Gene mentioned that some comments were not incorporated
into the criteria. The most interesting of these was how
to deal with secondary growth. It was felt this was too
difficult to evaluate at this time and that the purpose
of this screening is to identify reasonableness not select
the preferred alternative.
It was mentioned that a negative impact could be defined
differently by different communities or groups. Gene mentioned
that the comment section beneath each category would be
used to clarify issues, provide additional information
or describe any disagreements. He also stated that the
criteria would not be used for a few months and that additional
refinements can be made.
Gene
then asked for the committee’s opinion on the
Planning Summit. He stated that the project team had heard
good reports from groups and individuals that attended
and are considering having more of these types of meetings.
Bill McGonagle said he thought there was a good mix of
people present. He also stated that the public is more
interested when real alternatives are involved.
Roger stated that there was some frustration because the
sample alternative was too complex. He also asked whether
the components of an alternative would be screened or the
overall concept. Gene stated that the current intent is
to have an evaluation of the entire concept. However, the
impacts of a concept would be the total of the impacts
of its components and therefore the direct impacts of the
components would be known.
Pat Sherman mentioned that the pros and cons of each option
need to be presented to the public. They also need to know
that several reasonable alternatives/options/strategies
that meet the purpose and need of the project will be carried
forward. Pat also asked whether alternatives could be posted
on the project web site where the public could review them
and submit comments. Gene stated that this should be feasible.
5.0
Draft Purpose and Need
Gene began by saying that the Draft Purpose
and Need that was distributed is a first draft and that
the final Purpose and Need statement will not come until
the end of this phase of the project. He stated that
the format of the document follows guideline for preparation
of Purpose and Need statements.
Pat Sherman mentioned that each of the Need paragraphs
had a subject and maybe the subject should be included
as a heading. She also commented that I-93 also provides
a link for tourist travel to Vermont and Maine. She commented
that there are other buses in the region that should
not be forgotten.
Bill McGonagle commented that the document seemed to
follow a formula and was this intentional. Gene stated
that the guidelines have certain requirements and one
recommendation is that they should be broad in order
to cover all potential solutions.
6.0
Approach to Developing Alternatives
Gene distributed a document entitled Approach
to Corridor Planning. Gene described this new approach
that is under consideration. He described that the traditional
approach to corridor planning is to conduct a study that
evaluates the need for a corridor for a future design
year. In the case of this corridor the design year is
2030 and the construction year is currently around 2013.
Therefore, if the traditional approach is taken no improvements
would begin for about 10 years and would accommodate
a future need about 30 years into the future.
The new approach would implement an overall corridor
concept in phases. Near-term improvements could be implemented
that could provide benefit to the public immediately.
Mid-term improvements could provide necessary improvement
to handle the need for about the next ten years. The
long-term improvements would be implemented at a time
when they are necessary. Also, the phased approach allows
you to re-evaluate the need as improvements are implemented.
This will hopefully allow for a better long-term solution.
Ansel Sanborn mentioned that Route 16 has an advisory
committee that meets periodically to discuss the needs
of the corridor. This model could be used for I-93 in
the Central NH Region to manage the corridor. This approach
can potentially be used to better manage the available
funding for projects because projects could be funded
on an as needed basis and not based upon some future
need that is not certain. He mentioned that on October
8 the NHDOT is sponsoring a Listening Session to discuss
the Long-Range Plan and the Ten-Year Plan. This approach
may very well apply to these plans.
Roger warned that NEPA might not support this approach
because it segments the improvements and mitigation.
Gene mentioned that the Technical Review Committee would
be meeting the next day (September 15) and this would
be discussed with FHWA, EPA and USACOE. (At the TRC meeting,
representatives of FHWA, EPA and USACOE stated they saw
no problems with the approach. They plan to discuss the
issue within their organizations and report back to us.)
Roger also mentioned that this would need to have some
long-term commitment. He worries that changes at the
NHDOT or in the executive branch could derail some of
the long-term components of the project.
7.0
Public Comments/Input
None
8.0
Public Comments/Input
The next meeting will be scheduled for
the sometime in the Fall.
