Meeting Reports/Powerpoints
Meeting: Steering Committee Meeting
Meeting Date: 11/06/09 - 9-11:00 am
Location: Kittery Trading Post, Rte. 1 Kittery, Katahdin Room
Fatal Flaw Analysis: Progress Report
Downloads
Powerpoint Presentation: November 6 Steering Committee Meeting
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
Maine-NH Connections Study
Steering Committee Meeting
November 6, 2009, 9-11 am
Kittery Trading Post
Attendees:
Steve Parkinson, City of Portsmouth
Dave Walker, Rockingham Planning Commission
Leigh Levine, New Hampshire Federal Highway Administration
Jamie Sikora, New Hampshire Federal Highway Administration
Marc Dixon, New Hampshire Federal Highway Administration
Bob Landry, New Hampshire Department of Transportation
John Butler, New Hampshire Department of Transportation
Kirk Mohney, Maine Historic Preservation Office
Jon Carter, Town of Kittery
Peter Michaud, New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office
Linda Wilson, New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office
Julia Dawson, Southern Maine Planning Commission
Gerry Audibert, Maine Department of Transportation
Mark Hasselmann, Maine Federal Highway Administration
Russ Charette, Maine Department of Transportation
Paul Godfrey, HNTB
Carol Morris, Morris Communications
Kelly Broberg, Morris Communications
All slides referenced in these minutes are from the 11.6.09 Powerpoint available on this page.
The meeting opened at 9:05 am.
Carol: Welcome. The purpose of today is round one of the fatal flaw analysis, taking a look at where we stand. Here’s what we’ve done so far (refers to slide 3):
- Brainstormed alternatives with the Steering Committee, the Stakeholder Committee and the Public
- Developed evaluation matrix based on the Purpose & Need (P&N) Statement
- Tested matrix with Stakeholder Committee and at public meeting
- With all possible combinations: 61 different alternatives
- Simplified approach for today – 22 different options
- This approach is used as some evaluation criteria requires bridges to be evaluated individually, while others must be evaluated in combination
This morning, we will take your inputs to the Stakeholder Committee. Note we’re using the colored matrix today. The committees and the public felt this matrix was a good process. It’s somewhat unwieldy to evaluate 61 alternatives and so we have grouped them so you are looking at 22 today. Some alternatives cannot be assessed unless you look at the other bridge to see what the overall impacts would be. Let’s focus on how well the process works, because what we do today may be fairly easy, but as the study goes on the choices will become more difficult – and we’ll be using the same process for the next round.
Paul: (refers to slide 4). We have completed round one of FFA (fatal flaw analysis):
Three separate analyses conducted:
1. Developed capacity estimate for all three bridges
2. Engineered conceptual footprints for all alternatives
3. Mapped areas of potential resource impacts
We’re not sure how many rounds there will be, the intent is to get to a small reasonable number. Not sure what that number is, could be five or six. We’ll carry forward for more detailed analysis the ones not eliminated during Fatal Flaw. Capacity is important: can this region live with one less bridge from a capacity perspective? For all alternatives, we have engineering concept footprints: what would it look like, specifications, what might it go through, and so on. This process has already taken us from 61 to a smaller number. You have three pieces of info in front of you: a colored matrix, technical memos, and a potential impact analysis. Paul begins going through the slides showing graphics of different alternatives.
No build alternative: The Memorial Bridge is closed, the Sarah Long Bridge remains open, likely to be rehabbed at the same capacity. This is a required alternative. We have identified that this does not meet Purpose & Need. Clearly this does not match the Purpose and Need Statement, but it stays on our list as a benchmark.
Carol: We can stop at each slide or go all through. (Committee members agree it’s best to discuss each slide fully as we go through.)
Paul went on to explain the footprint and impacts of each alignment.
MB1 alternative rehab on existing alignment: Page 3 of the matrix has the details on all the options and alternatives. This one assumes the Memorial Bridge is rehabbed. This bridge option does not likely meet mobility requirements if it’s matched with the Sarah being closed. If Sarah is closed, the Memorial needs to be more than two lanes and you cannot rehab a bridge that is two lanes to make it four lanes. From a resource impact perspective, we’ve lumped them into one big category on the slides. No resource impacts here, the bridge is just getting rehabbed. This is a green. Study team recommends we carry this one forward for consideration.
Steering Committee agrees.
MB2 replacement on existing alignment: this means a complete replacement, a new bridge. It includes some improved design features. Essentially, appropriate travel lanes, shoulders, sidewalks, etc. This has the same condition from a capacity and mobility perspective: this one doesn’t work if it’s two lanes and no Sarah Long. If Sarah remains, this option meets those requirements.
Julia: I thought you said a lane increase was possible? Wouldn’t it satisfy mobility with extra lanes?
Paul: Practically it’s not viable. Widening the Memorial bridge to four lanes would also require widening the approach roadways to four lanes. That’s why we assume if no Sarah, replacement doesn’t work. From a resource impact standpoint, this two lane version is a green. We recognize that the Memorial Bridge is on the eligible (National Registry of Historic Places) list. Our recommendation: move this one ahead to Fatal Flaw.
Kirk: You still have an impact – and you are incorrectly coding it green – how do you address the tearing down of an old bridge?
Paul: Green because the impact is smaller based on other alternatives. Not ‘no’ impact but lower.
Linda: In terms of 4F it’s a showstopper. It’s misleading to show it green when it is adverse impact. Maybe a different color to indicate that.
Carol: It needs to be red on the matrix.
Paul: Yes, study team met last Friday and tried to identify the best way to show this. Colors equal level of impact. Point taken, we’ll note the change and make that box red. We still want to move it forward.
Steering Committee agrees.
Alternative MB2A – replace the Memorial Bridge with a low level bridge upstream: The limits of work are northern Badger Island to just south of Wright Avenue. This would be a two lane bridge. In terms of resource impacts, page five, this may require Memorial to be demolished. Will require work within historic district. New bridge will impact new bridge piers in the water. River impacts to Portsmouth side: Parking lot on State Street, Memorial Park, work within the Portsmouth Historical District. On the Kittery side, two commercial buildings and two residential. Highlighted in yellow are the likely impacts. Our footprint would touch them. For now, consider these what we deem potential impacts.
SC member: When does cost play into the Fatal Flaw?
Paul: The next round; we will talk about that a bit later.
Jon: The only reason to do upstream is to maintain Memorial traffic. Is that a criteria? Would the City of Portsmouth or Kittery ever require that we move upstream or downstream?
Steve: Probably not feasible. Bottom line, if we do nothing, the bridge is closed period.
Jon: This is a very difficult one. This should go away now. It doesn’t make sense to keep the bridge open. We impact historic facilities plus add another 300 foot bridge. Is it fair to keep the bridge open based on the impact - especially to the historic district in Portsmouth? We made this type of decision with the new alignments: why not take this off the table?
Paul: When you compare to on-alignment, this has more impact. Yes, there are historic district impacts. But do we need to look at the tradeoff between keeping the bridge open with this option? What’s the balance?
Jamie: I think this one’s gone.
Steve: Now, it’s only pedestrian and bikes. No emergency use.
Paul: Ok, some suggest that this goes away. Tradeoff of impacts versus keeping it open does not make sense if we have documentation.
John: If you decide on a new bridge, a potential reason to build it offline would be to allow the existing Memorial Bridge to stay in place and save the historic resource.
Bob: It would be expensive to maintain even if it was not used.
Paul: The real cost of keeping the old bridge needs to be balanced against the impacts. This is a good discussion.
Linda: There are disproportionate impacts on off-alignment, but we need documentation why.
Paul: With more documentation, of which this meeting is part, this can be moved off the table.
The Steering Committee agreed.
MB2A low level downstream option: may require demolition of Memorial, Portsmouth wharf buildings, impact to Memorial Park. On the Kittery side, impacts condo buildings and the marina on Badger’s Island. Similar magnitude but somewhat different.
Steve: Same comments as previous alternative. Is the value of keeping the bridge open during construction worth the impacts?
Paul: With more documentation, of which this meeting is part, this can be moved off the table.
The Steering Committee agreed.
New option MB3 mid level: this is a new bridge higher off the water. This will reduce the number of openings that need to occur. 70 ft off the water. Limits are northern Badger’s Island, farther in to downtown Portsmouth. Looking at page seven, this does require demolition of Memorial Bridge. In Portsmouth, Memorial Park, historic district, recreation center, parking lots. In Kittery, two parking lots. From our matrix, we recommend this be removed from further consideration.
The Steering Committee agreed.
MB3A midlevel upstream: again, 70 ft off water. Similar footprint. Same impact to Portsmouth’s historic district. More impacts to Badger Island. Bottom line, because of the impact the Study Team recommends we not move this one forward.
Peter Michaud: Are you bulldozing Warner House? It’s not mentioned in your documents.
Paul: We will double check to see if the Warner House is impacted.
The Steering Committee agreed not to move this forward.
MB3A midlevel downstream: Same as before. We say not to carry forward for the same reasons.
The Steering Committee agreed.
MB4 – high level bridge: 150 ft off the water. Similar to the I-95 bridge. On alignment, requires we remove the old Memorial Bridge. Limits are well into Kittery, extensive into Portsmouth. This touches a lot and is high impact. It will require a separate new bridge from Badger’s to the mainland. The Study Team recommends we not go forward.
The Steering Committee agreed.
MB5: close Memorial Bridge. This option is potentially doable. If we close Memorial, we will need the Sarah Long option to be four lanes. It does not work with a two-lane Sarah Long Bridge. By closed I mean totally removed.
Kirk: What’s the impact to a four-lane Sarah Long? In this scenario, there’s not only Memorial impact but Sarah impact too.
Paul: At this point we say this carry to next round until we do a comparison of options together.
Kirk: How many red blocks before it becomes a fatal flaw?
Paul: Fatal flaws are showstoppers compared to other alternatives. We do have the Sarah four-lane option, so we do not consider this a showstopper.
Jon: If we close and remove the Memorial, why is that not a historical impact?
Paul: It is. We will change that box on the matrix to red from green.
David: Does this meet Purpose & Need? From a pedestrian perspective, there is an impact.
Paul: Not sure if Purpose & Need is met here. Are bike lanes enough on Sarah? We don’t have enough information yet.
Steve: Isn’t this the same as the no-build option?
Paul: No, the no-build assumes a two-lane Sarah Long Bridge.
The Steering Committee agreed to leave this option on the table.
MB6: remove and replace with a new on alignment ped/bike bridge: From an impact perspective, this is the removal of the Memorial Bridge. It still requires a four-lane Sarah option.
Jon: What’s the advantage of this one? There’s no savings here. (Some agreement with this point.)
Paul: It’s a smaller, less costly bridge. That may be the only benefit. That and we can have crossing at this location, less maintenance over time. We recommend carrying this one forward.
The Steering Committee agreed to leave this option on the table.
SL1: rehab on existing alignment: Two lanes. Mobility and access-wise, this only works if the Memorial Bridge remains. We recommend this go forward.
The Steering Committee agreed.
SL2: replacement on existing alignment plus new design features: Assuming this is with Memorial Bridge. Two-lane replacement. Impacts are only in the river. The Study Team says go forward with this option.
Steve: Is there a reason why we have the no-build?
Paul: The no-build option is not single-bridge specific. It is a combination of closing the Memorial and keeping the existing Sarah Long.
Jon: Are you considering the rail issue?
Paul: Yes. All our alternatives maintain rail. Even if there’s a Sarah Long closure, we maintain rail.
Linda: I have the same concerns as Memorial with the elimination of a historic bridge.
The Steering Committee agreed to move this option forward.
SL2A – low level upstream new bridge: All new Sarah options must be upstream because there’s a turning basin downstream in front of the Port of Portsmouth. Any downstream option would impact the turning basin and that’s a fatal flaw. We cannot impact the basin. This could be either two or four lanes here. This may require demolition of the Sarah Long. We assume the rail is on the new bridge. Impacts include the historic district, new piers, condos in Portsmouth. In Kittery, three homes and a commercial property. Historic resources. We have an opportunity here to increase the navigational channel, which improves things for vessels going upstream. Study Team recommends we move forward.
The Steering Committee agreed to move this option forward.
SL2 midlevel on alignment with 2% rail: 70 ft off the water. Larger opening for navigational channel. The limits of work are in Kittery, relocation of Bridge Street, Portsmouth side halfway to Maplewood Avenue. Impacts: again, demolition of the Sarah Long. Historical district, piers, on the Portsmouth side the Eastern Rail historical district, the Salt Storage Building. In Kittery, two condos, two homes, a commercial building and three – five homes in the historic district, a nursery on Rte. 1. There are greater impacts but we say go forward.
Linda: Does this impact the Jackson House or The Albacore?
Paul: I do not believe it does, but we will double check.
Peter Michaud: It doesn’t, it’s just a visual impact.
Steve: Would the raising of the rail mean impacts to crossings?
Paul: Yes, we looked at this. The bottom line is the bridge can be raised and it’s a 2% rail grade. It is tricky because we’ll have two rail lines next to each other at different levels. We can maintain access to the Port Authority. It’s an engineering challenge but doable.
David: Can you keep the low-level rail plus a high bridge?
Paul: That would be easier for all of us. It would be challenging from a bridge design perspective. Let’s look at it in the future if this option moves to the next round.
The Steering Committee agreed to move this option forward.
SL3A, midlevel upstream: Sarah Bridge can remain open during construction. Impacts about the same as last option.
The Steering Committee agreed to move this option forward.
SL4 – high level 135 ft off the water: Fixed span, not movable. With this option, we cannot put rail on the new bridge. The Sarah Long would stay open with rail and we’d probably remove the roadway. The benefit is, we can keep the bridge up most of the time. It impacts the Sarah Long, piers, and marine terminal in Portsmouth. Also two buildings, two homes, the historic district, and visual impacts. In Kittery, one commercial building, three homes, three – five buildings and a nursery. This is two or four lanes. We recommend carrying this one forward.
Jon: On the Kittery side, you don’t think the elevated road impacts businesses?
Paul: Yes, some would need to be taken out.
Jon: Imagine it coming in over homes and businesses.
Paul: Yes, it will change their views. This will be documented as we move forward.
The Steering Committee agreed to move this option forward.
SL5 – close the Sarah Long Bridge: But again, we’ll maintain rail on the bridge and only close it to cars. Our opinion is that this is a showstopper because the likelihood of getting four lanes on Memorial is low and without that we cannot cover the number of vehicles that will need to cross the river. We say no to moving this forward based on the capacity crossing the river.
Kirk: What are the rehab options for Sarah?
Paul: The only rehab option is two lane.
Kirk: Are you talking about expanding the bridge or replacing it?
Paul: Depends on what you do to Memorial. SL2 has a two- and a four-lane option. That is a replacement. SL1 is a rehab, two lanes only. All those “new” bridges can be two or four lane, but any rehab can only be as wide as the existing bridge. You cannot rehab a bridge to be wider. MB5 means replacing Sarah with a new four lane bridge.
The Steering Committee agreed.
Paul: Now we are moving to new alternatives.
Alternative 1: high level bridge: This option would eliminate both bridges. This is 150 ft off the water. The graphic shows a conceptual location if we are thinking of putting in a new bridge. Our opinion is that no matter where it goes, there is lots of impact. We don’t think this is viable to go forward. We discussed many options of exactly where the bridge could tie in. From an impact perspective, new piers on the Portsmouth side, historic district, many structures will have to go. In Kittery, 10 – 11 homes, there are hydric soils in the Walker/Government St. area. Based on this we say no go. Also, we have to remove two historically eligible bridges to do this.
The Steering Committee agreed.
Alt 1A low level: tie in to Market Street on the Portsmouth side. In Kittery, the connection to Rte. 1 Bypass is affected. In Portsmouth we have less impact. In Kittery, more impact, just like the last alternative. Based on this, we recommend not moving forward.
The Steering Committee agreed.
Alt 1B mid level: 70 ft off the water, improving navigation clearances. But there are historic district impacts. Bottom line, sizable impacts have been documented. We recommend not moving ahead.
The Steering Committee agreed.
Alt 2 – tunnel: 7,000 ft of tunnel, 50 ft under the bedrock of the river. A long way down Route 1 and into Portsmouth. Can you tunnel under these historic properties without doing damage? Very likely no. The cost of this is at least $200 million. Here, we recommend not carrying it forward.
The Steering Committee agreed.
Alt 3 – ferry: Remove both bridges, the rail stays on the Sarah Long, ferry terminals in many places. This is a fatal flaw when we look at the need for crossing capacity. It would provide much less capacity than we have today. This is a no go.
The Steering Committee agreed.
Paul: So for round one, remember we used capacity, resource impacts, and footprints to compare.
Jamie: I was confused and agree with Linda. I thought we’d use a different matrix. Maybe use a number instead of a just color to score?
Paul: Agree, we need to rework that. For this round, we were trying to be as simple as possible
Bob: Maybe use a 1 – 10 scale for low to high impact?
Jamie: Can all the MB2As (new alignments) be turned to red?
Paul: MB2 gives us the opportunity to keep the Memorial Bridge open. The question is, is that better than the impacts you need to make to build off-alignment? I heard that you all said this is not worth it.
Peter Michaud: What are all the timelines?
Paul: 1-2 years for construction.
Paul: As long as we can document these issues, these two can likely be eliminated. MB2A (upstream and downstream) are the ones we are looking to take off the table. That’s what the Fatal Flaw Analysis is all about.
Bob: Let’s take down and upstream off right now because in comparison to on-alignment, there are significant impacts in cost and resources.
Jon: Let’s take them off. They are not going to happen.
Bob: The Town of Kittery has to do something now because the bridge is in disrepair.
Steve: Keeping the bridge open does not outweigh the impact to resources.
Mark: From the 4F perspective, if all the alternatives harm properties, do a least-harm analysis and minimize the harm.
Paul: For all the options we are considering?
Mark: Yes.
Paul: Reality is that the life of the Memorial Bridge may be less than we understand. We want to make sure we don’t miss any documentation.
Linda: In terms of least harm, if the Memorial remains closed, then impacts to other properties are double. You lose Memorial and have new construction.
Carol: Does this mean this gets the “most harm rating?”
Linda: Yes.
Paul: Mark’s concern is more on the new alignments. If they don’t meet the Purpose & Need, they are no-go’s. Most of the new alignments don’t meet the Purpose & Need but the MB2A alternatives do meet it! I appreciate the urgency. There’s a rhyme and rationale to what we’re doing.
Julia: What do we do with peds and bikes if Memorial goes away entirely?
Paul: The reality is that with the on-alignment rebuild, there is no access during construction. We could do a water shuttle during this time period. Looking at that is the next level.
Bob: Yeah, we’ve looked at that before to minimize impacts.
Paul: We recommend to move ahead with taking MB2A options off the table with appropriate documentation.
Let’s move on and talk about Round 2 of the Fatal Flaw Analysis. Here’s what we have planned (from slide 44):
· Steering Team Recommendation is that Round 2 of fatal flaw analysis will include:
– Evaluation of similar bridge options
– Pedestrian/Bicycle assessment for bridge options
– Order of Magnitude Life Cycle cost estimation
Bob: I disagree with life cycle cost estimates. That’s a lot of work. I’d say that life cycle cost is for Round 3.
Paul: We have multiple options for both bridges now. Can we use the “least impact” analysis as Round 2? Thoughts?
Steve: You need to do the documentation. At what point do you look at bridges together as a package?
Gerry: Let’s not eliminate a potential viable alternative too early.
Paul: We need to make sure at least one low-level option for Memorial stays through for the next round, so that we don’t preclude something in the future. So in Round 2, we have the potential to eliminate four options. Then we can consider further details like cost, capacity, and accessibility in the round after that.
Peter Michaud: I have a caveat for SL4. You have to have pedestrian / bike access at Memorial Bridge. SL4 does not meet Purpose & Need without this.
Paul: Let’s recommend an option must have pedestrian / bike access or it’s fatally flawed.
Linda: We must have access between the two downtowns. And, SL4 also violates the multimodal aspect of the economic recovery proposal.
Paul: We’ve not gotten that far yet. Are bike / ped lanes on Sarah Long enough for our needs?
Linda: There is high bike / ped use on Memorial.
Paul: If Memorial carries 100% of bike / ped traffic today, for example, what would Sarah Long provide? I say this is to be considered in Round 2: looking at volume and walk / bike radius.
Russ: Surveys would help us understand that question further.
Paul: We will do life cycle cost analysis in Round 3. One step at a time.
Mark: We don’t need a complete life cycle cost now, though.
Paul: We need to show capital and O&M (operating and maintenance). Where cost will be interesting is whether or not the bridge is fixed or movable.
Bob: We can do ballpark construction costs for Round 2. Remember, Memorial does not go all the way to Badger’s Island; you have an extra 300 feet there. The Memorial Bridge is easy. Sarah Long is more difficult. If we take the Memorial Bridge options off, we’d be down to one sheet of options today.
David: We have to think about what we’re including in costs and what we are not. Also about the resource impacts.
Paul: Certain impacts weigh more heavily than others.
Mark: I like the idea of the ballpark estimate. How do we validate that?
Paul: Cost, lifecycle, right of way…using points like that, we can do an estimate. We will just do a ballpark for Round 2.
Mark: The Coast Guard would say if we build a new bridge, the other one must be demolished. That is additional cost to consider also.
Paul: OK, everyone. Let’s do Round 2 in the next few weeks. It will include evaluation of similar bridge options, pedestrian/bicycle assessment for bridge options and order of magnitude life cycle cost estimation
Carol: We’d like to do public meetings – yourselves included – so everyone sees Round 2 at once: Steering Committee, Stakeholder Committee and the public. The next round will be a package, with the matrix, documentation, and external review.
Gerry: Yes, let’s get to the public soon to keep them engaged.
Carol: Let’s plan for a public meeting in December. All agree.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:10.