HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-04 Board of Selectmen PacketDRAFT - BOARD OF
2013 SELECTMEN AGENDAS 2013
Staff
Responsibility
Estimated
Start time
future agendas
Review license and permit fees
Policy on Trust Fund Commissioners
Discuss driveway width issues.
Strout Avenue Master Plan - after Town Forest
planning work is done
Develop policy on affordable housing.
DPW site issues
Follow up on AHTF
Bandstand
Adopt new Traffic and Parking Regulations
Consideration of Class 2 MV license - Global
gas station.
May 23, 2013 - PH Retirement dinner no meetings
June 4, 2013
Office Hour
Dan Ensminger
6:30
Hearing
FY 2014 Compensation and Classification Plan
Roberts
7:30
Hearing
Change of Officers /Stockholders - Macaroni
Grill
LeLacheur
7:45
Discussion - Main and Franklin Streets
Cormier and
Zambouras
8:00
Consideration of All Way stop, Birch Meadow
Drive and Oakland Road.
Zambouras
8:20
Consideration of All Way stop, Fairview and
Sunnyside.
Zambouras
8:35
Acceptance of Easements - Curtis and Walnut
Zambouras
8:50
Discussion - street numbering
Zambouras
9:00
Presentation on concept for on premises beer
and wine license - "paint and sip"
Judy Baralok 781 -
315 -9154
9:15
Review Goals
LeLacheur
9:30
June 18, 2013
Town Accountant Quarterly meeting
Angstrom
Appointments of Boards, Committees,
Commissions
LeLacheur
Appointment of Town Counsel
Further discussion - Traffic Rules and
Regulations
Martel
July 9, 2013
Office Hour
Marsie West
6:30
Review Customer Service Survey results.
Award Bids for the purchase of 2 Audubon
Road
July 30, 2012
August 20, 2013
Office Hour
Ben Tafoya
6:30
Review final drainage studies
Zambouras
Preview Subsequent Town Meeting
Preview Special Town Meeting warant
September 4 & 5 Rosh Hashanah - NO
MEETINGS
September 10, 2013
Office Hour
John Arena
6:30
CAB member update
Town Accountant Quarterly meeting
September 24, 2013
Close STM Warrant
October 8, 2013
Office Hour
James Bonazoli
6:30
Tax Classification preview
October 22, 2013
MAPC member update
Tax Classification Hearing?
5- Nov -13
Office Hour
Dan Ensminger
6:30
November 12, 2013 - Subsequent Town Meeting
no meetings
November 14, 2013 - Subsequent Town Meeting
no meetings
November 18, 2013 - Subsequent Town Meeting
no meetings
26- Nov -13
Tax Classification hearing
Approve Liquor Licenses
Review Goals
December 10, 2013
Office Hour
Marsie West
6:30
Approve licenses
Approve early openings /24 hour openings
Town Accountant Quarterly meeting
December 17, 2013
Town Manager Performance Evaluation,
establish FY 2015 salary
LeLacheur, Bob
From: Burns, Greg
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:36 AM
To: Hechenbleikner, Peter; LeLacheur, Bob
Subject: FW: Threat to Ambulance Reimbursement
Peter and Bob,
Below is an update on the ambulance reimbursement issue created by the Senate budget from the Fire Chief's
Association of Massachusetts. Currently, Reading's ambulance rates are basically twice the Medicare rates. In
the text of the email below, indications are if section 92 including sub section (c) in the Senate budget takes
effect, the State's Insurance Commissioner's Office will be setting rates considerably less than we are currently
charging. The insurance companies are seeking a range of 1.05% to 1.10% of the Medicare rates. If this
reduction takes place we will see a significant reduction in our ambulance fee revenue. I have contacted
Senator Clark's office. I believe it is also important the Senator's hear from Town Managers as well.
Greg
Hello,
The action of the Senate this week to include section 92 including sub section (c) in the Senate budget has put all
ambulance services at great risk and by extension all municipal budgets. As we all know the town ambulance service was
not intended to and does operate at a profit. Therefore this action to allow a state employee of the Insurance
Commissioner's office set the ambulance fee without the understanding of the cost of readiness that the taxpayers
support will further negatively impact that balance sheet.
Subsection (c) give the insurance commissioner's office the authority to set all ambulance transport fees across the
commonwealth. The severe
impact will be from rates set in range offered by the health insurance companies in the range of 1.05 to 1.10 of the
"chronically underfunded Medicare reimbursement of ground transport ambulances"
Since this process began in the summer of 2010 the insurance companies and the state officials have opposed the efforts
of the Protect EMS Coalition of public and private emergency ambulance providers to mandate the local official shall
have the right to set the rate for their communities and have repeatedly failed to announce what rate they believe would
be appropriate. They have been consistent in their position that our emergency transport rates are too high so it is clear if
the Insurance Commissioner is given this authority on July 1, 2013 our rate will be dramatically reduced the question
remains by how much. I would predict this revenue loss could be as much as 50 % to 60 % especially when this rate
would apply to all transports including MVA.
I am asking you to take urgent action to call and /or email your senator where you work and live and the senate president's
office to express your concern and disappointment in their disregard of the financial impact that section 92 will have on
municipal budgets and ability to provide sufficient emergency ambulance service to our community. Further, a call to your
State Representatives and thank them for the support they have shown in the last three years on this issue.
Both the Senators and Representative should be told the you are expecting Section 92 to be eliminated in the conference
committee.
I am available at this address or my cell phone 617- 968 -8665 if you need more background information on this issue.
This process is already underway so please act today.
Thank you
Kevin
LeLacheur, Bob
From: Ruth L. Clay in Melrose
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:30 PM
To: Delios, Jean; LeLacheur, Bob
Cc: pognibene @yahoo.com; Buzby, Maureen
Subject: RE: 30 Haven resident request from BOS last night
I am happy to have Maureen talk to him as she has a lot of experience with these types of situations.
From: Delios, Jean [ mailto :jdelios(- aci. reading. ma. us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:02 PM
To: Clay, Ruth; LeLacheur, Bob
Cc: pognibene(- ayahoo.com
Subject: RE: 30 Haven resident request from BOS last night
I am forwarding this to Paul Ognibene the project contact at Oaktree for his review and follow up.
Jean J. Delios
Community Services Director /Town Planner
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867 -2685
(P) 781- 942 -6612
(F) 781- 942 -9071
Town Hall Hours as of .Tune 7, 2010 M, W, Th: 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
FRIDAY: CLOSED
jdelios @ci.reading.ma.us
www.readingma.gov
http: / /readingma-
survey.virtualtownhall.net/survey/sid/de8bdaal6db9e6b4/
From: Ruth L. Clay in Melrose
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:46 AM
To: LeLacheur, Bob; Delios, Jean
Subject: RE: 30 Haven resident request from BOS last night
I spoke to Christine Hansen today, the daughter of Patricia Hansen. They both live at 30 Haven Street. I explained that
the Town /Board of Health does not prohibit smoking on the public sidewalks. If the owner of the building wants to post
No Smoking at this doorways that would be up to him. As far as I know, there is no "smoking area" at that building. In
fact, the trend is for multi - family buildings to be smokefree. I will have our Tobacco Coordinator talk to the building
management about having it a smoke -free building (a little late, but could be from now forward.)
Jean, can you give me the name and phone of the buildling manager so Maureen can talk to him about solutions?
Ruth
Ruth L. Clay, MPH
Health Director
City of Melrose 781 - 979 -4133
Town of Reading 781- 942 -9061
Town of Wakefield 781 -246 -6375
From: LeLacheur, Bob [blelacheur @ci. read ing. ma. us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 7:50 AM
To: Clay, Ruth; Delios, Jean
Subject: 30 Haven resident request from BOS last night
Patricia Hansen (781- 944 -7087 or hanso643 @yahoo.com ) lives at 30 Haven and spoke during public comment last
night. She is on oxygen, and is very concerned about people that gather outside the front door of 30 Haven in order to
smoke. She has spoken to someone at Oaktree who said that outside the building is the Town's responsibility. She would
ask only that the doorways be free from these smokers, not the entire sidewalk. How do we accomplish /enforce no
smoking within a certain distance of doorways? I've seen signs in Boston, but suppose we don't allow those in Reading?
Does 30 Haven have any 'designated smoking areas' outside the building?
A representative from Portland Pie was in the audience and he mentioned that the outdoor seating area (which was
approved, later) was treated the same as indoors, and therefore was non - smoking.
Please get back to Patricia with the best solutions you can think of.
Thanks,
Bob
Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA
Assistant Town Manager /Finance Director
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
blelacheur @ci. reading. ma. us
(P) 781 - 942 -6636
(F) 781 - 942 -9037
www.readingma.gov
Please fill out our brief customer service survey at
http:// readingma- survey.virtualtownhall. net /survey /sid /19ab55aedO8fbc96/
Town Hall Hours:
Monday, Wednesday and Thursday: 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Friday. CLOSED
Please take a moment to help us improve your experience with City services.
https:// www. surveymonkey .com/s /MelroseCustomerSurvey
OF R
Town of Reading
y 16 Lowell Street
to
Reading, MA 01867 -2683
a 'o g�
j639. INCORQ��P�
Fax: (781) 942 -5441
Website: www.readingma.gov
May 28, 2013
First Baptist Church of Reading
45 Woburn St
Reading MA 01867
PUBLIC WORKS
(781) 942 -9077
Attached please find the charges for plowing and sanding for the current season. As you are
aware, three years ago the Town made the decision to phase out the plowing and sanding of
any /all church parking lots over a three year period.
Your three year contract has now expired with the past winter plowing season, so commencing
with the winter of 2013 — 2014 the Town will no longer be providing plowing and sanding
service for any religious institutions in Town.
Good luck with setting up your plowing and sanding services for next year and let us know if
you have any questions or need any further assistance.
Sincerely;
Jeffrey Zager
Director of Public Works
LEGAL NOTICE
OF
�)N REQ
Q) O'y
639:1KC0010�P
i
TOWN OF READING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
To the Inhabitants of the
Town of Reading:
Please take notice that the
Board of Selectmen of the Town
of. Reading will hold a public
hearing on June 4, 2013 at 7:30
p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting
Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts on
approving the Town of Reading
FY2014 Compensation and
Classification Plan.
A copy of the proposed doc-
ument regarding this topic is
available it! the Town
Manager's office, 16 Lowell
Street, Reading, MA, M -W-
Thurs from 7:30 a.m. - 5:30
p.m., Tues from 7:30 a.m. -
7:00 p.m. and is attached to the
hearing notice on the website at
www.readingma.gov
All interested parties are
invited to attend the hearing, or
may submit their comments in
writing or by email prior to 6:00.
p.m. on June 4, 2013 to town -
manager@ci.reading.ma.us
By order of
Peter I. Hechenbleikner
Town Manager
5/28
SGL,
FY 2013 FY 2014 TOWN OF READING CLASSIFICATION PLAN
Schedule A -1
P�
Parking Enforcement
A
Van Driver
Library Technician
Officer
B
Clerk
Senior Library Technician
C
Administrative Secretary
Senior Library Associate
FerfflttS & L-,ieensiflg-
Eeerdinater e€
Senior Center
Community Outreach Recreation Program
D
Administrative Assistant
Ceerdinater
Velunteers
Veteran's Service Officer
Coordinator
Animal Control Officer
Prgm Coord. Coordinator
E
Social Worker
Case Worker
Librarian
Assistant Collector
Assistant Treasurer
Assistant Appraiser
Assistant Town Clerk
Conservation
Assistant Building
F
Administrator
Inspector
Health Inspector
Staff Planner
Plumbing/Gas Inspector
Wiring Inspector
RetirenenE $d
Head Public Safety
Office Manager
A •ffliR A..•.4 T,...,. A eet
Technician
Dispatcher
Division Head-
Division Head- Children's Division Head-
Division Head - Technical
G
Public Health Nurse
Nurse Advocate
Circulation
Services
Information Services
Services
Elder /Human Services
Police Business
DPW Business
H
Administrator
Assistant Library Director
Town Clerk
GIS Coordinator
Adminstrator
Administrator
Recreation Administrator
Public Health
Human Resources
Forestry, Park &
Highway/Equipment
I
Administrator
Administrator
Project Director
Cemetary Supervisor
Supervisor
Water /Sewer Supervisor
Water Quality Supervisor
J
Building Inspector
Appraiier
Network Administrator
Database Adininistiatef
Treasurer /Collector
K
Library Director
Town Engineer
Community Services
Asst Town Mgr /
L
Director /Town Planner
Town Accountant
Finance Director
M
Fire Chief
Police Chief
DPW Director
P�
FY2014 TOWN OF READING COMPENSATION PLAN
Schedule B -1
(1.0% increase over FY13)
ANNUAL (based on a 37.5 hr workweek)
Grade
Step 1
Step 2
Step 2
Step 4
Step 3
Step 6
Step 4
Step 8
Step 5
Step 10
Step 6
Step 12
Step 7
A
Step 8
15.87
Step 9
16.51
Step 10
17.18
Step 11
17.88
Step 12
18.59
A
$ 30,342
$
30,947
$
31,571
$
32,195
$
32,858
$
33,501
$
34,164
$
34,866
$
35,549
$
36,251
$
36,992
$
37,733
21.20
B
$ 33,384
$
34,047
$
34,730
$
35,412
$
36,114
$
36,855
$
37,596
$
38,337
$
39,117
$
39,878
$
40,697
$
41,496
24.18
C
$ 36,719
$
37,440
$
38,181
$
38,961
$
39,741
$
40,541
$
41,340
$
42,159
$
43,017
$
43,875
$
44,753
$
45,630
27.56
D
$ 40,404
$
41,204
$
42,003
$
42,861
$
43,719
$
44,597
$
45,474
$
46,410
$
47,327
$
48,282
$
49,238
$
50,232
37.70
E
$ 44,441
$
45,318
$
46,215
$
47,151
$
48,087
$
49,043
$
50,018
$
51,032
$
52,046
$
53,099
$
54,171
$
55,244
42.99
F
$ 48,867
$
49,842
$
50,837
$
51,851
$
52,884
$
53,937
$
55,029
$
56,141
$
57,252
$
58,403
$
59,573
$
60,782
49.02
G
$ 53,742
$
54,834
$
55,926
$
57,038
$
58,188
$
59,339
$
60,548
$
61,737
$
62,985
$
64,253
$
65,520
$
66,846
H
$ 59,124
$
60,314
$
61,523
$
62,751
$
64,019
$
65,286
$
66,593
$
67,919
$
69,284
$
70,668
$
72,092
$
73,515
1
$ 65,052
$
66,359
$
67,665
$
69,030
$
70,415
$
71,799
$
73,242
$
74,724
$
76,206
$
77,727
$
79,287
$
80,886
J
$ 71,546
$
72,969
$
74,451
$
75,933
$
77,435
$
78,995
$
80,574
$
82,193
$
83,831
$
85,508
$
87,224
$
88,979
K
$ 78,702
$
80,282
$
81,900
$
83,519
$
85,176
$
86,892
$
88,628
$
90,402
$
92,216
$
94,068
$
95,940
$
97,851
L.
$ 86,580
$
88,316
$
90,071
$
91,884
$
93,717
$
95,589
$
97,500
$
99,431
$
101,439
$
103,467
$
105,534
$
107,640
M
$ 95,219
$
97,130
$
99,080
$
101,049
$
103,077
$
105,144
$
107,231
$
109,395
$
111,579
$
113,822
$
116,084
$
118,404
HOURLY
Gradel
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7
Step 8
Step 9
Step 10
Step 11
Step 12
A
15.56
15.87
16.19
16.51
16.85
17.18
17.52
17.88
18.23
18.59
18.97
19.35
B
17.12
17.46
17.81
18.16
18.52
18.90
19.28
19.66
20.06
20.45
20.87
21.28
C
18.83
19.20
19.58
19.98
20.38
20.79
21.20
21.62
22.06
22.50
22.95
23.40
D
20.72
21.13
21.54
21.98
22.42
22.87
23.32
23.80
24.27
24.76
25.25
25.76
E
22.79
23.24
23.70
24.18
24.66
25.15
25.65
26.17
26.69
27.23
27.78
28.33
F
25.06
25.56
26.07
26.59
27.12
27.66
28.22
28.79
29.36
29.95
30.55
31.17
G
27.56
28.12
28.68
29.25
29.84
30.43
31.05
31.66
32.30
32.95
33.60
34.28
H
30.32
30.93
31.55
32.18
32.83
33.48
34.15
34.83
35.53
36.24
36.97
37.70
1
33.36
34.03
34.70
35.40
36.11
36.82
37.56
38.32
39.08
39.86
40.66
41.48
1
36.69
37.42
38.18
38.94
39.71
40.51
41.32
42.15
42.99
43.85
44.73
45.63
K
40.36
41.17
42.00
42.83
43.68
44.56
45.45
46.36
47.29
48.24
49.20
50.18
L.
44.40
45.29
46.19
47.12
48.06
49.02
50.00
50.99
52.02
53.06
54.12
55.20
M
48.83
49.81
50.81
51.82
52.86
53.92
54.99
56.10
57.22
58.37
59.53
60.72
v \
LEGAL NOTICE
OFRFq�!'Y
639�1NCORe��P
TOWN OF READING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
To the Inhabitants of the
Town of Reading:
Please take notice that the
Board of Selectmen of the Town
of Reading will hold a public
hearing on June 4, 2013 at 7:45
p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting
Room, 16 Lowell Street,
Reading, Massachusetts on a
change of officers and new
stockholders for Mac
'Acquisition of Delaware d /b /a
'omano's Macaroni Grill, 48
llkers .prook: Drive., Readind
J °
A copy of the proposed doc-
ument regarding this topic is
available in the Town
Manager's office, 16 Lowell
Street, Reading, MA, M -W-
Thurs from 7:30 a.m. - 5:30
p.m., Tues from 7:30 a.m. -
7:00 p.m. and is attached to.the
hearing notice on the website at
www.readingma.gov
All interested parties are
invited to attend the hearing, or
may submit their comments in
writing or by email prior to 6:00
p.m. on June 4, 2013 to town-
manager@ ci.reading.ma.us
By order of
Peter 1. Hechenbleikner
Town Manager
5/28
Sb�
READING POLICE DEPARTMENT
15 Union Street • Reading, Massachusetts 01867
Emergency Only: 911 - All Other Calls: (781) 944 -1212 - Fax: (781) 944 -2893
Web: www.ci.reading.ma.us /police/
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Change of Stockholder /Officer/Director — Macaroni Grill
May 14, 2013
Chief James Cormier L07
Reading Police Department 15 I
15 Union Street
Reading, MA 01867
Chief Cormier,
As directed by your Office and in accordance with Reading Police Department Policy and
Procedures, I have placed together an executive summary of the application for a change in stock
holders, and officers /directors for the Liquor License #101600024. The licensee entity, premises
and managers /employees are not changing.
Officers/Directors:
1) President and Treasurer: Michael Dixon
2) Vice President/Secretary: Edward Engel
Ownership Interests:
1) Mac Holding LLC -100% stock ownership
I find no reason why the license application should not go forward.
Respectfully Submitted,
'Wz� �� /�� '
Sgt. Detective Mark D. Segalla
Criminal Division Commander
SP--1
Schena, Paula
From: Ruth L. Clay in Melrose
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:37 AM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: RE: Macaroni Grill
Macaroni Grill was just recently inspected and was much improved. No comments for the Selectmen.
Ruth
Ruth L. Clay, MPH
Health Director
City of Melrose 781 - 979 -4133
Town of Reading 781 - 942 -9061
Town of Wakefield 781- 246 -6375
From: Schena, Paula [pschena @ci. reading. ma. us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:04 PM
To: Clay, Ruth
Subject: Macaroni Grill
Ruth ,
The New Officer and New Stockholder is on the Selectmen's agenda on June 4th for Macaroni Grill. Do you have any
comments?
Paula Schena
Office Manager
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
Phone: 781 - 942 -6643
Fax: 781 - 942 -9071
pschenaoa ci. reading. ma. us
www.readingma.gov
Town Hall Hours:
Monday, Wednesday and Thursday - 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday - 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Friday - CLOSED
Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http://readingma-
survev.virtualtownhall .net/survev /sid /7c8844ebl decdO98/
Please take a moment to help us improve your experience with City services.
https:// www. surveymonkey .com /s /MelroseCustomerSurvey
S b3
GRAYIROBINSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
813 - 273 -5161
ANGELA. ROTELLA -G ARZON @GRA Y-
May 6, 2013
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Lillian Marino,
Administrative Secretary
Board of Selectmen's Office
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
SUITE 2700
401 E. JACKSON STREET (33602)
P.O. Box 3324
TAMPA, FLORIDA 33601 -3324
TEL 813 - 273 -5000
FAx 813- 273 -5145
Re: Mac Acquisition of Delaware d/b /a Romano's Macaroni Grill
48 Walkers Brook Drive, Reading, MA
Dear Lillian:
FORT LAUDERDALE
JACKSONVILLE
KEY WEST
LAKELAND
MELBOURNE
MIAMI
NAPLES
ORLANDO
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
,
w
Z
a
—c
00
s
a
!V
Our office is assisting Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. with its purchase of approximately 200
existing Romano's Macaroni Grill restaurants in the United States, including the restaurant listed above.
The licensee entity will remain, as this was a stock purchase. The only changes are with the two officers
and the upstream ownership. This restaurant will remain a Romano's Macaroni Grill restaurant. The
premises will not change structurally and the managers /employees will remain the same
Enclosed please find the following documents:
1. Retail Application;
2. Our firm's check in the amount of $200.00;
3. Personal Information and CORI for the two new officers, Edward Engel and Michael Dixon;
4. Form 43;
5. Stock Purchase Agreement;
6. Corporate Structure Chart; and
7. Board Consent.
Please advise when this matter will be listed for hearing with the Board of Selectmen and the
amount of the newspaper notice. If there are any additional documents or information you require, kindly
advise my office. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Angela ella- arzon, FRP
Licensing Specialist
Encs.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission
239 Causeway Street
Boston, MA 02114
www.mass.gov/abcc
FORM 43
MUST BE SIGNED BY LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY
101600024 Reading
ABCC License Number City/Town
TRANSACTION TYPE (Please check all relevant transactions):
New License FXJ New Officer /Director Pledge of License
Transfer of License Change of Location Pledge of Stock
Change of Manager Alteration of Licensed Premises ❑ Transfer of Stock
Cordials /Liqueurs Permit Issuance of Stock ❑X New Stockholder
❑ For Reconsideration
06/04/2013
Local Approval Date
0 Change Corporate Name
❑ Seasonal to Annual
❑ Change of License Type
❑ Other
6 -Day to 7 -Day License ❑ Management /Operating Agreement ❑ Wine & Malt to All Alcohol
Name of Licensee Mac Acquisition of Delaware LLC EIN of Licensee
D /B /A Romano's Macaroni Grill Manager Same /Unchanged
ADDRESS: 48 Walkers Brook Drive CITY/TOWN: Reading STATE MA ZIP CODE 01867
Annual All Alcohol Restaurant
Annual or Seasonal Category: (All Alcohol- Wine & Malt Wine, Type: (Restaurant, Club, Package
Malt & Cordials) store, General On Premises, Etc.)
.ompleie uescrlpucin Or Llcen5eO Premises:
Full Service Restaurant
Application Filed: May 8, 2013 Advertised: May 28, 2013 Abutters Notified: Yes [] No ❑X
Date & Time Date & Attach Publication
Licensee Contact Person for Transaction Grace Yang, Esq., GrayRobinson, PA Phone: 813 - 273 -5000
ADDRESS: 401 E. Jackson Street, Ste 2700 CITY/TOWN: Tampa STATE FL ZIP CODE 33602
Remarks
The Local Licensing Authorities By:
ABCC Remarks:
Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission
Ralph Sacramone
Executive Director
565'
The Courmonwealt/t of Massachusetts ° •-`- -
Alcoholic Beverages Control Conrtnission
239 Causeway Street
Boston, MA 02114
r www.tnass.g�o yhtbcc
RETAIL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES LICENSE APPLICATION
MONETARY TRANSMITTAL FORM
APPLICATION SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON -LINE, PRINTED, SIGNED, AND SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL
LICENSING AUTHORITY.
ECRT CODE: RETA
CHECK PAYABLE TO ABCC OR COMMONWEALTH OF MA: $200.00
(CHECK MUST DENOTE THE NAME OF THE LICENSEE CORPORATION, LLC, PARTNERSHIP, OR INDIVIDUAL)
CHECK NUMBER
IF USED EPAY, CONFIRMATION NUMBER
A.B.C.C. LICENSE NUMBER (IF AN EXISTING LICENSEE, CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY) 101600024
LICENSEE NAME Mac Acquisition of Delaware d /b /a Romano's Macaroni Grill — J
ADDRESS 48 Walkers Brook Drive
CITY /TOWN Reading STATE MA ZIP CODE 01867
TRANSACTION TYPE [Please check all relevant transactions):
[] Alteration of Licensed Premises
Cordials /Liqueurs Permit
[]x New Officer /Director
❑ Transfer of License
Change Corporate Name
Issuance of Stock
Q New Stockholder
F�r Transfer of Stock
M Change of License Type
Management/Operating Agreement
E] Pledge of Stock
Wine & Malt to All Alcohol
Change of Location
More than (3) §15
❑ Pledge of License
6 -Day to 7 -Day License
Change of Manager New License [] Seasonal to Annual
Other
THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY MUST MAIL THIS TRANSMITTAL FORM ALONG WITH THE
CHECK, COMPLETED APPLICATION, AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO:
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES CONTROL COMMISSION
P. O. BOX 3396
BOSTON, MA 02241 -3396
Sb�
APPLICATION FOR RETAIL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE
City/Town Reading I
11. LICENSEE INFORMATION:
A. Legal Name /Entity of Applicant* (Corporation, LLC or Individual)
Mac Acquisition of Delaware
B. Business Name (if different) :
Romano's Macaroni Grill
C. Manager of Record:
D. ABCC License Number (for existing licenses only) :
101600024
E.Address of Licensed Premises
City /Town: Reading State:
MA Zip:
01867
48 Walkers Brook Drive
F. Business Phone:
781 -944 -0575
G. Cell Phone:
H. Email:
L Website:
www.macaronigrill.com
1.Mailing address (if different from E.):
City/Town: own:
h//T
State:
�
Zip: 77063
p:
c/o Ignite Restaurant, Her andez rk Dr,
Ste. 300, Attn: N. Hernandez
Houston
TRANSACTION:
E] New License Qx New Officer /Director 7 Transfer of Stock [] Issuance of Stock F� Pledge of Stock
F � Transfer of License Qx New Stockholder M Management /Operating Agreement E] Pledge of License
The following transactions must be processed as new licenses:
Seasonal to Annual E] (6) Day to (7) -Day License 7 Wine & Malt to All Alcohol
IMPORTANT ATTACHMENTS (L): The applicant must attach a vote of the entity authorizing all requested transactions, including the
appointment of a Manager of Record or principal representative.
3. TYPE OF LICENSE:
[j §12 Restaurant §12 Hotel §12 Club §12 Veterans Club
[] §12 General On- Premises §12 Tavern (No Sundays) � §15 Package Store
4. LICENSE CATEGORY:
[x] All Alcoholic Beverages [] Wine & Malt Beverages Only [] Wine or Malt Only
Wine & Malt Beverages with Cordials /Liqueurs Permit
S. LICENSE CLASS:
Ox Annual Seasonal
_� b"7
6. CONTACT PERSON CONCERNING THIS APPLICATION (ATTORNEY IF APPLICABLE)
NAME: IGrace Yang, Esq., GrayRobinson, PA
ADDRESS: 401 E Jackson Street, Ste 2700
CITY /TOWN: Tampa STATE: FL ZIP CODE: 33602
CONTACT PHONE NUMBER: 813- 273 -5000 FAX NUMBER:
EMAIL: grace.yang @gray- robinson.com
7. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:
Please provide a complete description of the premises to be licensed. Please note that this must be identical to the description on the Form 43.
service restaurant.
Total Square Footage: same Numberof Entrances: same Number of Exits: same
Occupancy Number: same Seating Capacity: same -I
IMPORTANT ATTACHMFNTS (2): The applicant must attach a Floor plan with dimensions and square footage for each floor & room.
18. OCCUPANCY OF PREMISES:
-am By what right does the applicant have possession and /or legal occupancy of the premises? s e
IMPORTANT ATTACHMENTS (3): The applicant must submit a copy of the final lease or documents evidencing a
legal right to occupy the premises. Other:)
Landlord is a(n): Other: L
Name: Phone:
Address: City /Town: �� State: Zip:
Initial Lease Term: Beginning Date i Ending Date
Renewal Term: Options /Extensions at: Years Each
Rent: Per Year Rent: F Per Month
Do the terms of the lease or other arrangement require payments to the Landlord based on a percentage of the alcohol sales?
Yes F] No
IMPORTANT ATTACHMENTS(4):
1. If yes, the Landlord is deemed a person or entity with a financial or beneficial interest in this license. Each Individual with an ownership interest
with the Landlord must be disclosed in §10 and must submit a completed Pers -nal Inf"ormation Fo_rrn_ attached to this application.
2. Entity formation documents for the Landlord entity must accompany the application to confirm the individuals disclosed.
3. if the principals of the applicant corporation or LLC have created a separate corporation or LLC to hold the real estate, the applicant must still
provide a lease between the two entities.
9. LICENSE STRUCTURE:
The Applicant is a(n):
If the applicant is a Corporation or LLC, complete the following:
State of Incorporation /Organization: DE
Is the Corporation publicly traded? Yes F'� No 0
Other: I
Date of Incorporation /Organization: 07/01/2008
10. INTERESTS IN THIS LICENSE:
List all individuals involved in the entity (e.g. corporate stockholders, directors, officers and LLC members and managers) and any person or entity with if
direct or indirect, beneficial or financial interest in this license (e.g. landlord with a percentage rent based on alcohol sales).
WPORTANTATTACHiVIENTS (S):
A. All individuals or entities listed below are required to complete a Personal _In form ati_on Farm,
B. All shareholders, LLC members or other individuals with any ownership in this license must complete a CORI_Release Forrn...
Name
All Titles and Positions
Specific # of Stock or % Owned
Other Beneficial Interest
Michael Dixon President & Treasurer 0%
Edward Engel V. President & Secretary 0%
Mac Holding LLC 100 %
'if additional space is needed, please use last page.
11. EXISTING INTEREST IN OTHER LICENSES:
Does any individual listed in §10 have any direct or indirect, beneficial or financial interest in any other license to sell alcoholic
beverages? Yes No D If yes, list said interest below:
Name
License Type
Licensee Name & Address
Michael Dixon §12 Restaurant Mac Acquisition of Delaware, 50 South St, Burlington, MA
Edward Engel §12 Restaurant Acquisition of Delaware, 50 South St, Burlington, MA
IPlease Select T�
Please Select
IPlease Select I
IPlease Select I
Please Select
`If additional space is needed, please use last page.
'�- �VI
12. PREVIOUSLY HELD INTERESTS IN OTHER LICENSES:
Has any individual listed in §10 who has a direct or indirect beneficial interest in this license ever held a direct or indirect, beneficial or
financial interest in a license to sell alcoholic beverages, which is not presently held? Yes No If yes, list said interest below:
Name
Licensee Name & Address
Date
Reason
Terminated
Please Select
Please Select
Please Select
13. DISCLOSURE OF LICENSE DISIPLiNARY ACTION:
Have any of the disclosed licenses to sell alcoholic beverages listed in §11 and /or §12 ever been suspended, revoked or cancelled?
Yes D No Q If yes, list said interest below:
Date
License
Reason of Suspension, Revocation or Cancellation
14. CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR A ( §15) PACKAGE STORE LICENSE ONLY:
A.) For Individual(s):
1. Are you a U.S. Citizen? Yes 0 No [�
2. Are you a Massachusetts Residents? Yes 0 No x0
B.) For Corporation(s) and LLC(s) :
1. Are all Directors /LLC Managers U.S. Citizens? Yes x No []
2. Are a majority of Directors /LLC Managers Massachusetts Residents? Yes 0 No Dx
3. Is the License Manager or Principal Representative a U.S. Citizen?
C.) Shareholder(s), Member(s), Director(s) and Officer(s):
1.. Are all Shareholders, Members, Directors, LLC Managers and Officers involved at least twenty -one (21) years old? Yes [�] No 0
15. CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR ( §12) RESTAURANT, HOTEL, CLUB, GENERAL ON PREMISE, TAVERN,
VETERANS CLUB LICENSE ONLY:
A.) For Individual(s):
1. Are you a U.S. Citizen? Yes E No []
B.) For Corporatlon(s) and LLC(s) :
1. Are a majority of Directors /LLC Managers NOT U.S. Citizen(s)? Yes 0 No 0
2. Is the License Manager or Principal Representative a U.S. Citizen? Yes f_x� No 0
C.) Shareholder(s), Member(s), Director(s) and Officer(s):
No [�
1.. Are all Shareholders, Members, Directors, LLC Managers and Officers involved at least twenty -one (21) years old? Yes x0
S�91 0
116. COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH LICENSE TRANSACTION:
A. Purchase Price for Real Property:
B. Purchase Price for Business Assets:
C. Costs of Renovations /Construction:
D. Initial Start -Up Costs:
E. Purchase Price for Inventory:
F. Other: (Specify)
G:TOTALCOST
H. TOTAL CASH
I. TOTAL AMOUNT FINANCED —��
IMPORTANT ATTACHMENTS (6): Submit any and
all records, documents and affidavits including
loan agreements that explain the source(s) of
money for this transaction. Sources of cash must
include a minimum of three (3) months of bank
statements.
The amounts listed in subsections (H) and (1)
must total the amount reflected in (G).
17. PROVIDE A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE FORM(S) AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING FOR THE COSTS IDENTIFIED
ABOVE (INCLUDE LOANS, MORTGAGES, LINES OF CREDIT, NOTES, PERSONAL FUNDS, GIFTS):
i
It if additional space is needed, please use last page.
18. LIST EACH LENDER AND LOAN AMOUNT(S)FROM WHICH "TOTAL AMOUNT FINANCED "NOTED IN SUB - SECTIONS 16(I)
WILL DERIVE:
A.
Name
Dollar Amount
Type of Financing
It additional spaci? is needed, p ease use ist page.
B. Does any individual or entity listed in §19 as a source of financing have a direct or indirect, beneficial or financial interest in this
license or any other license(s) granted under Chapter 138? Yes ❑ No Zx
If yes, please describe:
'5 10
AFFIDAVIT TO ANY FACT
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
BEFORE me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally
appeared Edward W. Engel, the Vice President and Secretary of Mac Acquisition LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the
same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed.
THAT, Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., a NASDAQ Publicly Traded Company,
Symbol "IRG" has acquired 100% of Mac Management Blocker, LLC (the 84.4% owner
of Mac Parent LLC) and 15.6% of Mac Parent LLC, the 100% owner of Mac Holding
LLC, the 100% owner Mac Acquisition LLC, the holder of several alcoholic beverage
licenses, and
THAT, the investment of fifty five million dollars for the aforementioned
acquisition was funded by loans from the following financial institutions:
KeyBank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Cadence Bank, Regions Bank, Fifth Third
Bank
THAT, attached as Exhibit A, please find the final acquisition funds flow chart,
and
THAT, attached as Exhibit B, please find a copy of the Ignite Restaurant Group,
Inc. bank statement showing the aforementioned stated funds were received and
disbursed accordingly.
THAT, to the best of my knowledge, the above statement is true and correct.
Given under my hand and se� office this 25`h day of April, 2013.
Edgard W. En 1, Vice President and Secretary
Mac Acquisitio LLC
MY COMMIM04 EXPIRES
Notary P is in and for the J`"`t2 2016
STATE F TEXAS
Sblz
Affidavit to Any Fact
EXHIBIT A
Ignite RMG Acquisition Funds Flow
Clots date. 04rMM13
Sources and Uses
Wre
mtruckons
Ravdvar
stow txa 44s 4r
KayBadt Revolver Fwrdkn0
V2 M333 34
BaMt of An4r6ca Revof," Fun*V
1128M 133 33
WON Fargo Revatver Fwn ft
66250,000.00
Oedema Ten Ravohror Fundng
W 250 000 W
Regmna Rsvotver FumkV
57 333 333 33
F4en Third Revolver Fund'ng
15 500 000 DO
Total Revoker Frrabd e1 Cbse m000.6oaoo
Tarm Loan
stow txa 44s 4r
KrtSv*Term Loan Fwusng
S^ 7 688;66667
Bark ofAmadeaaTum Low Fux"
111 888 888 66
Wob Fago Tam Loan Fwndag
Sr,50O000 00
Cadmca Tam loan Rm*v
17 500 000.00
Rayons Term Login Ftudrng
fir 688.686 67
FdLh Thad Tam Loan Fundng
65 000 .000 Do
Total Tam Loan Funded at Close
150%
`pasta Cath On Nand
13,0W,443 47
m
Snare of Fae.y Oyts'rs . V Toter Camigmary TeW
2333%
stow txa 44s 4r
325 ON 000 00
23 M
2323%
U!s (Pa }d at CtoWn -Q);
235OW000oO
233%
1300%
222`x'7000000
t50%
15 00%
-- Share cf Faahty OWdandr�y
1122,500 060 09
150%
1333%
$20 050 000 00
t33%
10.00%
3'4875 000A0
$1 r.250.00D 00
21$00000000
LOA%
100 00%
54507000000
5150 000 00000
LOO O v#
Crow an dosap
SID OW DOG 00
2333%
100 OD% 145 000.000 DO
1100.000 000.00
EathInt ed Puchna Prks
2333%
15 00%
533.680 $27 24
01(l)
Dewed n Schsdue 2 3(s) of SPA
1500%
We: M Same nt
°Oarrnrtyirrveaf ° raltC
tore]
58,334184 28
18.052.12418
0.1(2)
0.1(3)
1333%
668%
Esaw
EtarowAtnount
$4,125,Wo00
7000%
nSthedufa23(a)afSPA
D w wchaae
P aClonvnt dated 25720 +T
1811%
EsfLtnat+d AOgropata Purchase Prim
,0000%
15J = DM or,
dA
Oafaead m Baten6hd Cbtang 9iaititnerq
From :RGra Bank of Ama"A socaumt
TOW sauces:
stow txa 44s 4r
U!s (Pa }d at CtoWn -Q);
N,ro
RavaMSr
i0na
-- Share cf Faahty OWdandr�y
-ens: CatvrWrKnl
KryEtm* Payoff Fuadaq
Bade of America Payoff Fwldaq
S'B 875.003.00
3750%
x37 500 WO Lm 376V.
YhOs Fargo Payoff Fundanp
3'4875 000A0
$1 r.250.00D 00
3750%
137 503000 00 37s%
Total ROVOhW Fayaff at Clone •
$41,000,000.00
2500%
I25 Ott3 Q06 CO 2s D%
100 OD% 145 000.000 DO
1100.000 000.00
EathInt ed Puchna Prks
ROSWaant HoFd<np tLC - Satin A
Eirimkar Corporation
533.680 $27 24
01(l)
Dewed n Schsdue 2 3(s) of SPA
87 21%
We: M Same nt
°Oarrnrtyirrveaf ° raltC
tore]
58,334184 28
18.052.12418
0.1(2)
0.1(3)
Detei'ad in Sehedue 2 3(4) of SPA
D"dLd
668%
Esaw
EtarowAtnount
$4,125,Wo00
B.,
nSthedufa23(a)afSPA
D w wchaae
P aClonvnt dated 25720 +T
1811%
EsfLtnat+d AOgropata Purchase Prim
584,@81,f160.70
dA
Oafaead m Baten6hd Cbtang 9iaititnerq
RUG OCligat)ons
tndMxed,tata - Cadence payoff
Morrie. Marvtng 8 Martin LLP (Cedenea)
$4,180,007 3:
A..
POYM star tot Cadence crod3 fa c4ty (S41+ 02 per
denn roMrW fftcr 4 30Pn'+4%
9420000
C-1(5)
Payoff lobar for Cadence Ueda rackty
KrL4 d 6, Ev,s LLP
Ricowstaftusbcovers LLP
6825 O30 00
0-1(1)
DoWied m ScnedSds 2 3(a; of SPA
McOusary Hervy Bowim Troy LLP (080 Tait
548.892 00
C-5,2,
Oetafed m Scheam 2 e of SPA
rayy
Sm 053 20
C,(3)
Detailed In Schedue 2 3(e) at SPA
Montgom Costa t3ral:,dt LLP
$1. 018,21105
c- 1(4)
OvAded in 5ched,la 2 3, e) of SPA
m� Sob Ba(vVtc
Compen am a l d
Y P"W Tams on Sale Boraaea
41 168729
$300 000.00
C +(6)
RMG rash
Oetaisd m Scfred',ka 2 31a) of SPA
OOW*d "n Sd)o&ta 2 3(a) of SPA
RMU O6ltpattons
S4,3i0 00
111013 cash
Oft" M Sdmdvte 2 3(a) of SPA
58,782,460.16
OtG Ob%aflms
Kel8atdc to d=buta (Pet Eupaue Mamo - e4 feet egA and out of pocket)
MomaoM.ohan !LP (counsel to ?pri(a) Legal Face 8 Expenses
111. 688. 44028
LAG-1
Pa' Keyawc manta dated 4WD 13
MG Db0ya ims
$276. B9t,68
1AG-2
4nvora dated 4x820.3 - need wre hmtr5, s
$2,366,u1.12
Total Vw;
Si0S,08O,443A7
pwat $A—
80 00
Nrra 'he: ry Vc1VW 'a not $=may Darg ;,ad oft vnd +a-rx,dad at dose but watead L1a *Ovaver conrnf nW Sftrrings tedsg Wed +O evad breakage fee= r- a process a MOO=, n 0se RavOivtr toy
DRAFT as of 42420! 3
s613
EXHIBIT "B"
4/9/2013
Vendor
Amount
Bank Ref Wire Details
Ignite Restaurant Group
Restaurant Holdings LLC- Series A (Outgoing)
33,580,527.26
Ignite Restaurant Group
Indebtedness - Cadence payoff (Outgoing)
4,180,007.31
MorrisonCohen LLP (counsel to Ignite) Legal
Ignite Restaurant Group
Fees & Expenses (Outgoing)
276,691.66
KeyBank National
Association incoming Money Wire Transfer 48,010,559.74
v \
C
19. PLEDGE: (i.e. COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN)
A.) Is the applicant seeking approval to pledge the license? F-1 Yes L No
1. If yes, to whom:
2. Amount of Loan: 3. Interest Rate; 4. Length of Note:
S. Terms of Loan
B.) If a corporation, is the applicant seeking approval to pledge any of the corporate stock? r] Yes 0 No
1. If yes, to whom:
2. Number of Shares:
) Is the applicant pledging the inventory? F] Yes []z No
If yes, to whom:
IMPORTANT ATTACHMENTS (7): If you are applying for a pledge, submit the pledge agreement, the promissory note and a vote of
the Corporation /LLC approving the pledge.
120. CONSTRUCTION OF PREMISES:
Are the premises being remodeled, redecorated or constructed in anyway? If YES, please provide a description of the work being
performed on the premises: R Yes M No
21. ANTICIPATED OPENING DATE: *established premises /stock ownership change 4/ /2013
IF ALL OF THE INFORMATION AND
ATTACHMENTS ARE NOT COMPLETE
THE APPLICATION WILL BE
RETURNED
Sb�s
The Conintonwealth ofAlassachusetts
Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission
239 Causeway Street
Boston, A?A 02114
www.mrrss. qo vlahcc
PERSONAL INFORMATION FORM
Each individual listed in Section 10 of this application must complete this form.
11. LICENSEE INFORMATION:
B. Business Name (dba) Romano's Macaroni Grill
A. Legal Name of Licensee Mac Acquisition of Delaware I i
D. ABCC License Number 101600024
C. Address 48 walkers Brook Drive (if existing licensee)
E. City /Town Reading State MA Zip Code 01867
F. Phone Number of Premise 781- 944 -0575 G. EIN of Licensf
12. PERSONAL INFORMATION:
A. Individual Name Edward Engel B. Home Phone Num.
C. Address
5219 Caversham Drive
D. City /Town Houston state TX Zip Code 77096
E. Social Security Numb F. Date of Birth
I
G. Place of Employment Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc.
3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Have you ever been convicted of a state, federal or military crime? Yes [] No M
If yes, as part of the application process, the individual must attach an affidavit as to any and all convictions. The affidavit must include the city and state where
the charges occurred as well as the disposition of the convictions
FINANCIAL INTEREST:
(Provide a detailed description of your direct or indirect, beneficial or financial interest in this license.
No financial interest. IMPORTANT ATTACHMENTS (8): For all cash contributions, attach last (3) months of bank statements for the source(s) of this cash.
*If additional space is needed, please use the last page
I hereby swear under the pains and penalties of perjury that the information I have provided in this application is true and
accurate:
Signature F Date
Title Vice President & Secretary (If Corporation /LLC Representative)
Sb��°
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT
Offlo
I, Edward Engel them sole proprietor;El partner; El corporate principal; El LLC� "'
O .
of mac Acquisition of Delaware , hereby submit this application for 15tock ownership change / New offic (hereinafter the
"Application "), to the local licensing authority (the "LLA ") and the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (the "ABCC" and
together with the LLA collectively the "Licensing Authorities") for approval.
I do hereby declare under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have personal knowledge of the information submitted in the
Application, and as such affirm that all statement and representations therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I further submit the following to be true and accurate:
(1) 1 understand that each representation in this Application is material to the Licensing Authorities' decision on the
Application and that the Licensing Authorities will rely on each and every answer in the Application and accompanying
documents in reaching its decision;
(2) 1 state that the location and description of the proposed licensed premises does not violate any requirement of the
ABCC or other state law or local ordinances;
(3) 1 understand that while the Application is pending, I must notify the Licensing Authorities of any change in the
information submitted therein. I understand that failure to give such notice to the Licensing Authorities may result in
disapproval of the Application;
(4) 1 understand that upon approval of the Application, i must notify the Licensing Authorities of any change in the
Application information as approved by the Licensing Authorities. I understand that failure to give such notice to the Licensing
Authorities may result in sanctions including revocation of any license for which this Application is submitted;
(5) 1 understand that the licensee will be bound by the statements and representations made in the Application, including,
but not limited to the identity of persons with an ownership or financial interest in the license;
(6) 1 understand that all statements and representations made become conditions of the license;
(7) 1 understand that any physical alterations to or changes to the size of, the area used for the sale, delivery, storage, or
consumption of alcoholic beverages, must be reported to the Licensing Authorities and may require the prior approval of the
Licensing Authorities;
(8) 1 understand that the licensee's failure to operate the licensed premises in accordance with the statements and
representations made in the Application may result In sanctions, including the revocation of any license for which the
Application was submitted; and
(9) 1 understand that any false statement or misrepresentation will constitute cause for disapproval of the Application or
sanctions including r, !$a f arg/i'lSgRs9 for which this Application is submitted.
Date:
The Commonwealth ofAfassachusettr
Alcoholic 8m,erages Control Cornntission
239 Causeway Street
Boston, MA 02114
�3
PERSONAL INFORMATION FORM
Each Individual listed in Section 10 of this application must complete this form.
LICENSEE INFO
A. Legal Name of Licensee Mac Acquisition of Delaware l
C. Address 43 Walkers Brook Drive
E. City /Town Reading
F. Phone Number of Premise 81- 944 -0575
PERSONAL INFORMA
_.�B. Business Name (dba) Romana`s Macaroni Grill
D. ABCC License Number 101600024
(if existing licensee) -- - - --
State MA 7ip Code 01867
G. FIN of Licen
A. Individual Name MjctiaEil J. Dixon S. Home Phone Ni.,
C. Address 5456 Via.Olas
U. Cityrfotvn Newbury Park state CA zip Code 91320
E. Social Security Num' ^^ l F. Date of t
G. Place of Employment Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc.
3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: '
Have you ever been convicted of a state, federal or military crime? yes f"j No i_^_;
If yea, as part Of the applicatlon process, the individual mutt attach an affidavit as to any and ell convictions. The afn`davit crust Include the city and state where
d ChMles occurred as well as the dls:iasfttnn of tha — ;,-ti—
I nv I un" t
Provide a detailed description of your direct or indirect, beneficial or financial interest in this license,
financial interest.
MIPORTANT Ai rAC14PACNTS (8); For ail cash tontrlbutions, attach last (3) months of bank statements for the sources) of this cash.
*If additional space Is needed, please use the last page
I hereby swear under the palms orrd penalties of perjury that the information 1 have provided in this application is true and
accurate:
Signature t
Date � ,� � � • i
j
Title 7 asurer I (if Corporation/11C Representative)
Sb`�
Ignite Restaurant Group,
Inc.
DE Corporation Feb. 04, 2002
Publicly traded on the NASDAQ Stock
Exchange under ticker symbol IRG
100%
15.6% y Mac Management
Blocker LLC
Mac Parent LLC
DE Limited Liability Company,
August 1, 2008
100%
Mac Holding LLC
DE Limited Liability Company,
August 01, 2008
100%
Mac Acquisition LLC
DE Limited Liability
Company, July 1, 2008
# 3886963 v
DE Limited Liability Company,
Jan. 1, 2009
84.4%
6NO \" 1
WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THE SOLE MEMBER
OF
MAC HOLDING LLC
Dated as of April 9, 2013
The undersigned, being the sole member (the "Member") of Mac Holding LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (the "Company'), hereby consents to the adoption of the
following resolutions and direct that this consent be filed with the minutes of the Company:
WHEREAS, the Member believes that is advisable and in the best interests of the
Company to appoint Michael Dixon as President and Treasurer of the Company and Edward
Engel as Vice President and Secretary of the Company;
WHEREAS, the Member believes that is advisable and in the best interests of the
Company to file a Certificate of Amendment for a Limited Liability Company with the Secretary
of State of Delaware to update the Certificate of Formation of the Company so that it reflects
National Registered Agents, Inc. ( "NRAI ") as the correct registered agent (the foregoing action,
the "Certificate Transaction");
WHEREAS, the Member believes that is advisable and in the best interests of the
Company to amend the existing Limited Liability Company Agreement of the Company to
reflect the correct address of the Member by entering into the First Amendment to Limited
Liability Company Agreement of the Company in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the
"Amendment ");
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective as of the date hereof,
Michael Dixon be appointed as President and Treasurer of the Company and Edward Engel be
appointed as Vice President and Secretary of the Company; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Certificate Transaction be approved and adopted, effective as of
the date hereof, and it is further
RESOLVED, that NRAI be empowered to take all actions necessary to accomplish the
Certificate Transaction; and it is further
RESOLVED, that the Amendment be approved and adopted, effective as of the date
hereof; and it is further
RESOLVED, that all acts of officers, members, attorneys and agents, including NRAI,
of the Company with respect to, or in contemplation of, the transactions contemplated by any of
the foregoing resolutions, including those acts taken prior to the date hereof, be and they hereby
are, in all respects, hereby ratified, approved, authorized and confirmed; and be it further
x4478166 Q \023!68 M01
RESOLVED, that each officer and member (each, an "Authorized Person ") of the
Company be, and hereby is authorized, in the name and on behalf of the Company, to execute
and deliver such documents and to take any and all such actions (including, without limitation,
the execution and delivery as such Authorized Person may approve as necessary or desirable in
order to carry out fully each of the foregoing resolutions, the execution and delivery of any such
document, or the taking of any such action, by such officer to be conclusive evidence of his
approval thereof.
This consent may be executed in any number of counterparts and in separate
counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which
taken together shall constitute one instrument. Facsimile and electronic or e -mail transmissions
of executed signatures to this unanimous consent shall be deemed to be the same as an executed
original.
17"78166 v2'.023i68 •.0001
[Signature Page Follows]
2
5
'N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Member has executed this consent as of the date first set
forth above.
Member:
MAC PARENT LLC
By: 'ch 44ixon
Title: President and'I=Surer
Signature Page to Coasent of Sole Member of Mac Holding LLC
5�
z1/
" ^1
l'
Zambouras, George
From: Karas, Mike (DOT) [Mike.Karas @state.ma.us]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:16 AM
To: Zambouras, George
Subject: RE: Main and Franklin Studt
Thank you.
1. Checked out the timing at Franklin. Field timings do not match our record plans or the existing timing
used in the CTPS report. Therefore any minor 2 second change that they recommended probably would
not suffice. We will take a closer look and come up with some revisions and let you know.
2. Could you please have the Police supply 3 year accidents reports for Franklin Street for our accident
section to analyze?
3. Hopkins Street was reviewed and they determined that it is a high crash location. We have requested
that they schedule a field safety review audit to get the ball rolling in that direction.
From: Zambouras, George [mailto:gzambouras @ci.reading.ma.us]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:33 PM
To: Karas, Mike (DOT); Raphael, Connie (DOT)
Subject: Main and Franklin Studt
Mike, Connie
Attached is a copy of the report I have. The report was prepared by Chen -Yuan Wang of CTPS.
I cannot locate the final version.
George J. Zambouras, P.E.
Town Engineer
781- 942 -6683
781- 942- 5441(fax)
Email: gzambouras@ci.reading.ma.us
5/29/2013
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2
Zambouras, George
From: Raphael, Connie (DOT) [Connie. Raphael @state.ma.us]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:29 PM
To: Zambouras, George
Cc: Karas, Mike (DOT), Suszynski, Frank (DOT), Stedman, Paul (DOT), Leavenworth, Patricia (DOT)
Subject: FW: Reading - Main and Franklin Streets
Hi George,
I asked Bonnie Polin about Main and Franklin. We are not working on a design for this intersection. We
could begin by doing a Roadway Safety Audit. We will need the last three years of crash data. You could
forward the information to me or to Bonnie directly.
It was good to see you this morning.
District Four Planning Coordinator
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division
781 - 641 -8468
From: Polin, Bonnie (DOT)
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:23 PM
To: Raphael, Connie (DOT)
Subject: RE: Reading - Main and Franklin Streets
Not that I am aware of. I saw the CTPS study, that was included in the email, maybe that is what the
Town engineer was thinking (unfortunately, CTPS did not pull crash data and just used generalized info
from the statewide crash data). We would be happy to conduct an RSA but would need the actual crash
data from the town. If they can provide the 3 most recent years worth of crash data, we would happily
start the ball in motion. It is not scheduled on the STIP for HSIP 9or any other funding source) through
2014 that I can see.
From: Raphael, Connie (DOT)
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:17 PM
5/29/2013
v
Page 2 of 2
To: Polin, Bonnie (DOT)
Subject: FW: Reading - Main and Franklin Streets
Hi Bonnie.
We had a meeting with the Town of Reading this morning. They believe this intersection is being designed through the HSIP program. Is this something
you are working on? Has a RSA been performed?
Thanks
From: Zambouras, George [mailto :gzambouras @ci.reading. ma. us]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:33 PM
To: Karas, Mike (DOT); Raphael, Connie (DOT)
Subject: Main and Franklin Studt
Mike, Connie
Attached is a copy of the report I have. The report was prepared by Chen -Yuan Wang of CTPS.
I cannot locate the final version.
George J. Zambouras, P.E.
Town Engineer
781- 942 -6683
781- 942- 5441(fax)
Email: gzambouras @ci.reading.ma.us
5/29/2013
v
Rte 28 at Franklin
Zambouras, George
From: Karas, Mike (DOT) [Mike.Karas @state.ma.us]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:48 PM
To: Zambouras, George
Subject: Rte 28 at Franklin
Attachments: 0787d04 Model (1).pdf
«0787d04 Model (1).pdf>>
These are the timings we found in the field. Did not match our records or the study parameters.
We found detection on 3 of the approaches not functioning and will assign our contractor to repair.
Also found max recall timing on phases 2 and 6, probably the result of detection problems.
Once all the repairs are made we can observe the operation and get together to make any necessary
timing adjustments.
Will keep you informed.
5/29/2013
Page I of I
BOSTON REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
State Transportation Building
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 2150
MEMORANDUM
Boston; MA 02116.3968
Tel. (617) 973 -7100
DATE July 8, 2010
Fox (617) 973-8855
TO Transportation Planning and Programming Committee
TTY (617) 973-7089
of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization
www.bostonmpa.org
FROM Arnold J. Soolman, CTPS Director
Jeffrey B. Mullen
MassDOT Secretary and CEO
RE Draft CTPS Memoranda Presenting the Results of the Study,
and MPO Chairman
Operational Improvements at Selected Congested and High -Crash
Intersections
Arnold J. Soolmon
Director, MPO Staff
ACTION REQUIRED
Review and approval
PROPOSED MOTION
That the Transportation Planning and Programming Committee of the Boston
Region Metropolitan Planning Organization vote to approve the technical
memoranda on Operational Improvements at Selected Congested and High -Crash
Intersections, in the form of the draft dated July 8, 2010.
The Boston Region MPO,
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
the federally designated
entity responsible for
Unified Planning Work Program Classification
transportation decision-
Planning Studies
making for the 101 cities
CTPS Project Number
and towns in the MPO
13244
region, is composed of:
Client(s)
MassDOT Office of Punning and
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization
Programming
City of Boston
CTPS Project Supervisors
City of Newton
Principal: Efi Pagitsas
City of Somerville
Manager: Chen -Yuan Wang
Town of Bedford
Funding
Town of Braintree
MassHighway 3C PL Contract #56242
Town of Frarninghom
Town of Hopkinton
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Mosso(husetts Bay Transportation
Authority Advisory Board
Mossachusens Bay Transportation
Authority
MossDOT Highway Division
MOSSa(haSet$ Port Authority
Regional Transportation Advisory
Council (nonvoting)
Federal Highway Administration
(nonvoting)
Federal Transit Administration
(nonvoting)
,SG.�'
Planning and Programming Committee
BACKGROUND
July 8, 2010
This study was a recommendation of the MPO's Congestion Management Process (CMP).
The study's purpose was to select and evaluate intersections from throughout the region and
to develop recommendations for improving the selected intersections' operations and the
safety of drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians who use the intersections.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ATTACHED MEMORANDA
The five attached memoranda present analyses and recommendations for six intersections.
The intersections were selected through a comprehensive procedure with extensive data
screening and numerous interactions with cities and towns. This procedure included review
of MassDOT crash data, review of the status of Transportation Improvement Program
projects, solicitation of recommendations through the Metropolitan Area Planning
Council's outreach efforts, and communications with cities and towns regarding their
interest in project implementation. The six intersections are (in order by EPDO, with the
pair of Lynn locations placed according to the average of their EPDOs):
Community
Street 1
Street 2
2004 -2006
EPDO*
Current Traffic
Crashes
Control
Somerville
RI outee B6rook Pkwy
Broadway
60
120
Traffic Signal
Reading
Route Street
Franklin Street
43
91
Traffic Signal
Danvers
Poplar Street
Route 62
Locust Street
Route 35
30
62
Traffic Signal
Lynn
Western Avenue
Eastern Avenue/
Route 107
Stanwood Street
44
72
Two -Way Stop
Lynn
Western Avenue
Waitt Avenue/
Route 107
Maple Street
14
18
Traffic Signal
Sudbury
ry
oston Post Road
Route 20
Landham Street
28
44
Two -Way Stop
* EPDO (Equivalent Property Damage Only)
= 10 * Fatality Crashes + 5 * Personal Injury Crashes + 1 * Other Crashes
Each intersection is analyzed and discussed in a separate memorandum, except the two
intersections in Lynn. As those two are related, they are discussed together in one
memorandum. Typical subjects of the sections of the memoranda are:
• Intersection Layout and Traffic Control
• Issues and Concerns
• Crash Data Analysis
• Intersection Capacity Analysis
• Preliminary Analysis of Traffic Signal Warrants (if applicable)
• Analyses of Improvement Alternatives
• Recommendations and Discussion
Each memorandum also includes a collection of technical appendices presenting methods
and data applied in the study and detailed reports of intersection capacity analysis.
AJS /CYW /cyw
�C/&
Summary of Operational Improvements at Selected Congested and High -Crash Intersections
Community
Main Street
Minor StreetsJurisdiction
Existing Control
Recommended Improvements
• Increase pedestrian signal phase from 17 seconds
j
to 21 seconds.
• Change Broadway signal operation from split
Alewife Brook Pkwy
phasing to protected - permissive LT phasing.
Somerville
(Route 16)
Broadway
MassDOT
Traffic Signal
• Upgrade signal and controller equipment.
"countdown"
• Install pedestrian signals.
• Estimated cost: $ $250 — 500K
• Long term: Consider adding a LT lane on both
approaches of the parkway
• Short term: Retime traffic signal to reduce "yellow
Main Street
trap" situation. Estimated cost: $ 2K — 4K
Reading
(Route 28)
Franklin Street
MassDOT
Traffic Signal
• Long term: Consider adding a WB RT lane and
update signal system. Estimated cost: $ 750K —
1,000K
• Short term: Retime traffic signal to improve traffic
Poplar Street
Locust Street
flow. Estimated cost: $ 2K — 4K
Danvers
(Route 62)
(Route 35)
Town
Traffic Signal
• Long term Add a LT lane on both approaches of
Poplar Street and upgrade the signal system.
Estimated cost: $ 750K— 1,250K
• Signalize the intersection with slight geometry
modifications on SB and WB approaches.
Lynn
Western Avenue
Eastern Avenue/
City
Two -Way Stop
• Coordinate this signal with the Waitt Avenue
(Route 107)
Stanwood Street
signal.
• Include accessible pedestrian signals.
• Estimated cost: $ 750K— 1,000K
• Add a NB RT lane by removing two on- street
parking spaces.
Lynn
Western Avenue
Waitt Avenue/
City
Traffic Signal
• Coordinate this signal with the Eastern Avenue
(Route 107)
Maple Street
signal.
• Install accessible pedestrian signals.
• Estimated cost: $ 20K — 40K
• Signalize the intersection with geometry
modifications on all approaches.
Sudbury
Boston Post Road
Landham Street
MassDOT
Two -Way Stop
• Include accessible pedestrian signals.
(Route 20)
• Maintain preferable 6' shoulders on Route 20 for
bike traveling.
• Estimated cost: $ 750K — 1,250K
CTPS CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STAFF
Staff to the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization
MEMORANDUM
To: George J. Zambouras, Reading Town Engineer July 8, 2010
Mike Karas, MassDOT Highway Division District 4
From: Chen -Yuan Wang and Efi Pagitsas
Re: Boston Region MPO Congested and High -Crash Intersections Study:
Main Street (Route 28) at Franklin Street in Reading
This memorandum summarizes safety and operations analyses and proposes improvement
strategies for the intersection of Main Street (Route 28) at Franklin Street in Reading. It contains
the following sections:
• Intersection Layout and Traffic Control
• Issues and Concerns
• Crash Data Analysis
• Intersection Capacity Analysis
• Review of the "Yellow Trap" Situation
• Analyses of Improvement Alternatives
• Improvement Recommendations and Discussions
The memorandum also includes a collection of technical appendices that contain methods and
data applied in the study and detailed reports of intersection capacity analysis.
INTERSECTION LAYOUT AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
This signalized intersection is located in the northern section of Reading. Main Street, a four -lane
roadway running in the north -south direction, is the major street of the intersection. It is part of
state Route 28, which serves as a principal urban arterial for the region. Franklin Street, a two -
lane roadway running in the east -west direction, is the minor street of the intersection. It mainly
serves as a major collector for the town and is also used by crosstown traffic to connect Route 28
and other destinations.
Figure I shows the intersection layout and the area nearby. No exclusive right- or left -turn lanes
are provided on any of the approaches. In both directions of Main Street, the outside lane is
shared by the right -turn and through movements and the inside lane is shared by the left -turn and
through movements. In both directions of Franklin Street, all movements share a single lane.
The traffic signal is currently operated in three traffic phases: (1) southbound all movements (left
turns protected), (2) southbound /northbound all movements (left turns permitted), and (3)
State Transportation Building . Ten Park Plaza, Suite 2150 . Boston, MA 02116 -3968 . (617) 973 -7100 . Fox (617) 973 -8855 . TTY (617) 973 -7089 . ctps@ctps.org
SG 9
49airti Street Wl -
r.
rf r
�T
;,
Ilk
i
i ,•
yy t
`j
�'y � �� t� 1 j. •� 1� t
q
7
}
49airti Street Wl -
r.
rf r
�T
;,
� � c
a
E o �
U LO
o U
ro
O
0)
G
`o
tC
d
4l
cn
C
Y
r C
LL
LL
cu
u
N
CD
O
w
d
d
L
c
C
,rc'l
i
i ,•
yy t
�'y � �� t� 1 j. •� 1� t
q
7
� � c
a
E o �
U LO
o U
ro
O
0)
G
`o
tC
d
4l
cn
C
Y
r C
LL
LL
cu
u
N
CD
O
w
d
d
L
c
C
,rc'l
George J. Zambouras, Mike Karas 3 July 8, 2010
eastbound /westbound all movements. Right turns on red are allowed on all four approaches. The
signal control also includes an exclusive pedestrian phase that lasts about 25 seconds. When
manually activated, the on -call pedestrian phase takes place after the southbound /northbound
traffic phase, and all traffic movements are prohibited.
The land use in the vicinity of the intersection is mainly commercial. Gas stations are located at
the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection. There is a popular ice cream and flower
store with parking at the southeast corner. A retailer, Home Goods, and its parking lot occupy the
major area northwest of the intersection. The areas beyond the Route 28 corridor are mainly
residential. A grade school, Wood End Elementary School, is located about a mile west of this
intersection.
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
This intersection has moderately high traffic volumes but is not particularly congested during
peak periods. Field observations indicated that most of the approaching traffic was able to pass
the intersection within a single cycle in the AM peak hour. In the PM peak hour, traffic on both
approaches of Franklin Street is more congested and backs up at times. Traffic on Route 28 is
heavy but not congested during both peak hours.
Review of the intersection traffic volumes indicates that the intersection carries a relatively high
number of southbound left turns and westbound right turns. A large portion of the traffic may be
through -town traffic that uses Franklin Street and Haverhill Street to reach Route 28 in the north
and Route 128/I -95 (Interstate 95) in the south. This traffic pattern is not easy to alter as long as
the congested conditions at the I- 93/I -95 interchange (Reading /Stoneham /Woburn) remain.
Safety is the main concern at this intersection. Review of recent crash data indicates that the
intersection has a high number of crashes and a crash rate much higher than other signalized
intersections in the area (see the next section for detailed analyses).
Lacking an exclusive turning lane, the southbound left turns operate in a lead -left
protected /permissive mode so that they do not block the through traffic in the same lane. This
operation preserves the intersection capacity but it frequently creates the "yellow trap" situation.
The situation can happen at this intersection when the left turners use the yellow change interval
but fail to pass the intersection before the opposite through traffic arrives or when they are
confused about the green ball and fail to yield to the opposite through traffic. The situation can
lead to angle (or "T- bone ") collisions between the left turners and the opposite through traffic or
cause collisions of /with other vehicles when they try to avoid the first conflict. Further
discussions of this condition are included in a later section.
The available traffic counts indicate that Franklin Street carries a high percentage of left turns in
both directions and heavy right turns in the westbound direction. Currently traffic operates in a
concurrent eastbound /westbound phase that has higher potential for traffic conflicts than a split
eastbound /westbound phase. The split phase is a safer operation but would consume more of the
traffic signal cycle than the concurrent phase. This alternative is examined in a later section of
this memorandum.
George J. Zambouras, Mike Karas 4 July 8, 2010
In summary, the issues and concerns for this intersection are:
• High number of crashes and high crash rate
• "Yellow trap" situation for the southbound left turns
• Traffic congestion on Franklin Street during the PM peak hour
• High percentage of turning movements on Franklin Street
CRASH DATA ANALYSIS
Based on the 2004 -2006 MassDOT Registry Division crash data, Table 1 shows that on average
14 crashes occurred at the intersection each year. Although most of the crashes involved property
damage only, nearly 30% of the total crashes resulted in personal injuries. The crash types
consisted of nearly 70% angle collisions and 30% others. No crashes involved pedestrians or
bicycles. About one -third of the total crashes occurred during peak periods.
TABLE 1
Summary of Crash Data (2004 -2006)
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
Statistics Period
2004
2005
2006
2004 -06
Average
Total number of crashes
12
18
13
43
14
Severity
Property damage
only
9
11
9
29
10
Personal injury
2
6
4
12
4
Fatality
0
0
0
1 0
0
Not reported
1
1
0
2
1
Collision Type
Angle
9
10
10
29
10
Rear -end
2
1
1
4
1
Sideswipe
0
3
1
4
1
Head -on
0
2
1
3
1
Single vehicle
0
0
0
0
0
Not reported
1
2
0
3
1
Crashes involving pedestrian (s)
0
0
0
0
0
Crashes involving cyclist(s)
0
0
0
0
0
Occurred during weekday peak periods*
5
5
4
14
5
Wet or icy pavement conditions
1
4
2
7
2
Dark/lighted conditions
2
5
3
10
3
" Peak periods defined as 7:00 -10:00 AM and 3:30 -6:30 PM
Crash rate' is another effective tool to examine the relative safety of a particular location. Based
on the above data and the recently collected traffic volume data, the crash rate for this
intersection is calculated as 1.68 (see Appendix A for the calculation sheet). The rate is much
' Crash rates are calculated from the combination of crash frequency (crashes per year) and vehicle exposure
(traffic volumes or miles traveled). Crash rates are expressed as "crashes per million entering vehicles" for
intersection locations and as "crashes per million miles traveled" for roadway segments.
S`�/ 0
George J. Zambouras, Mike Karas 5 July 8, 2010
higher than the average rate for the signalized locations in MassDOT Highway Division District
4, which is estimated to be 0.78.2
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
CTPS collected turning movement counts at the intersection on May 27, 2009. The data were
recorded in 15- minute intervals for the peak traffic periods in the morning from 7:00 to 9:00 and
in the evening from 4:00 to 6:00. The intersection carried about 1,850 vehicles in the morning
peak hour from 7:30 to 8:30 and about 2,100 vehicles in the evening peak hour from 5:00 to 6:00
(see Table 2). Two pedestrians and one pedestrian were observed during the AM and PM peak
hours, respectively. No bicycles were observed entering the intersection in the AM or PM peak
hour.
TABLE 2
AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Pedestrian Crossings
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
Street name
Main Street (Route 28)
Franklin Street
Direction
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Total
Turning movement
LT
TH
RT
LT
TH
RT
LT
I TH
RT
LT
TH
RT
AM
Turning volume
35
334
20
235
578
83
78
49
50
85
124
167
peak
Approach volume
389
896
177
376
1838
hour
pedestrian crossings
0
2
0
0
2
PM
Turning volume
24
1 653
45
203
1 519
66
130
1
247
peak
Approach volume
722
788
233
363
2106
hour
pedestrian crossings
0
1
0
0
1
Based on the turning movement counts and the signal timings measured on the site, the
intersection capacity was analyzed by using an intersection capacity analysis program, Synchro.3
The intersection is evaluated to operate at level of service (LOS) C in the morning peak hour and
at LOS D in the evening peak hour (see Table 3). Due to relatively high left turns, the eastbound
approach endures more delays than the other approaches in the evening peak hour. It was
evaluated as undesirable LOS F. The level of service criteria are based on the Highway Capacity
Manual 2000.4 Detailed analysis settings and results for both the AM and PM peak hour are
included in Appendix B.
The average crash rates estimated by MassDOT are based upon a database that contains intersection crash rates
submitted to MassDOT as part of the review process for an environmental impact report or functional design
report. The most recent average crash rates, which are updated on a nearly yearly basis, are based on all entries in
the database, not just those entries made within the past year.
Synchro is developed and distributed by Trafficware, Ltd. It can perform capacity analysis and traffic simulation
(when combined with SimTraffic) for an individual intersection or a series of intersections.
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000, National Research Council, Washington D. C.,
2000.
5c�k'Z.-
George J. Zambouras, Mike Karas 6 July 8, 2010
TABLE 3
Intersection Capacity Analysis, Existing Conditions
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
Street name
Main Street
(Route 28)
Franklin Street
Direction
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Overall
Turning movement
LT
TH
RT
LT
I TH
I RT
LT
I TH
I RT
LT
I TH
I RT
AM
peak
LOS
B
B
D
D
C
hour
Delay (sec /veh)
18
20
37
47
27
PM
LOS
B
B
F
D
D
peak
hour
Delay (sec /veh)
19
20
135
41
36
REVIEW OF THE `YELLOW TRAP" SITUATION
The "yellow trap" and similar situations for protected /permissive left turns (PPLT) have been a
difficult issue, which is often different from one intersection to another. At this intersection, the
southbound left turns operate in a lead -left protected /permissive mode so that they will not
frequently block the through traffic due to lacking an exclusive turning lane. The "trap" can
happen when the left turners use the yellow change interval but fail to pass out of the intersection
before the opposite through traffic arrives or when they are confused about the green ball and fail
to yield to the opposite through traffic. The situation can lead to angle (or "T- bone ") collisions
between the left turns and the opposite through traffic or cause collisions of /with other vehicles
when they try to avoid the first conflict.
Two factors that potentially contribute to the "yellow trap" situation at this intersection were
examined: (1) if the signal indication for the PPLT operation is appropriate and (2) if the yellow
clearance interval for the left turns is sufficient.
Currently a typical MUTCD5 five- section cluster signal head is installed over the southbound
inside lane, with a regulatory sign indicating "Left turn yield on green ball" (see Figure 2). The
allowable movements in the lane are indicated by three consecutive faces: (1) a green ball and a
green arrow, indicating the through and the protected left -turn movements, (2) a green ball and a
yellow arrow, indicating continuation of through movements and ending of the protected left -
turn phase, and (3) a green ball only, indicating protected through movements and permissive
left -turn movements.
The display sequence appears to be appropriate with the available equipment and has no conflicts
with the displays on the opposite approach. The typical MUTCD five- section signal head is
commonly used but is gradually challenged by practitioners in that left- turners sometimes
incorrectly interpret the meaning of a green ball as a protected phase for them. A recent NCHRP
study found a flashing yellow arrow PPLT display to be equal or superior to the existing five-
Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Chapter 4D. Traffic Control Signal Features, 2003 edition with revision numbers 1 and 2
incorporated, December 2007.
6 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 493, Evaluation of Traffic Signal Displays
for Protected/Permissive Left -Turn Control, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2003.
sC,0
George J. Zambouras, Mike Karas 7
July 8, 2010
section display based on traffic simulation tests of drivers' responses. Figure 3 shows the
flashing yellow arrow indication in three- and four - section displays for an exclusive PPLT
operation.
As the PPLT movements are not operated in an exclusive lane at this intersection, the flashing
yellow arrow display has to be used alongside a typical three -ball signal head designated for the
through traffic. However, we do not recommend this display for this intersection. The flashing
yellow arrow display is still considered experimental by the MUTCD and by the state. Further
studies are needed for the state to evaluate its effectiveness in terms of the overall intersection
efficiency and safety and how it will work with the many existing signal controllers.
FIGURE 2
Traffic Signal Head over the Southbound Left- Turn/Th rough Lane
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
N,
FIGURE 3
Exclusive Flashing Yellow Arrow Display Faces
(Source: NCHRP Report 493)
,i`` indicates Piashinq
5L'H
George J. Zambouras, Mike Karas 8 July 8, 2010
A review of the existing signal timing plan indicates that the yellow clearance time for the
southbound left turns may need to be extended.
Based on the commonly used ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) formula, the yellow clearance
interval consists of reaction time, deceleration time, and time to clear the intersection.7 Table 4
shows estimation of the desirable yellow clearance time for the left turns under an average
approaching speed ranging from 20 mph (miles per hour) to 50 mph8 for the southbound left turn
at this intersection. The assumptions for the calculation are:
• Reaction time = I second
• Average deceleration = between 10 feet/see.2 and 15 feet/sec.z
Distance to clear the intersection = 60 feet (from the southbound stop line, passing a
crosswalk and two northbound lanes in a curvature, to Franklin Street) + 20 feet (a
vehicle length)
The estimation indicates that a total of 4.5 or 5 seconds of yellow clearance is desirable for the
southbound left turns to safely clear or stop before the intersection. Currently the left turns have
2 seconds of yellow change interval (indicated by a steady yellow arrow) for reaction and
deceleration but no time to clear the intersection because the opposite northbound green balls are
shown as soon as the yellow arrow ends. We propose to extend the reaction and deceleration
time from 2 seconds to 3 seconds and to add a time of 2 seconds to clear the intersection. The
yellow arrow can indicate the yellow change interval but the time to clear the intersection can
only be achieved by delaying the indication of the opposite northbound green balls for 2 seconds
(as the typical five- section signal head does not have a red arrow).
TABLE 4
Estimation of Yellow Clearance Intervals with a Range of Approach Speeds
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
Approach speed (mph)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Reaction and deceleration time'
2.5
2.8
3.2
3.6
3.9
4.3
4.7
Reaction and deceleration time
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.7
3.0
3.2
3.4
Time to clear the intersection
2.7
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.1
Total yellow clearance time'
5.2
5.0
5.0
5.1
5.3
5.5
5.8
Total yellow clearance time
4.7
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.5
Note: 1. Average Deceleration= 10 feet/sec.2
2. Average Deceleration = 15 feettsec.2
"Traffic Signal Clearance Interval," Philip J. Tamoff, ITEJournal, April 2004
s The posted speed on Route 28 in the area is 35 mph. The speed range represents different approaching conditions
from "stop and go" to "fly through the intersection."
George J. Zambouras, Mike Karas 9 July 8, 2010
ANALYSES OF IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
This section examines four traffic signal and geometric design strategies to improve the safety
and operation of this intersection. The analyses were performed progressively from simple to
more involved modifications for the four improvement alternatives. The intersection capacity
was evaluated using Synchro optimization and simulation software. Common to all four
alternatives is the proposed modification of the southbound left -turn clearance time, extending
the yellow change interval from 2 to 3 seconds and adding a 2- second clearance interval, and
maintaining the existing total cycle length.
1. Retime Traffic Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence and Intersection Geometry
The unbalanced levels of service for the major street (Main Street: LOS B) and the minor street
(Franklin Street: LOS D or F) in the existing conditions indicate that there may be room for
improving the intersection operation by shifting some green time from Main Street to Franklin
Street.
Synchro tests using the existing traffic volumes and intersection geometry indicate that the
intersection is able to operate at acceptable levels of service at all approaches by shifting 2
seconds of green time from the northbound /southbound phase to the eastbound /westbound phase
in the AM peak hour and shifting 6 seconds in the PM peak hour. This simple signal retiming
alternative maintains the same overall intersection LOS and average delay in the AM peak hour
and improves the overall LOS from D to C with reduced average delay by 6 seconds in the PM
peak hour (see Table 5).
With the modified yellow change clearance time for the southbound left turns, the "yellow trap"
situation is expected to be relieved somewhat. Details of the signal settings and analysis results
for both peak hours are included in Appendix C.
2. Change EB /WB Operation to Split Phase under Existing Geometry
As mentioned, Franklin Street carries a high percentage of left turns in both directions. Under
such conditions, an eastbound /westbound (EB /WB) split phase is a safer operation but would
require an increased share of the overall traffic signal cycle compared to the existing concurrent
phase.
Synchro tests of the EB /WB split phase with the existing signal cycle, traffic, and geometric
conditions indicate that the intersection would operate at LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS
D in the PM peak hour (see Table 5). All the approaches under this alternative would endure
more delays than under Alternative 1 (concurrent EB /WB traffic phase), especially in the PM
peak hour.
The split phase operation would potentially reduce the through and turning traffic conflicts on
Franklin Street. On the other hand, it would increase delays on all the approaches of the
intersection. Especially in the PM peak hour, the approaches on Franklin Street would operate at
undesirable LOS F and LOS E and both the approaches of Main Street would endure an increase
of 15 to 20 seconds in delay. Details of the signal settings and analysis results for both peak
hours are included in Appendix D.
5-61 (P
George J. Zambouras, Mike Karas 10 July 8, 2010
TABLE 5
Intersection Capacity Analysis of Alternative Improvements
Existing Traffic Volumes
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
Street name
Main Street
(Route 28)
Franklin Street
Approach
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Overall
Existing
13/18
13/20
D/37
D/47
C/27
AM
Alternative 1
C/22
C /21
C/34
D/42
C/27
peak
Alternative 2
C/23
C /30
D /41
E/56
C135
hour
Alternative
B/16
B /16
D/48
C/26
C /21
Alternative 4
C/22
C /21
D/47
D/35
C/27
Existing
13/19
13/20
F /135
D/41
D/36
PM
Alternative 1
C/27
C/27
D /51
C/29
C /30
peak
Alternative 2
D/37
D /40
F/87
E /70
D/49
hour
Alternative
13/19
B /17
D/47
B /14
C /21
Alternative
C /21
13/18
D /50
C/32
C/25
Note Performance measures: Level of Service (A to F) /Average Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Alternative 1: Retime Traffic Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence and Intersection Geometry
Alternative 2: Change EB/WB Operation to Split Phase under Existing Geometry
Alternative 3: Add a WB Right -Turn Lane and Retime Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence
Alternative 4: Add a Lane on Both EB/ B Approaches and Change EB/ B Operation to Split Phase
3. Add a WB Right -Turn Lane and Retime Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence
The high percentage of right turns on the westbound approach (about 45% in the AM and 70% in
the PM peak hour) indicates that adding an exclusive lane for that movement would significantly
increase the capacity of the intersection. Based on the State Roadway Inventory file, Franklin
Street has a right -of -way (ROW) of 40 feet in the intersection vicinity. Currently, the westbound
approach pavement is about 23 feet wide; it may be feasible to construct a 10 -foot turning lane
within the ROW of the westbound approach.
With the addition of an exclusive lane, the existing signal phasing plan can overlap a protected
westbound right -turn phase with the southbound -only phase. Synchro tests of the proposed
modifications indicate that the intersection would operate at LOS C and all approaches would
operate at an acceptable LOS with insignificant delays in both the AM and PM peak hours (see
Table 5). Details of the signal settings and analysis results for both peak hours are included in
Appendix E.
4. Add a Lane on Both EB /WB Approaches and Change EB /WB Operation to Split Phase
Tests of Alternative 2 show that the EB /WB split phase would operate at LOS E or F on Franklin
Street. In order to maintain desirable LOS for all the approaches, the intersection would need to
be expanded.
George J. Zambouras, Mike Karas 11 July 8, 2010
Different layouts of the expanded Franklin Street were tested. One of them, the combination of
an exclusive right -turn lane with a through /left -turn shared lane for the westbound approach and
an exclusive left -turn lane with a through /right -turn shared lane for the eastbound approach,
yielded acceptable results. Synchro tests of the EB /WB split phase with the proposed
modifications indicate that the intersection would operate at LOS C and all approaches would
operate at an acceptable LOS in both the AM and PM peak hours (see Table 5). Details of the
signal settings and analysis results for both peak hours are included in Appendix F.
In addition, a future -year scenario of 15% growth over a 20 -year planning horizon was tested for
each of the four alternatives. The growth assumption is based on a review of the traffic
projections at the intersection from the recent Boston Region MPO transportation planning
model. A higher number of pedestrian calls (five in each peak hour) than under existing
conditions was assumed in the future -year analysis.
Results from Synchro tests of the alternatives with the projected traffic growth are summarized
in Table 6. As shown, Alternative 1 would operate at acceptable LOS C in the AM peak hour and
LOS D in PM peak hour. Alternative 2 would operate at an undesirable LOS F in both the AM
and PM peak hours. Alternative 3 would operate at LOS C in both the AM and PM peak hours
with insignificant delays. Alternative 4 would operate at LOS C in both the AM and PM peak
hours with insignificant overall delays and noticeable delays on the eastbound approach. Details
of the Synchro results for all the alternatives under the projected traffic conditions are included
in Appendices G, H, 1, and J.
TABLE 6
Intersection Capacity Analysis of Alternative Improvements
Projected 2030 Traffic Growth
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
Street name
Main Street
(Route 28)
Franklin Street
Approach
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Overall
Existing
B /19
C/26
D/49
E/73
D/36
AM
Alternative 1
C/23
C /30
D /41
E/56
C/35
peak
Alternative
C/34
E/67
E/58
F /175
F /81
hour
Alternative 3
C/22
C/22
D /50
C/25
C/25
Alternative 4
C/23
C/25
E /61
D /41
C 131
Existing
C /21
C/29
F /261
E /60
E/57
PM
Alternative 1
D/37
D/37
E/78
C/33
D /41
peak
hour
Alternative 2
E /60
F/82
E /71
F /131
F/82
Alternative
C/25
C/25
D /50
B /14
C/26
Alternative 4
C/22
C/22
E/62
D/38
C/29
Note Performance measures: Level of Service (A to F) /Average Delay (seconds per vehicle)
Alternative 1: Retime Traffic Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence and Intersection Geometry
Alternative 2: Change EBM/B Operation to Split Phase under Existing Geometry
Alternative 3: Add a WB Right -Turn Lane and Retime Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence
Alternative 4: Add a Lane on Both EBM/B Approaches and Change EB/WB Operation to Split Phase
sue( 8
George J. Zambouras, Mike Karas 12 July 8, 2010
IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
The above analyses indicate that the operation and safety of the intersection can be improved by
signal retiming (Alternative 1). Changing EB /WB operation to split phase with the existing
geometry (Alternative 2) is not effective as the intersection would operate at undesirable LOS F
under the projected future traffic conditions. Adding a WB right -turn lane and retiming the signal
with the existing phasing sequence (Alternative 3) is the most effective option as the intersection
would operate at desirable levels of service with minimal delays even under the projected traffic
conditions.
Alternative 4, adding a lane on both EB /WB approaches and changing EB /WB operation to split
phase, would help the intersection operate at a desirable overall LOS but with noticeable delays
on the eastbound approach (projected future traffic conditions). It would also cost more than
other alternatives. The crash data do not indicate a high proportion of crashes involving EB /WB
traffic. Therefore, we do not recommend Alternative 4 unless unforeseen major traffic growth or
major changes in traffic patterns occur in the future.
We propose a two -stage improvement strategy for this intersection. In the short term, we propose
retiming the signal with the existing intersection layout as follows:
• Extend the southbound yellow change interval from 2 seconds to 3 seconds
• Delay the indication of the northbound green for 2 seconds
• In the AM peak period, shift 2 seconds of green time from the northbound /southbound to
the eastbound /westbound phase
• In the PM peak period, shift 6 seconds of green time from the northbound /southbound to
the eastbound /westbound phase
• Retain the existing total cycle length
The proposed retiming is expected to relieve the "yellow trap" situation for the southbound left
turns and to reduce delays for the eastbound /westbound traffic. As a result, the overall
intersection safety and operations would be improved. However, the traffic conditions and crash
data at the intersection should be monitored and reviewed after the signal retiming.
In the long term, if the intersection operations do not improve and the crash rates remain high,
adding a WB right -turn lane and retiming the signal with the existing phasing sequence
(Alternative 3) can be considered. The State Roadway Inventory file shows that Franklin Street
has a ROW of about 40 feet, which is somewhat tight for an additional lane and sidewalks on
both sides. The potential westbound reconfiguration could consist of two 10 -foot approaching
lanes, one 12 -foot receiving lane, and two 4 -foot sidewalks. In summary, the recommended
improvement alternative includes the following modifications:
• Add an exclusive right -turn lane (desirable length: 200 feet) on the westbound approach
• Overlap a WB right -turn protected phase to the southbound -only phase
• Install a MUTCD five- section signal head containing right -turn green and yellow arrows
over the additional westbound lane
SGT �
George J. Zambouras, Mike Karas 13 July 8, 2010
Based on the projected future traffic conditions, this alternative is expected to improve
operations and safety at the intersection. If this option is pursued, at the functional design stage
the intersection should be reevaluated using updated traffic and crash data.
Appendix A
Intersection Crash Rate Calculation
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
s�zl
Ansys/Iffly
INTERSECTION CRASH RATE WORKSHEET
CITY/TOWN : Readin
DISTRICT: 4 UNSIGNALIZED
COUNT DATE:
SIGNALIZED
5/27/09
L— X7771 J
- INTERSECTION DATA -
.......................................................................... ............................... ............................................................................................ .I.............................
MAJOR STREET: Main Street (Rt. 28)
MINOR STREET(S) : Frankin Street
INTERSECTION
DIAGRAM
(Label Approaches)
APPROACH:
DIRECTION:
PEAK HOURLY
VOLUMES (AM /PM) :
Main
North Street
Franklin Street
Franklin Street
Main
N Street
PEAK Wr)f ID %Inl IIRACC
1
2
3
4
5
Total Peak
Hourly
Approach
NB
SB
EB
WB
Volume
722
788
233
363
2,106
" K " FACTOR : 0.090 INTERSECTION ADT (V) = TOTAL DAILY 23,400
APPROACH VOLUME:
# OF AVERAGE # OF
TOTAL # OF CRASHES: 43 3 YEARS: CRASHES PER YEAR
A):
CRASH RATE CALCULATION: 1.68 RATE _ ( A' 1,000,000 )
( V -365)
Comments :
Project Title & Date: Boston MPO Congested and High -Crash Intersections Study
5LZ2
Appendix B
AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis
Existing Traffic Conditions
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
5G�
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
Cycle Length: 117
AM Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study Page 1
Sc-21,q
•
„ ,_
.r;�
x; arc,
;, �
L;`. €...
°�
i
z
.i
Lane Configurations,
Volume (vph)
78
49
50
85
124
167
35
334
20
235
578
83
Confl. Peds. ( #/hr)
2
2
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Growth Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
4%
4%
4%
1%
1%
1%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
192
0
0
409
0
0
423
0
0
973
0
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
6
8
7
47
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
47
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
8
8
7
47
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
7.0
Total Split (s)
34.0
34.0
0.0
34.0
34.0
0.0
49.0
49.0
0.0
9.0
67.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
29.1%
29.1%
0.0%
29.1%
29.1%
0.0%
41.9%
41.9%
0.0%
7.7%
57.3%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
2.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
29.2
29.2
44.3
53.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.30
0.30
0.46
0.56
v/c Ratio
0.61
0.84
0.33
0.71
Control Delay
37.4
47.2
18.3
19.9
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
37.4
47.2
18.3
19.9
LOS
D
D
B
B
Approach Delay
37.4
47.2
18.3
19.9
Approach LOS
D
D
B
B
Queue Length 50th (ft)
85
202
75
162
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#225
#483
157
332
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
316
485
1284
1368
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.61
0.84
0.33
0.71
Cycle Length: 117
AM Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study Page 1
Sc-21,q
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
Lane Group
m4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
58.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
50% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
AM Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study Page 2
SGv�
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.2
Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.84
Intersection Signal Delay: 26.8 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 1: Int
o2
l 04
k�k 09
t
06 1 o7 08
AM Existing Conditions
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
5 0111-°
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
12/18/2009
_,'
--I.
--*
f-
'-
A_
4�
T
►
1
4/
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+T+
+T+
+M
+TT
Volume (vph)
130
80
23
57
59
247
24
653
45
203
519
66
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
1
1
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Growth Factor
100%
100%
100%
1100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
0%
01/0
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
259
0
0
403
0
0
803
0
0
876
0
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
6
8
7
47
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
47
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
8
8
7
47
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
7.0
Total Split (s)
32.0
32.0
0.0
32.0
32.0
0.0
52.0
52.0
0.0
8.0
68.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
27.4%
27.4%
0.0%
27.4%
27.4%
0.0%
44.4%
44.4%
0.0%
6.8%
58.1%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
2.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
27.2
27.2
47.3
55.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.28
0.28
0.49
0.58
v/c Ratio
1.14
0.82
0.52
0.73
Control Delay
134.5
411
19.0
20.0
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
134.5
41.1
19,0
20.0
LOS
F
D
B
B
Approach Delay
134.5
41.1
19.0
20.0
Approach LOS
F
D
B
B
Queue Length 50th (ft)
-171
172
152
130
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#412
#429
299
#290
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
228
493
1558
1196
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
1.14
0.82
0.52
0.73
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 117
PM Existing Conditions
Synchro 7 -
Report
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Pagel
61 2I
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/18/2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( °o)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
60.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
51% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
PM Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report
Boston MPO Intersections Study Page 2
G28
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.2
Natural Cycle: 140
Control Type: Actuated- Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.14
Intersection Signal Delay: 36.0 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
- Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 1: Int
o2
m4
119
f--
t
06 o m8
12/18/2009
PM Existing Conditions Synchro 7 - Report
Boston MPO Intersections Study Page 3
S&29
Appendix C
AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis
Alternative 1: Retime Traffic Signal with Existing Phasing and Geometry
Under Existing Traffic Conditions
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
Sc,30
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
12/21/2009
r
4\
f
�►
1
0/
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
T+
+T+
*TT
+TT
Volume (vph)
78
49
50
85
124
167
35
334
20
235
578
83
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
2
2
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0,92
0.92
Growth Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
4%
4%
4%
1 %
1 %
1 %
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
polo
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
192
0
0
409
0
0
423
0
0
973
0
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
6
8
7
4 7
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4 7
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
8
8
7
4 7
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
36.0
36.0
0.0
36.0
36.0
0.0
44.0
44.0
0.0
12.0
68,0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
30.8%
30.8%
0.0%
30.8%
30.8%
0.0%
37.6%
37.6%
0.0%
10.3%
58.1%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3,0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
30.3
30.3
39.3
51.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.32
0.32
0.41
0.54
v/c Ratio
0.56
0.81
0.37
0.74
Control Delay
33.8
42.0
21.7
21.2
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
33.8
42.0
21.7
21.2
LOS
C
D
C
C
Approach Delay
33.8
42.0
21.7
21.2
Approach LOS
C
D
C
C
Queue Length 50th (ft)
82
194
84
172
Queue Length 95th (ft)
199
#461
170
#364
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
351
524
1148
1320
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.55
0.78
0.37
0.74
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 117
AM Improvement Alternative 1
Synchro 7 -
Report
MPO Intersections Study
Page 1
3-G3 �
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/21/2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic (°%)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
56.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
48% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
AM Improvement Alternative 1
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
563
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
Actuated Cycle Length: 95.3
Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.81
Intersection Signal Delay: 26.8 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 722% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 1: Int
12/21/2009
AM Improvement Alternative 1 Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study Page 3
�� 33
MEN
K'�uf"5312'
v
12/21/2009
AM Improvement Alternative 1 Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study Page 3
�� 33
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/21/2009
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+T+
+T+
*T%
+T T+
Volume (vph)
130
80
23
57
59
247
24
653
45
203
519
66
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
1
1
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Growth Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
0%
0%
0%
1%
1 %
1 %
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
259
0
0
403
0
0
803
0
0
876
0
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
6
8
7
4 7
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4 7
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
8
8
7
4 7
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
38.0
38.0
0.0
38.0
38.0
0.0
43.0
43.0
0.0
11.0
65.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
32.5%
32.5%
0.0%
32.5%
32.5%
0.0%
36.8%
36.8%
0.0%
9.4%
55.6%
0.0 °0
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
10
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
33.2
33.2
38.3
49.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0,35
0.35
0.40
0.51
v/c Ratio
0.81
0.68
0.64
0.82
Control Delay
51.2
28.7
27.2
26.8
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
51.2
28.7
27.2
26.8
LOS
D
C
C
C
Approach Delay
51.2
28.7
27.2
26.8
Approach LOS
D
C
C
C
Queue Length 50th (ft)
130
151
187
156
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#351
#363
345
#386
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
318
591
1258
1067
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.81
0.68
0.64
0.82
Intersection Sumrr
Cycle Length: 117
PM Improvement Alternative 1 Synchro 7 - Report
Boston MPO Intersections Study Page 1
sc, 3%
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/21/2009
Lane Group
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
Minimum Split (s)
Total Split (s)
Total Split ( %)
Yellow Time (s)
All -Red Time (s)
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
o4 09
4.0 4.0
21.0 25.0
54.0 25.0
46% 21%
3.0 3.0
2.0 2.0
None None
PM Improvement Alternative 1
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
_��35
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.2
Natural Cycle: 130
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.82
Intersection Signal Delay: 30.0 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
PM Improvement Alternative 1
Boston MPO Intersections Study
12/21/2009
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
SG36
Appendix D
AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis
Alternative 2: Change EB/WB Operation to Split Phase under Existing Geometry
Under Existing Traffic Conditions
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
_5--c3'7
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
12/23/2009
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4-
4.
TT
+IT
Volume (vph)
78
49
50
85
124
167
35
334
20
235
578
83
Confl. Peds. (4/hr)
2
2
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Growth Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
4%
4%
4%
1%
1%
1%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
192
0
0
409
0
0
423
0
0
973
0
Turn Type
Split
Split
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
2
6
6
8
7
47
Permitted Phases
8
47
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
8
8
7
47
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
17.0
17.0
0.0
27.0
27.0
0.0
36.0
36.0
0.0
12.0
60.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
14.5%
14.5%
0.0%
23.1%
23.1%
0.0%
30.8%
30.8%
0.0%
10.3%
51.3%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
12.1
22.1
31.2
43.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.13
0.23
0.32
0.45
v/c Ratio
0.84
0.97
0.47
0.90
Control Delay
70.5
72.3
28.9
35.8
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
70.5
72.3
28.9
35.8
LOS
E
E
C
D
Approach Delay
70.5
72.3
28.9
35.8
Approach LOS
E
E
C
D
Queue Length 50th (ft)
103
219
98
211
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#284
#525
190
#540
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
228
423
896
1087
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.84
0.97
0.47
0.90
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 117
AM Improvement Alternative 2
Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study
Page 1
5&'30
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
48.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
41% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
AM Improvement Alternative 2
MPO Intersections Study
12/23/2009
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
SG3,r
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.2
Natural Cycle: 140
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97
Intersection Signal Delay: 45.2 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 1: Int
4o2 06
m4
sR 08
m7 I e8
AM Improvement Alternative 2
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
SG ` C)
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
12/23/2009
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+T,
4,-
+TT.
TT.
Volume (vph)
130
80
23
57
59
247
24
653
45
203
519
66
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
1
1
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Growth Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
0%
0%
0%
1%
1 %
1 %
2%
2%
2%
1%
1 %
1%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
259
0
0
403
0
0
803
0
0
876
0
Turn Type
Split
Split
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
2
6
6
8
7
4 7
Permitted Phases
8
4 7
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
8
8
7
4 7
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
19.0
19.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
0.0
36.0
36.0
0.0
12.0
60.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
16.2%
16.2%
0.0%
21.4%
21.4%
0.0%
30.89/o
30.8%
0.0%
10.3%
51.3%
0.00, /0
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4 0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
14.1
20.1
31.2
43.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.15
0.21
0.32
0.45
v/c Ratio
0.96
0.97
0.78
0.95dl
Control Delay
87.1
70.4
36.8
39.9
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
87.1
70.4
36.8
39.9
LOS
F
E
D
D
Approach Delay
87.1
70.4
36.8
39.9
Approach LOS
F
E
D
D
Queue Length 50th (ft)
149
191
215
181
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#383
#482
#418
#477
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
271
414
1025
950
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.96
0.97
0.78
0.92
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 117
PM Improvement Alternative 2
Synchro 7 - Report
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Page 1
SGq J
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes (4/hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
48.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
41% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
PM Improvement Alternative 2
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Sb Y-Z---
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St C@ Franklin St
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.2
Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97
Intersection Signal Delay: 49.3 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane.
PM Improvement Alternative 2
Boston MPO Intersections Study
12/23/2009
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
s�3
Appendix E
AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis
Alternative 3: Add a WB Right -Turn Lane
and Retime Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence
Under Existing Traffic Conditions
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
�-� yy
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
12/22/2009
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
*T,
T
rr
+T T+
fiT
Volume (vph)
78
49
50
85
124
167
35
334
20
235
578
83
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
2
2
Confl. Bikes (4/hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Growth Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
4%
4%
4%
1%
1%
I%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
192
0
0
227
182
0
423
0
0
973
0
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
pm +ov
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
6
7
8
7
4 7
Permitted Phases
2
6
6
8
4 7
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
7
8
8
7
4 7
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
32.0
32.0
0.0
32.0
32.0
10.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
10.0
70.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
27.4%
27.4%
0.0%
27.4%
27.4%
8,5%
42.7%
42.7%
0.0%
8.5%
59.8%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lead
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
22.4
22.4
27.4
45.6
55.8
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.24
0.24
0.30
0.50
0.61
v/c Ratio
0.74
0.66
0.30
0.30
0.66
Control Delay
48.4
421
5.2
16.3
15.9
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
48.4
42.1
5.2
16.3
15.9
LOS
D
D
A
B
B
Approach Delay
48.4
25.6
16.3
15.9
Approach LOS
D
C
B
B
Queue Length 50th (ft)
88
111
0
68
138
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#236
239
49
154
320
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
314
424
601
1394
1483
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.61
0.54
0.30
0.30
0.66
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 117
AM Improvement Alternative 3
Synchro 7 -
Report
MPO Intersections Study
Page 1
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/22/2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
60.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
51% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
AM Improvement Alternative 3
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @a Franklin St 12/22/2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 917
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74
Intersection Signal Delay: 21.1 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.3% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
AM Improvement Alternative 3
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
spy �
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/22/2009
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations +I:k +T 4,14 +TT
Volume (vph) 130 80 23 57 59 247 24 653 45 203 519 66
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr) 1 1
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Growth Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
259
0
0
129
274
0
803
0
0
876
0
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
pm +ov
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
6
7
8
7
47
Permitted Phases
2
6
6
8
47
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
7
8
8
7
47
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
32.0
32.0
0.0
32.0
32.0
10.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
10.0
70.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
27.4%
27.4%
0.0%
27.4%
27.4%
8.5%
42.7%
42.7%
0.0%
8.5%
59.8%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lead
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
22.8
22.8
27.9
45.6
55.7
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.50
0.60
v/c Ratio
0.75
0.37
0.41
0.51
0.69
Control Delay
47.4
33.3
5.1
18.9
16.9
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
47.4
33.3
5.1
18.9
16.9
LOS
D
C
A
B
B
Approach Delay
47.4
14.1
18.9
16.9
Approach LOS
D
B
B
B
Queue Length 50th (ft)
129
58
0
148
118
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#303
138
58
309
#282
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
411
417
670
1569
1274
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.63
0.31
0.41
0.51
0.69
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 117
PM Improvement Alternative 3
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
SG Y9
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/22/2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
60.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
51% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
PM Improvement Alternative 3
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
144
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
Actuated Cycle Length: 92.1
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75
Intersection Signal Delay: 20.5 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.5% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 1: Int
PM Improvement Alternative 3
Boston MPO Intersections Study
12/22/2009
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
•�
E , '
"'
PM Improvement Alternative 3
Boston MPO Intersections Study
12/22/2009
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Appendix F
AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis
Alternative 4: Add a Lane on EB/WB Approaches
and Change EB, WB Operation to Split Phase
Under Existing Traffic Conditions
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
�5 C"5-1
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
12/23/2009
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
11�
4
r
M
+"(a
Volume (vph)
78
49
50
85
124
167
35
334
20
235
578
83
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
2
2
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Growth Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
4%
4%
4%
1%
1%
1%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
85
107
0
0
227
182
0
423
0
0
973
0
Turn Type
Split
Split
Perm
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
2
6
6
8
7
47
Permitted Phases
6
8
47
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
6
8
8
7
47
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
10.0
10.0
5,0
Minimum Split (s)
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
15.0
15.0
0.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
44.0
44.0
0.0
12.0
68.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
12.8%
12.8%
0.0%
17.9%
17.9%
17.9%
37.6%
37.6%
0.0%
10.3%
58.1%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2,0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
9.1
9.1
15.5
15.5
39.3
51.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.10
0.10
0.16
0.16
0.41
0.54
v/c Ratio
0.51
0.56
075
0.44
0.37
0.73
Control Delay
54.1
41.8
55.7
9.9
21.5
20.9
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
54.1
41.8
55.7
9.9
21.5
20.9
LOS
D
D
E
A
C
C
Approach Delay
47.2
35.3
21.5
20.9
Approach LOS
D
D
C
C
Queue Length 50th (ft)
47
40
126
0
84
171
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#114
#113
#302
63
170
#363
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
185
210
314
419
1157
1330
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.46
0.51
0.72
0.43
0.37
0.73
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 117
AM Improvement Alternative 4
Synchro
7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study
Page 1
S6_�,1,
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23,2009
Lane Group
04 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
56.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
48% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
AM Improvement Alternative 4
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
-5- G S3
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St Qa Franklin St 12/23/2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 94.7
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.75
Intersection Signal Delay: 26.5 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 1: Int
AM Improvement Alternative 4
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
�Gsy
4
AM Improvement Alternative 4
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
�Gsy
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
12/23/2009
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
1r,
fT
+'T
+TT.,
Volume (vph)
130
80
23
57
59
247
24
653
45
203
519
66
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
1
1
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Growth Factor
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
0%
0%
0%
1%
1 %
1 %
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
144
115
0
0
129
274
0
803
0
0
876
0
Turn Type
Split
Split
Perm
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
2
6
6
8
7
4 7
Permitted Phases
6
8
4 7
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
6
8
8
7
4 7
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
18.0
18.0
0.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
49.0
49.0
0.0
11.0
71.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
15.4%
15.4%
0.0%
12.0%
12.0%
12.0%
41.9%
41.9%
0.0%
9.4%
60.7%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
11.8
11.8
9.1
9.1
44.4
55.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.47
0.58
v/c Ratio
0.64
0.49
0.74
0.69
0.54
0.71
Control Delay
55.0
44.2
68.5
15.6
21.0
18.1
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
55.0
44.2
68.5
15.6
21.0
18.1
LOS
D
D
E
B
C
B
Approach Delay
50.2
32.5
21.0
18.1
Approach LOS
D
C
C
B
Queue Length 50th (ft)
79
57
74
0
163
130
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#191
134
#209
#100
314
#279
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
249
262
175
398
1480
1235
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.58
0.44
0.74
0.69
0.54
0.71
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 117
PM Improvement Alternative 4 Synchro 7 - Report
Boston MPO Intersections Study Page 1
.SGSS
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( #/hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
60.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
51% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summan+
PM Improvement Alternative 4
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @a Franklin St 12/23/2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 95
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74
Intersection Signal Delay: 25.1 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
SDIIts and Phases: 1: Int
PM Improvement Alternative 4
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
5-i�,�7
MIME
fflt� W1111
o r <r
PM Improvement Alternative 4
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
5-i�,�7
Appendix G
AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis
Alternative 1: Retime Traffic Signal with Existing Phasing and Geometry
Under Projected Future Traffic Conditions
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
�G�
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St
12/21/2009
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4*
4,-
a"T+
+T:}
Volume (vph)
78
49
50
85
124
167
35
334
20
235
578
83
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
2
2
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Growth Factor
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
Heavy Vehicles (%)
4%
4%
4%
1%
1%
1%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic (° %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
221
0
0
470
0
0
487
0
0
1120
0
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
6
8
7
4 7
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4 7
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
8
8
7
4 7
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
36.0
36.0
0.0
36.0
36.0
0.0
44.0
44.0
0.0
12.0
68.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
30.8%
30.8%
0.0%
30.8%
30.8%
0.0%
37.6%
37.6%
0.0%
10.3%
58.1%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
31.2
31.2
39.3
51.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.32
0.32
0.41
0.53
v/c Ratio
0.69
0.93
0.45
0.89
Control Delay
40.9
56.3
23.2
29.6
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
40.9
56.3
23.2
29.6
LOS
D
E
C
C
Approach Delay
40.9
56.3
23.2
29.6
Approach LOS
D
E
C
C
Queue Length 50th (ft)
101
241
101
211
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#275
#571
200
#564
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
319
508
1088
1263
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.69
0.93
0.45
0.89
Intersection Sumn
Cycle Length: 117
AM Improvement Alternative 1 (Future Year) Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study Page 1
5 C,0
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/21/2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
56.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
48% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3,0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
AM Improvement Alternative 1 (Future Year)
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
_�,G (,,0
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/21/2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.2
Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93
Intersection Signal Delay: 34.8 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
AM Improvement Alternative 1 (Future Year)
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
sG U
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/21/2009
-A r t �► 1 /
Lane Configurations
+T*
4*
4 +
*T +►
Volume (vph)
130
80
23
57
59
247
24
653
45
203
519
66
Confl. Peds. ( #/hr)
1
1
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Growth Factor
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0 %
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
297
0
0
464
0
0
923
0
0
1006
0
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
6
8
7
47
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
47
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
8
8
7
47
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
39.0
39.0
0.0
39.0
39.0
0.0
39.0
39.0
0.0
14.0
67.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
33.3%
33.3%
0.0%
33.3%
33.3%
0.0%
33.3%
33.3%
0.0%
12.0%
57.3%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
34.2
34.2
34.2
48.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.50
v/c Ratio
0.97
0.77
0.83
0.98dl
Control Delay
78.0
33.1
37.2
36.8
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
78.0
33.1
37.2
36.8
LOS
E
C
D
D
Approach Delay
78.0
33.1
37.2
36.8
Approach LOS
E
C
D
D
Queue Length 50th (ft)
162
187
248
194
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#428
#461
#492
#536
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
305
600
1106
1079
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.97
0.77
0.83
0.93
Cycle Length: 117
PM Improvement Alternative 1 (Future Year) Synchro 7 - Report
Boston MPO Intersections Study Page 1
5042
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/21/2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
53.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
45% 21 %
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
PM Improvement Alternative 1 (Future Year)
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
5 (,(,03
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/21/2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.2
Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97
Intersection Signal Delay: 40.9 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.5% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane.
PM Improvement Alternative 1 (Future Year)
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Appendix H
AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis
Alternative 2: Change EB/WB Operation to Split Phase with Existing Geometry
Under Projected Future Traffic Conditions
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
sL(0`
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @a Franklin St 12/23/2009
� r � 4\
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+T+
+T+
+T 1F
*T"T+
Volume (vph)
78
49
50
85
124
167
35
334
20
235
578
83
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
2
2
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Growth Factor
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
4%
4%
4%
1 %
1%
1 %
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
221
0
0
470
0
0
487
0
0
1120
0
Turn Type
Split
Split
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
2
6
6
8
7
4 7
Permitted Phases
8
4 7
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
8
8
7
4 7
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
20.0
20.0
0.0
24.0
24.0
0.0
34.0
34.0
0.0
14.0
62.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
17.1%
17.1%
0.0%
20.5%
20.5%
0.0%
29.1%
29.1%
0.0%
12.0%
53.0%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
15.0
19.1
29.2
43.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.16
0.20
0.30
0.45
v/c Ratio
0.79
1.27
0.63
1.05
Control Delay
58.4
175.0
34.2
66.6
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
58.4
175.0
34.2
66.6
LOS
E
F
C
E
Approach Delay
58.4
175.0
34.2
66.6
Approach LOS
E
F
C
E
Queue Length 50th (ft)
116
-329
124
-264
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#300
#664
234
#668
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
282
369
769
1069
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.78
1.27
0.63
1.05
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 117
AM Improvement Alternative 2 (Future Year) Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study Page 1
�C,G(O
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
48.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
41% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
AM Improvement Alternative 2 (Future Year)
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
5(�,o
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23i2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.1
Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum vlc Ratio: 1.27
Intersection Signal Delay: 81.1 Intersection LOS: F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
- Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases. 1: Int
AM Improvement Alternative 2 (Future Year)
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
3--G (0&
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
� --. � r � 4\ T �► 1
Gaup :A'. .,.,. _ _ter .1 = N�',. »,,., NBR_ R
Lane Configurations
+
4
4M
41
Volume (vph)
130
80
23
57
59
247
24
653
45
203
519
66
Confl. Peds. ( #/hr)
1
1
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Growth Factor
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
297
0
0
464
0
0
923
0
0
1006
0
Turn Type
Split
Split
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
2
6
6
8
7
47
Permitted Phases
8
47
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
8
8
7
47
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
22.0
22.0
0.0
24.0
24.0
0.0
34.0
34.0
0.0
12.0
58.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
18.8%
18.8%
0.0%
20.5%
20.5%
0.0%
29.1%
29.1%
0.0%
10.3%
49.6%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
17.1
19.1
29.2
41.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.18
0.20
0.30
0.43
v/c Ratio
0.91
1.17
0.98
1.21dl
Control Delay
71.1
130.9
59.5
82.0
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
71.1
130.9
59.5
82.0
LOS
E
F
E
F
Approach Delay
71.1
130.9
59.5
82.0
Approach LOS
E
F
E
F
Queue Length 50th (ft)
168
-280
272
-251
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#413
#599
#550
#623
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
328
397
941
927
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.91
1.17
0.98
1.09
4 lY a�C 3
Cycle Length: 117
PM Improvement Alternative 2 (Future Year) Synchro 7 - Report
Boston MPO Intersections Study Page 1
5 G4
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St Qa Franklin St 12/23/2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
46.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
39% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
PM Improvement Alternative 2 (Future Year)
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
SG-�o
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.2
Natural Cycle: 150
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.17
Intersection Signal Delay: 81.5 Intersection LOS: F
Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.5% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min) 15
- Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane.
Splits and Phases: 1: Int
-4o2 7 o6
1 and 1A 09
kM07 T e8
PM Improvement Alternative 2 (Future Year)
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
5071
Appendix I
AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis
Alternative 3: Add a WB Right -Turn Lane
and Retime Signal with Existing Phasing Sequence
Under Projected Future Traffic Conditions
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
-5- C-)z
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/22/2009
AM Improvement Alternative 3 (Future Year) Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study Page 1
56/'73
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
4
*T T+
+T'I+
Volume (vph)
78
49
50
85
124
167
35
334
20
235
578
83
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
2
2
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Growth Factor
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
Heavy Vehicles (°io)
4%
4%
4%
1 %
1 %
1 %
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic (° -o)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
221
0
0
261
209
0
487
0
0
1120
0
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
pm +ov
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
6
7
8
7
4 7
Permitted Phases
2
6
6
8
4 7
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
7
8
8
7
4 7
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
32.0
32.0
0.0
32.0
32.0
14.0
46.0
46.0
0.0
14.0
74.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
27.4%
27.4%
0.0%
27.4%
27.4%
12.0%
39.3%
39.3%
0.0%
12.0%
63.2%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lead
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
27.2
27.2
36.2
41.3
55.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.28
0.28
0.38
0.43
0.58
v/c Ratio
0.78
0.66
0.29
0.42
0.81
Control Delay
50.8
41.3
4.2
21.6
21.6
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
50.8
41.3
4.2
21.6
21.6
LOS
D
D
A
C
C
Approach Delay
50.8
24.8
21.6
21.6
Approach LOS
D
C
C
C
Queue Length 50th (ft)
108
131
0
96
186
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#298
#307
49
194
#464
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
285
396
726
1146
1388
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.78
0.66
0.29
0.42
0.81
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 117
AM Improvement Alternative 3 (Future Year) Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study Page 1
56/'73
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/22/2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
60.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
51% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
AM Improvement Alternative 3 (Future Year) Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study Page 2
.5 C_2 y
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/22/2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.2
Natural Cycle: 130
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.81
Intersection Signal Delay: 25.0 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.8% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 1: Int
e-
YR�///s
9WRESIMMKIME W LEI E
AM Improvement Alternative 3 (Future Year)
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/22/2009
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4�
4
r
+T T+
*TT
Volume (vph)
130
80
23
57
59
247
24
653
45
203
519
66
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
1
1
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Growth Factor
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
0%
0%
0%
1%
1 %
1 %
2%
2%
2%
1%
1 %
1%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
0
297
0
0
148
316
0
923
0
0
1006
0
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
pm +ov
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
6
7
8
7
4 7
Permitted Phases
2
6
6
8
4 7
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
7
8
8
7
4 7
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
32.0
32.0
0.0
32.0
32.0
12.0
48.0
48.0
0.0
12.0
72.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
27.4%
27.4%
0.0%
27.4%
27.4%
10.3%
41.0%
41.0%
0.0%
10.3%
61.5%
0.0 010
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lead
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
27.2
27.2
34.2
43.3
55.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.28
0,28
0.36
0.45
0.58
v/c Ratio
0.79
0.38
0.41
0.66
0.85
Control Delay
49.5
32.9
4.5
24.5
24.9
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
49.5
32.9
4.5
24.5
24.9
LOS
D
C
A
C
C
Approach Delay
49.5
13.5
24.5
24.9
Approach LOS
D
B
C
C
Queue Length 50th (ft)
155
68
0
204
158
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#382
157
60
387
#438
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
376
389
767
1402
1178
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.79
0.38
0.41
0.66
0.85
Intersection Sumrr
Cycle Length: 117
PM Improvement Alternative 3 (Future Year) Synchro 7 - Report
Boston MPO Intersections Study Page 1
SG -76
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/22!2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
60.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
51% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection
PM Improvement Alternative 3 (Future Year) Synchro 7 - Report
Boston MPO Intersections Study Page 2
,-6,77
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/22/2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.2
Natural Cycle: 130
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.85
Intersection Signal Delay: 25.5 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.8% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 1: Int
--� o2
• o4
'� 09
~
06
10o7
I 08
PM Improvement Alternative 3 (Future Year)
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
_5-G %ff
Appendix J
AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis
Alternative 4: Add a Lane on EB /WB Approaches
and Change EB /WB Operation to Split Phase
Under Projected Future Traffic Conditions
Main Street at Franklin Street, Reading
SC�71
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
AM Improvement Alternative 4 (Future Year) Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study Page 1
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
T
r
+TT
4T.,
Volume (vph)
78
49
50
85
124
167
35
334
20
235
578
83
Confl. Peds. (4/hr)
2
2
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Growth Factor
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
4%
4%
4%
1%
1%
1%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
98
123
0
0
261
209
0
487
0
0
1120
0
Turn Type
Split
Split
Perm
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
2
6
6
8
7
4 7
Permitted Phases
6
8
4 7
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
6
8
8
7
4 7
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
13.0
13.0
0.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
44.0
44.0
0.0
14.0
72.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
11.1%
11.1%
0.0%
17.9%
17.9%
17.9%
37.6%
37.6%
0.0%
12.0%
61.5%
0.0%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
8.1
8.1
16.1
16.1
39.3
53.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.08
0.08
0.17
0.17
0.41
0.56
v/c Ratio
0.68
0.71
0.84
0.48
0.45
0.84
Control Delay
67.8
55,3
64.6
9.8
23.2
24.5
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
67.8
55.3
64.6
9.8
23.2
24.5
LOS
E
E
E
A
C
C
Approach Delay
60.9
40.2
23.2
24.5
Approach LOS
E
D
C
C
Queue Length 50th (ft)
56
51
148
0
101
198
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#166
#170
#363
68
200
#508
Internal Link Dist (ft)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
145
173
309
437
1088
1334
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.68
0.71
0.84
0.48
0.45
0.84
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 117
AM Improvement Alternative 4 (Future Year) Synchro 7 - Report
MPO Intersections Study Page 1
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4,0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
58.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
50% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
AM Improvement Alternative 4 (Future Year)
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
SG��
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.2
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.84
Intersection Signal Delay: 30.9 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.9% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 1: Int
AM Improvement Alternative 4 (Future Year)
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
SG8 Z-
WME,, -
,U y ■
1U ME = ■
AM Improvement Alternative 4 (Future Year)
MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
SG8 Z-
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
Lane Group
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Vii
I.
4q
r
*TT
+TT
Volume (vph)
130
80
23
57
59
247
24
653
45
203
519
66
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
1
1
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Growth Factor
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115%
115°/%
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
0%
0%
0%
0%
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
166
131
0
0
148
316
0
923
0
0
1006
0
Turn Type
Split
Split
Perm
Perm
pm +pt
Protected Phases
2
2
6
6
8
7
47
Permitted Phases
6
8
47
Detector Phase
2
2
6
6
6
8
8
7
47
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
Minimum Split (s)
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Total Split (s)
16.0
16.0
0.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
51.0
51.0
0.0
11.0
73.0
0.0
Total Split ( %)
13.7%
13.7%
0.0%
12.0%
12.0%
12.0%
43.6%
43.6%
0.0%
9.4%
62.4%
0.0 10
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Lead /Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
None
None
None
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
11.1
11.1
9.1
9.1
46.3
57.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.12
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.48
0.60
v/c Ratio
0.80
0.60
0.86
0.73
0.61
0.83
Control Delay
70.3
51.0
83.9
16.1
21.6
22.4
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
70.3
51.0
83.9
16.1
21.6
22.4
LOS
E
D
F
B
C
C
Approach Delay
61.8
37.7
21.6
22.4
Approach LOS
E
D
C
C
Queue Length 50th (ft)
95
68
86
0
190
147
Queue Length 95th (ff)
#256
#174
#245
#113
368
#408
Internal Link Dist (ff)
642
631
407
422
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
208
220
173
434
1501
1212
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.80
0.60
0.86
0.73
0.61
0.83
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 117
PM Improvement Alternative 4 (Future Year) Synchro 7 - Report
Boston MPO Intersections Study Page 1
�� g3
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23 12009
Lane Group
o4 09
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Confl. Peds. ( # /hr)
Confl. Bikes ( # /hr)
Peak Hour Factor
Growth Factor
Heavy Vehicles ( %)
Bus Blockages ( # /hr)
Parking ( # /hr)
Mid -Block Traffic ( %)
Shared Lane Traffic ( %)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
4 9
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s)
21.0 25.0
Total Split (s)
62.0 25.0
Total Split ( %)
53% 21%
Yellow Time (s)
3.0 3.0
All -Red Time (s)
2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s)
Total Lost Time (s)
Lead /Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode
None None
Act Effct Green (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
v/c Ratio
Control Delay
Queue Delay
Total Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
PM Improvement Alternative 4 (Future Year)
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Main St @ Franklin St 12/23/2009
Actuated Cycle Length: 96.2
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated - Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.86
Intersection Signal Delay: 29.1 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.4% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Splits and Phases: 1: Int
.4o2
f 06
• e4 R m9
07
I 08
PM Improvement Alternative 4 (Future Year)
Boston MPO Intersections Study
Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
S g5_
an
03
U
N
a�
0
C�
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
We, Stephanie A. Viani Hromadka and James B. Hromadka, husband and wife, as tenants
by the entirety, both of 152 Walnut Street, Reading, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, for full and
valid consideration of One Dollar ($1.00), grant to the Town of Reading, a municipal corporation
with an address of 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts, a drainage easement, over the area
shown as "Easement Area E -1" consisting of approximately 652 square feet on a plan entitled
"Drainage Easement Located at 152 -156 Walnut Street, Reading, MA" prepared by Bay State
Surveying Associates dated August 20, 2013 to be recorded herewith. Said easement is conveyed
with the perpetual rights and easement to enter upon said easement area for the purposes of
construction, reconstruction, use, repair, maintenance, inspection, removal, relocation, operation
and replacement of the drainage channel, structures, pipes, and drainage system. Including the right
to remove any and all trees, bushes or shrubs within the easement necessary for the construction,
reconstruction, repair or maintenance of the drainage system.
Being a portion of property conveyed to Stephanie A. Viani Hromadka and James B.
Hromadka, by deed of Isabel S. Hubbard. Trustee of The Walnut Avenue Realty Trust, dated the
17th day of June 2008 and recorded with the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds, Book
51335, Page 483.
Witness my hand and seal this day of c 12013.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Middlesex, ss.
Then personally appeared the above named Stephanie A. Viani Hromadka and James B.
Hromadka and proved their identification through satisfactory evidence, which were
Us V4V L. revs �, , and acknowledged that they signed the foregoing instrument voluntarily for
its stated purpose on this '21- day of dry! , 2013.
(� iMaA 1,-r!7S Jew4 , Notary Public
My Commission Expires: 1,, 2 D I3
s�l
ACCEPTANCE OF READING BOARD OF SELECTMEN
We, the undersigned, being a majority of the Board of Selectmen for the Town of Reading,
Massachusetts, hereby certify that at a meeting held on , 2013, the Board of
Selectmen voted to accept the foregoing drainage easement from Stephanie A. Viani Hromadka
and James B. Hromadka this day of , 2013.
Town of Reading
By its Board of Selectmen
James E. Bonazoli, Chairman
Ben Tafoya
John Arena Marsie K. West
Daniel A. Ensminger
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ss.
On this , day of 2013, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared James E. Bonazoli, Ben Tafoya, John Arena, Marsie K. West and Daniel A.
Ensminger, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was personal
knowledge, to be the persons whose names are signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that they signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as duly elected members
of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading.
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
yFv
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
We, Daniel F. Fleming and Margaret A. Fleming, husband and wife, as tenants by the
entirety, both of 156 Walnut Street, Reading, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, for full and valid
consideration of One Dollar($1.00), grant to the Town of Reading, a municipal corporation with an
address of 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts, a drainage easement, over the area shown as
"Easement Area E -2" consisting of approximately 2,616 square feet on a plan entitled "Drainage
Easement Located at 152 -156 Walnut Street, Reading, MA" prepared by Bay State Surveying
Associates dated August 20, 2013 to be recorded herewith. Said easement is conveyed with the
perpetual rights and easement to enter upon said easement area for the purposes of construction,
reconstruction, use, repair, maintenance, inspection, removal, relocation, operation and replacement
of the drainage channel, structures, pipes, and drainage system. Including the right to remove any
and all trees, bushes or shrubs within the easement necessary for the construction, reconstruction,
repair or maintenance of the drainage system.
Being a portion of property conveyed to Daniel F. Fleming and Margaret A. Fleming by
deed of Leonard R. Merullo, Jr. and Catherine E. Merullo dated the 6th day of June 1966 and
recorded with the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds, Book 11131, Page 137.
Witness my hand and seal this day of CUI Al 2013.
a) —
a)
a�
U) �` 1
+�v N4V YWY►�
ns
3
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
LO
,--I Middlesex, ss.
�
Then personally appeared the above named Daniel F. Fleming and Margaret A. Fleming
0a) 4 and proved their identification through satisfactory evidence, which were L CCC (NS ,e—
o and acknowledged that they signed the foregoing instrument voluntarily for its stated purpose on
w this &a day of r t , 2013.
%,+A-
, Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
S�3
ACCEPTANCE OF READING BOARD OF SELECTMEN
We, the undersigned, being a majority of the Board of Selectmen for the Town of Reading,
Massachusetts, hereby certify that at a meeting held on , 2013, the Board of
Selectmen voted to accept the foregoing drainage easement from Daniel F. Fleming and Margaret
A. Fleming this day of , 2013.
Town of Reading
By its Board of Selectmen
James E. Bonazoli, Chairman
Ben Tafoya
John Arena Marsie K. West
Daniel A. Ensminger
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex, ss.
On this , day of 2013, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared James E. Bonazoli, Ben Tafoya, John Arena, Marsie K. West and Daniel A.
Ensminger, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was personal
knowledge, to be the persons whose names are signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that they signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as duly elected members
of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading.
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
SFK
Memo
To: Honorable Board of Selectmen
From: George I Zambouras, Town Engineer
Date: November 1, 2012
Re: Addressing Standards
For you review and approval I have enclosed the revised Town of Reading Addressing Standards. The
revision updates the current standards which were originally adopted in 1935 (attached). The revisions
are necessary to insure the proper naming and addressing of roadways and structures thereby
eliminating difficulty and confusion in response by emergency services.
• Page 1
S
_1x_
December 6, 1935
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF STREET RENITMIKLR.ING
Section 3. Article 10 of Special Town Meeting August 29, 1933.
v The Board of Survey shall establish a system for the
numbering of all buildings on or near the line of public or private
ways and shall prescribe by suitable rules and regulations the
ma-hod in which such numbering shall be done.
SECTION 1. In residential districts, all principal build-
ings and in business and other districts, all stores, industrial
and other principal buildings shall be numbered as provided in the
following regulations.
SECTION 2: The numbering shall correspond with the num-
bering on the street (or one of the streets, if more than one) on
which the lot with the building thereon abuts.
SECTION 3. The numbering shall begin at the end of a
street nearest to the business center or main thoroughfare as nay
be determined by the Board of Survey. '
SECTION? Ir.. On all streets the numbers shall run in conse-
cutive order alternating from one side to the other, the.odd
numbers being on the right hand side of the street, the street run-
ning in the direction of increasing numbers.
SECTION 5. Unless otherwise determined by the Board of
Survey each 35 feet of street frontage shall be given a number,
which shall be the nu_mber.belonging to the building included in or
embracing that frontage.
SECTION 6. All measurements of frontage shall be made on
the center -line of the street; no allowances are to be made for
en*'Gering or intersecting streets, parks, cemeteries, or othar areas-
5,6
s '
.y
--5- Dec. 6, ,1935.
.. SECTIOhT 7. Where two or more residences or establisiiraents
have their principal entrances within the same thirty -five foot
frontage, they shall be distinguished by adding -the letters A, B; C,
rf�
etc., to the co -moron number.
SECTION. 8. In the case of incompleted streets, temporary
numbers shall be assigned to the buildings until such time as the
completion- of the street will permit, the assignment of permanent
numbers conforming to these regulations.
SECTION 9. All principal buildings or establishments now
er isting or hereafter erected to ;which a number. has been assigned
shall have the number- conspicuously placed in such manner that it
will be visible .from, the street, using figures at least three inches
in. height. Whenever the building stands back more than seventy -five
feet from. the street .-line, the number shall be conspicuously displayed
at or near the street upon a post, or in some appropriate r,anner and
_location so as to be easily legible from the street.
SECTION 10. It shall. be unlawful for any person_ to remove,
alter, or deface any number assigned and displayed as aforesaid, or to
retain an improper number, or to substitute and display any number
other than the one designated by virtue of these regulations.
SECTION 11. Any person or persons violating the provisions
of Section 10 of these regulations, shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding ten (10) dollars for each offense.
Board adjourned at 9:45 P. .14 .
Respectfully Submitted
Sic-nod:
A. Russell Barnes, Jr.
Secretary
� �3
fir, r_
fir...
J
Town of Reading
Addressing Standards and Regulations
1. Purpose
1.1. The purpose of these regulations is to standardize addressing regulations and to
implement a Master Address Table (MAT), which lists all known and properly
assigned addresses for all parcels, buildings and structures within the Town of
Reading.
2. Authority
2.1. These regulations are authorized under Reading's General Bylaw Section
8.5.1.1:
8.5 Public Works
8.5.1 Street Numbering
8.5.1.1 The Board of Selectmen shall establish a system for the numbering
of any building on or near the line of public or private ways and
shall prescribe by suitable rules and regulations the method in
which such numbering shall be done.
3. Administration
3.1. The Town Engineer is the sole agent of the Town of Reading authorized to
assign and modify addresses for all taxable and non - taxable properties.
3.2. The GIS Coordinator shall maintain an up -to -date digital Master Address Table
(MAT) using addresses assigned by the Town Engineer.
4. Requirements
4.1. In residential districts, all principal buildings and in business and other
districts, all stores, industrial, commercial and other principal buildings or
significant structures shall be required to have a valid address conforming to
these regulations, which shall be included in the Town of Reading Master
Address Table (MAT).
4.2. For projects that require new or modified addresses for buildings, roads, or
other structures, addresses shall be assigned by the Town Engineer upon
application for a building permit.
SGN
4.3. No one may be granted any permit or license within the Town unless the
property, building or structure has a valid address, which is included in the
MAT.
4.4. All addresses shall conform to the Addressing Standards located in Appendix
A of these regulations.
5. Procedure
5.1. Existing Property
5.1.1. If an existing property, building or structure is not included in the MAT,
then the owner or applicant shall petition the Town Engineer, to determine if
an existing address is valid and /or formatted properly.
5.1.2. The Town Engineer shall determine, based upon the addressing standards
approved by the BOS the valid address and it then shall be added to the
MAT and that address will then be eligible for permitting and /or licensure.
5.1.3. If the Town Engineer determines that the existing address is not valid,
then the Town Engineer shall assign a valid address to the parcel, building
or structure, according to these regulations.
5.2. New or Re- Developed Property
5.2.1. For a new or re- developed property, building or structure, the Town
Engineer, shall upon approval of the project by the Planning Board or ZBA,
assign a valid address for each proposed parcel, building or structure. The
applicant shall submit all necessary information, including but not limited to
site plans, subdivision plans, proposed building location plans, floor layout
plans for multiple unit buildings etc., to the Town Engineer for use in
determining addresses according to these regulations.
5.2.2. Once an address for a new or re- developed property, building or structure
has been assigned by the Town Engineer, the applicant or owner shall update
the proposed final plans and/or drawings to clearly show the address or
addresses assigned, including road name(s) if applicable.
5.2.3. A hard copy and electronic ACAD format of the final approved plans
showing assigned addresses shall be forwarded to the Town Engineer for
approval. Upon approval by the Town Engineer, the final plans will be
integrated into the Town of Reading's GIS system, according to Town of
Reading's GIS Plan Integration Policy. The GIS Coordinator will make any
necessary updates to the MAT and notify all caretakers, of databases
SAS
containing addresses, of the new address and /or road assignments, upon
notification from the Town Engineer.
5.3. Tax Map Identification
5.3.1. Upon approval of new or re- developed property or re- subdivision of
existing properties, the GIS Coordinator shall assign temporary parcel
identification numbers, after consulting the Assessor for the Town of
Reading, as necessary. A temporary parcel identification number, associated
to an address, will be updated, once a permanent parcel identification
number has been assigned to the address by the Assessor for the Town of
Reading.
5.4. Notification
5.4.1. Once an address is assigned or modified, the Town Engineer will notify
the GIS Coordinator, Town Departments, the Towns 9 -1 -1 Operations
Manager, Public Utilities and the US Postal Service.
6. Master Address Table (MAT)
6.1. The GIS Coordinator shall maintain and incorporate all known existing and
newly assigned addresses into a comprehensive Master Address Table.
6.2. The GIS Coordinator shall maintain and update the MAT in a digital format.
Updates to the MAT will be distributed to the caretakers of all address related
databases, with the latest information to ensure that all permits and licenses are
uniformly addressed, and, therefore, may be readily located.
6.3. The GIS Coordinator shall maintain an Address Point layer in the Town's GIS
containing a point for every address in the MAT.
6.4. The GIS Coordinator shall coordinate with the Towns 9 -1 -1 Operations
Manager, or their designee, to ensure that the statewide E911 system is as up to
date as is practical.
6.5. The Towns 9 -1 -1 Operations Manager, or his/her designee, shall notify the GIS
Coordinator and /or provide a copy to the GIS Coordinator of any
correspondence with the State E911 regarding Reading addresses.
or C— (
Appendix A — Addressinq Standards
A. Road Naming System
A.1.All roads that provide legal access to a structure shall be named regardless of
whether the ownership is public or private. All road names shall be as approved
or assigned by the Town.
For purposes relative to addressing standards a "road" refers to any public
highway, road, street, avenue or lane; all private ways; and any private access
roadways or driveways servicing multiple buildings or structures when it is
determined to be in the public interest when considering emergency response.
A road name assigned or approved by the municipality for the purposes of
addressing standards shall not constitute or imply acceptance of the road as a
public way.
A.2.The naming of roads where no legal road or right -of -way exists shall be
avoided to the extent practical. In general naming of driveways or access roads
shall be reserved for complex campus style developments which have one or
more distinct roads which are significantly separated from the adjacent road
network. The use of vanity road names for convenience or marketing is strictly
prohibited.
A.3. Roads within large multi- structure complexes (e.g. business campus, multi -unit
apartment complex) should be named and each structure individually
addressed.
AA.The following criteria shall govern the naming system.
A.4.1. All road-names shall be approved by the Town Engineer. The Town
Engineer shall consult with the Towns 9 -1 -1 Dispatch Manager prior to
acceptance of any road name.
A.4.2. No two roads shall be given the same name (e.g. Pine Rd and Pine Ln).
A.4.3. No two roads shall have similar sounding names (e.g. Beech Ln and Peach
Ln, Beach Ave and Beech Ave,'Main St and Maine St, or Apple Hill Rd
and Apple Rd).
AAA. Each road shall have the same name throughout its entire length.
sO
A.4.5. Road names shall not use words that are also street suffixes such as Circle
or Terrace (e.g. Terrace Park would not be allowed since Terrace is a
common street suffix).
A.4.6. Each road should have one - and only one - correct name. A named road
should be essentially continuous, without gaps. Road names should only
change when there is a substantial intersection, or at municipal boundaries.
A.4.7. Special characters, such as hyphens, apostrophes, periods, or decimals are
prohibited in road names.
B. Numbering System
B.I.I. The following criteria, as determined by the Town Engineer, shall govern
the address numbering system:
B.1.2. For new roads, numbers shall be assigned every 35 (thirty five) feet along
both sides of the centerline of the road beginning at the right of way line of
the intersecting roadway. No allowances are to be made for entering or
intersecting streets, parks, cemeteries, or other areas.
B.1.3. For the downtown business district or other high density nonresidential
areas, numbers shall be assigned every 12 (twelve) feet along both sides of
the centerline of the road beginning at the right of way line of the
intersecting roadway. No allowances are to be made for entering or
intersecting streets, parks, cemeteries, or other areas.
B.1.4. On all roadways the numbering shall run in consecutive order, with even
numbers appearing on the left side of the road and odd numbers appearing
on the right side of the road, as the numbers ascend.
B.1.5. The numbering should originate from the roadway with the highest traffic
volume or the intersection which is located closest to the "Center" of Town"
as determined by the Town Engineer. For dead end roads, numbering shall
terminate at the dead end.
B.1.6. The number assigned to each structure shall be that of the numbered
interval falling closest to the front door or the driveway of said structure if
the front door cannot be seen from the main road
B.1.7. Addresses should be assigned to each habitable or substantial structure.
Addresses should not be assigned to structures that are simply accessory to
another building or insubstantial in nature. For example, a detached
garage for a single - family residence does not need an address, but a
commercial parking garage should have an address.
S &b
B.1.8. Where a single building has multiple exterior entrances for separate tenant
spaces or separate residential units, a separate address number shall be
assigned to each such exterior door.
B.1.9. Where a single building has multiple doors leading to a shared hallway or
lobby, only one address shall be assigned to the main exterior entrance.
Each tenant space or individual residential unit shall be distinguished by a
unit, suite, or apartment number conforming to sections 8.1.12 through
8.1.14.
B.1.10. Structures with more than one principle use or occupancy shall have a
separate unit number for each use or occupancy, i.e. duplexes will have
two separate numbers; apartments will have one road number with an
apartment number, such as 235 Maple Rd. Apt 2.
B.I.11.The following types of addresses are prohibited: fractional addresses
(34'/2 Ash St); alphanumeric address numbers (123A Main St); or
hyphenated address numbers 941 -656 Bell St).
B.1.12. Apartments should be assigned a primary road address, with numbers (not
letters) and a secondary location indicator consisting of four (4) digits, e.g.,
111 Main St Apt 1001. The first digit shall indicate the floor location and
the remaining three (3) digits shall indicate the apartment number, e.g. Apt
3003 is the third apartment on the third floor.
B.1.13. Condominiums shall be addressed as though they were apartments with the
exception that "Unit" shall be substituted in place of the "Apt" designation.
B.1.14.Office suites should be assigned numbers with a primary road address,
followed by a numbered (not lettered) secondary location indicator, e.g.,
325 Memorial Dr. Suite 3012. Suite numbers should be assigned to indicate
the floor location as indicated in B.1.12.
B.1.15. Corner lots shall be assigned a number according to where the front door
faces the road.
B.1.16. Vacant lots shall be given "0" as the address until a site plan has been
approved and /or an application for a building permit is received, e.g. 0 Main
St.
C. Addressing Standards
C.1. Subject to the approval of the Town Engineer the following are the accepted
components of new or existing addresses in the Town of Reading. All
addresses should be capitalized and free of punctuation.
C.1. L Street number — (300 EAST STREET) The street number should be an
integer value.
C.1.2. Prefix direction — (7 S STONEMILL DRIVE) Acceptable street direction
standard abbreviations are: N, S, E, W, NE, SE, NW, and SW.
C.1.3. Street name — (269 COMMON STREET) Streets should be referred to by
their official name.
C.1.4. Street Suffix — (28 BERKELEY REAR) Street suffixes shall be spelled out
in their entirety; abbreviated suffixes shall not be permitted.
C.1.5. Suffix qualifier — (150 MILTON STREET REAR) Suffix qualifiers will be
added after street types in special cases where additional clarification is
required.
C.1.6. Secondary unit designator — (400 HIGH STREET UNIT 300) Secondary
unit designators are used to designate apartments, suites, and
condominium units which share the same street number address.
Acceptable secondary unit designations include: UNIT APT, BLDG, and
SUITE.
C.2 MGL 148, Section 59 requires that every building in the Commonwealth,
including, but not limited to, dwellings, apartment buildings, condominiums, and
business establishments shall have affixed thereto a number representing the
address of such building.
The size of the numbers for dwellings and building structures should be large
enough so it may be clearly viewed from the roadway in either direction. These
numbers should be no less than 4" in height. In the case of a house or building
offset from the street and either out of sight from the roadway or a good distance
from the access roadway, the numbers should be permanently affixed to either a
post or other fixed structure so the assigned address. can be easily located from
either direction, thusly indicating that a particular number is assigned to that
particular building, structure, or dwelling. These numbers should be numerical
for ease of viewing and not in script.
S &1D
Schena, Paula
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:31 PM
To: Schena, Paula
Subject: FW: Liquor License for "Paint and Sip" business
For BOS packet
From: Cormier, Jim
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:14 PM
To: LeLacheur, Bob
Subject: FW: Liquor License for "Paint and Sip" business
:..
Please see Erica's response. I think the BOS should consider if they will be able to make one exception but still hold the
other licensees to the food service requirement.
Jim
Chief James W. Cormier
Chief of Police
Town of Reading
15 Union St.
Reading, MA 01867
JCormier(@ci.readinR.ma.us
781 - 944 -1212
FBINAA 233
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to
receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the
message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete or destroy the
message.
Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http://readingma-
survey.virtualtownhall. net /survey /sid /ccc2f035993bd3c0/
From: McNamara, Erica
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:08 AM
To: Cormier, Jim
Cc: Segalla, Mark; Robbins, Richard
Subject: RE: Liquor License for "Paint and Sip" business
Hi -I am familiar with this business concept. I think it's a nice idea and can see the appeal. I don't see any really issue
with it as she has laid out a plan to address the alcohol service. However, I wonder, does this open up the opportunity
for no food service to other licensed operations that may want to combine music + wine or beer + bands, etc.? Can the
BOS issue this to one license only? Does the painting fall under an entertainment license?
S� I
From: Cormier, Jim
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:00 AM
To: McNamara, Erica
Cc: Segalla, Mark; Robbins, Richard
Subject: FW: Liquor License for "Paint and Sip" business
Comments?
Chief James W. Cormier
Chief of Police
Town of Reading
15 Union St.
Reading, MA 01867
JCormier @ci.reading.ma.us
781 -944 -1212
FBINAA 233
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to
receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the
message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete or destroy the
message.
Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http://readingma-
survey. virtualtown hal 1. net /survey /sid /ccc2f035993bd3c0/
From: LeLacheur, Bob
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:35 AM
To: Cormier, Jim
Subject: FW: Liquor License for "Paint and Sip" business
Any experience with this type of business? The BOS see this next week.
Robert W. LeLacheur, Jr. CFA
Assistant Town Manager /Finance Director
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01867
blelacheur@ci. reading. ma.us
(P) 781 -942 -6636
(F) 781 - 942 -9037
www.readingrna.goov
C,tpnse ftf( oot r }(1' /;r7ni (,t.15 CJtT?f? +' <;� >rk t, ^r? Survey rat
http:// readingma- survey.virtualtownhall. net /survey /sid /19ab55aed08fbc96/
Town Hall Hours:
Monday, Wednesday and Thursday 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday. 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Friday: CLOSED
From: Hechenbleikner, Peter
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:32 AM Z
To: Schena, Paula; LeLacheur, Bob
Subject: FW: Liquor License for "Paint and Sip" business
For Board of Selectmen packet
Peter I. Hechenbleikner
Town Manager
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading MA 01867
Please note new Town Hall Hours effective June 7, 2010:
Monday. Wednesday and Thursday. 7:30 a.m - 5:30 p.m.
Tuesday. 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Friday: CLOSED
phone, 781- 942 -9043
fax 781 - 942 -9071
web www.readingma.gov
email townmana er ci.readin .ma.us
Please let us know how we are doing - fill out our brief customer service survey at http: / /readingma-
survey.virtualtownhall. net /survey /sid /19ab55aed08fbc96/
From: Jbarolak [mailto:judybarolak(&gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:37 PM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Liquor License for "Paint and Sip" business
5o
Presentation
to the
Reading Board of Selectman
for June 4th, 2013 meeting
Regarding liquor licensing
Request for:
amended beer /wine license (on premises)
with the exclusion of food
Prepared by:
Judy Barolak, 5/29/2013
SA ti
PURPOSE:
Request for an "amended" beer and wine license. Specifically, a liquor license to serve beer and
wine with out food for a "Paint and Sip" business.
OVERVIEW
I want to open a new business in downtown Reading. This business falls under a new, fast
growing category called the "Paint and Sip" industry. It is a painting lesson, social event that
serves beer and wine. Simply put, it is painting as entertainment.
"Paint and Sip" works like this. People sign up for a class from an online calendar. There they
register and pay for a class scheduled at a later date. On that date the participants arrive at the
venue where they are given a class. During the class they may purchase wine, beer and non-
alcoholic beverages. When the class is complete (2 -3 hours), each participant has completed an
art painting.
A painting class is an "event ". There are basically 2 different kinds of classes or events.
- Pre - scheduled events - paintings /dates are predetermined and posted on the business website.
They are open to the public. People pick a class, pre- register, and pay online. These classes fill up
quickly so pre- registration is recommended.
- Private events - painting class tailored to a private party, not open to the public.
The most popular time slots for events are Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings. These are
pre - scheduled and the majority of participants are 25 -45 year old females.
The number of events per week or month vary according to demand.
Why an "amended" license without food service?
Food and paint don't mix. In order to have food service a separate restaurant area must be
included. This then changes the business to a restaurant and detracts from the primary purpose of
painting entertainment. It's not about food, it's about painting.
Why must beer and wine be served?
Whether a scheduled event or a private party - participants want an adult setting where they can
enjoy a glass of wine or two, with friends and be entertained. Without beer or wine the business
changes to be of a juvenile nature, think "Plaster Fun Time ".
Worth noting: wine and beer is part of the experience, it is not the experience
2
5tis
Here is quick walk through.
I -Pick a painting /date of your choice on the
business website calendar. Click on painting
image, register and pay.
2 -Show up on that date and get ready to paint.
3- Starting with a blank canvas, an instructor
leads participants through a step -by -step
class.
3
(sample of
step -by -step process)
4 -After a 2 -3 hour session, happy participants
have a completed, original painting.
�� U
MY VISION
For 10+ years my husband and I have owned and operate Atlantic Framing on Haven Street in
Reading. I have branded that business to have a certain look.
My style would be the same for this business. Classic. Similar to example below.
Proposed style of new business
Schedule:
12 -30+ events a month, according to demand.
Employees:
3 -4 employees and myself per event. Instructor, certified bartender, 1 -2 "floaters" who greet
incoming participants and help throughout the class. I will always be present.
Hours:
Since this isn't a restaurant or retail venue, hours will be vary by number of events.
For licensing purposes, a best case scenario would be:
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday - 6 -1Opm
Saturday and Sunday: 12 -6pm
Alcohol:
Serve only participants 21 +.
Adult events only.
Certified bartender.
Service bar dispensing beverages, no seating.
Beer and wine for sale by the glass or (beer) bottle.
2 drink per person limit.
Identification is required at check in for all participants.
4
Sb1
BENEFITS TO READING
- Unique entertainment. Every town has multiple restaurants, none have this.
- Destination business. People seek out this entertainment. They will and do travel from other
communities. That means added exposure to downtown Reading and all it has to offer.
- Vibrant. Visualize a street level store front filled with patrons inside wearing aprons and painting
at canvases on easels. It's a vibrant center of life and activity.
- Economic. Contributes to the economic vitality bringing in outside dollars and exposure to other
Reading businesses. Increase sales to other surrounding businesses.
- Parking. Since most events are evenings and weekends, the parking situation is not
compounded.
- Off - hours. Bring people to the downtown area outside of regular peak business hours.
- Fundraising. Many opportunities are available to sponsor and hold events as fundraisers in turn
giving back to the community.
- Family oriented. Events scheduled on Saturday and /or Sunday afternoons can be tailored toward
family patrons (no beer or wine served).
-Smart Growth. Perfect example of a business to fit with Reading's Smart Growth plan.
5
5tig
BUSINESS COMPARISONS
Currently there are five Paint and Sip businesses in communities surrounding Boston. There are
two in Boston, and I omit these due to Boston being a metropolitan area and not a suburb.
Below are the business statistics that I could gather from websites and phone conversations.
My plan is to use the Newton business as a license model. A beer and wine license where food is
not served (however prepackaged snacks are available.)
Newton amended an existing malt/wine license to exclude food service. Restrictions were added
to compensate.
- every paid participant has a seat
- only paid participants can consume beer and wine
- class limit to 2 hours (not including half hour arrival and half hour wrap up)
- 2 drink limit per participant
*Proposed Reading B &W Prepackaged snacks. 50
Paint and Sip Amended to
not include
food
6
50
B/W
Prepackaged snacks.
50
Amended to
Private parties can
not include
bring food.
food
•
B/W
Prepackaged snacks.
20 -30?
*
General on
Private parties can
premise
bring food.
license
BYOB
Private parties can
25
This is an existing art
bring food.
studio that now offers
"Paint and sip" classes.
BYOB
BYOF
40
• .
Small snacks allowed.
Private parties can
bring food.
Full alcohol
Restaurant
80+
(2 floors)
*Proposed Reading B &W Prepackaged snacks. 50
Paint and Sip Amended to
not include
food
6
50
Newton currently has 24 M/W licenses for restaurants and package stores. Only 1 M/W license
has been specifically amended for the business "The Paint Bar" as a General -On- Premises
license. Below is a screen grab from the Newton town website outlining their Annual License
Renewals. I've copied just the pertinent info, starting with "The Paint Bar ". The entire file can be
viewed at:
http:// www. newtonma .gov /civicax /filebank/documents /48282
oas A Corga�e psMe
V'iWy,« C.x k RM VtHagq C9RR' kz
`
f M.£La'ffW -. ruprnp. C.
i Ywrar K art '. ,aw Wh+ l4C
AA ,!p Y_
7 9 YNHhl jksl bxa
WMI SW«
tia9 9nn.ury Skexdt
hUlnve«
il+1m H.�niMdf
h.Mwu. _
sewy zy
MA I WW } .... ....
'41A .fjJ768
MA j02S6!
VM
_._
t AY
t
x
wuy
ew- aP
-
.�.
nwp
ehpr�+ap+
-
a
i . .
ate
sn'.
i
Y�eG& �1' hd5 N. 7A:p il.Nt M+C
VkY WkM.M Ji(W
Ti YlptY Rp
flNt
ktG iil Liwyd!i
... ..
9 fib. �YSi .°.Mtat ..
wiNn
i.ti46lf) -
y.
}yS,AA
....
._....
.
N AW�trti Cuk C.»'k SNNwMtY IM.
Aa hv«W Fgxxo f
3 iYHlum S:revt
eAlp. i «4
i M62 i Y 7
#
.,
....�
Cr«u I a 1$Re l Ax Nwarvue va
JJpY St'—, ...
iRvW Vo-, Crweve. AGE tam
A+uy aw; Ms✓ra; H4Wt FW.a1 WYfNWUIy
VM.Mk F WcY'1W+6' Wrdk F.%rla 1+M><M .attlW y+C
.......... . ._
Aueu aM Wwaixw W0 Ge:GaAWw+Oab
_„ .....
Y0 F �ppF �rt Gs+! _K .w S:
tlpp W iha./�Iw SII m�
t!1 Car. -nary -. A
14AM' a+34u&
,,•, ..'^__..._ _,
'RNrw ffitrue!
BSt 4Y>tswe F^. SMwt
..._..
11 A.�fasi StrtlkE
.' .W,n
.. .na
a�wiMn81P
wbX• r,y�.y,p�
MA 024M
tt
W yep t i +..
141 J1eg;:
„,
�MA }yep
IRU 31�6p i.... _
i
�
..
........... _
... ..•,
—
•.
j
!
+
7_
.
� •,,•.
�
... ,�
PROS
- I am a current Reading resident of 22 years and have a vested interest in the business
community and school system.
- I am a current Reading business owner of 13 years and have the experience of owning a
business and the knowledge of Reading's business environment. I am not a chain or franchise.
- adheres to Smart Growth plan.
- business hours proposed mean activity and vibrancy downtown during non -peak business
hours
- Reading is the perfect environment. Surrounding communities don't have a walk able
downtown, are not centrally located to major highway intersections or are just not the right fit.
- It is not an institution (bank) or professional practice (lawyer, dentist) - it is entertainment.
SUMMARY
I am requesting an amended beer /wine license for a "Paint and Sip" business venture to be
located in the heart of downtown Reading. This business would fit with the Smart Growth plan of
Reading, while offering unique, vibrant entertainment and exposure to other businesses and the
community.
0
Sk t1
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
I participated In a paint and sip class recently. My neighbors and I were commenting how we
never get together. Even though some of us had no painting experience, we decided to try a paint
and sip class and found the venue in Newton. We pre- registered online for a Tuesday night class
a month in advance (based on the business busy schedule). When the date arrived we carpooled
and drove 30+ minutes to Newton. We found a clean, fun and vibrant environment. Our 3 hour
class was spent socializing while painting and enjoying a glass of wine or two. At nights' end we
all had a completed painted art canvas and thoroughly enjoyed ourselves.
E
5k1%
2013 Town Manager's Goals and Action Plan
Town of Reading MA
Human Resources /Personnel
The human capital of the community is the major resource
that is necessary to achieve the provision of services to the
community. This human capital includes employees,
officials, members of Boards, Committees and
Commissions, and the human capital of the community as a
whole. Human capital is to be supported and respected by
the Town.
1. Provide for a smooth transition to a new Town Manager replacing the current Town Manager who is retiring
effective 6 -1 -13
2. Work with the Board of Selectmen to determine whether or not to continue B /C /C ChairNice Chair training.
3. Begin the process of negotiating successor Collective Bargaining Agreements with all Unions for dates
effective July 1, 2014
5/30/2013
2013 Town Manager's Goals and Action Plan
Town of Reading MA
Finance
Reading will continue to evaluate revenue sources, cost reduction,
regionalization of services, other methods of providing services, and
level of services with the goal of maintaining long term fiscal
stability of the community while providing a level of service that the
community can sustain.
4. Apply for outside resources funding to support operating and capital or other one time expenses.
5. Implement to a conclusion the following actions which received approval from Town Meeting, the proceeds
from which will then be placed in the Sale of Real Estate to be used for Capital Improvements, debt service,
or unfunded pension liability..
a. Sale of land — Pearl Street
b. Sale of land — Lothrop Road
c. Use /sale of Oakland Road
6. As opportunities arises, implement the following potential revenue raising activities:
d. Additional cell sites
e. Advertising via billboards
7. Seek FINCOM approval of a staff developed OPEB funding mechanism including ongoing funding of this
liability at a level that the community can afford.
2
�t
5/30/2013
2013 Town Manager's Goals and Action Plan
Town of Reading MA
Asset Management
Reading will strive to maintain and improve the current
and desired capital assets of the community through long
term capital planning in a fiscally prudent manner. Where
resources for major projects are not available within
available resources, and grants and outside resources are
also not adequate to cover the cost of the project, the
community may be asked to support such improvements
through additional temporary taxes.
8. Continue established efforts to implement high priority municipal building projects:
a. Cemetery Garage
b. Library — implement project
c. DPW site including improved vehicle maintenance layout, operational improvements, and
aesthetics enhancements
d. Killam School project to include HC access, fire protection, energy, and administrative space.
e. Full Day Kindergarten project
f. Downtown Streetscape Phase 2
9 Begin the first phase of implementation of the Water Distribution Master Plan
Work with the MWRA on
a. The implementation of the redundant water supply project
b. Enhancing/maintaining water quality
c. Water storage
10. As part of the community's focus on substance abuse prevention, evaluate the need for and viability of a
youth center probably focused on Middle School youth
11. Develop and evaluate schematic designs for the Birch Meadow pavilion, including a mix of storage, food
service, restrooms, and picnicking. Include a management plan for each of the elements. Develop a cost
estimate.
12. Continue to work towards funding for the West Street project.
13. Implement the design and construction of a downtown bandstand.
3
5/30/2013
`3
,:
2013 Town Manager's Goals and Action Plan
Town of Reading MA
Health and Safety
Reading will continue to focus on strong public health and public
safety services with a goal of making the community one of the
healthiest and safest communities in suburban Boston.
14. Complete or abandon efforts to regionalize of Public Safety Dispatch.
15. Focus Public Health, School, Substance Abuse, and other resources on a Healthy Community model with an
initial focus on obesity prevention as one of the major health crises facing our country. Find ways to
encourage walking, cycling, and other activities. These efforts may involve many departments, with efforts
led by the Health Division.
4 J 1
5/30/2013
2013 Town Manager's Goals and Action Plan
Town of Reading MA
Community Development / Sustainability
Reading has worked to maintain the character of the
community, while making planned and deliberate
improvements to the Town. Major efforts have been led by the
Board of Selectmen, the CPDC, the Economic Development
Committee, and the Climate Protection Committee.
16. Continue progress towards meeting and maintaining the level of 10% of housing units (as re- defined by the
2010 federal census) as affordable. This goal may be met through development of the
a. Mawn property
b. Peter Sanborn Place expansion,
c. Additional units in downtown as feasible, including expansion o fthe 40R zoning to the remainder
of the area in downtown zoned for Business B.
d. Additional opportunities for partnering with property owners for LIP projects as appropriate —
North Main Street site
17. Implement high priority parking and alternative transportation recommendations for Parking, Traffic, and
Transportation improvements:
e. sharing of private parking spaces pursuant to the new bylaw;
f. identify opportunities to expand parking supply;
g. bike routes throughout town
18. Determine a funding source and develop a bicycle /pedestrian plan
19. Work to determine the optimal future of the USPO site, now that the Postal Service has determined to move
all but the retail elements of the operation out of the community.
20. Continue sign enforcement efforts within recent constraints as determined by Town Counsel, with a goal to
bring all non - conforming signs into compliance
21. Focus on enforcement of new Property Maintenance bylaw
22. Implement new gateway signage — South Main Street (paid for by Reading Woods mitigation)
23. Develop an action plan for re -use and /or redevelopment of the properties behind the RMLD in the area
bounded by Ash Street, the RR tracks, and Pond View Drive
24. Continue to work with Town, School, Facilities, and Light Departments to meet Sustainability goals for CO
reduction, anti - idling, PV solar collectors on municipal property, etc. .
25. Evaluate the creation of a Master Plan for public shade trees in the community to include policies and criteria
on priorities for removal and replacement, a shade tree inventory, and other elements.
5/30/2013
s; s
2013 Town Manager's Goals and Action Plan
Town of Reading MA
Services
Reading will continue to provide municipal services in as
cost effective, efficient, and customer service friendly
manner as possible. Where reasonable a self service
element to Town services will be available for those who
choose to use it.
26. Train employees and volunteers on the customer service policy; continue to measure customer satisfaction;
identify and recommend changes to regulations that do not meet customer service goals, or that will make
them easier for customers to understand and use.
27. In the Library, (1) review policies and procedures pertaining to public service and identify areas for
improvements. (2) continue staff training in communication skills and provide communication tools for staff
to use in diverse situations; (3) apply for LSTA Customer Service grant to overcome the "digital divide" by
training all staff to offer basic skills instructions when appropriate for public use of digital devices and
emerging technologies. (4) Identify learning opportunities and resources and develop staff skills to create a
marketing / communications plan that will raise library's visibility, especially among people who don't
currently use the library on a regular basis, and during a time of lower visibility in a temporary location.
28. Consider participating in a local version of the National Customer Service Survey, with the anticipation that
the community participate on an every other year basis to measure Reading's customer needs, and to measure
Reading's Customer Service satisfaction compared to other peer communities nationally.
29. Improve the Town web site, providing expanded electronic customer interaction with the Town,.
6 �
5/30/2013
2013 Town Manager's Goals and Action Plan
Town of Reading MA
Operations
Reading will continue to provide as full a range of municipal services
that meet community needs and desires as resources allow.
30. Fully implement permits and licensing system, including customer self service
31. Apply for funding from the Community Innovation Challenge Grant and /or other sources to enhance
community services.
32. Expand regional services as appropriate
• Veterans Services
32. Expand the Records Management efforts including providing records to the public via the web site.
33. Conduct technology training for staff
34. Continue the CPM 101 (Comprehensive Performance Measurement) program for another cycle in FY 2014,
and then evaluate continued participation considering usefulness of information and effort required.
5/30/2013
2013 Town Manager's Goals and Action Plan
Town of Reading MA
Governance, Regulation, and Policy Development
Reading will continue to address major emerging issues through
development, modification, improvement, and simplification of
bylaws, regulations, and Selectmen's policies. As a general rule,
the fewer and simpler the regulations the better. Additionally,
Selectmen's policies may be used to memorialize current and
proposed administrative practices to provide an historical record
and direction for the community in the future.
35. Develop funding and a work plan for comprehensive review and revision of the Zoning Bylaw.
36. Establish a policy on naming of facilities and sites in the community.
37. Establish a communications policy for the town. Include policies on the use of social media as part of the
Town's efforts to communicate with its residents and others.
38. Complete the review and re -write of the Traffic Rules and Regulations.
8 �1
5/30/2013
1�
1'
1
11
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Number: 2013 -5
TOWN OF READING
Fee: $50.00
This is to certify that DARIO MORELLI, 292 GROVE STREET, READING
IS HEREBY GRANTED
A SPECIAL ONE -DAY LICENSE
FOR THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE
TO BE SERVED ON THE PREMISES
FOR THE PRIVATE MEMBERS
POOL SOCIAL TO BE HELD ON JUNE 4, 2013
ON THE POOL DECK AND ADJACENT LAWNED
AREA LOCATED AT MEADOWBROOK GOLF CLUB
AT 292 GROVE STREET
BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 4:00 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M.
Under Chapter 138, Section 14, of the Liquor Control Act.
Holders of one day licenses shall provide a bartender and /or servers who are trained
and authorized to make decisions regarding continued service of alcoholic beverages
to attendees. There shall be no self service of any alcoholic beverage at any event
approved as a one day license.
This permission is granted in conformity with the Statutes and Ordinances relating
thereto and expires at 8:00 p.m. on June 4, 2013 unless suspended or revoked subject
to the following conditions:
1. Liquor to be purchased from authorized distributor.
Zo- Liquor tom stored on site only before an(
Date Issued: May 29, 2013
�7
e7 ,,
r
�t
r
I
rt
11 11
l:.
1
1�
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Number: 2013 -4
TOWN OF READING
Fee: $50.00
This is to certify that DARIO MORELLI, 292 GROVE STREET, READING
IS HEREBY GRANTED
A SPECIAL ONE -DAY LICENSE
FOR THE SALE OF ALL ALCOHOL
TO BE SERVED ON THE PREMISES
FOR THE ANNUAL MEADOWBROOK
POOL PARTY TO BE HELD ON JULY 27, 2013
ON THE POOL DECK AND ADJACENT LAWNED
AREA LOCATED AT MEADOWBROOK GOLF CLUB
AT 292 GROVE STREET
BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6:00 P.M. TO 11:45 P.M.
Under Chapter 138, Section 14, of the Liquor Control Act.
Holders of one day licenses shall provide a bartender and /or servers who are trained
and authorized to make decisions regarding continued service of alcoholic beverages
to attendees. There shall be no self service of any alcoholic beverage at any event
approved as a one day license.
This permission is granted in conformity with the Statutes, and Ordinances relating
thereto and expires at 11:45 p.m. on July 27, 2013 unless suspended or revoked
subject to the following conditions:
1. Liquor to be purchased from authorized distributor.
2. Liquor to be stored on site only before and after "nA. n
Date Issued: May 29, 2013
�11
i�1
OWN OF$FgO'
I I 639; INCORQ °P Il
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS r
Number: 2013 -3
Fee: $50.00
TOWN OF READING
IThis is to certify that DARIO MORELLI 292 GROVE STREET READING
1 fY `
�I IS HEREBY GRANTED
Ij A SPECIAL ONE -DAY LICENSE
1 FOR THE SALE OF BEER ONLY
TO BE SERVED ON THE PREMISES
FOR THE ANNUAL MEADOWBROOK
I 3 DAY MEMBER GUEST TOURNAMENT
1 TO BE HELD FROM JULY 12 —14,2013
I' ON THE MEADO_ WBROOK GOLF COURSE 1
AT 292 GROVE STREET
�L BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. TO 4:00 P.M.
Under Chapter 138 Section 14 of the Liquor Control Act.
� P � � q
Holders of one day licenses shall provide a bartender and /or servers who are trained
and authorized to make decisions regarding continued service of alcoholic beverages C
to attendees. There shall be no self service of any alcoholic beverage at any event
approved as a one day license.
I This permission is granted in conformity with the Statutes and Ordinances relating
r
thereto and expires at 4:00 p.m. on July 14, 2013 unless suspended or revoked subject
to the following conditions: �
1. Liquor to be purchased from authorized distributor.
, 2 iquor to b stored on site only before and after nt
V?Rr 710 1�r
I
Date Issued: May 29, 2013
�J � V
Hechenbleikner, Peter
From: Ruth L. Clay in Melrose
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:29 PM
To: Katherine Clark (Katherine.Clark @masenate.gov)
Cc: "Mayor Dolan; Stephen Maio; Hechenbleikner, Peter
Subject: Senate budget
Attachments: W NVpermitpositionpaper2013.doc
Hi Katherine,
I would like to bring two line items in the Senate budget that you are deliberating to your attention.
Amendment #63 Pesticide Licensing and Mosquito Control would allow our DPW workers and mosquito control staff to
apply prepackaged non -toxic larvicides in catchbasins with a modified pest control permit rather than a full pesticide
license. This was allowed in the past but the legislation that allowed it expired. It is a vital control measure for West
Nile Virus which is made complicated and expensive without this modified permit. I have attached a position paper
about this issue for your information.
The second is line item 4510 0600 in the budget of the Department of Public Health Environmental Health
Division. With the recent tragedies from the pharmaceutical compounding and state drug lab worker due to lack of
oversight — a direct consequence of continual decrease in funding of this department, I can't understand why the lesson
of what happens with decreased funding has not been learned. This is the part of the DPH that local health departments
depend upon for assistance, whether it is to enforce the various State Sanitary Codes (food, housing, pools, camps, etc)
or to respond to citizen concerns about elevated illness. Right now this division has a childhood cancer study underway
in Wilmington, an abutting community to Reading. A five year effort to update the 30 year old housing code is stalled
due to lack of funding. I won't even get into the fact that we are using a federal food code from 1999 that has been
updated by the federal government six times but yet to be adopted by Massachusetts. Senator Keenan has filed an
amendment to fund this department at the Governor's proposed level which I urge you to support.
On behalf of the Reading, Wakefield, and Melrose Health Departments, I strongly urge you to support these two
measures to protect the public health of the citizens of this Commonwealth. Thank you for your consideration.
Ruth
Ruth L. Clay, MPH
Health Director
City of Melrose 781 - 979 -4133
Town of Wakefield 781 - 246 -6375
Town of Reading 781 - 942 -9061
Please take a moment to help us improve your experience with City services.
https://www.surveynionkey.com/s/MelroseCtistomerSurve
onkey .com /s /MelroseCustomerSurvey
q CX_1
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING &
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Deval L. Patrick, Governor ♦ Timothy P. Mwray, Lt. Govemor ♦ Aaron Gomstein, Undersecretary
May 23, 2013
Mr. James E. Bonazoli, Chairman
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
16 Lowell Street
Reading, MA 01876
RE. Housing Production Plan - Approved
Dear Mr. Bonazoli:
The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) approves the Town of Reading's Housing
Production Plan (HPP) pursuant to 760 CMR 56.03(4). The effective date for the HPP is May 16, 2013, the date that
DHCD received a complete plan submission, The HPP has a five year term and will expire on May 15, 2018.
Approval of the Town's EPP allows the Town to request DHCD's Certification of Municipal Compliance when:
Housing units affordable to low and moderate income households have been produced during one calendar
year, totaling at least 0.5% (48 units) of year round housing units.
All units produced are eligible to be counted on the Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI). If you have questions
about eligibility for the SHE, please visit our website at: www.mass.gov /dhcd.
All units have been produced in accordance with the approved HPP and DHCD's Guidelines.
I applaud your efforts to plan for the housing needs of Reading. Please contact Phillip DeMartino, Technical Assistance
Coordinator, at (617) 573 -1357 or Phillip.DeMartino )sstate.ma.us, if you need assistance as you implement your HPP.
Sincerely,
Leverett Wing
Associate Director
cc: Senator Katherine Clark
Representative James J. Duryer
Representative Bradley H. Jones, Jr.
Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager, Reading
Jean Delios, Community Service Director, Reading
Jessie Wilson, Staff Planner, Reading
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300
Boston. Massachusetts 02114
ti~
www.mass.gov /dhcd
617.573.1100 q 6
1
L4 L6 oS
Below email was sent arch 6, 2013 to II addressee's except Bob LeLacheur, who had not been appointed Town
manager as of that date.
Just came upon yet another accident at Main and Franklin. Over two ++ years ago we went through a dog and pony
show with MA DOT studying the intersection and coming up with alternatives that were costly, involved land takings,
etc. etc. Results to date .... ZERO ! Mostly the usual MA DOT lip service, dance around the problem, and then inaction,
probably under the guise of no money.
At some point, someone will be seriously injured or killed because of a lack of attention to this problem. Just the
property damage that is occurring to vehicles is huge. The road is littered with car parts from past accidents. I am no
traffic engineer, but in my opinion as I and members of my family drive this intersection daily, a simple realignment of
the traffic signalization would be a huge step forward ... that apparently nobody is willing to take. But a major redesign
apparently isn't in the offing and I fear everything is once again off the radar screen.
I ask the BOS to yet again try and force some positive action to at least change the signals to allow dedicated turning
without drivers having to dodge oncoming traffic. Some simple fixes could result in great improvements without waiting
for MA DOT to wake up. I cite Main and Forest St. as an example with dedicated signalization for westerly turns to Forest
St. If it can be done at that minor intersection, why can't it be done at Franklin for both easterly and westerly turns ??
After all, we are not trying to reinvent traffic signals..... just make them work better for public safety !
Something needs to be done. I'm sure the Police Dept. can readily update you on the accident history over the last few
years. Doing nothing and waiting for the State is not a reasonable solution. I continually see the results of their past
inaction with frequent accidents. There was just an accident there this afternoon and someone taken to the hospital
with two cars damaged. Time for this to get back on the radar..........
Sincerely,
Frederick Van Magness Sr.
243 Franklin St,
Reading, MA 01867
781 - 944 -0537
� �l
LeLacheur, Bob
From: Frederick Va <vanmagness @verizon.net>
Sent: T u e sd or, 10 ay 21, 2 0:11 PM
To: Reading - e ectmen
Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter; Zambouras, George; Cormier, Jim; LeLacheur, Bob
Subject: Main at Franklin St. Intersection
Dear BOS,
Below you will find an email which I sent to the BOS on March 6th, 2013 (almost 3 months ago) ... an email to which I
never received a single word of response from anyone. I find it disturbing that the safety issue discussed within this
correspondence was apparently not important enough to warrant your consideration, so I am again bringing this
problem to your attention as nothing to date has been done to resolve the issue.
Today (May 21st) I again saw the remnants of a serious accident at the intersection of Main and Franklin. From my
observation, it appears to have been yet another collision resulting from a northbound vehicle trying to turn west bound
onto Franklin St.
I find it extremely troubling that our town can not fix the problem at this intersection with a dedicated turn signal.
Apparently somebody found the way to have a dedicated turn at Main and Forest, an intersection which must not get
the same level of traffic turning across Main St. travel lanes since vehicle traffic on Forest is significantly lighter than
Franklin. Why is it so terribly difficult to do a similar light sequence at Main and Franklin?
This problem needs to be FIXED.... not pushed off any longer. There appears to be plenty of time for administrative
activity to address things like amplified sound at playgrounds, outdoor patios for dining, installing sheds at Morton Field,
but NO time to resolve a serious safety issue which continues to cause injury and property damage to vehicles. Why can
nobody fix the problem? I mean FIX the problem with a simple change to signals.... I do NOT mean rebuild Franklin St.
And let's not hide behind the State of MA DOT.
I have been asking for action for over two years and nothing has happened except for a ridiculous State survey that will
never be implemented due to no funding. Now I cannot even get a response to requests via email. When can
reasonable solutions be employed? Please, address this problem NOW. People are getting hurt, vehicles seriously
damaged, and our fire and police tied up constantly at this accident prone intersection. Please do whatever it takes to
send someone up to Franklin St. with the keys to the signal box and change the timing sequences.
So there is no misunderstanding, here is my recommended SIMPLE sequence that is needed:
Seq. #1 - Northbound Main GREEN, southbound Main RED, Franklin St. RED both East and West Seq. #2 - Northbound
Main RED, southbound Main GREEN, Franklin St. RED both East and West Seq. #3 - Northbound and southbound Main
RED, Franklin St. GREEN East and West.
Simple... problem solved. NO Main St. cars trying to cross active travel lanes to go east or west on Franklin.
I request that this entire correspondence be included in the attachments to the BOS next agenda and packet to
document my concerns for the record. I await your proactive attention to this longstanding safety concern.
Sincerely,
Frederick Van Magness Sr.
243 Franklin St., Reading
781 - 944 -0537
LeLacheur, Bob
From: Frederick Va =25,2alP411 vanmagness @verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday
PM
To: Reading - Selectmen
Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter; LeLacheur, Bob; Zambouras, George; Cormier, Jim
Subject: Another Accident Friday—Main @ Franklin
Hi all,
Just to update everyone.....yet another accident on Friday at Main and Franklin. I understand there may have been
serious injuries from this one. That is at least two accidents (Monday and Friday) this past week. I provided a very
reasonable suggested signal change in my letter of May 21st. ( As a side note, I did not hear back from anyone on my
May 21st note... yet again). I'm no traffic engineer..... but I have seen the results of the State traffic folks to
date... NOTHING. So why not try a simple solution as I suggested for 90 days. I understand this traffic light is under the
control of the State, but Reading surely has enough contacts to DEMAND an emergency correction in the interest of
Public Safety and to prevent serious injury. I cannot imagine any other intersection in Reading with a higher traffic
accident count. Maybe you need to call on our legislative folks....Rep. Brad Jones, Rep. Jim Dwyer, and Sen. Sheila Clarke
to personally get involved as a constituent problem !!!!
As an example of how serious this situation is, my kids and others who live off Franklin will not make a left hand turn
onto Franklin when traveling north on Main. Instead, they turn at Forest and drive Van Norden just because they fear
this intersection.
Please, don't delay DEMANDING an emergency change ASAP before we have a tragic outcome. The Police Department
has the data to back up the problem. Now is the time for action, not more studies. If this were to be given proper
priority, a fix could be programmed into the controller within days.
Thanks in advance for your action......
Fred Van Magness SR
243 Franklin St.,
Reading, MA 01867
781 - 944 -0537
LeLacheur, Bob
From: Frederick Va ne s<vanmagness @verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, ay 28, 2013 8,
To: Reading - ec men
Cc: Hechenbleikner, Peter; LeLacheur, Bob; Zambouras, George; Cormier, Jim
Subject: Possible solution - Franklin and Main intersection (Letter #4)
Good morning,
In my letter ( #2) of May 21, 2013, 1 proposed a SIMPLE solution to the accident problem at the Main /Franklin St
intersection, as follows:
So there is no misunderstanding, once again, here is my recommended SIMPLE sequence that is needed:
Seq. #1 - Northbound Main GREEN, southbound Main RED, Franklin St. RED both East and West Seq. #2 - Northbound
Main RED, southbound Main GREEN, Franklin St. RED both East and West Seq. #3 - Northbound and southbound Main
RED, Franklin St. GREEN East and West.
Simple... problem solved. NO Main St. cars trying to cross active travel lanes to go east or west on Franklin.
Advantages for discussion with State officials:
1. NO land takings to potentially create a dedicated left turn lane on Main St.
2. NO capital construction funds needed.
3. NO lane markings /painting required. Eliminates the need to have dedicated left turn sequences while holding all other
traffic on Main St.
4. NO need for additional signal purchases or arrows installed.
5. No need for State personnel to study this problem and waste money any more.
6. ONLY needs a signal person to change the current sequence.
7. Should take less than one hour of actual work time to implement 8. Makes driving clear for all folks traveling on Main
St.
9. Solution is very SIMPLE and easy to implement.
10. All the State has to do is figure out how long to have each Main St. north and south sequence.
11. Main St. at Forest already partially employs this solution with northbound Main St. traffic, although the southbound
traffic is only held for a short period of time while the northbound traffic has dedicated access to left turn onto Forest St.
Because of the heavy traffic at Main and Franklin, I recommend we hold each Main St direction travel alternately and
not let one direction go after a short sequence. So nobody can say that my solution cannot be done, since it has been
done.
12. Will actually improve traffic flow /movements, as people will not be waiting to make left turns from Main St. travel
lanes.
I can see no reason why my suggested PRACTICAL solution could not be implemented for a trial period of 3 -6 months.
There is absolutely no reason to not try this solution. The Town needs to just push the issue HARD with State officials as
an emergency Public Safety issue. It must be given a top priority by Reading to get this fixed.
Thanks in advance for your work to make this change happen on a trial basis ASAP.
Sincerely,
Frederick Van Magness SR
243 Franklin St.
Reading, MA 01867
781 - 944 -0537
q C'K
SIC 6`s
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS cam. *�
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE
' b 1000 Washington Street, Suite 820
16 Boston, MA 02118 -6500
(617) 305 -3580
www.mass.gov /dtc
DEVAL L. PATRICK
GREGORY BIALECKI
GOVERNOR
SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
TIMOTHY P. MURRAY
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
BARBARA ANTHONY
UNDERSECRETARY
OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND
BUSINESS REGULATIONS
GEOFFREY G. WHY
COMMISSIONER
May 14, 2013
Dear Issuing Authority:
The Department of Telecommunications and Cable ( "Department ") will hold a public
and evidentiary hearing, pursuant to G. L. c. 166A, § 15 and 207 C.M.R. § 6.03, to investigate
the proposed basic service tier programming, equipment, and installation rates for all of the rate
regulated communities in Massachusetts served by Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
("Comcast "), in response to its flings. The hearing will be held at 10:00 A.M. on Wednesday,
October 16, 2013, in Room I at 1000 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts, and is a
formal hearing conducted under G. L. c. 30A and the Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice
and Procedure at 801 C.M.R. § 1.00 et seq. Comcast, as the cable operator serving your
community, is required to arrange for notice of the hearing, both by newspaper publication and
by cablecasting. G. L. c. 166A, § 15; 207 C.M.R. § 6.05; 207 C.M.R. §2.02. The proceeding is
dockets as D.T.C. 13 -5. A copy of the hearing notice that was provided to Comcast for
publication is enclosed for informational purposes.
As the issuing authority for a municipality served by Comcast, you may want to
participate in this hearing. Please note that under Massachusetts regulations, issuing authorities
are not automatically parties to rate proceedings. 801 C.M.R. § 1.01(9). While our proceedings
allow for full public input from all interested persons, an interested person may participate as a
6jJ 1
party only if it files a petition to intervene and such petition is subsequently granted by the
Department. Id. The petition to intervene must state with specificity how the petitioner is
substantially and specifically affected by the rate proceeding. Id.
An issuing authority that is granted party status has the right to participate fully in the
proceeding, including the right to cross - examine the cable operator's witnesses at the hearing,
the right to receive all correspondence and documents provided by the cable operator to the
Department, and the right to appeal the Department's Rate Order. 801 C.M.R. §§ 1.01(5)(f);
1.01(10)(f); 1.01(13). An intervenor is also allowed to participate in discovery. 801 C.M.R. §
1.01(8)(a). For example, the intervenor may submit to the cable operator prior to the hearing
written questions related to the rate proceeding, which the cable operator is required to answer.
A party that wishes to intervene must file its petition to intervene with the Department by 5:00
P.M. on Wednesday, October 8, 2013.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the hearing procedures, please contact
me at Lindsay.DeRoche @state.ma.us or (617) 368 -1112.
Sincerely,
/s/ Lindsay DeRoche
Lindsay DeRoche
Hearing Officer
V2
zRIA
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE
D.T.C. 13 -5 May 14, 2013
Petition of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC to establish and adjust the basic service tier
programming, equipment, and installation rates for the communities in Massachusetts served by
Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. that are currently subject to rate regulation.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CABLE TELEVISION RATES
The Department of Telecommunications and Cable ( "Department ") pursuant to G. L. c.
166A, § 15, and 207 C.M.R. § 6.03, the Department of Telecommunications and Cable will hold
a public and evidentiary hearing to investigate proposed basic service tier programming,
equipment, and installation rates of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ( "Comcast "). The
hearing will take place at:
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
Hearing Room 1 E
1000 Washington Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02118 -6500
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 10:00 A.M.
This proceeding has been docketed as D.T.C. 13 -5, and is a formal adjudicatory
proceeding conducted under G. L. c. 30A and 801 C.M.R. § 1.00 et seq. of the Standard
Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Any person who desires to participate in this proceeding must file a written petition for
leave to intervene or to participate with:
Catrice C. Williams
Secretary of the Department
Department of Telecommunications and Cable
1000 Washington Street, Suite 820
Boston, MA 02118-6500
Petitions for leave to intervene must be received by 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, October 8,
2013. Such petition must satisfy the substantive requirements of 801 C.M.R. § 1.01(9).
Petitioners should submit the petition to the Department in electronic format by e-mail
attachment to dtc.efling @state.ma.us. The text of the e-mail or written petition must specify:
(1) the name of the cable operator; (2) the docket number; (3) the name of the person submitting
the fling; (4) that person's municipal title, if any; and (5) a brief descriptive title of the document
(e.g., petition to intervene or participate). The petition should also include the name, title, and
telephone number of a person to contact in the event of questions about the fling.
q�3
TRACKING OF LEGAL SERVICES - FY 2013
Hours I
Month Monthly Monthly Available Monthly Monthly Available
Hours Hours Remainder I I Remainder
Allocated Used of Year Allocated Used of Year
July
31.6
19.5
359.7
$4,583
$2,828
$52,168
August
31.6
35.8
323.9
$4,583
$5,191
$46,977
Septembei
31.6
26.2
297.7
$4,583
$3,798
$43,179
October
31.6
34.6
263.1
$4,583
$5,017
$38,162
November
31.6
28.7
234.4
$4,583
$4,162
$34,000
December
31.6
27.8
206.6
$4,583
$4,031
$29,969
January
31.6
47.9
158.7
$4,583
$6,076
$23,893
February
31.6
38.3
120.4
$4,583
$5,553
$18,340
March
31.6
32.3
88.1
$4,583
$4,836
$13,504
April
31.6
57.7
30.4
$4,583
$8,366
$5,138
May
31.6
30.4
$4,583
$5,138
June
31.6
30.4
$4,583
$5,138
Total
379.2
348.8
54,996
$49,858
December bill included
$594.50 for legal services re Macaroni Grille, which has been
reimbursed
by Macaroni
Grille
LeLacheur, Bob
From: Jodie <jvci com>
Sent: Tuesda , May 28, 20 1:01 PM
To: Reading men
Subject: Traffic Signal at Intersection of Main St. and Franklin St.
To the Members of the Board of Selectmen:
I am writing to express my concern regarding the traffic signal at the intersection of Main St. and Franklin
St. This intersection is the site of many accidents and is incredibly dangerous for drivers, pedestrians and
cyclists alike. Drivers are in desperate need of a traffic signal that allows them to turn left onto Franklin St.
when traveling north on Main St. without fear of being hit by oncoming traffic traveling South. As a resident of
Reading who lives off of Franklin St., this is a route that I need to travel frequently and I feel that I take my life
in my hands when I do so. It is a matter of public safety and one that I hope the BOS will promptly address.
Respectfully,
Jodie Vasily - Cioffi
16 Kurchian Lane
qr-
OF R
Town of Reading
y.. 16 Lowell Street
tea; Reading, MA 01867 -2683
w
619; INCORQI
Fax: (781) 942 -5441
Website: www.readingma.gov
May 28, 2013
First Baptist Church of Reading
45 Woburn St
Reading MA 01867
4c- Bo5
PUBLIC WORKS
(781) 942 -9077
Attached please find the charges for plowing and sanding for the current season. As you are
aware, three years ago the Town made the decision to phase out the plowing and sanding of
any /all church parking lots over a three year period.
Your three year contract has now expired with the past winter plowing season, so commencing
with the winter of 2013 — 2014 the Town will no longer be providing plowing and sanding
service for any religious institutions in Town.
Good luck with setting up your plowing and sanding services for next year and let us know if
you have any questions or need any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Zager
Director of Public Works
96-
4C605
LeLacheur, Bob
From: Susan Wats tson @comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesd May 28, 2013 :19 PM
To: Readin - Select
Subject: Intersection of Franklin and Main by HomeGoods
Dear Board of Selectmen,
First, thank you for all of your time and your hard work towards ensuring Reading is a pleasant place to live.
I am writing to request that you strongly consider rectifying the dangerous situation at the corner of Main and
Franklin — if you are attempting a left turn here while you are driving, you will take your life in your hands.
Because it's two lanes here and there are cars from the north taking a left turn, a driver in the left lane going
north and taking a left turn onto the Mobile side of Franklin cannot see the drivers coming around those waiting
for the left turn onto the Dandy Lyon's side of Franklin and the cars in the right lane coming south do not slow
down. Then if you wait until it's clear, the light has turned and you cannot get across. The same thing happens
if the light turns green and you want to go left and the cars coming from the north do not let you pass, so here
you are all over again waiting in a very dangerous holding pattern. A very simple solution would be a green
arrow for left turn — easy and easy to try. I have witnessed accidents there and have seen young drivers have
very close calls here — I hope you will consider some action before a worse accident occurs.
Thank you,
Sue Watson
20 Brentwood Drive
Reading, MA 01867
781- 944 -6608
C1
LeLacheur, Bob
From: Karen G. H_
Sent: Tuesda , ay 28, 201 9:44 AM
To: Reading - men
Cc: Stephen Herrick; Frederick Van Magness; Will Finch; Rob Spadafora
Subject: RE: Safety changes needed at Main and Franklin
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the BOS,
We are writing in support of the concerns that my neighbor and fellow Town Meeting Member, Fred
Van Magness, has raised once again about the dangers of Frankin & Main intersection. At least 5 years ago, I
presented this same concern to the previous Board supported by emails from about 60 of the local
residents. The State has provided many excuses for its inaction in making relatively minor change requests to
make this intersection safer for nearby school children, pedestrians shopping at local businesses, and drivers.
Excuses have included "we just spent 500k redoing the lights and curbs" and "the traffic counts don't
support adding even left turn arrows." (This last protest being hard to imagine as that is exactly how Main and
Forest and Main and Park (North Reading) are structured and despite the admission by many local residents that
they already use Pearl and Van Norden to avoid Main and Franklin at all costs.)
While accidents happen frequently from all directions - of primary danger is the fact that when
proceeding North to turn left onto Franklin Street, the slight rise and fall of Main street does NOT allow drivers
to be able to see on- coming traffic when another car /SUV /Truck is waiting at the light (southbound.) (By all
means try to navigate this turn yourself. It is clear to local residents that the engineers from the State never have
done so and are unaware of how dangerous this turn is when there is any traffic on Main.)
None of the minor light timing efforts have worked to make this intersection safer over the intervening
years
Since Main Street is a State Road, I respectfully urge you to please call on our State Reps and the Mass
Highway Department (again!) to please address a redesign that has been flawed from the start and which
continues to pose a major safety hazard.
Sincerely,
Karen Gately Herrick
Stephen Herrick
Town Meeting Members, Precinct 8
Karen Gately Herrick, MBA, Realtor /Broker
RE /MAX Top 25 of New England
Direct: 781-517-4209
Efax:781- 645 -1330
karen herrickCa-_) remax. net
HerrickHomeTeam.com
IN
/� Es •c° Commonwealth of Massachusetts
/4 cN Esc • • rp
.o Department of the State Treasurer
�"\II Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission
31 239 Causeway Street
>' . . Boston, MA 02114
t.3 o Telephone: (617) 727 -3040
Fax: (617) 727 -1255
Steven Grossman
Treasurer and Receiver General
4(--- yes
Kim S. Gainsboro, Esq.
Chairman
THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES CONTROL COMMISSION ( "ABCC ") ADVISORY
The Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission is pleased to announce that effective May 28,
2013 we are taking additional steps to streamline the retail license annroval process to benefit
the retail beverage alcohol business community. As you are aware, the license process includes a
requirement that applicants receive a release from the Departments of Revenue ( "DOR ") and
Unemployment Assistance ( "DUA "). Although the applications are forwarded to both tax
agencies upon arrival at the ABCC, at times the process can be lengthy while DOR and DUA
conduct their due diligence, which can result in delays for prospective businesses.
Consequently, we communicated with DOR and found a solution to modernize the process., We
are happy to announce that we have found a collaborative solution which will allow us to obtain
the required tax releases more quickly and efficiently, so that license applications can be
considered for approval without delays. The license applicants will now be driving the process.
Effective May 28, 2013, applicants for an alcoholic beverages license will simply submit a DOR
Certificate of Good Standing (COGS) with their application to the local licensing authorities.
The COGS should then be included in the application forms forwarded to the ABCC by the local
licensing authorities
Any applicant can obtain a COGS using the DOR website www.mass.gov /dor by following the
links to the DOR's online Certificate of Good Standing. The COGS will serve as the DOR
release.
With this new streamlined process, the ABCC will continue to protect the Commonwealth's
interests, while providing greater efficiencies to both government and the industry. Please do not
hesitate to contact Ralph Sacramone, 617 - 727 -3040 ext. 731 or Patricia Krueger, 617 - 727 -3040
ext. 718, with any questions you may have. Thank you for your continued support and
cooperation.
1 State law requires that the ABCC not consider an application unless and until the applicant shows it has
complied with all of the Commonwealth's tax laws. As such, the Department of Revenue ( "DOR ") issues
a tax release directly to the ABCC.
This twenty-five year old procedure caused many delays that could last four to six weeks until the DOR
sent the tax release. These delays generally lasted for four - six weeks. The delays were caused by a variety
of things and, including the seller's and applicant's inattention, incorrect information, failure to make the
required tax filings and /or tax payments. The delay caused by this process in some instances lasted for six
(6) months or longer.
(Issued: Thursday, May 23, 2013) "I