DATE: January 27, 2004

DATE OF MEETING: January 21, 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/Committee Overview

Don Lyford of the NHDOT brought the meeting to order and asked that all present give their names and the organizations/group for which they represent.

2.0 Project Overview/Status

Don stated that because there were many new faces at the meeting, Gene McCarthy would give a brief Overview/Status of the project. See TRC Meeting No. 1 Minutes for a more detailed project Overview/Status discussion.

Rosemary Monahan asked if the transportation model included a feedback loop for land use effects? Gene McCarthy stated that the study team included an economics firm (Applied Economic Research) who would conduct qualitative evaluations of alternatives. Don Lyford asked if the Concord Master Plan would be doing such an analysis. Steve Henninger responded that the master plan would look at different land use scenarios for build out, 2020 and 2030.

3.0 Approval of Meeting No. 1 Minutes

Gene McCarthy mentioned that he has received some comments and asked if there were additional comments. It was determined that the discussion concerning the number of lanes to be studied on I-93 needs to be clarified. The City of Concord's position is that they would like to limit I-93 to 6 lanes. However, the study must evaluate the actual needs for I-93 for any particular alternative. If widening beyond 6 lanes is not acceptable, that must be a result of the study and not an assumption.

The level of study for the Route 106 Connector was questioned. It was clarified that the study will evaluate the connector for traffic and potential impacts. It was also confirmed that the study is committed to evaluating the effect other projects would have on I-93.

4.0 Land Use Sub-Committee

Gene McCarthy stated that Mike Tardiff of the RPC has suggested that a TRC Sub-Committee be formed to focus on land use issues. Mike was not able to attend the meeting so Kerrie Diers of the RPC described the sub-committee. The sub-committee would include members from RPC (Mike Tardiff, Kerrie Diers, and Nick Alexander), M-J (Chris Bowler), Bow (Bill Klubben), Concord (Steve Henninger), Pembroke, NHDOT (S. Sharma), RSG (Steve Lawe), Planning Decisions (Mark Eyerman) and AER (Russ Thibeault). One of the objectives of the committee will be to transfer data from the various master plans to the design year model for this project. The committee will also discuss the economic and land use impacts that Russ and Mark will need to evaluate as part of their work.

Rosemary Monahan expressed interest in joining the sub-committee.

5.0 Purpose and Need Discussion

Gene McCarthy began by stating the intent of the discussion is to brainstorm the problems and goals of the project. He mentioned the goals from Concord 20/20 and asked whether these should be part of a purpose and need statement. Examples of the goals are improving access to the Merrimack River, rail preservation, or improved aesthetics. Gene also distributed an FHWA technical advisory that provides guidance in the preparation of purpose and need statements.

There was a great deal of discussion on what a purpose and need is and how it should be developed. Below are some of the highlights of the discussion.

Rosemary Monahan stated that the Purpose and Need (P&N) should look at a range of transportation alternatives (including rail) that also meet local goals. She later suggested language like "to support sound development" or "smart development" instead of economic development. Gene stated that the guidelines do mention economic development.

Bill O'Donnell stated that the P&N should be general and make statements like "improving capacity" and not mention levels of service. He also stated that the goals from Concord 20/20 could be components of a P&N but the focus of the statement should be the improvements to the transportation facility.

A question was asked about whether the alternatives have to be within the I-93 corridor. Don Lyford stated that the solution could include other corridors. There is no need to limit the project at this point.

Bill Klubben stated that the project should develop solutions to the problems with the transportation system that are a result of expected growth. We should start with the problem because that is how the master plans are developed.

The design peak hour chosen for the project was then discussed. The 30th highest hour has been chosen and the question raised is whether that hour represents an unusually high volume due to tourist traffic during the summer. A suggestion was made to evaluate a more typical peak for the corridor as well. Gene stated that the study team would like to prepare a graph that plots the highest 100 days of the year to determine the trend on the corridor. S. Sharma stated that the NHDOT may already have this data available. Amy Sheridan suggested that because I-93 has two main functions - tourist/commuter traffic and local traffic - that maybe the P&N could address the two needs and have different goals for each. An acceptable level of service for tourist traffic could be lower than for a typical commuter. The question was raised as to who or what organization determines the design hour for the study. Bill O'Donnell stated that FHWA and the NHDOT make the decision.

Mark Kern stated that the Army Corp. with EPA and USFWS prepare a simple P&N for their purposes. It uses language like "safely and efficiently moving goods and services". He also stated that the LOS should not be a concern in the statement.

Bill Hauser stated that he believes the P&N needs to be determined so that the study has consensus before it moves forward. He feels that this committee should actively participate in developing the P&N and we should take advantage of opportunities like this meeting where so many agencies are represented.

Steve Henninger made the point that 2/3 of the people who work in Concord live elsewhere. The City therefore recognizes the dual roles I-93 serves. It needs to carry the through traffic as well as the local traffic.

Ansel Sanborn stated that striking a balance between access and mobility is the challenge. He added that the P&N needs to address people and not vehicles. The model has been structured to project people trips not vehicle trips. Also, the solutions will not necessarily be on I-93.

Steve Henninger asked whether an intermodal connection will be evaluated. This could be part of an alternative but not necessarily part of the P&N. The location of a rail/intermodal station was discussed and this could be part of an alternative.

S. Sharma asked how the cost of owning/operating a vehicle in the future could be evaluated. Gene stated that he would ask RSG if this is possible.

The intent is to have a draft of the P&N developed before alternatives are developed. It is understood that the P&N will be a work in progress until the completion of Phase 1. However, at the end of Phase 1 the P&N should be finalized and become the basis for the environmental document to be prepared in Phase 2.

Bill O'Donnell stated that the study limits are typically determined at the same time the P&N is drafted. Gene stated that the final study limits may not be known until the end of Phase 1. Bill answered a question about the limits by saying it needs to be large enough to encompass important resources and affected transportation facilities. It was determined that a draft study limits should be brought to the group for comment.

6.0 Discussion

A question was posed concerning the Route 106 Connector and the property at Garvins Falls owned by PSNH. Bill Neidermyer explained that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is seeking to preserve this land. During the re-licensing process for dams along rivers the USFWS is asking for land owned by the power companies along rivers to be deeded over to the USFWS or placed in a conservation easement. Bill stated that this has been the intent for some time and he expects the process to take another 2 to 3 years. The USFWS has been successful doing this in other areas. The question of balancing the community needs for the land and environmental needs was raised. Bill stated that the land is an extremely valuable resource and they would not support a highway through it. It is a large tract of land surrounded on three sides by the Merrimack River.

The desire to lower I-93 in downtown Concord was discussed. Steve Henninger mentioned that the highway is already below the 100-year flood plain. It would be difficult to lower I-93 and provide drainage. It was also mentioned that a Concord 20/20 goal was to provide river access. This would require shifting the alignment to the west. The study team will be looking for assistance from the TRC in determining the setback required. This is especially important in the "Pinch Point" south of Exit 14 where the space between the river and downtown is its narrowest.

Steve Henninger responded to a question about the South End Marsh by pointing it out on the map and stating that it is mostly owned by the city.

The Heritage Trail was discussed. Amy Sheridan pointed out its current extents and Jed Merrow discussed how this project could fill in some of the gaps.

Jed also mentioned that the Turkey River is a valuable resource that currently is impacted by the I-93/I-89 Interchange. It would be desirable to enhance connection between Turkey River/Turkey Pond and the Merrimack River through this area.

7.0 Next TRC Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for March 17 at 1:00 p.m. at the NHDOT offices in Concord.

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