Route 79/Davol Street Corridor Study
Fall River, MA
Working Group Meeting #7
December 19, 2013
Boys and Girls Club of Fall River
803 Bedford Street
Agenda
Welcome and Introductions
Overview of Alternatives
Environmental Justice
Review of Comments Received after Public Information
Meeting
Discussion
Task 4 - Alternatives Analysis
Task 1 – Study Area, Goals & Objectives, Evaluation Criteria, &
Public Involvement
Task 2 – Existing and Future No-Build Conditions and Issues
Identification
Task 3 – Alternatives Development
Task 4 – Alternatives Analysis
Task 5 – Recommendations
Long-Term Alternatives
No-Build Alternative
Alternative 1: Elevated Limited Access Route 79
Alternative 2: Urban Boulevard
Alternative 3: Boulevard with Frontage Roads
Alternative 1: Elevated Limited Access Rte. 79
 Maintains Rte. 79 as a visual barrier
 Supports up to 1.3m sf of additional
development
 Provides four east-west connections
 Improves Brightman Street access
 Creates at least 2.45 acres of open land
Alternative 2: Urban Boulevard
 Eliminates Rte. 79 as a visual barrier
 Supports up to 1.2m sf of additional
development
 Provides four east-west connections
 Improves Brightman Street Access
 Creates at least 2.73 acres of open land
Alternative 3: Boulevard with Frontage Roads
 Eliminates Rte. 79 as a visual barrier
 Supports up to 0.3m sf of additional
development
 Provides four east-west connections
 Improves Brightman Street Access
 Creates at least 13.37 acres of open land
Alternative 1: Elevated Limited Access Rte. 79
Alternative 1: Elevated Limited Access Rte. 79
Alternative 2: Urban Boulevard
Alternative 2: Urban Boulevard
Alternative 3: Boulevard with Frontage Roads
Alternative 3: Boulevard with Frontage Roads
Environmental Justice
Criteria:
Determined by demographics within Transportation
Analysis Zone (TAZ)
Low-income population: median income at or below $39,399
Minority population: 25% or greater minority population
Limited English Proficiency (LEP): population with LEP of
7.61% or higher
Environmental Justice
44 Total TAZ in Fall River
32 TAZ qualifying as
Environmental Justice
zones
Environmental Justice – Low Income Households
Environmental Justice – Minority Population
Environmental Justice – Limited English Proficiency
Environmental Justice
Performance Measures:
Accessibility to jobs and needed services
Mobility and congestion
Environmental impacts
Environmental Justice
Accessibility to jobs and needed services
Number of employment opportunities within 20 minutes
Number of health care facilities within 20 minutes
Number of higher education facilities within 20 minutes
Average travel time to industrial, retail, and service
employment opportunities, health care, and higher
education institutions
Environmental Justice
Mobility and congestion
Highway production time – The average travel time of all
auto trips departing from a TAZ
Highway attraction time – The average travel time of all auto
trips arriving at a TAZ
Environmental Justice
Environmental impacts
Carbon monoxide emissions per square mile
Fine particulate matters emitted per square mile
Average vehicle-miles traveled under congested conditions
Environmental Justice - Accessibility
Basic Employment
Number of
Available Basic
Jobs/Service
Retail Employment
Average Highway
Time (minute)
Number of
Available Retail
Jobs/Service
Service Employment
Average Highway
Time (minute)
Number of
Available Service
Jobs/Service
Average Highway
Time (minute)
EJ
Non-EJ
EJ
Non-EJ
EJ
Non-EJ
EJ
Non-EJ
EJ
Non-EJ
EJ
Non-EJ
No-Build
39,936
37,512
11.9
12.3
25,591
24,273
12.3
13.2
38,115
35,768
11.1
11.4
Alt. 1
39,096
36,596
11.9
12.3
24,723
22,594
12.3
12.9
36,969
35,077
11.0
11.4
Alt. 2
38,998
36,629
11.9
12.3
24,690
22,589
12.4
12.9
36,866
35,057
11.0
11.3
Alt. 3
39,099
36,602
11.9
12.2
24,703
22,613
12.3
12.9
36,936
35,113
11.0
11.3
Compare Build Alts to No-Build
Alt. 1 vs. NoBuild
Alt. 2 vs. NoBuild
Alt. 3 vs. NoBuild
-2.1%
-2.4%
0.0%
0.0%
-3.4%
-6.9%
0.0%
-1.9%
-3.0%
-1.9%
-0.8%
0.0%
-2.3%
-2.4%
0.0%
0.0%
-3.5%
-6.9%
0.3%
-1.9%
-3.3%
-2.0%
-0.8%
-0.4%
-2.1%
-2.4%
0.0%
-0.5%
-3.5%
-6.8%
0.0%
-1.9%
-3.1%
-1.8%
-0.8%
-0.4%
Environmental Justice - Accessibility
Access to Education Facilities
Number of Available
College Enrollment
Scenarios
Access to Health Care
Average Highway Time
(minute)
Number of Available
Hospital Beds
Average Highway Time
(minute)
EJ
Non-EJ
EJ
Non-EJ
EJ
Non-EJ
EJ
Non-EJ
No-Build
13,948
12,152
12.0
11.1
747
668
9.6
9.8
Alt. 1
13,942
12,152
12.1
11.1
725
668
9.4
9.9
Alt. 2
13,942
12,152
12.1
11.1
725
668
9.3
9.9
Alt. 3
13,943
12,152
12.1
11.1
725
668
9.3
9.8
Compare Build Alternatives to No-Build
Alt. 1
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
-2.9%
0.0%
-2.8%
0.6%
Alt. 2
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
-2.9%
0.0%
-3.0%
0.6%
Alt. 3
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
-2.9%
0.0%
-3.0%
0.4%
Environmental Justice - Mobility
Average Highway Production Time
(minutes)
Scenarios
Average Highway Attraction Time
(minutes)
EJ
Non-EJ
EJ
Non-EJ
No-Build
13.9
15.3
5.8
7.8
Alt. 1
15.0
16.4
5.9
7.9
Alt. 2
15.0
16.4
5.9
7.9
Alt. 3
15.0
16.4
5.9
7.9
Alt. 1
8.3%
7.0%
1.3%
1.2%
Alt. 2
8.3%
7.0%
1.3%
1.2%
Alt. 3
8.3%
7.0%
1.3%
1.2%
Compare Build Alternatives to No-Build
Environmental Justice – Environmental Impacts
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Scenarios
CO per Square Mile (g/mile2)
PM2.5 per Square Mile
(g/mile2)
EJ
Non-EJ
EJ
Non-EJ
EJ
Non-EJ
No-Build
40,961
21,443
365,306
189,270
518
271
Alt. 1
42,829
22,251
381,170
196,223
542
281
Alt. 2
41,180
22,111
366,089
195,075
522
279
Alt. 3
40,149
21,568
357,878
190,499
509
272
Compare Build Alternatives to No-Build
Alt. 1
4.6%
3.8%
4.3%
3.7%
4.6%
3.7%
Alt. 2
0.5%
3.1%
0.2%
3.1%
0.7%
3.0%
Alt. 3
-2.0%
0.6%
-2.0%
0.6%
-1.7%
0.6%
Evaluation Matrix – Community Effects
Alternatives
COMMUNITY
EFFECTS
No Build
Rating
Environmental
Justice Accessibility
Discussion
• No impacts
1 – Elevated Route 79
with Cross Connections
Rating
Discussion
3 – At Grade Route 79
with Frontage Roads
2 – At Grade Route 79 Boulevard
Rating
Discussion
Rating
Discussion
• Number of Basic
Jobs vs. No-Build:
EJ: -2.1%
Non-EJ: -2.4%
• Number of Basic Jobs
vs. No-Build:
EJ: -2.1%
Non-EJ: -2.4%
• Number of Basic Jobs vs.
No-Build:
EJ: -2.1%
Non-EJ: -2.4%
• Number of Retail
Jobs vs. No-Build:
EJ: -3.4%
Non-EJ: -6.9%
• Number of Retail Jobs
vs. No-Build:
EJ: -3.5%
Non-EJ: -6.9%
• Number of Retail Jobs vs.
No-Build:
EJ: -3.5%
Non-EJ: -6.8%
• Number of Service
Jobs vs. No-Build:
EJ: -3%
Non-EJ: -1.9%
• Number of Service
Jobs vs. No-Build:
EJ: -3.3%
Non-EJ: -2.0%
• Number of Service Jobs vs.
No-Build:
EJ: -3.1%
Non-EJ: -1.8%
• Average Highway
Time vs. No-Build
EJ: -0.8%
Non-EJ: 0.0%
• Average Highway Time
vs. No-Build
EJ: -0.8%
Non-EJ: -0.4%
Legend
• Average Highway Time vs.
No-Build
EJ: -0.8%
Non-EJ: -0.4%
Benefits
Impacts
Neutral
Some
Moderate
Substantial
Evaluation Matrix – Community Effects
Alternatives
COMMUNITY
EFFECTS
No Build
Rating
Environmental
Justice Accessibility
Discussion
• No impacts
1 – Elevated Route 79
with Cross Connections
Rating
Discussion
3 – At Grade Route 79
with Frontage Roads
2 – At Grade Route 79 Boulevard
Rating
Discussion
• Number of College
Enrollment vs. NoBuild:
EJ: 0.0%
Non-EJ: 0.0%
• Number of College
Enrollment vs. NoBuild:
EJ: 0.0%
Non-EJ: 0.0%
• Number of Hospital
Beds vs. No-Build:
EJ: -2.9%
Non-EJ: 0.0%
• Number of Hospital
Beds vs. No-Build:
EJ: -2.9%
Non-EJ: 0.0%
Rating
Discussion
• Number of College
Enrollment vs. No-Build:
EJ: 0.0%
Non-EJ: 0.0%
• Number of Hospital Beds vs.
No-Build:
EJ: -2.9%
Non-EJ: 0.0%
Legend
Benefits
Impacts
Neutral
Some
Moderate
Substantial
Evaluation Matrix – Community Effects
Alternatives
COMMUNITY
EFFECTS
No Build
Rating
Environmental
Justice Mobility
Discussion
• No impacts
1 – Elevated Route 79
with Cross Connections
Rating
Discussion
• Highway
production time vs.
No-Build
EJ: 8.3%
Non-EJ: 7.0%
• Highway attraction
time vs. No-Build:
EJ: 1.3%
Non-EJ: 1.2%
3 – At Grade Route 79
with Frontage Roads
2 – At Grade Route 79 Boulevard
Rating
Discussion
Rating
Discussion
• Highway production
time vs. No-Build
EJ: 8.3%
Non-EJ: 7.0%
• Highway production time vs.
No-Build
EJ: 8.3%
Non-EJ: 7.0%
• Highway attraction
time vs. No-Build:
EJ: 1.3%
Non-EJ: 1.2%
• Highway attraction time vs.
No-Build:
EJ: 1.3%
Non-EJ: 1.2%%
Legend
Benefits
Impacts
Neutral
Some
Moderate
Substantial
Evaluation Matrix – Community Effects
Alternatives
COMMUNITY
EFFECTS
No Build
Rating
Environmental
Justice –
Environmental
Impacts
Discussion
• No impacts
1 – Elevated Route 79
with Cross Connections
Rating
Discussion
3 – At Grade Route 79
with Frontage Roads
2 – At Grade Route 79 Boulevard
Rating
Discussion
Rating
Discussion
• VMT vs. No-Build
EJ: 4.6%
Non-EJ: 3.8%
• VMT vs. No-Build
EJ: 0.5%
Non-EJ: 3.1%
• VMT vs. No-Build
EJ: -2.0%
Non-EJ: 0.6%
• CO per square mile
vs. No-Build:
EJ: 4.3%
Non-EJ: 3.7%
• CO per square mile vs.
No-Build:
EJ: 0.2%
Non-EJ: 3.1%
• CO per square mile vs. NoBuild:
EJ: -2.0%
Non-EJ: 0.6%
• PM per square mile
vs. No-Build
EJ: 4.6%
Non-EJ: 3.7%
• PM per square mile vs.
No-Build
EJ: 0.7%
Non-EJ: 3.0%
• PM per square mile vs. NoBuild
EJ: -1.7%
Non-EJ: 0.6%
Legend
Benefits
Impacts
Neutral
Some
Moderate
Substantial
Comments Received After Public Information Meeting
Overwhelming support for Alternative 2
Shift Route 79 alignment to the west
Visual “wall” of buildings with their backs to boulevard
Reduce overall roadway width
Emphasize Turner Street as bike/ped feeder to waterfront
Convert U-turn ramp at the north end to ped/bike crossing
Consider pedestrian bridge over Route 79
Route 79 Alignment Shift to the West
Shift Route 79 alignment to the west
Full alignment shift
Partial alignment shift
Provision of landscaped buffer on the east side
Route 79 Alignment Shift to the West
Route 79 Alignment Shift to the West
Route 79 Alignment Shift to the West
Visual Wall of Buildings
Visual “wall” of buildings with their backs to boulevard
Should parking be provided on Route 79?
Should there be small landscaped parking areas?
Visual Wall of Buildings
Visual Wall of Buildings
Visual Wall of Buildings
Reduce Overall Roadway Width
Could Route 79 have two through lanes with turning lanes?
Is there a need for a second north-south road?
Reduce Overall Roadway Width
Emphasize Turner Street as Bike/Ped Feeder to Waterfront
Extend shared use path to Turner Street
Emphasize Turner Street as Bike/Ped Feeder to Waterfront
Add “Sharrow”
markings
Comments Received After Public Information Meeting
Convert U-turn ramp at the north end to ped/bike crossing
Convert U-Turn Ramp to Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing
Convert U-Turn Ramp to Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing
Convert U-Turn Ramp to Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing
Comments Received After Public Information Meeting
Consider pedestrian bridge over Route 79
Convert U-Turn Ramp to Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing
Requires Right-ofWay Taking
Convert U-Turn Ramp to Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing
Convert U-Turn Ramp to Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing
Questions
Questions or Comments?
www.mass.gov/massdot/route79