DATE: June 15, 2004

DATE OF MEETING: May 26, 2004

LOCATION OF MEETING: Pembroke Town Hall
311 Pembroke Street, Pembroke, 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

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

2.0 Approval of Meeting No.3 Minutes

The minutes from Meeting No.3 were approved as submitted.

3.0 Transportation Model

Gene McCarthy stated that the Base Year 2000 model was nearly complete. There were some delays due to two versions of how jobs were distributed within Concord. This has been resolved and the new values are being incorporated into the model.

Gene then distributed a graphic that has been developed to help explain traffic volumes and Level of Service (LOS). The graphic is based upon the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and gives values for the expected capacity of I-93 for the range of service levels.

Eric Anderson mentioned that the photos were difficult to understand because they show both sides of the highway. He thought it would be better to show only one side. Gene mentioned that the photos came out of the HCM. He also stated that the plan is to take photos of I-93 at the different LOS’s.

4.0 Project Challenges and Opportunities

Gene distributed that latest version of the Project Challenges and Opportunities document. He mentioned that the current document was once called the Problem and Opportunity Statement but the project team changed the name to be more positive. Gene stated that the document is a summary of the meetings to date involving the public and the project committees. He asked if there were any questions, comments or additions.

Bill McGonagle asked where the excess speed on I-89 occurs. Gene responded that it occurs near Exit 1 and this would be clarified.

Steve Buckley mentioned the number of trucks that use Route 3A and enter I-93 at Exit 12. Eric stated that the trucks use Route 3A to avoid the Hooksett Tolls. Ansel mentioned that there will be a meeting in Bow on June 14 and that the Route 3A Study will participate.

Ansel decided to discuss the meetings planned for the month of June. On June 8 the City of Concord will have a forum that will focus on the Opportunity Corridor. The meeting is structured with an open house from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. The open house will include displays from many of the current studies, including the Bow-Concord I-93 Study. Other projects include MasterPlan Concord, the NHDOT Community Outreach Program, the NHDOT Incident Management Program, and several other city studies. Concord 2020 and CNHRPC will also participate. There will then be a presentation on the Opportunity Corridor at 7:00 p.m. that will be introduced by Jim Bouley. The concept is to use a “hook” project, in this case the Opportunity Corridor, and use it as an opportunity to introduce other projects to the public.

Ansel went on to say that it has been decided to use this concept in both Bow and Pembroke. A meeting is scheduled for June 14 in Bow and June 21 in Pembroke. For the Bow meeting, Exit 1 will be the “hook” and all of the NHDOT projects will be included as well as the Bow Master Plan. The NHDOT Route 3A Study will also be part of the Bow Meeting. There will then be a presentation on the Exit 1 Safety Surveillance Study at 7:00 p.m. Eric Anderson will open the presentation. For the Pembroke meeting, Pembroke Hill Road will be the “hook” and all of the NHDOT projects will be included as well as the Pembroke Master Plan.

Bill McGonagle asked whether noise had been mentioned as a problem on the river. Gene stated that some residents in Bow had mentioned it but not in regards to the river. This will be added to the document.

Howard Moffett mentioned that Economic Vitality was mentioned as a challenge but not an opportunity. Gene stated that this is true and that opportunity will be included.

5.0 Alternative Screening Criteria

Gene distributed that latest version of the Alternative Screening Criteria document. He explained that the criteria would be developed to weed out alternatives that have fatal flaws or are not reasonable. Steve Buckley asked why not use a scoring system. Gene responded that the screening would be more qualitative because this phase of the project is not aimed towards selecting an alternative. The purpose it to develop a reasonable range of alternatives and it is not necessary to rank them.

Roger Hawk stated that the process is subjective. The hope is that a consensus can be reached.

Howard Moffett asked whether certain criteria would have more weight. Gene mentioned that quantitative screening is more appropriate when trying to select an alternative. Because the purpose is to select a range of alternatives, the screening for this phase will be more qualitative. The hope is that fatal flaws will be apparent. Howard also mentioned that the natural environment it is important to the community both in terms of preservation and access.

Ansel then stated that the meeting on June 24 would “test drive” the criteria. The plan for the meeting is to use the criteria to evaluate an alternative that would be developed during the meeting. The purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness of the criteria.

6.0 General Discussion

The meeting on June 24 was discussed further. Ansel mentioned that the meeting has several goals. One is to brainstorm alternatives that should be evaluated. This will allow MJ to further develop alternatives over the summer. And as discussed earlier one goal is to fine-tune the screening criteria.

Steve Buckley mentioned that it might be wise to invite some of the other communities. He mentioned that they might have different concerns than those of the abutter communities. It was decided to invite the surrounding communities to the meeting. Steve will mention it at the CNHRPC annual meeting on June 9.

7.0 Public Comments/Input

None

8.0 Public Comments/Input

The next meeting will be the “Summit” meeting on June 24. It was decided that 4:00 p.m. would be a fair time to begin the meeting.

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