ROUTE 79/DAVOL STREET CORRIDOR STUDY
Summary of Public Information Meeting
November 21, 2013, 6:00-8:00 p.m.
DCR Heritage State Park
Fall River, MA
Ethan Britland, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Project Manager, welcomed
attendees to the second public information meeting for the Route 79/Davol Street Corridor Study.
Ethan said the purpose of the meeting was to hear what the public thinks about three transportation
alternatives that will be presented at the meeting. He said that MassDOT has made no decisions about a
preferred alternative. Meeting attendees were told that all comments should be submitted to MassDOT
by December 6, 2013. Ethan also noted that this is a feasibility study, unlike the construction project that
has just begun south of the study area, near the Braga Bridge.
Following introductions of the project’s study team, a presentation was given by consultants from
TranSystems, as summarized below.
Study Goals and Objectives
There are three main goals for this study: (1) Identify opportunities to improve mobility, connectivity,
and safety along and across the Route 79 and Davol Street corridor study area; (2) Promote and foster
regional and local economic development potential; and (3) Improve the quality of life for residents.
The study team has identified several objectives to meet project goals. They are:






Provide better multimodal connectivity between downtown Fall River neighborhoods and its
waterfront
Enhance multimodal access to the future South Coast Rail
Balance local and regional mobility
Improve and enhance safety conditions
Increase opportunities for economic development and land use
Minimize potential impacts to the environment and community
To evaluate how well each alternative that will be developed by the study team meets the project’s
goals and objectives, the project team clustered about a dozen evaluation criteria within six topic areas:
mobility, safety, health and environmental effects, land use and economic development, community
effects and cost. An evaluative matrix of these topics for each alternative was developed. It was
reviewed in the presentation and on display boards at the meeting.
Most of the presentation centered around three alternatives:
 Alternative 1: Elevated limited access Route 79
 Alternative 2: Urban Boulevard
 Alternative 3: Urban Boulevard with Frontage Roads
All three alternatives shared some common elements designed to meet project goals and objectives:
 Route 79 is shifted to the east to provide more land that can be used for development
 Three new east-west street connections to the waterfront are provided
1



Brightman Street is restored to two-way traffic
A shared use bicycle and pedestrian path is provided
New development parcels totaling 10-15 acres are created
But the three alternatives had some key differences:
 Route 79 is elevated in Alternative 1, at grade in Alternatives 2 and 3
 The Route 79 roadway is narrower, has less lanes, in Alternative 3 than in Alternative 2, because
Alternative 3 has frontage roads to carry local traffic
 There are varied designs among the alternatives - one-way and two-way travel patterns - for
North and South Davol Streets
 While Alternative 3 provides more accessible open land than Alternative 1, only 11% could be
developed because the re-designed roadway network could not support more than that
amount. In contrast, the road system would allow 76% of the new parcels created in Alternative
1 to be developed and 65% in Alternative 2.
 The order of magnitude construction cost of Alternative 1 is $100 million whereas both
Alternatives 2 and 3 are each projected to be $55 million.
 Traffic operation at major intersections is forecasted to be good in Alternatives 1 and 2 but
some intersections will function less efficiently in Alternative 3.
Next Steps
Ethan asked people in attendance to send him comments expressing their views on the alternatives. He
said the Working Group, a group of local businesses, neighborhood and community representatives, and
local and elected officials that have been providing guidance to the study team, will meet in December
to review the public input and discuss responses.
Questions & Comments
Following the presentation many members of the public asked questions and shared their opinions and
concerns. Below in italics are questions posed to the study team and responses given by team members.
Q) When looking at the difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 why does Alternative 3 have less usable
land?
R) We evaluated how much land is buildable based on how much development the roadway network
would support
Q) Who will maintain the median in the proposed boulevard?
R) It depends on the final jurisdiction to be worked out between the City and State during the project
development process. Right now we are still in the project concept phase.
C) The Fall River community deserves credit for keeping the Route 79 issue alive since 2002. I’d like to see
the momentum continue so that this project area can be worked on right after the accelerated bridge
project is done so that the entire Route 79 area is reconstructed by 2019-20.
C) I prefer Alternative 2 and would encourage the public to comment affirmatively on this alternative. It
will provide a lot of development space for an investment of $55 million. Alternative 3 is a hard sell
because of the low development space it provides and it requires the removal of new highway ramps. I
do not think tearing down the ramps would be welcomed.
2
C) As a community we must seize the day, sing from the same song sheets and make sure it’s an
important project for the next governor in 2015. We can see what’s already happening at
Commonwealth Landing. Completing this project by 2020 is not that long away.
R) Strong, visible community support will be important for MassDOT
C) The building density that you illustrated tonight is exactly what we want. We’ll do our part to make
sure that this happens. $55 million may seem like a lot of money but as highways go, it’s not that big an
expenditure. We must continue our advocacy or we’ll see this area languish for another generation. This
is the new next frontier for Fall River.
C) I’m not in favor of Alternative 1 as it keeps a wall between the waterfront and Fall River. But I disagree
with the traffic diversion analysis. I think people will use Route 24 to access I-195 rather than go through
Somerset.
R) Gravity modeling was used to predict traffic diversion and it will be more closely examined during the
project development process. Even if diversion happens, we do not consider it a major factor.
Q) It seems the boulevard is very wide for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross. How about an elevated
walkway, especially at President Avenue?
We can take a conceptual look at an elevated structure – how it could be built and the cost to maintain
it. An elevated walkway would require either an elevator on ramps to allow handicapped access to
meeting ADA (American Disability Act) requirements. However, it should be also noted that the
boulevard intersections will have a two-stage signal phase for bicycles and pedestrians and the median
will provide a refuge between signal phases.
Q) Why are there no traffic signals on South Davol on Alternative 2?
Our traffic analysis indicated they were not needed on Alternative 2 but would be needed in Alternative
3.
Q) Had you considered pedestrian underpasses? They are frequently used in England, though they have
had problems with crime.
We did not consider pedestrian underpasses because of the area’s high water table and long term
concern about rising sea levels.
Q) Having lived in the Brightman Street area before Route 79 was built and neighborhoods were changed
by the highway, I am very excited to hear about these plans. It will bring Fall River to a whole new level.
Q) As owner of Al Mac’s Diner, located on the east side of North Davol Street, I prefer Alternative 3
because it will give businesses on our side more visibility to the waterfront. The development shown in
Alternative 2 will be like a wall…what good is it to have a waterfront if you cannot see it?
R) This project assumes that development will occur on the east and west sides as a result of road
improvements. MassDOT is the proponent of road improvements. How the land is developed will be
governed by the City so that would be where you should provide input.
Q) Will there be a loss of access to businesses on the east side?
R) We’ve just shown conceptual renderings tonight and don’t have enough details. We do not restrict
access on projects, and coordination with landowners during the project development process will be
important
3
C) There are many accidents in the President Avenue area. It is especially bad for people with baby
strollers. Drivers ignore the “no right on red” sign.
C) This is a major area for ambulances – maybe 20 ambulances an hour. I’m concerned about adding
traffic lights.
C) As a neighborhood resident we’d like greater focus on what happens on the east side. As someone
who studies cities, to put buildings on one side of the city and not on the other (we see a huge parking lot
by South Coast Rail), is a concern. Buildings along a street create energy and we’d like to see shopping on
both sides of the street. I would want the boulevard to be shifted a bit from east to west to create more
pedestrian and commercial opportunities from Cedar St to Memorial Bridge.
R) Shifting the boulevard somewhat to the west will render development parcels very shallow. The
option of shifting the boulevard completely to the west was discussed at one of the Working Group
meetings and the consensus was that the east shift was preferred.
C) I do not see any vision that focuses on the east side of the Veterans Bridge.
R) The Brightman Street area was brought into the study late in the process.
C) I find it disconcerting that there is not much of a waterfront view as the development visually
separates the river from the people in the neighborhoods.
Q) Will the shared use path replace the boardwalk as people like to walk next to the river?
No. The boardwalk will remain.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
4