ROUTE 79/DAVOL STREET CORRIDOR STUDY
Summary of Working Group (WG) meeting
November 7, 2013, 4:00-6:10 p.m.
Boys & Girls Club of Fall River
803 Bedford Street
Fall River, MA
Ethan Britland, MassDOT Project Manager, welcomed attendees to the sixth meeting of the Working
Group (WG) for the Route 79/Davol Street Corridor Study. The purpose of the meeting was to review
and get feedback on the analysis of three alternatives identified for further study at the June 27, 2013
Working Group meeting. Since June, the alternatives have undergone extensive traffic modeling and an
assessment of what level of development the roadway designs could support. Ethan said this study
resulted in slight modifications to some intersections.
Lenny Velichansky of TranSystems explained the three alternatives in detail. They are:
Alternative 1: Elevated Route 79








Route 79 remains elevated but moved east
North and South Davol Streets remain
5 new parcels created - 10.1 acres
5 new bridges
4 street (3 new) connections to waterfront – Turner St, South Coast Rail, President Ave,
Brownell
Access to Brightman Street from North Davol Street
Brightman Street two-way with direct access to northbound Route 79
Shared use bicycle and pedestrian path throughout area with connection to Veterans
Memorial Bridge path
Alternative 2: Urban Boulevard






Elevated Route 79 removed, converted into a boulevard and moved east
5 new parcels created – 10.6 acres
All bridges removed except u-turn from northbound to southbound Davol Street near
Brightman Street
4 street (3 new) connections to waterfront – Turner St, South Coast Rail, President Ave,
Corey St
Landscaped median
Brightman Street two-way with direct access to northbound Route 79 and southbound
Davol Street



Southbound Davol two-way
Northbound Davol eliminated
Shared use bicycle and pedestrian path throughout area with connection to Veterans
Memorial Bridge path
Alternative 3: Boulevard with Frontage Roads








Elevated Route 79 removed, converted into a boulevard with frontage roads and moved
east
6 new parcels created – 15 acres
All bridges removed
4 street (3 new) connections to waterfront – Turner St, South Coast Rail, President Ave,
Corey St
Grass median
Brightman Street two-way with direct access to/from northbound Route 79
Northbound Davol one-way; southbound Davol one-way south of President Avenue
U-turn ramp from northbound to southbound Davol Street near Brightman Street
removedShared use bicycle and pedestrian path throughout area with connection to
Veterans Memorial Bridge path
After reviewing all the alternatives, Lenny described the evaluation matrix used by the study team. Key
elements that were evaluated were: mobility, safety, health and environmental effects, land use and
economic development, community effects and cost. All three alternatives are feasible but vary in
impacts.
There was substantive discussion among the Working Group about the merits of each alternative, some
disagreement over values underlying the criteria and an eagerness expressed by a few to make a
decision on an alternative so the study could move forward. The following is a summary of questions or
comments, with the response by the study team in italics.
Alternative 3
On Alternate 3, what’s the vehicular/pedestrian and bicycle access to the Brightman Street area and the
neighborhoods around it?
Northbound: direct access to and from Route 79; southbound: left onto Lindsey and right onto Corey;
direct access from Brightman Street to the waterfront can’t be done without grade separation.
In Alternative 3 as a practical matter there cannot be much development. Our perception of a boulevard
would have more open space between the lanes. Can you open up the design to have more space? It
would improve aesthetics if it would be spread out.
Additional space would require downsizing the development parcels, resulting in questionable usable
depth.
In Alternative 3, can the overpass be left as a pedestrian walkover?
The piers for the elevated ramp are not compatible with the road design and would have to be removed.
Is there any way to get a pedestrian and bicycle connection to parcel 6? I look at what’s happening next
to the Brightman Bridge on the Somerset side and it would be nice to also have something in Fall River.
The federal government is not likely to take down the ramp, about 2-3 years old, so we should not be
looking at Alternative 3.
We looked at taking down the ramp in Alternative 3 as requested by the Working Group. The Brightman
Street access configuration is interchangeable with Alternative 2.
Why would Alternative 3 only be able to handle traffic for 15% development?
The traffic signals with a boulevard with frontage roads are less efficient as they require complicated
signal phasing; Route 79 would have to operate on a separate phase from frontage roads. Otherwise
there would be conflicts between right hand turns from the boulevard with vehicles on the frontage
roads. Also, in this Alternative Route 79 is only two lanes as compared to Alternative 2 which has three
lanes.
Is parcel 6 in a flood plain?
No.
I like Alternative 3. The boulevard should have two lanes maximum in either direction. There should be
things for people to see on either side of the street.
I think we’ll have significant push back from the feds about taking down the ramp. I don’t think that is a
fight we can win. Also, MassDOT will want to see that there is a good reason to justify taking down
Route 79.
We need more information on set backs, the building envelope, and images of what would the
boulevard look like. Is it a real boulevard?
Alternative 2 is not really an urban boulevard. As we get along in the process we see that we’re not
getting a lot of development. We shouldn’t pull everything east. The emphasis on the waterfront is
misplaced as that area is only active three months of the year. Development should be closer to the
neighborhood as it will have a greater impact.
The lots shown in the design aren’t too narrow for development but if the boulevard is opened up it
would impact development potential.
I want to see a road with equal development and activity on both sides. I don’t want there to be a brick
wall to the neighborhoods.
Evaluation Criteria
I do not agree with your mobility evaluation criteria. Your idea is that fast is good, slow is bad. From my
perspective I’m not interested in cars getting from A to B in the fastest amount of time. It’s about
slowing down and seeing what’s around.
This criteria is not about speed. It’s about congestion, “travel time”. This criteria looks at how long it
takes vehicles to get through the intersections.
I would like you to change the symbols on your legend. Forty years ago people stopped the West Side
highway in New York City. Now, with less emphasis on vehicles, the neighborhood flourishes.
We have a highway that comes through our neighborhood. You have to consider that people live here
and how major roads break up communities, impacting how people live.
We disagree that slowing traffic down is a “failure” as show in red on your evaluation matrix. Please
present this differently.
Presentation of Alternatives
Would you show the development potential of the individual parcels, what is the acreage?
Your presentation of alternatives is too one-dimensional. You can’t see the grades.
We would like to see better coloring on the maps. Show development on the east side of Davol Street.
I’d like to see a plan drawing of what the street would look like at street level.
General
The east side of Davol Street has potential for redevelopment as its now privately owned.
Is it possible to consider opening up Corey on North Main to the waterfront? It is very congested with
the school property. There is a railroad crossing but other communities seem to be able to deal with at
grade crossings. Trains would not be traveling fast as it’s close to South Coast Rail Station.
An at-grade crossing will not likely be allowed. If the road was brought over the tracks it would result in a
lot of Right-of-Way takings.
Is the goal of this committee to get to a “like” for an alternative; is there a timeline for this group to
come to a consensus?
We’re here to balance interests. We would like consensus but there will always be challenges.
Is it possible to combine pieces of Alternative 2 and 3?
If we don’t agree on something, we will get nothing. We don’t want to go backwards.
Near the end of the meeting Amy Getchell, MassDOT Project Manager for the Route 79/Braga Bridge
Improvements Project announced to the Working Group that the project has just started and that
detours would begin on November 12th. Amy passed around information with maps on the detour route.
The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
In attendance:
Brian Pearson, Fall River Bicycle Committee
Pedro Amaral, Office of State Senator Michael Rodriques
Steven Camara, Lower Highlands/Highlands Neighborhood Associations
Lisa Estrela-Pedro, Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District
Jean Fox, MassDOT (South Coast Rail)
Byron Holmes, City of Fall River
Thomas Lowney, Fall River resident
Bill Travers, MassDOT District 5
Pamela Haznar, MassDOT District 5
James Bartley, Lower Highland Neighborhood Association
Anthony Vielleux, Rep. Schmid’s office
Rep Paul Schmid
Liz Dennehy, Fall River City Planning
Tony Dias, North End Neighborhood Association
Rob Mellion, Fall River Chamber of Commerce
Larry Pare, Fall River South End Association
Representative Carole Fiola
Al Lima, Fall River Bicycle Committee
Peter Davey, Rep. Carole Fiola’s office
Ken Fiola, Fall River Economic Development
Kris Bartley, North End Neighborhood Association
Project Team
Ethan Britland, MassDOT Project Manager
Lenny Velichansky, TranSystems
Teresa Sandell, TranSystems
Jill Barrett, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.
Sudhir Murthy, TrafInfo
Deanna Peabody, TrafInfo
Margaret Collins, Cambridge Economic Research
MassDOT
Amy Getchell