were includedunder the future conditions for these areas.

The sites included commercial developments that will be completed between the summer of 2008 and fall

2010 and developments proposed for construction after 2010, irrespective of the full completion of the

Exxon Site redevelopment. The proposed developments are located within the study area, primarily in

Florham Park and Madison. The majority do not have a specific date of construction. As a result, these

developments have been included in the 2028 No Build and Build scenarios.

These developments vary in size and the trip generation for each of these developments was calculated

using the 7th

edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and data

obtained from previous studies. The developments considered for inclusion into the future analysis have

been summarized by expected year of completion and listed in Tables 5-3 through 5-5.





Table 5-3: 2010 No Build Proposed Developments

Developments MunicipalityExisting /

Proposed LandUse

Size

Hamilton Park Conf Center Florham ParkProposed Conf.

Center Expansion

68 rooms +15,480SF Conf/Meeting

Space

Jets Training Facility1

Florham ParkProfessional Sports

Facility140,000 SF

Notes:

(1) Former Exxon Site

A summary of the developments considered for inclusion into the 2010 No Build future analysis are:

o Hamilton Park Conference Center Expansion

The Hamilton Park Conference Center is located off of Park Avenue, adjacent to FDU. The

proposed expansion will add 68 hotel rooms and 15,480 SF of conference/meeting room space to

the existing hotel and conference center. The estimated trips will be approximately 19 trips (10 in,

9 out) in the AM peak hour and 25 trips (14 in, 11 out) in the PM peak hour.

o Jets Training Facility

The Jets Training Facility is located within the Exxon site and is currently operational. The traffic

counts conducted for this study were completed prior to the opening of the training facility. As a

result, the trips for this site were added to the transportation network. The trip generation was

obtained from the New York Jets Training Facility Traffic Impact Study (prepared by Vollmer

Associates (Stantec), dated November 30, 2006). The facility would generate approximately 95

trips (86 entering, 9 exiting) during the AM peak period and 95 trips (9 entering, 86 exiting)during the PM peak period of a weekday.

Table 5-4: 2028 No Build Proposed Developments


Proposed LandUse

Size

Giralda Farms 1 (Reckson) Madison/ChathamPartially Vacant

Office146,000 SF

Giralda Farms 4 (Reckson) Madison/Chatham Proposed Office 448,100 SF





A summary of the developments considered for inclusion into the 2028 No Build future analysis are

o

Giralda Farms 1:Based on the Giralda and Stantec’s TIS for the Exxon Site, an additional 146,000 SF of

office space is available for occupancy. The estimated trips generated by the proposed

office space will be approximately 101 trips (93 in, 7 out) during the AM peak hour and

153 trips (32 in, 121 out) in the PM peak hour.

o Giralda Farms 4:

Based on the Giralda and Stantec’s TIS and additional inquiries by Berger, the proposed

commercial office building would be approximately 448,100 SF in size. Based on the

Giralda TIS the proposed office building will generate approximately 676 trips (595 in,81 out) during the AM peak hour and 651 trips (111 in, 540 out) during the PM peak

hour.

o 100-600 Campus Drive Vacancies:

Stantec’s TIS, approximately 14,100 SF of office space is available for occupancy. The

Campus Drive office complex is located at the northern border of the Exxon Site. Full

occupancy would generate minimal additional trips. Additional trips generated will be

approximately 30 trips (28 in, 2 out) in the AM peak hour and 23 trips (2 in, 21 out) inthe PM peak hour.

o 200-230 Park Place:

Approximately 29,395 SF of office space is available for occupancy. Full occupancy

would generate minimal additional trips. Additional trips generated will be

approximately 25 trips (24 in, 1 out) in the AM peak hour and 18 trips (2 in, 16 out) in

the PM peak hour.

o Triumph Square:Triumph Square is a proposed office development, approximately 750,000 SF. Based on

the Florham Park Needs Assessment Study by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc (GPI), the site

trips generated will be approximately 1,146 trips (1,008 in, 138 out) in the AM peak hour

and 1,080 trips (898 in, 182 out) in the PM peak hour.

o Honeywell Headquarters:

The existing Honeywell Corporate Campus has approximately 791,300 SF of vacant

space. Honeywell provided a list of potential uses for the vacant space, which werecategorized into general office, research and development (R & D), or medical office use.

The estimated trips generated in the AM will be approximately 1,417 trips (1,247 in, 171

out) and 1,405 trips (1,186 in, 219 out) in the PM peak hour.

o NJDOT Signal Coordination Project along Route 124:



Table 5 5: Proposed GDP The Green at Florham Park Build Developments



Table 5-5: Proposed GDP-The Green at Florham Park Build Developments


Proposed LandUse

Size

GDP Renaissance Club Sport Hotel &Fitness Center 1

Florham ParkProposed Hotel &

Fitness Center

250 rooms +75,000 SF Fitness

Center

GDP Office Repopulation 2 Florham Park Office Repopulation 600,000 SF

GDP Office (additional) 2 Florham Park General Office 130,000 SF

GDP Sports Medicine Institute 2 Florham ParkMedical-Dental

Office100,000 SF

GDP Age-Restricted Residential Housing 2 Florham ParkSenior Adult

Housing425 Residential

Units

Notes: (1) 2010 Build (2) 2028 Build

A summary of the developments considered for inclusion into the 2010 and 2028 Build future analysis

are:

o The Renaissance Club Sport Hotel

The proposed 250-room hotel is located within the Green at Florham Park development

and is expected to open by the year 2010 and will generate approximately 127 trips (77

entering, 50 existing) during the AM peak period and 148 trips (78 entering, 70 existing)

in the PM peak period.

o Fitness Center/Health Club

The fitness center/health club will be approximately 75,000 SF and located within the

proposed Renaissance Hotel Complex. The estimated trips generated will be

approximately 91 trips (38 entering, 53 existing) during the AM peak period and 304

trips (155 entering, 149 exiting) in the PM peak period.

o GDP Office Repopulation:

The proposed office development will consist of 600,000 SF of office space to bereallocated within the Exxon Site. The estimated trips generated will be approximately

786 trips (692 in, 94 out) in the AM peak hour and 751 trips (128 in, 623 out) in the PM

peak hour.

GDP Offi ( dditi l)



trips (157 in, 42 out) in the AM peak hour and 256 trips (69 in, 187 out) in the PM peak

hour



hour.

o GDP Age-Restricted Residential Housing

The 425 age-restricted housing units consist of 80 single family homes, 130 townhomes,

and 215 multi-family units. The estimated trips generated by the proposed development

will be approximately 97 trips (37 in, 60 out) in the AM peak hour and 130 trips (85 in,

45 out) in the PM peak period.

In summary,

The 2010 Build volumes include:

o The estimated background growth rate for two (2) years;

o Year 2010 No-Build developments; ando Year 2010 Build developments (GDP Renaissance Hotel & Fitness Center).

The 2028 Build volumes include:

o The estimated background growth rate for eighteen (18) years;

o Year 2010 No-Build developments;

o Year 2028 No-Build developments; and

o Year 2010 Build developments (GDP-The Green at Florham Park).

5.3 Trip Assignment

The majority of the site-specific trips for the No Build and Build scenarios were assigned and distributed

to the transportation network according to the existing travel patterns; determined from the commuter

survey; and using the data obtained from the Traffic Impact Study for the General Development Plan: The

Green at Florham Park conducted by Stantec.

The Giralda Farms 1 & 4 office developments were distributed based of the Giralda Farms TIS conducted

by Urbitran. Honeywell provided arrival data to its main campus driveways and the trips were distributed

on the network based on existing traffic patterns.

The trip assignment for the Exxon Site has also been supplemented with commuter survey data obtained

from the larger, more significant office developments located within the study area. The survey data was

also compared to similar surveys conducted from previous studies in the area. The commuter survey is

described in greater detail in Section 4.0. Generally, intersections considered for study in this report are

located a significant distance from the Exxon Site; many are isolated and therefore will carry minimal

additional traffic.

Based on these assumptions, the impacts of the proposed developments for the Green at Florham

Park have been tabulated in Table 5-6. The data shows the percentage of Exxon redevelopment

traffic at each intersection for the 2010 and 2028 Build volumes. The results show volume



Table 5-6: GDP-The Green at Florham Park Development Traffic for 2010 and 2028 Build



Table 5-6: GDP-The Green at Florham Park Development Traffic for 2010 and 2028 Build

Intersection

GDP-The Green at Florham Park(former Exxon Site)Development Traffic Percentages

2010 Build 2028 Build

AM PM AM PM

Madison Borough

Park Avenue & Chateau Thierry Avenue 4.1% 10.1% 16.1% 15.2%

Burnet Road & Ridgedale Avenue 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0%

Madison Avenue & Danforth Road 0.7% 1.8% 2.4% 3.4%Madison Avenue & Loantaka Way 0.9% 2.2% 3.0% 3.7%

Park Avenue & Elm Street 3.7% 7.9% 15.3% 12.7%

Madison Avenue & Kings Road 0.7% 1.2% 1.5% 1.3%

Main Street & Green Village Road 1.4% 3.9% 5.7% 6.3%

Main Street & Central Avenue/Waverly Place 1.1% 2.9% 3.9% 4.8%

Main Street & Rosedale Avenue/Cross Street 0.6% 1.1% 2.4% 2.1%

Morris Township

Ramp to NJ 24 & Whippany Road 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Madison Avenue & Punch Bowl Road 0.4% 1.0% 6.2% 5.6%

Madison Avenue & Old Glen Road 0.6% 0.8% 3.6% 3.6%

Town of Morristown

Morris Avenue & Washington Avenue 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.2%

Madison Avenue & Normandy Place 0.3% 0.6% 2.8% 3.0%

Ramp to I-287 and South Street 0.3% 0.1% 7.2% 1.9%

Ramp to I-287 and Morris Avenue 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.3%

Chatham Borough

Watchung Avenue & Lafayette Avenue 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Main Street & Hillside Avenue 0.3% 0.8% 1.2% 1.4%

Main Street & Lafayette Avenue 0.4% 1.0% 1.5% 1.8%

Main Street & Fairmount Avenue 0.4% 1.1% 1.5% 1.9%

Main Street & Passaic Avenue 0.4% 0.9% 1.3% 1.6%

Hanover Township

Park Avenue & Whippany Road 1.2% 2.1% 1.7% 1.7%

Ford Hill Road & Whippany Road 1.0% 1.1% 1.6% 0.9%

Park Avenue & Ford Hill Road 2.8% 3.3% 3.7% 2.5%

The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Redevelopment of the Former Exxon Research Facility Site

Final Regional Traffic Study

6.0 YEAR 2010 FUTURE YEAR CONDITIONS ANALYSES



As previously discussed, several operational analysis scenarios were conducted for the study

intersections. The following sections provide a summary discussion of each analysis period, followed bya LOS comparison table of each traffic condition. Lane groups with significant impacts, operating at LOSE or F, have been identified and highlighted.

6.1 2010 No Build Volumes

Using the annual growth rate and the site-specific development trips, the traffic volumes were surchargedonto the 2008 existing base traffic volumes to develop the 2010 future No Build traffic volumes. The

volumes for each of the peak hours are presented on Figures 6-1 through 6-5, separated by municipality.

6.2 2010 No Build Level of Service Analysis

A traffic analysis was conducted for the 2010 future No Build condition for the purpose of determininghow the study intersections will operate without the Exxon Site redevelopment and background trafficgrowth with no improvements to the intersections. The results of the future 2010 No Build capacityanalyses are summarized below. Analysis worksheets are shown in Appendix C-4 through C-6.

Chatham Borough

The 2010 No Build analysis shows that the majority of intersections in Chatham will continue to operateat or over capacity with poor levels of service. Main Street traffic will continue to experience congestedconditions and vehicular queues will extend beyond the study intersections.

Madison

Additional operational issues will occur in the future 2010 No-Build scenario. Travel time delays willincrease at the three (3) unsignalized intersections. Queues are exceeded on several approaches along

Main Street.

Morris Township

The Madison Avenue and Punch Bowl/Canfield Road intersection will experience the highest traveldelays on the northbound and southbound approaches during all three (3) analyses time periods.

MorristownSimilar to the 2008 Existing analysis, the same two (2) intersections will experience travel delays duringthe 2010 No-Build analysis.

Hanover

The 2010 No-Build analysis results show that there were no major future operational issues at the three(3) study intersections.





6.4 2010 Build Level of Service Analysis

Similar to the No-Build, a traffic analysis was conducted for the 2010 future Build condition for the



purpose of determining how the study intersections will operate with the addition of Exxon Siteredevelopment and no improvements to the intersections. Generally, the Exxon Site redevelopment tripswill have a minor increase in additional traffic to the transportation network at the study intersections.The intersections currently operating with poor levels of service will continue to fail in the future yearswith or without the Exxon Site redevelopment or any site-specific development discussed in Section 5.0.The results of the future 2010 Build capacity analyses are shown in Table 6-1 through 6-5. Analysisworksheets are shown in Appendix C-7 through C-9.

Chatham Borough - The 2010 Build analysis shows that the majority of intersections in Chatham will

continue to operate at or over capacity with poor levels of service. Main Street traffic will continue toexperience congestive conditions and vehicular queues will extend beyond the study intersections.

Madison - Additional operational issues will occur in the future 2010 Build analysis. Travel time delayswill increase at the three (3) unsignalized intersections. Queues are exceeded on several approaches alongMain Street.

Morris Township - The Madison Avenue and Punch Bowl/Canfield Road intersection will experience thehighest travel delays on the north and southbound approaches during all three (3) analyses time periods.

Morristown - The 2010 Build analysis results show that the same two (2) intersections will experiencetravel delays during the 2010 Build analysis.

Hanover - The 2010 Build analysis results show that there were no major future operational issues at thethree (3) study intersections.

6.5 2010 Build with Short-Term Mitigation Measures

The 2010 Build analyses were tabulated and compared to the 2010 No Build to determine what impacts, if any, the proposed Exxon Site redevelopment has on the study intersections (See Tables 6-1 through 6-5).Short-term mitigation measures have been proposed to mitigate any of the adverse impacts caused by theExxon Site redevelopment as well as other development which is to occur. The short-term improvementsare categorized as easily implementable and low cost. These improvements include safety andoperational improvements within the existing right-of-way (R.O.W), such as signal timing adjustments,signing and striping, or elimination of clear zone obstructions.

The analysis results show that much of the congestion for the study intersections is due to existing growthtrends and vacant offices that could be occupied at any time. The redevelopment of the Exxon Site addsto this impact on the future intersection operations. By implementing practical low cost intersectionimprovements, operating conditions can improve immediately. Improvements such as pedestrian





Main Street & Green Village Road (See Figure 6-12)o Restripe westbound approach from one (1) lane to two (2): provide an exclusive left-turn

bay and an exclusive through lane.o Modify signal timing to decrease overall intersection delay.



Main Street & Central Avenue/Waverly Placeo No improvements required at this time.

Main Street & Rosedale Avenue/Cross Street (See Figure 6-13)o Restripe the eastbound and westbound approaches from one (1) to two (2) shared lanes:

provide a left/through lane and a right/through lane. Restripe receiving lanes to two (2)lanes, followed by a right lane merge.

o Modify signal timing to decrease overall intersection delay.

Park Avenue & Chateau Thierry Avenueo Provide advance intersection warning signs and left turn restriction from Chateau Ave.o To minimize cut-through traffic along Chateau Thierry Ave the intersection at Ridgedale

Ave and Park Ave is to be improved. Results of this analysis are discussed as part of the Needs Assessment. Implement traffic calming devices, such as speed humps

Ridgedale Avenue & Burnet Roado Provide advance intersection warning signs and left turn restriction from Burnet Road.o Enhance the school safety zone for Madison High School by replacing existing school

zone signage, installing a school speed limit flashing beacon in advance of the school,improve existing crosswalk and road markings using high reflective material.

o Implement traffic calming devices, such as speed humps on Ridgedale Avenue.

Park Avenue & Elm Streeto Provide advance intersection warning signs and left turn restriction from Elm Street.

Morris Township

Whippany Road & E. Hanover Avenue/Rt. 24 Rampo Modify signal timing to decrease overall intersection delay.

Madison Avenue & Old Glen Road/Kahn Roado Modify signal timing to decrease overall intersection delay.

Madison Avenue & Punch Bowl Road/Canfield Road (See Figure 6-14)o Restripe eastbound approach from one (1) lane to two (2) lanes: provide an exclusive left-

turn bay.o Clear and trim trees and shrubs to increase intersection sight distance.

o Provide advance intersection warning signs.





Morris Avenue & I-287 Ramp (X36A) (See Figure 6-15)o Restripe eastbound approach from three (3) through lanes to two (2) lanes to provide

exclusive lane for I-287 off-ramp.o Provide striping at I-287 northbound entrance ramp gore area.

o Provide intersection advance warning signs



o Provide intersection advance warning signs.

Hanover Township

Park Avenue & Whippany Roado No improvements required at this time.

Park Avenue & Whippany Roado No improvements required at this time.

Whippany Road & Ford Hill Roado No improvements required at this time.





7.0 YEAR 2028 FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSES

The following sections provide a summary discussion of each 2028 analysis period, followed by a LOS

comparison table of each traffic condition. Lane groups with significant impacts, operating at LOS E or F,

have been identified and highlighted



have been identified and highlighted.

7.1 2028 No Build Volumes

Utilizing the annual growth rate for eighteen (18) years and the site-specific development trips, the traffic

volumes were surcharged onto the 2008 existing base traffic volumes to develop the 2028 future No Build

traffic volumes, without the proposed GDP-The Green at Florham Park developments. The future 2028

No Build traffic volumes for each of the peak hours are presented on Figures 7-1 through 7-5, separated

by municipality.

7.2 2028 No Build Level of Service Analysis

A traffic analysis was conducted for the 2028 future No Build condition for the purpose of determining

how the study intersections will operate without the redevelopment of the Exxon Site and with no

improvements to the intersections. The results of the future 2028 No Build capacity analyses are

discussed below. Analysis worksheets are shown in Appendix C-13 through C-15.

Chatham Borough

The 2028 No Build analysis shows that the majority of intersections in Chatham will continue to operate

at or over capacity with poor levels of service. Main Street traffic will continue to experience congestive

conditions and vehicular queues will extend beyond the study intersections.

Madison

Additional operational issues will occur in the future 2028 No-Build scenario. Travel time delays willincrease at the three (3) unsignalized intersections. Queues are exceeded on several approaches along

Main Street.

Morris Township

The Madison Avenue and Punch Bowl/Canfield Road intersection will experience the highest traveldelays on the northbound and southbound approaches during all three (3) analyses time periods.

Morristown

Similar to the 2008 Existing analysis, the same two (2) intersections will experience travel delays during

the 2028 No-Build analysis.

Hanover

The 2028 No-Build analysis results show that there were no major future operational issues at the three

(3) study intersections





A description of the 2028 proposed long-term mitigation measures is presented in the following section.

Intersection concepts have been developed and presented in Figures 7-11 through 7-15.

Chatham Borough Watchung Avenue & Lafayette Avenue

o No additional improvements proposed.






Main Street & Lafayette Avenue / Van Doren Avenue (See Figure 7-11)

o Widen the northbound approach from two (2) lanes to three (3) lanes: provide exclusive

left-turn, through, and right-turn lane.


Main Street & Fairmount Avenue

o No additional improvements proposed. Improvements same as in year 2010.

Main Street & Passaic Avenue


Madison

Madison Avenue & Danforth Road


o Missing sidewalk connections should be installed along Madison Ave from the town line

to Morris Pl. and along Danforth Rd. from Madison Ave to Park Ave.

Madison Avenue & Loantaka Way

o Provide Sidewalks along Loantaka Way.

Madison Avenue & Kings Roado Modify signal timing to decrease overall intersection delay.

Main Street & Green Village Road (See Figure 7-12)

o Widen and restripe the eastbound approach to accommodate two (2) receiving lanes

between Park Avenue and Green Village Road.

o Restripe westbound approach to two (2) lanes: provide a left/through lane and a through

lane.

o

Restripe the northbound approach from an exclusive left-turn lane and exclusive right-turn lane to an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared left/right-turn lane.


Main Street & Central Avenue/Waverly Place





Ridgedale Avenue & Burnet Road


Park Avenue & Elm Street


Morris Township

Whippany Road & E. Hanover Avenue/NJ 24 Ramp (See Figure 7-13A)



pp y p ( g )

o Widen the eastbound approach from two lanes to three lanes: construct auxiliary lane to provide additional through/right-turn lane.

o Widen Route 24 on-ramp to two lanes and provide merge area prior to acceleration lane.

Madison Avenue & Old Glen Road/Kahn Road (See Figure 7-13B)

o Widen the northbound approach to provide an exclusive right-turn lane.o Widen and restripe the eastbound and westbound approaches from two lanes to three

lanes: provide a shared through/right-turn auxiliary lane. Restripe receiving lanes,

followed by a right lane merge.

o Widen receiving lanes to two lanes, followed by a lane right lane merge.

Madison Avenue & Punch Bowl Road/Canfield Road (See Figure 7-13C)

o Realign Canfield Road to align with Punch Bowl Road.

o Widen and restripe the eastbound and westbound approaches from one lane to two lanes.

o Widen the southbound approach from one lane to two lanes: provide exclusive right-turn

lane.

o Install traffic signal.

o Reconstruct bus turnouts.

o Provide advance intersection warning signs.

Morristown

Madison Avenue & Normandy Parkway (See Figure 7-14)

o Provide additional through lane in the westbound direction: restripe the westbound rightturn only lane to a shared through/right-turn lane.

o Cut-back traffic islands.

o Install “Stop” sign on the southbound free right-turn lane.

South Street & I-287 Ramp

o No improvements required at this time.

Morris Avenue & Washington Avenue

o No improvements required at this time.

Morris Avenue & I-287 Ramp (X36A)

o No additional improvements proposed Improvements same as in year 2010





8.0 CONCLUSION

As a part of this study, a comprehensive study of traffic operations has been completed to assess existing,

future No-Build and future Build traffic conditions. Traffic and pedestrian data were collected andreviewed to analyze the subject intersections and locate problem areas. The study intersections have been

reviewed and analyzed to better understand the intersections’ design needs, as well as to locate

movements that are operating at over-capacity conditions, and will continue to operate over capacity in



the future year conditions. Berger has developed future Build traffic volumes and improvement concepts

for the study intersections based on the operational conditions.

The traffic analysis results show that many intersections are currently operating at capacity and are

experiencing congested conditions. With general traffic growth these intersections will continue to

operate poorly in future years. By 2028, the analyses conducted show that intersection impacts are notonly associated with planned developments at the study site, as presented in the GDP-The Green at

Florham Park study but also with proposed site-specific developments surrounding the former Exxon

Site, and the vacant office space which currently exists.

Based on the results of the existing and future analysis, system deficiencies were identified at each

location. Berger developed conceptual designs for the key intersections and roadway corridors in the

study area. The concepts that are developed have included both short and long-term mitigation measures

to properly plan for an appropriate transportation infrastructure. As an example, short-termimprovements may include revising intersection timing and improved signage. Long-term improvements

will require greater planning, greater construction impacts and higher cost. As part of the development of

these concepts, Berger has also developed “order-of-magnitude” cost estimates to establish the financial

commitment involved in the improvements. Each improvement has been categorized by level of

importance, in order to give guidance to local officials on the importance of the improvements.

As a summary of these improvements a project “Handoff” Matrix was developed. A matrix has been

developed for each of the study municipalities which outlines the packages of improvement projects

within that municipality and outlines where the responsibility for implementation falls. The projects to beimplemented have been segregated into packages representing short- and long-term implementation. This

plan will serve as a guide to all agencies and will be used to monitor the progress of the improvements. A

separate matrix has been developed for the Transportation Alternative Recommendations given that many

of the recommendations go across municipal boundaries. The Handoff-Matrixes are shown on the

following pages.

As part of the development of the concept plans, all recommendations were developed in conformance

with State law and the minimum national standards established in the 2003 Manual on Uniform TrafficControl Devices (MUTCD). It is recognized that the MUTCD sets forth the acceptable minimal design

standards and wherever practicable, the designs will consider a high-type design.



IMPLEMENTING

AUTHORITY

MORRIS TOWNSHIP

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT MATRIX

REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER EXXON RESEARCH FACILITY

COST

ESTIMATE

1 Wid EB A h t Add Additi l Th h

INTERSECTION

SHORT-TERM IMPROVEMENTSSUE LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTCOST

ESTIMATE

Table 8-3



3. Modify Signal Timing $5,000

$5,000 IMPROVEMENT COST $180,000


3. Install Traffic Signal $150,000

4. Reconstruct Bus Turnouts $25,000

5. Provide Advance Warning Signs $1,500


$25,000 $1,114,000

NJDOT

NJDOT

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE

IMPROVEMENT COST

3. Clear and Trim Trees and Shrubs

2. Poor Intersection Sight Distance

$100,000

1. Vehicles queues along Madison Avenue

(AM, PM)

NJDOT

$3,500

$1,500

$10,0001. Realign Canfield Road Perpendicular to Madison

Avenue

2. Widen and Restripe EB and WB Approaches:

(Existing LTR) to (Proposed LT, TR)$150,000

Whippany Road & E. Hanover /

Route 24 Ramp (Signalized)

IMPROVEMENT COST

Madison Avenue & Punch Bowl

Road / Canfield Road

(Unsignalized)

IMPROVEMENT COST

2. Delays On All Approaches (AM, PM)

Madison Avenue & Old Glen Road /

Khan Road (Signalized)

1. Provide Exclusive Left-Turn Lane in EB

Approach.

2. Provide Advance Intersection Signs

1. Delays in the NB and SB Approaches

1. Modify Signal Timing1. Delays on All approaches (AM, PM) $5,000

1. Widen EB Approach to Add Additional Through

Lane: (Existing L, TR) to (Proposed L, T, TR)

2. Widen Rt 24 On-Ramp to Provide Two (2)

Receiving Lanes

$100,000

$75,000


1. Widen NB Approach to Add Exclusive Right-

Turn Lane: (Existing LTR) to (Proposed LT, R)

2. Widen and Restripe EB and WB Approaches:

(Existing L, TR) to (Proposed L, T, TR)

$150,000

$350,000



Page 116

Town of Morristown


IMPLEMENTING

AUTHORITYSHORT-TERM IMPROVEMENTSSUE LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENT

COST

ESTIMATE

1 Restripe WB Approach to Add Additional

Table 8-4

REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER EXXON RESEARCH FACILITY

COST

ESTIMATE

1 Change EB Left Turn Phasing: (Existing

INTERSECTION





$0 IMPROVEMENT COST $10,000

$0 IMPROVEMENT COST $0

3. Provide Signage $1,500

$18,500 IMPROVEMENT COST $0

$30,500 $77,500OTAL COST ESTIMATE

IMPROVEMENT COST

1. Vehicles queue along I-287 Off-Ramp

(AM)

1. Restripe Morris Avenue to Two (2) Through

Lanes: (Existing LT, T, T) to (Proposed LT, T)

2. Restripe I-287 Gore Areas

$12,000

No Additional Improvements ProposedNJDOT /

MORRISTOWN

Madison Avenue & Normandy

Parkway (Signalized)

IMPROVEMENT COST

$0

$5,000Morris Avenue & I-287 Off-Ramp

(Unsignalized)

IMPROVEMENT

COST

South Street & I-287 Off-Ramp

(Unsignalized)

Morris Avenue & Washington

Avenue (Unsignalized)

NJDOT

No Improvements Required at this Time $0 MORRISTOWN/

COUNTY

1. Delays on the EB Ramp Approach (2028

Only)

1. Delays on the EB, WB, SB approaches

(AM, PM) $50,000

1. Restripe WB Approach to Add Additional

Through Lane: (Existing L, T, R) to (Proposed L, T,

2. Cut-Back Traffic Islands and Provide Stop Sign

at Existing SB Free Right Turn

IMPROVEMENT COST

No Significant Impacts Found No Improvements Required at this Time

No Improvements Required at this Time1. Restripe EB Ramp Approach: (Existing L, R) to

(Proposed L, LR)$10,000

$0

NJDOT

$0

1. Change EB Left Turn Phasing: (Existing

Protected) to (Proposed Protected & Permitted)

2. Modify signal Timing

$12,000

$10,000

Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (2008) Page 117

COST

ESTIMATE

HANOVER TOWNSHIP


IMPLEMENTING

AUTHORITY

Table 8-5REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER EXXON RESEARCH FACILITY

INTERSECTION

SHORT-TERM IMPROVEMENTSSUE LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTCOST

ESTIMATE



$0 IMPROVEMENT

COST

$7,500

$0 IMPROVEMENT COST $0

$1,500 IMPROVEMENT COST $0

$1,500 $7,500

No Improvements Proposed

No Improvements Required at this Time 1. Modify Signal Timing

IMPROVEMENT COST

1. Delays in the WB Approach 1. Provide Advance Intersection Signs

No Significant Impacts Found

$0

$1,500

No Improvements Required at this Time

$0HANOVER

$0

HANOVER

$7,500

No Improvements Required at this Time$0

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE

Park Avenue & Whippany Road

(Signalized)

IMPROVEMENT COST

IMPROVEMENT COST

Park Avenue & Ford Hill Road

(Signalized)

Whippany Road & Ford Hill Road

(Unsignalized)

HANOVER

1. Delays on the EB and WB Approaches

(AM, PM); (2028 Only)

Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Page 118