DATE: April 27, 2004

DATE OF MEETING: April 20, 2004

LOCATION OF MEETING: Bow Municipal Building
10 Grandview Road, Bow, NH

ATTENDED BY:

MEETING MINUTES:

The Agenda for the meeting is attached and the meeting generally followed the Agenda. These minutes are formatted to follow the Agenda Items.

1.0 Introductions

Eric Anderson opened the meeting and asked that all present give their names and the organizations/group which they represent.

2.0 Approval of Meeting No. 2 Minutes

The minutes from Meeting No. 2 were approved as submitted. A request was made to add the project website address to the minutes.

3.0 Project Update/Schedule

Don Lyford began by stating that the recent work on the project focused on the completion of the Base Year 2000 Model and beginning the process of defining a project problem statement. Ansel continued by stating the initial attempt to write a purpose and need statement for the project was met with confusion. The new process for the project will first develop a problem statement that will lead to a purpose and need statement. The goal for this project is to identify all major issues in the planning phase so that they will not have to be re-visited in the next phase.

Ansel mentioned that the City of Concord is currently working on their Opportunity Corridor Project. That effort will develop alternatives before this project does and the hope is that this project can benefit from their work. The NHDOT has and will continue to meet with the City’s consultant (Cecil Group) to remain aware of their activities.

Ansel then described the schedule for the upcoming months. The hope is that the brainstorming of ideas that will occur up to the summer can be further developed by the team over the summer. In the fall the committees can then begin to evaluate and screen the alternatives to determine which should be considered and which should not.

Ansel concluded by mentioning that there has been some confusion in Concord concerning the direction of all of the planning efforts. The new plan is to have broader public meetings where one study is the focus, but where all of the studies have a role. The meetings would have a presentation, but also booths where each study could have information. The first meeting should happen around June 8 with the Opportunity Corridor being the focus and I-93 having a role. Ansel also mentioned how we would like to replicate this concept in Bow and Pembroke. Discussions have taken place with Kerrie Diers to set up similar events in Bow and Pembroke. In Bow the main event could be the current study for Exit 1 and include the Route 3A Study, Bow’s Master Plan and this study. For Pembroke the main event could be Pembroke Hill Road and include Pembroke’s Master Plan and this study. The committee members felt that this was a good approach to reach the public.

4.0 Transportation Model

Gene began by stating that the work on the model has been delayed. The land use data for the Year 2000 developed by the state and by the City of Concord for their Master Plan is slightly different. The sub-committee working on land use is currently working on a compromise to resolve the differences. Once the land use numbers are agreed upon the Year 2000 model can be re-run and finalized.

Gene distributed several graphs of traffic count data for the I-93 corridor. The graphs represent the highest 200 hours of traffic on the section of I-93 between Exist 12 and 13 for 2003. There was a graph for the total and one each for southbound and northbound. On each graph the 30th highest hour was indicated. Gene mentioned that this graph was created to address comments at previous meetings pertaining to the appropriateness of the 30th highest hour being used for the design hour. Each of the graphs indicates that the 30th highest hour is on the “typical slope” of the graph. The graphs show the special event or peak weekend periods falling in the top 10 to 15 hours. Gene stated that this indicates that the 30th highest hour is an appropriate design hour period for the study.

Tom Raffio asked whether the current volume on I-93 indicates a problem. Is the roadway at capacity? Gene responded that the maximum capacity of a freeway lane is 2,200 vehicle per hour per lane. This equates to a capacity of 4,400 vehicles per hour in each direction. Gene continued by stating that the roadway is therefore at capacity for 30th highest hour in 2000.

Several committee members asked for information that explains the connection between capacity and level of service. Gene stated that this would be done when the final model volumes are complete.

5.0 TRC Land Use Sub-Committee

Gene explained that the Technical Review Committee has formed a sub-committee to address the land use for the model. The sub-committee has members from RPC who worked on the Bow and Pembroke Master Plans, City of Concord, RSG, NHDOT and others. The intent is to incorporate growth patterns established in the master plans into the model. This will ensure that the design year model will have the most current planning information for land use. S. Sharma added that an economic consultant is part of the team and his responsibility will be to evaluate the impact an alternative would have on land use and housing growth.

6.0 Planning Phase Overview

Gene began by stating this agenda item is to discuss the Proposed Approach for Planning Phase memo dated March 19, 2004. This memo was developed to outline a new approach for this project. Bill Hauser explained that the approach described in the memo is different from the traditional approach to project development. In the past, an environmental document would be prepared for a project that had been programmed in the ten-year plan , the purpose for which may or may not have been clearly identified. When it came time to measure the alternatives against the purpose and need it became confusing.

Bill continued by stating that for this project the planning is starting earlier so that we can understand the purpose and need of the project before alternatives are developed. The idea is to understand the problems that exist on I-93 and the opportunities that may also exist. The hope is that community desires can be included in the project. Bill did state that there would be no wish list of items, but that the project should be aware of community desires and try to incorporate them as much as is possible.

Bill next stated that screening criteria would be determined so that alternatives can be measured. The reasons why an alternative made it to the next phase or was eliminated will be based upon how they measure up to the screening criteria. This committee and the TRC will jointly determine the criteria.

Bill McGonagle asked if this approach has been tried in other places and whether examples of screening criteria are available. Bill Hauser said that it has been done and that examples are available. Gene stated that these examples would be posted on the project website prior to the next meeting.

Bill McGonagle mentioned a statement from the memo that reads “eliminate alternatives… are inconsistent with agency plans”. Bill McGonagle said that there is a belief in the community that the NHDOT has a plan for I-93 because it is programmed in the ten-year plan and that this planning process is for show. Tom Raffio asked what has been planned for the corridor. Ansel explained that the project was once known as the “Bow -Concord I-93 Widening Project” and is now known as simply the “Bow- Concord Project”. The ten-year plan has about $104 million programmed for this project even though we don’t know what the project is. The ten-year plan requires money to be programmed for design, land acquisition and construction for all projects. Ansel believes that the $104 million was an estimate developed as a placeholder based upon some improvements to the corridor.

Ansel explained that the NHDOT is trying to work on a plan to phase construction in a way to provide relief state-wide without having to be controlled by funding that occurs at a specific time. Gene stated that there is no pre-determined alternative for the project.

7.0 Identification of Problems

Gene stated that this is the first step in the project development process as described in the memo. The intent is to collect input on the problems people currently have with the corridor. This was begun by creating project displays that were presented at several recent public events. At these events the public was encouraged to submit written comments or to place orange dots on the project map. A map was shown that included all the orange dots placed at the public meetings. Gene described some of the areas where many dots were placed. These areas include Exit 1 on I-89, the connection to Route 106, the weaves at Exits14 and 15, and some others.

Gene then asked the committee members for their personal opinion on the problems as well as those heard from their constituents. Below is a list of the issues mentioned.

8.0 General Discussion

Tom Raffio mentioned that this project has been discussed at the Concord Chamber of Commerce meetings but that they do not have much information to present. It was mentioned that as the project continues there will be more to present and that maybe a presentation to the chamber might be possible.

Nan Hagen mentioned that Exit 14 is extremely imported to downtown Concord and that keeping it open is important.

Pat Sherman reminded the committee that Concord 2020’s vision was for a City of Villages. She wants to know if this concept will be part of the model. Bill McGonagle mentioned that the land use discussions as part of the City’s Master Plan have included the village concept. Gene stated that this study would rely on the city to dictate the land use assumptions for the model for the different areas throughout the city.

9.0 Public Comments/Input

Dick Heath reiterated the safety problems that exist on Exit 1 on I-89. He also asked if there would be a traffic benefit of the Route 106 Connector. Don Lyford mentioned that part of the study would be to see whether the connector could reduce the capacity needs on I-93.

Eric Anderson mentioned that the access to Garvin’s Falls and Route 3A might be better accomplished by an interchange south of I-89. Gene commented that an interchange south of I-89, along with other proposed interchanges that came out of Concord 2020, would be evaluated as part of this study to determine their affect on I-93.

Howard Moffett reminded the committee that Concord 2020 spent a great deal of time studying I-93 and came up with some ideas that need to be considered. He mentioned that I-93 works well for the high speed through traffic but not for the local traffic. He also reiterated the opportunity that exists to re-connect downtown to the river.

10.0 Next CATF Meeting

It was decided that the next meeting should occur in May and would focus on discussing the screening criteria. It was also mentioned that a meeting in June could focus on brainstorming alternatives. Ansel mentioned the idea of combined CATF/TRC meeting has been discussed and that the meeting in June might be a good opportunity for it. It was decided to have members respond to an e-mail message as to times they could attend.

Submitted by,
Gene McCarthy, P.E.
McFarland-Johnson, Inc.