Meeting Reports/Powerpoints
Meeting: Steering Committee Meetiing
Meeting Date: 03/26/10 - 10:45 am - 12:45 pm
Location: Kittery Trading Post, Rte. 1 Kittery, Katahdin Room
Progress Report: Alternatives Evaluation
Downloads
PowerPoiint Presentation March 26 Meeting
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
Maine–New Hampshire Connections Study
Steering Committee Meeting
March 26, 2010, 10:45 am – 12:45 am
Kittery Trading Post, Kittery, Maine
Presenters:
Paul Godfrey, HNTB
Carol Morris, Morris Communications
Steering Committee members:
Russ Charette, MaineDOT
Kirk Mohney, Maine SHPO
Linda Wilson, NHDHR
Peter Michaud, NHDHR
Tom Reinauer, Southern Maine Regional Planning
Steve Parkinson, City of Portsmouth
Jon Carter, Town of Kittery
Gerry Audibert, MaineDOT
Mark Hasselmann, FHWA Maine
Scott Bogle, Rockingham Planning Commission
Bob Landry, NHDOT
John Butler, NHDOT
John Cater, NH FHWA
Slides referenced can be viewed in the PowerPoint for this meeting.
Meeting began at 10:55am
****
Paul Godfrey:
Today’s meeting is a progress meeting. We’ll update you on where we are, will give you information that has been developed since we last met, including information on the second round of TIGER stimulus grants. Of course, I’m looking for your thoughts, questions, and comments. Let’s make introductions.
Group makes brief introductions.
Final Fatal Flaw Report
We spoke at the last public meeting about the completion and presentation of the Fatal Flaw Report. The DOTs and Federal Highway have provided comments. Generally, we saw concurrence: nothing that suggests anything needs to be changed. It’s going to take a little bit longer to incorporate comments appropriately. We’ll get the final report to you via email early next week and get it up at the same time on the website. Again, I’m not anticipating changes in alternatives at this point.
Q: How big is the document?
Paul: It’s about a megabyte, 200 pages all in total. Again, Fatal Flaw seems like a long time ago but the report documents the alternatives eliminated and the ones getting carried forward.
Gerry: There may be a few other comments from FHWA we haven’t seen yet.
Paul: If there are more coming, we’ll address them. This may delay the report a bit, then. Can I ask Federal Highway if we are out of bounds saying the recommendations are ok?
John Cater: That’s correct.
Update of Remaining Alternatives
Paul: Over the last 60 days, we have completed the travel demand forecast. We’ve run traffic numbers that help us with performing study area capacity analysis at intersections. We’ve revised conceptual engineering designs for each alternative. When we talked about different bridge options we showed a box indicating impact. Today, we have a much more real plan showing roadways, locations, etc. The results of the more detailed resource impact analysis are also coming soon.
Let’s refresh our memories about remaining alternatives.
Concept Engineering Designs
Sarah Mildred Long 1 – 2-lane rehabilitation: This option starts with a Sarah Long 2-lane rehab of the existing structure. Therefore, it remains in the current location with no change to the navigational opening. We do make some assumptions relative to connections. The cross-section remains the same as it is today. Each detailed option slide shows the measurements of the cross-sections for that option.
Changes being made for the Portsmouth side include creating a signalized intersection with the Albacore Connector, turn lanes, Market Street is signalized and remains so. On the Kittery side, we try to make things more organized, turns a little more channelized. Two intersections need to be signalized. Access will be easier and safer. All of the work today under this option is within existing right of way. It does not move east of existing pavement. All work is done to the west. We stay out of Albacore Park.
Gerry: Is that access road off of Market Street part of Albacore?
Paul: No, it’s outside of the park.
Jon Carter: You don’t need traffic lights on the Maine side of the bridge. Unless you close the Memorial Bridge and make this the primary bridge.
Paul: We found that Levels of Service – LOS - get bad here by 2035, so by that time it does warrant a signal to safely get on the bypass. We are proposing a signal.
Jon: But will the road be one way each way, still? Where are you putting the light?
Paul: It will allow Bridge Street traffic to turn left onto the Bypass.
Jon: Why? It works fine now.
Paul: We are concerned with the volume of traffic turning left at the Bridge Street/Oak Terrace/Old Post Road intersection. Our solution is a left-turn signal at the Route 1 Bypass/Bridge Street intersection.
Jon: Won’t that back things up on the bridge?
Paul: Yes, but not to the point of being an issue. It’s reasonable to add a signal and not significantly impact traffic. We batted several ideas around and this seemed most prudent. Obviously, we will not have excessive queues.
Russ: This came from Kevin’s traffic model.
Paul: Yes, his numbers helped us. The study team sat down and came up with ideas to address the concerns. In the future, we show this area with a low Level of Service if we make no changes. Many safety concerns with the higher speed turning traffic from Route 1 Bypass onto Bridge St.
Tom: If this was to happen, we need to consider making the lights synched to eliminate people getting trapped. If they are stuck between, people will try to back up.
Paul: As we modeled, we looked holistically to simulate what you talk about. Those details will be part of the final design.
Gerry: I think we need to coordinate with bridge openings.
Paul: Yes, that’s the challenge of a lift bridge. When the bridge is up, you do get several minutes of trying to clear traffic but it can be managed through signal timing.
Steve: There are temporary lights at the connector to the Bypass in Portsmouth.
Paul: Again, you’ll see these recommendations carried forward. We call for signalization at this Kittery intersection in all alternatives we have.
Sarah Mildred Long 2 – 2-lane replacement: This is on alignment, we have the opportunity to keep the substructure and replace the superstructure or replace both for a wider opening. We can increase the horizontal opening to 300 feet if we have complete replacement. The cross section would change. 300 feet provides the same horizontal clearance as the Memorial. The Coast Guard has requested increased clearance.
Sarah Mildred Long 2 – 4-lane replacement: Here we have similar conditions. What’s different is the cross-section. Under this scenario, we would need to increase the opening from 300 to 315 feet. We still have a left turn into Albacore. All will be done within the existing right of way. On the Portsmouth side, we would need retaining walls.
Gerry: How high is the retaining wall?
Paul: I don’t remember exactly, but not huge. I’d say 4 – 8 feet.
Jon: Is there impact on Kittery?
Paul: Yes. This option does encroach on properties. We’re carrying the median barrier all the way through, except at the signalized intersections
Jon: When you add more lanes, you get more weight. Do you have to do something with the piers?
Paul: With the 315 feet opening by 80 feet, we’re at the outer edge of what a lift span can carry. But it is doable. Again, in Portsmouth, signalized intersections, retaining wall in Portsmouth. In Kittery, we tie into the 4-lanes of the Bypass.
Sarah Mildred Long 2A – 2-lane upstream: This is identical in how it looks in on-alignment options, immediately upstream. Our intent is to allow traffic to be maintained on the existing brige during construction. Same features on either side of bridge. On the Kittery side, we shift to the west, so there’s more impact there. We are staying out of Albacore. On the Kittery side, we’re closer to properties.
Sarah Mildred Long 2A – 4-lane upstream: Same thing. We get a 315-foot opening. As you can imagine, we’re pushing even further out over Market St. In Kittery, more properties to the west are impacted.
Carol: In terms of that property in Kittery, is that a taking?
Paul: Yes. I’m still working through the details but clearly, there are directly impacted properties.
Jon: Can you refresh my memory about the advantage of this alternative?
Paul: The upstream options allow us to keep the bridge open while building the new bridge. All on-alignment options close the bridge during construction.
Memorial Bridge 1 – 2 lane rehabilitation: Considering the existing cross-section, we have options. We can keep what we have today OR it may be possible to create two 10-foot multi-use paths on either side. We are evaluating if this is feasible. Can the structure under rehab handle the additional weight from the multi-use paths? It’s an additional 11 feet in cross-section. It could be one side for bikes, one side for pedestrians. It’s an attractive option.
Tom: Is this similar to the original design when it was going to be rehabbed before?
Bob: The diagram shown on the upper right of the slide is the one we had in the bid plan, with the 6-foot sidewalk. We are looking at what additional weight will do to the truss.
Carol: If we find the multi-use path is feasible, will we look at it as a different option?
Paul: Yes, the pricing would be different. It’d be a suboption of MB1 and it addresses some of the needs and goals.
Memorial Bridge 2 – 2-lane replacement: This is a complete superstructure replacement. We maintain the clearance and tie-ins match what’s there today. There is opportunity for greater cross section. We propose the same travelways but increased shoulders. We could also do the shared path on this as well. The big advantage is we can increase shoulder width.
Gerry: If we went to the 10-foot shared-use path option, the shoulder width might not be increased..
Paul: Yes, very likely.
Bob: (Asking the group) What do you see on the sidewalks today? Do you see people looking up and down river? Do we have visitors looking at ships and landscape instead of commuters?
Gerry: The bike survey showed the percentages of professional vs. recreational users of the bridge.
Paul: We must consider the additional weight of multiple pedestrians spending extra time on the bridge just looking. I’m not sure if we captured the essence of that (recreational versus commuter use) in the origin / destination study.
Bob: I’m worried about bikes and pedestrians – along with visitors standing and looking – it may not be enough space even with 10 foot.
Kirk Mohney: There is benefit to the 10-foot width. We could mark out the bike area and pedestrian area, and have a sign that says that bikes yield to pedestrians.
Bob: Here, I see people with strollers stopped looking at views.
Kirk: All the more reason for having 10 feet.
Tom: Is it a grid deck?
Bob: No, it will be solid.
Memorial Bridge 6 – pedestrian/bike bridge: Based on feasibility and safety, we have removed the fixed bridge from consideration and are back to the proposal of a movable bridge maintaining existing horizontal clearance, on the alignment of where it is today. We have Portsmouth options for parking and can redirect traffic. It’s the same on the Kittery side.
Jon: What is the width of this bridge?
Paul: 15 feet rail to rail. It would have directional striping.
Gerry: It would be consistent with other pedestrian / bike bridges.
Jon: It’s not very wide if you need a rescue vehicle there.
Paul: Yes, it can carry small vehicles only. We are not sure if it can accommodate big emergency vehicles. It’s really just for pedestrians and bikes.
Gerry: 15 feet is sufficient for emergency vehicles, including ambulances and fire trucks. The big snowplows will not fit.
Scott: Even with people standing on it these would fit?
Paul: That’s tricky.
Peter: You have two 10-foot paths on our other options, now we have gone down to 15 feet. Why are we squeezed? This option would be an item of interest and would draw people to stroll across. 15 feet is a squeeze.
Paul: So you suggest 20 feet here?
Peter: In all other scenarios, you see the travel lanes, here we don’t see them marked out on the slide. Where are the bike lanes? That detail isn’t here.
John Butler: You could widen on either side of the lift span for more space.
Paul: Yes.
Jon: Where would we have parking in Kittery?
Paul: Would you want them to park in Kittery?
Jon: We have to plan for it.
Paul: So, we should incorporate parking on both sides. There is some on the Portsmouth side.
Carol: Is there any municipal land on Badgers Island?
Jon: Unfortunately, no.
Capacity Analysis Results
Paul: We performed level of service (LOS) analysis for key intersections and on bridges within the Study Area for 2009 and 2035. LOS is shown for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. LOS is for system peak hour, not location specific peak hour. Peak hour is different on one side of the river than from the other…you’ve got the shipyard, downtown Portsmouth. It’s hard to analyze. We focused on peaks on the bridges.
Existing 2009 LOS: In Portsmouth, you see lots of blue. This is good for us. It’s like receiving a grade. A – C is good. D and below is dicey. The box shape indicates an unsignalized intersection. A circle is signalized. In downtown Portsmouth, we have some LOS at D. In Kittery, there’s good LOS. Shapleigh is an F, as is the Route 236 intersection.
2035 LOS with no build: Remember, this assumes the Memorial Bridge is closed. You see more poor LOS cropping up at Market Street and the Albacore Connector, as well as Bridge Street and Government Street.
2035 LOS with Alternatives 1 – 6: Here, the volumes are close enough so we could group the alternatives because all these alternatives have 2 lanes on the Memorial and 2 on the Sarah Long. We get improvements with some new signalized intersections. The poor LOS would likely be addressed over time with individual improvements in specific areas.
Peter: For the no build, we show Market Street as LOS D and it moves to F under alternatives 1 – 6. There is a change.
Paul: Yes.
Carol: Because there will be more traffic coming through downtown on the Memorial.
Paul: Yes, change in volumes of traffic.
Russ: Is that unconstrained traffic in terms of trucks?
Paul: Under no build, we do have constraints on trucks. Under alternatives 1- 6, that is removed. There are subtle differences. When the Memorial does not carry vehicles, you obviously get more vehicles over the Sarah Long.
2035 LOS with Alternatives 2 – 6: This assumes a 4-lane Sarah Long. The most noteworthy item here is improvements in Portsmouth. Not a lot of difference in other locations.
2035 LOS with Alternatives 7 – 8: This is the pedestrian / bike only bridge. We are getting some improvements in downtown Portsmouth. Why? The traffic shifts to Sarah Long and stops through-traffic downtown. We recognized that there are strong numbers using the Memorial to cross north. With that traffic not there, we get improvements in Portsmouth LOS. Overall, we found LOS to be reasonable. And it really helped operations at Bridge St and the Bypass signal. It would improve safety.
Russ: That’s a final detail?
Paul: We could keep that intersection unsignalized and do a roundabout. The region operates fairly well with the exception of a few locations.
Ongoing Activities
•Mode Choice analysis
•Multi-Modal Evaluation
•Air and Noise Analysis
•Business Impact Assessment (Carol Update)
•Life Cycle Costs
•Preparation of Technical Documents/Maps
Business Impact Assessment
Carol: We’ve completed gathering the survey data and are in the process of inputting it. Here is an overview: we mailed surveys to 325 businesses in Kittery and Portsmouth. 25 or so came back rejected due to bad addresses. 86 were returned – returns are anonymous. This is a good response rate, about 28%. The envelope contained the survey plus a cover letter and map, and were marked “Important Memorial Bridge Survey” in red. We asked about the type of business, where their customers came from, how much they estimated their business went down during November 2008 during bridge closure, and how likely it would be for their customers to continue visiting them without a Memorial Bridge.
Part B of the survey was a customer intercept survey. Over three days, we surveyed customers of 15 stores in different categories. The locations were Golden Harvest, Loco Cocos, Warren’s, Irving, We Care Cleaners, Auto Works, Hoppi’s Barber Shop, Jackson’s Hardware, Agave, Botanica, Googie’s, John’s Barber, G. Willikers, Colby’s and LaRoux Kitchen. We had people at those locations for each of the 3 days asking four questions:
- What street and town do you live on?
- Did you cross the Memorial Bridge immediately before coming to this business?
- Will you cross the Memorial Bridge immediately after leaving this business?
- Did you drive, walk, or bike to this business?
We needed 800 intercepts and got twice that: 620 in Portsmouth, 1000 in Kittery. We should have the analysis back by mid-April. The only glitch was that the ramp on northbound I-95 is closed and will be through May. But we had to go with it since we can’t wait until June to do the survey. We will check it against the O & D data.
TIGER Grant application round II
•USDOT has indicated another round of TIGER Grants in Fall 2010
•No details or criteria known at this time
•Maine and NH are anticipated to submit application based on findings of the Study
•Maine and NH continue to work closely to identify funding opportunities
Paul: We should have a recommendation from this study in June that can be submitted to TIGER.
Jon: Will both DOTs be committed only to this application, or will Maine apply multiple times like it did last time?
Gerry: I’m not sure at this point. We will apply based on the findings of this study with New Hampshire.
Jon: So there will be multiple applications?
Russ: I can’t answer that yet.
Gerry: We are looking at other funding too. The total amount of this grant is significantly smaller than the last, so the awards will be smaller as well. Even if we got a grant, it would not be enough. We have been told our last grant application was a good one, but there were just more applications than dollars.
Next Steps
•Steering Committee: Feedback from you today on materials presented
•Stakeholder Committee review this afternoon
•Finalize Detailed Evaluation by mid-April
•Steering Committee and Stakeholder Committee Meeting on April 27th
•Next Public Meeting – May 5th with an Open House
•Draft Report by Mid-May
Meeting adjourned at 12:15pm