From Wiki

Contents 1 Transportation: Automobiles 1.1 Roads 1.2 Table 7.5 1.3 Traffic 1.4 Parking and Circulation 2 Transportation: Alternative 2.1 Bicycle Transportation 2.2 Pedestrian Transportation 3 Transportation: Design 3.1 Design Standards 4 Transportation: Cultural 4.1 Scenic Roads 5 Transportation: Development 5.1 New Developments 5.2 Cul-de-Sac Length 5.2.1 Standards for Dead-End Streets 5.2.2 Road Surface Management 6 RECOMMENDATIONS

Transportation: Automobiles

Roads

Each year, one of the largest elements of the Town of Epping's municipal budget, with the exception of schools, is the roadway budget. Table 7.5, gives a summary of these budget expenditures for selected fiscal years. The total road budget includes all projects ranging from resurfacing to bridge and lighting expenditures. "Maintenance" in Table 7.5 is the amount spent on keeping up with the regular wear and tear on the roads. This includes activities such as grinding and resurfacing and reconstruction of existing roads. Population figures are added to track the relationship of per capita expenditures for maintenance of Epping's town-maintained roads.

Table 7.5

Municipal Expenditures on Roadways

Fiscal Year	Total Road Budget	Maintenance	% of Total	Population	Per Capita Total Cost
2001	0	0	0	0	$0
2002	$0	$0	0%	0	0
2003	$0	$0	0%	0	$0
2004	$0	$0	0%	0	$0
2005	$0	$0	0%	0	$0
2006	$0	$0	0%	0	$0
2007	$0	$0	0%	0	$0
2008	$0	$0	0%	0	$0

Source: Epping Town Offices and Office of State Planning

Town expenditures on roadways have fluctuated somewhat over the years. Maintenance costs also seem to reflect these fluctuations in total budget more often than not. This seems to reflect the allotments for expenditures on roadway maintenance being driven by the overall budget. While it is often the unfortunate reality that towns struggle to fund a variety of programs with a limited pot of money, it must be remembered that deferring roadway maintenance will lead to added costs over time as the conditions worsen. Deferring road maintenance is far more costly in the long-term than implementing repairs as required. This is reflected in the per capita cost for roadway maintenance above.

Although it should be a major priority of the Town of Epping to seek ways to lower the costs of maintenance and construction without sacrificing the overall quality of its roadways, road budget increases will be necessary to implement a roadway management plan based on this inventory. While

construction costs are essentially fixed to the scope of any particular project, methods to lower average maintenance costs per lane mile of road should be developed. An option to complement this strategy might be the implementation of impact fees, which are typically imposed on developments in order to finance the cost of off-site improvements or services. The Town should engage in a study to examine the benefits and costs associated with adopting impact fees for transit improvements.

In addition to finding ways to meet the burden of roadway construction and mainte¬nance, it is important for Epping to carefully evaluate the cost effectiveness of accepting new roads into the Town maintained network. Prior to accepting any new road, Epping should determine (through engineering inspection, and through the inspection during construction) that the roadway in question has been built equal or superior to specifications outlined in Town ordinances and regulations, and that it has been maintained in good condition. The objective in this case is to accept only roads which will require no more than plowing or grading for a reasonable period of years (a range which should be specified in the above mentioned ordinances). A further criterion for the acceptance of roads associated with new development is that the increase in taxes realized from the development be proportionately allocated to the roadway budget to compensate for increased mileage requiring maintenance.

Aside from normal maintenance, which includes shoulder grading, filling potholes, brush control, cleaning ditches, supervising construction in the summer, and snow removal, sanding, and salting in the winter, larger projects requiring significant reconstruction are included in Epping's Capital Improvements Program at the recommendation of the Public Works Department. This listing is updated yearly and uses a 6-year planning horizon.

Traffic

Increasing traffic volumes have been and will continue to be a reality for Epping. There is no way in the immediate future to halt this trend. Instead, the Town must find ways to effectively manage the traffic, especially in the downtown. Although a formal traffic volume study for a two lane road segment would be necessary to accurately determine the roadway's current overall level of service (LOS), it is safe to say that traffic volumes on NH Route 125 are approaching the roadway's theoretical capacity during peak hours. Ongoing analysis of NH Route 125 in Epping should be requested of NHDOT, as they are presently responsible for improvements along the road. The Town should coordinate with abutting communities and encourage the NHDOT to conduct a corridor study from Dover to the Plaistow. A study of this corridor could investigate the delicate balance between safety, aesthetics preservation, and the need to preserve or increase capacity when possible. Special attention should be given to the shoulders and the existing center lane left turn areas where appropriate as well as to adding right turn bays at critical intersections.

In the downtown, traffic-calming measures such as reduced speed zones, physical features such as bump outs, speed tables, and pavement texturing, and visual barriers such as colored crosswalks are also useful. These improvements should be directed at improving safety, not necessarily increasing flow through town. Epping should also work with NHDOT to see that appropriate speed limits are posted along NH 27 to continue to provide an efficient inter regional link between Exeter, Epping, and Raymond, a goal challenged by the competing need for safety. Achieving a balance between the regional road network function of the NH108 facility, and the function of the road as a downtown main street will be more of a struggle as time goes on. The town must think carefully about the options available to achieve this balance.

Parking and Circulation

Because of dense existing development and the residential nature of the roads paralleling NH 125, little opportunity exists in Epping to create a one-way traffic flow through downtown. Consequently, adding off street parking and redesigning on-street parking for pedestrian/public use is the best, and perhaps only, measure that could ease the congestion, parking, and circulation problems, and improve traffic flow along Main Street in central Epping. The Town may wish to pursue a 1st level feasibility study to identify what the possibilities are in this section of town with regards to traffic circulation and parking.

With respect to parking in general, the Town should begin to locate new areas for parking and begin to restrict parking along Main Street as a first step. As there is little, if any, available land on which to locate additional parking facilities in downtown Epping, some land acquisition could be necessary. The existing municipal parking facility should be expanded and better signed and its link with downtown should be improved as part of a plan to enhance pedestrian movement and safety in downtown Epping. The Town should also look at private/public partnerships in providing these enhancements.

Transportation: Alternative

Bicycle Transportation

In order to enhance recreation opportunities and increase transportation alternatives in Epping, such facilities should be considered in future years. The Town should promote implementation of this plan through CMAQ and Transportation Enhancements funding and through adoption of bicycle sensitive design standards in its subdivision and site plan regulations. Upgrading existing facilities to include widened shoulders and bicycle lanes should also be considered when feasible. The Town should also provide appropriate bicycle parking amenities. Placing bike racks in the downtown area as well as key locations such as parks and schools encourages the use of bicycles as a means of personal transportation.

If linked with schools and public recreation areas, bike paths could also be of special benefit to the children of Epping. Additionally, long-term plans for a rails-to-trails conversion of the Rockingham Junction to Manchester line have been discussed. The Planning Board should work with DRED and acknowledge and promote the safe use of bicycles not only for recreation, but also for transportation purposes. The effect this will have on community and the transportation issues it faces are positive and this opportunity should be taken advantage of.

The Planning Board and DRED and DOT whould work closley to insure that the crossing of the Rockingham Trail on 125 is safe and reasonable.

Pedestrian Transportation

It is important to build upon the existing sidewalk system by filling in gaps thus creating a complete pedestrian network. It is especially important in the downtown area where officials wish to encourage walking. Vehicular traffic and congestion can be mitigated somewhat by providing an attractive, functional system of pedestrian amenities.

The Town may wish to conduct a study of pedestrian activity and needs. This would enable the Town to establish a comprehensive pedestrian/sidewalk plan in order to plan for a logical, connective system, serving the areas which most need safe pedestrian access. Specific project-recommendations could be identified through this plan and lead to applications for project funding. A study of pedestrian movement should also include an analysis of routes that children are currently using to get to the Epping school capmus off Main Street. A number of Epping children who walk to school currently deal with inadequate or non-existent sidewalks, poorly marked or unsignalized crosswalks, and significant volumes of traffic along Main Streeet on their daily journeys. This situation merits closer attention, especially during winter conditions when snow piles and icing make the conditions worse. The School Board should work with those conducting an analysis of pedestrian movements and systems.

New residential and commercial development in the area proximate to Epping's downtown will increase pedestrian traffic in the coming years. Ways to accommodate these people should be considered now. Such increased pedestrian activity would bring about increased business activity and spur new retail business development. This also would assist in the overall goals presented elsewhere in this document to make the downtown more vibrant and tied into the waterfront and street businesses. The Town should continue to take advantage of funding opportunities under the CMAQ and Transportation Enhancements programs through the MPO process.

Transportation: Design

Design Standards

As a legitimate exercise of police power, in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare and ensure continuity in the local roadway network, certain minimum roadway design standards should be required by Epping. Standards for access to roads and highways, minimum setbacks and easements, conformance with existing roadway alignments, adequate signing, and roadway construction should be addressed in Town zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. Bonding to ensure that roads and associated improvements proposed in new subdivisions be completed within a reasonable period of time from the granting of final approval should also be included in current and future zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations.

In New Hampshire RSA 236:13 1, it is stated that "it shall be unlawful to construct, or alter in any way that substantially affects the size or grade of any driveway, entrance, exit, or approach within the limits of the right of way of any Class I, Class III highway or the state maintained portion of a Class II highway that does not conform to the terms and specifications of a written permit issued by the Commissioner of Transportation." Section V of this RSA provides that Planning Boards of cities and towns which have granted the power to regulate subdivisions of land as provided in RSA 674:35 share this same right of permitting and may adopt such regulations as are necessary to implement the standards for approval which are adopted.

Another design standard to address in the Town's regulations is the requirement of minimum easements, setbacks, and rights of way for all new construc¬tion. These requirements serve several purposes and produce conflicting results. First, this kind of dedication allows a town sufficient room to maintain and, when necessary, improve roadways. Second, adequate setbacks help to mitigate potential obstructions to roadway sight distance such as fences, buildings, and parking lots. Unfortunately, large setbacks and rights of way can also lead to sprawl and low-density development that may produce long-term adverse transportation effects and higher infrastructure costs.

In order for Epping's roadway network to develop in a rational and coordinated manner, conformance with, and integration of, new roads with existing roads with regard to width, shoulders, sidewalks, lighting, and other characteristics should be required as a condition of subdivision approval. The Planning Board should consider modifying site plans to ensure this coordination when feasible and appropriate. Additionally, new roads that could potentially serve as through roads at some future date should be planned to their ultimate conclusion. In contrast with the creation of an official Town map, this exercise would address the issue of new or future roads on a case-by-case basis whenever new roads are proposed. In order to encourage logical regional and sub regional transportation development, new roads should also be planned to coordinate with roadways located in abutting jurisdictions whenever possible. These measures will help to encourage orderly and timely roadway development. Adequate signing of roadways at every juncture with another road, public or private, or significant public way (such as recreational roads) should also be required on any new road.

It is also important for Epping to revise and enforce its minimum standards for new roadway construction. Poorly built roads create unwanted and expensive problems for area residents and town officials alike. Requiring minimum standards be met as a condition of the issuance of occupancy permits is a potential way to ensure adequate roadway construction in new developments. Adequate drainage potential should also be demonstrated and required of new or reconstructed roads.

A further method for ensuring that proper roadways are built in a new development is to require that the developer post a bond at the time of subdivision approval to cover the full cost of building new roads. This bonding requirement will allow the Town to complete all work planned, even if the developer is unable to complete the project. When possible, the Town should conduct site inspections of new roadway construction to further ensure compliance with Town standards.

Transportation: Cultural

Scenic Roads

One of the best ways for a Town to preserve its rural character and protect its visual attributes is through the designation of scenic roads. Chapter 231:157 of the New Hampshire RSAs provides for such designations. The designation process is very straightforward. According to this statute, "Upon petition of ten persons who are either voters of the town or who own land which abuts a road mentioned in the petition (even though not voters of the town), the voters of such town at any annual or special meeting may designate such road as a scenic road." This section goes on to specify the proper notice procedure required by this statute. If approved by a majority of voters, the road named in the petition receives scenic designation. This designation can be rescinded in a similar manner.

The consequences of a scenic designation are defined in RSA Chapter 231.158. Once a roadway is designated as scenic, the cutting or removal of medium and large sized trees (defined in the statute as being any woody plant which has a circumference of 15 inches or more at a point four feet from the ground), or the tearing down or destruction of stone walls or portions thereof without the prior written consent of the Planning Board or any other official municipal body designated at the town meeting to implement the law (after a public hearing has been held), is not permitted for any repair, maintenance, reconstruction, or paving work performed on the roadway. It should be noted that these restrictions could, in some cases, create an extra hurdle for town officials wishing to initiate safety improvements along roadways with scenic designations; improvements must be publicly discussed and approved by the appropriate political body.

Exceptions to this rule include the road agent's right to "remove portions of trees, shrubs, vegetation, and other natural or man made obstructions from within three feet of the main traveled portion of such road which interfere with the safe travel upon such road." The road agent is also empowered to cut and remove trees with the written consent of the Selectmen and without hearing in emergency situations.

Scenic road designation does not, however, alter or affect the eligibility of the town to receive construction, maintenance, or reconstruction aid, pursuant to the provisions of RSA 235 for such road. Additionally, scenic road designation does not affect in any way the rights of any landowner with respect to work on his or her property. This clause negates the confiscatory potential that this law might otherwise have.

Insert SCENIC ROAD TABLE HERE

Transportation: Development

New Developments

New development is often phased over extended periods of time and the ultimate, as well as the immediate impacts of development on traffic volumes and transportation systems should always be considered. The magnitude of new development obviously determines the traffic impacts that the development will have. Depending on existing roadway traffic volume, distribution patterns, and the physical condition of local roadways, small scale as well as large scale development can often have significant impacts on the surrounding roadway network. By requiring transportation/traffic impact studies for new developments of a certain size or for developments located in areas where significant transportation problems are known to exist, a Planning Board can effectively evaluate the scope of impacts associated with any new development. Through this kind of scrutiny, recommendations for project phasing, and developer participation in necessary improvements can be developed and problems of safety, congestion, and expensive upgrading of poorly planned roads can be avoided.

As federal and state assistance for local road construction has decreased (in most cases), in recent years, and will likely continue to decrease in future years, the construction, improvement, and maintenance of local roads has increasingly become the responsibility of municipalities and developers. That a developer accepts the responsibility for performing all necessary "on site" infrastructure improvements is now considered standard practice. Courts nationwide have generally supported regulations supporting this standard and it is considered a legitimate exercise of police powers as granted by the U.S. Constitution.

However, the extent to which a developer can and should be required to participate in off site roadway system improvements has become a hotly debated subject in recent years. The two basic methods for securing developer participation in roadway and other infrastructure improvements necessitated by new development are through negotiated development agreements and through the assessment of formula based development impact fees. Each of these alternatives will be briefly discussed below.

The most straightforward way to have developers contribute to off site improvements necessitated by a new development is through a negotiated development agreement. The method of operation in securing this kind of participation is implicit in the terminology. That is, a Planning Board or other responsible public body with proper authority meets with a developer and negotiates for improvements needed or desired by the community. Successful negotiation can obviously benefit the municipali¬ty whose needs are met, but the developer usually receives benefits as well. With the recent holding in Londonderry v. Simonsen, there is some question as to the continued validity of this approach and additional activity is underway at the State House to address this issue. The Planning Board should incorporate this negotiated approach into the impact fee methodology for utilization consistent with the Simonsen decision.

In the case of Land/Vest Properties v The Town of Plainfield, it was held by the New Hampshire State Supreme Court that a municipality can require a developer to "bear that portion of the cost (of necessary off site improvements) that bears a rational nexus to the needs created by, and special benefits conferred upon, the subdivision." Rational nexus is the justifiable relationship between existing needs from improvements without a development and those that can be attributed solely to the development. Because the Town of Plainfield did not assess a fee based solely on the need created by the Land/Vest project the court held for the developer. In this case it was held that the portion of improvements (in this case roadway improvements) which the developer could be required to pay would have to be determined through analysis based upon findings of fact regarding current road use and maintenance needs and costs, and theoretical traffic increases attributed to the development. It was also held that to attempt to make a developer pay for all of the costs of the improvements, which also would benefit other area users, was inequitable.

The concepts discussed in the above paragraphs are important for the Town of Epping to keep in mind when evaluating the impacts of new development. Arbitrary local decisions regarding a developer's use of his or her land, and arbitrary, mandatory monetary requirements as a condition of approval are not generally judged favorably in courts of law. All decisions about the extent to which developers should "pay their own way" with regard to off site improvements necessitated by new development, be it with roads or any other form of infrastructure or service, must always be based on the existence of adopted plans and programs which address such issues as well as a complete and realistic evaluation of all potential impacts associated with the development.

Nonetheless, negotiated agreements and impact fees can be useful tools for mitigating potential roadway problems prior to their occurrence and for enhancing overall planning strategies. The Epping Planning Board should recognize its right to establish a system for requesting or requiring developer sponsored off site improvements. Application of these potentially powerful planning tools should be pursued aggressively and legally to insure a safe and convenient transit system that serves the citizens in light of tremendous growth without unduly burdening the taxpayers.

The layout of all proposed streets shall provide for the continuation of the principal streets in an adjoining subdivision, if applicable. When the adjoining property is undeveloped, proper consideration of future development potential shall be given with respect to future continuous alignments. Safe access to all abutting lots shall be provided. Due consideration to contours and other natural features shall be given when laying out streets.

This provision prevents technical compliance with regulations from eviscerating the intent of creating a rational transportation system. Loop roads are intended to provide multiple access points at sufficient distances necessary to disitrbute traffic flows through the existing network. This goal prevents clogged intersections that increase risk of hazardous conflicts, increases levels of service at various intersections and provides for multiple access points to larger developments, and provides for distributed impacts to roadways and intersections that prevents for unnecessary expenses associated with upgrading and maintaining overburdened roadways and intersections serving and proximate to the development.

Cul-de-Sac Length

Sources in the literature vary widely in their recommendations for maximum cul-de-sac length, but the reasons given for the various dimensions (such as minimizing inconvenience to deliv¬ery people) are not convincing. The general wisdom, however, sug¬gests some limits on cul-de-sac lengths. As the street gets longer, properties accessible from only one direction become more iso¬lated and difficult to reach. Moreover, the cul-de-sac ceases to be a street that provides access to a few properties and instead as¬sumes the function of a higher-order street (subcollector or collec¬tor). To reap the benefits of cul-de-sacs—such as reduced traffic in residential areas, the opportunity to downscale the size of the street, and the opportunity to create more intimate neighbor¬hoods—communities must limit the number of vehicles using the street. In general, traffic, volume and the number of housing units should be the factors that determine cul-de-sac length. A street with houses on 100-foot-wide lots can function well for a greater length than a street with 50-foot lots. For 100-foot-wide house lots, a street of 20 houses would result in a 1,000-foot-long street. For 50-foot-wide house lots, a cul-de-sac should be restricted to a length of approximately 500 feet. Assuming that a cul-de-sac should handle no more than 200 vehicle-trips per day and that each single-family home generates up to eight or 10 vehicle-trips per day, a cul-de-sac should accommodate a maximum of 20 to 25 houses. In some circumstances, including large lots or difficult terrain, lengths longer than 1,000 feet might be appropriate.

[From Residential Streets, Second Edition, American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Homebuilders and the Urban Land Institute, 1990, pages 54 & 55]

Standards for Dead-End Streets

By Carol J. Thomas, AICP

How long should a dead-end street be? Why do so many subdivision regulations have a maximum allowable length of 500 feet for dead-end streets? Should the dead-end Street be discouraged? Planners and developers frequently ask these questions when unusually shaped parcels are proposed in residential developments. To provide answers to these questions, this Memo examines accepted planning and engineering practice over a 40-year period; advantages and disadvantages of dead-end streets; and guidelines appropriate to current development patterns.

Dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs generally are regulated by the rules and regulations governing the subdivision of land that are adopted by the local planning board. Cul-de-sac regulations and standards, including those listed below, must be consistent with the purposes of subdivision controls stated in enabling legislation. These purposes generally include promoting general safety, convenience, and health and welfare; ensuring sanitary conditions; providing roadways that are safe and convenient for travel; securing safety in case of fire, flood, panic, and other emergency; and securing adequate provision of municipal services.

The dead-end street is a passage that is open only at one end. The open end is usually at a through street; there usually is a turnaround at the other end; and there usually are no other ways or streets intersecting at or extending from the turnaround. The existence of the turnaround at one end gives rise to the commonly used name, “cul-de-sac.” The purpose of the dead-end street or cul-de-sac is to provide access to a limited number of lots or buildings.

The cul-de-sac has advantages for developers and residents. The principal advantages are:

• Traffic volume is reduced because there is no through traffic.
• Traffic will likely travel more slowly because through traffic is eliminated.
• There is less traffic noise because the amount of traffic is reduced.
• Privacy, safety, and the value of lots along the street are increased because traffic volume, speed, and noise are reduced.
• One or more lots may be placed in the corner of a subdivision on parcels that otherwise might not have adequate frontage, resulting in more efficient use of space and fewer irregular parcels.
• Frontage is available on the end of the street as well as along its length.

There are disadvantages to the cul-de-sac, however, that frequently outweigh these advantages.

• Access to interior lots can be blocked at the open end of a dead-end street or along the cul-de-sac “spine” by an accident, stalled car or truck, fallen tree, snow pile, or construction.
• Traffic at the open end can be excessive if the street is long and access is provided to a large number of lots or buildings.
• Long cul-de-sacs (more than 500 feet) reduce the advantages since they may encourage increased traffic speeds and mid-block turning to reverse direction, turning that is frequently done in private driveways.
• Traffic has to double back, which is especially inefficient for delivery people, emergency equipment, snow plows, and service vehicles.
• Dead-end water mains encourage sedimentation and can be clogged or broken, resulting in reduced water pressure or no
• water service, which adds to fire hazards.
• Fire equipment, trucks, and public works equipment have difficulty maneuvering.
• Insufficient water pressure for fire fighting often results when hydrants are located only on the outside through Street or, if on the cul-de-sac, are inaccessible when the entrance is blocked. Furthermore, these conditions necessitate the use of long fire hoses, which may lower pressure and discharge rates.
• The first equipment arriving at a fire may block equipment arriving later or interfere with the maneuvering of equipment.
• The circulation plan is frequently confusing.

Because of these disadvantages, planners and engineers have agreed that cul-de-sacs should be used with caution; a second dead-end street should not branch off from a cul-de-sac (in effect, extending the dead-end street) the length of a dead-end Street should be limited (especially on slopes); a paved turnaround should be provided; consideration should be given to looping the water supply system (rather than having truncated water supply lines running from the main water line to the end of the dead-end Street); and emergency access should be provided by easements or similar means if the length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the recommended maximum.

The current standards regulating cul-de-sacs have evolved over many years. In 1939, the American Society of Civil Engineers Committee of the City Planning Division on I_and Subdivision, chaired by Harland Bartholomew, recommended that dead-end streets not exceed 300 feet in length; that they be at least 40-feet wide; and that they terminate in a circular right-of-way with a minimum diameter of 70 feet unless “the Planning Commission approves an equally safe and convenient form of paved space instead of the required turning circle.”

Almost 10 years later, the American Health Association, in Planning the Neighborhood, recommended increasing the minimum length to 600 feet if the Street was wide enough for two lanes of traffic, but otherwise limiting the length of the Street to a maximum of 350 feet. In 1961, George Nez, in ‘Standards for New Development,” recommended a maximum length of 500 feet, the current commonly accepted maximum length.

Minor variations exist. The Planners Handbook, published by the Massachusetts Federation of Planning Boards in 1972, recommends the 500-foot maximum unless, in the opinion of the local planning board or agency, a greater length is necessitated by topography. And, in 1975, the American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO) recommended that the length of a dead-end street be limited to six times the minimum lot width to a maximum of 500 feet. The ASPO recommendations went further to suggest that the street should not serve more than 14 lots.

Several authorities steadfastly maintain a standard that is the same or closer to the original 300-foot limit established in 1939. (Gallion and Eisner in The Urban Planner (1975) suggest that the maximum length of a dead-end street be 450 feet or less. The National Association of Home Builders recommends a 400-foot maximum, allowing for a range of 400 to 600 feet according to conditions, in Cost-Effective Site Planning, Single-Family Development. They also suggest that if topography dictates that the Street be longer than 400 feet, intermediate turnarounds may be advantageous. And, finally, staff members with the National Fire Protection Association, the International Fire Chiefs Association, and the U.S. Fire Administration, when interviewed, said that 300 feet was a good maximum length that should be exceeded only when a divided roadway was provided.

There are several sources, however, that recommend a more flexible standard. The Community Builders Handbook has different standards for dead-end streets with multifamily housing (a maximum of 400 to 500 feet) and for those with single-family housing (1,000 to 1,200 feet). Kenneth Halper of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASHTO) says that ASHTO standards give a maximum of 1,000 feet. And the Subdivision Design Standards of the Institute of Traffic Engineers gives the same 1,000-foot maximum standard.

The continuing concern with an appropriate length for dead-end streets results from a number of safety, financial, and aesthetic considerations. The roadway length must be limited to ensure the inherent advantages of cul-de-sacs (e.g., limited traffic, safety, and privacy) and to provide adequate fire protection. When a cul-de-sac is blocked, it is necessary to carry a fire hose from the collector street or the accessible hydrant closest to the blockage. If there is blockage, it is not possible to boost from pumper to pumper. Fire hoses generally lose pressure after 700 feet and can be used effectively beyond that distance only with assistance from pumpers. Seven-hundred feet of hose normally will reach the end of a 500-foot street and provide the additional length necessary to reach the rear of a building at the street end. A blockage may require men to carry ladders and equipment. This problem is severe where there are minimum manning levels, and personnel are likely to be limited in low-density areas - areas where cul-de-¬sacs are often prevalent. Law enforcement and ambulance access may also be blocked, greatly reducing public safety.

Service costs are higher per unit along a dead-end street because maintenance and delivery vehicles must double back. In addition to the time loss, there is a resulting increase in the cost of fuel and a minimal increase in air pollution.

The longer a dead-end street, the greater the number of persons inconvenienced if it is blocked or a water main is broken. Likewise, the greater length causes increased traffic passing a site reducing intended benefits.

Because the overriding consideration is safety, 500 feet is a reasonable maximum length for dead-end streets in urban areas. If topographic conditions are unusual, such as in hilly terrain or along canals in water-oriented communities, longer lengths may be considered. In these circumstances, extensions should be allowed only when:

• They are approved in writing by the fire chief, the superintendent of streets, and the water superintendent or similar public authority;
• The street is divided by a median;
• There is an easement from the turnaround to another street to provide a looped water system or where the system is otherwise looped; and
• There are hydrants along the cul-de-sac and at the turnaround.

Each of the above conditions should be met and in no case should the Street’s length exceed 1,000 feet.

Other standards have developed for dead-end streets that relate to the diameter of the cul-de-sac; grade; pavement width; right-of-way; median strips; and number of residential units to be served. References citing these standards are given in parentheses after the recommendation.

Diameter of cul-de-sac - Eighty-foot diameter, 50 feet of which is free of parked cars (Planning the Neighborhood); 90-foot diameter (Planning Design Criteria, Site Planning Standards, Control of Land Subdivision, Cost-Effective Site Planning; the National Fire Protection Association - Code 1, Section 1.1.1.10—requires access for fire apparatus when the Street is more than 300-feet long); 100-foot diameter (The Community Builders Handbook and “The Cul-de-sac Pros and Cons” in the ASPO Newsletter, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, Ill., September 1955).

Common practice is to require a 90-foot diameter, paved. The rationale for these standards is that older fire equipment and garbage trucks may have a turning radius of only 50 to 55 feet. New fire equipment generally has a smaller turning radius. Nevertheless, in a northern climate, where snow may be plowed to the side of the paved area, the larger diameter should still be required.

Grade - Maximum of five percent (Planning Design Criteria, Site Planning Standards, Control of Land Subdivision, “Standards for New Urban Development”).

Pavement Width - Twenty feet for cul-de-sacs up to 300-feet long (Residential Streets); 30 to 36 feet with a 75-foot turnaround (Planning Design Criteria, Site Planning Standards, Control of Land Subdivision “Standards for New Urban Development,” Cost-Effective Site Planning).

Right-of-Way - Fifty feet (Planning Design Criteria, Site Planning Standards, Control of Land Subdivision, Cost-Effective Site Planning); 40 to 50 feet (“Standards for New Urban Development,” The Community Builders Handbook).

Number of Residential Units to Be Served - Five or seven dwellings (Performance Streets, ITE Recommended Practices); 10 to 20 units (Cost-Effective Site Planning); for nonresidential areas or uses, number of vehicle trips should not exceed 100 per day (Geometric Design Guide for Local Roads and Streets).

In summary, the principal guidelines are that a dead-end street should not exceed 500 feet, or 1,000 feet where there are unusual conditions; the diameter of the cul-de-sac should be 90 feet and it should be paved; and the grade should not exceed five percent.

From PAS Memo, APA, November 1985

Road Surface Management

As well as being a short term concern, road surface management should also be viewed as a long term transportation planning priority. As mentioned in the previous sub section on road maintenance, Epping may establish a comprehensive, road surface management program. This kind of program is designed to evaluate the physical condition of local roadways and provide a basis for establishing comprehensive on going maintenance strategies for the effective life of each and every local roadway. This approach differs from traditional maintenance approaches that address only major maintenance requirements in an expanded time frame. Adopting this kind of program could significantly lower Epping's annual roadway maintenance costs over an extended horizon and will compliment efforts to assess and evaluate impacts associated with development. Capital Improvement Programming efforts are also aided through the establishment of a road surface management program.

A road surface management system would build upon the Town's current road inventory with annual condition updates. These updates would be based on drive-by surveys. Highway Performance Monitoring System software can assists in translating the inventories automatically into improvement programs with associated costs. This software was developed by and is available through the University of New Hampshire. In the end, the cost of routine maintenance would be a significant saving over reconstruction and patchwork fixes.

Unfortunately, it is often normal maintenance on good roads that is deferred in favor of dealing with roads in need of serious rehabilitation and reconstruction. Also unfortunate is the fact that roads in poor condition are not as cost effective to maintain as those in good condition. This scenario ultimately leads to a never-ending cycle of playing "catch up" with road maintenance needs. In other words, roads which are initially in good condition often lapse into marginal or poor condition as mainte¬nance is continually deferred in favor of working on crisis condition roads, the majority of which cannot be thoroughly addressed in any particular year with a typical annual budget.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Encourage logical, limited and coordinated access onto NH Route 125. Consider safety and transport effects in all development applications and approvals.

• Coordinate with abutting communities and encourage the NHDOT to conduct a corridor study of Route 125 from Rochester to Plaistow. A study of this corridor could investigate the delicate balance between safety, aesthetics preservation, and the need to preserve or increase capacity when possible.

• To the extent possible, continue, politically and fiscally, to support the Cooperative Alliance for Seacoast Transportation (COAST), University of New Hampshire's Wildcat Transit system, and paratransit providers in their efforts to provide residents of Epping with regularly scheduled and demand-responsive transit options. Special consideration should be given to the needs of the elderly and mobility-impaired and the regional retail facilities developing along the intersection of Route 125 and 101 and the Park-n-Ride Lot.

• In an effort to address downtown circulation and access, work to develop a comprehensive, multimodal solution to the transportation needs of the downtown. The Planning Board and Board of Selectmen should work to develop a comprehensive approach addressing the needs of the area in terms of promoting the redevelopment of business and public attractions.

• Systematize monitor locations with a high number of motor vehicle accidents or areas that prove unsafe to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, and assess needed improvements as required. If appropriate, these needed improvements could then be included as safety improvements in the Town's Capital Improvements Program.

• Promote the development of regional and local bicycle and pedestrian routes. These route and related improvements would enhance the vitality of Epping's residential and commercial areas and assist in reducing vehicle congestion in the Town. The town should continue to take advantage of funding opportunities such as the federal CMAQ and Transportation Enhancements programs as well as state funding sources such as State Aid Highway funds to achieve this end.

• Continue to include all roadway construction and maintenance projects, both immediate and anticipated, and with a cost estimate, in subsequent Capital Improvements Programs developed by the Town. Long-term costs should be considered in all projects.

• Periodically review and revise, if necessary, standards for the issuance of driveway permits on local roads to ensure that they are at least equivalent to those contained in New Hampshire RSA 236: 13 I. Consider delegating the administrative function to the Highway Agent and Board of Selectmen.

• Continue to require setback standards, easements and rights of way based on design standards that take into account density, traffic generation, safety, future infrastructure needs and aesthetics.

• Continue to require that all roads sited in new developments be laid out consistent with the existing roadway and sidewalk network as a condition of subdivision approval or insure that adequate funds are contributed to enhance pedestrian access.

• Develop a comprehensive Pedestrian Plan. Issues such as increased rail activity with the coming of passenger rail service will require well-planned safety precautions. A study of sidewalk use at track crossings would help to determine the best course of action. Pedestrian corridors should be preserved to the extent possible without sacrificing the safety of the people. The Town must work with Guilford Transportation, owner of the rail right of way, to implement safety measures, and to define and design options for safe points for pedestrian crossing.

• In addition to including major roadway improvements in Town Reports and subsequent Capital Improvements Programs as suggested in recommendation ten. Continue efforts to establish a comprehensive road surface management program applicable to roadways of all conditions as outlined in this section.

Investigate the process for conducting a study to support an impact fee ordinance to help defray future capital expenditures associated with new development, keeping costs at a minimum for the taxpayers.