Meeting
Summary
Rte. 79/I-195 Interchange Improvements Study
March 23, 2010, 8:00 a.m. Marine Museum
Attendees: See attached.
Introductions and Updates
Michael O’Dowd, project manager, led introductions. He said the study is moving quickly to meet a summer deadline so available state funds can be used at the interchange. He announced that a $10 million
emergency repair contract was recently advertised and critical repairs would be made this year.
Anne McKinnon, Jacobs Engineering, reviewed the agenda. The focus of the meeting would be on reviewing the alternatives, but in response to questions at the February Task Force meeting, Diane Madden from
the Highway Division Environmental section would give an overview of the upcoming environmental process. Madden said a robust study of alternatives and efforts to minimize environmental and social impacts is
needed before and during the environmental stage of the project. Currently, the Rte. 79/I-195 Interchange
study is a planning study being done before any identified project enters the environmental review stage.
Preliminary engineering will follow state and environmental reviews. The selected project will then enter
final design or become a design/build project.
Madden described the state and federal review processes that would eventually be conducted once the planning study is complete: for the state, the Highway Division will file an Environmental Notification Form
(ENF) identifying the project and its potential impacts. The Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs will evaluate the ENF and determine if more work is needed—an Environmental Impact Report—to
address impacts to key resources. The federal process involves an early determination at the outset on
whether the project qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion (project would have no measurable environmental
impact) or if it requires an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the extent of potential impacts.
Either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a mandate to prepare a detailed Environmental Impact Statement is issued after an EA is submitted. Madden said an EA is a concise document highlighting
alternatives studied and potential impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement is very detailed and could
take 3–5 years. Skip McCourt, Highway Division, District 5, asked what environmental review would be
required to rehabilitate the structure. O’Dowd said rehabilitating the interchange would create minimal environmental impacts and the Highway Division would consult with state the environmental agencies and
follow the federal process as outlined.
Conceptual Alternatives: Overview
Rod Emery, Jacobs, reviewed the purpose of the conceptual alternatives development and screening. The
purpose is to generate ideas that meet project purpose and goals; eliminate infeasible concepts; and eliminate concepts that cannot be engineering reasonably. Emery said the team developed 12 conceptual alternatives using basic goals identified by Task Force. Three basic reconfiguration alternatives “families” were
developed along with one rehabilitation alternative:
1. Eliminate all “spaghetti ramps” and Rte. 79 viaduct
2. Eliminate some “spaghetti ramps” and Rte. 79 viaduct
3. Introduce collector-distributor system and eliminate Rte. 79 viaduct
1
Emery described the key features of each of the families. He said attendees would break into small groups
to review each of the alternatives using criteria on the worksheets. These criteria represent four of the key
measures for screening out alternatives that are not feasible. Each group would evaluate how each alternative measures up in terms of impact (no impact, low impact, medium impact, or high impact) on the criteria. The issues and corresponding criteria are listed below:
1. Traffic Impacts at Major Junctions or Intersections Impacts
Criterion: “Maintains acceptable level of service (LOS),” ranked like a report card, A-F
2. Historic and Protected Parklands Impacts
Criterion: “Preserves protected parkland and/or historic structures”
3. Local Circulation Impacts
Criterion: “Improves pedestrian/bike circulation and local vehicular access”
4. Local Economic Impacts
Criterion: “Improves access to waterfront”
Small-group Work Session/Reporting
Participants worked in seven groups to review the alternatives in detail and rank each on how well it met
the four criteria. Each group had color 24” x 18” prints of each alternative to use for the review. A screening handout provided additional details on level of service impacts for the alternatives; number of streets
connected; and improvements to waterfront access. Team members walked around the room to clarify
things and answer questions. The groups worked for about 40 minutes and summarized their findings on a
board at the station.
Each group’s work is summarized below.
2
Route 79/I-195 Interchange Improvements Study
Alternative Name
Rehabilitation
Alternative 1a: Diamond - 2 signals
Alternative 1b: Diamond - 2 Roundabouts
Alternative 1c: Diamond - 1 Signal, 1 Roundabout
Alternative 1d: Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI)
Alternative 2a: Existing with Fewer Ramps
Alternative 2b: Eastbound Ramps on Milliken
Alternative 2c: New Eastbound Ramps on Rte. 79
Alternative 2d: Eastbound Ramps on Rte. 79
Alternative 2e: Value Engineering Alt 5 Interchage
Alternative 3a: Fall River Energy Enterprise Interchange Concept
Alternative 3b: Use Plymouth Ave Interchange
Alternative 3c: New Interchange Bridge next to Rte. 79
Comments:
General
Rehabilitaton
Family 1
Family 2
Alternative 2a
Alternative 2d
Alternative 2e
Family 3
Alternative 3a
Group #1
Poor Fair Good Retain
Eliminate
Milliken is underutilized and is a good connector road
No roundabouts! Signals instead
Status Quo
Forecloses on new development and ideas
Eliminate all alternative family 1
Alternative family 1 is good for constructability but fails on other points - drop #1
Not preferred
Keeps overhead highway structures - no good
Significant structures
OK but why build more structures?
OK
OK
Broadway connector to I-195 EB is good
Change roundabouts to signals; level of sevice - D
Westbound exit 195 at light a problem
Exit at existing Milliken intersection
Opens up land in center city for development
Signals connection to Milliken
Preferred
OK. Drop the roundabout and realign new C-D road to avoid business at Milliken. Signals
seem very close on Milliken and the I-195 WB ramp seems short. Provides good access to
the waterfront, but Gates of the City Park may want to expand. This alternative may bring
more business downtown.
Consider impacts to Milliken Bridge and I-195 EB off ramp queue. Advantage: opens up
infield area. Consider the mixing of local and interstate traffic
Consider connecting Water Street to Columbia - Provides alternate routing and might
affect cross-section
3
Route 79/I-195 Interchange Improvements Study
Alternative Name
Rehabilitation
Alternative 1a: Diamond - 2 signals
Alternative 1b: Diamond - 2 Roundabouts
Alternative 1c: Diamond - 1 Signal, 1 Roundabout
Alternative 1d: Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI)
Alternative 2a: Existing with Fewer Ramps
Alternative 2b: Eastbound Ramps on Milliken
Alternative 2c: New Eastbound Ramps on Rte. 79
Alternative 2d: Eastbound Ramps on Rte. 79
Alternative 2e: Value Engineering Alt 5 Interchage
Alternative 3a: Fall River Energy Enterprise Interchange Concept
Alternative 3b: Use Plymouth Ave Interchange
Alternative 3c: New Interchange Bridge next to Rte. 79
Group #2
Poor Fair Good Retain
Eliminate
Comments:
General
Ped/bike traffic on south/north side of interstate
Rehabilitation Default
Can't eliminate
Alternative 1a New historic impacts - bad
Good traffic ops
Potential to provide access to waterfront
Alternative 2a Some ramps remain - bad
Circuitous
Alternative 2b Circuitous
"FREE" area
Alternative 3b Plymouth Avenue highest crash rate in SE Mass
C-D's state roads?
Route 79/I-195 Interchange Improvements Study
Comments:
General
Family 2
Alternative 2b
Alternative 2c
Alternative 2e
Alternative 3a
Group #3
Like lights, not roundabouts
Corner of Davol + Rte. 79 - improve
Avoid impacts to commercial buildings - jobs critical
Address conflicts at Davol Street/Rte. 79, especially for pedestrians
No roundabouts! Bad for pedestrians
Make more sense
Alternative family 2 has some promising elements, including access to the waterfront
Better for waterfront access
Don't like loop ramp
2c EB off ramp dooms 2c
2e looks good
No roundabout on Alternative 3a
4
Route 79/I-195 Interchange Improvements Study
Alternative Name
Rehabilitation
Alternative 1a: Diamond - 2 signals
Alternative 1b: Diamond - 2 Roundabouts
Alternative 1c: Diamond - 1 Signal, 1 Roundabout
Alternative 1d: Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI)
Alternative 2a: Existing with Fewer Ramps
Alternative 2b: Eastbound Ramps on Milliken
Alternative 2c: New Eastbound Ramps on Rte. 79
Alternative 2d: Eastbound Ramps on Rte. 79
Alternative 2e: Value Engineering Alt 5 Interchage
Alternative 3a: Fall River Energy Enterprise Interchange Concept
Alternative 3b: Use Plymouth Ave Interchange
Alternative 3c: New Interchange Bridge next to Rte. 79
Comments:
General
Rehabilitation
Family 1
Alternative 2a
Alternative 2d
Alternative 2e
Alternative 3a
Group #4
Poor Fair Good Retain
Eliminate
Connections to Milliken are tough to accomplish
Avoid impacts to buildings
Industrial waterfront served by trucks that should be on Rte. 79 and interstate highway
Consider traffic impacts on Milliken
Fewer signals = good
DD Viaduct
Eliminate all Alternative family 1
Retain
No Milliken
Preferred
Impacts on trucks
2 Lots RPABT (?)
Route 79/I-195 Interchange Improvements Study
Alternative Name
Rehabilitation
Alternative 1a: Diamond - 2 signals
Alternative 1b: Diamond - 2 Roundabouts
Alternative 1c: Diamond - 1 Signal, 1 Roundabout
Alternative 1d: Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI)
Alternative 2a: Existing with Fewer Ramps
Alternative 2b: Eastbound Ramps on Milliken
Alternative 2c: New Eastbound Ramps on Rte. 79
Alternative 2d: Eastbound Ramps on Rte. 79
Alternative 2e: Value Engineering Alt 5 Interchage
Alternative 3a: Fall River Energy Enterprise Interchange Concept
Alternative 3b: Use Plymouth Ave Interchange
Alternative 3c: New Interchange Bridge next to Rte. 79
Group #5
Poor Fair Good Retain
Eliminate
Comments:
General
3-lane roundabouts must be dropped; use signals instead
Alternative 2e South intersection is farther away from other potential signals, a plus
Negative impacts from all three of these alternatives because traffic would be relocated to
Family 3
city streets
5
Route 79/I-195 Interchange Improvements Study
Alternative Name
Rehabilitation
Alternative 1a: Diamond - 2 signals
Alternative 1b: Diamond - 2 Roundabouts
Alternative 1c: Diamond - 1 Signal, 1 Roundabout
Alternative 1d: Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI)
Alternative 2a: Existing with Fewer Ramps
Alternative 2b: Eastbound Ramps on Milliken
Alternative 2c: New Eastbound Ramps on Rte. 79
Alternative 2d: Eastbound Ramps on Rte. 79
Alternative 2e: Value Engineering Alt 5 Interchage
Alternative 3a: Fall River Energy Enterprise Interchange Concept
Alternative 3b: Use Plymouth Ave Interchange
Alternative 3c: New Interchange Bridge next to Rte. 79
Comments:
General
Alternative 1a
Alternative 1b
Alternative 1c
Alternative 1d
Alternative 2b
Alternative 2c
Alternative 2d
Alternative 3a
Group #6
Poor Fair Good Retain
Eliminate
Impacts to Milliken Blvd under some of the alternatives: what improvements to Milliken
would be needed? Who does it?
Loop ramps
Loop ramps
Loop ramps
Loop ramps
No access from 79 SB to 195
No loop
? Conn. btwn 195 & Milliken St
Eliminate conn. between Rte. 79 & Water St. - Good potential
New connection to Water St. necessary?
Off ramp 195 EB safety issue
Access to waterfront
Look at EB I-195 off ramp
6
Route 79/I-195 Interchange Improvements Study
Alternative Name
Rehabilitation
Alternative 1a: Diamond - 2 signals
Alternative 1b: Diamond - 2 Roundabouts
Alternative 1c: Diamond - 1 Signal, 1 Roundabout
Alternative 1d: Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI)
Alternative 2a: Existing with Fewer Ramps
Alternative 2b: Eastbound Ramps on Milliken
Alternative 2c: New Eastbound Ramps on Rte. 79
Alternative 2d: Eastbound Ramps on Rte. 79
Alternative 2e: Value Engineering Alt 5 Interchage
Alternative 3a: Fall River Energy Enterprise Interchange Concept
Alternative 3b: Use Plymouth Ave Interchange
Alternative 3c: New Interchange Bridge next to Rte. 79
Comments:
General
Family 1
Alternative 2a
Alternative 2b
Alternative 2c
Alternative 2d
Alternative 2e
Alternative 3a
Alternative 3b
Alternative 3c
Group #7
Poor Fair Good Retain
Eliminate
Make roundabouts signals
Improve Columbia/Broadway intersection
New rampways over historic parks & buildings are unacceptable
No local access to waterfront
Does not enhance ped/bike circulation
With signal instead of roundabout new connection to Milliken
No rotary - only lights
This alternative is acceptable if a road added linking Water St. with Milliken
Need a better connection from Milliken to Rte. 79
Does not preserve historic buildings
Do not enhance ped/bike circulation
Does not improve local access
Do not enhance ped/bike circulation
Does not improve local access
Group like using Milliken to relieve the traffic on Rte. 79. Would like to have only 4 lanes on Rte. 79 between
Suggestion: Make Central St. 2 way & make roundabout a traffic light
Good for parks/historical structures, economic development, waterfront connections
Drop roundabout; consider making Central Street 2-way to allow elimination of the left turn
at Anawan Street and narrower cross-section
Too much traffic on city streets
Too large a scope for the time frame
Potentially too much traffic on local streets. However, traffic on local streets could
potentially have an econmomic benefit
Negative impact on historical structures
Removing historic building is unacceptable
Potentially too much traffic on local streets. However, traffic on local streets could
potentially have an economic benefit
7
Screening Summary
A spokesperson from each group came forward individually and reviewed the findings of his/her group.
Based on the reports, there was agreement that the four alternatives in Alternative Family 1 would create
significant impacts to historic and parkland resources; would negatively impact access from Rte. 79 to the
waterfront; and impact the industrial, commercial, and cultural properties east of Rte. 79. These four alternatives were recommended for elimination.
Three of the five alternatives in Alternative Family 2 were suggested to be retained for detailed analysis.
The two recommended for elimination were Alt. 2b, which required a circuitous route on local streets for
Rte. 79 traffic headed to I-195, and Alt. 2c, which had some of the same problems as Alternative Family 1
in that it would introduce an 80-foot-high ramp east of Rte. 79 along the waterfront. The alternatives in
Alternative Family 2 that were suggested to retain are Alt. 2a, Alt. 2d, and Alt. 2e.
Three alternatives in Alternative Family 3 included collector-distributor roads to handle interchange traffic.
Alt. 3b eliminated the interchange at Rte. 79/I-195 and sent traffic to the Plymouth Avenue interchange via
local streets. Alt. 3c created two collector-distributor roads north and south of I-195 and connected them
with a new bridge. These two alternatives were considered poor due to potential traffic impacts (Alt. 3b)
on local streets and impacts to historic structures (Alt. 3c). Alt. 3a was recommended to be retained.
The team will take the results of the screening and develop three or four alternatives, some of which may
be hybrids and contain elements of other alternatives. These new alternatives will be developed in detail
and evaluated using additional criteria and reviewed at the next Task Force meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 10:46 a.m. The next meeting was tentatively set for Thurs., April 29, 8:00 a.m.–
9:45 a.m. at the Marine Museum.
8
Rte. 79/I-195 Interchange Study
Attendees, March 23, 2010 Task Force meeting, 8:00 a.m. Marine Museum
Attendees
Rep. Kevin
Karen
Bob
Stephanie
Ethan
Steven
Everett
Ken
Darren
Daniel
Peter
George
Liz
Sandy
Rod
Amos
Judith
Ken
Robert
Robert
Holly
Jim
Jim
Pam
Robert
Fayssal
Mary
Rodney
Lanny
Julianne
Chris
Al
Lisa
Allen
Frank
Carolyn
Skip
Anne
Paul
Michael
Chris
Tom
Brian
Eric
Daniel
Ronald
Carl
Paul
Rep. David
Patricia
Steven
Aquiar
Almeida
Bogan
Boundy
Britland
Camara
Castro
Coelho
Conboy
Crovo
Daley
Delany
Dennehy
Dennis
Emery
Fernandes
Feijo
Fiola, Jr.
Flanagan
Gregory
Grosvenor
Hadfield
Hartnett
Haznar
Horton
Husseini
Hynes
Jacques
Johnson
Kelly
Laudon
Lima
Lowney
Macomber
Mahady
Manchester
McCourt
McKinnon
Mission
O’Dowd
Paiva
Paterson
Pearson
Poulin
Rapoza
Rheaume
Sawejko
Simister
Sullivan
Tod
Torres
State Representative
State Representative Michael Rodrigues aide
Borden & Remington
MassDOT
MassDOT
Lower Highlands/Historic District N’hood Assn.
Green Futures
FHWA
Jacobs Engineering Group
MassDOT Hwy. Division Dist. 5
FREE Grants Committee
Fall River Mill Owners Assn.
Fall River Environmental Affairs Officer
Partners for a Healthier Community Inc.
Jacobs Engineering Group
Jacobs Engineering Group
resident
Fall River OED
University of Colorado
MassDOT Hwy. Division Dist. 5
Newport Collaborative Architects/FREE consultant
SRPEDD
Fall River Planning director
MassDOT Hwy. Division Dist. 5
Fall River Heritage State Park
Nitsch Engineering (Jacobs team)
MassDOT Hwy. Division, Environmental
William Starck Architects
Fall River Redevelopment Authority
Fall River Mass. in Motion
Fall River mill owner and FREE Task Force
Greater Fall River Land Conservancy
US Congressman Barney Frank Aide
Fall River business owner
FXM Associates (Jacobs team)
resident
MassDOT Hwy. Division Dist. 5
Jacobs Engineering Group
SRPEDD
MassDOT Hwy. Division
Manufacturers Realty
Fall River Mill Owners Assn.
Fall River Community Development
Fall River City Council
State Representative Kevin Aguiar aide
Carpenters Union
Battleship Cove
Marine Museum & Friends of Heritage State Park
State House of Representatives
Fall River Mill Owner
Fall River Corporation Counsel
9