Rte. 79/I-195 Interchange Improvements Study
Meeting
Summary
February 24, 2010, 8:00 a.m. Marine Museum
Attendees: See attached. Summary refers to slides in the PowerPoint presentation.
Review Project Goals; Draft Purpose and Need Statement; Evaluation Criteria
Anne McKinnon, Jacobs Engineering, led introductions. The project goals drafted at the Jan. meeting were reviewed. Two were discussed in detail: the Highway Division suggested adding “avoid business relocations” as a
project goal in part because relocating businesses can often be a lengthy process that could significantly impact the
design and construction schedule for Rte. 79/I-195 interchange improvements. It was agreed to revise the goal to
read, “Minimize business relocations and property takings.” McKinnon said the Jacobs team had a proposal to clarify the goal, “Divert regional traffic to Rte. 24.” Rod Emery, P.E., PTOE, Jacobs, suggested that traffic diversion
from Rte. 79 to Rte. 24 is actually not a goal, but rather a byproduct of the proposed improvements to Rte.79. He
proposed restating it to, “Avoid overstressing Rte. 79 as improvements are implemented.” There was a discussion
about his proposal. Skip McCourt, Highway Division, Dist. 5, reiterated the goal of minimizing the impacts of construction-period traffic. Steven Camara, Lower Highlands, suggested reflecting the City’s goal of reestablishing
Downtown as an important activity center. McKinnon said we need to take care not to dilute focus from that which
could be funded through the Accelerated Bridge Program [NB: Goal was added]. After discussion about the proposed revisions, it was agreed Jacobs would draft new language and e-mail to the Task Force for final review.
McKinnon reviewed the role of the Purpose and Need Statement in the planning process. Required for federal environmental review, the Purpose and Need Statement has three parts: Purpose = the problem; Need = the evidence the
problem exists; and Goals = other issues to be addressed as part of a successful solution. Identifying goals is critical
to the alternatives process, because if one were to address only the Project Purpose/Problem (structurally deficient
interchange), the straightforward action would be to rehabilitate the structures in the current configuration. With
goals part of the Purpose and Need Statement we have the chance to develop a number of ways to fix the interchange
while addressing community, city, regional, highway maintenance, etc. goals. See attached.
Evaluation criteria: McKinnon said the draft will be reviewed and revisited as the study progresses. Evaluation criteria are used to measure how each alternative performs relative to goals and project purpose. The handout includes
draft criteria, some of which are quantitative measures (number of elevated ramps removed) and are qualitative (description of benefits and impacts to ped/bike access). Task Force members should review the criteria and suggest
changes.
Summary of Existing Conditions (Part 2) [Slides 8–21]
Emery said the Existing Conditions analysis is underway for environmental, historic/cultural resources, socioeconomic conditions, and traffic. He focused the presentation on traffic and safety. Emery described the two-tiered
study area (interchange focus and broader focus that takes in Rte. 24). The crash analysis revealed that this interchange has the second highest number of crashes of area interchanges (93 over 3 years). To establish what traffic
conditions could be like in 2030, the No-Build network was created that includes normal population and employment
growth, changes to the roadway network such as the new Veterans Memorial Br. and the new Rte. 24 interchange,
and specific study-area development projects such as development at the City Pier and proposed rail station. Regionally, growth is estimated at 0.3% per year, considerably less than the 1995-2005 period (2%). Local growth decreased in 2000-2009 (-7%). Projected traffic increases between 2009 and 2030 include 10% increase on Rte. 79
north of the Veterans Memorial Br. and 22% increase on Rte.24 without any project at the Rte. 79/I-195 interchange.
1
Emery described the critical traffic movements at the Rte. 79/I-195 interchange that will need to be accommodated in
any interchange reconfiguration:
Close to 39,000 vehicles per day (vpd) use Rte. 79 NB and SB
Rte. 79 SB and Broadway Ext. NB to I-195—approx. 20,000 vpd
Rte. 79 SB—approx. 12, 300 vpd
I-195 EB to Rte. 79 NB—approx. 10,500 vpd
Local traffic to Rte. 79 NB—approx. 8,500 vpd
Emery said the next steps in the traffic analysis will include finalizing the No-Build traffic projections (what traffic
conditions would be like if the interchange were rehabilitated only) and then estimating the affects of the reconfiguration alternatives on traffic at the interchange, on Rte. 79 north, Rte. 24, and local streets.
Ken Fiola, Fall River OED, requested a timeline and schedule for this study so he knows when he will be able to review the No-Build and Build analyses. Emery said the technical memorandum on existing conditions will be available for Task Force review in the near future, and the Task Force will identify a recommended alternative by the end
of June. Fiola asked why existing Rte. 24/Rte. 79 crash data weren’t examined. Emery said the interchange is outside the detailed study area, which is focused on the Rte. 79/I-195 interchange. The team will analyze the data. Fiola
asked if the complexity of the project warrants preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Michael O’Dowd,
project manager for the Accelerated Bridge Program, said we won’t know how complex the environmental issues are
until an alternative is developed and analyzed. Rep. David Sullivan asked for clarification: would preparing an EIR
blow the schedule, eliminating the possibility of reconfiguring the interchange, leaving only the rehabilitation alternative that would leave the viaduct in place? O’Dowd said yes. McKinnon said the process and product will be
comprehensive, in accordance with regulations, and focused and efficient so as not to miss an opportunity to use
ABP funding. Ken Coehlo, FHWA, suggested the team provide a summary of the federal, state, and MassDOT environmental review processes to the Task Force to help clarify terms, schedule requirements, and practices that will
come into play here. McKinnon said a schedule of milestones for the study will be prepared for the Task Force
along with an environmental review “cheat sheet.”
Conceptual Alternatives: Introduction [Slides 24–39]
Emery described the purpose of the conceptual alternatives development and screening exercise. To ensure a range
of solutions are examined, we generate a large number of ideas that address the project purpose and goals. Screening
the conceptual alternatives is done to eliminate infeasible concepts, those that cannot be engineered reasonably or
aren’t consistent with policies, leaving promising alternatives for the detailed alternatives analysis. 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
Emery described the alternatives, some of which address the goals of removing ramps but fail to meet many of the
other goals identified by the Task Force. Several of the conceptual alternatives would essentially remove ramps from
one location and replace them nearby. Alan Macomber requested an alternative that added direct ramp connections
to Milliken Blvd., not the local street connections shown on several alternatives. Yes. Next steps: Emery said many
of the 12 alternatives shown do not “work” for a number of reasons (traffic, constructability, fail to meet community
goals, etc.) and should be “screened” or separated from those alternatives that will be retained for detailed analysis.
This will be the activity at the next Task Force meeting, a 2 ½-hour work session devoted to reviewing and screening
the alternatives to eliminate those failing key criteria. Materials will be sent to Task Force members in advance, and
the work session will be held at the Museum or other space suitable for group discussion.
The meeting adjourned at 9:44 a.m. The next meeting was tentatively set for Tues., Mar. 23, 8:00 a.m.–10:30 a.m.
2
Rte. 79/I-195 Interchange Study
Attendees, February 24, 2010 Task Force meeting, 8:00 a.m. Marine Museum
Attendees
Rep. Kevin
Alan
Pedro
Bob
Stephanie
Ethan
Steven
Jack
Everett
Ken
Darren
Daniel
Rod
Liz
Amos
Ken
Robert
John
Jim
Jim
Pam
Mary
Rodney
Lanny
Marc
Chris
Don
Al
Dennis
Alan
Frank
Skip
Anne
Steve
Paul
Patrick
Michael
Chris
James
Brian
Jim
Ronald
Carl
Paul
Rep. David
Patricia
Steve
Aquiar
Amaral
Amaral
Bogan
Boundy
Britland
Camara
Casey
Castro
Coelho
Conboy
Crovo
Emery
Dennehy
Fernandes
Fiola
Gregory
Grosvenor
Hadfield
Hartnett
Haznar
Hynes
Jacques
Johnson
Landry
Laudon
Leighton
Lima
Luttrell
Macomber
Mahady
McCourt
McKinnon
McLaughlin
Mission
Norton
O’Dowd
Paiva
Paul
Pearson
Pimental
Rheaume
Sawejko
Simister
Sullivan
Tod
Torres
State Representative
FREE Task Force chair
State Representative Rodrigues aide
Borden & Remington
MassDOT
MassDOT
Lower Highlands/Historic District N’hood Assn.
Battleship Cove
Green Futures
FHWA
Jacobs Engineering Group
MassDOT Hwy. Division Dist. 5
Jacobs Engineering Group
Fall River Environmental Affairs Officer
Jacobs Engineering Group
Fall River OED
MassDOT Hwy. Division Dist. 5
Newport Collaborative Architects/FREE consultant
SRPEDD
Fall River Planning Director
MassDOT Hwy. Division Dist. 5
MassDOT Hwy. Division, Environmental
William Starck Architects
Fall River Redevelopment Authority
Fall River area Chamber of Commerce
Fall River mill owner and FREE Task Force
Gates, Leighton & Assoc./FREE consultant
Greater Fall River Land Conservancy
Somerset Town Administrator
Flanagan Transition Team
FXM Associates (Jacobs team)
MassDOT Hwy. Division Dist. 5
Jacobs Engineering Group
MassDOT Hwy. Division
SRPEDD
US Congressman Jim McGovern aide
MassDOT Hwy. Division
Manufacturers Realty
DCR, Heritage State Park
resident
S.E. Mass. Building Trades
Carpenters Union
Battleship Cove
Marine Museum & Friends of Heritage State Park
State House of Representatives
Fall River mill owner
Fall River Corporation Counsel
3
Rte. 79/I-195 Interchange Study
Draft Purpose and Need Statement
Purpose
The purpose of the project is to address structural deficiencies at the Rte. 79/I-195 Interchange.
Need
The need is demonstrated by the poor condition of the viaduct and the number of bridges
classified as structurally deficient. Chapter X provides details on the condition of the
bridges at the interchange.
Goals
The project goals include: improve multi-modal (pedestrian, bicycle, etc.) access; reduce
maintenance costs; improve the visual appearance of waterfront, etc.—all goals previously
identified.
2/24/10
4