Word version - Transportation

By Daniel Barnes,2014-08-29 10:15
14 views 0
Word version - Transportation


     Land Development


     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

Attendees: Date/Time: Lee Karker Coastal Trans September 15, 2009 Meeting Victor Langelo Topsham 3:00 5:00 PM Notes John Gerard - BDA

    John Shattuck Topsham

    Dave Markovchick - Eco. Dev. Brunswick

    Steve Levesque MRRA (sitting in for Jeff


    Ted Crooker Crooker

    Leighton Cooney - Office of the Governor

    James Howard - Priority Group LLC

    Benet Pols Brunswick Town Council

    Rich Roedner - Topsham

    Anna Breinich - Brunswick

    Chris Mann - MaineDOT

    Judy Lindsey - MaineDOT

    Marty Kennedy - VHB

    Nick Sanders - VHB

    Project No.: 52049.00

    Place: Re: Topsham Town Office Advisory Committee Meeting #2

     Notes taken by: Nick Sanders

    Mr. Chris Mann opened the meeting by introducing himself as the Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) Study Manager and stated the goals for the second advisory committee meeting: to review the draft purpose and need statement and review the input from the September 2, 2009 public workshop.

    Mr. Marty Kennedy from Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) introduced himself as the Study Manager for the consultant team (VHB, RKG, Gorrill-Palmer, Morris Communications, Nobis Engineering and TechEdit). Using a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Kennedy explained that the Purpose and Need of a project helps to establish a basis for the development of a range of reasonable alternatives and assists with the identification, analysis and eventual selection of a preferred alternative. Mr. Kennedy continued that the Purpose and Need is used to compare the effectiveness and the impacts of the various project alternatives against the No Build Alternative. Next, Mr. Kennedy provided and overview of the draft Purpose and Need for the Naval Air Station

    Brunswick Redevelopment. The PowerPoint presentation will be posted on the project web site (

    Mr. Rich Roedner asked for rational as to why the Naval Air Station Annex located in

    Topsham is not included in this study. Mr. Roedner stated that we need to include the Annex

    and Route 201 adjacent to the Annex in this study.

    NH-bed projects\52049.00\docs\notes\75092258.doc

    Date: 9-15-2009 2

    Project No.: 52049.00:

    Mr. James Howard stated that it will be difficult to address the deficiencies at the intersection of Route 196 and Route 201 without the Annex.

    Mr. Kennedy clarified that the traffic generated by the redevelopment of the Naval Air Station at the Annex will be included in this study’s traffic volumes. However, the

    development and evaluation of alternatives to upgrade Route 201 or for that matter to consider alternatives for a new interchange at I-295 were not part of strategy 2A and is not

    included in this study.

    Mr. John Shattuck stated that the study area for this project needs to include the section of Route 201 adjacent to the Annex.

    Mr. Mann replied that this segment of Route 201 was beyond the scope and budget for this project as currently defined in the contract.

    Mr. Theodore Crooker stated that he would like to see the study area expanded to include Route 201 through to I-295. Adding that we need to look at the Cooks Corner Master Plan Study and incorporate a cloverleaf interchange on I-295 at River Road.

    Mr. Howard pointed out that if this study area does not include the Annex and Route 201 adjacent to the Annex there will be resistance from the town of Topsham to support the outcome of this study. Topsham is preparing a formal written request to extend the study to the Annex.

    Mr. Leighton Cooney supported Mr. Roedner’s and others support that the study area should

    be expanded to include the Annex and Route 201 adjacent to the Annex.

    Ms. Judy Lindsey stated that expanding the study area and the limits of the Strategies will impact the cost and the schedule of the current project contract.

    Mr. Victor Langelo asked how can Strategy 1 be included in the Purpose and Need statement. Mr. Steve Levesque stated that the Navy EIS and the other previous studies have shown a need for the direct connection to US Route 1.

    Mr. Rich Roedner stated that the reuse plan determined that direct access to US Route 1 was needed.

    Mr. Steve Levesque stated that whether or not the Annex is shown within the project study area or not is semantics because the Annex is in fact part of the Navel Air Station redevelopment.

    Mr. Howard stated that we would look incompetent if the Annex is not added to the study area.

    Mr. Mann reiterated that the scope and schedule has already been established and that any changes to it will have impacts on both the scope and the schedule.

    Mr. Levesque asked how much of an extra effort it would be to expand the study area and the Strategy limits to include the Annex and Route 201 adjacent to the Annex.

    NH-bed projects\52049.00\docs\notes\75092258.doc

    Date: 9-15-2009 3

    Project No.: 52049.00:

    Mr. Howard stated that we will need to make it officially part of the study area as these issues along Route 201 will be discussed as the study progresses.

    Ms. Anna Breinich asked who defined the study area.

    Mr. Cooney stated that MaineDOT set the line defining the limits of the Strategies. Adding that it should be expanded to the north on Route 201.

    Mr. Mann stated the Strategies were provided to MaineDOT by the Governor’s Task Force and were formulated through the earlier study efforts (The Re-use Master Plan) conducted by the MRRA.

    Mr. Levesque stated that even without the Navel Air Base there is serious congestion. Adding the Base redevelopment will exacerbate the deficiencies and therefore mitigation will be needed.

    Mr. Mann agreed that there are clearly issues beyond the limits of the defined Strategies. Mr. Levesque stated that these are general Strategies and the study area is fine. Ms. Lindsey restated that the traffic generated by the redevelopment of the Annex will be included in this study within the defined Strategies.

    Mr. Kennedy (responding to someone’s question regarding seasonal adjustment of the traffic volumes) stated that the traffic volumes in this evaluation have been seasonally adjusted to

    threpresent a DHV condition, which represents the 30 highest hour of the year.

    Mr. Mann stated that this project will consider other studies and that those studies are available to view on the project website.

    Ms. Lindsey suggested that MaineDOT and VHB meet to review the existing contract to determine what ramifications there will be if the study area and limits of the Strategies are expanded as discussed during today’s meeting.

    Mr. Levesque stated that it will be important from MRRA’s perspective to gain the support of the community as they will be funding some of the improvements.

    Mr. Mann stated that clearly we want to gain the public’s support.

    Mr. John Gerard submitted his written comments on the draft Purpose and Need statement to Mr. Kennedy.

    Ms. Breinich recommended adding McKeen Street.

    Mr. Levesque stated he did not see McKeen St as a problem directly related to the base redevelopment.

    Mr. Ted Crocker stated the study area should be extended to the River Road interchange to relieve Pleasant Street. He also stated the study area should extend to the area of Cooks Corner, he added there are strategies that need to be implemented from the Cooks Corner Master Plan.

    NH-bed projects\52049.00\docs\notes\75092258.doc

    Date: 9-15-2009 4

    Project No.: 52049.00:

    Mr. Mann stated there is no denying these are important areas but they were not included in this study’s funding.

    Mr. Roedner agrees that it may not be in the best interest to expand the study area as there may be good reasons why Cooks Corner and McKeen Street were not included but he still does not understand why the Annex is not included in the study.

    Someone stated that the proposed strategies may not be the right ones to come out of this study, he views them as targets.

    Mr. Howard stated that these were just options.

    Mr. Levesque mentioned that these are general strategies not specific. MRRA did not want to be “prescriptive” therefore the results from the prior study are generally more generic.

    Mr. Gerard stated that the former Comprehensive Plan has an East-West roadway to bypass Downtown and local roads that are being used as “cut-throughs”.

    Mr. Gerard recommended the use of the State Planning Office projections of job loss and the subsequent economic impact.

    Ms. Breinich asked if the three recommendations from the Gateway One study will be considered when analyzing the alternatives, she is concerned they will get “lost”. The

    Gateway One study recommends Passenger Rail at the Base and Outer Pleasant Street. Mr. Kennedy stated freight rail is included in the study, passenger rail would be considered as a TDM option for Strategy 3.

    Mr. Kennedy resumed his presentation by providing an overview of the public input from the

    September 2, 2009 public workshop.

    Someone asked if there will be a cost estimate for the recommended improvements. Mr. Kennedy responded that cost estimates will be provided for each alternative. Mr. Kennedy added that we would also be recommending a phased approach to the implementation of any improvement actions.

    It was noted that there was a conflict (meet the candidates Brunswick) with the next thscheduled public meeting on September 30. The meeting will be re-scheduled

    Mr. Mann closed the meeting stating that MaineDOT and VHB will meet to review the existing contract to determine what ramifications there will be if the study area and limits of the Strategies are expanded to include the Topsham Annex as discussed during today’s

    meeting. Mr. Mann noted that the issues related to the limits of the study area and Strategies will be resolved prior to the next public meeting.

    NH-bed projects\52049.00\docs\notes\75092258.doc

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email