Minutes of Meeting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.