LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Document Sample
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Powered By Docstoc
					        2007-2026
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION
          PLAN
                                    -Including-
             FY 2007-2010 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)




                                                         Prepared By:


                             Rockingham Planning Commission
                                                     156 Water Street
                                                    Exeter, N.H. 03833
                                                      (603) 778-0885
                                                 E-mail: email@rpc-nh.org
                                                 Website: www.rpc-nh.org




This Plan has been prepared by the Rockingham Planning Commission in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation -
Federal Highway Administration; the New Hampshire Department of Transportation; and the Federal Transit Administration. The
contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein.
The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, the New Hampshire
Department of Transportation, or the Federal Transit Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or
regulation.
                                                                 i
ii
                                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS


Transportation Plan Endorsements ............................................................................................................. iv
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................... v

Chapter                                                                                                                                                             Page

1.          Introduction
            A. Plan and TIP Development .......................................................................................................................1-2
            B. Environmental Justice ..............................................................................................................................1-3
            C. Plan Format ..............................................................................................................................................1-4

2.          Transportation Goals and Objectives
            A. Regional Transportation Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................2-1
            B. Organizational Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................2-4

3.          Land Use, Demographics, and Commuting Patterns
            A. Existing Development...............................................................................................................................3-1
            B. Population Change ...................................................................................................................................3-4
            C. Commuting Travel Patterns ......................................................................................................................3-6
            D. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................3-7

4.          Transportation & Land Use
            A. Current Linkage of Land Use & Transportation Planning in NH ..............................................................4-2
            B. Progress Since Adoption of 1999-2020 Long Range Plan ......................................................................4-5
            C. MPO Objectives & Policies Related to Land Use & Transportation .......................................................4-6
            D. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................................4-8

5.          Highways
            A. Background .............................................................................................................................................5-1
            B. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................5-2
            C. Highway Issues ........................................................................................................................................5-6
            D. Progress Since the Last Plan ..................................................................................................................5-10
            E. MPO Objectives & Policies Related to Highways ...................................................................................5-11
            F. Programmed & Planned Highway Projects ............................................................................................5-14
            G. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................5-16

6.          Bicycle Facilities & Programs
            A. Background .............................................................................................................................................6-1
            B. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................6-2
            C. Progress Since Adoption of 1999-2020 Long Range Plan ........................................................................6-4
            D. Bicycle Issues ...........................................................................................................................................6-5
            E. MPO Objectives & Policies Related to Bicycles ........................................................................................6-8
            F. Programmed & Planned Bicycle Projects ...............................................................................................6-10
            G. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................6-11

7.          Pedestrian Facilities & Programs
            A. Background .............................................................................................................................................7-1
            B. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................7-2
            C. Progress Since Adoption of 1999-2020 Long Range Plan ........................................................................7-2
            D. Pedestrian Issues .....................................................................................................................................7-3
            E. MPO Objectives & Policies Related to Pedestrians..................................................................................7-6
            F. Programmed & Planned Pedestrian Projects ..........................................................................................7-7
            G. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................7-8


                                                                                    iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued

8.         Public Transportation
           A. Background .............................................................................................................................................8-1
           B. Existing Public Transportation Services ...................................................................................................8-2
           C. Progress Since Adoption of 1999-2020 Long Range Plan ........................................................................8-5
           D. Public Transportation Issues ...................................................................................................................8-6
           E. MPO Objectives & Policies Related to Public Transportation ................................................................8-10
           F. Programmed & Planned Public Transportation Projects .......................................................................8-11
           G. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................8-12

9.         Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
           A. Background .............................................................................................................................................9-1
           B. Existing TDM Programs............................................................................................................................9-2
           C. Progress Since Adoption of 1999-2020 Long Range Plan ........................................................................9-3
           D. TDM Issues ..............................................................................................................................................9-4
           E. MPO Objectives & Policies Related to TDM.............................................................................................9-6
           F. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................................9-6

10.        Freight Transportation
           A. Background ...........................................................................................................................................10-1
           B. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................10-5
           C. Goods Movement Issues .......................................................................................................................10-9
           D. Freight Transportation Policies ..........................................................................................................10-12
           E. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................10-14

11.        Short Range Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) .........................................................................11-1
           This chapter contains its own Table of Contents

12.        Long-Range Transportation Projects (2006-2022)......................................................................................12-1




                                          TECHNICAL APPENDICES ARE AVAILABLE AS A
                                             SEPARATE DOCUMENT UPON REQUEST



     APPENDIXES:

      A.   FINANCIAL PLAN
      B.   AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY
      C.   COMPLIANCE OF PLAN WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATION
      D.   PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT RESULTS (PUBLIC MEETINGS & REGIONAL SURVEY)
      E.   ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION
      F.   BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITY GUIDELINES
      G.   INTERCITY RAIL AND BUS POLICY STATEMENT




                                                                                  iv
                                   ENDORSEMENTS


                    Committee/Agency                          Date of Endorsement


Rockingham Planning Commission Technical Advisory Committee

Rockingham Planning Commission (MPO)


Public Hearing




Ted Tocci, Chair                                                        Date
Rockingham Planning Commission/MPO Policy Committee




                                          v
                                            LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADA ............................... Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
ADT/AADT ..................... Average Daily Traffic / Average Annual Daily Traffic
CAAA ............................. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
CFR ................................ Code of Federal Regulations
CMAQ............................ Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program
CMS ............................... Congestion Management System
COAST ........................... Cooperative Alliance for Seacoast Transportation
CTPP .............................. Census Transportation Planning Package
DBE/WBE ...................... Disadvantaged Business Enterprises/Women's Business Enterprises
FHWA ............................ Federal Highway Administration
FTA ................................ Federal Transit Administration
FY .................................. Fiscal Year
GACIT ............................ Governor's Advisory Commission on Intermodal Transportation
GIS ................................. Geographic Information System
GPS................................ Global Positioning System
HOV............................... High Occupancy Vehicle
HPMS ............................ Highway Performance Monitoring System
HPR ............................... Highway Planning and Research Funds
ISTEA ............................. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITS ................................. Intelligent Transportation Systems
MBTA ............................ Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority
MPO .............................. Metropolitan Planning Organization
MSA .............................. Metropolitan Statistical Area
NHDES ........................... New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
NHDHHS ........................ New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services
NHDOT .......................... New Hampshire Department of Transportation
PL .................................. MPO Planning Funds administered by FHWA
RPC ................................ Rockingham Planning Commission
RTAP .............................. Rural Technical Assistance Program
RTC ................................ Greater Derry Greater Salem Regional Transportation Council
SIP ................................. State Implementation Plan (for Air Quality Conformity)
SNHPC ........................... Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (Manchester area)
SOV ............................... Single Occupant Vehicle
SPW............................... Salem-Plaistow-Windham MPO (staffed by RPC)
TAC ................................ Technical Advisory Committee
TAZ ................................ Traffic Analysis Zone
TDM .............................. Transportation Demand Management
                                                                           st
TEA-21........................... Transportation Equity Act for the 21 Century
TIP ................................. Transportation Improvement Program
TMA .............................. Transportation Management Association
UZA ............................... Urbanized Area
VMT .............................. Vehicle Miles Traveled

                                                             vi
 CHAPTER 1                            INTRODUCTION

Purpose of this Plan Update
This version of the Long Range Transportation Plan for the Rockingham Planning Commission region is a
result of the redesignation of MPO boundaries in Southeastern New Hampshire. This document contains the
projects and policies of the former Seacoast MPO and the former Salem-Plaistow-Windham MPO which were
reorganized to be new transportation planning entities with boundaries consistent with those of their
respective Regional Planning Commissions. In the case of the Rockingham Planning Commission, this creates
a single MPO entity where prior there were two streamlining the transportation planning process in the
region. As a result of that, the Long Range Transportation plan is undergoing a 2 stage update process with
the current effort concluding the first stage. The intent of this plan update was to accomplish two things:

    1.  Merge the Seacoast (Rockingham Planning Commission portion) and SPW Plans into a single plan
       for the Rockingham Planning Commission region.
    2. Incorporate provisions required by Federal transportation planning legislation that are new since the
       last Plan updates. SAFETEA-LU requires the following to be included in the plan in addition to pre-
       existing requirements:

         a.   Public Participation Program: A public participation program must be in place that allows for
              inclusion of input from people representing all modes and other interested parties. A program
              was approved by both the Seacoast and SPW MPOs in the spring of 2007. These two
              documents were essentially the same but a revised version will be produced for the
              Rockingham Planning Commission during the Fall of 2007.
         b.   Environmental Mitigation: A “discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation
              activities” which is to be developed in consultation with federal, state and tribal wildlife, land
              management, and regulatory agencies. This does not need to be project specific, but it must
              be included in the Plan.
         c.   Consultation & Consistency: Consultation “as appropriate” with “State and local agencies
              responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection,
              conservation and historic preservation”. This plan includes some consultation with state and
              local agencies and plans however a more expansive effort will be undertaken as part of the
              stage two of this plan update.
         d.   Transportation System Security: This used to be part of the “Safety and Security” planning
              factor, but is now a stand-alone factor that must be in place prior to MPO and State
              adoption/approval of transportation plans addressing SAFETEA-LU provisions. This has been
              incorporated into the document where relevant to the region.
         e.   Operations and Management Strategies: Metropolitan plans shall include operational and
              management strategies to improve the performance of existing transportation facilities to
              relieve congestion, and to maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods. This also has
              been incorporated into the current document where relevant.
         f.   Visualization Techniques: Appropriate Visualization techniques must be utilized to bring the
              document to the public for comment. The MPO plans have relied on maps, illustrations, tables,
              and other figures to help visualize projects and concepts. As the capacity of the agency to


                                2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                    Rockingham Planning Commission
1-2                                                                                           Introduction

             diversify and improve the types of visualization that can be done, it will be incorporated into
             the Plan.
Stage 2 of the plan update work will begin in the Fall/Winter of 2007-2008 with the ultimate goal being to
further revise this document and incorporate a number concepts that have not previously been extensively
included into the plan. In addition, continue to address SAFETEA-LU requirements as well as make
improvements to the plan by incorporating the following types of work:

        Incorporate Performance Measures: Performance measures are specific criteria that are utilized to
        track the status of particular aspects of the transportation system (number of accidents, volume-
        capacity ratio, travel delays, etc…) and the MPO should be using them to assess progress towards
        goals.
        Ensure Consistency with State Efforts: The Long Range Plan should be consistent with changes
        occurring now regarding Statewide Transportation Planning.
        Forecasting: The Long Range Plan should forecast future land use levels, population and
        employment.
        Scenario Planning: Scenario Planning applies different regional growth patterns to land use and
        determines the impacts on the transportation system from these changes.
        Improvement Projects: Data on current project is sometimes incomplete and to fully prioritize
        projects more information is necessary
        Financial Plan: The Financial component of the long range plan ensures that (to the best of our
        abilities), the Plan is feasible to construct given existing and expected resources. There are new
        requirements coming into effect for this component at the end of the year that will need to be
        incorporated into the document.

The Long Range Plan
This Transportation Plan serves as the short and long-range transportation planning document for the
Rockingham Planning Commission which is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the
area. The MPO region, herein referred to as the study area, includes 27 Communities in Southeastern New
Hampshire.

Map I-1 illustrates the location of the study area relative to the tri-state region, while Map I-2 provides a
detailed map of the area.

This Plan contains the region's adopted policies, goals and
objectives and project recommendations regarding the
development of the transportation system through the year This plan contains policies for long-
2026. It is in compliance with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, range transportation planning in
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users the region as well as the 2007-
(SAFETEA-LU)and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 2010 Transportation Improvement
(CAAA). The former is the successor to the Intermodal Surface
                                                                 Program (TIP), the region’s short-
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, and the Transportation
                                                                 range project implementation plan.
Equity Act for the 21st Century TEA 21) which set the tone for
increased intermodal metropolitan transportation planning in
the United States. SAFETEA maintains the spirit of it’s
predecessors, both in its emphasis on the importance of regional metropolitan transportation planning and

                               2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                   Rockingham Planning Commission
Introduction                                                                                            1-3

the need to consider all transportation modes. Appendix C describes the history of transportation planning in
the region, the current federal transportation legislation which governs transportation planning, and how
this plan fulfills federal requirements.

This document incorporates the project table from the Fiscal Year 2007-2010 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The TIP, which contains three years worth of programmed transportation projects, is an
administrative mechanism for implementing the Transportation Plan. It is the link between the Plan and the
undertaking of project-specific analyses, purchase of capital equipment, and development of infrastructure.

This Plan also contains a financial plan (see Appendix A) for implementing the recommended projects. The
purpose of the financial plan is to demonstrate that proposed transportation improvements are consistent
with available and projected sources of revenue.

The RPC region forms part of an area designated as being in serious non-attainment
for ground level ozone by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (Map B-1).

This Plan must incorporate a quantitative air quality analysis that shows that the          Communities
project recommendations will be in conformity with New Hampshire’s State                   covered by this
Implementation Plan. This analysis is included as Appendix B. The project specific             Plan:
elements of this Plan Update, including both the FY 2007-2010 TIP and the Long
                                                                                               Atkinson
Range Project List are consistent with Air Quality Conformity analysis carried out in
                                                                                             Brentwood
the Fall of 2006 in preparation for the adoption of the TIP. The CAAA requires that            Danville
the Transportation Plan:                                                                    East Kingston
    1. must not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality problems;            Epping
         and                                                                                    Exeter
                                                                                               Fremont
    2. must show that total mobile source emissions meet the mobile source
                                                                                              Greenland
       emissions budget, or that the plan contributes to reductions in annual                Hampstead
       emissions.                                                                             Hampton
The Plan and TIP have been found to conform with the State Implementation Plan.             Hampton Falls
                                                                                             Kensington
                                                                                               Kingston
                                                                                             New Castle
A. Plan and TIP Development                                                                   Newfields
                                                                                             Newington
In order to fully implement SAFETEA and the CAAA, the MPO utilizes a set of project            Newton
selection procedures. These procedures were originally developed in 1994 by the            North Hampton
MPO Technical Advisory Committee with input from the general public and elected                Plaistow
officials and revised during each subsequent round to improve the TIP develop                Portsmouth
process. They require that each municipality and relevant agency be given the                     Rye
opportunity to propose projects through the Plan and TIP project selection process.             Salem
                                                                                              Sandown
Projects that are not selected for the 2007-2010 TIP can be considered for inclusion
                                                                                              Seabrook
as long range projects and if so, would be listed in Chapter 12. Staff evaluated
                                                                                           South Hampton
projects from these sources as well as others according to regional significance, need        Stratham
or urgency, and consistency with the goals of the plan.                                       Windham

As required by the MPO Prospectus, in accordance with SAFETEA, the region has
adopted and incorporated a process for soliciting public involvement during the
development of this Plan. This procedure forms the basis for public involvement in all MPO transportation


                                2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                    Rockingham Planning Commission
1-4                                                                                                Introduction

planning efforts, and will be further expanded and improved, as appropriate, to obtain input from a broader
spectrum of individuals, groups, and agencies.

Given the intent that this update was an interim update before a more comprehensive revision in 2008, the
public involvement for this update was not extensive and relies on past efforts. In past years

The MPO conducted a regional household survey and visioning sessions in 2002 to gather input on
transportation needs and priorities from a broader segment of the region’s residents than normally attends
public meetings. The results of the meetings and survey guided staff in updating the plan in general, and
specifically played an important role in defining the long range projects listed in Chapter 12. Additional detail
on the public involvement component of the plan update, including results from the survey and the public
meetings, is included in Appendix D. During 2002 the Rockingham Planning Commission also conducted a
coordinated a regional transit study analyzing the need for public transportation in the region, the current
level of demand response transit service available, and options for structuring and funding service
improvement. The Project Advisory Committee for the study included representatives of more than 30
health and human service agencies working with protected populations in the region. With substantial input
from this committee, the study set out an action plan for improving transit service in the region through a
combination of coordination and expansion of existing demand response transportation services; and
development of standard fixed route public transportation service. In addition, it provided information for
the MPO to utilize in the development of the Plan.

Disproportionate distribution of negative impacts from the transportation system has not been a significant
issue in the MPO region. The more pressing transportation equity issue in the MPO region and the state as a
whole is a lack of adequate funding to support transit; and consequent lack of adequate access to
employment, health care, and other community services. This will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 8
- Public Transportation.

The region forms part of an area which is designated as non-attainment for ground level ozone by the
federal Environmental Protection Agency. This Plan must incorporate a quantitative air quality analysis that
shows that the project recommendations will be in conformity with New Hampshire’s State Implementation
Plan (see Appendix B). As required by the CAAA, the plan
must show that emissions from all proposed transportation
projects do not exceed the mobile source emission budgets
                                                             Plan Sections:
for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) which were proposed by New Hampshire's State (1) Goals and Objectives
Implementation Plan (SIP) and deemed adequate for
conformity purposes by the EPA. The Plan and TIP were (2) Demographics & Land Use
found conform to the State Implementation Plan when last
updated in the fall of 2006 and given that no projects or (3) Modal Components
project timelines have changed within this update, the MPO (4) Project Recommendations
is relying on the previous analysis for this update as well.


B. Environmental Justice

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or ethnic origin in the
provision of transportation benefits and in the imposition of adverse impacts. Building on Title VI, Executive
Order 12898, dated February 11, 1994, requires each federal agency to achieve environmental justice by

                                 2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                     Rockingham Planning Commission
Introduction                                                                                               1-5

identifying and addressing any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects,
including interrelated social and economic effects, of its programs, policies, and activities on minority or low
income populations. On April 15, 1997, USDOT issued its Final Order to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. Among other provisions, the Order requires
programming and planning activities to:

                 Include explicit consideration of the effects of transportation decisions on minority and low-
                 income populations.
                 Provide meaningful opportunities for public involvement by members of minority and low-
                 income populations.
                 Gather, where relevant, appropriate and practical, demographic information (race, color,
                 national origin, and income level) on the populations served or affected by transportation
                 decisions.
                 Minimize or mitigate any adverse impact on minority or low-income populations.

The Executive Order and Civil Rights Act require this Long Range Transportation Plan to address the needs
and concerns of protected communities, both in terms of benefits received and impacts imposed.
Procedurally, the MPO is working to address these needs through expanding its public outreach efforts.
Substantively, the MPO is working to expand access to transportation for low-income and minority
populations.


C. Plan Format

This Plan contains four major sections:

The first section (Chapter 2) includes a description of the goals and objectives of the MPO regarding the
development and maintenance of the regional transportation system over the next two decades.

The second section includes Chapter 3 – Land Use & Demographics, and Chapter 4 – The Land Use &
Transportation Connection. Chapter 3 provides a description of land use patterns, demographic data and
commuting travel patterns, which provide the background to the transportation system, and a basis for
determining transportation needs. Chapter 4 examines the implications of the current disconnect between
transportation and land use planning, and identifies recent and recommended steps in the state and region
to better integrate the two.

The third section of the Plan (Chapters 4 through 10) provides background on existing transportation
components of the transportation system, including Highways, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, Public
Transportation, Transportation Demand Management, and Freight Transportation facilities and programs.
Each chapter discusses regional issues pertaining to each component, identifies progress toward objectives
set out in the previous versions of the Long Range Transportation Plan; recommends policies for each
component consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in Chapter 2; and identifies relevant projects
from the TIP, State Ten Year Plan, and MPO Long Range Project List.

The fourth element of the Plan (Chapters 11 and 12) contains specific recommendations for short and long-
term transportation projects. As discussed earlier, this Plan update incorporates the MPO’s FY 2007-2010

                                2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                    Rockingham Planning Commission
1-6                                                                                           Introduction

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as the short-range list of projects called for in the Plan.
Additionally, there is a technical appendix to the plan, which provides supplementary material to the various
chapters discussed above and contains the Air Quality Conformity Assessment, required by CAAA and the
financial plan, required by SAFETEA-LU.




                               2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                   Rockingham Planning Commission
                                                      I
                                                      n                                                                                          g
                                                                                                                                                 I
                 Rockingham Planning Commission
`
^
Concord
                          Tri State Area
                                                                           c
                                                                           A
                                                                            `
                                                                            ^          Dover

                                                                                                    MAINE
                                                  I
                                                  m                                ¨
                                                                                   ?
                                                                               m
                                                                               I
                                                          A
                                                          c                Ø
                                                                           A
                                                                                                 Portsmouth



                                                      A
                                                      ó
                                                                                                      `
                                                                                                      ^
                                                                               ½
                                                                               ?         c
                                                                                         " g
                                                                                         ! I
                                                                                         $
                                  Í
                                  A           A
                                              Í                        ?
                                                                       É
    Manchester                                                ?
                                                              ´                         c
                                                                                        A
                                                              Exeter                                     t
                                                                                                         ?        Atlantic
         `
         ^                                Ö
                                          A
                                                                   `
                                                                   ^                   c Þ
                                                                                       A A
                                                          A
                                                          Þ                                                         Ocean
                                                                       A
                                                                       b       Ë
                                                                               ?
                                                                                         A ?
                                                                                         Í t
                                                                  Ö
                                                                  A                $
                                                                                   !
                                                                                   "
                                                                                   c
                                      Þ
                                      A           ó
                                                  A       Ø
                                                          A            b
                                                                       A
                                                                                   g
                                                                                   I                           Urban Areas
                                                                                                               (2000 Census)
                                                                                                               Rockingham Planning
                                      í
                                      A                                                                        Commission
                       b
                       " ¸
                       ! ?
                       $                              A
                                                      Ø                                                        Major Roads
                                                                                                               Railroad
                          Salem
                                  `
                                  ^   Ì
                                      ?               MASSACHUSETTS

                           ?
                           ¾              %
                                          (
                                          &
                                          f
                                                                                                                  0 1 2
                                                                                                                           -           4
                                                                                                                                        Miles




                                                                  "
                                                                  !
                                                                  $
                                                                  c
                                                                                               O:\d-multiyear\d-Transportation_Plan\d-2007RPC\d-maps
     New Hampshire Towns in the
                     FRANKLIN                                                                                                                                   MILTON
                                NORTHFIELD                                                                                ALTON NEW DURHAM
                                                                                    GILMANTON
    SALISBURY


    8 hr Ozone Nonattainment Area          CANTERBURY                                                     BARNSTEAD
                                                                                                                                             FARMINGTON




                     BOSCAWEN                                         LOUDON


           WEBSTER                                                                                                                                                  ROCHESTER
                                                                                                 PITTSFIELD
                                                                                                                                 STRAFFORD
WARNER

                                                                             CHICHESTER
                                                                                                                                                                                      SOMERSWORTH


                                             CONCORD

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     MAINE
                                                                                                                                                                                             ROLLINSFORD
                                                                                          EPSOM                      NORTHWOOD                      BARRINGTON

              HOPKINTON
                                                                                                                                                                                            DOVER
                                                                PEMBROKE
                                                                                                                                                                           MADBURY


HENNIKER

                                                                                ALLENSTOWN                DEERFIELD
                                                       BOW
                                                                                                                                          NOTTINGHAM
                                                                                                                                                                    LEE            DURHAM

                                DUNBARTON                                                                                                                                                           NEWINGTON

           WEARE
                                                                  HOOKSETT                                                                                                NEWMARKET                                       NEW CASTLE
                                                                                                 CANDIA                                                                                                      PORTSMOUTH
                                                                                                                                                  EPPING                                         GREENLAND
DEERING
                                                                                                                                                                      NEWFIELDS
                                                                                                                       RAYMOND

                                          GOFFSTOWN                                                                                                                                   STRATHAM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   RYE


                                                                                          AUBURN                                      FREMONT          BRENTWOOD          EXETER
FRANCESTOWN
                                                                  MANCHESTER                                                                                                                  NORTH HAMPTON
                NEW BOSTON

                                                                                                           CHESTER                                                                                                               RPC Towns
                                                   BEDFORD                                                                                                                                           HAMPTON
                                                                                                                          SANDOWN
                                                                                                                                       DANVILLE            EAST KINGSTON
                                                                                                                                                                           KENSINGTON HAMPTON FALLS                 Non Attainment Areas
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 In Attainment
                                                                                                                                                   KINGSTON

                MONT VERNON


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Not In Attainment
LYNDEBOROUGH                                                                                              DERRY                                                      SOUTH HAMPTON            SEABROOK
                                                                                                                              HAMPSTEAD
                                                                               LONDONDERRY
                                AMHERST                                                                                                                    NEWTON




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 -
                                                 MERRIMACK

                                                                LITCHFIELD                                                       ATKINSON
  WILTON                                                                                                                                     PLAISTOW

                     MILFORD
                                                                                                   WINDHAM

                                                                                                                      SALEM




                                       HOLLIS
                                                                               HUDSON
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Miles
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          0 1 2         4       6      8
                   BROOKLINE                                 NASHUA
     MASON
                                                                                                PELHAM


                                                                                                                                             MASSACHUSETTS


                                                                                                                                                                                                                    O:\d-multiyear\d-Transportation_Plan\d-2007RPC\d-maps
Introduction                                                                     1-9

                                 FIGURE 1-1
          DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN & TRANSPORTATION
                         IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)

         Begin Plan                                              Begin TIP
       Update Process                                          Update Process
                                      Public
                                   Involvement

       Development of                                          Development of
         Draft Plan                                              Draft TIP
                                  Begin 30-Day
                                 Public Comment

           TAC                                                        TAC
        Endorsement                                                Endorsement

                                      Public
                                     Hearing

        MPO Adopts                                                 MPO Adopts
          Plan                                                        TIP
                                 NHDOT develops
                             Statewide Plan and STIP
                              from MPO/RPA drafts
                              and submits to GACIT


                            STIP undergoes GACIT and              Regional
                                 Governor review,              Public Hearings
                            amendment and enactment


                             Governor submits Stip for
                               Legislature review,
                            amendment and enactment


                             NHDOT divides STIP by
                             region & submits to each
                                    MPO/RPA


                              MPO performs Air Quality
                              Analysis for Plan



                                   MPO adopts
                                  Final Plan and
                                        TIP




                        2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                            Rockingham Planning Commission
Chapter 2                   GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

This chapter lists the goals and strategies of the Rockingham Planning Commission used to guide the
development and maintenance of the transportation network, including the selection of future
improvement projects (Regional Transportation Planning Goals) and to provide guidance to the
Planning Commission towards achieving the regional goals through the transportation planning
process (Agency Goals). These goals have evolved over the years based upon Federal requirements
as well as input from the Technical Advisory and Policy Committees and the interested public.

The overarching goal of the Transportation Plan is to develop a safe, cost-effective transportation
system that ensures adequate mobility to all persons, enhances the quality of life in the region,
supports economic development, and makes a meaningful contribution towards achieving the air
quality goals of the region. The individual goals that are listed recognize the need for a balance
between safety, security, mobility and accessibility, cost, and environmental impact.


CHAPTER 2
Regional Transportation Goals and Objectives

Goal 1.   Develop a transportation system that affords mobility for all and provides
          appropriate access to employment, housing, services and recreation areas.

   Objective 1.1:      Ensure that existing employment, commercial and service centers, and
                       housing concentrations are adequately connected by the region's roadway
                       and public transportation system.
   Objective 1.2:      Develop and maintain transportation facilities and services that meet the
                       special needs of the elderly, low-income families, the physically and
                       emotionally challenged, and those without access to private automobiles.
   Objective 1.3:      Ensure that all components of the region’s transportation system are easy
                       to understand and user friendly.
   Objective 1.4:      Improve the efficiency of demand response transit service in the region
                       through coordination.


Goal 2.   Manage, maintain and enhance the existing transportation system in order to
          maximize efficiency and reduce the need for new roadway/bridge construction

   Objective 2.1:      Identify operational and management strategies to improve the
                       performance of the existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular
                       congestion and maximize the safety and mobility of people and goods


                            2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                Rockingham Planning Commission
Goals & Objectives                                                                           2-2


   Objective 2.2:    Encourage effective and proper maintenance of state and local
                     transportation facilities.
   Objective 2.3:    Encourage the coordination and integration of existing modes of
                     transportation.
   Objective 2.4:    Encourage coordinated and comprehensive planning along State Highway
                     corridors.
   Objective 2.5:    Where appropriate, encourage the employment of techniques such as
                     Access Management, Traffic Calming, and others in the development of
                     Highway Projects.
   Objective 2.6:    Identify existing and projected transportation system deficiencies, and
                     develop improvement alternatives.
   Objective 2.7:    Promote projects that improve existing facilities over those that develop
                     new roadways.
   Objective 2.8:    Utilize new technologies to reduce congestion, improve traffic flow, and
                     enhance public transportation.
   Objective 2.9:    Encourage projects that seek to minimize the impacts of through traffic on
                     neighborhoods, commercial areas, and local roads by maximizing the use of
                     primary transportation corridors.


Goal 3.   Manage, maintain, and enhance the transportation system as necessary to
          improve the safety of the transportation system.

   Objective 3.1:    Work with local communities and NHDOT to identify existing and projected
                     transportation safety deficiencies and to develop improvement options.
   Objective 3.2:    Encourage effective and proper maintenance of state and local
                     transportation facilities.
   Objective 3.3:    Encourage projects, designs and initiatives that promote a shared, safe
                     transportation system for bicyclists, motorists, transit users and
                     pedestrians.
   Objective 3.4:    Coordinate with various safety and security agencies, such as FEMA, to
                     ensure development of safe, secure transport routes throughout the region
                     and their connection with routes beyond the region.
   Objective 3.5:    Provide education to local agencies, organizations, schools, and the general
                     public on transportation safety issues.
   Objective 3.6:    Promote awareness and enforcement of traffic laws related to bicycles and
                     pedestrians.




                         2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                             Rockingham Planning Commission
Goals & Objectives                                                                              2-3


Goal 4.   Support the initiatives from local, state and federal agencies that will improve the
          security of the personal, public and freight transportation systems.

   Objective 4.1:     Incorporate consideration for evacuation routes into the project
                      prioritization process.
   Objective 4.2:     Coordinate with freight operators and agency on projects that can enhance
                      the security of the freight transportation system in the region.
   Objective 4.3:     Coordinate with transit operators and agencies on projects that can
                      enhance the security of the regional transit network.
   Objective 4.4:     Coordinate with the various local, state and federal safety and security
                      agencies, to ensure development of safe, secure transport routes
                      throughout the region and their connection with routes beyond the region.


Goal 5.   Develop, maintain, and encourage use of viable alternatives to the single-
          occupant vehicle.

   Objective 5.1:     Actively promote awareness and use of all transportation alternatives
                      through marketing and education.
   Objective 5.2:     Promote the development of intermodal transportation connections,
                      facilities, and services.
   Objective 5.3:     Implement and maintain a network of safe and direct routes and supporting
                      facilities supporting bicycle transportation between and within
                      communities.
   Objective 5.4:     Work with communities and the NHDOT to identify and correct deficiencies
                      in bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
   Objective 5.5:     Encourage the expansion of public transportation service in the region.
   Objective 5.6:     Encourage expansion of ridesharing programs and park & ride facilities.
   Objective 5.7:     Promote awareness and enforcement of traffic laws related to bicycles and
                      pedestrians.


Goal 6.   Promote transportation policies and improvements that support conservation of
          cultural and natural resources, and provide mitigation for unavoidable impacts.

   Objective 6.1:     Ensure that development of the transportation system supports the
                      achievement of federal air quality standards consistent with the
                      requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the State
                      Implementation Plan.



                          2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                              Rockingham Planning Commission
Goals & Objectives                                                                             2-4


   Objective 6.2:    Advocate the preservation and enhancement of cultural, historic and
                     recreational resources in developing the transportation system with
                     appropriate mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
   Objective 6.3:    Promote energy conservation in the movement of people and goods.
   Objective 6.4:    Support the development and implementation of alternative fuels (and
                     alternative methods of using those fuels) that have a positive environmental
                     impact.
   Objective 6.5:    Use the transportation planning process to objectively evaluate the full
                     range of reasonable transportation alternatives, and make all reasonable
                     efforts to avoid negative impacts on open space, park lands, or historic
                     places when developing or upgrading any part of the transportation system.
   Objective 6.6:    Encourage the protection of wetlands, and other environmental resources
                     in the design of new transportation facilities, with appropriate mitigation to
                     be required for unavoidable impacts.
   Objective 6.7:    Encourage the use of existing right of ways for the development or
                     expansion of the transportation system, and encourage multiple uses of
                     rights of way when possible.
   Objective 6.8:    Advocate that aesthetic and scenic values are considered in road design and
                     adjacent land development to maintain a sense of place and scale.


Goal 7.   Encourage better integration of land use and transportation planning.

   Objective 7.1:    Use transportation project programming to encourage desired development
                     patterns within the region.
   Objective 7.2:    Encourage policies and public facilities investments which allow residents
                     and visitors to live, work and play without having to drive.
   Objective 7.3:    Work with communities to develop and implement consistent access
                     management standards, ordinances and plans appropriate to their roadway
                     network and land use throughout the region.
   Objective 7.4:    Encourage municipalities to work cooperatively to develop zoning that is
                     compatible across town lines.
   Objective 7.5:    Encourage and support projects and plans that aim to make social and
                     public services and recreational and cultural activities available by multiple
                     modes of transportation.


Goal 8.   Establish a transportation system that facilitates economic development.




                          2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                              Rockingham Planning Commission
Goals & Objectives                                                                             2-5


   Objective 8.1:     Improve the transport of people, goods and services by promoting the
                      improvement and maintenance of intermodal connections between
                      transportation facilities including; transit, highways, airports, seaports,
                      pipelines and rail lines.
   Objective 8.2:     Encourage transportation investments that facilitate tourism in the region.
   Objective 8.3:     Encourage adequate roadway networks and public transportation to
                      designated industrial areas.
   Objective 8.4:     Identify current and potential deficiencies and threats to the economic
                      vitality of the region that relate to transportation and work to mitigate
                      those threats.
   Objective 8.5:     Encourage the coordination of land use and transportation planning to
                      ensure that existing and future industrial, commercial, and service centers
                      and housing concentrations are adequately connected by the region's
                      transportation system; and appropriately located to preserve the quality of
                      life in surrounding areas.



Organizational Goals and Objectives

Goal 9.    Encourage and solicit public involvement in the transportation decision-making
           process.

   Objective 9.1:     Develop and carry out a public participation program that includes activities
                      to educate the public about transportation, land use and air quality issues
                      and their interrelationships.
   Objective 9.2:     Actively solicit the participation of local communities, special-interest
                      groups and individual citizens in the transportation planning process.
   Objective 9.3:     Educate local and state representatives regarding the transportation
                      planning process and encourage their support of progressive transportation
                      legislation.
   Objective 9.4:     Reach out to under-represented persons and groups to ensure that
                      decisions are made with their input taken into consideration.


Goal 10.   Strengthen coordination between local governments, public agencies and the
           Department of Transportation to ensure effective, cooperative planning and
           implementation across all regional and state boundaries.




                          2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                              Rockingham Planning Commission
Goals & Objectives                                                                         2-6


   Objective 10.1:   Operate in accordance with the interagency agreements outlined in the
                     MPO Prospectus, and the consultation processes specified in Title 40,Code
                     of Federal Regulations Part 93, and NH Code of Administrative Rules Env-A
                     1500-Conformity, to ensure cooperation and communication in planning
                     and construction of transportation projects and provision of public
                     transportation services.
   Objective 10.2:   Evaluate transportation system improvements for their impact on interstate
                     and regional travel patterns.
   Objective 10.3:   Encourage communities to work cooperatively in planning and prioritizing
                     transportation projects.


Goal 11.   Assure adequate transportation funding.

   Objective 11.1:   Encourage the state and local communities to provide continuous,
                     dedicated funding assistance for public transportation.
   Objective 11.2:   Work with communities to secure funding for local and regional
                     transportation projects.
   Objective 11.3:   Encourage cooperation between public, private and non-profit
                     organizations in the development, funding, and management of
                     transportation projects.




                         2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                             Rockingham Planning Commission
 CHAPTER 3                 LAND USE & DEMOGRAPHICS

In order to effectively plan the future transportation system for the region, it is necessary to
make assumptions about future demographic conditions and transportation needs. At a
minimum, it is necessary to take population and employment forecasts into consideration in the
planning process.

This chapter presents a description of the study area in terms of current population,
employment, and land use patterns. It then presents forecasts of population and employment
growth, which represent current assumptions for the study area. It also presents commuting
data from the 2000 Census to help identify primary work travel patterns in the region..

A. Existing Land Use Patterns
Map 3.1 portrays existing land use patterns in 1998 for the study area. The data are derived
from aerial photographs and are updated on an ongoing basis as part of the MPO work
program. Data are non-parcel based and were classified into 13 categories. For the purposes of
this study, these categories have been further refined into the following 4 classifications:

   Commercial/Industrial/Mixed Use - Historically, the region's commercial establishments
   were primarily located in the urban centers described above and in the village centers of the
   smaller communities. During the past quarter century, commercial development has
   located outside of the traditional town center in two ways: first, in large-scale shopping
   malls with their own interior road systems with access to major transportation corridors,
   and secondly, small-scale commercial uses located along the frontage of major
   transportation corridors.

   The malls of Newington are a good example of the first instance, while major transportation
   corridors showing evidence of commercial frontage development include NH 108 through
   Exeter and Stratham, US 1 from Portsmouth to Hampton, US 28 from Salem to Windham,
   US 125 in Plaistow, NH 1A through Hampton and recently NH 111 between Salem and
   Kingston.

   For the most part, the region's industrial development has located in concentrated, defined
   areas in close proximity to the major transportation corridors and railways. Examples of
   concentrated industrial development include portions of the coastline through Newington
   and Portsmouth associated with access to the Piscataqua River. A more recent trend in
   planning for industrial development is the establishment of industrial parks. Such parks
   locate a number of light industrial uses in close proximity to each other, served by an
   interior road with access to a major transportation corridor. There are examples of such
   parks in Stratham, Exeter, Salem, Windham and Portsmouth. Scattered industrial
   development can also be found along the state road system throughout the study area.

   This category also includes downtown areas where mixtures of concentrated land uses exist.
   For the purpose of preparing a region-wide land use map, the uses within these areas are so
   concentrated that differentiating them with any degree of certainty is next to impossible. In


                           2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                               Rockingham Planning Commission
3-2                                                                     Land Use & Demographics

      such areas, dwelling units may also be located above commercial enterprises; apartment
      buildings are located next to public and semi-public uses, etc. Urban centers in the region
      include the downtown areas of Exeter, Hampton, Portsmouth, and Salem.

      Residential - The study area's various village and urban centers contain concentrations of
      single family and multi-family housing units. However, the majority of single family homes
      are located in the more rural areas of the study area. Residential development is scattered
      along numerous local roads in the manner of "road front" development. The study area's
      various state roads also show evidence of substantial residential development.

      Agricultural – Within all areas of the region, there remains a small number of agricultural
      farms. Over time, these lands have diminished and it is worthy to note the extent which
      they cover the current area.

      Other Developed Land - This category includes land developed for government or
      institutional use, such as schools, libraries, post offices, town halls, utilities, and parks.
      Many of these uses are located within the study area's urbanized areas and village centers.
      Such uses are traditionally located centrally in the municipality, so that many residents can
      still walk to the post office, town library, town hall, etc. Most of the study area's schools are
      located within walking distance of significant population clusters, although the trend over
      the past decade has been to locate schools on the outskirts of town where larger tracts of
      land are available to accommodate playing fields.

      Undeveloped - Areas which were classified as forested, wetlands, agriculture

The land use patterns in the MPO region have a significant effect on its transportation system,
and vice-versa. Unlike many regions of its size in the United States, the MPO region is
fortunate to have a number of traditional downtown and village centers, which remain viable.
Nonetheless, much of the residential, commercial, and industrial development is dispersed,
encouraging and sometimes necessitating a large amount of travel for individuals to work,
shop, and fulfill their other daily needs.

This type of development makes it difficult for any mode other than the automobile to meet
these needs. The result is a high level of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita and it makes
traditional public transportation services to these areas inefficient, if not infeasible. As a result,
a large majority of the population uses private automobiles exclusively to meet their
transportation needs. This increases traffic volumes, and places a greater demand on road
infrastructure as the region’s population grows. This pattern also means that individuals
without access to an automobile encounter serious mobility problems. In turn, new road
infrastructure needed to accommodate growth in traffic encourages development and a
continuation of dispersed land use patterns.




                               2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                   Rockingham Planning Commission
                           Rockingham Planning Commission
                                   1998 Land Use

   Land Use
        Residential
        Agricultural
        Undeveloped




                                                                                                                            Newington



                                                                                                                                                   New Castle
                                                                                                                                     Portsmouth
                                                                            Epping                                     Greenland
                                                                                                Newfields


                                                                                                               Stratham                        Rye


                                                                 Fremont       Brentwood         Exeter
                                                                                                                          North Hampton



                                                                                                                   Hampton
                                                     Sandown
                                                                 Danville        East Kingston Kensington Hampton Falls
                                                                             Kingston


                                                                                                                    Seabrook
                                                                                              South H ampton
                                                         Hampstead
                                                                                     Newton



                                                            Atkinson
                                                                       Plaistow
                                                                                                    Commercial/Industrial/Mixed
                                       Windham

                                                 Salem                                              Other Developed


                   Miles
2 1 0   2     4   6
                                                                                                                   O:\d-multiyear\d-Transportation_Plan\d-2007RPC\d-maps
3-4                                                              Land Use & Demographics


B. Population and Employment Change, 1980 - 2025

During the past two decades, the MPO study area has been one of the fastest growing areas in
New Hampshire. Much of this growth can be attributed to the area's proximity to the Boston
metropolitan area and to the substantial growth in employment within the Portsmouth, Salem
and Exeter labor market.

                                The study area experienced rapid population and economic
Office of Energy and            growth between 1980 and 1990, as evidenced by the "building
Planning projects an average
                                boom" of the early and mid 1980s. The early 1990s were a
annual growth rate of 0.8%
                                period of economic recession in the region as well as most of
between 2000 and 2025 for
                                the country. This coincided with the closure of the Pease Air
Rockingham County. This
                                Force Base, and continuing work force reductions at the
translates    into    64,491
                                Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The effect of all this was a
additional residents by the
year 2025.                      leveling off of population growth in many communities, and a
                                population decrease in parts of the urban area. However, with
                                the exception of Portsmouth and Newington, population did
                                increase in the region’s communities from 1990 to 2000. The
average annual rate of growth for the region as a whole during the 1990s was 1.2% per year.
Growth rates were much higher in the region's rural communities, with an average annual rate
of 2.1% versus 0.7% for urban areas over the same time period.

Population data analyzed in this chapter are drawn from the 2000 US Census, and the NH
Office of Energy & Planning (OEP), which produces population projections for each community
in the state (see Table 3.1 and Chart 3.1). OEP makes county projections based on long-term
growth trends and then allocates a portion of the county growth to each community based upon
historical share of county growth. The RPC used their knowledge of the local communities to
provide additional input to OEP. The OEF projects an average annual growth rate of 2%
between 2000-2025 for the MPO region, representing an additional 40,256 residents. Along with
population, It is expected that housing and employment in the study area will continue to grow
during the next twenty years, albeit at a slower pace than during the 1990’s.

The study area contains both highly urbanized and rural areas. Population densities of study
area communities vary widely (see Map 3.2). A key difference between the population
projections released by OEP in 2005 and those used in the 1999 Long Range Plan is a shift in
expected growth from the urbanized areas of the region to outlying rural areas. Brentwood,
Danville, East Kingston, Fremont, Kensington and Sandown all have projected annual growth
rates over 1% for the period from 2000-2025. The largest gross population increase for a
community is projected for Salem (5,568), consistent with growth proceeding up the western
portion of the region along Interstate 93. Conversely, projected annual growth in Portsmouth
between 2000-2020 has dropped from 2.6% in earlier projections to 0.5%. In spite of lower
percentage increases, the other largest gross population increases will happen in the larger
towns and cities such as Windham (3,891), Hampton (2,883), Portsmouth (2,826) and Exeter
(2,442).



                           2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                               Rockingham Planning Commission
Land Use & Demographics                                                                         3-5

The interrelationship between population growth, employment patterns and land use
ultimately affects transportation patterns and frequency. Consistent with national trends,
vehicle miles traveled and total vehicle trips have increased at rates that are two to three times
faster than either population or housing growth. The projected growth across the rural
communities in the study area, and the likelihood of continued dispersed land use, ensures that
transportation planners must expect a disproportionate rise in the demand for travel in the
region for the foreseeable future. This plan makes recommendations to deal with this
expectation by improving infrastructure where necessary and by attempting to curb demand for
automobiles travel where possible.

D. Commuting Travel Patterns

The following section analyzes data on regional commuting patterns from the 1990 Census
Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) and the 2000 CTPP. The data are provided in Tables
3.2 and 3.3 respectively. Although work trips make up only 10% of daily person trips during
peak commute hours1, this increment often makes the difference in straining the capacity of our
transportation system.

A total of 94,887 residents of the MPO region provided information to US Census regarding the
location where they live and work in 2000. The following are some key findings related to
trends in commuting patterns in the region between 1990 and 2000.

            The bulk of these workers commute to jobs in New Hampshire (62,697, or 66%), with
            most of those (54,277 or 57%) working within Rockingham County.

            At a state level, Massachusetts is the second highest commuter destination for residents
            in the MPO. Roughly 29,918 or 46% commute to Massachusetts. Maine follows with
            1,354 (1%) residents commuting to that state. The remainder commute outside of these
            three states or they are based internationally.

            The number of commuters grew at a comparable rate to the increase in population
            during the 1990s. Commute trips by residents of the region increased by 10.2% or 8,806
            between 1990 and 2000. Population increased 11.1% or 17,923 people during the same
            period.

            Commutes within NH and to MA communities have increased, while commutes to
            Maine have decreased for the MPO region. Commuters within NH rose by 7,873 or
            14.4% compared to 1990 levels and MA rose by 1,863 or 6.6%. Comparatively,
            commuters from MPO region to Maine decreased by 930 or 40.7% commuters. Factors
            accounting for this large decrease could be the lay offs at the Portsmouth Naval
            Shipyard in Kittery, ME through the 1990’s.

            Commutes to Suffolk and Middlesex Counties in Massachusetts increased. Together
            these two counties account for the Boston Metro area. Commute trips to Suffolk county

1
    1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, FHWA



                                      2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                          Rockingham Planning Commission
3-6                                                            Land Use & Demographics

      increase by 11.4% or 290 trips and Middlesex County increased by 20.2% or 1,475 trips.
      However, commutes to Essex County, Massachusetts most neighborly county to the
      South of NH, decreased by 0.9% or 165 trips.

      There was a significant increase in commute trips to NH locations outside of the MPO
      region. The two areas to see the largest percent increase include Merrimack County NH
      with 492 commuters (102%) and Hillsborough County NH with 1258 commuters (39%).
      These increases can be attributed to the upgrades to NH 101.

      The decline in commute trips within Portsmouth and Newington reflects closure of
      Pease. Between 1990-2000, commuters from Newington decreased by 157 (34%) and
      Portsmouth decreased by 2,433 (21%).

      There was a growth of commuters in rural communities of Rockingham County, with
      Danville, East Kingston, Fremont and Newfields all experiencing over 40% increase.
      Hampton saw the largest gross increase of 1,227 commuters.




                         2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                             Rockingham Planning Commission
Land Use & Demographics                                                                                                           3-7


Table 3.1: Population History and Projections



                                                                                                                        Avg.   Annual
                US Census                                                     OEP Projections                           Change

                                                                                                                        1980-   2000-
Town/Area       1950        1960     1970       1980      1990      2000      2005        2010      2020      2025      2000    2025

Urbanized

Epping          1,796       2,006    2,356      3,460     5,162     5,476     5,980       6,150     6,520     6,690     2.3%    0.8%

Exeter          5,664       7,243    8,892      11,024    12,481    14,058    14,560      15,070    16,040    16,500    1.2%    0.6%

Greenland       719         1,196    1,784      2,129     2,768     3,208     3,390       3,560     3,880     4,080     2.0%    1.0%

Hampton         2,847       5,379    8,011      10,493    12,278    14,937    15,390      15,960    17,240    17,820    1.8%    0.7%

Hampton Falls   629         885      1,254      1,372     1,503     1,880     2,040       2,150     2,330     2,450     1.6%    1.1%

New Castle      583         823      975        936       840       1,010     1,040       1,070     1,160     1,200     0.4%    0.7%

Newfields       469         737      843        817       888       1,551     1,630       1,690     1,830     1,890     3.2%    0.8%

Newington       494         1,045    798        716       990       775       800         830       900       930       0.4%    0.7%

North Hampton   1,104       1,910    3,259      3,425     3,637     4,259     4,510       4,670     5,040     5,200     1.1%    0.8%

Plaistow        2,082       2,915    4,712      5,609     7,316     7,747     7,820       8,110     8,770     9,070     1.6%    0.6%

Portsmouth      18,830      26,900   25,717     26,254    25,925    20,784    21,000      21,320    22,730    23,610    -1.2%   0.5%

Rye             1,982       3,244    4,083      4,508     4,612     5,182     5,260       5,440     5,790     5,940     0.7%    0.5%

Salem           4,805       9,210    20,142     24,124    25,746    28,112    29,940      30,940    32,770    33,680    0.8%    0.7%

Seabrook        1,788       2,209    3,053      5,917     6,503     7,934     8,400       8,700     9,380     9,690     1.5%    0.8%

Stratham        759         1,033    1,512      2,507     4,955     6,355     7,130       7,390     8,020     8,310     4.5%    1.1%

Windham         964         1,317    3,008      5,664     9,000     10,709    12,570      13,000    14,090    14,600    3.1%    1.2%

Sub-total       45,515      68,052   90,399     108,955   124,604   133,977   141,460     146,050   156,490   161,660   1.0%    0.7%




                                              2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                                  Rockingham Planning Commission
3-8                                                                                                                       Land Use & Demographics




                                                                                                                                           Avg. Annual
                        US Census                                                          OEP Projections                                 Change

                                                                                                                                           1980-   2000-
   Town/Area            1950        1960      1970         1980      1990      2000        2005        2010        2020        2025        2000    2025

   Non- Urbanized

   Atkinson             492         1,017     2,291        4,397     5,188     6,178       6,560       6,800       7,330       7,570       1.7%    0.8%

   Brentwood            819         1,072     1,468        2,004     2,590     3,197       4,110       4,230       4,500       4,620       2.3%    1.5%

   Danville             508         605       924          1,318     2,534     4,023       4,490       4,660       5,060       5,240       5.4%    1.1%

   East Kingston        449         574       838          1,135     1,352     1,784       2,110       2,200       2,380       2,480       2.2%    1.3%

   Fremont              698         783       993          1,333     2,576     3,510       4,080       4,220       4,600       4,780       4.7%    1.2%

   Hampstead            902         1,261     2,401        3,785     6,732     8,297       8,640       8,980       9,810       10,190      3.8%    0.8%

   Kingston             1,283       1,672     2,882        4,111     5,591     5,862       6,190       6,410       6,910       7,140       1.8%    0.8%

   Kensington           542         708       1,044        1,322     1,631     1,893       2,070       2,200       2,370       2,500       1.8%    1.1%

   Newton               1,173       1,419     1,920        3,068     3,473     4,286       4,480       4,650       5,020       5,180       1.7%    0.8%

   Sandown              315         366       741          2,057     4,060     5,143       5,850       6,070       6,610       6,860       4.5%    1.1%

   South Hampton        314         443       558          660       740       844         890         920         990         1,030       1.2%    0.8%

   Sub-total            7,495       9,920     16,060       25,190    36,467    45,017      49,470      51,340      55,580      57,590      2.9%    1.0%

   Total                53,010      77,972    106,459      134,145   161,071   178,994     190,930     197,390     212,070     219,250     2%      1%

   Rock. County         70,059      98,642    138,950      190,345   245,845   277,359     296,740     308,220     331,190     341,850     1.9%    0.8%

   N.H.                 533,110     606,400   737,578      920,475   847,108   1,235,786   1,315,000   1,365,140   1,470,010   1,520,310   1.5%    0.8%


Source: US Census Bureau 2000
        Office of Energy & Planning 2005



                                                      2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                                          Rockingham Planning Commission
Land Use & Demographics                                                                                                        3-9


Chart 3.1: Population History and Projections

                                                          Existing and Projected Population, MPO -- 2000 & 2025

                                   35,000
                                                 2000
                                   30,000
                                                 2025
                                   25,000

                                   20,000

                                   15,000

                                   10,000

                                    5,000

                                          0




                                                                            on
                                                                         pto n




                                                                                                                          n
                                                                         Fa lls




                                                                                                                      ha m
                                                                                                                       ham
                                                 gs ton




                                                                             d




                                                                             h


                                                                                                                         m
                                                         g




                                                                                                                      ro ok
                                                     il le




                                                                           ont




                                                                         s ton
                                                                       nland




                                                                             n
                                                   s on




                                                                            er




                                                                          tow


                                                                         Rye
                                                                             n
                                                                            le




                                                                                                                      own
                                                       d




                                                                      fi elds


                                                                          ton




                                                                                                                    mpto
                                                                     ps tea




                                                                      mout
                                               Epp in




                                                                     i ngto




                                                                     in gto




                                                                                                                    Sal e
                                                twoo




                                                                     Cas t




                                                                    ampt
                                                                     Ex et
                                              Danv




                                                                  Fre m




                                                                   New


                                                                  Pl ais
                                             Atk in




                                                                  Ham




                                                                                                                Wi nd
                                                                  Ki ng




                                                                                                                 Strat
                                                                                                                Sea b
                                                                                                               San d
                                                                 pto n
                                          E. K in




                                                                G ree




                                                                New




                                                                                                              S. Ha
                                                               Ken s




                                                               Ports
                                                                New
                                                               Ham
                                          Bren




                                                               N. H
                                                               New
                                                             Ham


                                                        Population History & Projections, MPO Area -- 1970-2025

                         250,000
                                   Non-Urban                                                  Projections
  Total Population (#)




                         200,000
                                   Urban
                         150,000

                         100,000

                          50,000

                              0
                                   1970            1980            1990           2000          2010          2020      2025
                                                                                 Year




                                                                   2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                                                       Rockingham Planning Commission
Land Use & Demographics                                         3-10


Map 3.2: Population Density.




                     2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
Land Use & Demographics                                                                     3-11


E. Conclusion

The information provided in this chapter on land use, demographics, and commuting patterns
serves as an important background for transportation planning in the region for the next twenty
years. It is clear that the nature of development, the pace and distribution of growth, and the
resultant commuting patterns dictate an increasing travel demand over time. Given that air
quality requirements and financial constraints exist, the MPO will have to concentrate its efforts
in certain areas where the overall travel demand for all modes is greatest. It will be equally
important to explore ways to curb that demand and/or provide ways to meet the demand that
do not exacerbate congestion on existing roadways or degrade air quality.




                            2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                Rockingham Planning Commission
Land Use & Demographics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                3-12


Table 3.2: Commuter Flow- 1990 (Residents in MPO).

                     DESTINATIONS

                                                                                                                                                        Counties

                     Total    By State                              In Rockingham County                                                                NH                                                                        MA                                                    ME




                                                                        Derry/ Londonderry




                                                                                                                                                                                                               Hillsborough Co.
                                                                                             Exeter/Hampton/




                                                                                                                                                         Rockingham Co.
                                                                                                               Plaistow/Salem/




                                                                                                                                                                                              Merrimack Co.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Middlesex Co.
                                                                                                                                                                              Strafford Co.
                                                                                                                                 Portsmouth/




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Suffolk Co.
                                                                                                                                 Newington
                                                                                                               Windham
                                                                                             Seabrook




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Essex Co.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            York Co.
                                                           Other




                                                                                                                                                Other




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Other
Town            of
                      Total




                                          MA
                               NH




                                                      ME
Residence
Urbanized
Epping               2,610    2,081      450      53       26       23                       382               100               122           1,084    1,711             137                 49              170                 48                83                  313             38             61
Exeter               6,480    5,171      1,110    147      52       8                        2,681             122               668           1,034    4,513             366                 66              207                 168               239                 646             123            152
Greenland            1,617    1,334      147      124      12       6                        153               8                 526           507      1,200             97                  7               30                  30                25                  72              119            37
Hampton              6,559    4,594      1,654    225      86       8                        2,267             32                1,142         680      4,129             191                 37              231                 243               338                 1,017           178            195
Hampton Falls        758      575        167      9        7        -                        214               22                69            231      536               15                  7               17                  25                16                  114             9              19
New Castle           416      370        12       24       10       -                        17                -                 140           194      351               6                   4               9                   4                 -                   2               19             21
Newfields            443      364        61       18       0        2                        121               1                 36            164      324               38                  -               2                   8                 10                  41              18             2
Newington            618      552        29       32       5        -                        13                -                 444           29       486               58                  -               8                   -                 11                  11              30             14
North Hampton        2,043    1,644      289      67       43       13                       448               -                 413           687      1,561             41                  -               36                  49                43                  184             54             75
Plaistow             4,004    1,683      2,312    -        9        23                       67                1,172             7             231      1,500             43                  22              118                 129               440                 1,705           -              47
Portsmouth           14,210   12,005     797      1,149    259      39                       610               30                9,148         1,015    10,842            954                 49              141                 143               198                 352             1,021          510
Rye                  2,517    2,124      184      140      69       20                       200               23                957           710      1,910             180                 8               26                  47                23                  98              130            95
Salem                14,095   5,982      8,019    26       68       302                      19                4,663             77            185      5,246             41                  74              599                 508               2,584               4,673           20             350
Seabrook             3,207    1,802      1,359    46       0        8                        1,415             34                137           132      1,726             16                  6               54                  149               167                 1,016           25             48
Stratham             2,630    1,958      542      83       47       -                        506               22                525           647      1,700             159                 12              77                  95                120                 335             73             59
Windham              4,726    2,459      2,149    9        109      325                      10                1,382             24            29       1,770             7                   27              631                 323               947                 822             -              199
Sub-total            66,933   44,698     19,281   2,152    802      777                      9,123             7,611             14,435        7,559    39,505            2,349               368             2,356               1,969             5,244               11,401          1,857          1,884




                                                                   2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                                                       Rockingham Planning Commission
Land Use & Demographics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 3-13



                       DESTINATIONS

                                                                                                                                               Counties
                       Total    By State                              In Rockingham County                                                     NH                                                                           MA                                           ME




                                                                                                                                                                                                         Hillsborough Co.
                                                                                    Exeter/Hampton/




                                                                                                                                                Rockingham Co.
                                                                                                      Plaistow/Salem/




                                                                                                                                                                                     Merrimack Co.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Middlesex Co.
                                                                      Londonderry




                                                                                                                                                                     Strafford Co.
                                                                                                                        Portsmouth/




                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Suffolk Co.
                                                                                                                        Newington
                                                                                                      Windham
                                                                                    Seabrook




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Essex Co.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             York Co.
                                                                      Derry/




                                                                                                                                       Other
                                                             Other




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Other
 Town             of
                        Total




                                            MA
                                 NH




                                                        ME
 Residence

 Non- Urbanized
 Atkinson              2,890    1,316      1,566    -        8        26            49                681               11            391      1,158             12                  17              129                    85             371              1,057        -               61
 Brentwood             1,170    919        230      13       8        8             266               60                78            408      820               56                  2               37                     29             60               136          8               22
 Danville              1,351    689        636      9        17       23            27                209               12            322      593               14                  12              61                     46             153              432          9               31
 East Kingston         678      457        207      9        5        -             120               36                44            200      400               32                  3               20                     10             42               150          9               12
 Fremont               1,359    906        430      15       8        35            125               106               51            427      744               26                  18              118                    19             84               321          13              16
 Hampstead             3,554    1,771      1,770    -        13       125           24                488               33            800      1,470             17                  33              251                    104            521              1,138        -               20
 Kensington            833      569        221      30       13       2             183               13                58            270      526               22                  9               12                     35             30               154          24              21
 Kingston              2,920    1,522      1,351    36       11       41            205               268               70            781      1,365             67                  10              69                     87             272              973          25              52
 Newton                1,819    636        1,151    7        25       8             64                167               6             345      590               6                   -               26                     86             206              853          -               52
 Sandown               2,207    1,224      977      6        0        182           49                398               -             427      1,056             6                   6               156                    49             305              610          6               13
 S. Hampton            367      117        235      7        8        -             17                -                 22            68       107               4                   -               -                      31             20               182          5               18
 Sub-total             19,148   10,126     8,774    132      116      450           1,129             2,426             385           4,439    8,829             262                 110             879                    581            2,064            6,006        99              318
 MPO Region            86,081   54,824     28,055   2,284    918      1,227         10,252            10,037            14,820        11,998   48,334            2,611               478             3,235                  2,550          7,308            17,407       1,956           2,202


Source: US Census Bureau 1990




                                                                     2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                                                         Rockingham Planning Commission
3-14                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Land Use & Demographics


Table 3.3: Commuter Flow- 2000 (Residents in MPO).

                     DESTINATIONS

                                                                                                                                                       Counties

                     Total    By State                             In Rockingham County                                                                NH                                                                        MA                                                 ME




                                                                       Derry/ Londonderry




                                                                                                                                                                                                              Hillsborough Co.
                                                                                            Exeter/Hampton/




                                                                                                                                                        Rockingham Co.
                                                                                                              Plaistow/Salem/




                                                                                                                                                                                          Merrimack Co.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Middlesex Co.
                                                                                                                                                                          Strafford Co.
                                                                                                                                Portsmouth/




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Suffolk Co.
                                                                                                                                Newington
                                                                                                              Windham
                                                                                            Seabrook




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Essex Co.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        York Co.
                                                          Other




                                                                                                                                               Other




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Other
Town            of
                      Total




                                          MA
                               NH




                                                   ME
Residence
Urbanized
Epping               3,038    2,593      397      36      12       98                       387               79                272           1,332    2,168             119              60              216                    -                 125              267             32             51
Exeter               7,322    6,078      1,136    56      52       108                      3,073             251               769           1,303    5,504             298              53              193                    137               303              636             39             159
Greenland            1,698    1,522      129      35      12       -                        201               30                649           484      1,364             103              16              39                     30                26               68              35             17
Hampton              7,786    5,735      1,842    74      135      74                       2,834             189               1,040         1,030    5,167             184              119             227                    307               576              881             47             278
Hampton Falls        979      681        258      27      13       4                        265               18                60            283      630               19               10              22                     45                75               128             27             23
New Castle           452      381        35       18      18       3                        27                1                 187           105      323               29               12              15                     10                22               3               18             20
Newfields            804      684        92       22      6        8                        158               12                103           289      570               54               17              41                     15                28               47              20             12
Newington            461      401        20       27      13       14                       30                8                 208           78       338               52               5               -                      3                 8                6               32             17
North Hampton        2,260    1,866      350      44      -        34                       555               51                435           654      1,729             69               6               62                     118               55               154             38             29
Plaistow             4,181    1,770      2,389    7       15       22                       96                1,084             109           247      1,558             51               -               161                    129               679              1,543           7              53
Portsmouth           11,777   9,885      1,040    686     166      172                      817               151               6,361         1,070    8,571             900              168             206                    245               335              445             613            294
Rye                  2,316    1,832      297      94      93       71                       198               32                479           842      1,622             147              7               56                     56                54               183             58             133
Salem                14,850   7,209      7,528    27      86       381                      191               4,938             193           515      6,218             55               70              814                    528               2,601            4,137           27             400
Seabrook             4,330    2,600      1,697    14      19       5                        1,787             106               260           300      2,458             66               42              34                     115               258              1,284           7              66
Stratham             3,120    2,579      408      97      36       64                       568               48                730           870      2,280             171              43              78                     24                155              192             44             133
Windham              5,579    2,973      2,555    9       42       398                      36                1,450             41            84       2,009             18               103             818                    293               1,180            915             -              243
Sub-total            70,953   48,789     20,173   1,273   718      1,456                    11,223            8,448             11,896        9,486    42,509            2,335            731             2,982                  2,055             6,480            10,889          1,044          1,928




                                                                  2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                                                      Rockingham Planning Commission
Land Use & Demographics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           3-15



                       DESTINATIONS

                                                                                                                                               Counties

                       Total    By State                              In Rockingham County                                                     NH                                                                     MA                                           ME




                                                                                                                                                                                                   Hillsborough Co.
                                                                                    Exeter/Hampton/




                                                                                                                                                Rockingham Co.
                                                                                                      Plaistow/Salem/




                                                                                                                                                                                  Merrimack Co.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Middlesex Co.
                                                                      Londonderry




                                                                                                                                                                  Strafford Co.
                                                                                                                        Portsmouth/




                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Suffolk Co.
                                                                                                                        Newington
                                                                                                      Windham
                                                                                    Seabrook




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Essex Co.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       York Co.
                                                                      Derry/
                                                             Other




                                                                                                                                       Other




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Other
 Town             of
                        Total




                                            MA
                                 NH




                                                        ME
 Residence

 Non- Urbanized
 Atkinson              3,422    1,524      1,836    -        62       51            93                478               78            579      1,279             8                35              194                 84             464              1,236        -               122
 Brentwood             1,392    1,120      250      22       -        46            358               51                71            443      969               53               36              54                  23             61               163          9               24
 Danville              2,176    1,313      843      -        20       54            84                342               44            611      1,135             27               18              115                 74             237              503          -               67
 East Kingston         961      588        359      10       4        8             128               42                59            273      510               15               8               55                  34             67               246          10              16
 Fremont               1,982    1,331      615      25       11       80            222               132               70            581      1,085             38               16              183                 56             97               441          25              41
 Hampstead             4,308    2,402      1,874    -        32       258           145               658               106           800      1,967             39               60              329                 194            507              1,149        -               63
 Kensington            1,013    610        379      9        15       12            224               21                47            254      558               22               8               20                  38             99               230          8               30
 Kingston              3,124    2,027      1,063    8        26       58            386               300               111           941      1,796             72               23              126                 111            303              587          8               98
 Newton                2,365    1,007      1,343    5        10       30            126               236               65            438      895               21               27              64                  120            259              925          -               54
 Sandown               2,739    1,787      936      -        16       153           120               395               59            665      1,392             7                6               362                 36             177              668          -               91
 S. Hampton            452      199        247      2        4        -             55                8                 16            103      182               4                2               9                   15             32               195          2               11
 Sub-total             23,934   13,908     9,745    81       200      750           1,941             2,663             726           5,688    11,768            306              239             1,511               785            2,303            6,343        62              617
 MPO Region            94,887   62,697     29,918   1,354    918      2,206         13,164            11,111            12,622        15,174   54,277            2,641            970             4,493               2,840          8,783            17,232       1,106           2,545


Source: US Census Bureau 2000




                                                                     2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                                                         Rockingham Planning Commission
Land Use & Demographics                                                         3-16


Table 3.4: Top 10 Commutes (Residents in MPO).
                Rank   Residence      Work Location             Commuters (#)


                1      Portsmouth     Portsmouth                5,982
                2      Salem          Salem                     4,487
                3      Salem          Essex County (MA)         4,137
                4      Salem          Middlesex County (MA)     2,601
                5      Exeter         Exeter                    2,518
                6      Hampton        Hampton                   1,991
                7      Plaistow       Essex County (MA)         1,543
                8      Seabrook       Seabrook                  1,397
                9      Seabrook       Essex County (MA)         1,284
                10     Atkinson       Essex County (MA)         1,236


Source: US Census Bureau 2000




                            2007-2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                Rockingham Planning Commission
       CHAPTER 4                      TRANSPORTATION & LAND USE

Transportation and land use are intimately linked. A new transportation infrastructure project such as
expansion of a highway typically spurs housing and employment growth and land development in the
communities it serves. Likewise, an increase in population or employment in a sparsely settled area can
overwhelm the existing road system in the area and require major new infrastructure investments. The
prospect of cheaper land is usually a factor in large new development projects, whether retail centers or
high schools. However, the cost savings in land is often offset by a range of other costs. These include
the cost to extend or expand roads and utilities to the site, traffic congestion, lack of access for
members of the community without automobiles, loss of open space, and increased air pollution as
more people need to make more vehicle trips to access goods and services. The resulting development
pattern has commonly become referred to as sprawl.

While many definitions of sprawl have been put forward in recent
years, perhaps the simplest definition relates to the inefficient way Sprawl can be defined as
such development consumes land. We are consuming land in the the inflation, over time, in
region at a greater rate than previous generations, and not just the amount of land area
because population is growing faster. Between 1953 and 1974, 0.75 consumed per unit of
                                                                      human activity, and in the
acres of land were developed in Rockingham County for each person degree         of     dispersal
added to the population. Between 1974 and 1982, this rate of land between such land areas.
consumption more than doubled to 1.59 acres per capita. 1 This shift
is due to a combination of factors including market trends, zoning,
and natural constraints on remaining undeveloped land. The dispersed land use pattern it creates is
reflected in a comparison of population growth to traffic volume in the region. From 1982 to 1997
population in Seacoast New Hampshire grew by about 38%, while traffic volume in the region grew by
169% - a factor of more than 4 to 1. 2

Many areas of the country have developed innovative approaches to integrating transportation and land
use planning to address these problems. In the last several years these approaches have been grouped
under the moniker of "Smart Growth." In recent years the Office of Energy and Planning, Regional
Planning Commissions, and some New Hampshire communities have begun advocating and
experimenting with measures such as access management, mixed use and multi-density development,
street connectivity standards, integrated bicycle and pedestrian facilities, context sensitive design, and
other techniques that better link transportation and land use planning. While land use planning is not
the primary mission of the MPO, the MPO is tightly linked with the Rockingham Planning Commission,
and includes officials from member towns with input into both land use transportation policies. The
following chapter discusses current practices in integrating land use and transportation planning in the
state, new approaches that are beginning to take hold, and MPO and regional planning policies
supporting more integrated planning.


1
    Land Use Change: Rockingham County NH 1953-1982. Befort, Luloff, and Morrone, 1987.
2
    RPC & SRPC traffic count data
                                 2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                                  MPO
Transportation & Land Use                                                                         10-2



Plan Goals Directly Addressed By This Chapter

This chapter directly addresses Goals 6, 7, and 8 of this plan. So called "Smart Growth Principles"
address Goal 6 to the extent that they emphasize protection of cultural and historic resources, while
consuming less land area, thus supporting protection of key natural areas and cultural resources. Goal 7
seeks to improve access and mobility for people through provision of transportation options. Land use
policies should encourage development that supports a range of transportation options, including
transit, bicycling, and walking. This can not only reduce traffic congestion, but also increase access for
citizens without access to private automobiles. Finally, integrated planning facilitates multimodal access
to new retail and other development, supporting economic vitality as provided for in Goal 8.

 Goal 6: Promote transportation policies and improvements that support conservation
          of cultural and natural resources, and provide mitigation for unavoidable
          impacts.
 Goal 7: Encourage better integration of land use and transportation planning.
 Goal 8: Establish a transportation system that facilitates economic development.


A. Current Linkage of Land Use and Transportation Planning in NH

A classic example of poor integration of land use and transportation planning is strip development along
state highways, resulting in congestion, safety problems, lack of access by modes other than
automobile, and eventual need for expensive capacity improvements on the road. This is the scenario
of the "Transportation Land Use Cycle" depicted on the following page. In this cycle a well-traveled road
with excess capacity attracts additional land development (often retail or commercial development in
need of high visibility and access). This results in additional traffic generation and the erosion of
highway capacity and function. Eventually the congestion becomes severe enough that a further
expansion of the roadway is prompted, and the cycle begins again. This cycle can be seen along many
highways in the region such as US Route 1, Portsmouth Avenue (NH 108) in Exeter and Stratham and US
Route 28 from Salem to Windham.

Another example is location of public facilities such as schools, post offices, or court houses built at the
outskirts of town where they are inaccessible by foot and difficult to access by bicycle or transit. A third
is policies that discourage housing near job centers, leading to heavy commuter traffic between
bedroom communities and job centers, as seen daily on the Little Bay Bridges.

To the extent that they are able, local planning boards consider transportation issues in reviewing land
use permit applications. However, local zoning regulations are often not well designed to address the
transportation-land use connection.




                               2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                   Rockingham Planning Commission
Transportation & Land Use                                                                          10-3

Barriers to Integrated Planning - Local Zoning

Problems such as the three described above are the
result of a number of factors. The first of these is
local land use regulations which prohibit mixed use
development. Tis separation of land uses came
about largely in the 1940s-50s with the spread of
the automobile. It is a departure from the                        More                      Roadway
traditional New England village, where houses were             Congestion &                 Expansion
                                                                 Conflict
often spaced close together, and in close proximity
to commercial areas where residents needed to go
for goods and services.

Lack of Communication                                           Increased                   Increased
                                                                  Traffic                    Capacity
Another factor is a disconnect between local and                Generation
NHDOT driveway permitting policies. Historically,
NHDOT and municipalities have not communicated
effectively in reviewing applications for driveway
permits on state highways. Towns often do not
                                                              Additional                    Increased
comment on NHDOT driveway permit applications                Development                   Land Value
forwarded to them by the Department.
Consequently, permits are often granted without
adequate consideration of the impacts of additional
traffic generation and turning movements on road
capacity and safety. The state, MPOs, and local
governments are nearing completion of a                   Figure 10.1
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to improve              The Transportation Land Use Cycle
communication on driveway permitting and related          "…this cycle continues until it is physically or
                                                          economically impossible to further expand
access management issues.                                 capacity. Access Management together with
                                                          good land use controls can preserve highway
Lack of Local Expertise                                   capacity and effectively slow down or halt the
                                                          cycle."
Beyond improving communication with NHDOT,                  -- FHWA Access Management Project
another key issue is lack of experience on the part of local planning boards in making the link between
site plan applications and broader growth implications including traffic impacts. Planning boards,
particularly in smaller communities, often lack experience in evaluating traffic impacts of development
projects. This includes lack expertise in critically evaluating traffic impact analysis studies submitted by
developers, and lack funding to pay for a professional peer review. This can also include a lack of
adequate consideration of the traffic impacts of different types of land uses during the preparation of
local Master Plans and zoning ordinances. Providing this technical expertise through a combination of
written materials, training workshops, and direct technical assistance is an appropriate role for the
regional planning commissions. The planning commissions' annual municipal board training series is one
opportunity to provide this training.




                               2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                   Rockingham Planning Commission
Transportation & Land Use                                                                        10-4

Taxation & the Jobs/Housing Imbalance

Finally, the region’s housing imbalance is linked in part to New Hampshire’s reliance on property taxes
to support schools and other public services. Towns seek to attract commercial development, because
it is perceived as preferable to residential development in contributing more to the tax base as it
withdraws in services such as schooling costs. Housing, particularly moderately priced housing,
generally contributes less to the tax base than the cost of schooling the children that live in the houses.
This creates a disincentive for residential development.

Regional Planning Efforts to Improve Integration

During 2002, the Rockingham Planning Commission updated the Future Land Use chapter of the RPC
Regional Master Plan. This was done as part of an overall effort by RPC to incorporate sustainable
development principles into regional planning policies. The new chapter sets out a series of principles
for future land development in the region that seek to address the problems just described. While not
all are explicitly transportation related, all have implications for transportation planning, and encourage
development that can be more readily served by multiple modes of transportation. Ultimately, this will
offer residents greater choice in how they get where they need to go, and how they live their lives. The
following basic principles set forth in the RPC Regional Master Plan area supported by the MPO:

    1. Guide growth into areas with existing infrastructure (including roads) and away from
       undeveloped areas, and make adequate public investment in infrastructure to support additional
       growth.
    2. Encourage settlement patterns that employ mixed use, compact design and reduce the rate of
       land consumption for new development.
    3. Favor the reuse of land and buildings for redevelopment over the development of vacant
       undeveloped land.
    4. Create large contiguous areas of open space, farmland, river corridors and critical environmental
       areas, and establish connections between these areas.
    5. Ensure an adequate and affordable housing supply to meet the needs of the region’s workforce,
       young families and the elderly.
    6. Foster downtowns, village centers and neighborhoods which preserve historic buildings and
       community character and promote good design.
    7. Encourage settlement patterns that can be efficiently served by multiple nodes of transportation,
       including pedestrians and bicycles.


C. Progress since Adoption of 1999-2020 Long Range Plan

The principles outlined above draw on a number of planning studies carried out around the state in
recent years analyzing the disconnect between transportation and land use planning. These include the
following:




                               2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                   Rockingham Planning Commission
Transportation & Land Use                                                                      10-5

  Route 16 Corridor Study, RPC and Herr and James Associates, Planning Consultants. This project
  used a series of case studies to examine the Land Use/Transportation "Dynamic" in the NH Route 16
  corridor, with a goal of developing a protection plan for the highway that balanced its role as
  transportation corridor and economic engine for the region. The study concluded that sprawling
  development patterns accelerate traffic congestion, and that we cannot build our way out of
  congestion through continuous roadway expansion. Rather, the key lies in changing land use policy

  The study defined three future land use principles for Route 16:
      1. Encourage compact "nodal" development in defined areas that can be well served by the
         transportation system;
      2. Discourage major new development along state highways between nodes through limiting
         commercial zoning districts; and
      3. Manage access to highways for new and existing development.


  Managing Growth in New Hampshire: Changes & Challenges, New Hampshire Office of Energy and
  Planning. This project assessed how growth trends are affecting land development patterns in NH,
  and ways in which state and local policies and investments induce sprawl. It analyzed a range of
  statewide growth indicators, municipal case studies, and approaches used by other states to address
  problems associated with sprawl development. The report offered a series of recommendations to
  strengthen the ability of state and local governments and regional organizations to cope with the
  challenges of future growth. Among these were updating state planning statutes to give local
  governments greater flexibility in planning and zoning; improving and strengthening the role of
  regional planning agencies; expanding multimodal transportation options; and coordinating regional
  land use planning with state transportation programs.

  Regional Approaches and Local Choices to Advance Sustainable Development in Rockingham
  Planning Commission region. This EPA Sustainable Development Challenge Grant project is
  developing a "tool box" of innovative land use controls and best development practices used in
  communities in New Hampshire and elsewhere in the country. The toolbox addresses both land
  development policies and transportation facilities and investments. Innovative land use policies
  include mixed use (residential and commercial) zoning; multi-density zoning to allow more compact
  development in appropriate locations; balancing levels commercial and residential development to
  encourage job centers near housing; transferable development rights; infill development; and
  architectural design standards for commercial development. Transportation policies include street
  standards that provide for street trees, sidewalks, bike lanes, and traffic calming measures such as
  narrow lane striping. Parking lot standards address safe facilities for bicycling, walking, and transit
  use; internal connectivity between adjacent lots; and locating parking at the rear or side of
  buildings. The transportation tools also include local transportation demand management
  programs.

  Model code language is drawn primarily from towns around the state and region. The toolbox is
  also a means of providing guidance to planning boards on evaluating traffic impact studies and
  negotiating with developers. Similar toolbox initiatives are under development by the Office of
  Energy and Planning, as well as Vermont, Maine, and many other states.




                             2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                 Rockingham Planning Commission
Transportation & Land Use                                                                       10-6

    Model Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Access Management between NHDOT, MPOs,
    and Municipalities. The MOU provides model language for agreements between municipalities and
    NHDOT to collaborate on development and implementation of local access management standards
    and site and parcel level access management plans. The MOU provides for communication between
    DOT and towns in the review or driveway permit applications on state highways. Once signed by
    towns and the NHDOT, these memoranda will be effective tools in addressing access management
    issues identified in the Route 1 corridor study.

These studies and policy initiatives have done much to raise awareness at the state and local level of the
need to better integrate transportation and land use planning; and to provide innovate tools to
municipalities to achieve that integration. Much work remains to be done to improve regional
cooperation, encourage adoption of innovative land use policies at the local level, provide technical
assistance to communities, and improve multimodal transportation options throughout the region. The
MPO can and should play a strong advocacy and educational role in moving these initiatives forward at
the state level and within member communities.

D. MPO Objectives & Policies Related to Land Use & Transportation

The following policy recommendations related to the need to better link transportation and land use
planning. They are keyed to relevant objectives identified in Chapter Two.

Objective 6.2   Advocate the preservation and enhancement of cultural, historic, and recreational
                resources in the development of transportation system with appropriate mitigation for
                unavoidable impacts.

                Promote establishment and use of scenic byways and other transportation projects in
                the region which enhance access to natural and cultural resources.
                Promote update of local cultural resource inventories and broader inclusion of cultural
                resources in land protection efforts.

Objective 6.6   Ensure the protection of wetlands and other environmental resources in the design of
                new transportation facilities, with appropriate mitigation for unavoidable impacts.

                Promote adoption of local open space plans and other tools to ensure protection of land
                with high habitat, watershed protection, and scenic value.

Objective 6.8   Advocate that aesthetic and scenic values are considered in road design and adjacent
                land development to maintain a sense of place and scale.

                Work with local and NHDOT engineers early in the design process to ensure that road
                projects minimize impacts on adjacent natural and cultural resources.

Objective 7.2   Encourage policies and public facilities investment which allow residents and visitors
                to live, work, and play without having to drive.

                Support adoption by member communities of innovative land use and transportation
                design policies identified in the RPC Regional Master Plan. These policies are described

                              2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                  Rockingham Planning Commission
Transportation & Land Use                                                                  10-7

            on pages 10-4 and 10-5.
            Balance regional needs and local concerns in the development of local land use policies.




                          2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                              Rockingham Planning Commission
Transportation & Land Use                                                                     10-8

Objective 7.3   Work with communities to develop and implement consistent access management
                standards, ordinances and plans appropriate to their roadway network and land use
                throughout the region.

                Promote adoption of Memoranda of Understanding for Coordinating Highway Access
                Management between member communities and the NH Department of
                Transportation.
                Provide technical assistance to member communities in master planning to assess
                impacts of different land uses on transportation system; in development of local access
                management plans; and in the evaluation of traffic impacts of development proposals.

Objective 8.5   Encourage the coordination of land use and transportation planning to ensure that
                existing and future industrial, commercial, and service centers and housing
                concentrations are adequately connected by the region’s roadway system; and
                appropriately located to preserve the quality of life in surrounding areas.

                Promote development of adequate and affordable housing supply to meet the needs of
                the region’s workforce, young families and the elderly; and ensure a regional balance of
                commercial and residential development.
                Promote development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit services to connect
                residential, employment, and community centers.
                Include training sessions on traffic impact analysis and other aspects of the
                transportation land use connection in future planning commission municipal board
                training series.



E. Conclusion

Promoting integration of land use and transportation planning at the regional level is no easy task,
especially in New Hampshire where local control is a cherished tradition. However, an awareness of the
consequences of not making this link is growing in the region, as residents encounter more traffic
congestion, high costs for new transportation infrastructure, loss of open space and valued natural and
cultural resources, and lack of transportation options for anybody without a car. The MPO, together
with the RPC, has taken a leading role in raising this awareness. In the coming years the MPO can play a
key role in moving the region and member communities from awareness to effective action by
promoting local adoption of innovative land use practices such as those described above; regional
collaboration on access management and related growth issues; and development of transportation
alternatives.




                              2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                  Rockingham Planning Commission
5-1                                                                                           Highways




 CHAPTER 5                    H I GH W A Y CO MP O N EN T



The twenty seven towns in the Rockingham Planning Commission region are served by an extensive
highway and road network. The purpose of this chapter is to provide some detailed information about
the roadways, discuss any issues that the region is facing in regard to the system, and outlined MPO
policies and other strategies to address them.


PLAN GOALS DIRECTLY ADDRESSED BY THIS CHAPTER

Goal 1: Develop a transportation system that affords mobility for all and provides
        appropriate access to employment, housing, services and recreation areas.
Goal 2: Manage, maintain and enhance the existing transportation system in order to
        maximize safety and efficiency and reduce the need for new roadway/bridge
        construction.
Goal 3: Manage, maintain, and enhance the transportation system as necessary to improve
        the safety of the transportation system.
Goal 4: Support the initiatives from local, state and federal agencies that will improve the
        security of the personal, public, and freight transportation systems.
Goal 5: Develop, maintain, and encourage use of viable alternatives to the single-occupant
        vehicle.
Goal 6: Promote transportation policies and improvements that support conservation of
        cultural and natural resources, and provide mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
Goal 7: Encourage better integration of land use and transportation planning.
Goal 8: Establish a transportation system that facilitates economic development



A. Background
By providing access to land, the transportation system has a tremendous impact on the physical
settlement patterns of a region, and in New Hampshire, that has been defined almost solely by the
extent of the roadway network. Traditionally, the State of New Hampshire has placed the greatest
emphasis on expansion of, and improvements to, the roadway network. This is reflected in the well
developed system of state and local roads that provide access to a significant portion of the land in the
region. There are however, some deficiencies in that network that have become more apparent as
population growth has pushed development further and further from town centers, placing larger
traffic burdens on secondary state highways and local roads.



                            2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                Rockingham Planning Commission
5-2                                                                                             Highways

B. Existing Conditions
This section of the chapter will detail the existing roadway network and its attributes, including traffic
volumes, recent improvements, the status of the MPO’s Congestion Management System, and other
details.

1. Roadway Network
Map 1-2 in the first chapter of this plan shows most of the study area’s principal highway routes. These
include Interstates 93 and 95, NH 101 and a small section of the Spaulding Turnpike (NH 16/US 4) for
freeways, US Route 1, State Routes 28, 33, 85, 87, 108, 121, 121A, and 125 all serving north-south
traffic, and State Routes 38, 97, 101, 107, 107A, 111, and 111A which serve east-west traffic.

Interregional Routes

Interstate 95 (I-95) is an eight lane, 65-mph toll facility that begins at the Massachusetts State line and
continues to where it exits the study area at the Maine State line. The route serves as the major
commuter transport corridor in the region, as well as handling year round tourist traffic between
southern and northern coastal New England and the Maritime Provinces of Canada. This corridor
connects with Interstate 495 near the Massachusetts/New Hampshire border. This is a high volume
facility carrying ADTs nearly 87,000 (2006) at the NH-MA state line to 75,000 (2006 – ME DOT) at the
NH-ME state line. However, traffic on Interstate 95 varies widely by time of year due to the volume of
tourist traffic on the route. The route has peak traffic during the month of August when approximately
112,000 vehicles per day cross the state line with Massachusetts. On the other hand, winter sees traffic
drop 39% to 68,000 vehicles per day.

Interstate 93 (I-93), a grade-separated freeway, is located in the western part of the study area and
runs from the Massachusetts state line where it exits the study area in Windham and north to
Manchester, Concord, and northern New Hampshire. In 2006, the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ranged
from approximately 110,000 at the NH-MA state line to approximately 72,000 at the Derry- Windham
town line. Interstate 93 is currently scheduled to undergo a significant widening over the next 10 years.
 Depending on funding availability, widening will start at Exit 1 and continue north through Exit 3 and
includes constructing 4 lanes in each direction, reconfiguration and reconstruction of all bridges (work is
starting now), and interchanges. The plans also include the development of Park and Rides at Exits 2, 4
and 5, transit service along the corridor, and technical assistance to communities expected to be
impacted by growth due to the project. Plans also include extending the widening north to Manchester
(3 lanes in each direction), however limited funding has put this portion of the project on hold at this
time.

NH 101 is the region’s major east-west highway and it runs the width of the state, and in the past was a
high traffic and high accident corridor. A major upgrade to NH 101 was completed in 2001, and
changed the roadway into a grade separated, four-lane facility connecting Interstate 93 in Manchester
with Interstate 95 in Hampton. After the interchange with Interstate 95, NH 101 reduces to two lanes
until its end at Route 1A on the beach in Hampton. The transformation of this roadway has reduced the
number and severity of some types of accidents (particularly head-on collisions), but has also resulted in
a significant increase in daily traffic over just a few years. According to the permanent counter located
in eastern Exeter, the adjusted average daily traffic was 33,500 at the completion of construction
(2001). By 2006 this had grown to 40,000 vehicles per day with a 5% per year average growth rate. The
pattern is similar further west along the corridor as well growing from 33,000 to 42,000 per day at the
Epping town line with Raymond (a 4.8% per year growth rate). On the other hand, volumes east of
Interstate 95 have remained relatively stable over the same period which indicates that the road is
being utilized for primarily for its connection between the two interstates and the connection to
                             2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                 Rockingham Planning Commission
5-3                                                                                           Highways

employment and commercial activities along its route.

NH 16, also known as the Spaulding Turnpike, is a limited access toll roadway which carries heavy
commuter and tourist traffic and serves as a gateway from the Seacoast to the Lakes Region. ADTs on
NH 16 within the RPC are approximately 70,000 vehicles per day (2006) at the Little Bay Bridges
between Newington and Dover where it exits the RPC region.

NH 125 carries traffic to and from Interstate 495 in Haverhill, Massachusetts through Plaistow,
Kingston, Brentwood and Epping where it exits the study area. NH 125 provides a north-south
connection between 495 and NH 101 at Exit 9 in Epping, and further north to US Route 4, and Route 16
(Spaulding Turnpike) in Rochester and eventually into Maine. Except for a short section near the
Massachusetts border which is four lanes and a section around the 101 interchange in Epping, NH 125 is
currently a two lane roadway with ADTs that range from 22,000 (2006) at the border with
Massachusetts, to approximately 13,000 in Kingston, and increase back up to 24,000 vehicles per day
north of the NH 101 interchange in Epping.

Interstate 495, although outside of the RPC region, is another important roadway. I-495 is a route
which follows a northeast to southwest path through the center of the Merrimack Valley Region – the
Massachusetts portion of the NH-MA Lawrence/Haverhill Urbanized Area. The highway forms an “outer
belt” around the Boston Metropolitan area. Although entirely within Massachusetts, I-495 provides
access to other highways in the area such as Routes 97 and 125, and creates an east-west connection
between Interstates 93 and 95.


Regional Routes

US 1 is a heavily developed two lane roadway for most of its length that provides local connections to
communities along the seacoast, access to NH beaches for tourists, as well as high levels of commercial
activity. Traffic volumes vary greatly along the corridor ranging from 13,000 (2006) at the state line in
Seabrook to approximately 25,000 (2005) just south of the intersection with NH 107 which provides
access to Interstate 95. Volumes stay above 20,000 vehicles per day through Hampton Falls and much
of Hampton but begin to drop off north of the NH 27 intersection in the center of Hampton. Volumes
stay consistently in the 15,000-18,000 range through North Hampton and Rye where the roadway is
much less developed and then grow again as you enter Portsmouth until the split for the US 1 Bypass
which takes the majority of the through traffic at that point to connect again to Interstate 95, the
Spaulding Turnpike as well as continuing to Maine via the Sarah Long Bridge. US 1 continues through
Portsmouth and crosses to Maine via the Memorial Bridge.

NH 1A is a two lane coastal roadway, which was recently designated as a New Hampshire Scenic Byway.
 Portions of the roadway are commercialized and in the summer are congested with motorized and
non-motorized beach traffic. Tourists heavily utilize this corridor. ADTs range from 11,700 in Seabrook
to 8,000 in New Castle.

NH 28 provides a parallel route to Interstate 93 in Salem and Windham and on to Manchester. This is a
heavily travelled roadway through the RPC region with significant retail and other commercial
development, particularly in Salem. Volumes through much of Salem are in the range of 23,000-25,000
vehicles per day which tapers off to around 18,000 vehicles at the Windham town line and reduces
further to around 12,000 vehicles per day at the Derry town line.

NH 33 provides a connection between Stratham where it intersects with NH 108 at the Stratham circle
                            2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                Rockingham Planning Commission
5-4                                                                                               Highways

and I-95 in Portsmouth providing a western route from Newmarket and Durham around the Great Bay.
Improvements to the I-95 interchange and the opening of the southern entrance to the Pease
International Tradeport in Portsmouth provided a boost to the traffic volumes on the roadway to the
range of 25,000 vehicles per day.

NH 108, a two lane roadway with ADTs ranges from 5,000 vehicles per day at the Massachusetts border
in Plaistow to 23,000 per day in Stratham where it serves as a commuter route and a connection to NH
101 and access to significant commercial development. NH 108 continues on to Newfields where it
exits the region still carrying around 18,000 vehicles per day.

NH 111 provides a secondary east-west route through the RPC region to Windham and continuing
across New Hampshire that parallels NH 101 to the north and Interstate 495 to the south. The roadway
has two distinct regions of heavy activity located around I-93 in the west, and Exeter and NH 101 in the
east. The roadway starts as a low volume (5000 vehicles per day) facility at NH 1A in North Hampton
and continues westward connecting with NH 101 where traffic volumes have doubled to 10,000
vehicles per day. Traffic levels double again as it continues through downtown Exeter (19,000 vehicles
per day), but drop off again through Kingston where it connects to NH 125. From Kingston it continues
through Danville, Hampstead, Atkinson, Salem and Windham steadily increasing in volume from around
7,700 vehicles per day to 23,000 near Interstate 93 in Windham (2005). From Windham the roadway
continues through Pelham to Nashua and Massachusetts.

Route 121 is a two lane roadway running between Atkinson (from the Massachusetts border) to where
it exits the region in Southern Sandown. ADTs are 8,600 vehicles per day at the Atkinson/Hampstead
town line. As residential growth continues in Atkinson and Hampstead, NH 121 is becoming increasingly
important as a commuter route into the large employment centers in the Merrimack Valley and the
Boston Metropolitan area. In fact, traffic on this roadway is growing at an average annual rate that is
close to 5%, which reflects the growth occurring in the region.

Appendix D provides a listing and classification of highways and roads in the region that are eligible for
federal funding for improvements.


2. Traffic Volumes
The NHDOT’s Bureau of Transportation Planning Traffic Research section monitors traffic growth
throughout New Hampshire and publishes monthly Automatic Traffic Recorder Reports for 79 locations
and an annual report for all counts performed in the state during the previous year. In addition, NHDOT
conducts traffic counts and other data collection during the summer months at additional locations for
study and project development purposes, and will respond to local community requests for counts.
Many of the various count locations around the state are surveyed approximately every three years to
establish a consistent history of traffic volumes. There are three permanent recorder locations in the
MPO study area. Table 4-1 presents selected data for each of these locations between 1986 and 2006.

The data represents only a small sample of traffic volume trends but still provides some insight into
regional traffic growth on the primary roadways in the region. The table shows significant growth in
traffic volumes at most locations between 1986 and 2006 with the US 1 site in North Hampton being
the only location that remained relatively static over that time period. Growth was especially rapid
between 1986 and 1996, with many locations experiencing a near doubling of traffic volumes, much of
that occurring during the 1980s. After 1996 growth generally continued, but at a much slower pace
coinciding with slower population growth and economic activities of the 1990s. This trend can be seen
by looking at the change in traffic volumes over the entire period, as well as looking at the historic 5, 10,
                             2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                 Rockingham Planning Commission
5-5                                                                                                                                                                            Highways

and 20 year average annual growth rates shown in Table 5.2. This data shows early high traffic growth
(on average 2.58%), followed by relatively slower growth during the last 10 years (1.59% average) and 5

                        TABLE 5.1 Traffic Volumes at Region Permanent Recorder Sites
                                                                                                                                                                       GROWTH RATES
    City or                  Location of                      Average Annual Daily Traffic AADT                              % Change in Volume                  20 YEAR 10 YEAR     5 YEAR
     Town                      Recorder                       1986           1996           2001           2006           86-06            96-06         01-06   AAGR** AAGR**       AAGR**
Exeter               NH 101 East of NH 88*                   14,689         19,630         35,368         40,000 172.31% 103.77% 13.10%                           5.01%    7.12%      2.46%
Hampton                    I-95 Toll Plaza                   26,238         51,518         62,636         64,477 145.74% 25.15%                          2.94%    4.50%    2.24%      0.58%
Newington            General Sullivan Bridge                 30,162         59,718         69,504         69,945 131.90% 17.13%                          0.63%    4.21%    1.58%      0.13%
North Hampton         US 1 N of B&M Bridge                   16,350         17,494         16,683         16,525         1.07%            -5.54%        -0.95%    0.05%   -0.57%     -0.19%
Salem              I-93 at Mass/NH State Line                75,383 100,970 110,189 109,688 45.51%                                         8.63%        -0.45%    1.88%    0.83%     -0.09%
Seabrook        I-95 at Mass/NH State Line I-95              59,097         77,438         81,873         87,038         47.28% 12.40%                   6.31%    1.94%    1.17%      1.22%
Stratham          NH 108 W of Bunker Hill Rd                 19,295         22,161         21,878         22,826         18.30%            3.00%         4.33%    0.84%    0.30%      0.85%
Windham               I-93 at Derry town line                44,718         61,391         70,267         71,712         60.36% 16.81%                   2.06%    2.36%    1.55%      0.41%
Windham             NH 28 at Derry Town line                  9,185         11,052         11,812         12,000         30.65%            8.58%         1.59%    1.34%    0.82%      0.32%
AVERAGE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 32,791                                46,819         53,357         54,912         67.46% 17.29%                   2.92%    2.58%    1.59%      0.57%
            ** AAGR is the calculated Average Annual Growth Rate over the number of years (20,10, or 5) and is taken from existing traffic volume data.




      Table 5.2 Average Annual Growth Rates and Growth Projectsions at Region Permanent Traffic Recorder Sites
                                                                                                                    GROWTH PROJECTIONS
     City or                      Location of                       20 YEAR AAGR               10 YEAR AAGR                5 YEAR AAGR                  Linear Trend            Model
     Town                          Recorder                        2017          2026          2017         2026          2017          2026          2017        2026      2017        2026
Exeter                     NH 101 East of NH 88*                  65,211       106,312        79,560      158,243       51,011         65,053        53,861       65,909    44,536   49,587
Hampton                         I-95 Toll Plaza                  100,088       155,366        80,496      100,494       68,312         72,374        90,896      108,978    71,789   79,930
Newington                  General Sullivan Bridge               105,601       159,434        81,822      95,716        70,835         71,736        98,745      117,617    77,877   86,708
North Hampton               US 1 N of B&M Bridge                  16,613       16,702         15,607      14,740        16,213         15,907        16,885       16,940    18,399   20,485
Salem                    I-93 at Mass/NH State Line              132,083       159,051       119,118      129,359       108,692       107,706       135,055      151,459   122,127   135,976
Seabrook              I-95 at Mass/NH State Line I-95            105,433       127,716        97,762      109,807       98,293        111,004       104,076      116,706    96,908   107,898
Stratham                NH 108 W of Bunker Hill Rd                24,818       26,984         23,510      24,214        24,838         27,028        24,881       26,403    25,415   28,297
Windham                     I-93 at Derry town line               90,564       114,371        83,668      97,618        74,686         77,782        90,116      102,918    79,844   88,899
Windham                   NH 28 at Derry Town line                13,704       15,650         13,025      14,137        12,384         12,781        13,915       15,238    13,361   14,876
                                   AVERAGE GROWTH                 70,829       91,359         64,324      75,348        58,151         61,582        69,826       80,241    61,140   68,073



years (0.57% average).

The volume information can also be projected into the future, and Table 5.2 does that using the
computed historic average annual growth rates shown in Table 5.1, the average growth rate of the
Regional Travel Demand Model, as well as a simple linear regression technique. Using the historic
growth rates [5, 10, and 20 year Average Annual Growth Rates (AAGR)] to project current volumes 20
years to the horizon of this plan produces a very wide range of estimates. Utilizing the 2.58% AAGR
seen over the twenty years period from 1986 to 2006 creates the greatest increase in traffic volumes
over current levels and in many cases would outgrow the available capacity of the roadway network.
Using the 5 or 10 year average annual growth rates reflects more recent growth patterns and produces
more moderate estimates of what traffic volumes could be. None of the estimates utilizing the historic
growth rates take into account any limitations, such as roadway capacity that might restrict future
growth or shift it to other facilities. However, the information provides a useful comparison with
estimates developed through the regional travel demand model, and those predicted using simple
linear regression to create a “best fit” estimate of future growth.

The linear regression method of forecasting future traffic volumes also uses historic changes in traffic
levels to predict the future. This method involves developing a “best fit” line that represents past
growth and continuing that trend into the future. Where this differs from using the average of the
historic growth rates is that while an average rate tends to smooth the high and low growth periods,
and applies that rate consistently to future years, the regression method looks at the trend (in this case
high growth early that slows in later years) and attempts to find the best way to continue that trend to

                                                       2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                                           Rockingham Planning Commission
              5-6                                                                                                         Highways

              future years. In this application, the volumes predicted by regression fall between those predicted by
              historic average growth rates and those predicted by the Regional Traffic Model. This method predicts
              an average growth rate of approximately 1.8% per year for these sites.

              The MPO Regional Traffic Model utilizes a feedback loop system that integrates land use into the
              traditional four step trip modeling process. Base year trip ends are calculated based on existing land
              use at the zone level, the trip distribution module separates them into origins and destinations which
              are then split into the various available modes of travel, and finally distributed to the transportation
              network. This information is then fed back into the model to calculate the next analysis year. The 2026
              AM, PM, and off-peak hour travel estimates of traffic for model links equivalent to the permanent
              recorder sites were expanded into Average Daily Traffic for comparison with the projections performed
              using historic growth rates and doing linear regression.           For comparison purposes, the growth
              predicted by the model for these locations in total is approximately 1.08% per year, which is lower than
              most of the other methods discussed. These volumes are shown in the Table 5.2 columns labeled
              “Model” for 2016 and 2026, and are lower than the growth predicted by all other methods except for
              the version utilizing the growth rate from the
              most recent five year period. This is primarily due           Table 5.3: VMT Growth Predictions from
              to the model considering constraints on the                     Seacoast MPO Travel Demand Model
              physical system in terms of roadway capacity and                                                         Ave Annual
              land available for growth and traffic congestion                                      Weekday              Growth
              changing travel patterns. At this time, the model           Analysis Year                VMT                 Rate
              is calibrated for predicting traffic on a regional       2007                      4,509,549.34
              level, and not on the individual link or intersection
                                                                       2017                      4,889,122.22 0.81%
              scale. Current work on upgrading the model and
                                                                       2026                      5,531,806.71 1.08%
              adding new capabilities may provide additional
                                                                       Change 2007-2026 1,022,259.76
              validity to these estimates, but the volumes the         From 2006 Model runs for Air Quality Conformity purposes – Fall,
              values presented should be taken as very general         2006.
              estimates that would need to be examined more
              closely to serve as the basis of any analysis.


              The model is primarily used to make projections regarding the Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) within the
              region on a daily level and is calibrated specifically for this purpose. Generally, these projections are
              based on current assumptions about growth and development in the area and about future
              construction of transportation projects. Overall, the model is predicting an approximate 1.08% growth
              in VMT per year over the life of this plan or a total growth of approximately 23%. This equates to 10
              year growth rates in the range of 14% which is comparable to historic changes in VMT. The Bureau of
              Transportation Statistics (Part of the Federal Highway Administration) in its Transportation Statistics
                                                                              Annual Report 2000 [SOURCE: U.S.
                                                                              Department of Transportation, Federal
                            Tourist Trips in the Seacoast Region              Highway       Administration,    Highway
                 4
                                                                              Statistics (Washington, DC: Annual issues)]
                                                                              shows New Hampshire as a whole having a
               3.5
                                                                              10-19% increase in VMT during the period
                 3
                                                                              of 1989-1999.
Millions of Trips




                    2.5

                     2                                                               NHDOT and the planning commission also
                    1.5                                                              conduct non-permanent automatic traffic
                     1                                                               counts throughout the region.     Staff
                    0.5
                                                                                     chooses the count locations with
                     0
                          Summer 03    Fall 03
                                                  2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                                        Winter 03/04 Spring 04
                                                 Season Rockingham Planning Commission
5-7                                                                                                      Highways

consideration of regional significance and community requests for information. These locations are
mapped at RPC and count data is contained in traffic volume reports published by NH DOT annually.
This information is organized by town and can be seen in the annual Traffic Volume Reports published
by NH DOT which are available at the Planning Commission Offices, as well as through the NHDOT
website [http://webster.state.nh.us/dot/]

In the coastal portion of the region tourism plays a large role in traffic volumes. Examples of this effect
can be seen in Figure 5.2 and 5.3. Figure 5.2 shows the number (in millions) of tourists that visit the
seacoast region of the state and how the volumes in the summer are nearly twice those of all other
seasons. Figure 5.3 shows the monthly change in volume at the Massachusetts state line on Interstate
95. This illustrates the large increases in volume during the Seacoast’s prime tourist season (40%
greater in some cases), as well as the influence of traffic bound for Maine and the Canadian Maritime
Provinces via Interstate 95. This phenomenon is seen on most of the coastal roadways in the area and
extends westward to the NH 125 corridor.

While tourist traffic plays a role in the growth in summer traffic in the western portion of the region,
growth there is more driven by local residential and commercial changes as well as commuting to
employment in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

                                   2003 Monthly T raffic Volumes on I-95 at NH/MA State Line

                         140,000

                         120,000
      Vehicles Per Day




                         100,000

                          80,000

                          60,000

                          40,000

                          20,000
                                   JAN   FEB     MAR   APR   MAY   JUN   JUL   AUG   SEP   OCT   NOV   DEC

                                                                    Month




3. Congestion Management System
ISTEA originally required each state to develop, establish and implement management systems for the
purpose of analyzing the existing transportation system, monitoring problems, identifying needs,
analyzing alternative solutions, and measuring the effectiveness of the implemented actions. In
urbanized areas, the states were required to develop the management systems in cooperation with the
MPO. MPOs were to consider the transportation needs identified through the use of the management
systems, and consider the results of the management systems in making project selection decisions.

However, in late 1995 the federal mandate for management systems was suspended, and these
systems became voluntary. The NHDOT has decided to continue its Pavement and Bridge management
systems, and to address the Congestion, Public Transportation and Intermodal aspects of the
management systems through its current statewide planning project, which includes the development
and use of a statewide travel demand model. In addition, the NHDOT will proceed with the traffic
records aspect of the Highway Safety management system. The MPO will maintain its involvement in
these projects as appropriate, and will incorporate the resulting data into its long-range planning
process as the data becomes available.

                                               2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                                   Rockingham Planning Commission
5-8                                                                                            Highways



In accordance with the provisions of 23 CFR part 450, the Congestion Management System (CMS) shall
be part of the metropolitan planning process in Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). The general
requirements of a CMS are that each State shall develop, establish, and implement, on continuing basis,
a CMS that results in the identification and implementation of strategies that provide the most efficient
use of existing and future transportation facilities in all areas of the State, including metropolitan and
non-metropolitan areas, where congestion is occurring or is expected to occur. The Salem-Plaistow-
Windham region is technically considered a TMA because it is a part of the Merrimack Valley
                                                                Metropolitan region. The MPO developed
   TABLE 5-4 CMS MOST SEVERELY CONGESTED ROADWAYS (1995)        a Congestion Management System Plan
                                                                for the region in 1995, as a subset to the
                   Corridor/                                    Merrimack Valley CMS plan. That study
   Town(s)       Intersection        From             To        attempted to identify the most severe
                                                                congestion areas in the region, including
    Salem/                        NH 28/111
  Windham
                    NH 111
                                 Intersection
                                                 Lowell Road    roadways and parking areas. The two
                                                                parking areas analyzed, Park & Rides in
    Salem/
                     I-93
                                 MA/NH State
                                                     Exit 3     Windham and Plaistow, were found to be
  Windham                             Line                      adequate. For roadways, staff calculated
                 Rockingham
                                                                the PM peak hour ratios of volume to
    Salem                           NH 28         I-93, Exit 1  capacity (V/C ratios), and designated
                  Park Blvd.
                                                                those areas with a greater than .99 V/C
    Salem           NH 97       Millville Street
                                                  I-93, Exit 2  ratio as the most severe congestion areas.
                                                                The regional travel demand model was
    Salem           NH 38           NH 97         Brady Ave
                                                                used for this purpose. Several roadways
                                                                in Salem and Windham qualified as “most
                                                                severe” (see Table 5-4). The V/C ratios
provide an initial screening of the most severely congested roadways. The MPO needs to study some or
all of these roads in greater detail. In addition, congestion on NH 125, which surprisingly was found to
have a less than 0.99 V/C ratio, will be further quantified and verified in any future updates to this CMS
plan. The 1995 Plan also included CMS strategies, including Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) and mentioned TIP projects that will mitigate traffic congestion, noting that these projects did
not follow directly from the CMS process.

When it becomes necessary, the MPO will update its CMS plan using its updated transportation demand
model capability. In this way the initial screening of the most severe congestion areas may be verified
and future congestion can be projected. Additional data collection and analysis of those areas identified
is also required, as is coordination with the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission.


C. Highway Issues

The Rockingham Planning Commission region is faced with many important issues involving its highways
and roads. Some of the major issues are addressed in this section.

1. Access and Access Management, and Corridor Preservation
The location, density and site design of land use all have a large influence on the transportation system,
as does the transportation system on the development of land. Simply stated, development and land
use determine where highways (or highway improvements) are needed, and highways to a large extent
determine what land is improved, and the use patterns that growth takes. This “Transportation Land

                             2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                 Rockingham Planning Commission
5-9                                                                                                      Highways


  What are the Symptoms of
                                          Use Cycle” is discussed in greater detail in the previous chapter (Chapter
  Poor Access Management?                 4) of this document. A major outcome of this pattern has been the
      High Crash Rates
                                          proliferation linear development along transportation corridors with
      Poor traffic flow and               large numbers of closely spaced driveways and intersections along
      congestion                          highways that, when combined with the large volumes of destination
      Numerous brake light                and through traffic, create significant operational and safety problems.
      activations by drivers in the
      through lanes                       As traffic volumes increase, making turns become more difficult and
      Unsightly strip development         dangerous, congestion increases travel times and delay, traffic begins to
      Neighborhoods disrupted             spill onto parallel streets, and in the most extreme cases, people stop
      by through traffic
      Using a local street parallel
                                          going to the businesses in the area or through the region. In the past,
      to the overburdened                 this has led to calls from the community to widen the road or build a
      “arterial” to make a one-           “bypass” to relieve traffic congestion, but these solutions are costly and
      way pair
      Pressures to widen an
                                          can create an entirely new set of problems, such as loss of community
      existing street or build a          character, increased speed, accidents and congestion on widened
      bypass                              roadways, and loss of economic activity as traffic shifts to a bypass.
      Bypass routes as                    Access Management has developed in response to these issues as an
      congested as the roadways
      they were built to relieve          effort to develop solutions to congestion that makes more efficient use
      A decrease in property              of the existing roadway system, and attempts to be sensitive to the
      values                              context in which the improvements are be needed.
From: Access Management, Location and
Design, FHWA Course No. 13378, S/K
Transportation Consultants
                                  Access management seeks to balance the need for people to access
                                  property (residences and businesses) with the need to move traffic
                                  through an area safely and efficiently. There are several different
                                  approaches that can be taken to do this, and they are often utilized
together to develop area or corridor wide improvements. This often takes the physical form of
roadway changes that control the movement of vehicles, but also entails the establishment of
appropriate standards and policies for fair implementation. The standards and policies generally
establish the conditions to make many of the physical improvements possible by setting site distance
minimums, driveway and intersection spacing standards, and others as well as laying out a general
Access Management Plan for an area or corridor. The physical changes are typically related to
managing how vehicles enter and exit driveways through appropriate numbers and locations of curb
cuts, encouraging shared driveways, restricting turning movements, providing access roads connected
to traffic signals, and turning lanes. When Access Management policies and techniques are combined,
significant gains can be made in terms of improved traffic flow and reduced accident potential. There
are six basic Access Management techniques that can be applied to roadways (From: Access
Management, Location and Design, FHWA Course No. 13378, S/K Transportation Consultants):
1. Limit the number of conflict points: This type of change looks to reduce the complexity of driving
   by limiting the information that drivers must process at any given time. Limiting the interaction
   between vehicles & between vehicles & pedestrians/bicyclists that are moving in different
   directions simplifies the driver’s task which in turn reduces the potential for accidents and improves
   traffic flow.
2. Separate conflict areas: This type of improvement attempts to increase the time or distance
   between decision points for drivers, allowing them to face potential conflicts one at a time, or at
   least in reduced numbers. This would include for example not allowing left turns from a driveway.
   In this case, the driver only has to focus on approaching traffic from one direction rather than two.
   As with #1, the intent is to simplify the driving task leading to reduced numbers of accidents and
   better flowing traffic.



                                        2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                            Rockingham Planning Commission
5-10                                                                                                       Highways

3. Remove turning vehicles from through traffic lanes: The addition of turning lanes reduces the
   impact that vehicles slowing to make a turn have on traffic that is continuing in the same direction.
   In congested areas without turning lanes, all traffic stops behind vehicles waiting to turn. This leads
   to increased congestion and greater accident potential.
4. Reduce the number of turning movements: This technique
   focuses on the elimination of short distance, slow movement                Benefits of an Effective Access
   travel on the primary roadways. By interconnecting parking lots,                  Management Program
   providing access roads, and connections to side streets, vehicles             Fewer and less severe crashes
   can move between businesses without having to re-enter the                    Less auto-pedestrian conflict
                                                                                 Less stop & go traffic
   roadway only to exit again shortly after. This results in less                Reduced delay
   congestion and reduced accident potential.                                    Increased & preserved capacity
5. Improve roadway operations: This technique uses a variety of                  Reduced fuel consumption
                                                                                 Preservation of investment in
   methods to manage traffic operations on a corridor. This                      roadway system
   includes implementing long, uniform signal and intersection                   More attractive corridors and
   spacing,                                                                      improved community appearance
6. Improve driveway operations: This type of improvement looks                   Enhances community character
                                                                                 Preserves neighborhood integrity
   to improve the operation and safety of the roadway by making                  Preservation of private investment
   improvements to driveway intersections.              Well defined             in abutting property
   driveways of appropriate width and adequate curve radii reduce                Lower vehicular emissions
   the impact on through traffic by making the entering or exiting         From: Access Management, Location and Design,
                                                                           FHWA Course No. 13378, S/K Transportation
   movement less difficult, and provision of adequate sight                Consultants
   distance reduces accident potential.

PROJECTS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS ACCESS
There are a few projects in the region that are designed to address access and access management
issues. The Town of Exeter has a project in the State Ten Year Plan that will specifically examine the
implementation of an Access Management Plan for Epping Road (NH 27), which is an area that is under
significant development pressure. The US 1 corridor is also currently being studied for necessary
improvements, and access management will be a significant part of the recommended work.

The most ambitious effort regarding this is related to the NH 125 improvements proposed in Plaistow
and Kingston. A primary component of this project is the Access Management Plan that is being
implemented as part of the improvements. In addition to the roadway widening and intersection
improvements necessary to address capacity and safety issues, the NH 125 project (the project is still in
the design stage and components of the project may change from what is listed here) is proposing the
following techniques be applied in various parts of the corridor:
             Non-traversable median barrier to separate directional traffic and concentrate left turn
             movements at intersections. Will provide significant benefits in terms of safety and
             efficiency, and if a planted median is used, aesthetic benefits as well.
             Directional median breaks to provide left turn access to properties in some mid-block
             locations to try to keep u-turn distances minimal.
             Driveway consolidation to reduce the number of access points to the roadway which will
             benefit both safety and traffic flow.
             Access roads to provide mid-block businesses that have a median barrier with access to
             traffic signals and the full movement that they allow.
             Left and right turn lanes to remove turning vehicles efficiently from the through traffic
             lanes.
             Evenly spaced traffic signals (as much as possible) to assist in the coordination of signals for
             efficient flow of traffic and maintenance of reasonable speeds.

                                2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                    Rockingham Planning Commission
5-11                                                                                           Highways

            Jug handles to enable trucks to reverse directions where a median is present
            Defined and improved driveways to enable safe and efficient access/egress from the
            roadway.
            Access Management standards for consistent implementation of techniques throughout the
            corridor for future development or roadway projects.

Other projects in the Long Range Plan will also need to include access management components.
Projects have been proposed to work on the section of NH 125 between the Massachusetts state line
and East Road in Plaistow as well as North Broadway in Salem. Each of these will need to utilize access
management due to limited space for roadway expansion, and to address the congestion and safety
problems present at those locations. Other projects, such as the proposed Wall Street extension in
Windham would also benefit from Access Management components.

A related highway issue that has received a considerable amount of attention in recent years is the
concept of corridor preservation. This entails preserving right-of-way for new highways or for the
improvement of existing roadways so that when the new or improved facility is needed, there is a
reduced amount of development within the property needed for construction. This can reduce the cost
of projects, as well as shorten the lead time necessary to bring a project from concept to construction.
On NH 125 in Kingston, and NH 111 in Danville, large segments of the roadways have been established
as limited access facilities, making the addition of driveways more difficult. In this instance this has
limited the development along the roadway that is seen in other sections of the corridor, allowing for
improved traffic flow (no driveways for vehicles to enter or exit). Additional portions of NH 125 will
likely be reclassified as limited access as part of the Plaistow-Kingston NH 125 project that extends from
East Road in Plaistow north to the southern NH 111 intersection in Kingston. The NH 111 Bypass
project that is scheduled to begin construction in 2003 will also be a limited access facility with only a
few defined access points, as the intent of the project is to move traffic, and not provide land for
additional development.

2. Balancing Maintenance and Improvement Needs
As traffic volumes have steadily grown nationwide, it has become clear to many that it is not affordable
or practical to continue to expand the roadways to offset congestion. In much of the Salem-Plaistow-
Windham region, this holds true as well – expanded roadways in many cases are either infeasible due to
environmental or other constraints, or simply unwanted by the community. On the other hand, there
are still significant improvements that can and should be made to make the system safer and more
efficient at moving traffic. In addition, maintenance needs are an ongoing issue for all of the
communities as many roads are carrying more and heavier traffic than they were designed for. This
leads to unsafe road conditions, such as bridges which the state has placed on its “red list” for
prioritizing repairs, unsafe or congested intersections and roadways, substandard road design, and
crumbling pavement. With limited funding for this type of work, choices need to be made about what
takes priority. The fact that all the necessary improvements and repairs cannot be made due to funding
limitations may have several negative impacts such as increases in accidents, further deterioration of
the roadways, and public disapproval. Many of our region’s roads and bridges have reached or
exceeded their intended life span and are in need of repair or replacement.

Recent years have seen communities in the region call for improvements on their roads, often
motivated by safety concerns and sometimes motivated by congestion. Some have opted for improving
the through capacity and safety of existing roadways without adding lane capacity, which requires
increased maintenance efforts later and can negatively impact a community’s character.



                             2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                 Rockingham Planning Commission
5-12                                                                                           Highways

PROJECTS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS SYSTEM PRESERVATION
The vast majority of the highway projects in the long range plan are designed to improve the existing
roadways as opposed to the development of new roadways. All of the rehabilitation projects listed for
bridges and roadways, intersection improvements, and expansions of existing facilities will be built with
this idea in mind.


3. Congestion and Capacity Issues on Regional Highways
In Chapter 3 it was noted that many of the region’s residents commute south to Massachusetts for
employment. This, combined with trips from Massachusetts to take advantage of commercial and
recreational opportunities in New Hampshire, has led to significant demand for north-south travel
through the region. These trends have produced significant impacts on the traffic in many of the north-
south corridors in southern New Hampshire, and specifically Interstate 93 and Route 125 in this region.
Other regional roadways, such as Routes 97, 108, and 121 have been impacted as well, although to a
lesser extent. Problems with capacity in these corridors seem to be the most severe at or near the
border with Massachusetts, in part because this is where traffic volumes are the greatest. On I-93,
traffic enters or leaves New Hampshire in the southern part of Salem at volumes greater than 110,000
vehicles per day. Similarly, both routes 121 and 121A, along with the traffic from Route 125, all
converge near the border with Massachusetts where ADT reaches its highest volume at about 23,000
vehicles per day.

Congestion problems resulting from these volumes are compounded by the lack of consistency
between the road configurations on either side of the border. I-93, New Hampshire currently has two
travel lanes in either direction, which increases to three in Massachusetts. On NH 125, the highway
widens to 4 lanes (two each direction) in southern Plaistow, which is primarily a commercial area, and
back down to two lanes at the border. It is this area that presents the greatest congestion problems
due to the lane configuration change, the large number of driveways in close proximity, and a lack of
channelized turning movements. In both cases, there are efforts underway to remedy the congestion
problems in both states supported by the towns and regions in which the facilities are located.

Interstate 93: The State of New Hampshire DOT has programmed funds to widen the facility, with
construction due to begin within the next few years. The current preferred alternative calls for adding
two lanes in each direction the whole length of the corridor from the border with Massachusetts to the
Interstate 293 interchange in Manchester. All of the interchanges will be reconstructed and upgraded,
as well as some of the segments of the highway will be relocated. The project also includes significant
investment in bus service and Park and Ride facilities along the corridor, and space is being provided in
the median for a future light rail system or other rapid transit. Coordination of effort will be necessary
to avoid reversing the current situation and creating a bottleneck on the southern side of the border as
Massachusetts is planning improvements of its own,. The MPO has participated in a study developed by
the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission to explore necessary improvements on that side of the
border.

NH 125: On Route 125, the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission initiated a study to look at possible
locations for a new facility that would bypass the congestion on the section of NH 125 between
Interstate 495 and the MA-NH border, including the possibility of upgrading that portion of the corridor.
 In addition, the MVPC is currently studying options for improving the intersection of Route 125, Route
121A, Haseltine Avenue, and Cushing Avenue where these facilities meet at the border. The City of
Haverhill and the Town of Plaistow have held a number of joint meetings for the purpose of exploring
what steps can be taken to reduce the congestion problem, both in terms of a long term bypass or
major reconstruction, and shorter term improvements such as signal coordination, access management,
                             2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                 Rockingham Planning Commission
5-13                                                                                               Highways

and other options. The MPO is also working with the MVPC on this issue and will provide any help that
is requested for the Massachusetts study. Finally, the state of New Hampshire has programmed several
projects in the area that will aid in alleviating the traffic issues in the area. A signal coordination project
and funds for widening/lane reconfiguration near the border are programmed for the next several
years.

While much of NH 125 in Plaistow will be addressed by the Plaistow-Kingston improvement project, the
section of the roadway between the Westville bridge and the border with Massachusetts is not part of
that project. This area is heavily congested and lacks turning lanes through much of its length. In
addition, there are a large number of closely spaced driveway access points along its length, which
when combined with the lack of turn lanes and heavy traffic volumes, creates long delays and high
accident potential. Complicating the issue in this region is that the worst section of the roadway
straddles the border with Massachusetts, and any improvements will likely need to go through the
project development process on each side of the border. Some of the issues are beginning to be
addressed on this section of roadway, but there has been no comprehensive look at the entire section
of roadway. The Merrimack Valley Planning Commission is currently undertaking a Plaistow/Haverhill
jointly funded study of potential intersection and traffic improvements at the border, and money has
been programmed by the NH DOT to work on improvements at other locations.

NH 28 (North Broadway) in Salem: This section of NH 28 begins at the heavily congested “Salem
Depot” intersection of NH 28 with Main Street (NH 97) and continues north to the intersection of NH 28
with NH 111. The area is a four lane cross section (2 lanes each direction) with no turning lanes and a
large number of driveways/ curb cuts to access the roadway. The land use in the area is primarily
commercial, but there are some residential properties. This area is heavily congested and there are a
large number of motor vehicle collisions on this section of road. There are no left turn lanes at this
intersection which creates significant delays as one lane of through movement is occupied by turning
vehicles. The issues at this intersection will be addressed by a project scheduled for construction in
2006, but the remaining portion of the corridor to the north will not be addressed by this project.

NH 111: This route provides the primary east-west travel through the region, and while not heavily
congested along most of its length, residential and commercial development in the communities along
the corridor is placing significant burdens upon the roadway. In many areas, the number and proximity
of access points creates traffic flow and safety issues. In other areas, there are no turning lanes
(continuous or dedicated). Some work has been done on the corridor, as various intersections have
been approved; however no corridor wide planning has been performed, especially through the central
portion of the region. A bypass around Shadow Lake in Salem is close to beginning construction which
will address many of the congestion issues on the western side of the region by improving the
alignment and capacity of the roadway in Salem and Windham connecting to Interstate 93.

There are a number of roadway capacity deficiencies existing within the Seacoast MPO region. Some of
the most problematic areas, such as the Little Bay Bridges area of the Spaulding Turnpike, are in the
midst of planning and engineering work for construction that will alleviate the problem. However,
there are also existing deficiencies that are not being addressed in existing plans or construction. NH
DOT, as part of its development of the 2003-2012 Ten Year Plan, performed an analysis of Level of
Service and congestion statewide, identifying those areas that were not congested (LOS A or B),
moderately congested (LOS C or D) and congested (LOS E or F). The following areas in the Seacoast
MPO were identified as being congested:




                              2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                  Rockingham Planning Commission
5-14                                                                                         Highways

           NH 125 from the intersection with NH 111A in Brentwood north to the intersection with NH
           9 in Barrington.
           US 4 in Barrington, Lee, Durham, and Dover.
           NH 11 in Farmington
           US 1 from the Mass/NH state boundary in Seabrook to the Portsmouth Traffic Circle
           NH 108 from the Intersection with NH 101 in Stratham/Exeter to the intersection with US 4
           in Durham.
           Segments of the Spaulding Turnpike (NH 4 & NH 16) in Portsmouth, Newington, Dover, and
           Rochester.
           NH 33 from the Stratham Circle to approximately Squamscott Road.

The analysis did not make any determination as to the nature of the capacity deficiencies or what would
be necessary to correct them, however this type of analysis will be necessary before projects can be
developed to address the congestion.

In addition to the known deficiencies discussed above, the regional traffic model was used to determine
where future growth would create roadway capacity problems. The model projects current traffic and
development patterns out to the horizon year of this plan (2026) and loads them on the roadway
network which includes all known improvements out to 2026. In addition, the model takes into account
all known large commercial, industrial or residential developments. The results of that analysis show a
few areas in the region that are predicted to experience significant peak hour congestion. This is based
on estimates of volume to capacity during the PM peak hour and additional data should be collected
prior to the development of projects to address the congestion. The locations identified by the
Regional Traffic Model are:

               Portions of the NH 101 & I-95 Interchange
               The I-95 & Spaulding Turnpike interchange
               Woodbury Avenue in Portsmouth north of Gosling Road
               Grafton Drive, New Hampshire Avenue, and Pease Boulevard in the Pease Tradeport
               NH 107 between Interstate 95 and US 1
               NH 107 Near the intersection with NH 150

The MPO is currently in the midst of both a model upgrade and a model update. The model upgrade
promises to provide additional capabilities that will enhance the usefulness of the model in performing
regional traffic analysis while the update will provide up to date information on which to base future
growth assumptions (such as census journey to work data). The new information will also allow the
MPO to check the validity and calibration of the model by providing us the detailed information
necessary to check model projections for the year 2000 against known traffic volumes, populations, and
employment levels. This work is expected to be completed during 2003 and will begin to be
implemented into RPC work at that point.

There are a number of projects in the Long Range Plan that are designed to address capacity issues.
Foremost among these is again the Newington-Dover Spaulding Turnpike improvement project which
will address capacity constraints in that corridor. In addition, there will be some improvements at the
Hampton Ramp Tolls and along the northern section of the Spaulding turnpike to address congestion
issues. Many of the intersection improvement projects in the region will address capacity constraints
through the addition of turning lanes, traffic signals, or other improvements. Some of the primary
facilities in the region that are facing congestion problems are discussed below in greater detail.


                            2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                Rockingham Planning Commission
5-15                                                                                             Highways



NH 125
One example of a section of roadway that has received a great deal of attention from the municipalities
that lie along it is NH 125. NH 125 is an important north-south corridor in the Seacoast region that
extends from the New Hampshire/ Massachusetts border at Plaistow to Milton. This route is two lanes
with almost unlimited access to the road. This unplanned access to the road has been a center of much
concern. Perceived high accident rates along NH 125 have been expressed by many residents and
communities on the corridor as well as those who travel the route. The problems of NH 125 are a result
of poorly planned intersections, lack of signage for side roads, high speeds, and uncontrolled driveway
and commercial access.

This road has also seen a great increase in its ADTs over the recent years. This increase in traffic has led
to a call for widening of the road to 4 lanes in some highly traveled sections. Epping was able to use the
TIP and Ten-Year Planning process and obtain a project to widen NH 125 from the Brentwood town line
north to NH 87. Other communities should work within the TIP and Ten-Year Planning process to obtain
increased funding and support for their roadways in need of maintenance and improvements.
Spaulding Turnpike (NH 16)
NH 16, also referred to the Spaulding Turnpike from Portsmouth through Rochester, is a major
transportation corridor in New Hampshire. NH 16 extends from New Hampshire’s historic Seacoast in
Portsmouth through the Lakes Region to the White Mountains and onto the great northern forest.
Along the way, it offers commerce, employment, recreation, and the scenic beauty typical of New
Hampshire. In the Seacoast region, NH 16 stretches from Portsmouth to Wakefield. Along this section
of the corridor, the communities, the MPO, and the State are actively addressing many transportation
issues.

The reconstruction of the Spaulding Turnpike in the Newington-Dover area including the Little Bay
Bridges is intended primarily to address congestion issues on this portion of the corridor but will have
safety benefits as well. This improvement area runs from just south of the Dover tolls to just north of
the Newington-Portsmouth Town Line, approximately 3.5 miles. This is a problematic area due to the
large population and employment centers in the area. The project includes short-term improvements
involving frontage roads and alterations in access to the Spaulding Turnpike. Long term changes will
likely involve the reconstruction and widening of the Turnpike as well as the construction of a new
interchange at Exit 4 (Woodbury Avenue) and interchange improvements to Exit 6 (US 4). Many issues,
such as the impact to historic resources (i.e.: General Sullivan Bridge), environmental constraints, access
to the Pease International Tradeport and developed properties needs to be resolved before action is
taken. However, this is an important corridor for travel within the region and action must be taken to
resolve the high volumes of traffic while considering all the impacts.


TOLL FACILITY CONGESTION
Congestion at the regions toll facilities is another issue facing both the NH 16/Spaulding Turnpike and
Interstate 95 corridors. Currently these facilities face significant congestion at times due to commuter
and tourist traffic. The placement of Electronic Tolls at the facilities in the region has been proposed as
a method of mitigating some of the impacts of this congestion. Electronic tolls are a form of Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) technology. NHDOT is currently studying the use of electronic tolls and
places to implement electronic tolls on the entire New Hampshire turnpike system within the next five
years. The project will be partial funded by the use of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
funds. Although the MPO does not support the use of CMAQ funds for this project, it is in support of a
study of electronic tolls in NH. The MPO feels that turnpike funds should be used for this project.
Electronic tolls are a great tool for easing congestion on the NH’s turnpikes. The tolls would allow for
                             2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                 Rockingham Planning Commission
5-16                                                                                          Highways

vehicles to travel through the tolls and pay electronically therefore not having to come to a complete
stop, as they do now. In addition to the implementation of ETC, there are also some other Toll Facility
upgrades occurring in the region. The Hampton main Toll Plaza just added another lane in each
direction to shorten peak hour queues, and the Hampton Ramp toll will be widened in 2004 to
accommodate the additional traffic generated by the completion of the NH 101 expansion, as well as to
prepare for ETC.


4. Safety
During the period between 1993 and 1999, there were approximately 15,000 traffic accidents in the
Rockingham Planning Commission region. A listing of traffic accidents by town taken from the State
Accidents Database is shown in Table 5-5, and shows the distribution of these accidents through the
region by year. The limits of the database and the size of the area being considered make detailed
analysis difficult, but there is generally a trend that shows the number of accidents increasing between
1993 and 1999. Looking at the number of accidents related to the primary state highways in the area, it
can be seen that the most heavily traveled roadways are also the ones on which the most accidents
occur (Table 4-4). This however does not mean that the rate of accidents on these roadways is higher,
just that there is more traffic and more accidents. In terms of the different types of accidents that
occurring in the region, over 71% include a collision with another moving vehicle. Another 17% involve
colliding with a fixed object such as a telephone pole, tree, or building. The remaining 12% of accidents
include everything from striking an animal (1.9%), pedestrian (0.88%), or bicyclist (0.54%) to falling
objects (0.32%), off road vehicle accidents (0.03%), and fires (0.01%). In Terms of the general location
of the accidents, about one-third (32.4%) are at or related to an intersection, while another 46.5% occur
along the roadway or at a driveway access point. Another 13% occur in a driveway or parking lot, and
the rest (about 8%) occur at other locations.


        Table 4-5            Over the period between 1998 & 2000 there were approximately 18,000
    Accidents 1993-1999      traffic accidents in the 35 Seacoast MPO towns. A listing of accidents by
   Route        Accidents    town taken from the State Traffic Accidents Database is shown in Table
I-93              1008       4.4, and illustrates the distribution of accidents over the years and
NH 28             1791       between the region’s towns. The limits of the database make detailed
NH 38             101        analysis challenging, but there is generally a trend that shows the number
NH 97             276        of accidents increasing between 1998 and 2000. The most common types
NH 107             53
                             of accidents are:
NH 111            1155
NH 111A            91                    Collisions between multiple motor vehicles (67%)
NH 121            524                    Collisions with fixed objects (17%)
NH 121A           380                    Collisions with animals (4%).
NH 125            1233
                            There are 17 other accident types detailed in the standard Motor Vehicle
Accident Report [DSMV 400] that make up the remaining 12% on incidents. This includes bicycle (0.8%)
and pedestrian (1.2%) accidents. While many people believe that there are more accidents in bad
weather and with bad road conditions, the vast majority of collisions occurred under clear or cloudy
skies (79%), or with dry roads (72%). Sixteen percent of all accidents in the region occurred during
some precipitation (rain/snow/sleet) and 24% happened with slippery road conditions
(wet/snow/slush/ice) due to that precipitation.

Some relevant statistics related to when accidents occur:


                            2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                Rockingham Planning Commission
5-17                                                                                         Highways

        27% of all weekday accidents occurred between 3:00 and 6:00 PM
        The day with the greatest frequency of accidents is Friday (18%)
        The day with the lowest frequency of accidents is Sunday (11%)
        22% of all weekend accidents occurred between 3:00 and 6:00 PM
        20% of all accidents occurred in December and January.

Given this information, as well as NHDOT analysis of accident rates (crashes/ million VMT), a number of
road segments warrant further investigation into the causes and potential solutions to accidents. In the
Seacoast region (based on 2000 Accident data), portions of the following roadways have been identified
as high accident areas in need of further investigation:

        US 1 in Seabrook
        US 1 and US 1 Bypass in Portsmouth

In addition, there are other areas that have lower accident rates, but may warrant investigation in the
future. These segments include portions of:
        NH 111 in Exeter
        NH 108 in Stratham
        US 1 in Hampton
        NH 33 in Greenland

PROJECTS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS SAFETY ISSUES
There are a number of highway projects in the region that are at least partially designed to address
safety issues. The Newington-Dover Turnpike Expansion project will initially address safety through
some interim improvements to the roadway network as well as through a Incident Management
System. This IMS is designed to reduce the number of accidents on the turnpike in that area, as well as
to reduce the congestion and delay impacts of any accidents that occur through rapid and coordinated
response from all necessary resources. The primary project will also address safety through improved
interchanges, roadways, and removing local traffic from the facility where possible. There are also 3
projects further north on the NH 16 corridor designed to address safety concerns in the town of
Wakefield. A safety analysis of that corridor showed some minor improvements that could be made at
several intersections in that town to improve the safety of the roadway. The US Route 4 Corridor Safety
study has also defined a number of safety related projects that are being implemented within the plan.
Other types of projects in this plan that address safety concerns are:
            Bicycle shoulder projects
            Sidewalk and other pedestrian projects
            Railroad crossing improvements
            Intersection upgrades

5. Transportation System Security
Events both nationally and around the world since 2001 have focused attention on the security of the
transportation network of this country and how the transportation network can be used as a weapon
against us as well as hinder evacuation in the event of an emergency. Much of the work involved in
preparing for and responding to these events is necessarily immediate in nature however, there is a role
for agencies involved in long term planning for how the transportation system will be prepared. There
are a number of things that the RPC can and should do to both identify and address these issues:



                             2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                 Rockingham Planning Commission
5-18                                                                                            Highways

        Clearly define the role for the Planning Commission in transportation security/disaster planning
        for the region.

        Incorporate security and disaster planning aspects into the project prioritization process.

        Have the RPC act as a forum for discussion of network security issues.

        Incorporate transportation network planning into the current work with FEMA and local
        communities to develop hazard mitigation plans.

        Analyze the transportation system for capacity and safety deficiencies that impact security and
        disaster planning concerns.

PROJECTS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS SECURITY ISSUES
While there are no projects listed in the TIP or Long Range Plan that specifically are designed to address
security or disaster planning concerns, a number of projects will increase capacity on major
transportation facilities in the region such as the I-93 and Newington-Dover widening. In addition, there
are a number of improvements planned for the region that will have additional benefits along these
lines.

        Interstate 95 Exit 1 interchange in Seabrook. This interchange is part of the evacuation routes
        for the Seabrook Nuclear Power plant and is significantly over capacity during peak hour
        operations under existing conditions.

        US 1 improvements along the corridor. US 1 is also part of the evacuation network for the
        nuclear power plant as well as a coastal evacuation route. Portions of this roadway have
        serious capacity and safety issues that if addressed, would provide benefits for security and
        disaster purposes as well.


6. Transportation System Management and Operations
Regional transportation systems management and operations (TSM&O) means an integrated program
to optimize the performance of the existing infrastructure.             This is accomplished though
implementation of multi-modal, cross-jurisdictional systems, services, and projects that are designed to
preserve capacity and improve security, safety, and reliability. These types of project can help to link
planning and operations by helping the involved agencies to better understand the needs of the system
as a whole and the processes involved. Direct MPO involvement in planning for systems management
and operations ensures that projects are adequately supported in the long-range planning and
programming process and considered when establishing funding and project priorities. Consideration of
these types of projects in long range planning also involves and educates operations personnel about
broader regional planning and policy objectives that cut across modes and jurisdictions.

The most visible implementation of regional systems management and operations in New Hampshire
has been the E-Z Pass system of electronic toll collection which has increased the capacity of the toll
facilities tremendously and has had system wide implications for travel. Other areas where regional
management and operations projects can have impacts are in emergency preparedness and security,
freight system operations, multi-jurisdictional arterial management, and implementation of Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies.


                             2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                 Rockingham Planning Commission
5-19                                                                                      Highways

The MPO system, as established in New Hampshire, is not appropriate for performing detailed
operations and management planning. NH DOT and the local communities have a greater degree of
technical expertise, larger organizations (in some cases) and are more capable of providing for these
needs than the MPOs. That being said, there is a role for the MPO and the Rockingham Planning
Commission should undertake the following actions.

       Complete the Regional Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Architecture. This project is
       currently underway and will be incorporated into future versions of the Long Range Plan. The
       ITS Architecture will identify ITS based opportunities for regional systems management and
       operations projects and planning.
       Identify multi-jurisdictional maintenance and operations programs that should involve the MPO
       for funding, prioritization or analysis purposes.
       Identify opportunities to expand signal coordination efforts, special event management
       programs, and corridor management plans that often currently stop at community boundaries
       even though the issue is more regional in nature.
       Identify successful examples of coordination between regional planning and management and
       operations projects such as the E-Z Pass system.
       Access management planning and projects on Epping Road in Exeter, on NH 125 in Plaistow and
       Kingston, and on the US 1 Corridor.

PROJECTS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES
There are a few projects within the Long Range Plan that address operations and management issues.
Primarily this is a result of the focus on preservation of the existing system over large capacity
increases.

       I-93 and I-95 Incident Management Systems
       Spaulding Turnpike Incident Management System
       DOT Signal Timing initiative
       Transit system improvements on I-93 and the Spaulding Turnpike.



D. Progress Since the Last Plan

Some progress has been made since the previous Long Range Plan was adopted in the region. Some
projects, such as the expansion of Interstate 93, the Newington-Dover bridge widening, and the NH 125
improvements in Plaistow and Kingston are much closer to construction, and other projects have been
completed. Highway projects that have been completed include the following:

           Electronic Toll Collection System
           Hunt Road-Newton Junction Road intersection on NH 125 in Kingston
           NH 111 Bypass in Salem & Windham is under construction
           NH 111 signal coordination in Windham.
           Interim ramp and roadway improvements related to the Newington-Dover bridge and
           turnpike widening.


In addition, planning has progressed on many projects. The Interstate 93 widening has aspects that
have begun construction, and the Shadow Lake bypass on NH 111 in Windham and Salem is nearing

                           2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                               Rockingham Planning Commission
5-20                                                                                        Highways

completion. The remaining improvements that are part of the NH 125 project in Plaistow and Kingston
have completed engineering design and the development of a corridor Access Management Plan.
Newington-Dover improvements are in the process of completing the environmental documentation,
the US 1 Bypass improvements are being designed currently and the US 1 Corridor Study is nearing
completion as well.



E. MPO Objectives and Policies Related to Roadways

The following section details the road and highway related plan policies and project recommendations
which follow from the Goals and Objectives of the Long Range Plan. In addition, specific strategies to
address needs and meet objectives are detailed. The following numbered paragraphs correspond to
the goals and objectives from chapter 2. The bulleted paragraphs correspond to additional policies and
actions that the MPO will pursue.


           Support the development of roadway design standards that are appropriate to the use
           (volume and type of traffic) of the facility being constructed and its contextual setting.

           Support the implementation of consistent and easily understood signage for the region.
           This includes the use of Street name signs that are large and easy to see.

           Support improved maintenance of existing transportation facilities and more efficient use of
           these facilities to meet present and future transportation needs, including the use of
           Intelligent Transportation Systems.

           Support the inclusion of pedestrian, transit and bicycle improvements in the development
           of roadway projects where they will help provide connections between places and modes
           and create safe facilities for users.

           Encourage the development of corridor wide improvement plans for the primary state
           highways in the region.
           Encourage adjacent communities to coordinate their land use development patterns and
           cooperate with changes that are occurring on or near borders.
           Assist municipalities in working within the TIP and Ten Year planning process to obtain
           funding and support for necessary roadway improvements.

           Support the inclusion of right-of-way for pedestrian and bicycle connections between cul-
           de-sac developments, as well as between adjacent residential and commercial
           developments that are not directly connected.
           Support the use of Access Management and its various techniques on arterial roadways in
           the region as a method of improving safety and traffic movement.
           Support the use of Traffic Calming and other related methodologies to keep traffic moving
           at a pace appropriate for the surroundings, as well as to encourage through traffic to not
           “cut through” residential neighborhoods.

           Utilize the State Traffic Accidents Database and other resources to identify high accident
           locations and recommend improvements to improve safety.

                           2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                               Rockingham Planning Commission
5-21                                                                                           Highways

       Utilize the Regional Traffic Model and other forecasting tools to proactively assess roadway
       improvement needs.
       Work with communities and the general public to identify existing and future deficiencies.

       Support the improvement of existing transportation facilities before the development of
       entirely new roadways.

       Support the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems technology to produce more efficient
       and effective use of the existing transportation network

       Discourage projects that will place through traffic on residential streets

       Ensure that transportation projects have complete and accurate air quality analysis prior to
       final determination of preferred alternatives.

       Use the transportation planning process to objectively evaluate and advocate project
       alternatives that seek to minimize the impacts of new or improved roadway facilities on
       resources that are important culturally, historically, or naturally.

       Support the development of roadway improvements that move people and goods more
       efficiently through the system.

       Support the use of alternative fuel vehicles by municipal and other large fleets in the region.
       Support the development of facilities designed to fulfill the fuel needs of alternative fueled
       vehicles.

       Support the inclusion of aesthetic treatments in roadway improvements and appropriate
       landscaping for adjacent land uses.

       Promote and approve projects that will minimize sprawl and discourage linear strip development.

       Promote investments in infrastructure that encourage compact, nodal development and the creation
       or enhancements of “downtowns”.

       Assist communities in the adoption of an Access Management Memorandum of Understanding with
       the NH DOT.

       Assist communities in the development and adoption of corridor or town wide access management
       plans.

       Support investments in infrastructure to facilitate access to or utilization of intermodal
       freight and passenger facilities.

       Promote the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems, particularly traveler information
       systems and Electronic Toll Collection that aid tourists traveling to or through the region.
       Promote the implementation of signage systems that are consistent and better enable
       travel in the region.

       Ensure that industrial and commercial developments are served by roadways designed for

                        2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                            Rockingham Planning Commission
5-22                                                                                              Highways

            heavy vehicle use.

            Discourage access points for industrial uses that pass through residential areas.


F. Programmed and Planned Roadway Projects

This section will discuss current and future roadway projects that are designed to address the
deficiencies and other issues discussed earlier in the chapter. These projects are divided into three
general categories based on when the projects are programmed for implementation. Short term
projects, or those included in the Transportation Improvement Program [TIP] (currently 2003-2005),
Projects in the State Ten Year Plan (2003-2012), and other future projects, or those projects which
address identified needs, but for which funding sources have not been identified. Additional details on
many of these projects can be found in Chapters 11 and 12 which discuss the TIP and long range
projects respectively.

Highway Projects in the Transportation Improvement Program
This Transportation Improvement Program lists all projects that are included in the 2007-2010
Transportation Improvement Program. The listing provides information on the town in which the
project will occur, the location of the project, its scope and cost, and its planned construction start year.
The project table for the TIP is included in this document along with the long range list of projects.

Long Range Projects
This table includes projects that are beyond the timeframe of the short-range TIP. Some of these
projects are listed in the State Ten Year Plan and are queued for funding as it becomes available. Other
projects have been identified as needs from the MPO and based on fiscal analysis funding should be
available to complete the projects within the scope of the plan.

Long Range Projects Envisioned But Not Programmed
There are a number of projects listed for which a need has been identified, but for which no funding
source or schedule for implementation has been determined. These projects are envisioned to be at
least 10 years away from construction, although the need for the project may be sooner than that.
These projects have been identified from a variety of sources such as NH DOT congestion maps and
safety maps, input from affected towns, and from input at MPO public meetings.

G. Conclusion

It is recognized that the private automobile will continue to be the dominant transportation mode in
the near future. As such, our region’s highways and local roads must be properly maintained and
improved as necessary and appropriate. At the same time however, the natural environment and
scenic beauty of the region must be taken into consideration. A balance must be struck between
growing transportation demands and ensuring environmental quality.




                             2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                 Rockingham Planning Commission
CHAPTER 6                 BICYCLE FACILITIES & PROGRAMS

This component reviews existing bicycle facilities and issues associated with
bicycling in the Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) region. The chapter also
presents the regional bicycle route system proposed by the New Hampshire
Department of Transportation. Improvements to the routes on the regional map,
supporting facilities, and education and outreach needs are addressed through the
strategies listed at the conclusion of the chapter.

Plan Goals Directly Addressed By This Chapter

Goal 1. Develop a transportation system that affords mobility for all and provides
        good access to employment, housing, services, and recreation areas
Goal 5. Develop, maintain, and encourage the use of viable alternatives to the
        single occupant vehicle.
Goal 6. Promote transportation policies and improvements that support protection
        of cultural and natural resources, and provide mitigation for unavoidable
        impacts.
Goal 7. Encourage better integration of land use and transportation planning.
Goal 8. Establish a transportation system that facilitates economic development.
Goal 11. Assure adequate transportation funding.

The RPC’s effort to increase safe bicycling in the region relates to most of the
overarching goals enumerated in this plan. Safe bicycle facilities support increased
mobility and accessibility in communities, particularly for youth and others lacking
access to vehicles. A safe network of bicycle routes and support facilities also
provides an alternative to driving for those who have the option, thereby reducing
vehicle miles traveled and consequent air pollution, as addressed by Goals 5 and 6.
Goal 7 facilitates increased use of bicycles by encouraging compact, mixed use
development that is more supportive of bicycling and walking than current
development patterns. Bicycle tourism is a significant economic engine in the states
of Maine and Vermont, and with appropriate investment consistent with Goal 8, can
similarly contribute to the economy of the RPC region. Finally, the Goal 11 mandate
to secure adequate funding for all transportation modes is critical to providing a
safe network of bicycle facilities.

A. Background

Increasing public concern over the growth in traffic congestion and growing
awareness about environmental issues such as air quality have renewed public
interest in alternative modes of transportation. SAFETEA-LU and the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 stressed the role of bicycling as a key element in a
comprehensive transportation system. As a non-polluting mode of travel, it needs
to be examined more closely for its potential positive impact on both mobility and


                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
6-2                                                  Bicycle Facilities & Programs

air quality. Increasing attention is also being paid to bicycling on health grounds. As
we have become more reliant on cars and less likely to get around under our own
power on foot or on a bike, the health of the average American has declined.
According to the FHWA National Personal Transportation Survey, in 1969 42% of
school children walked or bicycled to school. By 2001 that number had declined to
16%. Concurrently, over the past thirty years the number of overweight children in
the United States has increased 63%.

B. Existing Conditions

Supporting bicycling as a viable means of transportation in the region involves both
providing adequate infrastructure for safe and convenient cycling, and raising
awareness among both cyclists and drivers of how to safely share the road.

Bicycle Transportation Facilities

For the purposes of this report, bicycle transportation facilities consist of shoulders
with a width of four feet or greater on the region’s roads; and off-road paved multi-
use paths. Of course, many roads without such provisions are legally and
appropriately used by bicyclists. In addition, the State Bureau of Trails maintains a
number of trails in the State and region that are unpaved or paved with gravel.

There currently exist few paved off road bicycle paths in the region, though
recent and current planning efforts should change this in the next five years. The
completion of the Windham Rail Trail in 2006 resulted from the Salem-Concord
bikeway feasibility study which developed out of the I-93 Environmental Impact
process. Preliminary engineering for the Salem segment of the trail is scheduled
to begin in 2008. In the Seacoast area, there is a sidepath adjacent to NH 1A in
Odiorne State Park in Rye. A short off-road path also connects Fox Point Road in
Newington to Pease Tradeport. As of Fall 2007, planning is currently underway
for the NH segment of the East Coast Greenway, conceived as a 2,900 mile
“Urban Appalachian Trail” running from Maine to Florida.

The remainder of what may be termed bicycle facilities in the RPC region
consists of paved shoulders on roads. Largely through the work of Seacoast
Area Bicycle Routes (SABR) in the Seacoast, and local advocates in Windham and
Salem, the region has made considerable progress in improving its network of
shoulder bike routes in recent years.

Beyond the Great Bay Loop and Exeter-Hampton-North Hampton Loop, NHDOT in 2001
designated statewide and regional networks of bicycle routes. The process was not
designed to establish priorities for improvements, but rather to identify the safest
routes currently available on the existing road network. Safety was evaluated The
results of this process are presented on Map 6.1. It is important to note that the
designation of this network should not be interpreted to mean that roadways
excluded from the network should not be used by bicyclists. Bicyclists have a legal
right to travel on any public highway that is not designated as limited access.


                       2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                           Rockingham Planning Commission
Bicycle Facilities & Programs                                                    6-3

The regional network was developed in collaboration with NHDOT, FHWA, and an
extensive public involvement process. This work was based on the earlier 1999-2020
Plan where the Seacoast MPO compiled plans from the communities of Rochester,
Somersworth, Dover, Durham, Newington, Portsmouth and Exeter, as well as from
Seacoast Area Bicycle Routes (SABR), the Pease International Tradeport Surface
Transportation Master Plan, and additional comments received through the public
involvement process. NHDOT conducted a limited update of the regional and
statewide route maps in 2006-2007, though this was focused less on changing routes
than on improving the user-friendliness of the maps.

At a local level, a need clearly identified through the Regional Transportation Needs
Survey is improvement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities within communities that
connect residential areas to schools, and provide safe passage for students. The
inclusion of a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program under SAFETEA-LU has
spurred development of SRTS initiatives in several towns in the region, including
Portsmouth, Rye, and North Hampton. Nationally this movement has been growing
for more than a decade as an approach to improve children’s safety and health, and
limit unnecessary automobile trips and congestion generated by parents shuttling
their children too and from school. An assessment of the adequacy of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities in school zones in the RPC region would be a useful role that
the RPC can play in supporting new SRTS initiatives in member communities.

2. Supporting Facilities for Bicycles

Providing adequate bicycle supporting facilities is another key
component in making cycling a truly viable transportation alternative.
Bicycle parking in the form of secure racks (see Figure 6.2) can be
provided at sites such as schools, places of work, recreational areas, etc.
Also important at employee sites is the provision of locker rooms,
allowing bicycle commuters to shower and change before work.

Parking devices need to be provided at both trip origins (i.e. multi-              Figure 6.2
family housing complexes) and destinations (i.e. school campuses,                 Bicycle Racks
employment centers, shopping centers, recreation facilities). Schools, libraries,
stores and other attractions often provide bicycle racks on a voluntary basis. Bicycle
parking ordinances may be used to mandate the provision of bicycle parking.
Currently no communities in the study area have adopted bike ordinances. (An
example of a bike ordinance is available at the RPC office.)

In the RPC region, some larger employers do have bicycle amenities. Many
employers allow bicycle commuters to bring their bicycles indoors, which may be
the preferred option. Many larger employers in the region have shower facilities.
RPC staff work with Seacoast Commuter Options, the Transportation Management
Association (TMA) serving the Seacoast to promote bicycling as an alternative
means to commute through annual Bike/Walk to Work Day events.




                       2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                           Rockingham Planning Commission
                                                                                                                                          É É
                                                                                                                                          É É
                                                                          É ÉÉÉ É ÉÉI É É É É É
                                                                                    mÉ
                                                                                                        MAINE




                                                                                                                           ÉÉ É
                                          ÉÉ ÉÉ
           Rockingham Planning Commission É É ÉÉ É ÉA           fÉÉ É É A    Ø                                 É
                                                                                                               É




                                                                                                                           ÉÉ É
                                               ÉÉ É




                                                                                                             É
                                                                                                             É               É




                                                                                                                                              É
                                                                                                                                              É
                 and other New Hampshire                                                        É




                                                                                     É
                                                                                     É
                                                                                            É É É Portsmouth
                                                                                                                                                  É
                                                                                                                                                  É




                                                                                                                                                                            ÉÉ É É É É
                         Bike Routes




                                                                                                             É É ÉÉ ÉÉÉ ÉÉ




                                                                                                                                                   ÉÉÉ ÉÉ ÉÉ
                                                                                                                                                     É ÉÉ ÉÉ
                                                                                                                                                       É
                                                                                                                                                       É
                                                                                                            É




                                                                                                                                                                                   É
                                                                         ÉÉ                           ÉÉÉ ÉÉ É É É                                                `
                                                                                                                                                                  ^




                                                                                                                                                                    ÉÉÉ
                                                                                                                                                                    ÉÉÉ
                                                                                                                                                                                ÉÉ
                                                                                                                                                                                 É
                                                                                                                                                                                 É
                                                                                                                                                                          ÉÉ
                                                                                                                                                                          ÉÉ
                                                                                                    É




                                                                                                                                                                      É
                                                                                                                                                                      É
                      É É É ÉÉÉÉ É                               É É                                É




                                                                                                                                                                          É É É
                                                                                                              ÉÉ
                                                                                                              É
                                                                                                                                                                           ÉÉ
                                                                                                                                                                           ÉÉ




                                                                                                        É
                                                                                                        É
                                                                                                  É




                                                                                                                                                                                 ÉÉ
                                                           A ÉÉ
                                                           ó
                                                                É ÉÉÉ
                                                                É ÉÉÉ




                                                                                                  ÉÉ




                                                                                                                                                                              É
                                                           ÉÉ                                                      ÉÉ É
                                                                                                                   ÉÉ É
                                   É




                                                                                                        É ÉÉ
                                   É ÉÉÉ É É É É É É É É É
                                                                                                                                                                           ÉÉ
                                                                                                                                                                           ÉÉ
                                                                                     É
                                                                             ÉÉ É ?É É É É




                                                                                                                                                                            É
                                                                                    ½
                            É ÉÉ




                                                                                         ÉÉ
                 ÉÉ É                                                                                                                         É
                                                                                                                                              É
                                                                  É
                                                                  É
              É É                                                                               ! I
                                                                                                $
                                                                                                " g
                                                                                                c                 É
          É ÉÉ




                                                                                                                          ÉÉ
                                                                         ?
                                                                         É




                                                                                                                                      ÉÉ
                                 Í
                                 A                 A
                                                   Í                                    É




                                                                                                                                                                                 É
                                                                                                                                                                                 É
              É
              É
          ÉÉ




                                                                                                                                                                        É
    ÉÉÉÉÉ                                                        ?
                                                                 ´                        A
                                                                                          c                     É




                                                                                                                                  É É
          É
ÉÉ ÉÉÉÉ É
      É
      É




                                                                                                                                                                     ÉÉ
                                                                  Exeter           ÉÉ É                      ?
                                                                                                             t
                                               A
                                               Ö                            É ÉÉÉ
                                                                                                                   `
                                                                                                                   ^




                                                                                                                                                               ÉÉ ÉÉ
                                                                                                                            ÉÉ
                                                                                          A
                                                                                          c




                                                                                                                    É
                                                                                                                                                      A
                                                                                                                                                      Þ




                                                                                                              ÉÉ ÉÉ
                                                                                                   Þ
                                                                                                   A         É ÉA




                                                                                                                                                             É
     É
     É
                                                                                                                                  Ë
                                                                                                                                  ?
   ÉÉ




                                                                                                                b                                                 Atlantic




                                                                                                                                                     ÉÉ ÉÉ É
         ÉÉ
         ÉÉ
              ÉÉ                                                                                ÉÉ É É É É



                                                                                                       ÉÉ
      É




                                                                                                                                             Í t
                                                                                                                                             A ?
                                                                                                 ÉÉ
                                                                                                 ÉÉ
                   ÉÉ ÉÉÉÉÉ É
         ÉÉ É




                                                                                                                                                        É
                                                                                                                                                        É
            É




                                                                                           É
                   É
                   É




                                     ÉÉ                                 É É É É É É ÉÉ ÉÉ ÉÉÉ                      Ö
                                                                                                                   A                  !
                                                                                                                                      "
                                                                                                                                      c
                                                                                                                                      $




                                                                                                                                          É ÉÉ ÉÉ ÉÉ
                                                                                                                                                                    Ocean
                                                                             É
                                          É ÉÉÉ É ÉÉ É É



                                                                      ÉÉ




                                                                         É
                                                                         É
                                                                                         A
                                                                                         ó        A
                                                                                                  Ø                     b
                                                                                                                        A
                                                                         É




                                             ÉÉ É
                                                É
                                                É                           Þ
                                                                           ÉA                                                         g
                                                                                                                                      IÉ É ÉÉ
                                               ÉÉ




                                              É                              ÉÉ
                                                                             ÉÉ
                                                É
                                                É




                                                           ÉÉ É
                                                              É
                                                                              É                                                                                      RPC Towns
                                                                       É ÉÉÉ
                                                               ÉÉ É
                             ÉÉ É É É É É




                                                                                                                                                                     Major Roads
                                                                          AÉ
                                                                          í                                                                                    Bike Routes
                                   b
                                   ! ?
                                   " ¸
                                   $
                                                                  É ÉÉ É É É




                                                                                 É
                                                                                 É
                                                                            ÉÉ
                                                                             É               Ø
                                                                                             A                                                                 ÉÉ    State

                                                                          É                                                                                          Regional
                                                                     É




                                                                        É
                                                  Salem         ÉÉ Ì                         MASSACHUSETTS
                                                                   É




                                                               `
                                                               ^
                                                               É ?
                        É ÉÉ




                                                            ÉÉ
                                                      É ÉÉ É                                                                                                                              Miles
                                                           ¾
                                                           ?                         f
                                                                                     (
                                                                                     &
                                                                                     %                                                                               0       1   2       4
                       É
Bicycle Facilities & Programs                                                        6-5

Another important role of supporting facilities is to allow for intermodalism, or better
connections between bikes and other modes of transportation. In order to allow for
the bicycle system to operate as a fully functional component of the overall
transportation system, these linkages must be in place. This includes secure parking
at major bus stops and transfer points, or accommodations for carrying bicycles. The
NHDOT has installed bicycle lockers or racks at most Park & Ride locations as well
as the Exeter rail station.

3. Education, Outreach, and Enforcement

In addition to providing adequate infrastructure for safe and convenient cycling, a
key element to integrating bicycles into the transportation system is raising
awareness among both cyclists and drivers of how to safely share the road.
Although most drivers acknowledge the presence of bicyclists on the road and drive
accordingly, some retain the perception that bicyclists do not belong on the road.
Bicyclists also have a responsibility to drive in a safe and legal manner. Many
accidents occur when bicyclists are driving against traffic or at night without proper
lights on their vehicles. There are also steps bicyclists can take to increase their
protection, such as wearing a helmet, and maintaining their bicycles. Public
education is needed to convey this message to both drivers and bicyclists.

At present, educational efforts in the region and much
of the state are limited to outreach to young children With the exception of interstate
first learning to ride a bicycle. These programs are a highways, bicyclists have the
very important element of the educational system, but right to use all roads in the
there is a significant need for companion efforts State. As bicycling continues to
targeting older children, as well as adult cyclists and increase in popularity, drivers
drivers. RPC staff have worked with NHDOT to will need to be increasingly
develop a brochure outlining rules of the road for both
                                                         aware and respectful of their
cyclists and drivers. An excellent model outreach
                                                         presence on the road network.
program targeting elementary school students are in
place in Maine and Vermont, and a version of this
program is currently being piloted in New Hampshire by a nonprofit group known
as NH BikeSmart. Securing public funding to develop this into a statewide program
is a stated goal of the NHDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Advisory
Committee which is shared by the RPC.

Greater effort is also necessary to enforce traffic laws related to bicycles. A lack of
enforcement results in some cyclists putting themselves and others at risk running
through intersections or riding the wrong way on one way streets, knowing there is
little to no chance that they will get a ticket. This causes resentment among drivers,
who know that they would surely be ticketed for doing the same thing in their car.
Likewise, traffic enforcement to protect the rights of cyclists is rarely a priority. The
use of bicycle-mounted police can be an effective approach to both these problems.




                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
6-6                                                  Bicycle Facilities & Programs

C. Progress Since Adoption of 2002-2022 Long Range Plan

Progress in programming regional bicycle facilities has been solid since the
development of the 2002-2022 Long Range Plans, though funding shortages at the
state level have led to delays in construction on several projects. That plan identified
several high priority portions in the network, including the Great Bay Loop, the
Exeter-Hampton-North Hampton Loop. Projects constructed since the last plan are
listed below. Other projects that have been programmed but not yet constructed are
listed in Section F.

      •   NH 27 shoulder bicycle route s in Exeter from downtown to the Hampton
          Town Line.
      •   NH 111 shoulder bicycle route in Kingston from 1000' west of Main Street,
          extending 0.5 miles westerly.
      •   Windham segment of Salem-Concord Rail Trail completed with private
          funding.
      •   Establishment of regional and statewide events for Bike/Walk to Work Day
          each may
      •   Initiation of the Conceptual Design and Implementation Plan for the NH
          Segment of the East Coast Greenway.
      •   Bicycle racks added to all COAST buses

Some progress has also been made at the state level through the activity of
NHDOT’s Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Committee
accomplishments include development of the "Don't be a Road Warrior" bicycle
safety brochure, development of the Salem-Concord Rail Trail Plan, a statewide Rail
Trail Plan, adoption of a policy for placement for Share the Road Signs and Bicycle
Route Marker Signs, and a study of best practices in school-based bicycle safety
education, which recommended development of a statewide program targeting
elementary school grades based on models used in Maine and Vermont. The
problem with each of these studies and policies has been a lack of funding for
implementation.

The lack of progress on facilities in the region can be attributed to a number of
factors. One is the redefinition of regional route priorities as a result of the NHDOT
route mapping process. The 1999 Salem-Plaistow-Windham MPO Long Range Plan,
for example, focused on improving facilities on major thoroughfares in the region
such as NH 125 and NH 111. However, the NHDOT process focused on local roads
with lower traffic volumes. This shift in focus required a retooling of the Long
Range Plan.

A related issue is the nature of the State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which outlines
general policies, and presents the route maps described above, but does not identify
project priorities or a funding strategy for improving the facilities on the route
system. Improvement of facilities on the regional routes is up to local governments,
as the primary sources of funding for bicycle projects in the state are Transportation
Enhancement (TE) or Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) programs. These
are excellent programs, but are limited in budget and highly competitive. The

                       2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                           Rockingham Planning Commission
Bicycle Facilities & Programs                                                    6-7

required local funding match of 20% can be a stumbling block for smaller
communities, and many communities prioritize local projects over projects making
regional connections. Nonetheless, these programs have been used effectively in
other regions and need to be pursued more aggressively by towns in the SPW
region working jointly with MPO staff. Another potential source of funding is local
vehicle registration fees of up to $5.00/vehicle, authorized by HB 648. Several towns
in the state have established these fees as a means of generating matching funds for
TE and CMAQ grants. No towns in the SPW region have made use of the fees to
date. The MPO will work with communities interested in establishing these fees.

A final area of progress has been the establishment in 2005 of the Bike/Walk
Alliance of New Hampshire (BWANH), a statewide bicycle advocacy group
modeled on the Bicycle Coalition of Maine. While the Seacoast has had a regional
advocacy group (Seacoast Area Bicycle Routes), there has not previously been a
statewide voice for bicycle interests that could play a role in identifying routes,
coalition building, raising private matching funds, and otherwise advocating for
regional bicycle routes.

D. Bicycle Issues

A number of issues must be considered in planning for bicycle facilities. These
include accommodating different bicycle users, shoulders vs. separated bikeways,
and design, pavement marking, and signage issues.

1. Accommodating Different Bicycle Users

In planning for bicycle travel in the region, the MPO focuses both on those who use
bicycles purely as a means of transportation, as well as recreational users on the
network. While the latter group may be more prevalent, the former group often
replaces automobile trips, and therefore contributes to goals of improving
congestion and air quality in the region. The MPO also plans with the philosophy
that improving bicycle facilities benefits all bicyclists - this means accommodating
not only those who already bicycle regularly, but also those who would be inclined
to do so if adequate facilities were available.

2. Shoulder Bicycle Lanes vs. Separated Bicycle Paths

In constructing designated bicycle facilities, the degree of separation from
automobile traffic is a key distinguishing feature. The FHWA has a classification of
facilities that includes shared lanes, wide outside lanes, bike lanes, shoulders, and
separate bike paths (Selecting Roadway Design Treatments to Accommodate Bicyclists,
FHWA, January 1994). Shared lanes and wide outside lanes consist of no separation
between automobile traffic and bikes; bike lanes and shoulders separate bicyclists
from automobiles by the use of striping, signage and/or pavement markings;
separated bike paths, often called multi-use paths, are dedicated right of ways that
prohibit automobile traffic.




                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
                    6-8                                                  Bicycle Facilities & Programs

                    Shared roadway and wide outside lanes are usually appropriate on smaller, less
                    traveled roads. However, on State highways and other roads with high volumes,
                    they do not provide an adequate level of security for less experienced bikers. Much
                    of the region’s bicycle network is in this category. It is the MPO’s goal to upgrade
                    those areas to have four foot shoulders where possible. Other improvements such as
                    signage can be implemented where shoulder widening is not possible or feasible.

                    Bicycle lanes and shoulder bikeways are distinguishable from one another only
                    insofar as the term lane means that some form of signage or pavement marking is
                    present, indicating exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists, whereas shoulders
                    may be separated from the rest of the roadway by striping alone. The advantage of
                    these design treatments over shared roadways is fairly obvious - they provide some
                    level of separation from automobiles and therefore security for bicyclists, especially
                    less experienced ones. There are also advantages over separated bike paths. They
                    may be less expensive to construct, especially when pavement is already adequate
                    or when implementation occurs in coordination with a roadway reconstruction.
                    These facilities are also easier to maintain, as the motorized vehicles on the adjacent
                    travel lanes help to sweep most debris off of the shoulders. In addition, roadways
                    often provide the most direct travel routes for bicyclists as well as cars. This type of
                    facility is suggested for the majority of the region's network.

                    Off-road bicycle paths have an even greater level of separation from the roadway
                    and have some advantages because of that reason. A separated bike path eliminates
                    much of the danger of automobile/bicycle conflict along the facility itself, although
                    care must be taken to make grade crossings with roads safe. This type of separation
                    may also be perceived as providing a more pleasant experience for the bicyclists as
                    well, and in doing so may encourage more new bicyclists than a shoulder
                    improvement. A potential problem with off road paths is conflict with other users,
                    including pedestrians, rollerbladers, and equestrians. Good designs allow all users
                    to safely co-exist. Maintenance of off-road paths is also an issue to be considered.
                    The state and regional plans recommend off-road paths in selected areas to
                    complement the on-road network. There exist three abandoned rail corridors in the
                    region, some of which are owned by NHDOT. Separated bicycle paths have been
                    built using rail corridors in many areas nationwide.

                                           3. Design, Pavement Markings and Signage
         Bikeway Design Issues
                                           Once the type of bicycle facility is chosen, several other
1.   Type of bike facility                 design issues still need to be considered. NHDOT follows
2.   Size of bike facility                 minimum design standards set out by AASHTO (American
3.   Pavement markings                     Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials).
4.   Signage along the facility            The FHWA, in a document called Selecting Roadway Design
                                           Treatments to Accommodate Bicycles, provides specific design
                                           recommendations based upon traffic volumes, automobile
                                           speeds and truck traffic.

                    ♦ Design: The NHDOT recognizes four feet as the minimum width of an on-road
                      bicycle lane without curbing. Lanes of five or six feet may be of additional

                                          2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                              Rockingham Planning Commission
Bicycle Facilities & Programs                                                       6-9

   benefit to bicyclists, but when lanes begin to approach the size of an automobile
   travel lane (11 or 12 feet) the greater the possibility of cars using those lanes and
   conflicting with bicyclist. It is important that facilities are designed to
   accommodate bike travel in the same direction as motorized traffic. New
   Hampshire law does not permit two way bicycle travel on one side of a road.
   Therefore, on-road bicycle lanes need to be provided on both sides of the
   highway. The NHDOT recommends that separated bicycle paths be at least
   eight feet wide to allow for bi-directional travel.

♦ Markings: Designating bicycle facilities pavement markings is an important
  element that is largely absent from existing facilities in New Hampshire. For on-
  road bicycle lanes, pavement marking is becoming the preferred option
  nationwide. Although New Hampshire has not adopted a marking standard, the
  silhouette of a bicycle figure and a directional arrow is being used in many
  states, including Oregon and Florida. The symbol should identify the lanes
  clearly as a bicycle facility and show the legal direction for use. Implementation
  and maintenance is a role that the communities may be interested in fulfilling,
  especially within more urban areas. Pavement markings on state highways in
  more rural areas may not always be necessary.

♦ Signage: The NHDOT does not presently have plans for a formal bicycle
  signage program. Again, implementation and maintenance is a role that the
  communities may be interested in fulfilling, especially in more urban areas.
  There are roads in the region where bicycle usage is high but four foot shoulders
  are not consistently present, and in some cases, where adequate right of way
  does not exist to allow the needed width to be added. In these cases the use of
  signage indicating the presence of bicyclists may be appropriate. “Share the
  Road” signs have been effectively used in other parts of the country.

E. RPC Objectives & Policies Related to Bicycles

The following policy recommendations related to bicycle facilities and safety
education are keyed to relevant objectives identified in Chapter Two.

Objective 5.1 Actively promote awareness and use of all transportation alternatives
               through marketing and education.

           ♦ Promote inclusion of bicycle safety as part of drivers' training to
             educate motorists about laws regarding bicyclists and safely sharing
             the road.
           ♦ Support education of both children and adults on bicycle safety
             rules, helmet use, and rules of the road.
           ♦ Support development of bicycle outreach programs targeting school
             children, families, and commuters to increase cycling as a form of
             transportation.
           ♦ Support greater awareness of the bicycle network and implemented
             bicycle facilities among the region’s residents through distribution of
             maps, signage and pavement markings, and other measures.

                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
6-10                                              Bicycle Facilities & Programs



Objective 5.3 Implement and maintain a network of safe and direct routes and
              supporting facilities supporting bicycle transportation between and
              within communities.

           ♦ Ensure that the design of bicycle facilities be made in accordance
             with standards developed by the American Association of State
             Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
           ♦ Ensure that all state funded roadway and bridge reconstruction
             projects on NHDOT's state and regional bicycle route networks
             include adequate bicycle facilities.
           ♦ Consider off-road separated bicycle paths where adequate roadway
             treatments would not be feasible.
           ♦ Support clear delineation of bicycle lanes with pavement marking
             when possible to indicate the preferential use of the lane for bicycles
             and the legal direction of bicycle travel.
           ♦ Encourage communities and the State to prioritize sweeping bicycle
             routes to ensure shoulders are free of sand and debris.
           ♦ Promote replacement of parallel bar drainage grates on bicycle
             network with bike-safe grates or retrofit with a vertical bar to
             prevent trapping bicycle wheels.
           ♦ Promote the use of bicycle-sensitive traffic signals on new
             intersection loop installations on the network to allow bicycles to
             actuate the signal when no motorized vehicles are present.
           ♦ Encourage employers and transit providers in the region to provide
             on-site amenities (e.g. bicycle storage, showers, locker rooms) in
             order to encourage bicycle commuting.
           ♦ Encourage transportation providers to include bicycle amenities in
             facility design to support intermodal connections (e.g bike racks on
             buses and at Park & Rides).

Objective 5.4 Work with communities and NHDOT to identify and correct
              deficiencies in bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

           ♦ Work with communities and NHDOT to develop a prioritized
             approach to improving substandard facilities on the NHDOT state
             and regional bicycle networks.

Objective 5.7 Promote awareness and enforcement of traffic laws related to
              bicycles and pedestrians.

           ♦ Encourage the state to review the laws affecting bicyclists and motor
             vehicles to ensure that they are sufficient and encourage local
             enforcement agencies to strictly enforce those laws.
           ♦ Support expanded use of bicycle mounted police as an effective
             enforcement measure and a way to build motorist respect for
             cyclists.


                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
Bicycle Facilities & Programs                                                6-11



Objective 6.8 Advocate that aesthetic and scenic values are considered in road
              design and adjacent land development.

           ♦ Encourage the use of context sensitive design, and close
             collaboration between project engineers and community residents, in
             the design of bicycle facilities, to ensure public acceptance and
             expeditious completion of projects.

Objective 7.2 Encourage policies and public facilities investments that allow
              residents and visitors to live, work and play without driving

           ♦ Provide assistance to communities in adding or rewriting zoning
             ordinances and subdivision regulations that require provisions for
             pedestrians.
           ♦ Emphasize the importance of local zoning for mixed use and higher
             density development that focuses on walkable city and village
             centers as opposed to strip or dispersed sprawl development.

Objective 8.2 Encourage transportation investments that facilitate tourism in the
              region.

           ♦ Work with Corridor Communities, state agencies, regional partner
             organizations such as SABR and ECGA to develop the NH segment
             of the East Coast Greenway.
           ♦ Work with NHDOT, NHDRED, and regional partners to promote
             bicycle tourism in New Hampshire.

Objective 11.2 Work with communities to secure funding for local and regional
               transportation projects.

           ♦ Work with communities to obtain Transportation Enhancement
             funds or other State or Federal monies for priority bicycle projects.
           ♦ Work with communities to develop sources of local funding to pay
             for construction and maintenance of bicycle infrastructure. Potential
             mechanisms include development impact fees and establishment of
             local vehicle registration fees as provided for under HB 648.




                    2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                        Rockingham Planning Commission
6-12                                               Bicycle Facilities & Programs

F. Programmed and Planned Bicycle Projects

Bicycle Projects in the 2007-2010 STIP

    •   Pease Tradeport Multi-Use Path ($515,000) – Construct a multi-use path
        along Grafton Drive between New Hampshire Avenue and Portsmouth
        Transportation Center, and between the Pease Golf Course and Airport
        Road. (2004 TE - Construction 2009)
    •   Portsmouth Downtown-Pease Bicycle Route ($72,000) – Construct a safe
        bicycle route from Downtown Portsmouth to the bicycle bridge into Pease
        Tradeport. (Construction 2007)
    •   Portsmouth Market Street Extension Bike/Ped Path ($200,000) – Construct
        bike/ped path between Michael Succi Drive and the NH Port Authority.
        (2004 CMAQ – Construction 2007)
    •   Newmarket-Newfields NH108 Bicycle Shoulders ($721,000) – Construct 4’
        shoulder bicycle route along NH 108 between Newmarket and Newfields
        (2002 CMAQ – Construction 2008)
    •   Hampton Winnacunnet Road Shoulder Bicycle Route ($707,000) –
        Construct 4’ shoulders and pavement markings from Towle Avenue to
        NH1A along Winnacunnet Road. Phase III of the Exeter-Hampton-North
        Hampton Bicycle Loop. (2002 TE – Construction 2008)
    •   South Lowell Road Shoulders in Windham ($1,395,000) – Construct shared
        roadway bicycle lane on a 2.1 mile stretch of South Lowell Road in
        Windham, connecting schools with adjacent residential areas. (1998 TE –
        Construction 2008)
    •   Salem SE-TRIP Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements – Preliminary
        Engineering ($60,000) – Funded as part of the multi-modal SE-TRIP
        initiative, this will serve as a safe pedestrian corridor connecting shopping
        and employment centers in Downtown Salem as well as Phase II in the
        Salem-Concord Rail Trail. (2004 CMAQ)

Bicycle Projects in the State Ten Year Plan

    •   The six projects listed above are the only bicycle facility projects in the
        region currently in the State Ten Year Plan.

Bicycle Projects Envisioned But Not Programmed

The following facility and planning projects have been identified by towns or RPC
staff as local or regional needs.

♦ North Lowell Road Shoulders in Windham ($800,000) - This project will
  develop four foot shoulder bike routes on 2.8 miles of Lowell Road connecting
  the town offices and residential areas to the north of NH 111 with the towns
  schools and other locations along South Lowell Road.

♦ NH 108 Shoulders in Newton ($1.3 Million) – Four foot shoulder bike lanes on
  NH 108 from East Kingston Town Line to Plaistow Town Line. Five miles total.

                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
Bicycle Facilities & Programs                                                  6-13



♦ West Side Drive Shoulders in Atkinson ($70,000) – Four foot shoulder bicycle
  lanes on West Side Drive between Oak Ridge Road and Pope Road to connect
  West Side Drive subdivisions to the town recreation area. 1,000 feet total.
  (Future TE)

♦ Meditation Lane Bicycle Lanes in Atkinson ($130,000) – Four foot shoulder
  bicycle lanes on Meditation Lane from Sawmill Road to Main Street (NH 121) to
  connect residential areas to town facilities. 2,000 feet total. (Future TE)

♦ Salem-Concord Rail Trail Phase III ($480,000) – Multi-use path following the
  Manchester-Lawrence railroad right of way from the Salem Depot to NH111.

♦ NH 27 Shoulders in Hampton ($1.26 Million) - Construct shoulder bike route
  from Exeter town line to US1. This is the last remaining segment of the Exeter-
  Hampton-North Hampton Bike Loop.

♦ NH 151 Shoulders in North Hampton and Greenland ($1.58 Million) -
  Construct shoulder bike route from NH 111 to NH 33. This route will connect
  the Exeter-Hampton-North Hampton Bike Loop with the Great Bay Bike Loop.

♦ NH 108 Shoulders in Exeter and East Kingston ($2.9 Million) - Construct
  shoulder bike route on NH 108 from Exeter town center to Newton-East
  Kingston Town line. Southern extension of regional bicycle route network.

♦ Squamscott Road Shoulders in Stratham ($225,000) - Construct shoulder bike
  route on Squamscott Road from NH 108 to NH 33. Link in Great Bay Bike Loop.

♦ NH 111 Shoulders in Exeter (730,000) - Construct shoulder bike route on NH
  111 between Washington Street and Pickpocket Road.

♦ Signage on State and Regional Bicycle Routes ($60,000) - Secure funding for
  signage to clearly mark state and regional bicycle routes to clarify directions and
  encourage safe sharing of roadways.

♦ Bicycle Safety Education Program (Cost TBD – Vision Element) - Secure
  funding to develop and implement a standard, state-endorsed, school-based
  bicycle safety education program targeting elementary school grades.

   Needs assessment for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in school zones. Study
   will identify needs for bike/ped facilities as well as traffic calming measures in
   school zones and between school zones, residential areas, and community
   facilities such as libraries. (SPR project)




                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
6-14                                              Bicycle Facilities & Programs

G. Conclusion

Federal transportation bills dating back to ISTEA stress the legitimacy of bicycle
travel as an important element of the regional transportation system. Because
developing alternative modes projects in New Hampshire is almost entirely
dependent on local matching funding, it can be difficult to build regional
connections. However, with the development of NHDOT’s state and regional
bicycle maps, and the route networks identified on them, a broadly accepted
framework is now in place for implementing these connections. The RPC will
continue to assist communities with securing federal funding for local and regional
bicycle projects, and work to raise public awareness of bicycle safety issues and
traffic laws such that bicycling can become a truly convenient and viable
transportation option for the region’s residents.




                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
 CHAPTER 7                 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES & PROGRAMS

This component presents some of the existing characteristics of pedestrian travel
and existing conditions of pedestrian facilities in the region. It brings to attention
issues associated with walking as a means of travel, and sets out policies that
promote safe pedestrian travel.

Plan Goals Directly Addressed By This Chapter


Goal 1. Develop a transportation system that affords mobility for all and provides
        good access to employment, housing, services, and recreation areas.
Goal 5. Develop, maintain, and encourage the use of viable alternatives to the
        single occupant vehicle.
Goal 7. Encourage better integration of land use and transportation planning.
Goal 11. Assure adequate transportation funding.


The MPO’s effort to increase walking in the region relates to most of the overarching
goals enumerated in this plan. Safe pedestrian facilities support increased mobility
and accessibility in communities, particularly for youth and others lacking access to
vehicles. A safe network of sidewalks and multi-use paths can also provide an
alternative to driving for those who have the option, thereby reducing vehicle miles
traveled and consequent air pollution, as addressed by Goals 5 and 6. Goal 7
supports pedestrian travel by encouraging compact, mixed use development that is
more conducive to walking than current development patterns. Finally, the Goal 11
mandate to secure adequate funding for all transportation modes is critical to
providing a safe network of pedestrian facilities.

A. Background

The Clean Air Act and SAFETEA-LU recognize that pedestrian facilities are an
important part of the regional transportation system. Walking as an alternative to
driving is more prevalent in higher density areas where trip length tends to be
shorter. The average length of a walk trip is about 0.6 miles, and people tend not to
consider walking as an option for any trips that are longer than one mile. According
to the 2001 National Household Transportation Survey by the Federal Highway
Administration, 8. 7% of all trips nationwide are made by walking.

B. Existing Conditions

In the Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) region, pedestrian facilities vary
considerably from community to community. The downtowns of Exeter and
Portsmouth retain a traditional urban scale, which favors the pedestrian and thus
encourages people to walk. Many of the more rural communities in the region have

                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
7-2                                             Pedestrian Facilities & Programs

few if any sidewalks. Beyond sheer size, the presence or absence of sidewalks relates
in large part to when and how a community has grown. Salem provides a case in
point. While the largest municipality in the region, Salem has experienced much of
its development in the last 40 years when accommodating the automobile has been
the focus of most transportation planning, such that the town has a less
comprehensive sidewalk network than smaller communities that developed earlier,
such as Portsmouth or Exeter.

In more rural communities, residents are compelled to use the roadway for foot
travel. This can be made somewhat safer when shoulder lanes are available for use.
In general, less developed communities in the region give pedestrian issues less
consideration, with the exception of facilities for recreational use. Many
communities readily acknowledge that particular roadway segments are used
frequently by pedestrians, and that the provision of pedestrian facilities will play an
important role in future growth. For example in Plaistow, sidewalks are already in
place in parts of Plaistow, and the Town has developed a three-phase plan for
developing sidewalks linking all the major facilities in the community that generate
substantial pedestrian traffic. The town is implementing the plan incrementally
using Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds. The Town of Salem also has
sidewalks in place in many areas, but they do not form a cohesive network.

Construction of sidewalks can be expensive, and many communities are unable to
identify local funds to construct facilities for pedestrians. The TE program is the
primary source of federal funding assistance for sidewalk construction used in New
Hampshire. However, these funds are limited, highly competitive, and the delay in
accessing funding has grown.

Another potential source of funding for pedestrian facilities is the Safe Routes to
School program initiated under SAFETEA-LU. While funding for this program
amounts to just $1,000,000 annually statewide, the launch of the program has led to
Safe Routes to School Task Forces being developed in several RPC communities
already, including Portsmouth, Rye, and North Hampton, and other towns are
likely to follow suit. The value of the program as a catalyst for spurring local
discussion on pedestrian safety, and supporting walking through encouragement,
education, parental volunteer involvement, and stepped up enforcement of traffic
laws, outweighs the dollar value of grants available.

C. Progress Since Adoption of 2002-2022 Long Range Plan

There have been relatively few federally-funded pedestrian facilities constructed in
the region since 2002, though a number have been programmed with TE funds, and
communities have made local investments in their sidewalk systems.

•     Plaistow Town Center Sidewalks – Connecting Plaistow Town Hall, Pollard
      Elementary School, the Plaistow Public Library, and the Public Safety Complex.
      (Completed)



                       2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                           Rockingham Planning Commission
Pedestrian Facilities & Programs                                                  7-3

•   Kensington Town Center Improvements – This wayside on the American
    Independence Scenic Byway included pedestrian safety improvements.
    (Completed)
•   Windham Rail Trail – Privately funded segment of proposed Salem-Concord
    rail-trail running from Windham Depot to NH Route 111. (Completed)
•   Sandown Town Center Sidewalks – Connecting Sandown Central School,
    Sandown Public Library, Town Hall, and the Depot Museum. (Programmed)
•   North Hampton School Zone Sidewalks – Connecting North Hampton
    Elementary School with the North Hampton Public Library (Programmed)
•   Portsmouth Market Street Extension Sidewalks - Connecting Atlantic Heights
    and Spinnaker Point neighborhoods with Downtown (Programmed)
•   Portsmouth Piscataqua River Walk – Phase I of a proposed waterfront walkway
    connecting Ceres Street with Prescott Park. (Programmed)

Outside of the federal funding processes administered by the MPO, some towns
have begun to approach the problem by requiring new development to provide safe
pedestrian facilities, both as on-site improvements and through impact fees used to
extend facilities to serve new subdivisions.

D. Pedestrian Issues

1. Obstacles to Pedestrian Safety and Convenience.

As noted above, many communities in the RPC region lack sidewalks and other
pedestrian facilities. This not only discourages walking, it makes it unsafe for those
who do choose to walk.

Beyond the lack of infrastructure, many barriers exist which discourage walking or
create unsafe conditions for pedestrians. Land use influences pedestrian travel
greatly. New residential development is typically far removed from town centers
where retail shops, schools, or other community services are located. Even where
residential development is adjacent to town centers, the widespread use of cul de
sacs often means that residents on that cul de sac need to walk a long circuitous
route to reach a destination that might be quite close as the crow flies.

Auto-oriented strip development that exists on many roads creates an inhospitable
and often unsafe environment for pedestrians. New commercial developments are
typically designed with large parking lots that offer no marked pedestrian access
from the street to the building entrance. This requires pedestrians to dodge cars
pulling into and out of parking spaces whose drivers are focused on spotting a
space rather than keeping an eye out for people on foot.

2. Sharing the Road - Traffic Calming.

Many communities in the United States are now exploring further measures beyond
sidewalks that place pedestrians and bicyclists on a more even playing field with
motorized traffic. These measures, collectively called traffic calming, use physical
design of the roadway to reduce automobile speeds. They are not intended for roads

                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
                 7-4                                               Pedestrian Facilities & Programs

                 where the primary objective is to rapidly move large volumes of traffic, though in
                          some circumstances efforts to slow traffic can actually improve traffic
                          flow. Most often they are used in residential areas where residents see the
                          road as part of their neighborhood; or in downtown shopping districts
                          where creating a pleasant pedestrian environment is critical to
                          maintaining the economic vitality of downtown.

                             The potential benefits of traffic calming include reduced traffic speeds,
                             and reduced traffic volumes, achieved by discouraging "cut-through"
                             traffic on residential streets. Traffic calming techniques also typically
                              improve the aesthetic quality of streets, through landscaping of medians,
                              bump-outs, and roundabouts.
 Figure 7.1 Roundabout
                              Traffic calming techniques include:

                              Modern Roundabouts - Not to be confused with a traditional New
                              England high speed rotary or traffic circle, this is an intersection
                              treatment that forces motorized traffic to slow down to speeds under 25
                              mph in order to negotiate a center island that can be landscaped (see
                              Figure 7.1). Such speeds allow pedestrians to safely cross at entrances to
                              the roundabout and bicyclists to become part of the circulating traffic. A
 Figure 7.2 Speed Table       roundabout is currently under construction at Foyes Corner in Rye.

                               Speed Humps, Speed Tables, and Raised Crosswalks - All these
                               techniques involve raising the height of the pavement in a more subtle
                               fashion than a speed bump, allowing vehicles to pass over them at the
                               intended speed of the road, but preventing excessive speeds and
                               alerting drivers to the existence of non-motorized users. Raised
                               crosswalks in particular accommodate pedestrians by allowing them to
                               cross at the same elevation as the existing sidewalk.

  Figure 7.3 Bump out          Bump-outs or Medians - These effectively narrow road width and slow
                               down traffic by placing a physical impediment either in the middle of
                               the road (median) or on the side of the road (bump-outs). These lend
                               themselves to landscaping and improve the visual experience for all
                               users of the road, as well as reducing speeds. Both techniques can
                               provide additional safety for crossing pedestrians. Medians may serve
                               as a refuge by allowing pedestrians to cross one lane of traffic at a time;
                               while bump-outs or curb bulbs provided at crosswalks reduce the
                                overall distance from one side of the road to another and slow down
Figure 7.4 Narrowed Lane        traffic at those crossings. The City of Portsmouth has experimented
                                with bump-outs as part of pedestrian improvements to Dennett Street.

                       Narrower Lane Striping – A very low-cost traffic calming technique is simply
                       restriping traffic lanes more narrowly (e.g. 10 foot wide travel lanes rather than
                       12 feet wide). This creates a visual narrowing of the road, and tends to make
                       drivers slow down. It also allows for wider shoulders to support bicycle or
                       pedestrian use.

                                         2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                             Rockingham Planning Commission
Pedestrian Facilities & Programs                                                   7-5

3. Need for Community Pedestrian Planning

An important first step in providing walking facilities for pedestrians is for public
works officials, planners and local officials to include pedestrian issues in their
planning process. This requires serious thought about how best to facilitate
pedestrian movement. The accommodation of pedestrians should be an automatic
and routine part of community planning, zoning and transportation studies.

The planning steps for a comprehensive pedestrian transportation plan in any
municipality or region consist of five elements:

♦ Build community support for pedestrian improvements by identifying all
  people and groups concerned with pedestrian safety, asking about their needs
  and opinions, and keeping them informed of the planning process.

♦ Identify problems by collecting data on existing pedestrian facilities, and
  inventorying hazards and barriers to pedestrians. The latter can be obtained
  through observation, local meetings, or surveys and on-street interviews.
  Important considerations include the public's primary concerns regarding
  walking, danger spots in the community where accidents have happened, and
  whether existing programs and resources meet the needs of the public.

♦ Establish community goals, and objectives within each of those goals.

♦ Identify specific actions that will meet the goals that have been set, including
  infrastructure improvements, education, enforcement, and encouragement to
  promote safe walking if that is a goal.

♦ Implementation of the actions requires continued participation from all those
  involved in developing the plan. There are several questions that need to be
  answered for each of the actions that are proposed: who is responsible for
  implementing the action, what is the schedule for accomplishment, how much
  will it cost, what is the source of the funding, and who in the community will
  likely support or oppose the action. The answers to these questions allow a
  strategy for implementing each action to be developed and given a priority.1
  Improvements in pedestrian facilities can be financed with local funding and
  often federal sources, including Transportation Enhancement funds. Local
  support and willingness to provide matching funds for the desired pedestrian
  projects is an essential step in achieving a high priority status at the regional and
  state levels of project selection.

This pedestrian planning process can take place as part of community master plan
development. By including pedestrian inventories, analysis, goals and proposed
actions in the community master plan, the likelihood for future implementation is
greatly increased. One of the first steps a community can take to address pedestrian




                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
7-6                                             Pedestrian Facilities & Programs

issues in its master plan is to include a policy statement to support the planning and
implementation of pedestrian facilities (i.e. sidewalks, walkways).

Once pedestrian goals are discussed in a community's master plan, a foundation is
established for building pedestrian accommodation into local land use regulations.
With pedestrian provisions in effect, developers will be required to plan for
pedestrian walkways in a similar manner to planning for the automobile. Model
language for zoning, subdivision and site plan regulations is available from the
RPC.

E. RPC Objectives & Policies Related to Pedestrians

The following policy recommendations related to pedestrian facilities are keyed to
relevant objectives identified in Chapter Two.

Objective 5.1 Actively promote awareness and use of all transportation
              alternatives through marketing and education.

           ♦ Continue regional efforts to promote Bike/Walk to Work Day, and
             expand the program to include schools.
           ♦ Work with communities in developing Safe Routes to School
             programs

Objective 5.4 Work with communities and the NHDOT to identify and correct
              deficiencies in pedestrian facilities.

           ♦ Assist communities in developing pedestrian plans.
           ♦ Work with communities in assessing school zone bicycle and
             pedestrian safety needs.
           ♦ Ensure that the NHDOT incorporates sidewalks and other
             pedestrian amenities into roadway reconstruction projects when
             appropriate.
           ♦ Encourage the NHDOT and communities to design roadway projects
             to discourage excessive speeds through use of traffic calming
             techniques, and provide technical assistance to communities for
             traffic calming projects.

Objective 7.2 Encourage policies and public facility investments that allow
              residents and visitors to live, work and play without driving.

           ♦ Provide assistance to communities in adding or rewriting zoning
             ordinances and subdivision regulations that require provisions for
             pedestrians.
           ♦ Emphasize the importance of local zoning for mixed use and higher
             density development that focuses on walkable city and village
             centers as opposed to strip or dispersed sprawl development.



                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
Pedestrian Facilities & Programs                                               7-7



Objective 11.2 Work with communities to secure funding for local and regional
               transportation projects.

            ♦ Work with communities to obtain Transportation Enhancement
              funds, Safe Routes to School funds, or other State or Federal monies
              for worthy and well-planned pedestrian projects.
            ♦ Work with communities to develop sources of local funding to pay
              for construction and maintenance of pedestrian facilities. Potential
              mechanisms include development impact fees and establishment of
              local vehicle registration fees as provided for under HB 648.

F. Programmed and Planned Pedestrian Projects

Pedestrian Projects in the 2007-2010 STIP

    •   New Castle Sidewalks ($124,000) – Construct a sidewalk connecting
        residential neighborhoods and the Maude Trefethen School, and between
        Great Common and the Wentworth Hotel. (2006 TE - Construction 2010)
    •   Pease Tradeport Multi-Use Path ($515,000) – Construct a multi-use path
        along Grafton Drive between New Hampshire Avenue and Portsmouth
        Transportation Center, and between the Pease Golf Course and Airport
        Road. (2004 TE - Construction 2009)
    •   Portsmouth Market Street Extension Bike/Ped Path ($200,000) – Construct
        bike/ped path between Michael Succi Drive and the NH Port Authority.
        (2004 CMAQ – Construction 2007)
    •   Sandown Town Center Sidewalks ($108,000) – Construct sidewalk along
        East side of NH121A connecting the Sandown Central School, Sandown
        Depot, the Sandown Public Library, and residential areas along North Shore
        Road. (2004 TE – Construction 2008)
    •   Portsmouth Piscataqua River Walk ($1,440,000) – Construct 400’ of
        pedestrian facility and pier along the Piscataqua River paralleling Bow
        Street. (2002 TE – Construction 2007)
    •   Windham Rail Trail Depot Rehabilitation ($210,000) – Rehabilitate
        Windham Depot as way station on Salem-Concord Rail Trail. (2006 TE –
        Construction 2010).
    •   Salem SE-TRIP Pedestrian Improvements – Preliminary Engineering
        ($60,000) – Funded as part of the multi-modal SE-TRIP initiative, this will
        serve as a safe pedestrian corridor connecting shopping and employment
        centers in Downtown Salem as well as a link in the Salem-Concord Rail
        Trail. (2004 CMAQ)

Pedestrian Projects in the State Ten Year Plan

    •   North Hampton School Zone Sidewalks ($150,000) – Connecting North
        Hampton Elementary School with the North Hampton Public Library along
        Atlantic Avenue/NH111. ( 2006 TE)


                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
7-8                                              Pedestrian Facilities & Programs

Pedestrian Projects Envisioned But Not Programmed

The following are pedestrian facility and planning projects which have been
identified by towns or RPC staff as local or regional needs, but for which no funding
or construction schedule has been determined. Multiple projects within the borders
of a single town are combined into one bullet item. Cost estimates, where they are
available, should be taken as order of magnitude only, and are not intended to be
used for programming of projects within the TIP. For project programming
additional detail regarding the scope, schedule, and costs of a project should be
developed.

      •   Exeter Downtown Sidewalks and Train Station Connection (Cost TBD) -
          This project has previously been submitted for TE funding, but as proposed
          has been too large to be competitive in the limited TE pool. (Future TE)

      •   Newfields Village Center Sidewalks ($270,000) – Sidewalks connecting
          school, library, adjacent residential areas, and other downtown locations.
          (Future TE)

      •   Meisner Street Sidewalks in Salem ($140,000) - This project was submitted
          by the Town of Salem for consideration in the 2001-2003 TIP but was not
          included in the final project list. (Future TE)

      •   NH 111A Sidewalks in Danville ($1.6 Million) – Develop sidewalks and
          bicycle lanes on Main Street (NH 111A) connecting municipal buildings and
          public areas including the post office, town hall, library, safety complex,
          church, and ballfield. Extends from Pine Street to Kingston Road. (Vision
          Element – Shown for 2017)

      •   Academy Avenue Sidewalks in Atkinson ($150,000) – Construct 1,200 feet
          of sidewalk on Academy Avenue connecting Atkinson Town Hall, the
          elementary school, the fire department, and the public library. (Future TE –
          Shown for 2020)

      •   Hampton Ocean Blvd Pedestrian Improvements (Cost TBD) – Construct
          sidewalks and pedestrian amenities along Ocean Blvd. (Vision Element)

      •   Rye School Zone Sidewalk Improvements (Cost TBD) – Construct
          sidewalks connecting school, library, and residential areas in Rye. Need
          identified by Rye Safe Routes to School Task Force. (Vision Element)

      •   Seabrook Beach Sidewalks ($270,000) – Curbed sidewalk linking Seabrook
          Beach community with Hampton Beach. (Future TE)

      •   Needs assessment for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in school zones. The
          proposed Study will identify needs for bike/ped facilities as well as traffic
          calming measures in school zones and between school zones, residential
          areas, and community facilities such as libraries. (SPR)

                       2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                           Rockingham Planning Commission
Pedestrian Facilities & Programs                                                  7-9



G. Conclusion

Pedestrian travel is in many ways a local issue, and the RPC encourages to consider
sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities as a vital part of their transportation
system. The RPC will continue to assist communities with federal funding
opportunities for pedestrian projects that they cannot afford to fund on their own.
In a broader context, the RPC, in accordance with its transportation goals, promotes
walking as a viable form of travel in the region and will work to ensure that facility
design and land use decisions are made with the pedestrian in mind.




                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
 CHAPTER 8                   PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

This chapter presents existing public transportation services in the region and
recommendations for improving public transportation services in the future. For
the purpose of this plan, public transportation includes both public and private
sector providers of transportation to the general public. The term transit is used
interchangeably with public transportation.

Plan Goals Directly Addressed By This Chapter


Goal 1. Develop a transportation system which affords mobility for all and provides
        good access to employment, housing, services, and recreation areas.

Goal 5. Develop, maintain, and encourage the use of viable alternatives to the single
        occupant vehicle.

Goal 7 Encourage better integration of land use and transportation planning.

Goal 8 Establish a transportation system that facilitates economic development.

Goal 11. Assure adequate transportation funding.


Public transportation is relevant to several of the RPC regional transportation goals.
Most importantly in this region, transit addresses Goal 1 by offering mobility to
individuals who are unable to drive or do not have access to an automobile. Goal 5
calls for improvements to transit system as a viable alternative to single occupant
vehicle use. Goal 7 supports transit improvements to the extent that development is
planned with transit service in mind. Transit is also a key aspect of improving the
economic vitality of the region, ensuring that employees without reliable personal
vehicles are able to access jobs in the region. Finally, Goal 11 addresses the major
challenge to improving transit service in the region - securing adequate funding to
support transit service the meets the needs of the region.

A. Background

The country’s growing dependence on the private automobile has had tremendous
impact on our daily lives. The low cost of owning and operating an automobile in
the U.S. relative to other countries has increased personal mobility, thus allowing
individuals greater freedom in choosing where to live, work, and shop.

That freedom, however, has come with costs. The explosion in private automobile
ownership and usage has had a pronounced effect on land use patterns, influencing
everything from the layout of neighborhoods to the design of fast food restaurants.
Much of the development that has taken place is tailored to automobile users, and
more often than not at the expense of other modes of travel, such as public transit,


                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
         8-2                                                          Public Transportation


         walking and bicycling. Personal mobility is difficult for people who cannot afford
         an automobile, or for those who are not able to drive because of their age or physical
         condition. In addition, environmental impacts have become more obvious because
         of increases in the number of vehicles on the roads and vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
         in the region; as well as decreases in average fuel efficiency with the popularity of
         SUVs. The result is a dramatic increase in pollutants emitted by vehicles and
         congestion created by the lack of sufficient roadway systems to handle the
         increasing number of automobiles on the roads.

         Even aside from these environmental costs, few people take into account the full
         direct cost of driving a single occupant vehicle in making our commute decisions.
         The American Automobile Association (AAA) estimates the average cost of driving
         a new car in 2007 at 52.2 cents per mile, including fuel, maintenance, finance charges
         insurance, and depreciation.

                                      Public transportation clearly plays an important role in
                                      addressing the mobility, traffic and air quality issues
                                      this region is facing. It represents a more efficient use
                                      of the existing roadway network, by carrying
                                      passengers that might otherwise be driving their own
                                      vehicles. A successful public transportation system can
                                      remove a significant number of vehicles from the
                                      roadways, thus reducing harmful emissions. Public
                                      transportation also offers many social benefits by
                                      providing a service to those who do not drive
Figure 8.1 Intercity Bus
                                      themselves, due to personal choice, age, income or
                                      disability.

         However, there are many factors that present challenges to public transportation.
         The land use patterns which have emerged in this auto-dominated society (i.e.,
         relatively low residential density and separation of land uses) are often
         incompatible with traditional public transportation, which operate best in an area
         with high population/development densities and mixed land uses.

         B. Existing Public Transportation Services

         Map 8-1 illustrates existing transit services available in the Rockingham Planning
         Commission region. Two public transit agencies service the RPC region. Five towns
         in the Seacoast area receive transit service from the Cooperative Alliance for
         Seacoast Transportation (COAST) . These include Exeter, Stratham, Greenland,
         Portsmouth, and Newington. Six towns in the western part of the region are
         members of the new Greater Derry-Salem Cooperative Alliance for Regional
         Transportation (CART), which began operations in late 2006 and provides demand-
         response public transportation. These towns include Windham, Salem, Plaistow,
         Sandown, Danville, and Hampstead. A third local fixed route system is UNH
         Wildcat Transit, which connects Newington and Portsmouth to the UNH campus in
         Durham. Beyond these local services, Boston-bound commuter bus service is
         available from Portsmouth and Plaistow; while Amtrak’s Portland-Boston

                              2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                  Rockingham Planning Commission
Public Transportation                                                              8-3


Downeaster rail service also stops in Exeter, as well as Durham and Dover to the
north of the RPC region. Residents of the region can also access MBTA Commuter
Rail stations in northern Massachusetts, and limited demand-response transit
service for the transit dependent. The following is a listing of public and private bus
transportation services, tourist/seasonal bus and trolley services, passenger rail,
demand response transit, and inter-modal transfer sites in the RPC region.

1. Local & Regional Public Transportation Service

There are three providers of public transportation in the RPC region: COAST,
UNH Wildcat Transit, and the Greater Derry-Salem CART. A description of the
services offered by each follows:

   COAST - Cooperative Alliance for Seacoast Transportation
   Information: (603) 743-5777 www.coastbus.org

   COAST is a public non-profit regional transit agency providing
   fixed route bus service to the RPC towns of Portsmouth,
   Newington, Greenland, Stratham, and Exeter. COAST also
   provides fixed route connections to Dover, Somersworth,
   Rochester, Farmington, and Berwick, ME. In addition to their
   fixed routes, COAST provides complementary paratransit
   service as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act
   (ADA), and limited demand-response service in cooperation              Figure 8.1 COAST Trolley in
   with Lamprey Health Care Senior Transportation.                                Portsmouth

   Wildcat Transit - University of New Hampshire
   Information: (603) 862-2328     www.unh.edu/transportation/wildcat/

   Wildcat Transit provides three fixed routes for the use of their students, staff,
   faculty, and general public. Wildcat Route 4 connects Durham with Newington
   and Portsmouth. Routes 3 and 5 connect Durham with Dover and Newmarket
   respectively. Wildcat also provides extensive shuttle bus service on the Durham
   campus and from satellite parking lots to campus. All services are open to the
   public for a market-based fare.

   CART - Greater Derry-Salem Cooperative Alliance for Regional Transportation
   Information: (603) 434-3569 www.cart-rides.org

   CART is a new public transportation provider serving nine communities in
   western Rockingham County, including Salem, Windham, Plaistow,
   Hampstead, Sandown, and Danville in the RPC region, and Derry,
   Londonderry, and Chester outside the RPC. CART began operations in
   October 2006, and provides public, demand-response transportation within
   the nine-town area, as well as service to several out-of-region medical
   facilities on certain days of the week.



                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
8-4                                                          Public Transportation


COAST & Wildcat Fixed Routes Serving the RPC Region

COAST ROUTE 2
Rochester                       Portsmouth
Service Rochester, Somersworth, Dover, Newington, and Portsmouth

WILDCAT TRANSIT ROUTE 4
Durham                         Portsmouth
Routes 4A and 4B, originating at the University of New Hampshire in Durham,
operate primarily along NH Route 4 and NH Route 16, with stops in the malls and
Market Square.

COAST ROUTE 7
Exeter                   Portsmouth
Service between Exeter and Portsmouth via Stratham, Newmarket, and Greenland.

COAST TROLLEY
Pease Tradeport        Downtown Portsmouth          Lafayette Road
Service connecting Pease Tradeport, the Portsmouth Transportation Center, the
malls in Newington, Downtown Portsmouth, the Community Campus, and points
south on Lafayette Road.

2. Intercity Bus Service

The three North/South corridors in the area, Routes 125, I-93, and I-95, are all
served by intercity bus lines. However, Portsmouth and Plaistow are currently the
only towns in the region with intercity bus service. The Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the I-93 widening project commits to commute hour bus service
on 30 minute headways serving Park and Ride lots at Exits 2, 4 and 5 on I-93. This
will entail construction of new lots at Exits 2 & 5, and an expansion of the existing
lot at Exit 3. There is no public transportation service that operates in an East/West
direction in the region. Intercity providers serving the region include:

♦ C&J Trailways
  Information: 1-800-258-7111        www.cjtrailways.com

      C&J Trailways is an inter-city bus line operating between the NH Seacoast
      and Boston, serving points including Dover, Portsmouth/Pease,
      Newburyport and Logan Airport. The C&J schedule includes up to 22 round
      trips daily between Portsmouth and Boston, with nine buses arriving in
      Boston prior to 9:00am. In downtown Boston, C&J utilizes the South Station
      Transportation Center, where passengers can connect with other bus lines
      and passenger rail, serving the entire continental United States. Logan
      Airport service stops at all passenger concourses.




                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
Public Transportation                                                          8-5


♦ Vermont Transit (a subsidiary of Greyhound Bus Lines)
  Information: 1-800-55-BUSES     www.vermonttransit.com

    Vermont Transit provides daily fixed route service from Portland to Boston
    (South Station) with two southbound and three northbound stops per day in
    Market Square in Portsmouth. Vermont Transit is an affiliate of Greyhound,
    providing connections to locations around the United States and Canada.

♦ The Coach Company (Plaistow-Newburyport-Boston service)
  Information: (800) 874-3377 www.coachco.com

    The Coach Company provides three morning southbound trips along Route 125
    from the Plaistow Park & Ride (Westville Road) to Newburyport and on to
    Logan Airport and downtown Boston; and four afternoon return trips.

3. Passenger Rail Service

♦ Amtrak Downeaster Portland-Boston Rail
  Information: (800) USA-RAIL www.thedowneaster.com

    The Amtrak Downeaster provides five round trips per day between Portland
    and Boston, with NH stops in Exeter, Durham, and Dover. Congestion
    Mitigation Air Quality funds have been programmed to add a sixth daily round
    trip using buses, scheduled to begin in 2007-2008.

♦ MBTA Commuter Rail - Haverhill & Newburyport Lines
  Information: (800) 392-6100 www.mbta.com

    A supplemental rail option for Boston-bound commuters along the
    Massachusetts border is MBTA commuter rail service on the Haverhill and
    Newburyport lines, both of which serve North Station. The Haverhill line offers
    thirteen daily round trips, including five trains arriving in Boston prior to
    9:00am. The Newburyport line offers 12 daily round trips, including four
    morning trains arriving in Boston before 9:00am.

4. Park & Ride Facilities

The NHDOT maintains Park & Ride lots in Epping, Hampstead, Hampton,
Plaistow, Portsmouth, and Windham. Construction is currently underway for a
facility in Salem at Exit 2 on I-93, and the recent update to the US1 Corridor
Study has recommended construction of a new facility in Hampton at the
interchange of NH101 and US1. Currently, only the facilities in Portsmouth and
Plaistow are served by transit, though the new Salem facility should be open and
served by new I-93 commuter bus service beginning in 2008. Park & Rides
facilitate both transit and ridesharing. Chapter 9 discusses regional ridesharing
programs and opportunities, including vanpools serving several of the Park &
Rides in the region.


                       2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                           Rockingham Planning Commission
                                                                                                                                                                      Wildcat Transit
                                                                                                                                                                        Local Bus
                                                                                           !
                                                                                           .




                                                                                                        !


                                                                                                                         !!
                                                                                                          !
                                                                                                         !!
                                                                                                         !       !

                                                                                            !
                                                                                            .
                                                                                                          !!




                                                                                                                          !
                                                                                                                 !
                                                                                                                 !!
                                                                                                 ! !



                                                                                                                          !
                                                                                                                !
                                                                                                             !!
                                                                                                                          !!!   !!


Rockingham Planning Commission
                                                                                                                                                      !




                                                                                                                                                      !
                                                                                                             !




                                                                                                                                                     !
                                                                                                                                               !!   !!




                                                                                                                                                          !
                                                                                                             !




                                                                                                                 ! ! !




                                                                                                                                                    !!
                                                                                                                                               !
                                                                                                                                     !! ! ! !!




                                                                                                                    !
                                                                                                                                     !
                                                                                                                                                       !!   !
                                                                                                                                                    !!


  Public Transportation Facilities




                                                                                                                                                          !   !
                                                                                                             ! !




                                                                                                                                                                !
                                                                                                                                                                !
                                                                                                                                                                !!!
                                                                                                                                                                  !!!
                                                                                                                                                                  !
                                                                                                                                                                  !




                                                                                                        !!!
                                                                                                                                                                  !




                                                                                                                                                                     !
                                                                                                                                                                     !
                                                                                                                                                                     !
                                                                                                                                                                     !              !
                                                                                                                                                                                    !
                                                                                                                                                                      !!         ! !!
                                                                                                                                                                                 !!
                                                                                                                                                                         !




                                                                                                                                                                              ! !!
                                                                                                                                                                             !!




                                                                                                         !
                                                                                                                                                                            !




                                                                                                                                                                         ! !!
                                                                                                                                                                         !!
                                                                                                                                                                           !!
                                                                                                                                                                          !!  !




                                                                                               ! !! !! !
                                                                                                                                                                         !!
                                                                                                                                                                         !!




                                                                                                                                                                             !
                                                                                                                                                                                  !




                                                                                                                                                                           !!
                                                                                                                                                                            !
                                                                                                                                               Newington




                                                                                                                                                                              !! !
                                                                                                                                                                            !
                                                                                                                                                                                      !




                                                                                                                                                                               !
                                                                                                                                                                               !
                                                                                                                                                                               !!
                                                                                                                                                                         !      !
                                                                                                                                                                                !! !
                                                                                                                                                                                           !!




                                                                                                                                                                        !!
                                                                                                !
                                                                                                                                                                                                ! !!




                                                                                             ! !
                                                                                                 !
                                                                                           ! !!




                                                                                           !!!! !!
                                                                                                                                                                                                     !
                                                                                                                                                                                                     .
                                                                                                 !
                                                                                                 !
                                                                                                                                                                                       !




                                                                                                !
                                                                                                                                                                                                 !! !!

                                                                                                                      Wildcat Transit




                                                                                                                                                                      !


                                                                                                                                                                                               !
                                                                                             !
                                                                                             !                                                                                                 !
                                                                                                                                                                                                !
                                                                                                                                                                                                     !




                                                                                                                                                                    !




                                                                                                                                                                                                        !
                                                                                                                                                                                                        !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       New Castle




                                                                                                                                                                                                 !
                                                                                                                                                                                                 !

                                                                                                                                                                                                        !
                                                                                                                                                                                                        !
                                                                                                                                                                                                        !!
                                                                                                                                                                                           ! !




                                                                                                                                                                                            !!
                                                                                                                                                                                           !  !




                                                                                                                                                                                           ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                             !
                                                                                                                                                                                               !
                                                                                                                                                                                               !    !
                                                                                                                                                                                                    !
                                                                                                                                                                                                    !
                                                                                                                                                                                                    !
                                                                                                                                                                                                    !
                                                                                                                                                                                                    !
                                                                                                                                                                                            ! !  !




                                                                                                                                                                                           !
                                                                                                                                                                                            !
                                                                                                                                                                                            !
                                                                                                                                                                                            !




                                                                                                                                                                                                   !
                                                                                                                                                                                          !
                                                                                              !!                                                                                           !


      Communities Served by COAST                                                                                                                               !
                                                                                                                                                                .      Portsmouth                                                     COAST
      CART Member Communities
                                                        Epping
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Local Bus
                                                                              Newfields                                                      Greenland

                                                                                                                                                                                                     Rye
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 C&J Trailways
                                                                                                                         Stratham

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Intercity Bus
                                         Fremont                Brentwood         Exeter

                                                                                    !
                                                                                    .
                                                                                                                              North Hampton                                                              Vermont Transit, Greyhound
                                        Danville
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Intercity Bus

                                   Downeaster
                                                                                                                                                    Hampton
                       Sandown
                                  Passenger Rail
                                                                                    Kensington
                                                                                                                         Hampton Falls

                                                              Kingston
                                                                             East Kingston
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .          Intermodal Locations

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ! !! ! !!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Wildcat Transit
                                                                             South Hampton                                               Seabrook
                            Hampstead                                                                                                                                                                                        COAST
                                                                    Newton                                                                                                                                                   C&J Transit

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             VT Transit/Greyhound

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             <all other values>

                                 Atkinson          Plaistow                                                                                                                                                                  Downeaster




       Windham

                    Salem



                                                                                                                                                                                            2           1    0               2             4        6 Miles



                                                                                                                                                                                      O:\d-multiyear\d-Transportation_Plan\d-2007RPC\d-maps
Public Transportation                                                              8-7


5. Other Community Transportation Services

In addition to the transportation providers listed above, there are a number of other
transportation services available to residents of the RPC region. These can most
easily be differentiated by type of service provided.

♦ Shuttle & Taxi Services: At least a dozen companies offer shuttle services
  between the RPC region and Logan and Manchester Airports. Both door-to-door
  service and scheduled pickups at central locations are available. Ten companies
  also offer local taxi service. A listing is services is available in the RPC regional
  alternative transportation guides at: www.rpc-nh.org/mpos.htm.

♦ Human Service Transportation: In the RPC region there are several dozen
  public and private organizations that provide transportation services. Many
  programs provides transportation to their specific clientele, such as clients of an
  adult daycare program, or residents of a retirement community. Some programs
  are available to residents of specific towns, and who are either senior citizens,
  individuals with disabilities, or are otherwise transit dependent. Examples of
  these programs include volunteer-based entities such as the Greater Salem
  Caregivers or Transportation Assistance for Seacoast Citizens (TASC). Specific
  information about services available through human resource agencies in the
  region is available online at: www.rpc-nh.org/mpos.htm.

♦ Tourist/Seasonal Services: There are two seasonal transportation operators who
  provided summer time service in the RPC region. Both providers use trolley-
  style buses for their service, and serve Market Square in downtown Portsmouth,
  allowing passengers to make connections to other services.

   o   The Seacoast Trolley is a seasonal service geared to tourists. Service
       operates June through Labor Day on an hourly basis through Portsmouth,
       New Castle, and Rye. Service begins in Market Square and ends at Wallis
       Sands State Park. Round trip and local fares are available.

   o   The Hampton Beach Trolley operates on Routes 1 and 1A between
       Seabrook and Portsmouth, with service focused around Hampton Beach.
       The trolley serves New England functions year round.

6. Passenger Airline Service

Daily passenger airline service is available from the Pease Tradeport to 16 cities.
As of Fall 2007 two airlines fly out of Pease Tradeport. The first is Pan Am
(purchased out of bankruptcy by Guilford Transportation in 1998), serving
Elmira, NY, Bedford, MA, and Trenton, NJ. The second is Skybus, which began
service at Pease in Spring 2007. Skybus’ only direct flight out of Pease is to their
hub in Columbus, OH. However, from Columbus connections are available to 12
cities in the U.S. and Canada. Pan Am also houses its aircraft maintenance
operation, known as Pan Am Services, at Pease.


                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
8-8                                        Public Transportation




      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
          Rockingham Planning Commission
Public Transportation                                                             8-9


C. Progress Since Adoption of 2002-2022 Long Range Plan

A number of transit related projects have been completed or initiated in the region
since the adoption of the 2002-2022 Long Range Plan. These include the following:

♦ Initiation of the Greater Derry-Salem CART regional transit service in October
  2006 providing public demand-response transit service to nine communities, six
  of which are in the RPC region.
♦ Addition of track improvements, a fifth daily round trip train on the Amtrak
  Downeaster, and the programming of an additional sixth daily commuter
  oriented trip via bus.
♦ Adoption of a statewide plan for transit coordination through a regional system
  of transit brokerages. This coordination will eventually involve a restructuring
  of how the NH Department of Health and Human Services funds transportation
  services, rechanneling funds through these regional brokerages. It is anticipated
  that CART and COAST will take on these regional coordination roles.
♦ Revitalization of regional transit coordination efforts in the Seacoast, including
  more than a dozen transit providers serving Eastern Rockingham County and
  Strafford County.
♦ Flexing of federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to FTA 5310
  program for use in purchase of service contracts by regional transit
  coordinators/brokers. This is a critical step in the implementation of the United
  We Ride transit coordination initiative.
♦ Initiation of Transportation Assistance for Seacoast Citizens (TASC), an
  ecumenical, church-based volunteer driver program serving seniors and
  individuals with disabilities in the eight communities of Exeter, Greenland,
  Hampton, Hampton Falls, North Hampton, Rye, Seabrook, and Stratham.
♦ Construction of a new Park & Ride facility at Exit 3 on I-93 in Salem, with
  expanded, Boston-bound commuter bus service programmed to begin operation
  in 2008.
♦ Construction of new Park & Ride facility at Exit 9 on the Spaulding Turnpike in
  Dover to support intercity bus service and COAST Spaulding Turnpike Express
  service.
♦ Initiation of a Bi-State Transit Investment Study, as required by US EPA as part
  of the I-93 EIS process. The study is looking at future transit needs for the I-93
  corridor, especially once I-93 again reaches capacity following the current
  proposed widening.

D. Public Transportation Issues

Several major issues affect the quantity and quality of transit service in the region,
including land use patterns, determining investment priorities for Boston commuter
service, determining priorities for local and regional bus service, and securing
funding to provide needed transit service.




                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
8-10                                                        Public Transportation


1. Land Use

Land use plays a major role in determining          "Transit Oriented
whether a region can be effectively served by       Development" is not a new
transit. Development that is spread out over a      concept to New England. It
large area is much more difficult to serve with     is the way we built
transit than is a more compact development          communities up until the
pattern, where centrally located stops can serve    middle of the 20th century.
many residents and businesses within a short
walking distance.

Mixing residential and retail development in close proximity to schools, libraries,
and community centers allows residents to get where they need to go without using
an automobile. Residents can access nearby goods and services on foot, or use
transit to get elsewhere. This is the essence of transit oriented development, which
has increased in popularity around the country in the last decade as communities
have sought to revitalize their downtowns, protect open space by limiting sprawl,
and reduce traffic congestion. This pattern is not foreign to New England - it is the
way we built communities up until the middle of the 20th century. It is the
traditional New England village, but zoning in most towns in the region does not
allow this sort of mixing of land uses. Encouraging towns to revise zoning
regulations to allow this sort of development, and to consider multimodal access in
planning community facilities, is critical to improving mobility and accessibility in
the region. For further discussion of the Transportation-Land Use connection see
Chapter 4.

2. Passenger Rail and Intercity Bus

As the Census figures presented in Chapter 3 indicate, a significant number of the
region’s residents commute to Boston, and that number is growing. Recent
expansions of bus service in the I-95 corridor, and planned expansion in the I-93
corridor, will provide new choices for commuters and other travelers destined for
Boston. As traffic volumes on the interstate highway corridors grow, though, and
traffic congestion increases, a question becoming increasingly important is whether
the state and region must make longer term investments in rail rather than solely or
primarily intercity bus service.

There are four rail corridors in the region that, with repairs and improvements, have
the potential for reintroduction or expansion of passenger rail service.

A. Boston & Maine Main Line West
   This line, running from Plaistow to Newfields within the RPC region, is owned
   by Pam Am Railways (formerly Guilford Transportation Systems) and is used
   for both freight and the Amtrak Downeaster passenger service between Boston
   and Portland. Funding has been allocated for the initiation of passenger rail
   service from Plaistow, either through extension of MBTA service north from
   Haverhill, or the addition of a Downeaster station stop. However, this project is
   on indefinite hold as Pan Am has taken the position that no service will be

                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
Public Transportation                                                            8-11


   allowed at Plaistow until the State builds a second track from Plaistow to Dover.

B. Manchester & Lawrence Branch
   Salem and Windham could be served by an extension of MBTA service from
   Lawrence to Manchester. The Manchester/Lawrence Branch is also owned by
   Pan Am, and is inactive from the state line through Salem, Windham, Derry,
   and most of Londonderry. Significant development has occurred either on or
   immediately adjacent to this corridor, including a runway extension at
   Manchester airport, which would make reestablishing service in the corridor
   difficult.

C. I-93 Median Light Rail Corridor
   Another rail alternative that would serve Windham and Salem is light rail
   service running in the median of I-93, proposed as part of the I-93 widening
   project and in the current Bi-State Transit Investment Study. While this
   alternative would not conflict directly with existing development, it would: 1)
   involve use of rolling stock that could not operate on the same track with heavy
   rail equipment, requiring a transfer in Lawrence; and 2) have less potential for
   spurring transit-oriented development in station areas, given the distance of the
   Park and Rides from existing downtowns.

D. Boston & Maine Main Line East
   In 2003 the RPC updated its 1999 Feasibility study for reintroducing passenger
   rail on this corridor, also known as the Hampton Branch. The update looked
   commute date from the 2000 Census to revise potential ridership projections.
   The conclusion of the update was that while projected ridership was somewhat
   higher than in the original study based on growth in Boston-bound commuters,
   it would not be adequate in the next 20 years to make the project competitive
   nationally for FTA New Starts or Small Starts funding which would be
   necessary for the project.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both rail and bus services. Rail avoids
roadway congestion, usually offers more space to passengers than buses, facilitating
work during travel, and is perceived as more attractive than bus service by many,
partly due to a negative stigma often associated with buses. Rail also seems to have
a greater potential for positively affecting land use patterns, as rail lines are by
nature more permanent than bus routes, and a public investment in a rail station
creates a node around which privately funded, mixed use development can be
focused. Bus service, on the other hand, has the advantage of being much less
expensive to implement. Its flexibility in changing route structures can also be
counted as an advantage.

In 1997, the Seacoast & Salem-Plaistow-Windham MPOs, aware of the importance of
this issue for the future of transit in the region, issued a policy statement regarding
Boston commuter bus and rail service in the Salem area. The statement
acknowledged that local support and financial commitment were needed for a
commuter rail extension to become a reality, and that the impact of commuter rail
service upon commuter bus service planned for Salem and Windham was a concern.

                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
8-12                                                         Public Transportation


The statement emphasized the MPOs’ support for eventual extension of commuter
rail service into Salem, but recommended that the MPOs’ short term goal be the
implementation and expansion of privately-operated intercity bus service to Boston.
The policy statement further stresses that passenger rail should be viewed as a
longer term goal for the RPC, which should work to develop local support and
funding options for such a service. Appendix G contains the full policy statement.

3. Transit Coordination

Coordination of transit services has the potential to improve the efficiency of
individual transportation providers as well as overall mobility within a region.
Coordination strategies range on a continuum from simple sharing of information,
to shared route planning, to brokerage systems, to consolidated systems where one
agency provides all public transit services in a region. In a brokerage system, one
agency serves as a central contact point for trip reservations, scheduling trips on
vans run by other agencies. These agencies provide the trips, and then bill the
brokerage for the service provided. The brokerage in turn bills funding agencies or
funding pools, such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
FTA funds, etc. Agencies providing transit services are often reluctant to participate
in coordination efforts initially, as they require a change in operations and a
reorganization of funding. The tendency is for coordination efforts to start small
with a few participating agencies and to grow as other agencies see the system
work.

Coordination of human service transportation and general public transportation has
been the focus of much attention in the RPC region and statewide in the past
decade. At the state level, a plan for statewide coordination among NHDHHS and
NHDOT funded transit services through a system of regional transit brokerages was
developed in 1995, but not implemented due to a subsequent change in
commissioners at both agencies. This plan was updated in 2005-2006 as part of the
new FTA-funded United We Ride coordination planning effort overseen by the
Governor’s Task Force on Community Transportation. Under the United We Ride
plan, RPC communities would be divided into two coordination regions – one
corresponding to the CART service area and one including the Eastern half of
Rockingham County and all of Strafford County. These two proposed coordination
regions reflect regional coordination planning efforts that have been underway for
the past 3-6 years.

CART was formed out of a regional transit study undertaken in 2001-2003 by RPC
and a regional advisory committee involving two other planning commissions,
eleven communities, and more than 20 health and human service agencies. At the
time, the 11-town Greater Derry-Salem region was the only urbanized area in the
state that lacked a public transit system. The Greater Derry-Salem regional transit
study assessed transit need in the region, existing human service transportation
assets, and opportunities to improve service by coordinating existing resources and
leveraging federal funds available to the region but not previously utilized for lack
of: 1) non-federal matching funds; and 2) a public agency to manage the federal
funds. CART was established by the legislature in 2005, and began operations in

                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
Public Transportation                                                           8-13


2006 as a regional brokerage coordinating scheduling and dispatching for several
provider agencies in the region, including the Greater Derry Greater Salem Regional
Transportation Council, Greater Derry Community Health Services, and Easter
Seals Special Transit Service. We anticipate that additional providers will join the
brokerage in 2008 and 2009, especially as NHDHHS begins to implement the United
We Ride Plan.
.
Transit coordination planning in the Seacoast has been through several phases. In
the late 1990s COAST initiated a coordination planning effort known as TC2, or
"Transportation Coordination and Consolidation" to help coordinate purchasing of
capital equipment, insurance and other system needs for human service transit
providers in the region. This initial attempt at regional coordination did not take
off,. However, a second initiative was launched in 2005 with COAST and Strafford
Network as central players. As of Fall 2007 approximately a dozen provider
agencies serving Strafford and Eastern Rockingham Counties remain at the table.
Funding for startup of a brokerage has been secured through grants from United
Way of the Greater Seacoast and the Endowment for Health, plus FTA Section 5307
funding from COAST. The target date for completion of operating agreements and
initiation of service is early 2008.

4. Safety & Security

Safety and Security on public transportation systems has been a developing priority
since the terrorist attacks of 2001. Under SAFETEA-LU, a formal role for MPOs was
established, ensuring that Safety and Security issues are addressed in all aspects of
planning regional transportation systems. Because both COAST and CART utilize
FTA Section 5307 funding, each agency is already required to develop Safety and
Security plans. COAST adopted their plan in 2003. Because of its cooperative
management agreement with the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority
(MVRTA), CART currently operates under MVRTA’s safety and security plan.
However, CART will need to develop its own plan as part of the process of securing
status as a Designated Recipient of FTA Section 5307 funds, which should be
finalized in the Fall of 2007.

5. Intelligent Transportation System Opportunities

At present neither COAST nor CART employs intelligent transportation system
technology such as automatic vehicle locators, mobile data terminals, or signal
prioritization. However, CART currently uses paratransit scheduling software that
is equipped to integrate these technologies. The RPC is currently working on
development of the Regional ITS architecture mandated by SAFETEA-LU, and the
transit agencies will participate closely in this process.

6. Funding

Limited federal, state and local funding has been and will continue to be the major
limiting factor in the implementation of public transportation projects in the region.
 Most transit systems in the state suffer from a lack of state and local dollars to

                       2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                           Rockingham Planning Commission
8-14                                                            Public Transportation


match FTA funding, in some cases even having to turn back federal funds due to a
lack of available match. A stable source of state or local funding for transit is critical.

Capital and operating subsidies are needed for any sort of regional transit system. In
addition, commuter rail extensions to the region would require both federal and
state or local funds for initiation and continuation of service. Intercity bus operators
are able to provide service without ongoing operating subsidies by limiting that
service to the most high demand destinations, such as Logan Airport and
Downtown Boston; and charging market prices for the service. In addition, the State
currently provides capital assistance to many intercity operators. Even with capital
assistance, the failure of commuter service on NH Route 125 from Epping points to a
need for increased funding both for marketing and operating subsidies. Operating
subsidies are likely more effective than capital subsidies, as commuter buses that are
not purchased with FTA funds may be used for charter work outside of commute
hours to offset the costs of the commuter service.

There are several federal transportation funding programs used to support transit
services in the region. The primary source of ongoing operating funding is FTA
Section 5307 Urban Formula funding. For urbanized areas (UZAs) between 50,000-
200,000 in population, these moneys are apportioned to the State of NH based on a
formula including population and population density. COAST receives these “Small
Urban” funds based on the urbanized populations of the Portsmouth UZA and
Dover-Rochester UZA. CART receives Small Urban funds based on the urbanized
populations of Windham, Derry, and Londonderry. Both CART and COAST also
access a limited amount of Section 5307 “Large Urban” funding based on New
Hampshire portions of the Boston UZA, which is over 200,000 in population. While
Small Urban funds may be used for operating support, Large Urban funds may be
used only for capital and preventive maintenance. The four transit systems in New
Hampshire’s Southern Tier (COAST, CART, Nashua, and Manchester) face a threat
following the 2010 Census, when much of the region will likely be absorbed into the
Boston UZA, triggering a loss of operating funding.

The second most important source of federal funding for transit in the region is the
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) program, for which the region is
eligible because it is not in attainment for ground level ozone. CMAQ funds have
been used in the region for numerous transit projects, including COAST’s Pease-
Portsmouth Trolley service, the Portsmouth Transportation Center and Boston-
bound commuter bus service in the I-95 corridor, the Exeter Rail station, and the
Coach Company’s Epping/Kingston/ Plaistow to Boston service. Upcoming
projects involving CMAQ funds include the COAST Spaulding Turnpike Express
Service, the I-93 Expanded Commuter Bus Service, and Salem’s SE-TRIP fixed route
bus service. Other promising sources of FTA funding for the region include Job
Access-Reverse Commute (JARC) funds.

In order for the region to access any of these federal funding streams, non-federal
matching funds are needed. Operations are matched at a rate of 50% federal/50%
non-federal. Capital and preventive maintenance are matched at a rate of 80%
federal/20% non-federal. Most states have designated funding sources for

                       2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                           Rockingham Planning Commission
Public Transportation                                                          8-15


financing transit within their boundaries, making up a significant portion of
required non-federal match for FTA funds. In New Hampshire, courts have
interpreted the state constitution to limit use of gas tax and vehicle registration
funds to highway improvements, such that to date, the state provides only limited
direct grant assistance out of the State General Funds to transit providers. A report
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) and the American Public Transit Association (APTA) found that New
Hampshire ranks 43rd in the nation in state spending on public transportation, and
lags far behind our New England neighbors. In 2005 New Hampshire spent about
$0.17 per capita on public transportation, as compared to $1.18 in Maine, $10.06 in
Vermont, $32.38 in Rhode Island, $58.81 in Connecticut, and $187.09 in
Massachusetts. Past attempts to create a state transit fund from a set-aside of the
highway fund have been unsuccessful, but the RPC maintains a policy position that
a dedicated source of state funding for transit is needed.

House Bill 648, passed in 1997, could be used to replace the need for a general funds
appropriations for transit support. This bill allows municipalities to charge a local
registration vehicle fee of $1 to $5 to fund transportation improvements. Over 67%
of respondents to the 2002 Regional Transportation Survey indicated that they
would be willing to pay a fee of up to $5 if it the funds were used to support
implementation of Boston commuter rail service in the region. A smaller majority,
53%, indicated they would be willing to pay the fee to support expansion of local or
regional bus service. Competition for the funding will be an issue, though, as an
even higher percent of respondents (80%) supported the use of the funds for bicycle
and pedestrian improvements. First and foremost, though, is the task of working
with towns to adopt the fees and make the funding available.

E. RPC Objectives & Policies Related to Public Transportation

The following policy recommendations related to public transportation are keyed to
relevant objectives identified in Chapter Two.

Objective 1.2 Develop and maintain transportation facilities and services that
              meet the special needs of the elderly, low-income families, the
              physically and emotionally challenged, and those without access to
              private automobiles.

           ♦ Work with NHDOT, NHDHHS, and regional partners to support
             implementation of the United We Ride plan for statewide
             coordination of human service transportation through a network of
             region brokerages, including and CART and ACT.
           ♦ Work with regional partners to foster continued development of
             coordinated demand response transit services including CART,
             ACT, and TASC.

Objective 1.4 Improve the efficiency of demand response transit service in the
              region through coordination.


                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
8-16                                                            Public Transportation


            ♦ Work with NHDOT, NHDHHS, and regional partners to support
              implementation of the United We Ride plan for statewide
              coordination of human service transportation through a network of
              region brokerages, including and CART and ACT.
            ♦ Work with regional partners to foster continued development of
              coordinated demand response transit services including CART,
              ACT, and TASC.

Objective 5.1 Actively promote awareness and use of all transportation alternatives
              through marketing and education.

            ♦ Expand regional marketing of community transportation.

Objective 5.5 Encourage the expansion of public transportation service in the region.

            ♦ Assist COAST and member urban municipalities in developing and
              implementing intra-city transit routes to allow for better internal
              mobility.
            ♦ Establish COAST pulse route service on US 1, with eventual
              extension of this service to Seabrook.
            ♦ Establish employment transportation services in the region including
              reverse commute bus service from Northern Massachusetts into
              Salem.
            ♦ Work with NHDOT and transit providers to reinstitute and ensure
              adequate marketing of commuter bus service in the NH 125 corridor.
            ♦ Work with the State of New Hampshire, communities, and other
              regional partners to reintroduce passenger rail service to Plaistow.
            ♦ Continue to explore possibilities for rail service to Salem and
              Windham and work on building public support for such a service.

Objective 6.4 Support the development and implementation of alternative fuels (and
              alternative methods of using those fuels) that have a positive environmental
              impact.

            ♦ Expand use of alternative fuels and vehicle technologies in the
              region, including biodiesel, compressed natural gas, solar-electric,
              and hybrid fossil fuel/electric.

Objective 7.2 Encourage policies and public facilities investments which allows residents
              and visitors to live, work and play without having to drive.

            ♦   Work with individual municipalities, the New Hampshire Municipal
                Association and the NH Office of Energy & Planning to: 1) develop
                zoning regulations which encourage compact mixed used
                development to allow more efficient servicing by public
                transportation; and 2) establish site plan and subdivision regulations
                which accommodate pedestrian and public transportation needs.


                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
Public Transportation                                                                   8-17



Objective 7.5   Encourage and support projects and plans that aim to make social and
                public services and recreational and cultural activities available by multiple
                modes of transportation.

            ♦   Ensure that towns consider multi-modal transportation access in the
                planning for new community facilities such as schools, libraries, or
                town offices.

Objective 11.1 Encourage the state and local communities to provide continuous, dedicated
               funding assistance for public transportation.

            ♦ Assist public transportation providers in securing funding from
              municipalities and private sources to support transit service
              improvements.
            ♦ Support amendment of the state constitution to allow dedicated
              funding assistance for public transportation from state gas tax
              and/or vehicle registration revenues.
            ♦ Encourage and monitor further legislative proposals regarding
              state and federal support for public transportation, and take
              supportive actions as appropriate. Encourage individual
              members, agencies, and organizations to contact their legislators
              to express their views on state support for public transportation.
            ♦ Continue to educate the public, state representatives, and others
              on the merits of transit and the need for dedicated state funding.
            ♦ Explore the potential for flexing federal funds from traditional
              highway uses to support public transportation in the region.

Objective 11.2 Work with communities to secure funding for local and regional
               transportation projects.

            ♦ Assist communities in analyzing and adopting local vehicle
              registration fees as provided for under HB 648/RSA 261:153, to
              provide a funding stream for transit improvements.
            ♦ Encourage communities to establish Congestion Impact Fee
              requirements for funding public transportation.
            ♦ Assist communities in applying for CMAQ funding for worthy
              transit projects, and ensure that CMAQ grantees effectively utilize
              the funding made available to them.

Objective 11.3 Encourage cooperation between public, private and non-profit organizations
               in the development, funding and management of transportation projects.

            ♦ Work with communities and providers to approach foundations,
              major employers, and other businesses in the region regarding
              funding for transit services.



                       2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                           Rockingham Planning Commission
8-18                                                        Public Transportation


F. Programmed and Planned Transit Projects

Public Transportation Projects in the 2007-2010 STIP

   •   Dover-Portsmouth-Boston Intercity Bus Service Expansion ($1,770,000) –
       Increased transit service and intercity bus marketing campaign for the
       NH16-I-95 corridors.
   •   Salem Employment Trip Reduction Integration Program (SE-TRIP).
       ($900,000) Capital and three years operating subsidy for fixed-route transit
       service between downtown Salem and Downtown Derry, and a
       Transportation Management Association (TMA) serving major employers.
   •   COAST Spaulding Turnpike Express Service ($805,000) - Commute hour
       express service connecting Rochester, Somersworth, Dover, and Portsmouth.
       Requires Park & Ride lots in Dover and Rochester. (2002 CMAQ)
   •   I-93 Expanded Commuter Bus Service ($5,000,000) – Intercity Bus service
       from Exits 2, 4 and 5 on I-93. Park and Rides at Exits 2 and 5 are currently
       under construction. Capital and three years operating subsidy. Hourly
       service throughout the day, with 30 minute service during morning and
       evening commute periods. (2004 CMAQ)
   •   Downeaster Supplemental Bus Service. ($992,000) – Add a sixth daily
       round trip to the Downeaster schedule, serving Dover, Durham, Exeter, and
       Boston North Station, using intercity bus. (2006 CMAQ)
   •   Exeter rail station parking expansion (#13871) ($350,000) - Expand existing
       passenger railroad parking lot from 78 to 140 parking spaces. (2002 CMAQ) .
   •   COAST Marketing Initiative (#13859) ($225,000) - Expansion of COAST
       marketing efforts to promote transit ridership. 2002 CMAQ project.
   •   Ongoing Operations Funding for CART ($632,000) – CART Operations
       funding for CART FY2008 included in FY2007 of STIP. Future years of
       funding still under negotiation with NHDOT.
   •   I-93 Bi-State Transit Investment Study (Cost TBD ) - Joint project between
       NHDOT and the MBTA to evaluate rail and bus options for I-93 corridor.
       Will take the form of an FTA Alternatives Analysis (I-93 DEIS).

Public Transportation Projects in the State Ten Year Plan

   •   Passenger Rail Service to Plaistow. ($966,000) - Construct rail platform and
       provide three years of operating subsidy for MBTA commuter rail service or
       Downeaster service to Plaistow. This project is on hold during discussion
       with Pan Am Railways regarding capacity limitations.

Public Transportation Projects Envisioned But Not Programmed

The following facility and planning projects have been identified by towns or RPC
staff as local or regional needs.




                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
Public Transportation                                                       8-19


   •   Portsmouth-Concord-Manchester Bus Service - ($2.86 Million) Establish
       regular transit service between Portsmouth, Concord, Downtown
       Manchester, and the Manchester Airport. Capital and three years operating.
       (Future CMAQ)

   •   Exeter-Hampton Shuttle Bus Service ($500,000) - Establish shuttle service
       between Exeter and Hampton. Capital and three years operating.

   •   Portsmouth-Seabrook Bus Service on US 1 ($1,200,000) - Service along US 1
       corridor from Portsmouth to Seabrook. Capital plus three years operating.
       This could be an extension of planned COAST pulse route service on
       Lafayette Road.

   •   Increased Service Frequency on all COAST Routes (Cost TBD – Vision
       Element) - Service improvements on all existing COAST routes to include
       regularizing and decreasing headways.

   •   Establish a regional demand response transportation brokerage serving
       the Seacoast region. ($955,000) Three years of funding for call center and
       expanded van operations serving 39 towns in Strafford and Eastern
       Rockingham Counties. (ACT Transit Study) (Combined FTA, Endowment
       for Health, and United Way funding)

   •   Salem-Methuen service in NH 28 corridor (Cost TBD – Vision Element) –
       Transit connection on NH 28 linking to MVRTA service in Methuen. Capital
       and three years operating. (Derry-Salem Transit Study)

   •   Reverse commute bus service bringing retail workers from Massachusetts
       into Salem ($417,000) - May be folded into 1-93 mitigation expanded bus
       service. 3 years marketing and operating assistance. (future CMAQ or JARC)

   •   Portsmouth-Conway Bus Service ($1,200,000) – Intercity bus service on
       Nh16 from the Seacoast to Conway, including communities in Northern
       Strafford County. (Future CMAQ)

   •   NH 125 Boston Commuter Bus Service ($180,000) – Three years marketing
       and operating assistance to restore/revitalize Boston commuter service in
       NH 125 corridor north of Plaistow. (future CMAQ)

   •   COAST NH125 Corridor Service (Cost TBD – Vision Element) – Connection
       between Rochester and Exeter on NH125 to serve developing areas of
       Rockingham and Strafford Counties. (Future CMAQ)

   •   Portsmouth-Rockingham Junction Rail Link - (Cost TBD – Vision Element)
       Rail link connecting Portsmouth with B&M Main Line West at Rockingham
       Junction in Newfields.



                    2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                        Rockingham Planning Commission
8-20                                                          Public Transportation


G. Conclusion

Establishing a comprehensive public transportation system in the region must be a
top priority for the Rockingham Planning Commission. Expanding commuter
services to Downtown Boston and other employment centers both inside and
outside the region presents a significant opportunity to reduce vehicle miles
traveled, improve air quality, and reduce congestion on heavily traveled highway
corridors. Perhaps even more important than reducing traffic congestion is the role
of transit in ensuring basic mobility for residents of the region who lack access to an
automobile, as the current lack of transportation service in the region is a major
barrier to accessing health care, employment, and other basic life needs. Addressing
this need will require changes to state and local funding priorities and land use
practices; and improved communication among public agencies at the local,
regional and state levels, as well as the private sector. However, these changes must
happen. Public transportation is a key element of a balanced regional transportation
system, supporting regional economic vitality, air quality, congestion mitigation,
and access to basic services for an aging population and others without access to a
private car.




                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
  CHAPTER 9                 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT


The use of alternative modes for commuting can be encouraged through the
implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. TDM is a
transportation planning approach aimed at traffic congestion relief and air quality
management through the reduction of single-occupant vehicle use. TDM efforts are
generally implemented by employers at individual worksites, or by organized groups
of employers, referred to as Transportation Management Associations (TMAs).

Plan Goals Directly Addressed By This Chapter


Goal 5. Develop, maintain, and encourage the use of viable alternatives to the
        single occupant vehicle.
Goal 6. Promote transportation policies and improvements that support
        protection of cultural and natural resources, and provide mitigation for
        unavoidable impacts.
Goal 8. Establish a transportation system that facilitates economic development.


This chapter directly addresses Goals 5, 6, and 8 of this plan. Goal 5 focuses on
encouraging alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. This is the central idea of
transportation demand management programs such as ridesharing, flexible
scheduling, and telecommuting. By reducing vehicle miles traveled and congestion at
peak commute hours, the actions described in this chapter also address Goal 6, which
focuses on improving air quality in the region and minimizing negative impacts on
environmental and cultural resources. Employee transportation benefits programs
such as use of pre-tax dollars for alternative commute expenses, and guaranteed ride
home programs can also assist employers with recruitment, thus supporting economic
development consistent with Goal 8.

A. Background

The overall goal of TDM is to use the existing transportation system more efficiently
by reducing demands on the transportation system, especially at peak hours, or by
reducing the number of vehicles on the roads while accommodating the same number
of people. Elements discussed in previous chapters of this plan can all play a role in
an effective Transportation Demand Management program. Carpooling and
vanpooling are motorized options that reduce vehicle trips. Transit moves even
greater numbers of people in a single vehicle. Non-motorized modes (bicycle and
pedestrians) allow trips to be made that do not influence highway capacity or air
quality. Finally, TDM strategies include measures unrelated to specific transportation
modes, such as telecommuting and flexible work schedules that allow workers to
commute outside of peak traffic hours.


                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
               8-2                                 Transportation Demand Management



Telecommuting offers               Somewhat unsuccessful attempts at formal programs to
employees the benefit of staying   encourage commuters to use options such as ridesharing,
at or close to home for some of    bicycle and pedestrian commuting, and transit have been in
the workweek, thereby              existence since at least the early 1970s, when energy concerns
eliminating commute trips.         and high gasoline prices led people to seek alternatives to single
                                   occupancy vehicles.
Variable work hours such as
flextime or staggered work hours   So far, the challenge has been to offer alternative commute
do not necessarily eliminate car
                                   options that are flexible enough to be attractive to individuals
trips, but spread out commuting
times beyond traditional hours     living and working under the demands and lifestyle of the
and can have a positive impact     1990s. The RPC seeks to make as many feasible alternative
on peak hour congestion.           commute options as possible available to the region, and to
                                   increase awareness of the existence of these options.

                                   Interest in alternative commute options was high among
                respondents to the 2002 Regional Transportation Survey. A majority of survey
                respondents indicated that they would be willing to try an alternative commute if
                one or more of a list of common TDM options was available to them. Sixty eight
                percent indicated that they would take advantage of a flexible work
                scheduling/telecommuting program. Similar numbers indicated that they would be
                somewhat likely or very likely to try an alternative commute if they could access
                employer subsidies for transit passes or vanpools, preferential parking for vanpools,
                or a guaranteed ride home if they joined a vanpool but missed their ride. Fifty seven
                percent indicated a similar interest in participating in a ridematching program.

                B. Existing TDM Programs

                1. Rideshare Programs Managed by NHDOT & Massachusetts Entities

                In 1996, the Department of Transportation, using CMAQ funds, hired a coordinator
                to administer its statewide Rideshare program. The position is primarily
                responsible for maintaining a database of potential ridesharers and relevant
                information, utilizing computer software to match individuals interested in
                carpooling or vanpooling. The program has undertaken limited marketing efforts to
                promote the service and alternative commute options in general.

                To date the program has had limited success in establishing carpools and vanpools.
                The list of names on the rideshare database had reached several hundred. However,
                the actual number of matches has been relatively small. A recent overhaul of the
                program website had made the process of registering for the ridematching program
                much easier, and will hopefully yield positive results.

                MassRides (formerly Caravan for Commuters), funded by the State of
                Massachusetts, currently operates a successful ridematching and vanpool program
                for Boston commuters, with daily vanpools departing from Portsmouth, Salem,
                and Windham.


                                    2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                        Rockingham Planning Commission
Transportation Demand Management                                                 9-3

During the summer of 2002 the State Rideshare program conducted an outreach
effort aimed at raising awareness among employers of what was then called the
Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative. This cooperative FTA & EPA program has
subsequently been renamed Best Workplaces for Commuters. Best Workplaces for
Commuters offers recognition and tax incentives to employers that provide
employee benefits programs encouraging alternative commutes. The core of the
program is a tax incentive allowing pre-tax dollars to be used to underwrite up to
$105/month in transit or vanpool expenses. The RPC is one of several employers in
New Hampshire that has received recognition through the program, along with
UNH and Dartmouth College.

2. Transportation Management Association (TMA) - Seacoast & Salem

In the fall of 2002 the Pease Development Authority hired Transaction Associates as
contractor to implement Seacoast Commuter Options, a TMA serving employers at
the Tradeport and the Greater Portsmouth area. TMAs work with employers to
promote alternative commute options to employees and establish incentives such as
discounted transit passes, online ridematching programs, reduced parking fees for
carpooling, emergency rides home for transit users when transit isn’t an option, and
programs allowing use of pre-tax dollars for transit or vanpool expenses. Seacoast
Commuter Options features has conducted extensive marketing and outreach
campaigns, and recruited a number of major employers as members, but as with the
State ridesharing program has met with difficulty. This has to do in part with delays
in implementing the proposed COAST Spaulding Turnpike Express Bus service,
which will feature more convenient 30 minute headways during commute hours,
but is on hold awaiting completion of the Exit 9 Park & Ride on the Spaulding
Turnpike.

Funding has also been secured to establish a TMA serving employers in downtown
Salem as part of the Town’s Salem Employment Trip Reduction Integration
Program (SE-TRIP). As of Fall 2007 Salem has hired a consultant to design the
system, which is scheduled for launch in 2008.

3. Park and Ride Facilities

The NHDOT has a present policy of constructing Park & Ride facilities throughout
the State, as well as upgrading those currently lacking amenities like shelters,
telephones, and bicycle racks. Park & Rides serve the function of providing places
where ridesharers can store their vehicles when another member of the carpool or
vanpool is doing the driving. A number of the Park & Rides also serve as inter-city
bus stop locations. A listing of Park & Ride Facilities located in the RPC region is
located in Table 9.1.

Park & Rides facilitate TDM efforts by providing a convenient facility for this
purpose and are one component of an overall TDM strategy. To increase use,
ongoing efforts are necessary to market ridesharing and other alternative commute
options.


                       2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                           Rockingham Planning Commission
                 9-4                                         Transportation Demand Management


Table 9.1 – Park & Rides in the RPC Region

                                                   Parking
     City/Town                  Location           Spaces                   Amenities

Portsmouth (City P&R)      NH 33 East of I-95      50        Phone, Lights, Bike Racks
Portsmouth                 I-95, Exit 3            985       Phone, Lights, Bike Racks, Bus Service
Epping                     NH 125 at NH 101        246       Phone, Lights, Bike Racks
Hampton                    NH 27 at I-95, exit 2   103       Phone, Lights
Hampstead                  NH 121 & NH 111         104       Lights, Bike Lockers
Plaistow                   Westville Road/NH 125   275       Phone, Lights, Bike Locker, Bus Service
Windham                    NH111/I-93 Exit 3       150       Lights, Bike Lockers
Exeter                     Lincoln Street          78        Phone, Lights, Bus & Train Service
Salem (Under Const)        NH97/I-93 Exit 2        500       Phone, Lights, Bike Racks, Bus Service


                 4. Telecommuting Infrastructure

                 Telecommuting offers employees the benefit of staying at or close to home for
                 some of the workweek, thereby eliminating commute trips. Access to high speed
                 internet service can be a key factor in making telecommuting feasible for many
                 employers and employees. High-speed telecommunications infrastructure in the
                 region that will support telecommuting has improved in recent years. As shown
                 in Map 8.1, all towns in the RPC region have access to cable internet service
                 through one of several regional monopolies held by AT&T, Metrocast, and
                 Adelphia. Access to DSL service is limited to a distance of 18,000 cable feet
                 around telephone central offices, so gaps exist. In the RPC region these centers
                 exist in Exeter, Hampton, and Portsmouth. Higher speed T1 lines are not
                 geographically limited in availability, but are exceptionally costly. Aside from
                 infrastructure allowing telecommuting, management and supervision issues
                 related to a dispersed workforce can be a barrier to establishing telecommuting
                 policies for companies.

                 C. Progress Since Adoption of 2002-2022 Long Range Plan

                 The state and region have seen a number of incremental improvements to its
                 TDM program in last five years, as well as some temporary setbacks:

                       •   Launch and expansion of Seacoast Commuter Options TMA
                       •   Funding programmed for the SE-TRIP Salem TMA
                       •   Construction of a new Park & Ride facility at Exit 2 on I-93 in Salem
                       •   Funding programmed for TDM marketing campaign to accompany
                           launch of I-93 commuter bus service.
                       •   Initiation in 2003 of annual events for Bike/Walk to Work Day in the
                           Seacoast, coordinated jointly by Seacoast Area Bicycle Routes, Seacoast
                           Commuter Options, and the RPC.
                       •   One setback has been the loss of commuter bus/vanpool service from the
                           Windham Park & Ride to Lowell Junction/Ballardvale Industrial Park
                           operated by the Junction TMO.

                                         2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                             Rockingham Planning Commission
Transportation Demand Management                             9-5

MAP 9.1 High Speed Internet Availability in the RPC Region




                  2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                      Rockingham Planning Commission
9-6                                        Transportation Demand Management

D. TDM Issues

1.Obstacles to TDM Efforts in the Region

Many aspects of the American lifestyle and approach to personal mobility
contribute to the perception that alternative commute options are unfeasible or
undesirable.

Among these is the phenomenon of trip chaining, whereby people typically fulfill
several different aims during a single trip (e.g. drive from work to home with stops
in between at the grocery store, daycare center, etc). Nationally, 30% of trips leaving
work between 4 and 7 PM are not made directly to home1. Also increasingly
common are flexible work hours of some kind, including staggered shifts, flextime,
and compressed workweeks.

All these trends affect ridesharing and other TDM measures. Trip chaining can be
substantially more difficult if one carpools or rides transit, particularly if a bus
schedule has infrequent service. Flexible work hours help to spread out the demand
for peak hour travel, but they can also create challenges for efforts to match
individuals for carpools or vanpools. Working parents with children who are used
to having access to a car for potential emergencies are often reluctant to give that up,
though regional guaranteed ride home programs address this concern effectively.

In our region, additional factors exist that make alternative commute options less
attractive than in larger urban areas. One reality is that there are few disincentives
to single occupant vehicle commuting. Although the region is growing rapidly, and
some areas do have parking crunches, most major employers have enough parking
to accommodate their employees, and it is generally free. A second challenge is the
relative infrequency of bus service. Standard frequency on COAST routes is hourly.
The COAST Spaulding Express service will feature 30 minute headways, similar to
Boston-bound commuter services in the I-95 and I-93 corridors.

TDM efforts should be concentrated on companies and areas that do have particular
reasons for pursuing alternative commute programs, such as a parking shortage.
Downtown Salem is a strong candidate for a Transportation Management
Association (TMA), with its concentration of large employers. At mid-day on a
weekday Salem's resident population of 28,111 balloons to over 80,000 including
workers and shoppers, creating significant congestion on NH 28 and other local
roadways. A TMA serving downtown businesses can promote ridesharing to
mitigate some of this congestion, and be a partner in development of a regional
transit system connecting workers in New Hampshire and Massachusetts with
employment opportunities in Salem.




12001   Nationwide Household Transportation Survey, FHWA


                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
Transportation Demand Management                                                      9-7

2. Need for Increased Marketing of TDM

Marketing alternative commute options that already exist can be a cost effective way
of encouraging greater use of alternative modes and regional Park & Rides. The loss
of commuter bus service in the NH Route 125 corridor can in large part be attributed
to a lack of marketing to make residents aware of the option. The RPC and the State
Rideshare coordinator can and should increase marketing efforts related to TDM.
Past efforts have included the dissemination of New Hampshire Rideshare material
to town halls and libraries, and an outreach effort to major employers.

One piece of the RPC’s role in this is updating its on-line alternative transportation
guides. Initially developed separately for the Seacoast and Salem-Plaistow-
Windham MPO regions, these guides will be integrated to correspond to the new
MPO boundary in the coming year. Current versions are accessible through the RPC
web site at http://www.rpc-nh.org/mpos.htm. The guide includes information on
ridesharing and bicycle commuting in addition to transit options. Beyond these
guides, RPC staff efforts on TDM will focus mainly on working with Seacoast
Commuter Options and the Salem TMA on their outreach efforts.

D. MPO Objectives & Policies Related to TDM

The following are the policy related recommendations and objectives which the RPC
supports in relation to transportation demand management in the region.

Objective 1.3 Ensure that all components of the region’s transportation system are easy to
              understand and user friendly.

            ♦ Consolidate the former Seacoast MPO and Salem-Plaistow-
              Windham MPO Alternative Transportation Guides into a new guide
              covering the entire RPC region. Ensure that the web version of the
              guide is linked to the websites of all appropriate community
              organizations.

Objective 5.1 Actively promote awareness and use of all transportation alternatives
              through marketing and education.

            ♦ Work with Seacoast Commuter Options and the Salem TMA to build
              public awareness of alternative commute options and incentives.
            ♦ Educate the region's public about the NHDOT Rideshare program
              and TDM in general through marketing and information
              dissemination.

Objective 5.6 Encourage expansion of ridesharing programs and park and ride facilities.

            ♦ Work with Seacoast Commuter Options and the Salem TMA to
              secure ongoing funding for operations.




                      2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                          Rockingham Planning Commission
9-8                                         Transportation Demand Management

E. Programmed and Planned TDM Projects

TDM Projects in the 2007-2010 STIP

      •   Park & Ride at I-93 Exit 2 in Salem ($6,400,000) – Construct new Park &
          Ride to support transit and ridesharing. (2004 CMAQ – Programmed 2007)
      •   Park & Ride at I-93 Exit 3 in Windham ($4,270,000) – Construct new Park &
          Ride to support transit and ridesharing. Construction cannot take place until
          highway widening complete. (2004 CMAQ – Programmed 2010)
      •   Salem SE-TRIP TMA Startup. ($918,750) – Three years operating funding to
          launch the Salem TMA in conjunction with initiation of fixed route bus
          service connecting Salem and Derry. (Programmed 2007)
      •   Seacoast Commuter Options Marketing Program ($300,000) – Funding for
          marketing TDM in the Seacoast area, and expansion of TMA services to
          Dover employers. (2006 CMAQ – Programmed 2007-2009)
      •   Park & Ride Expansion for Exeter Train Station ($125,000) – Expand
          passenger rail station parking area from 78 to 140 spaces. (2002 CMAQ)
      •   I-93 Corridor TDM Marketing Initiative (Component of Bus Service – Cost
          Not Broken Out) – TDM marketing initiative to accompany expanded
          commuter bus service in the I-93 corridor as proposed in the I-93 EIS.

TDM Projects in the State Ten Year Plan

      •   There are no other specific transportation demand management projects
          identified in the Ten Year Plan beyond the years incorporated in the 2007-
          2010 STIP. See Chapter 8 for programmed Transit improvements.

TDM Projects Envisioned But Not Programmed

The following facility and planning projects have been identified by towns or RPC
staff as local or regional needs.

      •   Park & Ride at NH101 & US1 in Hampton (Cost TBD – Construct multi-
          modal transportation center adjacent to the NH101/Us1 interchange.
          Consists of a park and ride, regional and local bus terminal, and
          pedestrian/bicycle connections to the site. (From US1 Corridor Study)
      •   Implement recommendations of I-93 Bi-State Transit Investment Study
          (Cost TBD) - Joint project between NHDOT and the MBTA to evaluate rail
          and bus options for I-93 corridor.

F. Conclusion

At the heart of the RPC transportation planning process is the dilemma of providing
adequate infrastructure to meet demand while at the same time making wise
environmental and fiscal decisions. Transportation Demand Management measures
offer the hope of partly resolving this dilemma by reducing the number of vehicles
on our highways and roads through more efficient use of them.



                       2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                           Rockingham Planning Commission
Transportation Demand Management                                               9-9

Although encouraging widespread use of TDM measures has proven difficult
nationwide, a relatively small investment in making people aware of these options
and providing some incentives for their use offers commuters the opportunity to try
TDM measures and may play a role in maintaining the viability of our
transportation system.




                     2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                         Rockingham Planning Commission
 CHAPTER 10                   FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION

The RPC region is an area rich in economic potential and a key component of this is the broad mix of
intermodal freight transportation resources. These resources include a deep-water port, a major
airport facility, direct links to the interstate highway system, as well as access to a highly productive
railway network. While some of these transportation resources are not yet fully developed or have
been allowed to deteriorate, it is an important component of a robust transportation system that
supports the economic potential of the region and facilitates continued economic vitality. The
challenge is to build the foundation for these enhanced services to maintain and enhance the ability to
move goods and freight within the region.

Plan Goals Directly Addressed By This Chapter

Goal 1: Develop a transportation system that affords mobility for all and provides appropriate access
         to employment, housing, services and recreation areas.
Goal 2: Manage, maintain and enhance the existing transportation system in order to maximize
        efficiency and reduce the need for new roadway/bridge construction
Goal 3: Manage, maintain, and enhance the transportation system as necessary to improve the safety
         of the transportation system.
Goal 4:   Support the initiatives from local, state and federal agencies that will improve the security of
          the personal, public and freight transportation systems.
Goal 8:   Establish a transportation system that facilitates economic development.



This chapter addresses many goals of this plan due to the importance of freight and goods movement in
today’s economy. The intent is to develop an efficient, safe, and secure transportation network that
can facilitate the movement of goods and services between producers and consumers.

A. Background

1. Freight Transportation Inventory

The Rockingham Planning Commission area is well served by a
broad range of domestic and international freight transportation
carriers and all modes of goods movement are available within or
near to the region:

Ocean: The region is host to the Port of New Hampshire in
Portsmouth, an active port handling almost 5 million tons of cargo
each year and is expected to accept large-container freight service
in its waters in the future. In addition, the Seacoast is within 50
miles of the Port of Boston, one of America's major port facilities,
and has convenient access by highway and rail to other major and
                                                                          Figure 9.1 Port of New Hampshire, 2003
regional ports including New York, Portland, and Montreal.

                              2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                  Rockingham Planning Commission
10-2                                                                         Freight Transportation


Rail: The area is served by the main line of Pan Am Railways (formerly Guilford Transportation
Industries), a major US regional railroad. Branch line freight services are currently available between
the Guilford main line and Salem, as well as to Portsmouth and over the Sarah Long Bridge into Maine,
as well as down the Eastern Rail line to Hampton. The original Eastern Line extended from Portsmouth
to Seabrook and crossed a bridge across the Merrimack River into Newburyport, MA. The line from
Portsmouth to Hampton is currently open for occasional low speed freight shipments, but the section
between Hampton and Seabrook is not functional, and the bridge over the river, are in serious disrepair
and have been removed in some locations. Intermodal (rail-truck) facilities operated both by Guilford
and Conrail in the Boston area and by the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railway in Auburn, Maine are within
easy reach of the Seacoast region. Through these connections, shippers have access by rail to points
throughout North America and, using Rail Land Bridge services, throughout the world.

Truck: While the trucking industry is privately operated, it depends upon state and local government to
provide and maintain the highway network upon which it operates. The majority of freight shipments,
both long distance movement to distribution centers and local delivery services, to factories, wholesale
and retail facilities and households within the United States occur via truck. Seacoast shippers and
receivers are well served by motor carriers. High quality services are provided by Seacoast-based
companies such as Northern New England Transportation, Atlas Motor Express, and by the following
types of carriers:
            National LTL (less-than-truckload) carriers such as Roadway, Yellow, Consolidated
            Freightways, and Con-Way
            Regional LTL carriers such as New Penn, Red Star (which is part of a collection of regional
            carriers called US Freightways), and Estes.
            Major TL (truckload) carriers such as J.B. Hunt and Schneider National.
            Bulk liquid carriers such a Superior and Matlack.
            Private carriers serving special markets such as the fleet of trucks operated by Wal-Mart.
            Major parcel carriers such as United Parcel Service and Federal Express.

Air Freight: The region enjoys the potential for direct airfreight service at Pease International
Tradeport. The airbase handles periodic shipments from the U.S. Postal Service and is willing to expand
further if the opportunity presents itself. Boston's Logan Airport, located less than 50 miles away, adds
access to a wide variety of air cargo services serving markets throughout North America and the world.
In addition, the region has access to air cargo services available from airports in Manchester, and
Portland, ME. Major carriers offering service include Emery Air Freight, BAX, Federal Express and UPS.

Pipeline: A natural gas pipeline is currently in place. As reported in the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission publication FERC/EIS-0111D, dated April 1997, Granite State Pipeline operates "a 10- and
an 8-inch-diameter pipeline between Haverhill and Exeter" as well as "an 8-inch-diameter pipeline
between Exeter, New Hampshire and Wells, Maine." In addition, Portland Natural Gas Transmission
System and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. (Maritimes), are currently developing expanded
natural gas pipeline service with the construction of a 30-inch-diameter high-pressure natural-gas
pipeline between Dracut, MA and Wells, Maine. The pipeline is designed to deliver 60 million cubic feet
per day of natural gas from the Sable Offshore Energy Project, offshore from Nova Scotia. The project
includes 31.4 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline passing through Plaistow, Newton, East Kingston,
Exeter, Stratham, Greenland, Portsmouth and Newington, in Rockingham County. The project also

                              2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                  Rockingham Planning Commission
Freight Transportation                                                                                  10-3

includes lateral lines as follows: 0.6 mile of 20-inch pipeline between the main trunk line in Plaistow and
Haverhill, MA and 1.1 miles of 16-inch-pipeline in Newington. A number of projects are currently
underway to interconnect pipelines to bring additional natural gas resources into the New England
region from the Southeast States.


2. Shippers and Receivers

The largest users of freight transportation services in the southeastern New Hampshire include major
employers in manufacturing, wholesale, retail, and distribution (See Figure 10.1). As of January, 2001,
approximately 600 companies in and
around the region had 25 or more
employees totaling in the range of 60,000
employees.      The exact number of
employees working at these companies is
not known as some firms only reported a
range of employees and not an exact
number. Users of freight transportation
resources in the also include employers
from the Kittery area MPO employing 25
or more employees and the Strafford
Regional Planning Commission.



3. Markets Served

Companies in the region ship to and receive from locations all over the United States and the world.
Seacoast employers use transportation resources both to meet the needs of their customers and to
receive raw materials for use in production. International freight flow information is available through
New Hampshire's International Trade Resource Center at Pease International Tradeport. The range of
international markets served by companies in New Hampshire is shown in Table 10.2. Companies such
Table 10.2: New Hampshire Exports - Top       as Digital Equipment Corporation in Salem, Osram
             10 Countries (1999)              Sylvania in Exeter, and Process Engineering in Plaistow
                    Annual 1999   Percent of
                                              serve a worldwide market. Other companies serve
     Country         Value in $     Total     markets such as Canada, England, France, Mexico, Japan,
Canada              652,699,891      30%      Singapore and Hong Kong.
Ireland                176,431,753            8%
United Kingdom         175,887,768            8%     Domestically, approximately 97% of the freight (1998
Korea                  155,594,645            7%     totals) that is generated in New Hampshire is destine for
Germany                106,003,516            5%     one of the New England States or New York and about
Singapore               98,963,410            5%     87.5% of all domestically based freight received in New
Japan                   83,716,604            4%     Hampshire arrives from those same states. Similarly,
Mexico                  80,806,891            4%     98% of the freight generated in New Hampshire leaves
Netherlands             78,842,773            4%     this state via truck while about 95% of goods arrive in
Hong Kong               56,193,144             3%    New Hampshire via truck.        General information on
All Others             474,863,510            22%
                                                     freight flows to and from the entire state of New
TOTAL                 2,140,003,905.00        100%
                                                     Hampshire is available from the Census of
Source: International Trade Resource Center
                                                     Transportation, which is conducted in the US every five
                                                     years.

                                     2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                           Rockingham Planning Commission
  10-4                                                                                   Freight Transportation


  4. Future Demand for Freight Transportation Services

  Future demand for freight transportation services is likely to increase. As described in Chapter 4 of this
  Long-Range Plan, the region is experiencing significant growth, and with the growth will come an
                                                                                increased need for freight transportation
        Table 10.3. Projected Future Freight Volumes For New Hampshire
                                                                                services both to supply a growing
FREIGHT ORIGINATING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE (IN SHORT TONS)
                                                                                population and to serve an expanding
                1998       %        2010          %          2020           %   business community. As shown in Table
TRUCK         4.7E+07 98.22% 69489104 98.49%             90295396.98     98.82% 10.3,     the   US     Department      of
RAIL           836354 1.75%        1038871      1.47%      1042599        1.14%
AIR             15888    0.03%      26440       0.04%        35200        0.04% Transportation in its Freight Analysis
WATER          667.29 0.00% 1068.501            0.00%      1225.461       0.00% Framework, has projected that freight
TOTAL         4.8E+07             70555484               91374421.44
                                                                                traffic into New Hampshire will increase
FREIGHT DESTINED FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE (IN SHORT TONS)                              by about 2.8% per year between now
                1998       %        2010          %          2020           %   and the year 2020. At the same time, it
TRUCK         5.1E+07 95.59% 73743378 95.88%             94887294.34     96.33% is expected that freight originating in
RAIL          1623061 3.04%        2129076      2.77%      2456606        2.49%
AIR              1417    0.00%       2789       0.00%         3943        0.00% New Hampshire will increase at a 2.9%
WATER          732760 1.37%        1040736      1.35%    1152136.241      1.17% annual growth rate during that same
TOTAL         5.3E+07             76915979               98499979.58
                                                                                period. While expectations are that
Source:       US Department of Transportation Freight Analysis Framework        truck freight will still be by far the
                                                                                primary mode choice for freight into and
  through New Hampshire, this growth implies that improvements will be needed to the freight
  infrastructure of the region to more efficiently handle the additional commodities.


  B. Existing Conditions

  1. Current Freight System

  For current volumes, freight services are generally adequate within the region. Freight carriers in all the
  key modes of transportation serve the area very well. Companies have access to a rich array of freight
  transportation services that permit access to markets throughout North America and the world.
  Nevertheless, it is likely that the freight infrastructure is not sufficient to manage the full potential of
  continued growth in the volume of freight that originates, is destined for, or simply passes through the
  region.

  With the exception of air based freight services at Pease Tradeport, and Atlas in Plaistow, freight
  transportation companies do not operate transportation facilities in the RPC region. Freight carriers
  located in other parts of New Hampshire and in other New England states use trucks to carry freight to
  and from companies located here. LTL and TL motor carriers all (except Atlas) operate from terminal
  facilities outside of the region. With the minor exception of limited direct rail loading available in
  Salem, Portsmouth, and Hampton, all rail shipments are loaded in or on rail cars at rail facilities located
  outside the area as well. The Port of New Hampshire is also expected to expand and accept
  containerized shipments. Currently they move by highway to and from ports in Boston, Montreal and
  New York. Containerized shipments to and from the Far East generally move to rail facilities in
  Massachusetts for rail shipment via "Mini Land Bridge" to the West Coast for ship movement across the
  Pacific. Increasing volumes of airfreight move though Pease, but most airfreight continues to move
  through Logan. Carriers provide most truck services through freight terminals located elsewhere in
  New Hampshire or in Massachusetts.


                                    2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                        Rockingham Planning Commission
Freight Transportation                                                                              10-5


A considerable quantity of freight movement in the region is "overhead" freight. Overhead freight is
freight that moves through the RPC, but neither originates nor terminates in any of its communities.
Overhead rail freight moves on the main rail line of Pan Am Railways. Freight on this line includes daily
trains operated by the New Hampshire Northcoast Corporation between Ossipee and Boston.
Overhead motor freight moves heavily on Interstates 93 and 95, the Spaulding Turnpike as well as NH
101 and 125. The implications of overhead freight for the Seacoast include inconvenience, congestion,
and cost without economic benefit.

Problems relating specifically to freight transportation in the RPC region appear to be primarily local in
nature. Areas of concern include congestion, the location of marked truck routes, operation of double
trailers, and safety. Congestion is an issue is locations such as I-93 in Salem, NH 16 in Newington, the
Hampton Toll facility on Interstate 95, and route 125 through Plaistow. Truck routes are an on-going
issue that arises in local areas as business conditions change. It appears that truck routing issues are
effectively dealt with as they arise. Operation of doubles does not appear to be a major issue in any
area.

Shippers want and need expanded freight transportation services. Past interviews with some of the
major regional shippers have provided indications of the types of improvements in freight services that
are needed. At the top of the list of needs is expanded air cargo service from Pease Airport. Shippers
indicate that due to the large number of airfreight services available at Logan Airport, most Seacoast
airfreight continues to move through that facility. Moving New Hampshire freight through Logan means
that daily cutoff times are early and that New Hampshire companies
are less competitive than companies located closer to Logan in being
able to meet customer requirements for express shipments. More                       Table 10.5
airfreight service available at Pease would mean entail a better              Public Grade Crossings
competitive position for New Hampshire companies looking to                  Main Line New Hampshire
compete in the national and global marketplace.
                                                                                Name             Location
Continuing economic development in the area may require future             Foundry St         Rollinsford
enhancement of freight transportation facilities.            Business      Central Ave        Dover
development at Pease may require improved rail access. Business            Chestnut St        Dover
development at both the Port of New Hampshire and at Pease may             Elm St             Newmarket
require improved highway access between the two facilities. Regional       NH 108             Newmarket
growth may increase the volume of truck traffic on I-93 and I-95 and       Squamscott St Newfields
call for further investments in Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) to     Salem St           Exeter
permit greater volumes of both cars and trucks to use I-95 without         Main St            Exeter
costly investment to widen the highway.                                    Front St           Exeter
                                                                           Powder Hill Rd     Exeter
Growth in demand for international transportation services may             Sanborn Rd         E Kingston
require investments to increase bridge clearances over rail lines to       NH 107             E Kingston
accommodate double-stack container rail cars and/or covered tri-level      New Boston Rd Kingston
rail car service to, from or through the Seacoast area. To                 Russ Xing          Newton
accommodate double-stack and tri-level trains, bridge clearances of        Main St            Newton
22 feet are generally required. As shown in the Table 10.4, most rail      Cranes Xing        Newton
bridges in New Hampshire along the main line of the Guilford Rail          Main St            Plaistow
System do not have clearances of 22 feet.                                      Source: Guilford Rail System




                               2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                     Rockingham Planning Commission
10-6                                                                                  Freight Transportation

                                                    Table 10.4
                                  Name, Location, and Vertical Clearance of Bridges
                                            Main Line New Hampshire

                                                                                Height
               Milepost              Bridge Name                     Location   ft/ in     Owner
                240.69     Dover Road                          Rollinsford      18    10     NH
                241.81     Rollins Farm                        Rollinsford      19     3    B&M
                242.98     Oak Street                          Dover            17     6     NH
                244.53     Washington Arch                     Dover            18     9     NH
                244.99     Spaulding Turnpike                  Dover            19     8     NH
                245.30     Littleworth Road                    Dover            17     4     NH
                247.16     Bellamy River                       Madbury          18     3     NH
                247.77     Daleys                              Madbury          17     4     NH
                248.14     Town Hall Road                      Madbury          17     4     NH
                248.31     Rte. 4                              Durham           22     +     NH
                249.33     Durham Road                         Durham           17     4     NH
                250.06     Mill Dam Road                       Durham           18     3     NH
                251.43     Bennett Road                        Durham           17     4     NH
                253.75     Main Street                         Newmarket        17     6     NH
                254.72     Mathes Farm                         Newmarket        17     6    B&M
                255.53     Exeter Road, Rte. 108               Newmarket        18     3     NH
                256.41     Main Street                         Newfields        17     6     NH
                259.09     Rte. 101                            Exeter           22     +     NH
                260.38     Park Street                         Exeter           17     3     NH
                263.50     Giles Road                          East Kingston    17     6   TOWN
                266.45     Powwow River Road                   East Kingston    18     5     NH
                268.88     Partridge Hill Road                 Newton           17     3     NH
                272.17     Old Stage Road                      Plaistow         18     1     NH
                273.69     Hampstead Road                      Plaistow         18     3     NH
                274.53     Haverhill Street                    Plaistow         17     9     NH
                 Source: Guilford Rail System
                 Key – B&M= Guilford Rail System; NH = State of New Hampshire


Services may require improvements in crossing protection. Shown in Table 10.5 is a list of grade
crossing locations along the main line of the Guilford Rail System in New Hampshire. All of these
crossings have been equipped with bar arms and signal heads, increasing safety at the crossings, but
additional work may still be necessary.

2. Data on Traffic Flows and Congestion

A limited amount of data on freight transportation traffic flows has been identified and reviewed.

NH 125 provides a key link between I-495 in Massachusetts and NH 101, US Route 4 and the Spaulding
Turnpike in New Hampshire. Traffic volumes along the crowded NH 125 corridor were measured by the
engineering firm Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) in November 1996 as part of a transportation
planning study for the Rockingham Planning Commission. Morning and evening peak hour traffic
counts, including truck percentages, were completed at 12 locations in Kingston and Plaistow.

The study identified a number of specific locations along this crowded corridor where motorists


                                 2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                     Rockingham Planning Commission
Freight Transportation                                                                                10-7

experience long delays. Field observation made by VHB suggested a number of factors that contribute
to unsatisfactory levels of service although trucks were not specifically cited as a cause of the long
delays experienced by motorists. These factors included lack of access control, absence of exclusive
left-turn lanes, lack of illumination, and poorly defined intersections and intersection alignment.

The study also includes information on the percentage of trucks that travel through this section of NH
125. Those percentages are shown in Table 10.6, which follows, divided by directional movement and
time of day. Although the data indicate high percentages of truck traffic northbound in the morning
peak hour period, the number of trucks moving north and south during this time frame does not vary as
much as the total number of vehicles. The higher northbound percentage reflects the fact that the
morning rush hour for passenger vehicles is southbound.

     Table 10.6: Percent trucks on NH 125 in Kingston & Plaistow
                                                                               One intersection stands out
                                                                   Percent Trucks
                                              AM                  PM
                                                                               as a possible major source of
                                       Total  Northb South Total  North Southb congestion. Note the very
                Intersection         vehicles ound bound Vehicles bound ound   large number (820) of
   Rt 125 @ Rt 107 (Marshall Road)      275    13%     8%   435    4%     6%
   Rt 125 @ Rt 111 (Exeter Road)        265    10%     8%   525    4%     6%
                                                                               southbound vehicles that
   Rt 125 @ Rt 107 (Depot Road)         250    10%    10%   440    6%     8%   enter the last intersection
   Rt 125 @ New Boston Road             350    10%     6%   510    4%     4%
   Rt 125 @ Rt 111 (New Connection)     255    13%     6%   480    4%     4%
                                                                               shown      in   the    table.
   Rt 125 @ Old Coach Road              275    12%     6%   595    3%     3%   According to data in the VHB
   Rt 125 @ Hunt Road                   285    11%     8%   655    2%     3%   traffic study, this increase
   Rt 125 @ Newton Junction Road        225     7%     6%   600    2%     3%
   Rt 125 @ Kingston Road               220    20%    10%   470    5%     5%
                                                                               occurs primarily because of
   Rt 125 @ Old County Road             205    18%    11%   480    4%     3%   415 vehicles that enter the
   Rt 125 @ North Main Street           185    19%    12%   460    3%     2%
   Rt 125 @ Jesse George Road           195    20%    10%   460    3%     2%
                                                                               southbound traffic stream
   Rt 125 @ Danville Road               210    12%     9%   480    2%     2%   from Danville Road. The
   Rt 125 @ East Road / Joanne Drive    295     8%     6%   820    1%     2%   table suggests that these
   Source: VHB                                                                 vehicles are almost entirely
automobiles. There is no information currently available on the origins and destinations of either
automobiles or trucks traveling on Route 125.


C. Freight Issues

There are a number of goods movement related issues in the Salem-Plaistow-Windham region that
need to be addressed within this plan.

1.         Adequacy of Freight Transportation Resources

While freight transportation resources in the region are generally adequate for today’s traffic, there are
still many needs that remain unmet. Future growth may very well result in shipper demand for
enhanced freight services in all modes of freight. It is entirely conceivable that the regions excellent
location with respect to Halifax harbor and the Boston, Manchester and Portland markets, may result in
Expanded use of the region around Pease as a center of distribution. The area offers a prime location
for a major producer of goods who needs access to ships, railroads, trucks and air services for
distribution of manufactured goods and/or receipt of raw materials. Similarly, given the access to
several major highways, the area also provides an opportunity for a broad based provider of
transportation and distribution services for domestic and international markets. Given this, there are a
number of deficiencies in the freight transportation system of the seacoast, such as:



                                          2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                                Rockingham Planning Commission
10-8                                                                           Freight Transportation

       Limited airfreight services at Pease Airport. As stated in the section discussing the existing
       freight transport system in the Seacoast, one primary deficiency in the region is the limited
       airfreight services that are available at Pease. Expansion of these services are needed to allow
       later cutoff times so that Seacoast companies can be more competitive in meeting the needs of
       their customers worldwide.
       Single track rail lines on the NH Mainline which limit freight (and passenger) volumes.
       Low bridges over rail lines that prohibit the use of double stack rail cars. As shown in Table
       10.6, there are many bridges in the region (23) that have inadequate vertical clearance over the
       rail lines, and this limits the ability of freight carriers to use double stack cars on their trains.
       Toll booths on highway mainlines that produce delays and congestion. The toll facilities on
       Interstate 95 and the Spaulding Turnpike provide a valuable service in collecting revenues that
       help to maintain the highways. However, they also create congestion and delay that affect
       freight movement within the region. Delay is created be slowing the truck traffic down to pay a
       cash toll or to perform a weight check. This slowing also creates congestion in two ways. First,
       the slowing traffic creates queues for the tolls and weight checks, as vehicles are not processed
       at a uniform speed. Second, the tolls create a certain amount of diversion of truck traffic off of
       the highway system and onto the secondary road system as drivers try to avoid the congestion
       at the tolls, or the vehicle checks or even the cost of the toll itself.
       Limited intermodal freight connections. While airfreight service at Pease does allow for transfer
       between air and truck, and recent indications that container service at the Port of New
       Hampshire will resume and create a ship-truck transfer point, the services offered by these two
       facilities is limited, and there is no intermodal connection with rail service through the region.

One freight related resource that has seldom been discussed until recently, is the availability and
adequacy of parking and service facilities for commercial vehicles and the impact that this can have on
the highway network. A Federal Highway Administration Report released in 2002, entitled Study of
Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities – Technical Report (FHWA-RD-01-158), determined
that while nationally there appears to be an adequate supply of public and private parking available at
rest areas and travel centers, due to the distribution of these spaces and how they are utilized
(frequency and duration) there is a perceived shortage in many areas. The study inventoried public and
private facilities, surveyed drivers, and estimated demand for each type of facility. Some of the
conclusions from the study are the following:
           Inadequate parking supply for rest facilities can cause two problems: 1) tired truck drivers
           continuing to drive because they don’t believe that they will be able to find a place to park
           to rest, and 2) drivers finding places to park that are unsafe such as the shoulder of the
           road, or entrance/exit ramps.
           The problem of truck parking is a localized issue due to the uneven distribution of service
           facilities.
           Factors that influence truck parking must include some flexibility to address the uneven
           distribution of facilities. For example, fatigue regulations limit the time drivers spend
           behind the wheel and so they need some flexibility in where they park. Is it safer for a
           driver to spend more time behind the wheel to reach a service facility, or to pull over to a
           shoulder at a potentially unsafe location to rest?
           Government should play a role in addressing the issue of adequate commercial vehicle
           parking. This can be done through the implementation of ITS strategies that provide

                              2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                  Rockingham Planning Commission
Freight Transportation                                                                                  10-9

            information on parking location and availability and through improving or expanding public
            parking areas.
            The utilization of public and private parking along interstates and other National Highway
            System routes carrying more than 1000 trucks per day in New Hampshire is approximately
            40% of capacity. Public facilities were used at approximately 84% of the capacity, while
            private facilities were 35% of capacity. There is no information in the report that breaks
            this data down to a more localized area.
Whether parking for commercial vehicles is adequate in the region is unknown at this time and would
need to be the subject of a separate study. However, past studies of the Travel Center at the
intersection of NH 33 and Ocean Road in Greenland would suggest that during certain times of the day
at least, there is more demand for truck parking than there is supply available.


2. Preservation of Transportation Resources to Accommodate Future Growth

Federal legislation is also specific in requiring that MPOs, while developing transportation plans and
programs, consider factors such as "preservation of rights-of-way for construction of future
transportation projects, including identification of unused rights-of-way which may be needed for
future transportation corridors for which action is most needed to prevent destruction or loss". The
likelihood of an increase in demand for freight transportation services in the Seacoast means that plans
need to be made to protect land, rights of way, facilities and resources. Examples include the following:

        Preservation of rail rights of way through Pease.
        Preservation of land and rights of way for increased truck and rail volume between the Port of
        New Hampshire and Pease Tradeport.
        Preservation of land in the area of the Port of New Hampshire to accommodate major increases
        in business and to preserve access to the port.
        Preservation of the rail bridge between Portsmouth and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
        Preservation of the rail right of way between Portsmouth and Newburyport, MA.
        Maintenance of channel depth at the Port of New Hampshire through regular dredging.
        Preservation of the right-of-way on the abandon branch line between the primary Pan Am
        railway line in Massachusetts and Salem.


3. Congestion

States and MPOs develop transportation plans which consider factors such as "Preservation of existing
transportation facilities and, where practical, ways to meet transportation needs by using existing
transportation facilities more efficiently. As the region grows, traffic on all roads will increase, including
on the major limited access highways in the region used intensively by trucks. The completion of the
NH 101 improvements have aided east-west freight movements by providing more efficient access
between the Seacoast and the central portion of New Hampshire. Plans are underway for widening and
adding capacity to most of the major transportation facilities in the region that should have benefits for
freight travel. I-93 is set to undergo a significant widening and interchange improvements through all
of Salem and Windham, the Spaulding Turnpike between Newington and Dover and the Little Bay
Bridges are set to be widened. NH 125 has recently been improved in Epping and most of the corridor
through Plaistow and into Kingston is also set for lane additions, signal improvements, and
implementation of the access management plan. These scheduled improvements, along with the

                                2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                      Rockingham Planning Commission
10-10                                                                         Freight Transportation

relatively recent widening of NH 101, the implementation of Electronic Toll Collection, and the
expansion of I-95 in Maine, remove many of the existing hindrances to truck freight movement on the
primary inter-regional highways. However, there will still be congestion issues related to the toll
collection facilities on the turnpikes as well as problems on roads feeding into the highway system. On
these roadways, existing congestion issues are being exacerbated by the pattern of development in the
region and its related impacts upon the transportation system. Increased truck traffic places strains on
intersection and roadway capacity, and congestion on primary routes brings truck and other traffic onto
secondary roads that were not designed for large vehicles or have incompatible land uses. This creates
safety and traffic management issues that need to be addressed.

An effort needs to be made for identifying means of preserving capacity for both trucks and
automobiles as much as possible before widening these facilities. One approach to dealing with this
issue is to increase the capacity of the highway network through the use of Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS). In a growing number of areas in the United States, both trucks and automobiles are using
radio frequency tags (transponders) to automate the toll collection process, relieve highway congestion,
and increase highway capacity. The State of New Hampshire implemented Electronic Toll Collection
(ETC) on the turnpike system with significant benefits to processing speed, emissions reductions, and
revenues at all locations. There is room for improvement in this arena with the potential for eventual
high speed tolling in at least some locations.

4. Utilization of Information and Communications Technology

There are a number of technological advances being implemented worldwide, that are having an impact
on the distribution of freight as well as the information available to regulatory and statistical agencies.
In the United States, the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) initiatives of the US DOT have a
component completely dedicated to Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO). These have generally taken
the form of technologies that help to improve the efficiency and safety of goods movement. Some
examples of this type of improvement are:

    CVISN: Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networking (CVISN) is a collection of
    information systems and network communications that provides a framework for the motor carrier
    industry and government agencies to exchange information and perform business transactions
    electronically. Key components of this program include the electronic exchange of safety and
    inspection information, electronic credentialing (registering to operate a commercial vehicle), and
    screening (Weigh In Motion) which minimizes delay for safe and legal vehicles. Another
    component of this is Electronic Toll Collection or ETC which allows commercial vehicles to
    electronically charge tolls to credit accounts and allows the driver a much quicker movement
    through any toll booths. This also reduces internal paperwork for freight companies as they no
    longer need to account for cash transactions. Taken together, this system allows those vehicles
    that are safe and legal to proceed with minimal delay permitting enforcement agencies to focus on
    high risk individuals.

    Cargo & Equipment Tracking Technologies: The use of advanced communications technologies is
    rapidly improving the ability of shippers to identify and track cargo and transports anywhere in the
    world in real time. Radio Frequency (RF) technology is being used extensively to track equipment in
    freight yards and to track movements through gates. Cellular phones are used to maintain direct
    communications between dispatch and distribution. Bar codes are used to identify cargo and smart
    cards identify drivers and vehicles and allow for toll and gas payments. Finally, GPS and related
    technology allows for locating of cargo anywhere in the world within a few meters.

                               2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                   Rockingham Planning Commission
Freight Transportation                                                                            10-11




5. Truck Routes, Operation of doubles, Safety and Access to I-495

Truck routes and the operation of doubles are issues that occasionally arise at the local level.
Conversations with a sampling of town officials suggest that these issues are being effectively handled
at the local level. However, truck movements through residential neighborhoods are a problem in
many communities. One State Statute of significance to this issue is New Hampshire RSA 266:11-II(c)
which authorizes the Commissioner of the NH Department of Safety
        “…to designate other roads or highways *in addition to the Interstate and Defense
        Highways, and travel within one mile of those facilities to reach various destinations] the
        State of New Hampshire for legal use for semi-trailers 53 feet in length or less.”
What this entails is that trucks with larger semi-trailers (greater than 48’ in length) have limited
authority to travel on state roads that are not part of the national system of interstate and defense
highways or are not on the roads associated with RSA 266:11-II(c). The exception to this is that the
statute allows
        “…travel within one mile adjacent to these roads in order to reach terminals, other points of
        pickup and delivery, for fuel, repairs, food or rest.”
In the RPC Region, Interstates 93, 95, The Spaulding Turnpike (NH 16) and NH 125 are on the National
Highway System. In addition to the specific roadways listed as part of the National Highway System,
RSA 266:11-II-(c) lists the entire lengths of NH 28, NH 33, NH 101, and NH 111 as allowing these larger
semi-trailers. This statute applies to state roadways, and a community would need to adopt a similar
law to enforce this type of standard on its local roadways.


6. The Need for Information

The making of good policy is dependent on the availability of good information. Information needs
include the following:

    A) Shipper and receiver data, such as:
       1) Identity of key shippers and receivers.
       2) Description of ocean, rail, truck, air freight and pipeline services used by freight shippers
           and receivers.
       3) Origins and destinations of freight plus identification of key commodities.
       4) Information about issues of importance to shippers and receivers.

    B) Carrier data, such as:
       1) Identity of key carriers who service this area or whose vehicles travel through the region
       2) Information about issues of importance to carriers who provide service to the region

    C) Freight flow data, such as:
       1) Identity of origins, destinations, commodities, and volumes of freight originating or
           terminating within the region and of freight moving through the area.

    D) Truck flow data, such as:
       1) Identity of truck types, origins, destinations, truck owners, shippers, receivers and
           commodities for trucks moving in those areas that contain pockets of congestion.

                              2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                    Rockingham Planning Commission
10-12                                                                         Freight Transportation

7. The Security of the Freight Transportation System
Events both nationally and around the world since 2001 have focused attention on the security of the
transportation network of this country. Once aspect of this has been a focus on the movement of
freight into, out of, and around the United States. While the nature of the threats to the freight
network necessitate constant monitoring by directly involved authorities, and immediate response from
security and public safety organizations, there is also a role for regional transportation planning
agencies. This is not an area however that MPOs or Planning Commissions have traditionally been
involved in, and each one will have different resources that can be applied to the issue. Given the
newness of this issue as a focus in transportation planning, a number of things need to be considered:

        What is the role for the Planning Commission in systems operations and freight transportation
        security/disaster planning for the region?
        How can the region incorporate security and disaster planning aspects into the project
        prioritization process so that projects get into the TIP and the Long Range Plan
        Can the RPC act as a forum for discussion of Freight network security issues to coordinate
        planning.
        How can the RPC incorporate freight network planning into the current work with FEMA and
        the local communities to develop more complete hazard mitigation plans.
        Determine how to best analyze the transportation system for freight related capacity and safety
        deficiencies.

D. MPO Objectives & Proposed Actions Related to Freight

The following are MPO policy recommendations related to freight transportation for the region:
        Generate information that can be used to evaluate freight facility needs and to make decisions,
        develop a data base and a process for the ongoing collection of data on Shippers, Receivers,
        Carriers, Freight Flows, and Truck Flows.
        Utilize information generated from shared and coordinated data bases as such as those
        integrated under CVISN to develop an improved understanding of goods movement.
        Address the pockets of congestion in the region. Key pockets of congestion include NH 125 in
        Plaistow, Spaulding Turnpike, I-95 tolls, I-93 and NH 28 in Salem.
        Pursue the full implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems technologies that will
        provide congestion relief as well as allow for more efficient movement of goods and better
        information sharing between the various regulatory and enforcement agencies.
        Implement Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks, or CVISN. This technology
        allows the motor carrier industry to share information and conduct transactions electronically
        with government agencies. These take the form of electronic registration and payment of
        taxes, coordinated screening between state agencies which can reduce redundant safety
        inspections, weigh in motion which reduces delay for vehicles within safety limits, as well as
        other techniques that can improve the efficiency of goods movement and enforcement efforts.
        Evidence suggests that the issue of truck route designations is being effectively dealt with at the
        community level.
        Create a policy to identify and preserve rights of way to transportation corridors that may be
        needed to meet future transportation requirements and for which action is most needed to

                               2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                   Rockingham Planning Commission
Freight Transportation                                                                           10-13

       prevent destruction or loss. Additional action may be needed to evaluate the effect of runway
       extensions proposed at Manchester's airport as the runway extension may threaten rail access
       through the area.
       Encourage the creation of a Freight Transportation Advisory Council (FTAC) whose membership
       includes key shippers and carriers for the purpose of identifying issues of importance for the
       freight transportation community.
       Work with other agencies to define a role for the RPC in freight systems security planning in the
       region.
       Analyze the transportation network for deficiencies that relate to freight movements, safety,
       and security.
       Incorporate freight security and safety issues into the project prioritization process.



E. Conclusion

In conclusion, the RPC believes that while the freight transportation system in the region has some
deficiencies, it is effective overall at distributing goods throughout the area. Pending improvements to
the roadway network will address many of the changes necessary to reduce congestion and help insure
the ability of motor carriers to operate effectively. Additional improvements, especially in the freight
security and safety, and Intelligent Transportation Systems area, will be useful in aiding freight
movement as well.




                              2003-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                    Rockingham Planning Commission
 CHAPTER 11                 Transportation Improvement Program



This chapter contains the project tables from the 2007-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
for the Rockingham Planning Commission. The tables are the combined projects from the RPC portion
of the former Seacoast MPO and the Salem-Plaistow-Windham MPO as they were submitted to NH DOT
and the Federal Highway and Transit Agencies in October, 2006. The full 2007-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program is a standalone document that includes discussion of fiscal constraint, progress
on past projects, and detailed analysis of air quality impacts for projects in the region.




       _______________________________________________________________________
                         2007-2022 Long Range Transportation Plan
                             Rockingham Planning Commission
                                                                                                    Rockingham Planning Commission 2007-2010 TIP


                                                                                                                Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of $)                           CAA
       Route      Project #                              Scope Of Work                                 Phase   2007      2008         2009         2010     Total   Funding        Code                              Comments
ATKINSON - HAMPSTEAD
       NH 111                 Reconstruct From Central Street In Hampstead To The Southern Most          P                 0.05        0.15                 0.2                           Design not begun. Construction moved 1 year. Cost increase to
                                                                                                                                                                        STP        E-10
                              Atkinson / Hampstead T/L (3.2 Miles)                                       R                             0.02                 0.02                          reflect 2005 prices.

COAST
                              ADA operations                                                                   0.085       0.087       0.09        0.093    0.355                  E-21   FTA maintains transit services with local commitment. Cost reflects
                              Capital program                                                                   0.84       0.075       0.61         0.57    2.095                  E-22   current information.
                              General & comprehensive planning                                                 0.044       0.045       0.046       0.048    0.183                  E-36
                              Misc. bus station equipment                                                      0.055       0.056       0.058        0.06    0.229    FTA 5307      E-28
                              Misc. support equipment                                                          0.027       0.028       0.029        0.03    0.114                  E-24
                              Operating assistance                                                             1.311       1.351       1.391       1.433    5.486                  E-21
                              Preventive maintenance                                                            0.54       0.556       0.573        0.59    2.259                  E-21

DOVER - PORTSMOUTH - BOSTON
                              Increased Transit Service and intercity bus marketing campaign for the     P      0.3                                          0.3                          Partially funded by C&J Trailways
                   06-05 CM                                                                                                                                           CMAQ         N/E
                              NH 16/I-95 corridors                                                       C      1.47                                        1.47

EPPING
NH 125                                                                                                   P      0.88       0.63                             1.51                          Design not begun. Construction moved 1 year. Cost includes ROW.
                   13712      Reconstruction from NH 27 north to NH 87                                   R                 0.2                              0.2        NHS          E-6   Cost increase reflects inflation.
                                                                                                         C                                                    0

EXETER
Epping Road                                                                                              P                 0.88        0.63                 1.51                          Design not begun. Construction moved 1 year.
                              Implementation of access management plan developed by Exeter to
                                                                                                                                                                    STP <200k       E-6
                              likely include row acquisitions and driveway consolidation                 C                                                    0
Lincoln Street                Expand existing passenger railroad station parking area from 78 to 140                                                                                      Partially Funded by Exeter and Municpally managed.
                                                                                                         C     0.125                                        0.125     CMAQ         N/E
                              spaces
Park Street                                                                                              P                  0.1        0.15         0.05     0.3                          MUNICIPAL MANAGED. Town project from Statewide State Aid
                                                                                                                                                                    Bridge Rep -          Bridge annual project. Funding = 80% Federal, 10% Town, 10%
                   14090 A    Bridge replacement over B&M railroad - 088/076                             R                 0.015                   0.135    0.15                   E-19
                                                                                                                                                                    Off System            State. Cost reflects current concept.
                                                                                                         C                                                    0

GREENLAND
NH 33                                                                                                                                                                                     Design not begun. Cost increase to reflect inflation. Construction
                              Intersection improvements @ Ocean Road, adding additional turning
                                                                                                         P                 0.04                     0.08    0.12        STP        E-51   moved 1 year. Developers may construct project.
                              and through lanes
I-95                                                                                                     P     0.006                                        0.006                         Partially funded by Idleaire
                                                                                                                                                                     STP - Non-
                              Truckstop Electrification at Exit 3 on I-95                                R                 0.001                            0.001                  N/E
                                                                                                                                                                    Urban Areas
                                                                                                         C                                         0.828    0.828

HAMPTON
High St / Towle                                                                                          P      0.05                                        0.05                          From the Statewide Turnpike Renewal and Replacement program.
                              Phase 3 of North Hampton, Hampton and Exeter regional bike loop:
Ave /                                                                                                                                                                                     Construction slipped by 1 year?
                   13891      construct 4' shoulders and pavement markings from US 1 along High          R     0.001                                        0.001       TE         E-33
Winnacunnet Rd
                              Street, Towle Avenue, and Winnacunnet Road to NH 1A [02-23TE]
                                                                                                         C                 0.701                            0.701
I-95                          Rehab or replace 75' culvert over Taylor River - 120/102                   C      0.75                                        0.75        IM         E-19   Bridge Maintenance Ten Year Plan Recommendation

NH 1A                                                                                                                                                                                     Design initiated.. Cost reflects current scope. Construction moved
                              Removal of lead paint & complete repainting of bascule span of                                                                                              2 yrs. May combine with project 14188. Bridge Red List Prioity #
                   13676 B                                                                               C                  0.6                              0.6        BET        E-19
                              Hampton River bridge - 235/025                                                                                                                              13.
NH 1A                                                                                                    R                 0.297                            0.297                         High Priority Funds are being used on this project. Design
                              Bridge rehabilitation replacing deck and fender system over Hampton
                   14188                                                                                                                                                HP         E-19   initiated. Cost reflects current design. Bridge Red List Priority # 13
                              River - 235/025                                                            C                 5.86                             5.86


                                                                                                                                  14                                                                                                       9/11/2007
                                                                                                     Rockingham Planning Commission 2007-2010 TIP


                                                                                                                     Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of $)                           CAA
     Route           Project #                            Scope Of Work                                   Phase     2007      2008         2009         2010     Total   Funding        Code                               Comments

HAMPTON FALLS - HAMPTON
Blue Star Turnpike                                                                                          P        0.2         0.1         0.1                 0.4                           From the Statewide Turnpike Renewal and Replacement program.
                                 Replacement of the Taylor River Bridge on I-95 and replacement or
                       14506                                                                                R       0.015                   0.025                0.04        TRR        E-34
                                 removal of the Taylor River dam in Hampton at mile 3.65
                                                                                                            C                                             3        3

LONDONDERRY-SALEM
     Various                     COMMUTER BUS PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE                                                                                                                           Partially funded by LOCAL
                                                                                                            P       0.375       0.281       0.281       0.281    1.218   FTA-5307-CP

NEW CASTLE
                                 Construct sidewalk between residiential neighborhoodsand the               P        0.01       0.005                            0.015                         Partially Funded by New Castle
      NH 1B                      elemetary school. And between Great Common and the Wentworth               R                               0.005                0.005       TE         E-33
                                 Hotel                                                                      C                                           0.104    0.104

NEWINGTON - DOVER
NH 16 / Us 4 /                                                                                              P         2         4.66          5           2      13.66                         EIS underway. Cost increase to reflect inflation. High priority
Spldg Tpk                                                                                                                                                                                      funding helps offset NHS formula funding for the project.
                                                                                                            R                     3           3           2        8     HP, NHS, SPC   N/E
                                 Widen turnpike including Little Bay bridges from Gosling Road to Dover
                       11238                                                                                C                                            34.8    34.8
                                 toll
                                                                                                            C                                           5.456    5.456     STP,117
                                                                                                            C                                            20       20      Temp HP
                                 Widen turnpike including Little Bay bridges from Gosling Road to Dover                                                                   Projects
                       11238J                                                                               R         2                                            2        NHS         N/E
                                 toll
                                                                                                            P        0.4        0.932         1          0.4     2.732
                                 Widen turnpike including Little Bay bridges from Gosling Road to Dover
                       11238K                                                                               R        0.4         0.6         0.6         0.4       2         TPK        N/E
                                 toll
                                                                                                            C                               2.66         4.3     6.96

NEWMARKET-NEWFIELDS
NH 108                                                                                                                                                                                         MUNICIPAL MANAGED.
                       13878     Construct 4' Bike Shoulders From Newmarket to Newfields [02-25CM]          C        0.72                                        0.72       CMAQ        E-33


NORTH HAMPTON
NH 111/ Atlantic     06-42TE     School Zone Sidewalk Improvements. Construct 0.2 miles of sidewalk         P       0.008       0.004                            0.012                         Partially funded by North Hampton
Avenue                           along NH 111 (Atlantic Avenue) connecting the Elementary School with       R                                0.0                 0.01        TE         E-33
                                 town amenities.
                                                                                                            C                                           0.126    0.126
                     13501       Shoulder improvements from the intersection with Hobbs Road to US1         R       0.002                                        0.002                         Partially funded by North Hampton and District 6 Force Account
                                                                                                                                                                         NON, STP-TE    E-33
                                                                                                            C       0.204                                        0.204

PLAISTOW
     NH 125          10044D      Reconstruct Intersection Of Old County Road
                                                                                                            C     3.43045104                                     3.43        NHS        N/E

                     13803       Widening For Center Turn Lanes From The Massachusetts S/l To               P        0.01                                        0.01                          Municipal Managed. Public Hearing held. Cost increase to reflect
                                 Westville Bridge                                                           R        0.01                                        0.01        NHS        E-51   2005 prices. Construction moved 1 year.
                                                                                                            C         1.2                                        1.20

PLAISTOW - KINGSTON
     NH 125          10044B      RECONSTRUCTION FROM EAST ROAD IN PLAISTOW NORTHERLY                        P       0.1375     0.3125                            0.45                          Public Hearing held. Construction moved 1 year. Cost increase to
                                 APPROX. 6.0 +/- MILE TO NH 125 & MAIN STREET INTERSECTION IN               R         1.0       1.25         1.0                 3.25        STP        N/E    reflect 2005 prices
                                 KINGSTON                                                                   C                                            2.65    2.65
                     10044E      RECONSTRUCT INTERSECTION OF ROADSTONE DRIVE AND CONSTRUCT                                                                                                     Project from overall 125 Corridor project 10044B. Construction
                                 EXTENSION OF KINGSTON ROAD                                                 C                    2.3                              2.3        NHS        N/E    moved two years. Cost increase to reflect 2005 prices.




                                                                                                                                       15                                                                                                      9/11/2007
                                                                                                      Rockingham Planning Commission 2007-2010 TIP


                                                                                                                Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of $)                           CAA
       Route     Project #                             Scope Of Work                                   Phase   2007      2008         2009         2010     Total   Funding        Code                              Comments
PLAISTOW, NH to HAVERHILL, MA
  RAIL TRANSIT   13515       CONSTRUCT RAIL PLATFORM & PROVIDE THREE YEARS OF OPERATING                  P      0.01                                        0.01                          Partially funded by Plaistow and PATAC. Design not begun.
                             SUBSIDY FOR PASSENGER RAIL [00-20CM]                                                                                                      CMAQ        N/E    Construction moved 3 years. Unresolved Railroad issues. CMAQ
                                                                                                         C                             0.966                0.966                         2000

PORTSMOUTH
Woodbury Ave/
                   13516     Signal Coordination along Woodbury From I-95 to Gosling Road                C     0.085                                        0.085      CMAQ        E-51
Market Strret
                                                                                                                                                                                          MUNICIPAL MANAGED
                             Piscataqua riverwalk: construct 400 lf of pedestrian facility and pier
Bow Street         13903                                                                                 C      1.44                                        1.44        TE         E-33
                             along the Piscataqua River paralleling Bow Street [02-53TE]

                                                                                                                                                                                          MUNICIPAL MANAGED. City project from Statewide Transportation
                             Tradeport multi-use path - construct a multi use path along Grafton Dr      P                 0.065                            0.065
                                                                                                                                                                                          Enhancement program. TE 2004.
Grafton Drive      14417     between NH Avenue and Portsmouth Transportation Center, and                                                                                TE         E-33
                             between Pease Golf Course and Airport Rd [04-54TE]                          C                             0.45                 0.45

I-95               14368     Interchange improvements at Market Street                                   C      0.3                                          0.3        IM         E-53
Bicycle Route                Create a safe bicycle route from downtown Portsmouthto Bike Ped
                   12683                                                                                 C     0.072                                        0.072       TE         E-33
                             Bridge into Pease Tradeport
Market Street                                                                                                                                                                             MUNICIPAL MANAGED. City project from Statewide Congestion
Extension                    Bike / ped path, between Michael Succi Drive and the NH Port                                                                                                 Mitigation and Air Quality project. CMAQ 2004
                   14428                                                                                 C      0.20                                        0.20       CMAQ        N/E
                             Authority [04-16CM]

NH 1A                                                                                                    P     0.075        0.1        0.025                 0.2                          MUNICIPAL MANAGED. 20% City match. City Project from
                   14493     Bridge rehabilitation over Sagamore Creek - 198/034                                                                                    BRIDGE - OFF   E-19   Statewide Municipal owned Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement
                                                                                                         R                              0.1                  0.1                          projects.
                                                                                                         P      0.05                                        0.05                          MUNICIPAL MANAGED; Bridge Red List Priority # 24. Fed 80%,
NH 33 (old                                                                                                                                                                                State 10%, City 10%. City project. Cost increase to reflect inflation.
                   10665     Replace bridge over B&M RR - 154/101                                        R     0.192                                        0.192   BRIDGE - ON    E-19
NH101)                                                                                                                                                                                    Design study initiated.
                                                                                                         C                   7                                7
                                                                                                         P      0.12                                        0.12                          Design not begun. Construction moved 1 year. May advance if city
                                                                                                                                                                    STP < 200K,
                             Intersection @ Constitution Ave and roadway improvements                                                                                              E-51   funds available.
                                                                                                         R     0.115       0.125                            0.24     STP >200K
US 1
                                                                                                         P                  0.1                              0.1                          May advance if City Funds available. Design not begun.
                             Reconstruct from Wilson Road to Constitution Ave                                                                                        STP < 200K    E-10   Construction moved 1 year. Cost increase to reflect inflation.
                                                                                                         R                  0.1                              0.1

                                                                                                         P      0.1         0.7        0.09         0.01     0.9                          Bridge Red List Priority # 61, 58, 104. Design initiated. Corridor
                             Reconstruct from traffic circle north to Sarah Long bridge including                                                                   BRIDGE-ON,            study. Construction moved 1 year. Cost increase to reflect
                   12900                                                                                                                                                           E-19
                             bridges 227/112, 211/114 & 205/116                                          R      0.02       0.23        0.25         0.02    0.52     STP <200K            inflation and current concept. Costs for bridge replacements only.

US 1 Bypass
                                                                                                                                                                                          Bridge Red List Priority # 57, 59, NA, 60, NA. Design initiated.
                                                                                                         P      0.05        0.1         0.5         0.2     0.85
                             Reconstruct from Sagamore Creek project to traffic circle, including                                                                                         Corridor study. Construction moved 1 year. Cost increase to
                   13455                                                                                                                                             STP<200K      E-19
                             bridges 173/071, 183/087, 188/097, 189/100, 192/106                                                                                                          reflect inflation and current concept. Costs for bridge
                                                                                                         R      0.02       0.05        0.05         0.4     0.52                          replacements only.

PORTSMOUTH, NH - KITTERY, ME
                                                                                                         P      0.1         0.1                              0.2                          Bridge Red List Priority # 1 & City Owned Bridge, 20% CITY MATCH
                             Rehabilitate bridge over Piscataqua River - 247/084 (memorial bridge)                                                                                        OF SCOTT AVE. BRIDGE COSTS. Design initiated. Construction
Us 1              13678                                                                                  R                  0.2                              0.2    BRIDGE - ON    E-19   moved 3 yrs. Cost increase to reflect Maine's participation, current
                             & replace scott avenue bridge - 246/083
                                                                                                                                                                                          scope of work, and inflation.
                                                                                                         C                                          31.5    31.5




                                                                                                                                  16                                                                                                       9/11/2007
                                                                                                      Rockingham Planning Commission 2007-2010 TIP


                                                                                                                 Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of $)                               CAA
      Route      Project #                             Scope Of Work                                   Phase    2007      2008         2009         2010      Total      Funding        Code                             Comments
ROCHESTER-SOMERSWORTH-DOVER-NEWINGTON-PORTSMOUTH
                  14286      Intersection improvements
                                                                                                         C                  0.19                               0.19          SAH               MUNICIPAL MANAGED. Advanced construction by city in 2005.
NH 11 & Little
 Spaulding TPK     13880     "Express" Bus Service For General Public Between Rochester &                       0.035                                          0.035                           Municipal Managed
                                                                                                         P
                             Portsmouth To Have Timely Connections With Inter-city & Local                                                                                  CMAQ        N/E
                             Transportation Services [02-29CM]                                           C     0.765299                                        0.77

RYE
                                                                                                         P       0.24                                          0.24         Bridge             Bridge Red List Priority # 12. Under design. Cost increase reflects
                             Replace wooden bridge over Seavey's Creek - 252/156, with wooden
NH 1A             13269                                                                                  R       0.07                                          0.07      Replacment -   E-19   inflation.
                             bridge structure
                                                                                                         C        3.5                                          3.5            On

SALEM
      NH 28      12334       Reconstruct Intersection, Main Street @ Depot Street, Including             P       0.15        0.1         0.01        0.01      0.27                            Partially funded by Salem. 20% Town match. Design initiated.
                                                                                                                                                                             STP        E-53
                             Signals, Left Turn Lanes & Approaches                                       R      0.125      0.1875       0.1875       1.0        1.5                            Construction moved 1 year.
  Pelham Road    13518       Signal Coordination From North Policy Road West To Stiles Road [00-                                                                                               Partially funded by Salem. Municipally Managed
                             24CM]                                                                       C       0.07                                          0.07         CMAQ        E-51

      NH 28      10418R      Integration Of Coordinated Traffic Signal Control, Video Surveillance,      P       0.15                                           0.15                           50 % Congressional Earmark funds, 50% Town match
                             Emergency And Incident Response Support And Communications                  R       0.05                                           0.05      HP/TOWN       N/E
                                                                                                         C      1.297                                          1.297
      TRANSIT    14430A      Transit Service For Employees In The Region Connecting Salem To                                                                                                   From Statewide CMAQ Program, 2004
                             Other Communities With The Goal Of Fixed Route Transit [part Of 04-         P     0.91875                                        0.91875       CMAQ
                             20CM]

SALEM - DERRY [CART]
      TRANSIT                Demand-Response Transit Expansion & Coordination using FTA Funds                                                                                                  CART System. Partially funded by local FTA Transit Service using
                                                                                                         P      0.065                                          0.065
                             transferred from Boston Urbanized Area (20% Local Match) and from                                                                                                 50% local match. FTA funds transferred from Nashua.
                             the Nashua Urbanized Area (50% Local Match)                                                                                                 FTA-5307-CP    E-30
                                                                                                         P      0.567                                          0.567


SALEM TO MANCHESTER
        I-93     TRANSIT     Park & Ride @ Exit 2 (Salem) [Part of 04-33CM]                                                                                                                    Partially funded by LOCAL Boston Urbanized Areas FTA Funds, 20%
                                                                                                         C       6.4                                            6.4      FTA-5307-CP    E-21   local or state matching funds
        I-93     10418       I-93 RECONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION                                          P       3.25                                          3.25                            I-93 widening. Costs reflect PE and ROW needs necessary to go
                                                                                                                                                                             NHS        N/E    forward with construction.
                                                                                                         R       1.5         1.5                                3.0
        I-93     10418C      Environmental Impact Study & final design from Mass S/L in Salem to I-                                                                                            I-93 widening. Funding for PE and ROW necessary to go forward
                                                                                                         P       4.7        5.425       6.375        7.88      24.38
                             293 in Manchester [Section 1602 - Designated Project; Demo Id NH014]                                                                                              with construction. Garvee Bonding to accelerate construction.
                             [Sister Demo Id NH029 & NH051/NH076 & NH052/NH068]                                                                                              IM         E-38
                                                                                                         R     0.562072     8.53         8.67        1.0     18.762072

        I-93     10418G      Park & Ride @ Exit 2 (Salem) [Part of 04-33CM]                              C       6.4                                            6.4         CMAQ        N/E    I-93 Widening. CMAQ 2004 (part).

        I-93     10418H      Park & Ride @ Exit 3 (Windham) [Part of 04-33CM]                                                                                                                  I-93 widening. Construction cannot take place until after highway
                                                                                                         C                                          0.4035    0.4035        CMAQ               construction complete. Garvee Bonding to accelerate construction.
                                                                                                                                                                                        N/E    High priority funding helps offset NHS or IM or CMAQ formula
                                                                                                         C                                          3.8665    3.8665         HP                funding for the project. CMAQ 2004.

        I-93     10418L      Implement Expanded Bus Service & new commuter incentive program.                                                                                                  I-93 Widening. CMAQ 2004
                             Purchase 14 commuter coaches & provide 3 years of operating support         C        5                                             5           CMAQ        N/E
                             [04-04CM]
        I-93     10418N      Exit 5 Bus Maintenance Facility & Terminal (Londonderry)[Part of 04-                                                                                              I-93 Widening
                                                                                                         C       1.1                                            1.1         CMAQ        E-28
                             33CM]




                                                                                                                                   17                                                                                                         9/11/2007
                                                                                                      Rockingham Planning Commission 2007-2010 TIP


                                                                                                                     Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of $)                           CAA
       Route       Project #                             Scope Of Work                                    Phase     2007      2008         2009         2010      Total      Funding    Code                               Comments
SALEM TO MANCHESTER
         I-93      10418W      Water Quality Study [Section 1702 - Designated Project; Demo Id              P        0.44                                          0.44        HIGH            High Priority Funds are being used on this project.
                                                                                                                                                                                        E-34
                               NH054]                                                                       P       0.875       1.875         2.25                  5.0      PRIORITY
         I-93      13933*      Reconstruct & Widen from S/L to Manchester [Garvee Bonded Projects -         C       25.25        32.2         40.2       27.2     124.85     BONDED            Garvee Bonded Projects
                                                                                                                                                                                        N/E
                               2005 NH Legislature Approved]                                                C         24         24.2          44        19.8      112       VARIOUS
         I-93      13933L      Reconstruct & Widen Mainline (Projects to be broken out) [Section                                                                                               I-93 widening. Garvee Bonding to accelerate construction. High
                               1702 - Designated Project; Demo Id NH048] [Sister Demo Id NH066 &            C                                 3.65                 3.65        HP       N/E    priority funding helps offset NHS or IM formula funding for the
                               NH074]                                                                                                                                                          project.
         I-93      14800*      "Debt Service Project" for: Reconstruction & Widening from S/L to                                                                                               Debt Service Project for GARVEE bonded project
                               Manchester [GARVEE Bonded Projects - 2005 NH Legislature Approved]           C                    3.23         7.72      13.81      24.76     VARIOUS    N/E

                                                       Subtotal for I-93 Salem to Manchester Project              73.077072     76.96       112.865     73.96    336.86207

SALEM TO MANCHESTER TO CONCORD
         I-93      10418Z      Implementation Of Incident Management And ITS Technologies For                                                                                                  High Priority Funds are being used on this project.
                                                                                                            C        2.7                                            2.7       CMAQ
                               Overall Corridor, To Improve Efficiency Before, During & After I-93
                                                                                                                                                                                        N/E
                               Construction, Includes CMAQ App [06-22CM]
                                                                                                            C        1.2                                            1.2        IM

SANDOWN
       NH 121A     14418       Town Center Sidewalks Along East Side From Sandown Elementary                                                                                                   Partially funded by Sandown. Municipally Managed. Town project
                               School To Sandown Depot [04-56TE]                                            C                   0.108                              0.108      STP-TE    E-33   from TE Program 2004

SEABROOK - PORTSMOUTH
                     11151E    ITS Deployment; ITS Initiative allowing for deployment of variable           C         2           2                                 4         CMAQ      N/E
I-95                           message boards and highway advisory radio to improve motorists
                     11151F    safety                                                                       C        0.4         0.4                                0.8        TPK      N/E

SEACOAST
                               Congestion Mitigation Project to include the installation of Various ITS     P        0.05                                          0.05                        This project is a Federal Earmark that accompanies 11151E and
I-95                 14631                                                                                                                                                     HP       N/E
                               devices                                                                      C       0.812                                          0.812                       11151F
                               Seacoast Commuter OptionsProgram Expansion / Accelerated                                                                                                        Partially Funded by PEASE
                                                                                                            C        0.1         0.1          0.1                   0.3       CMAQ      N/E
                               Implementation

WINDHAM
                   06-59TE     Rehabilitate Windham Depot As Visitors Center / Museum / Way                 P       0.007       0.002                              0.009                       Partially funded by Windham. Town project from TE Program 2006
                               Station On Salem - Concord Bikeway / Rail Trail: Also Make                   R                                0.001                 0.001      STP-TE
                               Improvements To Parking Areas. [06-59TE]
                                                                                                            C                                            0.2        0.2
        Wall St                NH 111/Wall Street Corridor Study from I-93 west to Lowell Rd, North
                                                                                                            P       0.125                                          0.125       STP
                               to Londonderry Rd.
       Lowell Rd   13113       Phase 1 to Construct shared roadway bicycle lane - 2.1 miles [98-03TE]       P        0.07                                           0.07       BET             From Statewide Transportation Enhancement program. Town
                                                                                                            R       0.025                                          0.025      STP-TE           provides part of match. Under design. TE 1998.
                                                                                                                                                                                        E-33
                                                                                                            C                   0.665                              0.665       BET
                                                                                                            C                   0.635                              0.635      STP-TE

WINDHAM - SALEM
        NH 111     10075K      LANDSCAPING                                                                                                                                                     Design initiated. Construction moved 3 yrs. Cost reflects current
                                                                                                            C                    0.2                                0.2        NHS      E-42
                                                                                                                                                                                               scope.

                                                         Subtotal of Regionally Programmed Projects               117.594632   115.8805     133.4725   187.184   370.15627




                                                                                                                                       18                                                                                                      9/11/2007
                                                                                      Rockingham Planning Commission 2007-2010 TIP


                                                                                                  Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of $)                              CAA
   Route    Project #                          Scope Of Work                           Phase     2007      2008         2009         2010       Total      Funding      Code                             Comments
STATEWIDE
                        CAPITAL ASSISTANCE TO PUBLIC TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION FOR                                                                                            Funds Transferred to FTA to Support Coordinated Transportation
                                                                                         C        1.0         1.0          1.0        1.0         4.0         STP       E-21
                        ELDERLY & DISABLED                                                                                                                                     Services
                        CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FOR RURAL AREAS                                                                                                                      FTA Transit Service Support Outside Urbanized Areas. Uses Local
                                                                                               0.09892375                                      0.0989238   FTA-5311-O   E-24
                                                                                                                                                                               Match.
                        ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES TRANSPORTATION                                                                                                   Replaces deficient vehicles serving elderly and disabled people.
                                                                                                0.686946    0.735358     0.766801   0.797475    2.98658     FTA-5310    E-21
                        PROGRAM                                                                                                                                                Uses local match.
                        JOB ACCESS & REVERSE COMMUTE
                                                                                                1.408996    0.804886     0.848742    0.8904    3.953024     FTA-5316
                        MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADES FOR REST AREAS                                                                                                                GACIT Recommendation
                                                                                         C        0.6         0.6          0.6        0.6         2.4       VARIOUS

                        MOVEABLE BRIDGE INSPECTION                                                                                                                             Consultant Services to Provide Periodic Specialized Inspection
                                                                                         P                                            0.15       0.15         STP       E-19
                                                                                                                                                                               Needs.
                        NEW FREEDOMS INITIATIVE
                                                                                                1.403714    0.767662     0.811528    0.851     3.833904     FTA-5317
                        RURAL PUBLIC TRANSIT                                                                                                                                   Continues transit service in 6 communities outside urbanized areas.
                                                                                                6.341014    6.852524     7.239828    7.5999    28.033266   FTA-5311-O   E-21
                                                                                                                                                                               Uses local match.
                        SCOUR & HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ON 130 BRIDGES & WATERWAYS;
                                                                                         P       0.175        0.17                               0.345
                        FOUNDATION & HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ON 48 BRIDGES WITH
                        UNKNOWN FOUNDATIONS; DEVELOP SCOUR MANUAL & POA                                                                                       STP
                                                                                         R       0.0025      0.0025                              0.005

                        TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS (ITS, CARS-                                                                                             Engineering for ITS and CARS-511 projects
                        511)                                                             P        0.25        0.25         0.25       0.25        1.0         STP       N/E

            06-27CM     TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPTIMIZATION - NON-ATTAINMENT TOWNS ONLY [06-     P        0.1         0.1                                 0.2                          CMAQ 2006.
                        27CM]                                                                                                                                CMAQ
                                                                                         C                                 0.1                    0.1
            114-UBI     UNDERWATER BRIDGE INSPECTION (Annual Project)                                                                                                          Consultant services for underwater bridge inspections.
                                                                                         P        0.03        0.03         0.03       0.03       0.12       BRIDGE      E-38

            11848       STATEWIDE MONITORING OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION                                                                                                       Extended Post Construction Monitoring / Inspection to Fulfill
                        MEASURES                                                         P        0.07        0.02         0.02       0.02       0.13         STP       E-38   Environmental Commitments.

            12223*      PAVEMENT MARKING (Annual Project)                                                                                                                      Annual pavement striping program funding.
                                                                                         C        2.33        2.33         2.33       2.33       9.32         STP       E-11

            12563*      ANNUAL TRAINING PROGRAM (Annual Project)                                                                                                               Program Funding for Departmental Training.
                                                                                         P        0.2         0.2          0.2        0.2         0.8         STP       E-35

            14058A      STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT &                                                                                                          From Statewide Intelligent Technology Funds
                        OPERATIONS - ITS TECHNOLOGIES, CARS-511 TRAVELER INFORMATION
                                                                                         P       0.5875                                         0.5875        STP       E-34


            14333       TO PERFORM UNDERWATER INSPECTIONS ON BRIDGES THROUGHOUT                                                                                                From Statewide Underwater Bridge Inspection Program
                        NEW HAMPSHIRE                                                    P        0.06                                           0.06       BRIDGE      DNA

            14354       EXPANSION OF THE ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE PROJECT (AFVP) TO                                                                                            NHDES Project, from Statewide Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
                        PROVIDE INCREMENTAL COSTS OF AFVS AND 80% INFRASTRUCTURE                                                                                               Program. CMAQ 2004.
                        COSTS [04-05CM]                                                  C       2.7695                                         2.7695       CMAQ       N/E




                                                                                                                    19                                                                                                        9/11/2007
                                                                                     Rockingham Planning Commission 2007-2010 TIP


                                                                                                 Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of $)                      CAA
   Route     Project #                         Scope Of Work                            Phase   2007      2008         2009         2010     Total   Funding   Code                              Comments
STATEWIDE
             EFH*        TO ENHANCE NATIONAL BENEFITS BY PROVIDING CONSTRUCTION &         P     0.045       0.045       0.045       0.045    0.18                     Federal specified funding for Highways in National Forest areas.
                         MAINTENANCE OF FOREST HIGHWAYS (Annual Project)                                                                                              Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, & part of 2009 are committed to Albany
                                                                                          R     0.005       0.005       0.005       0.005    0.02      PLH     ATT
                                                                                                                                                                      13632B to Advertise FY 2006
                                                                                          C      0.7         0.7         0.7         0.7      2.8
             EPF*        SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR EMERGENCY PROJECTS
                                                                                                 0.5         0.5         0.5         0.5      2.0    UNKNOWN    ALL

             GRR         GUARDRAIL REPLACEMENT [Federal Aid Guardrail Improvement         P      0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1      0.4
                         Program] (Annual Project)                                        R      0.01       0.01        0.01         0.01    0.04      STP      E-9
                                                                                          C      1.0         1.0         1.0         1.0      4.0
             IPPP        INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE & INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION        P      0.02       0.02        0.02         0.02    0.08                     Program using Federal funding to address critical pavement
                         PROGRAM (Annual Program)                                                                                                      IM      E-10   deterioration on the Interstate system.
                                                                                          C      4.0         4.0         4.0         4.0     16.0
             P8903*      RECREATIONAL TRAILS FUND ACT- PROJECTS SELECTED ANNUALLY         P     0.005       0.005       0.005       0.005     0.02                    Specified Funding for Recreational Trail Program Administered by
                                                                                          R     0.001       0.001       0.001       0.001    0.004    NRTP     E-33   DRED.
                                                                                          C     0.775       0.775       0.775       0.775     3.1
             POMVIP      SAFETY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS                                        P      0.6         0.6         0.6         0.6      2.4     MISC      E-6   Safety incentive grants and awareness inititatives.
             PRRC        PAVEMENT RESURFACING, REHABILITATION & CRACKSEAL PROGRAM         P      0.15       0.15        0.15         0.15     0.6                     Program using Federal funding to address pavement deterioration,
                         & RELATED WORK (Annual Federal Resurfacing Program)                                                                                          drainage, guardrail, embankment instability.
                                                                                          R     0.025       0.025       0.025       0.025     0.1      STP     E-10
                                                                                          C      10          10          10          10       40
             RR-RCS      RECONSTRUCTION OF CROSSINGS, SIGNALS, & RELATED WORK (Annual     P      0.03       0.03        0.03         0.03    0.12                     Force Account with Railroad to improve safety of railroad crossings.
                         Project)
                                                                                          R      0.01       0.01        0.01         0.01    0.04      STP      E-1
                                                                                          C      0.67       0.67        0.67         0.67    2.68
             RR-REPD     REMOVE EXISTING PROTECTIVE DEVICES & RELOCATE @ CROSSINGS        P      0.02       0.02        0.02         0.02    0.08                     Force Account with Railroad. To improve safety of railroad
                         (Annual Project)                                                                                                                             crossings.
                                                                                          R      0.01       0.01        0.01         0.01    0.04      STP      E-8
                                                                                          C      0.15       0.15        0.15         0.15     0.6
             SBCM        SCENIC BYWAYS CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT, PLANNING, AND                 P      0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1      0.4                     Federal specified funding for Highways designated as scenic
                         DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES, TO ENHANCE SCENIC QUALITIES OF                                                                                    byways.
                         NEW HAMPSHIRE (Annual Project)                                   R      0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1      0.4      SBP     E-34

                                                                                          C      0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1      0.4
             USSS*       UPDATE SIGNING ON STATE SYSTEM (Annual Project)                  P      0.01       0.01        0.01         0.01    0.04
                                                                                                                                                       STP     E-44
                                                                                          C      1.0         1.0         1.0         1.0      4.0

STATEWIDE - TCSP
             TCSP        TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION GRANTS          P      0.5         0.5         0.5         0.5      2.0                     Placeholder for Federal "Earmarked" funds (funds in addition to the
                         AND SECTION 115 GRANTS AWARDED TO COMMUNITIES THROUGH                                                                                        regular federal formula funded program) that may be forthcoming
                                                                                          R      0.1         0.1         0.1         0.1      0.4      TCSP    E-34
                         CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS (Annual Project)                                                                                                      through the efforts of the NH Congressional Delegation.
                                                                                          C      0.5         0.5         0.5         0.5      2.0

STATEWIDE CONSULTANT
                         INSPECTION OF SIGN STRUCTURES ON ALL STATE MAINTAINED                                                                                        Sign frame structures require in depth inspection every 5 years to
                         HIGHWAYS                                                         P                                          0.2      0.2      STP     E-13   assure structural capacity for safety purposes.




                                                                                                                   20                                                                                                 9/11/2007
                                                                                         Rockingham Planning Commission 2007-2010 TIP


                                                                                                    Funding by Fiscal Year (in millions of $)                              CAA
   Route     Project #                         Scope Of Work                              Phase    2007      2008         2009         2010          Total      Funding   Code                             Comments
STATEWIDE M & R ACTIVITIES
             13921*      EQUIPMENT SERVICE & CALIBRATION AGREEMENTS AND PROJECT                                                                                                  Means of Servicing Sophisticated Electronic Lab & Materials
                                                                                            P      0.045        0.045        0.045       0.045         0.18
                         RELATED CONSUMABLES (Annual Project)                                                                                                     STP     E-34   Equipment used on Federal Aid Highway & Bridge Projects
                                                                                            C      0.045        0.045        0.045       0.045         0.18

STATEWIDE MISC P.E.
             SAFUPI      SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR UNANTICIPATED P.E. INCREASES                                                                                                        Generic Preliminary Engineering placeholder funds for specific
                                                                                                                                                                                 federal funding categories during the STIP years (2007-2010) to
                                                                                            P      0.625        0.625        0.625       0.625         2.5      VARIOUS   E-34   reduce paperwork involved with the federal STIP process.



STATEWIDE MISC R.O.W.
             SAFURI      SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR UNANTICIPATED R.O.W. INCREASES                                                                                                      Generic Right-of-Way placeholder funds for specific federal funding
                                                                                                                                                                                 categories during the STIP years (2007-2010) to reduce paperwork
                                                                                            R      0.625        0.625        0.625       0.625         2.5      VARIOUS   E-34
                                                                                                                                                                                 involved with the federal STIP process.


STATEWIDE P.E.
             NPE*        SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR "NEW" UNANTICIPATED P.E. FOR PROJECTS                                                                                               Requires MPO/RPC Coordination !
                                                                                            P        0.5         0.5          0.5          0.5         2.0      VARIOUS    ALL


STATEWIDE R.O.W.
             NROW*       SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR "NEW" UNANTICIPATED R.O.W. FOR PROJECTS                                                                                             Requires MPO/RPC Coordination !
                                                                                            R        0.5         0.5          0.5          0.5         2.0      VARIOUS    ALL


STATEWIDE SPECIAL
             10336*      IN HOUSE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FHWA SUPPORTIVE SERVICES                                                                                                 Federal specified funding for disadvantaged business enterprises.
                         PROGRAM: "DBE" COMPLIANCE MONITORING (Annual Program)              P       0.09        0.09         0.09         0.09         0.36       DBE     E-34

             10344*      TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO RURAL COMMUNITIES AND                                                                                                   Federal specified funding for providing technical assistance on
                         ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH-OUT THE STATE - (LTAP) (Annual Project)      P        0.3         0.3          0.3          0.3         1.2       L-TAP    E-35   transportation issues to municipalities.

             10909*      GEODETIC ADVISOR, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN US DEPT of                                                                                              For Funding Shared (MA & NH) USGS Geodectic Survey Advisor
                         COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICES & NHDOT (Annual Project)          P      0.038        0.04         0.042       0.044        0.164       STP     E-34   Position & Coordination


STATEWIDE-TRAC
             13668       IMPLEMENT AND PARTICIPATE IN AASHTO TRAC PROGRAM IN LOCAL                                                                                               Program Funding for 'Education Outreach' Working with Local High
                         HIGH SCHOOLS TO ENCOURAGE STUDENTS TO EXPLORE                                                                                                           Schools.
                         OPPORTUNITIES IN TRANSPORTATION CAREERS (Annual Program)           P      0.0208      0.0208       0.0208       0.0208       0.0832      STP     E-34



                                                                  Subtotal for Statewide Projects 42.1388938    37.88973    38.225699    38.949575   157.2039

                                                             Grand Total for RPC 2007-2010 TIP 159.733525      153.77023 171.698199     226.133575 527.36017




                                                                                                                       21                                                                                                       9/11/2007
 CHAPTER 12                  LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

This chapter lists the long range transportation improvements (those not in the TIP) planned for the
Rockingham Planning Commission. This chapter is essentially comprised of a table representing the
current long-range list of improvements for the period of 2011 to 2026 which, when combined with the
Transportation Improvement Program table, competes a 20 year list of projects for the region. Table
12.1 shows projects that have been incorporated into the State 2003-2012 Ten Year Program of
Projects future projects planned by the MPO beyond the scope of the current Ten Year Plan.

A subgroup of the future projects listed in this table are those labeled as “Vision Element”. These
projects are those for which a need has been identified, but no funding, scope, or schedule has
necessarily been developed.

These are the pool of projects that the MPO might choose from when creating its short range TIP
element for the region and when looking for projects to be added to the State Ten Year Plan. These
projects have met the test of financial constraint, the MPO having determined that the likely regional
allocation of future funds would be sufficient (see Appendix A). Years are approximate and represent
only a best guess as to when adequate funding will be available or when the project might be
programmed.




                             2007-2026 Long Range Transportation Plan
                                 Rockingham Planning Commission
                 Table 12-1                                                                                                                                         Rockingham Planning Commission                                                                                             9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                 2007-2026 Long Range Plan Project Listing




                                                                                                                                                         NON-STIP PORTION OF 10 YEAR PLAN
            Route/                                                                                                             Funding
Source       Road                                            Project Description                                                Source   Phase   2011    2012     2013       2014        2015      2016      2017    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022    2023    2024    2025         2026           TOTAL
ATKINSON
            Hi l l da l e
  LRP                       Upgra de Hi l l da l e Avenue In Atki ns on                                                          STP       C                                                                 0.336                                                                                           0.336
            Avenue
           Wes t Si de      Bi cycl e La nes On Wes t Si de Dri ve To Connect Wes t Si de Dri ve Subdi vi s i ons To
  LRP                                                                                                                            TE        C                                                                 0.070                                                                                           0.070
            dri ve          The Town Recrea ti on Area (Future TE)
           Medi ta ti on    Bi cycl e La nes On Medi ta ti on La ne To Connect The Res i denti a l Area s Wi th
  LRP                                                                                                                            TE        C                                                                         0.130                                                                                   0.130
             La ne          Town Fa ci l i ti es (Future TE)

                            Cons tructi on Of Approx 1,200 Feet Of Si dewa l k On Aca demy Avenue Whi ch Wi l l
            Aca demy
  LRP                       Connect The Town Ha l l , El ementa ry School , Fi re Depa rtment, And Publ i c Li bra ry            TE        C                                                                                         0.150                                                                   0.150
             a venue
                            (Future TE)

ATKINSON-HAMPSTEAD
                                                                                                                                           P                                                                                                                                                                 0.000
10 Yea r                    Recons truct From Centra l Street In Ha mps tea d To The Southern Mos t Atki ns on
 Pl a n
             NH 111
                            / Ha mps tea d Town Li ne (3.2 Mi l es )
                                                                                                                                 STP       R     0.200                                                                                                                                                       0.200
                                                                                                                                           C                                  1.750                                                                                                                          1.750

COAST
10 Yea r      COAST         ADA Operations. Note: FTA, Ma i nta i ns tra ns i t s ervi ce wi th l oca l commi tment.
 Pl a n                                                                                                                          FTA       U     0.096   0.098     0.101      0.104      0.104     0.104     0.106   0.108   0.110   0.112   0.114   0.116   0.118   0.121   0.123        0.125
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             1.760
10 Yea r                    Capital Program. Note: FTA, Ma i nta i ns bus fl eet for l oca l tra ns i t us i ng l oca l
 Pl a n                     ma tchi ng funds .
                                                                                                                                 FTA       U     0.235   0.283     0.981      0.157      0.157     0.157     0.157   0.158   0.158   0.158   0.159   0.159   0.159   0.159   0.160        0.160
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             3.557
10 Yea r                    General & Comprehensive Planning. Note: FTA, Fundi ng for i ntermoda l pl a nni ng
 Pl a n
                                                                                                                                 FTA       U     0.049   0.051     0.052      0.054      0.054     0.054     0.055   0.056   0.057   0.058   0.060   0.061   0.062   0.063   0.064        0.066
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             0.916
10 Yea r                    Operating Assistance. Note: FTA, Ma i nta i n tra ns i t s ervi ce uti l i zi ng l oca l
                                                                                                                                 FTA       U     1.476   1.520     1.566      1.613      1.613     1.613     1.645   1.677   1.710   1.744   1.778   1.814   1.849   1.886   1.923        1.961
 Pl a n                     ma tchi ng funds .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               27.388
10 Yea r                    Preventive Maintenance. Note: FTA, Ma i nta i ns tra ns i t s ervi ce uti l i zi ng l oca l
                                                                                                                                 FTA       U     0.358   0.369     0.380      0.391      0.391     0.391     0.399   0.406   0.414   0.422   0.430   0.439   0.447   0.456   0.465        0.474
 Pl a n                     ma tchi ng funds .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               6.633
10 Yea r                    Misc. Bus Station Equipment. Note: FTA, Ma i nta i ns tra ns i t s ervi ce uti l i zi ng l oca l
 Pl a n                     ma tchi ng funds .
                                                                                                                                 FTA       U     0.061   0.063     0.065      0.067      0.067     0.067     0.068   0.069   0.071   0.072   0.073   0.075   0.076   0.078   0.079        0.080
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             1.132
10 Yea r                    Misc. Support Equipment Note: FTA, Ma i nta i ns tra ns i t s ervi ce uti l i zi ng l oca l
 Pl a n                     ma tchi ng funds .
                                                                                                                                 FTA       U     0.031   0.320     0.033      0.034      0.034     0.034     0.035   0.035   0.036   0.037   0.038   0.038   0.039   0.040   0.041        0.042
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             0.868
  LRP                       Servi ce a l ong US 1 corri dor from Ports mouth to Sea brook. Ca pi ta l a nd three
                            yea rs opera ti ng. [future CMAQ].
                                                                                                                                CMAQ       C     1.200
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          1.200
  LRP                       Servi ce i mprovements on a l l exi s ti ng COAST routes to i ncl ude regul a ri zi ng a nd                                                                                                                                                                                  VISION
                                                                                                                                CMAQ       C
                            decrea s i ng hea dwa ys .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ELEMENT
DANVILLE
                            NH 111A Si dewa l ks Connecti ng Muni ci pa l Bui l di ngs And Publ i c Area s Pl us A
  LRP       NH 111A                                                                                                              TE        C                                                                 1.600                                                                                           1.600
                            Secti on Of Bi cycl e La nes On Both Si des Of The Roa d (Future TE)


EAST KINGSTON
  LRP        NH 107         Imrpove Si ght di s ta nce a t i nters ecti on of NH 107 & Wi l l ow Roa d. Source: 2001-
                            2003 TIP Propos a l                                                                                            C                                                                         0.053
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             0.053
EPPING
 13712       NH 125         Recons tructi on From Brentwood T/l North To NH 87. Source: Conges ti on/Sa fety                     NHS       R             0.200                                                                                                                                            0.200
                            Improvement i n ra pi dl y devel opi ng a rea .                                                      NHS       R             0.200                                                                                                                                            0.200
                                                                                                                                 NHS       C                                  2.850                                                                                                                       2.850
                            Conges ti on/Sa fety Improvement i n ra pi dl y devel opi ng a rea .                                           P                       0.150                                                                                                                                  0.150
  LRP                       Mi l l Street over La mprey Ri ver - Structura l l y defi ci ent bri dge 112/053. Source:                                                                                                                                                                                    VISION
                            NHDOT 2002 Red Li s t Bri dge Summa ry                                                                         C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ELEMENT




                                                                                                                                                                                      12-2                                                                                                       9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             E:\LRP\RPC\LRP_Projects_07-26
                Table 12-1                                                                                                                                  Rockingham Planning Commission                                                                                         9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                         2007-2026 Long Range Plan Project Listing




                                                                                                                                                 NON-STIP PORTION OF 10 YEAR PLAN
             Route/                                                                                                    Funding
Source        Road                                           Project Description                                        Source   Phase   2011    2012     2013       2014        2015      2016      2017   2018    2019    2020    2021   2022   2023    2024   2025         2026           TOTAL

EXETER
10 Yea r   EPPING ROAD     Impl ementa ti on Of Acces s Ma na gement Pl a n Devel oped By Exeter To Li kel y
 Pl a n                    Incl ude Row Acqui s i ti ons And Dri vewa y Cons ol i da ti on.                              STP       C                                             1.500
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1.500
  LRP                      Shoul der bi ke route on NH 111 between Wa s hi ngton Street a nd Pi ckpocket
                           Roa d [future TE]
                                                                                                                                   C     0.730
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              0.730
 Town                      Wi den s houl ders on NH 85 from Ma i n Street to NH 87.                                                                                                                                                                                                          VISION
Reques t
                                                                                                                                   C                                                                                        2.000
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ELEMENT
  LRP                      Wi den s houl ders on NH 88.                                                                            C                                                                                1.000                                                                     1.000
14090A                     Pa rk Street over BMRR 088/076. Source: NHDOT 2004 Bri dge Ai d Sta tus Report.                         P     0.100                                                                                                                                                0.100
                           80% Federa l , 10% Sta te, 10% Loca l                                                                   R     0.100                                                                                                                                                0.100
                                                                                                                                   C                       2.500                                                                                                                              2.500
  LRP                      Pedes tri a n i mprovements l i nki ng Amtra k s ta ti on a nd downtown.                                                                                                                                                                                          VISION
                                                                                                                                   C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ELEMENT
  LRP                      Eppi ng Roa d i mprovements a nd a cces s ma na gement. Source: 1999-2020 LRP
                                                                                                                                   C                                                                        1.979
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              1.979
 Town      Wa s hi ngton   Tra ffi c ca l mi ng - i ns ta l l s peed ta bl es a nd other devi ces .                                                                                                                                                                                          VISION
Reques t     Street                                                                                                                C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ELEMENT
  LRP                      Hi gh Street /Ports mouth Avenue Inters ecti on Ca pa ci ty Improvements . Source:
                           1999-2020 LRP
                                                                                                                                   C                                                                        4.118
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 4.118
EXETER-EAST KINGSTON
  LRP         NH 108       Shoul der bi ke route on NH 108 from Exeter town center to Newton town l i ne.
                                                                                                                                   C                                                                                                              2.900
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 2.900
FREMONT
  LRP       Ma rti n Rd    Ma rti n Roa d over Pi s ca s s i c Ri ver - 155/133. Source: NHDOT 2002 Red Li s t                                                                                                                                                                               VISION
                                                                                                                                   C
                           Bri dge Summa ry
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ELEMENT
  LRP       Scri bner Rd   Scri bner Roa d over Exeter Ri ver - Structura l l y defi ci ent bri dge 106/076. Source:                                                                                                                                                                         VISION
                           NHDOT 2002 Red Li s t Bri dge Summa ry                                                                  C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ELEMENT
GREENLAND
10 Yea r       NH 33       Inters ecti on Improvements @ Ocea n Roa d, Addi ng Addi ti ona l Turni ng And                          P     0.080                                                                                                                                                   0.080
 Pl a n                    Through La nes . Conges ted Inters ecti on w/truck s top. Strong s upport from
                                                                                                                         STP       R                                  0.050                                                                                                                      0.050
                           Ports mouth. Other projects a nd devel opments i n a rea .
                                                                                                                                   C                                             0.850                                                                                                           0.850
  LRP          NH 33       NH 33/Ba ys i de-Wi nni cut Rd i nters ecti on s i gna l i za ti on a nd i nters ecti on
                           upgra des . Source: 2001-2003 TIP Propos a l                                                            C                                                                                0.384
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 0.384
  LRP      NH 33/NH 151 NH 33/Pos t Roa d; a dd turn l a nes a nd upgra de i nters ecti on. Source: MPO
                                                                                                                                   C                                                                                        0.571
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 0.571
  LRP          NH 33       NH33/B&M Ra i l cros s i ng; upgra de to ful l ga tes . Source: 1999-2020 LRP
                                                                                                                                   C                                                                                                              0.428
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 0.428
HAMPSTEAD-PLAISTOW
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 NOT                         Vision
  LRP        NH 121A       Ca pa ci ty Improvements And Shoul ders To NH 121A Between NH 111 And NH 125                            C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 AVAIL                      Element

HAMPSTEAD-SANDOWN
                           Ca pa ci ty Improvements And Shoul ders For NH 121A Between NH 111 And                                                                                                                                                                NOT                         Vision
  LRP        NH 121A                                                                                                               C
                           Sa ndown/ches ter Town Li ne                                                                                                                                                                                                          AVAIL                      Element

HAMPSTEAD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 NOT                         Vision
  LRP         NH 121       Improve The Inters ecti on Of NH 121/ Derry Rd/ Depot Rd In Ha mps tea d                                C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 AVAIL                      Element




                                                                                                                                                                              12-3                                                                                                   9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 E:\LRP\RPC\LRP_Projects_07-26
                                Table 12-1                                                                                                                                               Rockingham Planning Commission                                                                                          9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                                      2007-2026 Long Range Plan Project Listing




                                                                                                                                                                              NON-STIP PORTION OF 10 YEAR PLAN
                            Route/                                                                                                                  Funding
Source                       Road                                              Project Description                                                   Source   Phase   2011    2012     2013       2014       2015       2016      2017    2018    2019    2020    2021   2022    2023   2024   2025         2026           TOTAL

HAMPTON
  LRP                         NH 27         Shoul der bi cycl e l a nes on NH 27 from Exeter Town Li ne to US 1 .                                               C     1.260                                                                                                                                                 1.260
  LRP                                       Repl a ce NH 27 bri dge Over BMRR 162/142. Source: NHDOT 2002 Red Li s t Bri dge
                                                                                                                                                                C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           VISION
                                            Summa ry                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ELEMENT
  LRP                          US 1         US 1/NH 27 i nters ecti on i mprovements i ncl udi ng bri dge over B&M RR (162-142).
                                            Source: US 1 Corri dor Study - CCCTC
                                                                                                                                                                C                                                                                 4.468
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               4.468

                                            Realign the intersection to form a more standard "T-type" intersection and install a traffic                        C                                                                         0.800
                                            signal. This with little or no widening, but it would involve new curbing, sidewalk,
                                            crosswalks, and some streetscape amenities.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        0.800
                          NH 101/US 1       Reconfi gure NH 101 i ntercha nge wi th US 1 a l ong new a l i gnment for US 1 tha t
                                            pa ra l l el s B&M Ra i l roa d tra cks . Es ti ma ted to cos t a pproxi ma tel y $20 mi l l i on i n               C                                                                                                                                                          VISION
                                            2006
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ELEMENT
   US 1 Corridor Study




                                            Cons truct a new l i mi ted a cces s roa d connecti ng from NH 101 north to NH 151
                                            fol l owi ng the B&M Ra i l roa d a l i gnment. Roa d wi l l become a new US 1
                                            a l i gnment i n tha t a rea a nd ca rry regi ona l through tra ffi c. ($8.3 mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                       VISION
                                            es ti ma ted cos t i n 2006)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ELEMENT
                                            Cons truct a mul ti -moda l tra ns porta ti on center a dja cent to the NH 101/US 1
                                            i ntercha nge i n Ha mpton. Cons i s ts of a pa rk & ri de, regi ona l a nd l oca l bus
                                                                                                                                                                C
                                            termi na l a nd pedes tri a n/bi cycl e connecti ons to the s i te.                                                                                                                                                                                                            VISION
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ELEMENT
                           US 1/NH 27       Rea l i gn i nters ecti on of US 1 wi th Exeter Roa d (NH 27) a nd a es theti c
                                            s treets ca pe trea tments for the downtown a rea of Ha mpton.                                                      C                                                                                         2.700
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            2.700
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           VISION
  LRP                          NH 1         Ocea n Boul eva rd pedes tri a n i mprovements [future TE].                                                         C                                                                                                                                                         ELEMENT
HAMPTON FALLS
  US 1                   US 1/NH 84/NH Rea l i gn a nd a dd tra ffi c s i gna l a t NH 84. Remove s et of tra ffi c s i gna l s a t NH 88
Corri dor                      88      EB a nd i mprove roa dwa y for bi -di recti ona l tra vel on NH 88 a dja cent to
                                                                                                                                                                C
 Study                                 i nters ecti on. Add ra i s ed medi a n between NH 84 & NH 88. 2006 Cos t Es ti ma te                                                                                                                                                                                               VISION
                                       of $2.9 mi l l i on.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ELEMENT
  US 1                         US 1         Provi de ful l s houl der, a cces s ma na gement i mprovements , a nd a dd s hort
Corri dor                                   medi a n s tretches for 3 l a ne s egment of US 1. 2006 Cos t es ti ma te of $1.8                                   C                                                                                                                                                          VISION
 Study                                      Mi l l i on.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ELEMENT
HAMPTON FALLS-HAMPTON
13408B                         I-95         Study of the Ta yl or ri ver wa ters hed, Ta yl or Ri ver Da m And ta yl or Ri ver Bri dge
                                                                                                                                                                C     3.000
                                            on I-95 i n Ha mpton TPK funds                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     3.000
INTERSTATE 93 CORRIDOR
                                            "Enha nced Bus Servi ce" - Expa ns i on Of Commuter Bus Servi ce To Northern
  LRP                          I-93                                                                                                                             O                                                                                                        3.300                                                 3.300
                                            Ma s s a chus etts Empl oyment Si tes . Ca pi ta l And Three Yea rs Opera ti ng.


KENSINGTON
  LRP                        NH 150         Rea l i gn a nd upgra de the i nters ecti on of NH 150 a nd NH 107 i n Kens i ngton.
                                            Pos s i bl e l oca ti on for a rounda bout. Source: NH 107/150 Inters ecti on Study                                 C                                                                                                                                                          VISION
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ELEMENT
KINGSTON-PLAISTOW
                                            Ma rketi ng And Opera ti ng Subs i dy To Revi ta l i ze/rees ta bl i s h Bos ton Commuter
  LRP                        NH 125                                                                                                                             O                                                                                         0.320                                                                0.320
                                            Bus Servi ce On NH 125. [future CMAQ]

KINGSTON-HAMPSTEAD-SALEM-WINDHAM
  LRP                        NH 111         Pa vement Ma rki ng/s pot Improvements For Bi kes On NH 111                                                         C                                                                 0.050                                                                                        0.050

NEW CASTLE-PORTSMOUTH
10 Yea r                      NH 1B         BRIDGE PAINTING OVER PISCATAQUA ESTUARY - 031/142 & 241/053.
 Pl a n
                                                                                                                                                     BRIDGE     C                                                                 1.600
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            1.600
  LRP                         US 1A         Wentworth - US 1A Sa ga more Creek Bri dge s a fety i mprovements - Repl a ce                                                                                                                                                                                                  VISION
                                                                                                                                                                C
                                            Steel Deck Bri dge. Source: 1999-2020 LRP                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ELEMENT




                                                                                                                                                                                                         12-4                                                                                                      9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               E:\LRP\RPC\LRP_Projects_07-26
                               Table 12-1                                                                                                                                                  Rockingham Planning Commission                                                                                         9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                                        2007-2026 Long Range Plan Project Listing




                                                                                                                                                                                NON-STIP PORTION OF 10 YEAR PLAN
                           Route/                                                                                                                 Funding
Source                      Road                                             Project Description                                                   Source     Phase   2011     2012      2013       2014       2015       2016      2017    2018    2019   2020   2021   2022   2023    2024    2025         2026           TOTAL

NEW CASTLE-RYE
10 Yea r                     NH 1B        REHABILITATE SINGLE LEAF BASCULE MOVEABLE BRIDGE OVER LITTLE HARBOR -
 Pl a n                                   066/071. Source: Red Li s t bri dge, pri ori ty #69.                                                     BRIDGE       C                         4.750
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                4.750
NEWFIELDS
  LRP                      New Roa d      Repl a ce/Reha b s tructura l l y defi ci ent bri dge on New Roa d over BMRR 130/083.
                                          Source: NHDOT 2002 Red Li s t Bri dge Summa ry                                                                        C                                                                                                                                                           VISION
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ELEMENT
NEWINGTON-DOVER
 11238                   NH 16 / US 4 / Wi den Turnpi ke Incl udi ng Li ttl e Ba y Bri dges From Gos l i ng Roa d To Dover Tol l .                              P                                                                                                                                                               0.000
                          SPLDG TPK     Note: In Prel i mi na ry Des i gn. Hi gh vol ume/hi gh cra s h l oca ti on. (Fundi ng
                                                                                                                                                    NHS         R     2.000                                                                                                                                                     2.000
                                        Sources a re cons ol i da ted for s i mpl i ci ty. More deta i l i n the Tea n Yea r pl a n
                                        s prea ds heet)                                                                                                         C     45.996   38.000    20.000     24.000     5.000      5.000                                                                                             137.996
NEWTON
  LRP                     Pond Street     Pond Roa d Over B&M RR - Structura l l y Defi ci ent 064/107                                             BRIDGE       C                                                                           0.880                                                                               0.880
  LRP                       NH 108        Shoul der Bi ke La nes On NH 108                                                                         STP/TE       C                                                                           1.300                                                                               1.300

NORTH HAMPTON
                              US 1        Wi den US 1 from NH 151 (Pos t Rd) north to Atl a nti c Avenue (NH 111) to fi ve
                                          l a nes . Add fourth l eg to Home Depot i nters ecti on a nd di s conti nue Fern roa d.                               C                                                                                                                                                           VISION
                                          2006 Es ti ma ted cos t of $16.5 mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ELEMENT
                              US 1        Provi de ful l s houl der to three l a ne s ecti on from north of Atl a nti c Avenue to
                                                                                                                                                                C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            VISION
                                          Hobbs roa d. 2006 Es ti ma ted cos t of $500,000                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ELEMENT
                              US 1        Connect Hobbs Roa d wi th El m Roa d a nd di s conti nue north end of El m Roa d.
                                          Provi de tra ffi c s i gna l connecti on from mi d-poi nt of El m roa d to US 1. 2006 Es t.                           C                                                                                                                                                           VISION
                                          cos t of $3 mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ELEMENT
                              US 1        Provi de ful l s houl der for 3 l a ne s ecti on from El m Roa d to s outh of North Roa d.
                                                                                                                                                                C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            VISION
                                          2006 Es t cos t of $4 mi l l i on
   US 1 Corridor Study




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ELEMENT
                              US 1        Rea l i gn the s outhern i nters ecti on of US 1 a nd North Roa d to the s outh, wi den
                                          to 5 l a nes a t the i nters ecti on a nd i ns ta l l a tra ffi c s i gna l . 2006 Es t project cos t                 C                                                                                                                                                           VISION
                                          of $2.3 mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ELEMENT
                              US 1        Rea l i gn the northern i nters ecti o of US 1 a nd North Roa d to the north, wi den to
                                          5 l a nes a t the i nters ecti on a nd i ns ta l l a tra ffi c s i gna l . 2006 Es t cos t of 2.5                     C                                                                                                                                                           VISION
                                          mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ELEMENT
                              US 1        Provi de ful l s houl ders for three l a ne s ecti on of US 1 between north roa d a nd
                                                                                                                                                                C                                                                                                                                                           VISION
                                          new tra ffi c s i gna l i n the vi ci ni ty of La fa yette Terra ce. 2006 Es t project cos t of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ELEMENT
                                          $0.5 mi l l i on
                              US 1        New s i gna l i n the vi ci ni ty of La fa yette Terra ce connecti ng res i denti a l a nd
                                                                                                                                                                C                                                                                                                                                           VISION
                                          commerci a l properti es on ea ch s i de of US 1. 2006 Es t cos t of $1.8 mi l l i on
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ELEMENT
                              US 1        Provi de a ful l s houl der for three l a ne s ecti on of US 1 from a pproxi ma tel y
                                          La fa yette Terra ce to s outh of Brea kfa s t Hi l l Roa d. Rea l i gn Dow La ne to "T"                              C                                                                                                                                                           VISION
                                          i nto US 1. 2006 Es t Cos t $0.9 mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ELEMENT
NORTH HAMPTON-GREENLAND
  LRP                       (bl a nk)     Shoul der bi cycl e l a nes on NH 151 from NH 111 to NH 33 [future CMAQ].
                                                                                                                                                                C     1.580
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                1.580
PLAISTOW
 14390                   Ga rden Roa d    Bri dge Repl a cement on Ga rden Roa d Over Li ttl e Ri ver - 118/053                                    BRIDGE       C     0.520                                                                                                                                                     0.520
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Vision
  LRP                       NH 121A       Ma i n Street Tra ffi c Ca l mi ng/s a fety Improvements                                                   STP        C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Element
                                          New Bus Route On NH 125 Corri dor W/ Connecti ons To MVRTA. Ca pi ta l And
  LRP                       NH 125                                                                                                                CMAQ/ FTA     O                                                                                                               0.417                                           0.417
                                          Three Yea rs Opera ti ng. [Future CMAQ]

  LRP                                     Si gna l i ze And Rea l i gn NH 125/Ha s el ti ne/ 121A Inters ecti on                                                C                                                                                                                       2.355                                   2.355
                         North Ave/ NH
  LRP                                  Si gna l i ze And Wi den Inters ecti on Of North Avenue And NH 121A In Pl a i s tow                                      C                                                                   1.571                                                                                       1.571
                             121A




                                                                                                                                                                                                           12-5                                                                                                     9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                E:\LRP\RPC\LRP_Projects_07-26
                 Table 12-1                                                                                                                                    Rockingham Planning Commission                                                                                            9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                            2007-2026 Long Range Plan Project Listing




                                                                                                                                                    NON-STIP PORTION OF 10 YEAR PLAN
             Route/                                                                                                      Funding
Source        Road                                         Project Description                                            Source   Phase   2011     2012     2013       2014        2015      2016      2017    2018    2019   2020    2021    2022    2023    2024    2025         2026           TOTAL

PLAISTOW-ATKINSON-HAMPSTEAD-SANDOWN

  LRP          NH 121       Sa fety Improvements Incl udi ng Shoul ders - Sta te Li ne To Atki ns on Town Li ne                      C                                                                                                                                 6.465                           6.465


PLAISTOW-KINGSTON
                                                                                                                                     P                                                                                                                                                                  0.00
                            Recons tructi on From Ea s t Roa d In Pl a i s tow Northerl y Approx. 6.0 +/- Mi l e To NH
10044 B        NH 125
                            125 & Ma i n Street Inters ecti on In Ki ngs ton
                                                                                                                           STP       R                                                                                                                                                                  0.00
                                                                                                                                     C     2.862    7.950     5.300                                                                                                                                    16.112

  LRP          NH 125       Pa vement Ma rki ng/s pot Improvements For Bi kes On NH 125 (Future TE)                                  C                                                                  0.050                                                                                          0.050

PORTSMOUTH-MANCHESTER
  LRP                       Tra ns i t s ervi ce between Ports mouth-Concord-Ma nches ter-Ma nches ter Ai rport.
                            Ca pi ta l a nd three yea rs opera ti ng. [future CMAQ].                                                 C                        2.860
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       2.860
PORTSMOUTH
10 Yea r        I-95        Pa i nt Bri dge Approa ches To Bri dge Over Pi s ca ta qua Ri ver - 258/128. Trus s
 Pl a n                     porti on of bri dge wa s recentl y repa i nted. Thi s project repa i nts the NH               BRIDGE     C                        7.170
                            a pproa ch s pa ns .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       7.170
10 Yea r        US 1        Inters ecti on @ Cons ti tuti on Ave And Roa dwa y Improvements                                          P              0.200                                                                                                                                              0.200
 Pl a n                                                                                                                    STP       R                                                                                                                                                                 0.000
                                                                                                                                     C                                   2.000                                                                                                                         2.000
10 Yea r        US 1        Recons truct From Wi l s on Roa d To Cons ti tuti on Ave                                                 P                        0.500                                                                                                                                    0.500
 Pl a n                                                                                                                    STP       R                        0.250                                                                                                                                    0.250
                                                                                                                                     C                                                        7.000                                                                                                    7.000
 12900      US 1 BYPASS     Recons truct From Tra ffi c Ci rcl e North To Sa ra h Long Bri dge Incl udi ng Bri dges
                            211/114, 227/112, & 205/116. Source: 3 Red l i s t bri dges . Pri ori ti es # 73, # 70, #     BRIDGE     C     11.600
                            105.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   11.600
 13455      US 1 BYPASS     Recons truct From Sa ga more Creek Project To Tra ffi c Ci rcl e, Incl udi ng Bri dges                   P                                                                                                                                                              0.000
                            173/071, 183/087, 189/100, 188/097, 192/106. Source: 3 Red l i s t bri dges ,                  STP       R     0.500                                                                                                                                                    0.500
                            pri ori ti es # 51, # 71, # 72.
                                                                                                                                     C                                   3.600      7.400                                                                                                          11.000
  LRP                       B&M Bri dge over Ba rtl ett Street. Source: 1999-2020 LRP                                                                                                                                                                                                              VISION
                                                                                                                                     C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ELEMENT
  LRP       Ca te Street    Ca te Street over Hodgs on Brook - s tructura l l y defi ci ent 198/107. Source:
                            NHDOT 2002 Red Li s t Bri dge Summa ry
                                                                                                                                     C                                                                                                                         0.325
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       0.325
  LRP           US 1        US 1 La ng Roa d & Ocea n Roa d i nters ecti on a l i gnment. Source: 1999-2001 TIP
                            Propos a l                                                                                               C                                                                          0.892
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       0.892
  LRP                       Devel op new tra ns porta ti on corri dor between Ba rtl ett & Ma pl ewood Avenue.
                            Source: 1999-2001 TIP Propos a l
                                                                                                                                     C                                                                                         2.142
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       2.142
  LRP                       Ma pl ewood Avenue ra i l cros s i ng upgra de. Source: 1999-2020 LRP                                    C                                                                                                 0.480                                                           0.480
           Woodbury Ave Woodbury Ave over Hodgs on Brook Br.#204/101. Source: NHDOT 2004 Bri dge
                        Ai d Sta tus Report
                                                                                                                                     C                                                                                                                                 0.285
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       0.285
               NH 1A        NH 1A over Sa ga more Creek Br.#198/034. Source: NHDOT 2004 Bri dge Ai d Sta tus
                            Report                                                                                                   C                                                                                                                                              4.100
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       4.100
            Coa kl ey Rd    Coa kl ey Roa d over Hodgs on Brook, Br.#191/110. Source NHDOT 2004 Bri dge Ai d
                            Sta tus Report
                                                                                                                                     C                                                                                                                         0.165
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       0.165
            Ma pl ewood     Ma pl ewood Avenue over North Mi l l Roa d Br.#231/103. Source: NHDOT 2004
                Ave         Bri dge Ai d Sta tus Report                                                                              C                                                                                                                 1.100
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       1.100
           Pi erces Is l a nd Pi erces Is l a nd Roa d over Li ttl e Ha rbor Br.#241/069. Source: NHDOT 2004 Bri dge
                  Rd          Ai d Sta tus Report
                                                                                                                                     C                                                                                                         2.500
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       2.500




                                                                                                                                                                                 12-6                                                                                                      9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       E:\LRP\RPC\LRP_Projects_07-26
                   Table 12-1                                                                                                                                          Rockingham Planning Commission                                                                                          9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                    2007-2026 Long Range Plan Project Listing




                                                                                                                                                            NON-STIP PORTION OF 10 YEAR PLAN
               Route/                                                                                                            Funding
Source          Road                                           Project Description                                                Source   Phase   2011     2012     2013       2014       2015       2016      2017    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022   2023   2024   2025         2026           TOTAL

PORTSMOUTH
              Woodbury        Tra ffi c Ca l mi ng
                                                                                                                                             C                                                                          0.850
               Avenue                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        0.850
 14193       Ocea n Roa d     Ocea n Roa d corri dor - Recons truct a dd s houl ders , curbs & s i dewa l ks
                              Recl a s s i fy a s Ci ty Street. Source: Ports mouth/Ocea n Roa d Study                                       C     0.450    0.150
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             0.600
 14493          NH 1A         Bri dge Reha b over Sa ga more Creek                                                                           C     3.000                                                                                                                                                  3.000
                  US 1        From North of Brea kfa s t Hi l l Roa d to s outh of Ocea n Roa d provi de a ful l                                                                                                                                                                                         VISION
                                                                                                                                             C
                              s houl der for 3 l a ne s ecti on of US 1. 2006 Cos t Es t $1.8 mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                               ELEMENT
                  US 1        Provi de a 5 l a ne cros s -s ecti on wi th ra i s ed medi a n from Ocea n Roa d to Whi te
                                                                                                                                             C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         VISION
                              Ceda r Boul eva rd. 2006 Cos t Es t of $3.5 mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ELEMENT
PORTSMOUTH-CONWAY
  LRP           (bl a nk)     Interci ty bus s ervi ce on NH 16 from Sea coa s t to Conwa y, i ncl udi ng
                              communi ti es i n Northern Stra fford County (ca pi ta l ) [future CMAQ].                                      C                                                                  1.200
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             1.200
PORTSMOUTH, NH-KITTERY, ME
             US 1 BYPASS      Reha bi l i ta te & Pa i nt Bri dge Over Pi s ca ta qua Ri ver - 251/108 (Sa ra h Mi l dred
                              Long Bri dge). Source: Red Li s t bri dge, pri ori ty #31. Bri dge owned by IBA.                    BRIDGE     C                       17.490
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             17.490
 13679            US 1        Pa i nt Bri dge Over Pi s ca ta qua Ri ver - 247/084. Source: Red l i s t bri dge. Pri ori ty #
                              1. Sepa ra te i nteri m repa i r contra ct i s goi ng forwa rd.                                     BRIDGE     C              8.000
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             8.000
 13678            US 1        Reha bi l i ta te the Memori a l Bri dge a nd repl a ce the Scott Avenue Bri dge. Ma i ne
                              DOT to contri bute a n a ddi ti ona l $15 mi l l i on                                               BRIDGE     C     16.500
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             16.500
REGION-WIDE
  LRP           (bl a nk)     Si gna ge for a l l s ta te a nd regi ona l bi cycl e routes [Hi ghwa y Sa fety a nd/or TE].
                                                                                                                                             C              0.060
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             0.060
RYE
                              Wi den the i nters ecti on of US 1 a nd Brea kfa s t Hi l l Roa d/Wa s hi ngton Roa d to a
  US 1
                              5 l a ne cros s -s ecti on i ncl udi ng cha ngi ng the verti ca l a l i gnment of US 1 s outh of
Corri dor                                                                                                                                    C
                              the i nters ecti on to i mprove s i ght di s ta nce a nd s a fety. 2006 Cos t Es t $2.1                                                                                                                                                                                    VISION
 Study
                              mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ELEMENT
SALEM
                                                                                                                                             P                                                                                                                                                            0.000
                              Recons truct Inters ecti on, Ma i n Street @ Depot Street, Incl udi ng Si gna l s , Left
 12334           NH 28
                              Turn La nes & Approa ches
                                                                                                                                   STP       R                                                                                                                                                            0.000
                                                                                                                                             C              2.500                                                                                                                                         2.500
 10418R     NH 28 & Others Integra ti on of coordi na ted tra ffi c s i gna l control , vi deo s urvei l l a nce, emergency                  P                                                                                                                                                            0.000
                           a nd i nci dent res pons e s upport a nd communi ca ti ons                                       HP/TOWN          R                                                                                                                                                            0.000
                                                                                                                                             C                                                                                                                                                            0.000
                              Emers on Wa y Over Wi dow Ha rri s Brook - 114/108. No cos t es ti ma te a va i l a bl e                                                                                                                                                                                   Vision
            Emers on Wa y                                                                                                                    C
                              a t thi s ti me                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Element
                               Bri dge Recons tructi on/Repl a cement on Ha verhi l l Roa d Over Spi cket Ri ver -                                                                                                                                                                                       Vision
            Ha verhi l l Roa d                                                                                                               C
                               097/181. No cos t Es ti ma te Ava i l a bl e a t thi s ti me.                                                                                                                                                                                                            Element
                              Bri dge Repl a cement - La wrence Roa d Over Spi cket Ri ver - Functi ona l l y
            La wrence Roa d                                                                                                                  C                                                                  0.200                                                                                        0.200
                              Obs ol ete - 113/070
                              North Broa dwa y (NH 28) - Improvements For Turni ng La nes & Acces s
                 NH 28                                                                                                                       C                                                                                          5.978                                                                5.978
                              Ma na gement - Ma i n St To NH 111
                              Wi den Ma i n Street/bri dge Street/s chool Streets And Ma i n Street/l a wrence
                 NH 97                                                                                                                       C                                                                          1.315                                                                                1.315
                              Roa d Inters ecti ons

             Mei s ner Rd     Mei s ner Roa d Si dewa l ks                                                                                   C                                                                                  0.070           0.070                                                        0.140




                                                                                                                                                                                       12-7                                                                                                      9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             E:\LRP\RPC\LRP_Projects_07-26
                     Table 12-1                                                                                                                                             Rockingham Planning Commission                                                                                              9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                         2007-2026 Long Range Plan Project Listing




                                                                                                                                                                 NON-STIP PORTION OF 10 YEAR PLAN
                Route/                                                                                                              Funding
Source           Road                                             Project Description                                                Source    Phase   2011     2012      2013       2014       2015       2016      2017   2018    2019    2020    2021    2022     2023      2024   2025         2026           TOTAL

SALEM-DERRY [CART]
                                 Dema nd-res pons e Tra ns i t Expa ns i on a nd Coordi na ti on us i ng FTA Funds
                                                                                                                                                 p                                                                                                                                                                    0.000
                                 Tra ns ferred from Bos ton Urba ni zed Area (20% l oca l ma tch)
                 Tra ns i t                                                                                                         FTA 5307
                                 Dema nd-res pons e Tra ns i t Expa ns i on a nd Coordi na ti on us i ng FTA Funds
                                                                                                                                                 p                                                                                                                                                                    0.000
                                 Tra ns ferred from Na s hua Urba ni zed Area (50% l oca l ma tch)

SALEM-MANCHESTER
                                 Cons tructi on of wetl a nd mi ti ga ti on s i tes i n a nti ci pa ti on of wetl a nds i mpa cts
                                 a s s oc w/ future i mprovements to I-93 from Sa l em to Ma nches ter. Incl udes
 10418 F           I-93                                                                                                               IM         C              4.500                                                                                                                                                 4.500
                                 Londonderry L-8, L-8 Ext., L-12 s i tes ; & Londonderry Adva nce mi ti ga ti on/wetl a nd
                                 crea ti on [Secti on 115 - Des i gna ted Project NH026]

                                 Cons truct Rel oca ted Ma i nl i ne & New Bri dges over NH 111A from Brookda l e Ra d                IM         C     9.680                                                                                                                                                          9.680
 13933 H           I-93
                                 (a pprox) to NH 111A (Sa l em-Wi ndha m)
                                                                                                                                      NHS        C     14.520                                                                                                                                                         14.520
                                                                                                                                      IM         C              9.680                                                                                                                                                 9.680
 13933 I           I-93          Exi t 3 NH 111 Bri dges a nd NH 111 Rel oca ti on (Wi ndha m)
                                                                                                                                      NHS        C              14.520                                                                                                                                                14.520
 13933 J           I-93          Exi t 3 Intercha nge - 134/101 & 135/090 (Wi ndha m)                                                 NHS        C     17.600                                                                                                                                                         17.600
                                 Recons truct And Wi den Ma i nl i ne North Of Exi t 3 Through Wei gh Sta ti ons                      IM         C               3.564                                                                                                                                                 3.564
 13933 K           I-93
                                 097/163, 099/160, 100/160 (Wi ndha m)                                                                NHS        C               5.346                                                                                                                                                 5.346
                                                                                                                                      IM         C              10.120    15.048     13.024     16.632    10.956                                                                                                      65.780
 13933 L           I-93          Recons truct a nd Wi den Ma i nl i ne (Projects to be broken out)                                    NHS        C              11.530    22.572     19.536     24.948    16.434                                                                                                      95.020
                                                                                                                                      HP         C                                                                                                                                                                     0.000

SALEM-MANCHESTER-CONCORD
                                 Impl ementa ti on of Inci dent Ma na gement a nd ITS technol ogi es for overa l l                   CMAQ        C                                                                                                  0.417                                                             0.417
  10418Z           I-93          corri dor, to i mprove effi ci ency before, duri ng & a fter I-93 cons tructi on, i ncl udes
                                 CMAQ Project 06-22CM                                                                                 IM         C                                                                                                                                                                    0.000

SALEM, NH-METHUEN, MA
                                 New Bus Route On NH 28 Corri dor W/ Connecti ons To MVRTA. Ca pi ta l And
 (bl a nk)        NH 28                                                                                                                          O                                                                                                  0.417                                                             0.417
                                 Three Yea rs Opera ti ng. [future CMAQ]

SALEM-WINDHAM
    LRP            I-93          Bus Servi ce To Ma nches ter Ai rport, Ma nches ter, And Concord [future CMAQ]                                  O                                                                                  0.690                                                                             0.690

               I-93/NH 28        Pha s e 3 Of Sa l em-concord Bi kewa y: Ma i n Street In Sa l em To NH 111 In
    LRP                                                                                                                                          C                                                                          0.480                                                                                     0.480
                 corri dor       Wi ndha m. 1.8 Mi l es .

SANDOWN
Bri dge Ai d
             Fremont Roa d Fremont Roa d Over Exeter Ri ver - 098/117                                                                            C     0.350                                                                                                                                                          0.350
  Report

Bri dge Ai d
               Phi l l i ps Rd   Bri dge Reha b/Repl a ce on Phi l l i ps Roa d Over Exeter Ri ver - 093/109                                     C                                                                                          0.400                                                                     0.400
  Report

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Vision
    LRP        Odel l Roa d      Bri dge Reha b/Repl a ce on Odel l Roa d Over Exeter Ri ver - 110/120                                           C                                                                                                                 NOT AVAIL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Element




                                                                                                                                                                                            12-8                                                                                                          9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      E:\LRP\RPC\LRP_Projects_07-26
                   Table 12-1                                                                                                                                        Rockingham Planning Commission                                                                                               9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                  2007-2026 Long Range Plan Project Listing




                                                                                                                                                         NON-STIP PORTION OF 10 YEAR PLAN
               Route/                                                                                                       Funding
Source          Road                                          Project Description                                            Source   Phase   2011      2012       2013       2014        2015      2016      2017    2018     2019    2020     2021    2022    2023    2024    2025         2026           TOTAL

SEABROOK
   LRP         Wa l ton Rd    BMRR bri dge over Wa l ton Roa d - 136/071. Source: NHDOT 2002 Red Li s t Bri dge
                                                                                                                                        C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            VISION
                              Summa ry                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ELEMENT
US 1 Study    US 1/ Ma i n    Rea l i gn i nters ecti on i nto a four-wa y wi th a s i gna l a nd wi den the roa dwa y to
                                                                                                                                        C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            VISION
             St/Wa l ton rd   fi ve l a nes . 2006 Cos t Es t $2.5 mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ELEMENT
US 1 Study        US 1        Wi den s egment of US 1 from Wa l ton Roa d to north of Gretchen Roa d to 5
                                                                                                                                        C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            VISION
                              l a nes . 2006 Cos t Es t of $2.4 mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ELEMENT
US 1 Study        US 1        Wi den US 1 to fi ve l a nes from north of Lowe's to s outh of NH 107. 2006 Cos t Es t
                                                                                                                                        C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            VISION
                              of $0.8 mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ELEMENT
US 1 Study        US 1        Wi den US 1 to fi ve l a nes from North of New Zel a nd roa d to Dea rborn Avenue.
                              Add fourth l eg to s i gna l i zed i nters ecti on a t US 1/North Acces s Roa d. 2006 Cos t               C                                                                                                                                                                   VISION
                              Es t of $3.1 mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ELEMENT
US 1 Study        US 1        Provi de ful l s houl der for 3 l a ne s ecti on from north of Dea rborn Avenue to
                                                                                                                                        C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            VISION
                              s outh of NH 84. 2006 Cos t Es t of $3.1 mi l l i on                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ELEMENT
 Town of      I-95/ NH 107    Wi den NH 107 over I-95 to 5 l a nes a nd reconfi gure i ntercha nge for i mproved
Sea brook                     ca pa ci ty a nd fl ow. Incl ude i mprovements a l ong NH 107 to the i nters ecti on                      C                                                                                                                                                                   VISION
                              wi th Spur Roa d a nd to US 1.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ELEMENT
   LRP           NH 1A        Curbed s i dewa l k l i nki ng Sea brook Bea ch communi ty wi th Ha mpton Bea ch
                                                                                                                                        C                                                           0.270
                              [future TE].                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      0.270
SOUTH HAMPTON
   LRP                        Hi l l da l e Avenue over Powwow Ri ver - s tructura l l y defi ci ent 069/066. Source:                                                                                                                                                                                       VISION
                              NHDOT 2002 Red Li s t Bri dge Summa ry                                                                    C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ELEMENT
STATE PLANNING & RESEARCH PROGRAM
                 SPR #1       Sta te Pl a nni ng & Res ea rch - Pa rt #1 "pl a nni ng"                                        SPR       P      3.400     3.400      3.400      3.400      3.400     3.400                                                                                                       20.400

                 SPR #2       Sta te Pl a nni ng & Res ea rch - Pa rt #2 "res ea rch"                                         SPR       P      0.301     0.301      0.301      0.301      0.301     0.301                                                                                                       1.805

STRATHAM
   LRP                        Bi cycl e La ne Improvements On NH 33 And NH 108 Incl udi ng Tra ffi c Ci rcl e
                                                                                                                                        C                                                                                                       0.250
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             0.250
                              Shoul der Bi ke La nes On Squa ms cott Roa d From NH 108 To NH 33                                                                                                                                                                                                             VISION
                                                                                                                                        C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ELEMENT
   LRP           NH 108       NH 108 / Bunker Hi l l Avenue: Si gna l i za ti on And Turn La nes And Inters ecti on
                              Rea l i gnment. Source: 1999-2020 LRP
                                                                                                                                        C                                                                     0.471
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                0.471
                              NH 108/ Fryi ng Pa n La ne/ Ri ver Rd Si gna l i za ti on And Rea l i gnment And La ne
                              Improvements . Source: 2001-2003 TIP Propos a l                                                           C                                                                                                                                       0.728
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                0.728
                 NH 33        NH 33/Wi nni cut Rd Tra ffi c Si gna l s , Turni ng La nes And Inters ecti on Al i gnment.
                              Source: 1999-2020 LRP                                                                                     C                                                                             0.480
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                0.480
WINDHAM
                              Extend Wa l l Street To Provi de A Connecti on Between NH 111 And North Lowel l
 (bl a nk)    Wa l l Street                                                                                                             C                                                                                                                                                                       0.000
                              Roa d.
             North Lowel l
                              Sha red Roa dwa y Bi ke La ne On North Lowel l Roa d (pha s e 2)                                          C                                                                                      0.800                                                                            0.800
                  Rd.
              I-93/NH 28
                              Pha s e 2 Of Sa l em-concord Bi kewa y: NH 111 To Depot Roa d. 4.1 Mi l es                                C                                                                             1.030                                                                                     1.030
                corri dor

WINDHAM-SALEM
                                                                                                                                        P                           0.080                                                                                                                                       0.080
 10075 A         NH 111       Recons tructi on & Si gna l i za ti on @ North Pol i cy Roa d                                   STP       R                                      0.100                                                                                                                            0.100
                                                                                                                                        C                                                           0.500                                                                                                       0.500
 10075 F     NH 28 / NH 111 Recons tructi on Of Inters ecti on @ La ke Street And Sha dow La ke Roa d                         STP       C                2.600                                                                                                                                                  2.600

                                                                                         REGIONAL TOTAL EXPENDITURES:                         139.835   125.524    105.549    73.031      62.451   46.281     9.613   16.817   9.969   16.865   4.286   8.501   7.596   5.648   10.333       7.008          647.306




                                                                                                                                                                                       12-9                                                                                                         9/10/2007
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                E:\LRP\RPC\LRP_Projects_07-26

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:35
posted:11/11/2011
language:English
pages:150