Whittier Bridge /I‐95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group Meeting SUMMARY NOTES

LOCATION OF MEETING: Salisbury Town Hall Auditorium 5 Beach Road, Salisbury, MA

DATE/TIME OF MEETING: October 5, 2010, 2:15 PM – 4:15 PM

HANDOUTS: • DEIR Traffic Analysis Presentation, Communities’ MOA Revisions Request

Welcome and Introductions

Joseph Pavao, MassDOT, welcomed the group, noting that Mike O’Dowd would be out of the office for the week. He asked participants to introduce themselves (see attendance list).

Historic Section 106 MOA

Mr. Pavao reported that he had received the group’s comments on the draft MOA this morning. He asked Geordie Vining, Newburyport, to summarize the request. Mr. Vining said that the two pages of recommendations (distributed at meeting) are related primarily to archiving historic materials, the shared‐use path and dispute resolution. He went on to summarize the requests.

Section I.C. and I.F. – The group requests that additional photographs of the Whittier Bridge be taken from upstream and downstream locations, including Moseley Woods, and taken from the bridge looking up and downstream. A reproducible CD of photo and print materials was requested by the communities, including the historical commissions.

Section II – The group requests the addition of a sentence specifically stating that the replacement bridge will be a network tied arch style in honor of the design of the existing bridge.

Section IV – The group requests the expansion of this section from Interpretive Signage to Historical/Interpretive Park, Interpretive Signage and Shared‐Use Path. The section includes more detail on a historic linear park and specific components such as viewing

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 1 of 13 areas, themes and numbers of interpretive signs. Mr. Vining explained that the revisions are meant to capture the purpose of the path as a means of access to the historical component of the project, which satisfies Section 106. The group’s revisions included adding sections about connecting the trail head at Old Merrill Street to the Salisbury Point Ghost Trail on Rabbit Road in Salisbury via a Route 110 crossing and making connections to the Ghost Trail and Old Elm Street in Amesbury. Jerry Klima, Salisbury, noted that the communities believe that the path must be connected to the regional system in order to attract people, and this is why the revisions request connections to the Ghost Trail and Amesbury Riverwalk. Mike Bertoulin, Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) asked if the group is requesting that MassDOT design and construct the connection via a Route 110 crossing, or just design it. Is the connection to Old Elm Street and the Ghost Trail intended to be the east‐west connection? Mr. Vining responded that the east‐west connection south of the bridge was not included because MassDOT does not intend to pursue the option, but the communities are hoping the agency will support their efforts to make a connection. The group’s revisions also included making the primary responsibility of maintenance on MassDOT property the agency’s and maintenance on municipal property the responsibility of the respective municipality. Please see the Whittier Working Group’s (WWG) document for more detail.

Mr. Klima said that not having a connection at Main Street and Evans Place is inadvisable from the communities’ perspective, so they included it in these revisions with the idea of constructing a stairway. Joe Fahey, Amesbury, added that the connection is critical to the use of the path from the City’s perspective. Mr. Vining suggested that MassDOT let the Architectural Access Board (AAB) review the proposal. He believes that since so many handicapped accessible access points exist, the Board would approve the stairway. The communities will accept the AAB’s opinion. Mr. Pavao said the team hasn’t reviewed and discussed the requested revisions, but will do so and get back to the group. He asked if the communities’ other mitigation requests are included in the revisions. MassDOT needs to know this to analyze the budget impact. Mr. Vining said the MOA revisions are restricted to historic issues.

The group briefly discussed sound barriers. Mr. Fahey said the only mitigation that the communities would like addressed, but that is not included on the list is sound barriers. The communities’ list was given to MassDOT prior to the noise analysis presentation, so they were not aware at the time that it would become one of the main issues in the community. Mr. Bertoulin pointed out that the only place where the road will be closer to any dwellings is on the northeast side of the bridge. One condominium at Whittier Place will be affected. Every other location remains the same in terms of noise, because the road will be widened to the inside and there will be no disturbances or clearing of

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 2 of 13 trees and shrubs on the outside of the highway. Mayor Holaday said that although the Laurel area is impacted today, it will experience more noise due to higher traffic volumes in the future. She suggested that MassDOT mitigate in that area as part of the bridge project. Mayor Kezer added that the issue may not require an engineered solution, but instead screening and other buffering strategies might be helpful. Mr. Pavao requested that the communities send a written communication regarding the issue to the Chief Engineer.

Jim Cerbone, MassDOT, noted the 15 interpretive signs that were called out in the communities’ revision of the MOA. Assuming there are three overlooks and a southern and northern entry point, he asked how the number was determined. Mr. Klima said the WWG assumed there might be three signs at some points and that others would be spread along the path. The group thought the number was reasonable when compared to other similar projects; however, the number is specified as an approximate to give the agency some flexibility. Andrew Port, Newburyport, pointed out that the locations of the signs weren’t specified either to provide added flexibility. Mr. Pavao said MassDOT will continue to consult with the WWG on the shared‐use path.

Mayor Holaday noted that Jay Williamson, the local historical commission representative for Amesbury, is new to the process so he will need time to review the MOA and other Section 106 materials. Mr. Williamson said he did attend the June briefing in Amesbury. Mr. Bertoulin said that only Salisbury’s historical commission had provided feedback, and written feedback from the other two communities’ historical commissions would be helpful. He added that he would like to get a copy of Newburyport’s letter as soon as possible. Mr. Pavao said the MassDOT team will meet internally and he should have comments on the communities’ requested changes at the next meeting.

The group returned to discussing the MOA revision requests. The final revision is related to Section VII – the group requests clarification of the Dispute Resolution section to specify the concurring signatories as the mayors and town manager, and their successors, representing the municipalities.

Newburyport Water Line

Jon‐Eric White, Newburyport, said he had reviewed MassDOT’s plans with other Town staff. He said the Town would like one new 18‐inch water line to connect to the existing 12‐inch line, rather than two lines. He also requested that MassDOT move the water line to run along the right‐of‐way (ROW) instead of under the path. This would avoid the need for the Town to disrupt the path to dig for repairs, and avoid the risk of

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 3 of 13 undermining the outside travel lane should a break occur. Mr. Bertoulin said the team had thought it better to keep the water line on the edge of Town property rather than within it, but if the Town prefers it be constructed on its property this can be accomplished in spite of the slope. Mr. White said Town staff will need to review the re‐design and hydraulics. He can report back at the next meeting. Side slope easements will be needed. Mr. White said the side slope will need to be done first for the water line, any modifications for the 12‐foot access road would be incidental. The slope is steep, so Mr. White also requested that as the line is installed it be reduced to the extent possible. He added that if the slope is too steep (15%), a paved road would be necessary.

Shared‐Use Path and Route 110 Crossing

Mr. Pavao reported that the Whittier team thought the Route 110 widening project ended at Elm Street, but he has recently learned that the project will also reconstruct a portion of Rabbit Road. District 4 (D4) is considering widening the handicapped ramps to 15 feet, installing crosswalks and extending a 5‐foot shoulder on each side of Rabbit Road to the limits of the 110 project, to assist with the connections the communities are requesting. The 5‐foot shoulder would operate as an on‐road bike lane. The ramp and crosswalk modifications would ensure that the new crosswalks match the existing configuration. Mr. Klima said the Town was looking for a 10‐foot sidewalk on the west side of Rabbit Road. Mr. Pavao reported that the request would require ROW changes, so it isn’t possible. The proposed modification is the same as PB’s original configuration, but it now goes to the northwest corner near the boat yard. Mr. Pavao said it would be a good interim connection as the Town proceeds with its plan for a separate project. ROW takings for a 12‐foot sidewalk would be required all the way up Rabbit Road. The shared‐us path won’t be operational until 2016, so there is time for the Town’s additional work to make the more permanent connection.

Mr. Pavao said the proposal has not yet been presented to the Chief Engineer or Administrator, because D4 has not confirmed it is willing to pursue the idea for a couple of reasons. (1) The work would require widening the box, or roadway, which is not part of the 110 project. This would require a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) under the Wetlands Protection Act and getting a cost quote for the additional work. The design could be done in‐house at MassDOT, but D4 is concerned about cost and schedule impacts. Reconfiguring the center island by removing the granite curbing and using paint to delineate the area instead could reduce costs, so the savings could be applied to the additional work. Mr. Bertoulin pointed out that the Old Merrill Street trail head would still be constructed. Mr. Pavao said who extends the path is still under discussion. He said the current contract requires signals and striping.

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 4 of 13 The curb line would remain, but the island would be removed, which would provide the additional space necessary for the widening for path users. The crosswalks would be wider to accommodate the wider ramps. (2) The second reason D4 is hesitant is that there is land subject to flooding in the area. If the Conservation Commission gives a positive determination, would D4 be required to refile, or could the work be done under the existing project? If D4 is required to refile, the project schedule might be delayed.

Mr. Klima asked about the current Rabbit Road shoulder width. Mr. Bertoulin said the 18‐inch shoulders on each side of the road will be expanded to 5 feet. The northern half block has a potential encroachment. Michelle Rowden, Salisbury Conservation Commission, said D4 would probably have to refile if this is the case, but it depends on the distance from the bank of the intermittent stream to the east of Rabbit Road. Mr. Pavao reiterated that D4 will not stop the 110 project for the additional work, so if it will be included the Whittier team and WWG must move quickly. The turnaround time for a negative determination of applicability is of concern. If the Rabbit Road work is not completed, the connection won’t be possible. Mr. Freeman said the key for the Conservation Commission will be the amount of alteration within the 100‐foot buffer zone to the bank of the intermittent stream and whether that work would affect the wetlands (bank). There is apparently no work proposed in the land subject to flooding (100‐year floodplain)

Mr. Bertoulin asked about filing an RDA. Ms. Rowden said a vote is necessary. She would need the RDA by this Thursday at 4 PM for it to be placed on the agenda for the next Commission meeting. The next meeting would be November 3. Mr. Pavao said he will check with D4 to see when they need the connection information to keep the 110 project on schedule.

Mr. Pavao said D4 is concerned with a third issue related to the connection. While the connection concept has not advanced far enough yet, FHWA may at some point ask for justification of the additional work. D4 wants to have information such as how the regional connection is being made, who is using the facility, current counts and projected future usage. Mr. Pavao asked the planning departments for help in collecting this information. It would be helpful to have the data next week. Dennis DiZoglio, MVPC, said his staff can help the planning departments by providing MVPC data on trail use. Mr. Vining asked how the projected usage should be generated. He can only guess at Newburyport Rail‐Trail use and future use is unknown. He pointed out that until the regional connections are made, the use may not increase much. Newburyport has one season of counts for the Clipper City Trail. There are no counts on the footpaths used between Moseley Woods and Maudsley Park, but the

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 5 of 13 Department of Conservation and Recreation may have data. Mr. Klima noted that use of new trails that have just opened has been remarkable. Mr. Pavao said it’s acceptable to provide existing use. Projections are not necessary right now. Mr. Bertoulin said it would be acceptable to extrapolate from use data for other trails. He suggested the planning departments not hold the information until it’s complete, but rather send incrementally for MassDOT internal decision making. Mr. DiZoglio said MVPC can also work with CTPS to get data that agency collects. Mr. Pavao also reported that FHWA has indicated it will hold its comments on the path until the Environmental Assessment is filed.

Mr. Fahey asked when the 110 traffic improvements will be completed. Mr. Pavao said the entire project is slated for substantial completion in fall 2011. Mr. Bertoulin added that there is a 12 month backlog on signal equipment (video is used now instead of loops), so delivery will depend on when the contractor ordered the equipment. The roadway box will likely be completed this season and the overlay completed next spring.

DEIR Traffic Analysis Presentation

Kristen Torrance, PB traffic specialist, presented a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Traffic Analysis (distributed at the meeting). Ms. Torrance reviewed the project Purpose and Need: to address the structural deficiency of the existing Whittier Bridge. The current bridge has a poor structural rating. The project will also address geometric deficiencies of the roadway from Exit 57 to Exit 60. The Whittier Bridge lacks shoulders, highway capacity is impacted by insufficient lanes, and there are issues with several on and off ramps between Exit 58 and Exit 60. The traffic study included data collection, development of the base condition (year and peak hour data to use), prediction of 2030 volumes and 2030 traffic analysis.

Hourly and average daily traffic (ADT) data were collected from 4 permanent MassDOT count stations: at the (NH) line, north of I‐495, on I‐95 at the Amesbury line and north of Scotland Road. Monthly volumes were also collected at the NH state line using NH DOT counts. PB data collection included 24‐hour ramp counts at Routes 110 and 286, weekday peak hour turning movement counts, and weekday peak hour vehicle classification counts (type of truck or passenger vehicle, etc.). The team also reviewed previous traffic analysis reports of areas adjacent to the Whittier Bridge study area. These include: Route 110 Functional Design Report (VAI) – March 2002, Route 110/The Golden Triangle Economic Development Study (VHB) – May 2007, I‐495 Report (FST) – June 2008, and New Hampshire Open Road Tolling – June 2009. The base year analysis took several factors into account including (1) the unique

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 6 of 13 location (less than 5 miles to Salisbury Shore and a major access route to New Hampshire), (2) seasonal variations, and (3) leisure versus commuter travel.

The team compared 2007 and 2008 traffic volumes at the NH line. The average 2007 weekday volume was 87,937 and the average for 2008 was 82,550. The average Sunday count in 2007 was 88,785 and in 2008 it was 82,936. Average Saturday counts were 90,539 in 2007 and 82,830 in 2008. Since the 2007 ADT was consistently higher, it was chosen for the base year. While 2008 ADT was consistently lower, there was a more pronounced drop during the summer of that year, presumably due to gas price spikes. This was another reason 2007 was used, because the summer season counts were of most interest. The 2007 data confirms that weekend ADT during summer months is considerably higher than weekday ADT. As a result, the design is driven by weekend traffic volumes, which are 1.6 to 1.8 times higher than weekday.

Ms. Torrance reported that AASHTO’s guidance for geometric design of highways and streets “recommends that the hourly traffic volume used in design is the 30th highest hourly volume of the year.” The northbound I‐95 meets the criteria, Ms. Torrance said, and in fact the top 100 hourly volumes occur northbound on Saturday mornings and southbound on Sunday nights during the summer. Due to travel patterns, the team used summer weekend volumes (northbound Saturday morning and southbound Sunday night volumes) to capture NH and beach traffic volumes.

Ms. Torrance discussed the 2007 traffic analysis, which looked at level of service (LOS), merge and diverge, speed, and a crash statistics study. The preferred design LOS for an urban/suburban roadway such as I‐95 is LOS C, which considers speed, travel time and weaves and merges. The northbound and southbound LOS south of Route 113 was B, at the Whittier Bridge it was D, between Routes 110 and 286 it was C and from Route 286 to the New Hampshire state line it was D. There were two areas where northbound traffic merge and diverge movements were problematic. The first was at the I‐495 merge onto I‐95 which had a capacity rating of 0.85 (less than 1 is acceptable). In this area two lanes of I‐495 join three lanes of I‐95. The diverge from I‐95 northbound to I‐ 495 had a LOS E rating. For southbound merge and diverge movements, the merge at Route 286 had a LOS of D and the diverge to I‐495 was LOS C.

Ms. Torrance reviewed 2005‐2009 accident data. Accident clusters appear at Exits 60, 59 and 58, and also on the Whittier Bridge and the approaches. The team used MassDOT and State Police data, which covered the five years. Problem areas on the northbound side are the Route 110 ramps and Route 286 ramps and on the southbound side between the Route 286 on ramp and I‐495 off ramp. There were a total of 205 accidents in the project area; 32% resulted in injury, 86% resulted in property damage, and there were 2

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 7 of 13 fatalities (northbound diverge at Route 286 and northbound merge from Route 110 westbound). There was little seasonal variation – 29% occurred in the summer, 22% in the fall, 32% in the winter, and 17% in the spring. 61% of the accidents occurred on the Whittier Bridge and were a collision with the median/barrier/fixed object. In the areas of Routes 110 and 286 ramps, the acceleration/deceleration lanes would be lengthened to provide more time and curves would be flattened. Ms. Torrance discussed a slide with a graphic showing the areas with the highest crash rates – above the state average. These include I‐95 southbound between Route 286 and I‐495, I‐95 northbound between Route 113 and Route 110, and I‐95 northbound between I‐495 and Route 286. She pointed out that the locations of accidents were sometimes vague in police reports, so the areas on the graphic are fairly large.

Ms. Torrance discussed safety concerns that the project will address. The existing shoulders on the bridge and approaches are sub‐standard (less than 2 feet), and there is a high occurrence of angle crashes at ramp locations.

For the alternatives analysis, the traffic modeling looked at the No Build/Rehabilitation of Structure, alternative bridge types, and inside versus outside highway widening. The focus was on the impacts to traffic of the number of lanes, shoulder width, and merging/weaving operations, because these issues are ultimately what matter most.

Ms. Torrance discussed growth rates used to project 2030 conditions. Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) is the ‐based agency that collects data and makes projections and models for eastern . CTPS looks at the region, so it provides data for this project. The agency’s historical analysis of traffic growth in the region shows 0.8% per year linear growth; this value was used to calculate future traffic volumes for the I‐95 mainline. For ramps and local roads, the team used the MVPC model, which shows a 0.5% per year growth compounded annually.

The 2030 traffic analysis incorporates LOS, speed, merge and diverge movements, and an accident study. The team’s information agreed with MVPC and CTPS. The goal was to get all sections of the corridor up to LOS C. Ms. Torrance reviewed the historic traffic growth on the bridge and corridor. At the point when the highway was converted to three lanes in each direction in the 1980s, volumes were around 30,000. By 2007, they had risen to about 80,000 and peak hour LOS was D. Adding a lane will bring the corridor LOS up to C in most cases. The project No‐Build (3 lanes) peak hour volume in 2030 would provide a LOS of D northbound and LOS E southbound. The Build scenario (4 lanes) would provide a LOS of C in both directions.

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 8 of 13 Ms. Torrance said that volume and capacity ratios were used per AASHTO guidelines to look at merge and diverge. The northbound merge at I‐495 shows a LOS of F for the No‐Build and LOS C in the Build scenario. The southbound merge from Route 286 LOS would be F for No‐Build and C for Build, and the southbound diverge would be F for No‐Build and C for Build.

The team used the VISSIM model to analyze speed. Currently, shockwaves occur as traffic slows down when approaching the Whittier Bridge and in merge/diverge locations. Both the I‐95 north and southbound sides show an increase in speeds closer to the legal speed limit in the Build scenario.

Ms. Torrance showed simulations of the Route 286/I‐495 area with future No Build and Build projected conditions. For the I‐495 southbound No Build, I‐95 traffic wants to move over to get onto I‐495 and Route 286 traffic wants to get onto I‐95 causing a major weave area. In the Build scenario the on‐ramp acts as an added lane and allows for a three‐quarter mile merge.

Ms. Torrance described some field observations of I‐95 southbound traffic made on July 5 (the Monday after the July 4th long weekend, a high volume holiday weekend) between 3:50 and 7:00 PM. There was congestion from an undetermined point north of to just north of the I‐95/I‐495 diverge; traffic was traveling at 20 to 30 MPH. Normal, unobstructed conditions were present on I‐95 and I‐495 at the point of the diverge. There was relatively high volume at the Route 286 on‐ramp, virtually all from the east (beaches). There was low volume on the Route 110 westbound and eastbound ramps to I‐95. There was no congestion south I‐495 and no I‐ 95 northbound congestion, nor any other on or off ramp congestion in the study area.

Ms. Torrance displayed slides showing graphics of ramp layouts from I‐95 northbound to Route 110 eastbound and Route 286. In both cases, the project would modify the ramps so there is a longer deceleration lane and wider curve radius. To do this, the ramp would start further south on the mainline. This would provide more space dedicated to exiting traffic. For the area at Route 286, retaining walls will be necessary to avoid encroaching on federal wetlands.

Ms. Torrance discussed cumulative impacts and other projects. Hines and Bates bridges construction will be completed before there are any changes to traffic patterns for the Whittier Bridge project. New Hampshire open road tolling has been implemented. D4 is constructing the Route 110 improvements from I‐495 to Elm Street. Traffic signals will be upgraded on Route 286. There will be no cumulative impacts,

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 9 of 13 because there is no overlap in construction periods; however, the team understands that communication between projects will be essential.

Ms. Torrance summarized her presentation. 2007 weekend volumes were established as base year conditions. 2030 projections show that an additional lane is required to meet design criteria LOS. Build conditions eliminate the failure at the I‐495 merge/diverge. Build conditions eliminate the significant decrease in speed created by shockwaves.

Mr. White asked why Whittier Bridge LOS is so low. Ms. Torrance said that volumes are high and the shoulder is narrow, limiting free flow. Mr. Bertoulin explained more about the 2010 counts. They were taken from permanent count stations and compared to projected growth rates. There was a 6 to 7% decrease in traffic from the 2007 to 2008 period. Traffic is increasing at about 2.5% per year. While it is still down from projections due to the economy, the trend is such that projections are accurate despite the economic slowdown.

Mr. Vining asked about the effect of shockwaves during construction. Traffic typically slows down when approaching construction zones and due to speed restrictions. He is concerned that the construction related shockwaves will cause drivers to use local roads. Mr. Bertoulin said that weekday commuter traffic has lower volumes than weekend. Commuters will get used to the construction. Construction hours are typically from 7 AM to 3 PM, so the evening commute will not encounter active construction. No lanes will be narrowed. The exact configuration that is currently on the corridor will be transferred to the new structure. The only tight area will be at the change in alignment where the southbound traffic is shifted to the northbound side. Mr. Bertoulin added that during his work on the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project, the only traffic problems were at the shift areas. It took about two days for commuters to get used to the new alignment. Bridge demolition, which might cause problems due to the curiosity factor, will be done in the off‐peak hours. North of Route 110 the only construction will be widening in the median. The auxiliary lanes at I‐495 will be completed quickly. Mr. Fahey asked about speed reductions and weekend work. Mr. Bertoulin said construction zone speeds are typically 55 MPH. Some critical path weekend work can be cost‐effective, but overall weekday work is more efficient. It is difficult for a contractor to have crews working 6 days per week and maintain productivity. There may be some special work performed on a weekend here and there. Mr. Fahey asked how the determination of no impact was made. He thinks it’s logical to assume that traffic will slow due to construction and drivers will use local roads. Mr. Pavao said that MassDOT is not saying there won’t be any impact, rather that lanes will be maintained and impacts will be mitigated. PB will take the project to

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 10 of 13 25% design. Full analysis of impacts and traffic management plans will be done by the Design/Build (D/B) team. Access to the construction zone by construction vehicles will be controlled, so their movement does not impact traffic. There will be no detours and lanes will be maintained. The public process, including the WWG, will continue during the D/B phase. Once the D/B team identifies how the project will be constructed, MassDOT will have a better idea of potential impacts and can then plan to address them as best as possible. Mr. Fahey said he would like to keep traffic mitigation as an open item on the communities’ list. He asked if the traffic study is addressing other roads. Mr. Pavao said not at this time. Mr. Vining stressed that the communities have heard best case scenarios from MassDOT, but are more pessimistic. They want to be prepared for potential problems. Mr. Pavao said the communities will have input during the D/B phase where more information will be available on how the project will be constructed. MassDOT cannot commit to mitigation when it doesn’t yet know the impact. Sequencing and offline work will give the WWG a chance to review and provide input on traffic management plans for different phases of work. Mr. Fahey asked for traffic and potential impacts to be carried as an agenda item for the next meeting.

Mr. Klima pointed out that while the Route 286 signal improvement project has been designed, it is not programmed yet, so should not be included on the list of mitigating measures. He also pointed out that I‐95 is an important connection to Maine and the Canadian Maritime provinces. Mr. Klima requested that the extra lanes at Route 286 and I‐495 be constructed as early action contracts, due to the benefit and independent utility of completing them early. He asked if the Rabbit Road travel lane widths could be reduced further. Mr. Pavao said that lane widths of less than 11 feet are not desirable.

Mr. White asked about separation of northbound and southbound traffic in construction zones. Mr. Bertoulin said the typical configuration would be implemented using jersey barriers to separate traffic in opposing directions. Mr. White asked if corridor traffic can be modeled to include side streets to help identify problem areas on side streets. Mr. Pavao said this could be done during the D/B phase when more is known about how the project will be constructed.

Mr. Pavao reported that CD’s of Hines Bridge traffic data were sent to the community chief executive officers, as requested at the last meeting.

There were no further questions or discussion. The meeting adjourned at 4:15 P.M.

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 11 of 13 Action Items

• MassDOT will provide comments on the communities’ MOA changes at the next meeting. • An update on Newburyport water line will be provided at next meeting. • Planning departments will send trail data to MassDOT before the next meeting. • Continue traffic discussion at next meeting. • Project team will provide panel material samples and supplier information to the WWG.

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 12 of 13 Whittier Bridge /I‐95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group Meeting October 5, 2010 ATTENDANCE

Name: Affiliation:

Working Group Members/MassDOT Staff Stephanie Boundy MassDOT Jim Cerbone MassDOT Dennis DiZoglio MVPC Joe Fahey City of Amesbury Donna Holaday Mayor, City of Newburyport Thatcher Kezer Mayor, City of Amesbury Jerry Klima Board of Selectman, Town of Salisbury Donald Levesque DPW, Town of Salisbury Joe Pavao MassDOT Andrew Port Newburyport Planning Department Michelle Rowden Salisbury Conservation Commission Jeffrey Shrimpton MassDOT Geordie Vining Newburyport Planning Department Jon‐Eric White Newburyport Water Department Jay Williamson City of Amesbury

Consultants Kate Barrett Regina Villa Associates Michael Bertoulin Parsons Brinckerhoff Joe Freeman Tetra Tech Rizzo

Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project Whittier Working Group October 5, 2010 Meeting Page 13 of 13