36°
GRAFTON, Mass. — A traffic makeover around Grafton Common could mean moving several war monuments, closing a portion of North Street and adding traffic signals, the Board of Selectmen were told Tuesday night.
The suggested changes were among several options developed by Graves Engineering for the historic area's traffic issues. Graves has been working with the Grafton Common Historic District to find ways to improve modern day traffic through the area while still maintaining the Common's charm.
"We tried not to touch the Common itself," said Jeff Walsh of Graves Engineering.
The biggest traffic issue comes in the morning and evening when traffic on Route 140 can become snarled as commuters weave their way around the Common. Traffic often backs up on Upton Street as cars hesitate at the turn onto Worcester Street. The intersection of Millbury Street with Worcester Street in front of One Grafton Common is frought with problems, and the street between the Grafton Inn and the Civil War Monument has problems with traffic merging onto North Street.
The favored option would make several changes, including:
• Installing synchronized traffic lights at Upton Street/Worcester Street and Worcester Street/Millbury Street;
• Narrowing Millbury Street in front of the Grafton Country Store to straighten the transition onto North Street;
• Eliminating the street between the Grafton Inn and the Civil War Monument and replacing it with green space; and
• Moving the new World War II monument and the nearby Korea/Vietnam monument.
"I would not want to jump up and move a monument, especially these monuments," Selectman John Carlson said. If the monuments need to be moved, however, he suggested Grafton Common could provide a new home.
Construction costs would be about $1.13 million, Walsh said.
No plan has been approved and any changes must pass muster with the Grafton Common Historic District Commission, selectmen and other boards before going forward.
"Quite frankly, this is a project not everyone is going to be pleased with, no matter how we slice it," Walsh said. "But there are a lot of options."
Comments (17)
We need a north-south and an east-west expressway to funnel out of town vehicle around Grafton Center........
Another waste of the towns money, spend a million to fix a problem that lasts 15 minutes twice a day. Here is an easy fix, stop through truck traffic in the historic site, install better signage and live with the rest. 122/140 from Lake Ripple to Quinsig Corner is a far bigger problem that should be addressed first.
Amen. That would involve a plan and priorities though!
There are state controls on restrictions like that. In the cases I know of there had to be viable alternative routes, even when it involved local roads. In this case you are talking about a state numbered route. Any prohibition on truck traffic woulds be a real long shot. Again, the central problem is that Central Square is a significant cross roads with little or no reasonable alternatives. Traffic between Worcester and the Turnpike and Shrewsbury and points South on 140 can only really get there by going past the Common on 140.
And yes, 122/140 is what really needs to be dealt with.
I took a transportation planning course in college in Connecticut.
This is what I learned about roundabouts.
Don't do it.
There was a British student in class. He tried to defend them. It was not pretty for him.
Increase in accidents, decrease in speed. They don't work.
What I have heard from traffic engineers is that "rotaries" are not good. They went out of fashion in traffic engineering quite a while ago. But in more recent times they have come back to being in favor of "roundabouts" when they are appropriate. The difference, as far as I can tell is in the size and the design details like how traffic flows in and out. In front of Union Station in Worcester is an example of modern roundabout design and it flows pretty well. A lot better than what was there before I think.
In this case it is neither a rotary nor a roundabout. The Common is much larger than those. It is counterclockwise flow around a park.
The problem is the southbound lane from Worcester Street to Upton Street, and the eastbound section in front of Two Grafton Common. Those are where the traffic flows clockwise and results in those crossing and left turn conflicts with everything else that is OK going counterclockwise.
As to faster or slower, etc., give the engineer's a chance to look at it seriously and tell us what the result would be. I know we all fancy ourselves as traffic engineers, but the fact is the people with the training and qualifications really do know a lot more than we do, and have the tools to really evaluate options and report on what will in fact be the result of different designs.
You're right, traffic engineers are good at figuring this stuff out. I work with some. HOWEVER, it IS very important that the context and needs of the town are respected and properly taken into account. Sometimes engineers can design a solution that will technically work great, but it is not the most context-sensitive solution to the site.
That said, I believe that since Graves Engineering is a small local firm, they may have a good feel for the site.
We as a town just need to make sure our needs are effectively conveyed; so, we get the end product we want. They can't design what we want if we don't let them know.
I think a dominant element of the context in this case is to maintain the Common and Central Square as it is, Adding traffic lights with lines of cars backed up generating concentrated pollution waiting at them is not good in that sense.
As to Graves, my information was that they were told not to consider the counterclockwise option by "someone". My understanding was that they were told to propose this traffic light solution and so that is what they brought back. Since the meetings on this have not been publicized and not carried on cable it is hard to know what the real story is.
In any case, was there an estimate given for the cost? Any idea where that might come from, or how long it might take to get it, as well as permission from the state to put in those lights. They recently denied that permission at another intersection not far from these. It has always been a major effort to get permission for each of the intersections that have been signalized.
Might it not be higher priority to spend that money on what has to be done on Worcester Street between Lake Ripple and Snow Road? The Common is a would-be-nice-to-do. That section of Worcester Street is a MUST-DO the road is already over its capacity and will continue getting even worse (but it lacks the political will to get it done within oh say the next decade - it takes many years to move road projects like this from conception to completion)
While I always thought a roundabout and rotary were the same thing, they are in fact different in how they treat traffic coming into the 'traffic circle', and whether the goal is to slow traffic going into the circle, or increase traffic going into the circle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_circle
That said though, I am still baffled by any talk that routing traffic around the Common would somehow be a good idea. The main traffic route is to one side of the common - up Worc St straight, then a bear left onto Upton Road. A traffic circle would only work if the roads that come into it actually come into the circle, and the main offenders, traffic coming from North and Millbury Street, don't come into the perceived circle in a way, in my opinion, that would work.
So while I was initially opposed at the traffic lights, I am reversing my opinion on this, mainly because I took a look at what was proposed (that mark up above) and see more good in what that would provide the center of town. It would limit the means to get from A-B, so you don't have the cut-off in front of the Grafton Inn, you don't have multiple routes to get around the Common to Church or South Street. It re-routes the end of North, narrows up the end of Millbury and South, and adds much needed overall parking around the area. Best though, it maintains the Common, and doesn't add traffic to make getting there more treacherous.
My other opinion on this, most of us who grew up in town and live in town know how to navigate the center of town. It is like Kelly Square, which should never make sense to anyone, yet those who live in the area and grew up around here, we can get through it without issue. The people I see who are the "issue" are those that are from out of the area, who fail to acknowledge that the sole blinking yellow light is not a stop light...yes, I see them stop right at the Grafton Inn, and back traffic up when they have the right of way. You can't fix that with a traffic study.
I am looking forward to following this, see how this unfolds in town. There is the potential to really change the center for the better here, and I hope that people get it right.
ooh ooh...I've got it! I have the solution! Just use all that expertise from the Boston Big Dig, bring it here, and put the roads underground! What a great idea. I'm so smart. Ouch, I just hurt myself patting myself on the back.
Traffic backs up when two flows cross, or there are left turns. In a "roundabout" design there are no cross flows and no left turns - no traffic lights, no stop signs, no one waits. Traffic flows continuously and smoothly.
It is true that the existing constraints around central square would make it a challenge to design a workable roundabout layout, but it is close enough to being viable to look at it seriously. Unless the option is fully explored we pass up the best option to preserve the Common as we know it, without traffic lights, and get the best long term solution of the flow issues.
I just say give it a full look - engineers should look seriously at how it could be made to work, and compare the result against the alternatives. The engineers can model how the flows would work in each design, how long the delays would be at all the intersections, and so on.
Take a ride through Westboro at their traffic circle. Granted it is much smaller than our common, but ask yourself if you would want to walk across the traffic that is constantly going around that roundabout? The Common is a public gathering place. Main traffic is off to one side, so there is still a reasonable means to walk to and get to the Common. If there is an event on the Common, and there are many, traffic can continue while an event is going on. Turn it into the centerpiece for a roundabout, and you will kill events on the Common. I took a look at the proposal marked up after I posted, and yeah, it has traffic lights, but it does reduce many of the wide areas that cars cut through, so there is better control over traffic. There is also parking considerations, for businesses and the Common, which is good.
I do think that we should not introduce more traffic around the whole common if at all possible, and a roundabout around the common would do just that.
The Westboro "rotary" is, and always has been a disaster. But it may be the best that can be done there given the constraints. Central Square/Common has A LOT more land to work with.
My suggestion could, quite likely, provide for more, and better, and safer parking. It DOES have to be looked at to see though.
Nothing we do to the roads around the Common is going to change the amount of traffic very much one way or another. The people who need to go through there still need to. I think there are very few people going different ways to avoid the Common now who would be attracted to go through it with better flow based on any of the schemes. Traffic can be expected to continue to increase because traffic throughout the region is increasing and nothing we can do will change that very much.
The key issue is that Central Square/Common is a major cross roads in the area and there are really very few if any alternatives. All the traffic HAS to go through it.
I think as far as pedestrian traffic goes, a good design along the lines being discussed, with proper crosswalks that are as short as possible, will serve at least as well as what we have now. I think the present crosswalks are not all configured ideally, and they tend to be too long in some cases making them difficult to use safely.
Again, just give outside the box a little bit of a chance. The current design appears to flow from preconceived ideas of the only solution to consider.
I also like the town center the way it is. It might be a good thing that traffic slows through the center (many towns are artificially building traffic calming measures to achieve this). What is the priority? Is it to have a pleasant, walkable, calm town center or is it to have smooth flow through the center? Shrewsbury has newer signals and smooth traffic flow as does Northborough, but honestly, I wouldn't want to go walking there. The focus in those areas seems to have been pushed more to movement of cars. I like the Grafton center village feel, and that is part of why I moved here 2 years ago (and not Shrewsbury or Northborough).
Personally, I feel that having better access control and consolidating some of the access points and driveways on the Dunkin Donuts to Stop&Shop stretch of Rte.122/140 would help improve traffic flow greatly.
The relatively calm traffic around the common is condusive to the denser, walkable-style development that is become increasingly more appreciated, I feel.
That said, there probably are still some opportunities for pedestrian-friendly improvements and reduction of ambiguity around the common. Perhaps there is a balance to be struck between traffic flow and calm traffic, but there are many extreme examples of past traffic flow improvements (decades ago) that actually destroyed the potential for vibrant activity in town centers. Fortunately, I think today's designers and planners are a little more sensative to the context of the area. Let's hope we make these needs and desires clear as a town, so that the end project fits our needs.
Roundabouts are designed to keep traffic flowing, which is why you see them replacing intersections that typically back up. The common, in relation to the main road, is off to the side, so to consider making a roundabout around it would require directing all traffic to (more or less) take a right off Worcester St, then go around the common, in front of the Dr. office, the Church, the end of North Street, and the Library. I just don't see how that would make anything better, or how it would fix the issue, when the traffic right now goes straight up Worcester St and to the left on Upton Road. Just because the Common is round doesn't mean it would work.
The backup's I see are usually at the top of Millbury Street, and at the end of South Street. Both are secondary streets that are trying to turn into traffic flowing on 140/122 (Upton Rd, Worcester St.). Other traffic you have is that coming from North Street, which tends to split between traffic in front of the old Town Hall, and traffic behind it consisting of people trying to get around the traffic in front of the Town Hall. I am not certain a traffic light there will be the full solution, because then you have traffic stopped on 140 and 122. You will also have traffic trying to turn into each other, so inevitably the crowd from the North St side gets to go straight or turn left or right, while the line of traffic coming up from Millbury is stuck waiting...or vice versa. Same if you stick a traffic light at the intersection of 140, South, and the area in front of the Grafton Inn. I am all for slimming up the top end of Millbury Street, would have no issue if thru traffic to the 'right' side of the common (looking at it from the country store) was restricted (so no cut-thru traffic, only access to parking for the common, parking for the church and parking for the Dr. office), and if the cut-thru area in front of the Grafton Inn was removed. I often thought that maybe the road behind the Town Hall could be made one way, out to Worcester Street, and the road in front of the Town Hall could be made one way toward North Street, although anyone coming up North St wanting to then drive down Millbury, would need to go behind the Town Hall, take a left, then a right. Maybe the option is to route traffic coming up from Millbury towards the center, to the right and around the common, so traffic entering the main flow of traffic comes in from South Street, and only traffic going down Millbury is passing in front of the Country Store.
I don't know whether any of these ideas are ideal, but figured I would rather put them out. I think any ultimate solution should try and consolidate exit and entrance points to the main road, that being Route 122 and route 140. I think we should not put in traffic lights, that will not only change how the town center looks, but I feel will only cause more traffic issues than it solves. There should however be some crosswalk signals that can halt traffic, to allow people to cross. If the entrances and exit points are consolidated, it may cause some initial congestion, but frankly speaking, there are more than one way to get from A-B around town, so maybe it will get people to seek other more fluid routes. I also think that making the entire town area more walkable should be a priority as well. While Grafton isn't the most historic town, where we have a Dunkin Donuts, Cumberland Farms, and other modern business around town, the center is unique, and one of the things I like about living here, and should be treated with respect to its part in the town.
A good question. I have asked it a number of times. The answer seems to be it is too big a bite for people to give a serious look ANC the effort to required to make it work.
It would make traffic flow much better, better than what this story outlines, while eliminating the need to bring traffic lights into the Common.
I never could understand the "roundabouts" that basically orbit a "roundabout", why not just make it one way, counterclockwise around the common like a lot of other towns do?