Project No.: 52049.00: / 2
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental
S e r v i c e s
/ Six Bedford Farms Drive, Suite 607
Bedford, New Hampshire 03110-6532
Telephone 603 644-0888
Fax 603 644-2385
www.vhb.com
Meeting Notes
Attendees: / Victor Langelo – TopshamJohn Shattuck – Topsham
Dave Markovchick - Eco. Dev. Brunswick
Jeff Jordan – MRRA
Ted Crooker – Crooker
Leighton Cooney - Office of the Governor
Benet Pols – Brunswick Town Council
Rich Roedner - Topsham
Anna Breinich – Brunswick
Louise Rosen – Brunswick
Chris Mann - MaineDOT
Peggy Duval – MaineDOT
Bruce Van Note - MaineDOT
Marty Kennedy - VHB
Nick Sanders - VHB / Date/Time: / November 18, 2009
3:00 – 5:00 PM
Project No.: / 52049.00
Place: / Topsham Town Office / Re: / Advisory Committee Meeting #3
Notes taken by: / Nick Sanders
Mr. Chris Mann opened the meeting by introducing himself as the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) Study Manager and requested that everyone introduce himself or herself, as there were a few new attendees at this meeting. After everyone introduced himself or herself (see attendance list above), Mr. Mann noted that there were some unresolved issues from the last meeting that would be discussed today. Mr. Mann stated that the primary purpose of today’s meeting was to update the committee on where we are and what has changed since the last advisory committee meeting. More specifically, we would discuss the agenda for today’s meeting (first attachment), the strategies, the schedule, and the build out projections at the Base. Mr. Mann then turned it over to Marty Kennedy.
Mr. Marty Kennedy from Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) introduced himself as the Study Manager for the consultant team and reiterated that the purpose of today’s meeting is to make sure that the committee members understand and are comfortable with the new direction of the study. Mr. Kennedy explained that Strategy 2A has been extended along US Route 201 up to and including the intersection of Old Augusta Road. Clarifying that although the traffic from the redevelopment of the Annex was always included in the study, the access to and from the Annex along US Route 201 would now be evaluated as well.
Mr. John Shattuck thanked the MaineDOT for extending Strategy 2A on US Route 201. Although Mr. Shattuck understood that the Annex was included in the study, he asked that it be shown within the green shaded study area on the figure.
Mr. Kennedy replied that the figure would be updated to show the Annex as part of the shaded study area. Next Mr. Kennedy explained that the five Strategies have been clarified as shown in the handout (second attachment). Mr. Kennedy emphasized that all ideas and suggestions will be considered through the public process. Mr. Kennedy added that if something beyond the limits of this study is brought up as a concern it will be documented so that it can be considered for evaluation in a future possible study.
Mr. Leighton Cooney noted that we need to be a flexible as possible in determining the appropriate alternatives that are to be evaluated.
Mr. Kennedy explained the revised schedule (third attachment), noting that there will be another advisory committee meeting on December 9 to review the revised Purpose and Need Statement and initiate the preliminary screening of ideas from the first public workshop. Next, Mr. Kennedy pointed out that there would need to be an additional public workshop (likely in early January) to allow comments for the expanded study limits of Strategy 2A along US Route 201 and Strategy 1, which will now be evaluated simultaneously with the other Strategies. Mr. Kennedy noted that comments on any other areas would also be welcomed. Another advisory committee meeting would follow the second public workshop by a week or two to review the workshop input and continue the preliminary screening. Mr. Kennedy explained that the more detailed evaluation would take place from February through April with regular advisory committee meetings occurring during this period. The study documentation would take place in May and June with continued advisory committee meetings a final public meeting.
Mr. Mann asked if the time and location of the advisory committee meetings (Wednesdays at 3:00 to 5:00 PM at the Topsham Town Hall) works for everyone. To which, everyone agreed that this time and location worked.
Mr. Kennedy went back to the agenda (third attachment) and explained that we still haven’t settled o the revised build out traffic projections for the NASB and the Topsham Annex. It is important that the projections be realistic for our 20-year forecast period. Mr. Kennedy also noted that consideration is being given to expanding the current study effort to include a rail intermodal study and a planning study of Route 196 west of I-295.
Ms. Louise Rosen asked what “intermodal” rail was.
Mr. Kennedy explained that intermodal involves the transportation of freight in an intermodal container or vehicle, using multiple modes of transportation (rail, ship, and truck), without any handling of the freight itself when changing modes. The method reduces cargo handling, and so improves security, reduces damages and losses, and allows freight to be transported faster.
Ms. Anna Breinich noted that the Gateway 1 Study considered passenger rail. This was followed by a discussion as to whether we are talking about passenger rail or commuter rail and how consideration of the modes relate to what is happening at the Main Street Station.
Mr. Rich Roedner asked what tools will be used for evaluating various ideas.
Mr. Kennedy replied that it will depend on how the ideas or comments relate to specific Strategies and how well they meet the Purpose and Need. Mr. Kennedy noted that he will spend more time going over the screening process at the next advisory committee meeting.
Mr. Cooney commented that we should have maps depicting the expanded study area with a broader area for use at future public meetings.
Mr. Kennedy noted that the next public workshop will begin with a presentation of the existing conditions data and then we will go into a workshop format.
Mr. Ted Crooker noted that he was concerned that the possible River Road interchange at I-295 and the Cooks Corner Master Plan are not included in the this study. Mr. Crooker added that those studies should be used in this study.
Mr. Kennedy responded that we are preparing the Purpose and Need statement, which serves as the a basis for the development of a range of reasonable alternatives and assists with the identification, analysis and eventual selection of a recommended alternative. Mr. Kennedy added that all comments and ideas will go through the screening process.
Mr. Benet Pols asked if the First Parish Church study along Main Street would be included in this study.
Mr. Mann replied that other ongoing projects like the First Parish Church study will be considered in this study.
Ms. Breinich noted that the Gateway 1 Study should be included as well.
Mr. Kennedy noted that conceptual plans will be developed within the context of the public’s goals as identified through the public involvement process and by incorporating the other studies.
Mr. Dave Markovchick asked what the economic barriers will be and how will the improvements get funding.
Mr. Kennedy replied that project costs will be one of the factors that will be considered in the screening process.
Ms. Rosen asked if traffic volumes were available at the first public workshop.
Mr. Kennedy replied that only the existing traffic volumes were available at the first public workshop.
Ms. Rosen asked when the future numbers would be available.
Mr. Mann replied that those numbers are in the process of being developed. Mr. Mann clarified that the Navy and MRRA have each developed their own projections for the base and that it will be critical to determine appropriate and realistic forecast traffic volumes for this study.
Mr. Cooney commented that these 20-year forecast volumes will need to be validated.
Mr. Kennedy noted that once the base re-use build-out traffic volumes are established, they will be distributed throughout the project study area and evaluated.
Ms. Breinich asked if there was a specific date in mind for the January public workshop and if there was a release date for the Navy EIS for the base redevelopment.
Mr. Jeff Jordan replied that he was not aware of a release date for the Navy EIS.
Mr. Kennedy responded that maybe the second week in January would be a good target date for the next public workshop as it would be after the Holidays.
Ms. Breinich asked where the public workshop would be.
Mr. Kennedy responded at the Brunswick Middle School Gymnasium.
Ms. Breinich requested that the Town take care of setting the meeting up.
Mr. Kennedy replied that that would be great and noted that the advisory committee would meet again one to two weeks after the public workshop as VHB will need some time to process all the information provided at the public workshop.
Ms. Peggy Duval noted that MaineDOT will get back to the committee on the Gateway study and what type of rail it includes. Ms. Duval added that at future committee meetings we would bring large plans.
Mr. Roedner asked that, if we are going to begin the screening process, could the committee be provided a brief summary on how the screening process will work in advance of the meeting.
Mr. Kennedy stated that he would provide that information.
Mr. Markovchick asked if rail would become a higher priority if funding became available.
Mr. Mann replied that we will evaluate all Strategies including freight rail direct access are previously determined.
Ms. Rosen asked if it was the comments from the public workshop that prompted the expansion of the study area.
Mr. Mann replied, yes the expansion of the study area was based on comments from the public workshop and further discussion at the last advisory committee meeting.
Ms. Rosen asked if anyone was aware of a private group that was meeting to discuss transportation issues.
Several committee members responded that they were unaware of such a private group.
At approximately 4:15 PM, the meeting was adjourned until December 9.
NASB Transportation Feasibility Study
Advisory Committee Meeting
Wednesday November 18, 2009
Topsham Town Hall Meeting Room
100 Main Street, Topsham, ME
3:00 to 5:00 PM
Meeting Agenda
· Extend Strategy 2A along Route 201 up to and including
Old Augusta Road intersection
· Clarification on the Five Strategies
· Revised Schedule
· Re-use Build-out Projections
· Possible Additional Study Efforts
o Rail Intermodal Study
o Route 196 west of I-295
NASB Transportation Feasibility Study
Clarification on the Five Strategies
For this study, five specific strategies have been identified for evaluation. These strategies were provided to the MaineDOT by the Governor’s Advisory Council. The Council has focused on outside the fence economic development to support effective base redevelopment. The purpose of focusing the evaluation effort on these five strategies was that the evaluation would be conducted at a sufficient level of detail in order for decision makers to advance some of the preferred alternatives to permitting, design, and implementation. The five strategies, as well as the type and number of alternatives to be evaluated under each strategy, are as follows.
Strategy 1 – No-build, Upgrade and up to three (3) Build strategies - need and potential locations of improved direct access from Route 1 to NASB
Strategy 2A - No-build, TDM and up to two (2) Upgrade strategies - evaluate need for additional capacity for current and future traffic along Route 196 (Rt. 196) from I-295 (Exit 31) to Rt. 1 (current Coastal Connector) and congestion relief at the Rt. 196/201 Interchange
Strategy 2B- No-build, TDM and up to two (2) Upgrade strategies to identify mobility improvements along Route 1/ Pleasant Street to Route 123
Strategy 2C – No-build, TDM and up to two (2) Upgrade strategies - identify Mill Street capacity improvements from Pleasant Street to Route 196
Strategy 3– No-build and up to two (2) Build Strategies - Freight Rail Direct Access to Naval Air Station Brunswick
Note that all ideas and suggestions will be considered through an open and collaborative public input process. DOT and VHB must conduct the upgrade strategy studies so that they will be the basis for a later NEPA process. Key to this is the ‘Purpose and Need’ of the NASB Transportation Feasibility Study. Ideas will be considered with no preconceived view. All options are on the table within the parameters of the 5 Strategies above.
As these studies move forward, there will likely be additional ideas brought forth for consideration. Therefore, we will have to determine which of these are most appropriate for further evaluation outside o f the current study areas. All ideas will be recorded and made part of the final report. Some may be noted as worthy of further study.
NASB Transportation Feasibility Study
Revised Schedule
Dec. 9th – Advisory Committee Meeting