DATE: December 8, 2003

DATE OF MEETING: November 21, 2003

LOCATION OF MEETING: Community Resource Center
Commercial Street, Concord, 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.

The name of the committee was discussed first. Is this a review or advisory committee? The conclusion was that the name would remain the Technical Review Committee (TRC) but that the role of the committee will go beyond review. The hope is that the TRC will:

· advise the study team
· review Purpose and Need
· develop alternatives
· review alternatives
· collect information/data

Mike Tardiff of Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission (CNHRPC) mentioned that he hopes the TRC can help obtain data that will be necessary for the development of the transportation model. Gene McCarthy of McFarland-Johnson (M-J) agreed with this and added that the TRC members can be extremely helpful in obtaining information resulting from the on-going updates to the master plans of Concord, Bow and Pembroke.

2.0 Project Overview/Status

Gene McCarthy gave an overview of the project including the project limits. He emphasized that this is a study of the transportation needs of the I-93 corridor from south of I-89 to just north of I-393. He added that other regional transportation concepts that are being considered would be evaluated in the study to determine their affect on I-93. Some of the ideas include a connection to Route 106, Exit 16 1/2 on I-93 and Exit 2 1/2 on I-393, which come out of Concord 2020. Concepts for I-93 developed during Concord 2020 will also be evaluated. These include providing better access to the Merrimack River, potentially lowering I-93 near Exit 14, improving the aesthetic of the corridor, and preserving the rail corridor through Concord. An interchange south of I-89 on I-93 will also be evaluated. These are concepts that are being discussed by the community that are not currently funded or programmed.

Gene stated that efforts to date have been to collect data, develop base maps and begin the transportation modeling. The Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF) has also met twice.

3.0 Project Objectives

The discussion focused on the two main objectives for Phase A of the study, developing a Purpose and Need statement and developing a range of reasonable alternatives.

Gene stated that the CATF will begin looking at the Purpose and Need at its next meeting. A draft will be prepared listing potential needs. Examples of other Purpose and Need statements will be made available. The TRC is also expected to help develop the Purpose and Need. The Purpose and Need will be challenging because the I-93 corridor serves many purposes including local trips, commute trips and regional vacation trips.

The development of alternatives should also begin soon. Gene stated that the CATF would begin brainstorming ideas at its next meeting. The evaluation of alternatives will not be done until the design year model is developed. See Section 4.0 for a discussion of the model and its schedule.

Gene stated that the alternatives are meant to be for the I-93 corridor only. The model will be developed with assumed configurations for other improvements within the region. A discussion ensued about potential improvements outside of I-93. Bill O’Donnell of FHWA mentioned that there could be a “package of improvements” designed to achieve the project goals that may not necessarily include improvements to I-93. The extent of an alternative will therefore be determined by its ability to meet the project Purpose and Need.

4.0 Project Scope

Gene began by stating that Phase A of the study has several key tasks, they include:

· transportation modeling
· alternatives development
· environmental studies
· public participation

4.1 Transportation Model

The study will use a base model year of 2000 because the census of 2000 provides excellent data to build the model. The base model is near completion. The design year for the project is 2030. The design year model is yet to begin.

Steve Lawe of RSG continued the discussion by asking when the land use will be ready for the 2030 model. The plan has been to incorporate land use plans from each of the new master plans and incorporate these into the model. Steve said that RSP could make assumptions on the land use but these would certainly be different than those to be developed in the master plans. Roger Hawk stated that the Concord Masterplan would not have information ready until the spring at the earliest. Ansel mentioned that the latest TIP shows this project being delayed. The consensus was that the project should wait for the three master plans to develop their land use and then incorporate this information into the 2030 model.

4.2 Alternatives Development

The Exit 14/15 area was discussed. Desires to provide access to the Merrimack River, preserve the rail corridor, lower I-93 and improve operations of the ramps were discussed.

Roger Hawk of the City of Concord gave an overview of the Opportunity Corridor Study the City has just begun. This is a master plan study of the corridor bounded by Exit 12 and Exit 15 and by Main Street and the river. Much of this area is the old rail yard.

4.3 Environmental Studies

Jed Merrow of M-J explained that Phase A will do more environmental studies than would normally be done. The reason for this is to identify critical impacts that would remove an alternative from consideration. He stated that mostly existing data and information would be used.

4.4 Public Participation Program

Gene McCarthy discussed the various elements of the program including the various committees, meetings, newsletters and the website. He also mentioned the project design center. This is a mobile presentation that could be taken to local events and used to inform the public about the project. Bill Klubben of the Town of Bow suggested the Town Meeting Day in Bow. He said that this is the biggest public event of the year and it occurs in March.

The committee made several other recommendations for informing the public. Placing an ad in the local newspapers, i.e. Bow Times. Having the project newsletter as a newspaper insert or supplement. The idea of using the primary season was mentioned.

5.0 Proposed Project Schedule

A project schedule was distributed to all committee members. However, the dates for the modeling, traffic analysis and alternatives evaluation will need to be revised. The design year model will be delayed until Spring 2004, the alternative model runs will be delayed until Summer 2004, the traffic analysis will be delayed until Fall 2004 with a final report by the end of 2004.

Bill O'Donnell asked about the content and purpose of the Summary/Classification Report. Is it meant to be a Scoping Report? Bill Hauser responded by saying that the Summary/ Classification Report is more of a rationale report and that a formal Scoping Report may come later. He added that the report would also recommend the level of NEPA document that will be required for the project.

6.0 Discussion

What if the study determines that improvements other than to I-93 can satisfy the Purpose and Need? The consensus was that the study should look at all aspects of transportation and evaluate them on their ability to meet the Purpose and Need. Improvements to local roads, expansion of rail, expansion of bike paths or trials, or operational improvement only to I-93 can be evaluated. It may be necessary to re-evaluate the scope of the project if the alternatives recommended to be brought forward include other improvements or new roadways. This includes the Route 106 Connector. If the connector proves to reduce the demand on I-93 it may be necessary to re-scope the project.

It was mentioned that the scope of the study limits the widening of I-93 to 6 lanes. This limitation reflects the recommendation from Concord 2020. Roger Hawk stated that if the traffic numbers indicate 6 lanes are not sufficient, the City would be willing to re-evaluate their position.

The idea of have reversible lanes was mentioned. During the two race weekends during the year, lanes on I-93 are reversed to get additional capacity in the peak direction. Could this be done on a permanent basis to get peak capacity without building as may lanes?

Are alignment shifts under consideration? Could the sharp horizontal curve between I-89 and Exit 12 be improved? It was re-emphasized that all improvements should be discussed and a determination made as to whether they should be rejected or carried forward.

The concept of using the 30th highest traffic volume hour was questioned. Is this an appropriated measure of the use of I-93? The 30th hour falls on a Friday in July when recreation traffic is at its peak. Should we look at other peaks to see how the volumes compare? Gene McCarthy suggested preparing a graph of the highest hours of the year. This may help determine if the 30th highest is appropriate for the study.

7.0 Next TRC Meeting

The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for December 17. The hope is that some of the resource agencies that were not able to make this meeting would be able to make the December 17 date. The meeting would present much of the same material as this one with the hope of getting their input as soon as possible.

Subsequent to the meeting it was determined that not enough of the other agencies could make the December 17. Therefore, the next TRC meeting has been re-scheduled for January 21, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. The location for the meeting has yet to be determined.

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