I-95 South Corridor Transportation Study
Study Advisory Group Meeting
Thursday, October 29, 2009
3:00 PM
Bass Pro Shops Community Room
One Patriot Place, Foxborough, Massachusetts
Attendance
Study Advisory Group Members and Public who signed in:
Rep. F. Jay Barrows
State Representative, First Bristol District
Jim Gallagher
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Mark Hallowell
Town of North Attleborough
Eric Hooper
Town of Sharon
Sue McQuaid
Neponset Valley Chamber of Commerce (NVCC)
Stephanie Mercandetti Town of Walpole
Paul Mission
Southeastern Regional Planning & Econ. Dev. District
(SRPEDD)
Steve Olanoff
Town of Westwood
Rep. Betty Poirier
State Representative, Fourteenth Bristol District
Joe Rich
Office of Congressman Stephen Lynch
Mark Ryan
Town of Norwood
Gary St. Fleur
MassRIDES
Margaret Walker
Town of Walpole
Massachusetts Department of Transportation Staff:
Tim Kochan
Highway Division – District 5
Paul Nelson
Office of Transportation Planning, Study Project Manager
Consultant Team:
Ken Livingston
Rob Nagi
Michael Sutton
Richard Adams
Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc.
VHB, Consultant Team Project Manager
VHB
VHB
Meeting Summary
Mr. Nelson opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and introducing the Consultant
Team members to the audience. To be able to get through all of the alternatives in two
hours, Mr. Nelson briefly discussed the entire project process and turned the presentation
over to Mr. Nagi. Mr. Nagi first stated the study is examining both constructible
alternatives to improve safety and operations along the roadways and policies and
programs to affect travel patterns and transportation mode choice within the study area.
Policies and programs that encourage use of non-single occupancy vehicle transportation
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
Page 1 of 5
November 2009
I-95 South Corridor Transportation Study
October 29, 2009 SAG Meeting
modes are grouped under the term Transportation Demand Management (TDM). The
study team is considering a variety of TDM improvements in the corridor including
upgrades to existing services like the MBTA commuter rail network and new services or
policies such as a park-and-ride network to support carpooling or new land use
regulations in the study area communities. Mr. Nagi provided an overview of the TDM
measures being considered and stated that more in-depth information will follow.
Without any comments, Mr. Nagi began to discuss the specific alternatives developed by
VHB and started with the I-95 mainline portion.
Mr. Nagi explained the seven I-95 mainline alternatives and the supporting analysis. Mr.
Nagi then presented the short-term and long-term suggested alternatives. The short-term
alternative would bring the mainline up to meet current design standards where possible.
The long-term alternative would widen the mainline to four lanes in each direction in
three segments. Opposition to the recommended and suggested alternatives was raised
by Steve Olanoff. Steve questioned the addition of a fourth lane and the use of
breakdown lanes. Steve said that we shouldn’t be discussing either of these long-term
alternatives. He said that breakdown lane use, which is a precursor to lane widening,
doesn’t work and is proven. Mr. Nagi reiterated that widening the I-95 mainline to four
lanes is the suggested alternative for the year 2030 if/when the traffic volumes dictate the
need for them, but highlighted that there are a number of other TDM strategies that
should be implemented prior to the addition of a lane along I-95.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-95 exit 1 alternatives. Mr. Nagi briefly discussed the
considered alternatives and then described the three short-term alternatives and the longterm alternative to remove the interchange. There was no opposition to any of the
suggested alternatives. There was a question to clarify the figure label on the southbound
off-ramp label which Mr. Nagi explained was just the label for the ramp number.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-95 exit 2 alternatives. Mr. Nagi briefly discussed the
considered alternatives and then described the two short-term alternatives and the longterm alternative to construct a partial cloverleaf interchange. Mr. Nagi described the two
proposed signals to which Mr. Nelson suggested pulling the proposed signals in towards
the I-95 mainline to provide more distance from the residential areas around the
interchange. No comments were given on any of the exit 2 alternatives.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-95 exit 3 alternatives. Mr. Nagi briefly discussed the
considered alternatives and then described the short-term, medium-term, and long-term
alternatives. No comments were given on any of the exit 3 alternatives.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-95 exit 4 alternatives. Mr. Nagi briefly discussed the
considered alternatives and then described the three short-term, medium-term, and longterm alternatives. A question was asked by State Representative Jay Barrows regarding
the design speed of high speed to high speed ramp connections. Mr. Sutton responded
that the design speed is usually 55 mph. No other opposition was raised. Due to the
limited time remaining, Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Nagi to touch only on the suggested
alternatives.
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
Page 2 of 5
November 2009
I-95 South Corridor Transportation Study
October 29, 2009 SAG Meeting
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-95 exit 5 suggested alternatives. Mr. Nagi explained the
signage issue in which southbound drivers actually see the exit 4 sign before exit 5. Mr.
Nagi also explained the proposed park-and-ride area at the former Triboro Theater parcel
west of the interchange. Mark Hallowell asked what the primary use of a park-and-ride
facility. Mr. Nelson explained that this particular park-and-ride facility would be
primarily used for Carpools/Vanpools and commuter busses. Mr. Nagi was asked what
the timeline was for the suggested alternatives. Mr. Nagi explained the estimated
timeline for short-term, medium-term, and long-term alternatives. No comments were
given on any of the exit 5 alternatives.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-95 exit 6 suggested alternatives. Mr. Nagi, before
explaining the long-term and very long-term alternatives, reiterated that the timeline for
these suggestions are for the year 2030 and beyond. He again placed emphasis on the
global recommendations and the idea of reducing demand. No comments were given on
any of the exit 6 alternatives.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-95 exit 7 suggested alternatives. Mr. Nagi explained the
safety issues at Fisher Street and the weaving movements. Mr. Nagi explained the two
proposed signals that might slow down traffic on Route 140. A question was asked if the
proposed traffic signals would create new safety issues. Mr. Nagi explained that
removing the weaving movements and adding the signals is probably safer than the
weaving movements. Mr. Nelson suggested that the proposed traffic signals only control
left turn vehicles, similar to Route 9 in Framingham. Mr. Nagi, Mr. Sutton, and Mr.
Nelson explained that the current layout of Route 140 near the exit 7 ramps allows for
faster driving speeds. They also explained that the proposed signals may not significantly
improve operations but will create a safer interchange.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-95 exit 8 suggested alternatives. Mr. Nagi explained the
two short term alternatives. No comments were given on any of the exit 8 alternatives.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-95 exit 9 suggested alternatives. Mr. Nagi explained the
existing issues with this interchange. Mr. Nagi explained the short-term alternatives and
the possible locations of the park-and-ride lots. Mr. Nagi explained the very long-term
alternative which would eliminate the weaving movements along Route 1. No comments
were given on any of the exit 9 alternatives.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-95 exit 10 suggested alternatives. Mr. Nagi explained the
short-term alternative and long-term alternative. Mr. Nagi explained that the completion
of the Coney Street interchange would result in a net reduction of traffic volume at the
exit 9 interchange and the completion of the Coney Street interchange may require the
bridge to be expanded which would significantly increase the cost of the alternative. Mr.
Nelson stated that roundabouts instead of the proposed signals would be a cheaper
alternative because the bridge may not have to be expanded. No comments were given
on any of the exit 10 alternatives.
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
Page 3 of 5
November 2009
I-95 South Corridor Transportation Study
October 29, 2009 SAG Meeting
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-95 exit 11 suggested alternatives. Mr. Nagi explained the
issues at Wedgewood Drive and the benefits of optimizing the traffic signals. Mr. Nagi
explained the long-term alternatives. State Representative Jay Barrows asked what it
would take to optimize those signals now. State Rep Barrows confirmed that the ramp
intersections and intersections to the east are very congested. Mr. Nagi and Mr. Sutton
explained the process to update/optimize a traffic signal. Mr. Nelson stated that the I93/I-95 connection may improve this interchange and Mr. Olanoff agreed. Mr. Nelson
stated the slip ramp would provide relief at exit 11 as well.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-95 slip ramp at Dedham Street. No improvements were
proposed and no comments were raised.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the I-495 exit 11/12, 14, and 15 suggested short-term
alternatives. No comments were raised. This concluded the presentation for the I-95
mainline, I-95 interchange, and I-495 interchange sections. Mr. Nagi asked if there were
any more questions or comments regarding these sections. Mr. Nagi then proceeded to
the Route 1 alternatives presentation.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the short-term alternatives at the intersection of Route 1 and
Route 123. No comments were raised.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the Route 1 at Route 1A/Elmwood Street alternatives. Mr. Nagi
explained that traffic counts were obtained at the intersection of Route 1A and Whiting
Street which helped to analyze the long-term alternatives. No comments were raised.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the Route 1 at East Street / Main Street alternatives. Mr. Nagi
explained the five suggested short-term alternatives. No comments were raised.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the Route 1 at Route 27 / High Plain Street alternatives. Mr.
Nagi explained the five suggested short-term alternatives. No comments were raised.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the Route 1 at Coney Street alternatives. Mr. Nagi explained the
four suggested short-term alternatives and long-term alternative. No comments were
raised.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the Route 1 at Dean Street alternatives. Mr. Nagi explained both
short-term alternatives. Ms. Sue McQuaid said that this intersection is poorly designed
and very dangerous. Ms. McQuaid said that signage is poor especially in the southbound
direction on Dean Street. She also stated that the access and egress to the Ocean State
Job Lot parking area is dangerous. Mr. Nagi explained that the short-term alternatives
address some of the safety deficiencies.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the Route 1 at Everett Street / University Avenue alternatives.
Mr. Tim Kochan from the MassHighway District 5 stated that there is a need for
improvement at this intersection. Mr. Kochan said there is a Proejct Need Form is soon
to follow. Capacity needs to be added to Everett Street, possible dual left turn lanes,
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
Page 4 of 5
November 2009
I-95 South Corridor Transportation Study
October 29, 2009 SAG Meeting
reconstruction of the median and street light improvements. A number of consultants
including Tetra Tech, Fort Hill, and Jack Gillen have analyzed this intersection with three
Route 1 through lanes which yielded a LOS of C. Grade separating the northbound lanes
of Route 1 was then discussed. Mr. Olanoff did not think the design of the grade
separation done solely for the restaurants should dictate the entire design.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the Route 1 at Elm Street alternatives. Mr. Nagi explained the
short-term and medium-term alternatives. No comments were raised.
Mr. Nagi then discussed the Route 1 at Washington Street alternatives. Mr. Nagi
explained the short-term and medium term alternatives. No comments were raised. This
concluded the specific alternatives portion of the presentation.
Mr. Nagi asked if there were any more questions or comments. Mr. Olanoff wanted the
team to look into more alternatives for the intersections of Route 1 at Eastern Avenue and
Route 1 at Washington Street. There were no other comments or questions and Mr. Nagi
turned the meeting over to Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Nelson stated that the public informational meetings will likely occur in early or mid
December. Mr. Nelson stated that he would like to have the project completed before the
end of the year. Mr. Nelson asked the advisory group to think of ways to increase
attendance to the public meetings. Prior to the public informational meetings, MassDOT
will be scheduling community outreach meetings with officials from the cities and towns
in the study area.
Action Items:
1. Look into the three Route 1 at Everett Street studies
2. Schedule the public informational meetings
3. Schedule community outreach meetings with town officials
4. Develop strategies to encourage attendance at public informational meetings
MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning
Page 5 of 5
November 2009