ROUTE 79/DAVOL STREET CORRIDOR STUDY
Summary of Working Group (WG) meeting
December 19, 2013, 4:00-5:20 p.m.
Boys & Girls Club of Fall River
803 Bedford Street
Fall River, MA
Ethan Britland, MassDOT Project Manager, welcomed attendees to the seventh meeting of the Working
Group (WG) for the Route 79/Davol Street Corridor Study. The purpose of the meeting was to review
comments on the refined alternatives received at and following the second Public Informational
Meeting, environmental justice analysis conducted on the alternative and preliminary feedback by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Ethan Britland said that FHWA did not typically provide
informal comment at this stage in a planning project but their review presented the planning team an
opportunity to address concerns early. Addressing FHWA’s concerns may push the completion date of
the study, due to wrap up the end of December, out a couple of months but, in Ethan’s view, may
ultimately speed the process along. FHWA had the following observations about the refined
alternatives:




In Alternative 1, did the study consider retaining Route 79 on its existing alignment and
designing the new proposed east/west cross streets to go under the existing Route 79?
In Alternative 2, the cross-section of boulevard had too much pavement. FHWA inquired
whether a four-lane boulevard would be feasible as opposed to the currently proposed 6-lane
boulevard.
In Alternative 3, FHWA would want to be compensated for the cost of the U-turn ramp.
Financial compensation for the return of right-of-way would also apply to all the alternatives.
In all three alternatives there appears to be many driveway conflicts on the west side of the
shared use path. Is it possible to eliminate South Davol Street?
Lenny Velichansky of TranSystems presented the results of the team’s environmental justice analysis. He
explained that projects undertaken with federal funds have to assess whether or not certain population
groups are disproportionately affected by the project. Environmental justice populations were
determined within the study area by income (median income at or below $39,399), minority status (25%
or greater minority population) or Limited English Proficiency (7.61% or higher). Three criteria used in
the analysis were: access to jobs and needed services, mobility and congestion and environmental
impacts (such as air quality). The analysis concluded that all the alternatives proposed would not
adversely affect environmental justice populations more than non-environmental justice populations. A
committee member asked if this was advantageous for the project and the response from MassDOT was
affirmative.
For the remainder of the presentation Lenny responded to public and Working Group comments
submitted after the public information meeting held on November 21, 2013. He reported that the
majority of people who commented favored Alternative 2. Questions or concerns were raised in these
areas: consider shifting the alignment of Route 79 to the west; concern about the visual “wall” of
1
buildings with their backs to boulevard; consider reducing the overall roadway width; emphasize Turner
Street as bike/ped feeder route to the waterfront; convert the U-turn ramp at the north end (near
Veterans Memorial Bridge) to a ped/bike crossing and consider constructing a pedestrian bridge over
Route 79. The following is a discussion of design issues raised by the public and the response by the
study team.
Shift Route 79 alignment to the west
The alignment can be shifted 10—20 feet to create a landscape buffer between Route 79 and businesses
on the east side. Lenny said the study team understands there is a need to balance development and
aesthetics. He noted that something to keep in mind is that already Alternative 2 supports only 85% of
the maximum allowable development size, so the amount of land given over to a buffer would reduce it
further. How much the road can be shifted will be determined by the environmental process. Ken Fiola
said as the planning process matures that there will be more give and take on the design, especially
working with federal highway. Rep. Carole Fiola asked if the roadway layout would be part of the next
phase. Ethan Britland responded that the team wanted to resolve as many design elements as possible
in this phase.
Visual “wall” of buildings with their backs to boulevard and parking
Lenny explained that the rendering of buildings developed for the public meeting was limited in what it
could show. He said buildings could have the same look or “frontage” on both sides. Offering on-street
parking would add pavement, already a concern expressed by many, and may raise safety concerns as
the boulevard would be a busy road. It would also increase crossing distances for pedestrians.
Landscaped parking areas are not only possible but desirable. On-street parking would also limit the
width of sidewalks, offering less capability for sidewalk seating. A committee member suggested
outdoor amenities should be a priority.
An eastside business owner expressed concern that the potential development may create a visual
barrier to the waterfront for properties on the east side.
Reduce overall roadway width
The three-lane boulevard was proposed to maximize development capacity. A two-lane road would
reduce development capacity and function. Ethan remarked that Federal Highway has issues with the
north/south access roads. Ken Fiola responded that if capacity were not an issue, then it would enable
deeper lots along the waterfront.
Emphasize Turner Street as bike/ped feeder to waterfront
In response to this comment, a shared use path along the east side of Route 79 has been extended
further south from Fall River Depot to Turner Street and then westward along Turner Street.
2
Convert U-turn ramp at the north end to ped/bike crossing
Ethan Britland said that FHWA did not offer objections to the removal of this ramp for use by vehicles.
FHWA’s concern was financial – they expected to be reimbursed for what was spent on this ramp
(possibly in the order of $10 million). Ethan said that he did not ask FHWA if the money would need to
be repaid if the ramp remained as a transportation facility for other modes – bicyclists and pedestrians.
Ken Fiola said the he thought the red tape to convert the U-turn to a pedestrian/bike bridge would be
immense. He added if the ramp was kept as is, it makes land parcels more developable. Jamie Fosburgh
said he saw substantial benefit for improving bike/ped access to the waterfront but it only makes sense
if the north/south road was eliminated.
Consider pedestrian bridge over Route 79
In response to a request to consider building a pedestrian bridge over the boulevard, the Study Team
demonstrated what would be required to make the bridge accessible near Cory and Lindsey Streets. In
addition to needing two 300-foot ramps to get people up and down the bridge, some right-of-way
would be needed and the path connecting the bridge to the waterfront would split a development
parcel unless the path could be worked into the developer’s design. Working Group members indicated
that they did not want to pursue an elevated bridge.
There was additional discussion about FHWA’s concern that there were numerous conflicts on the
shared use path with driveways on north/south road on the west (waterfront) side. Fall River resident
Thomas Lowney noted that there were lots of crossings on the shared use path to Bristol. He said it is
well used. People know to stop at crossings and drivers look for cyclists. Another Working Group
member saw a problem for property owners with eliminating the north/south road if their frontage was
eliminated. It was noted, however, that most of these properties currently are accessed by side drives.
Ethan Britland said that he hoped to come back to the Working Group in January. Ethan said that
MassDOT received detailed comments from Commonwealth Landing that it did not have a chance to
review before this meeting. He also wanted to review FHWA’s concerns and develop a response to
them. It was suggested the Advanced Technologies Manufacturing Center had suitable meeting space
and parking for a public meeting.
Ken Fiola reiterated that he expected MassDOT Secretary Davey would maintain his commitment of
directing $1.5 million in earmarked funds towards this project so that it could keep moving forward.
Ethan Britland responded that the funds are still available.
The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
In attendance:
Brian Pearson, Fall River Bicycle Committee
Pedro Amaral, Office of State Senator Michael Rodriques
Byron Holmes, City of Fall River
3
Thomas Lowney, Fall River resident
Bill Travers, MassDOT District 5
James Bartley, Lower Highland Neighborhood Association
State Representative Paul Schmid
Larry Pare, Fall River South End Association
State Representative Carole Fiola
Ken Fiola, Fall River Economic Development
Jamie Fosburgh, National Park Service
David Dennis, Fall River City Council
Tony DaSilva, Fall River City Council-elect
Project Team
Ethan Britland, MassDOT Project Manager
Joe Cahill, TranSystems
Lenny Velichansky, TranSystems
Teresa Sandell, TranSystems
Jill Barrett, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.
Margaret Collins, Cambridge Economic Research
4