DATE: June 15, 2004

DATE OF MEETING: May 19, 2004

LOCATION OF MEETING:

New Hampshire Department of Transportation
John O. Morton Building
7 Hazen Drive, 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

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 Approval of Meeting No. 3 Minutes

The minutes were approved with no comments received at the meeting.

3.0 Project Challenges and Opportunities Discussion

TheGene McCarthy distributed the updated Project Challenges and Opportunities document and gave an overview of the revisions. 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.

Amy Sheridan mentioned that under mobility there should be mention of the traffic on I-93 that simply passes through Bow and Concord.

Bill O’Donnell stated that the opening paragraph mentions statewide travel when it should mention region wide traffic. I-93 serves New England and beyond as the prime route to the recreation destinations in northern New Hampshire.

Steve Henninger mentioned that the Safety issues should include the weave between Exit 15 on I-93 and Exit 1 on I-393. He mentioned that Economic Vitality should include Downtown Concord, Fort Eddy Road and the Loudon Road retail corridor. He stated that the city has received several permit applications for retail space in the area including a Lowe’s Home improvement store on the former Bradlees location off of Fort Eddy Road.

These comments will be incorporated into the Project Challenges and Opportunities.

4.0 Screening Criteria Discussion

Gene McCarthy distributed the Draft Alternative Screening Criteria. The draft is simply the framework of the criteria and the specifics need to be determined. He asked for comments or ideas on how to structure the criteria.

Amy Sheridan mentioned that a community vision criteria could be whether an alternative is consistent with, complements, or maybe does not preclude established community visions,

A discussion took place as to whether safety is a measure at this phase of the project. The criteria could be whether an alternative includes non-standard features. However, at this level of study this may not be known. The criteria need to be consistent with the level of detail of the alternative.

The question was posed as to who or what decides if an alternative has a fatal flaw and is rejected. Gene replied that the hope was that the two committees would jointly reach the conclusion that an alternative is not reasonable. If this does not occur, the NHDOT and FHWA will make the final decision.

Bill Klubben asked whether the criteria could be grouped into categories. Ansel stated that he had thought the same thing and he had come up with four categories. The categories he developed focus on transportation, community, natural resource and cultural issues.

It was decided that the criteria should be grouped and a draft of the criteria prepared. Gene encouraged committee members to submit ideas to him. At the end of the meeting a subsequent meeting was scheduled for a focussed group to discuss the criteria.

5.0 Land Use Sub-Committee Update

Kerrie Diers mentioned that the Land Use Sub-Committee has met on several occasions. The current issue was to agree on the land use assumptions for the base year 2000. That has been completed and RSG is using these numbers to finalize the base year model. The next step is to establish growth and land use assumptions for the design year of 2030. She mentioned that Steve Buckley of the RPC Board plans to visit the other communities in the region to discuss their growth.

6.0 General Discussion

Carolyn Russell asked whether more than one 2030 model could be developed. She mentioned that using current trends might not be the best way to plan for the future. Could a model be developed that includes major changes in the way the region would grow. Gene mentioned that a model could be developed but it was not part of the current project. He stated that he would consult with the model consultant, RSG, to see what would be required.

7.0 Next TRC Meeting

Ansel Sanborn gave an overview of the various meetings that are 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. 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. 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.

Finally, the Bow-Concord I-93 project will have a meeting on June 24. This is meant to be a joint TRC/CATF meeting. The time of the meeting will need to be discussed with the CATF because they typically meet in the evening. The purpose of the meeting will be to jointly discuss alternatives and the screening criteria. The meeting will also include representatives from many of the other projects and studies in the region.

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