Meeting Reports/Powerpoints
Meeting: Kickoff Meetings on Maine-NH Connections Study
Meeting Date: 04/27/09 - 3:30 pm and 6:30 pm
Location: Kittery Trading Post and Portsmouth High School Little Theater
Meeting Minutes (click to view).
Maine-NH Connections Study: April 27 Public Meeting Reports/Kittery and Portsmouth
Meeting Report
Kittery Trading Post
April 27, 2009
3:30 pm
PANEL: Carol Morris, Morris Communications; Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Gerry Audibert, Maine Department of Transportation; Bob Landry, New Hampshir Department of Transportation
Intro/Opening—Carol Morris, Morris Communications
• Study purpose and goals are to look at ALL possible alternatives to determine the best long-term solution for the river crossings.
• Land use and transportation planning are completely intertwined, which is why this study will take an in-depth look at many variables, including not just travel information but sociological, environmental, economic, etc.
• There are no predetermined outcomes. We don’t yet know what the study will reveal or what type of solution we’ll end up with. Every possible alternative – replacement, rehabilitation, etc. - is on the table in the first round of analysis, which will be completed in December of this year. At that time we will take the alternatives that are feasible – that meet the purpose and needs of the study and the region – subject them to a more intense analysis in order to winnow them down to a preferred alternative or alternatives.
• Stimulus: the $1.5 billion 2010 Federal Discretionary Stimulus Grant program will be a very competitive process, and there will not be sufficient funding to cover all applications. The New Hampshire Legislature has officially designated the Memorial Bridge as its highest priority under the State’s Ten-Year Transportation Improvement Plan; Maine has a list of priorities and possible subjects for a stimulus application – and the Memorial Bridge is one of them – but the Governor, MaineDOT, Legislature and Maine’s Congressional delegation cannot make a decision on which of these have the best chance for a successful grant application until they see the proposed guidelines. Rules and guidelines from the Federal Government will be released no later than May 17th.
Overview of Study Areas—Paul Godfrey, HNTB
• There are two main study areas—the greater Kittery/Portsmouth area (the “traffic/travel demand modeling” area) where we’ll be looking at traffic, travel demand, etc. The second study area is more targeted—the immediate area surrounding the two lift bridges. Bike/pedestrian,historic, economic, environmental issues will be important here, and we anticipate this targeted area taking on the heaviest emphasis during the study.
Draft Schedule—Paul Godfrey, HNTB
• The Study is expected to take 15 months.
• The public is our best feedback mechanism—we need and want to know your reactions and feedback. To ensure continued public involvement there will be five more public meetings throughout the Study.
• The first part of the process will be to develop a Purpose and Need (P&N) statement, which the public will help to draft. We’ll review the draft P&N statement with you to make sure all public needs and concerns have been heard and addressed and adapt it as you direct.
• A broad and detailed 3-4 month data collection process will coincide with detailed bridge inspections coordinated by NHDOT. These efforts will be completed by August 2009, at which time we’ll finalize the Purpose and Need statement.
• After the full range of alternatives has been identified in December 2009, a Fatal Flaw Analysis will be conducted to determine which alternatives “hold water” and deserve a closer look. This in-depth look at the feasible/preferred alternatives will begin in January 2010.
Q: Is the stimulus application a joint application, or will both Maine and NH submit separately?
A: We don’t know yet; it could be a joint application. NHDOT has committed to submitting an application for the Memorial Bridge.
Q: You don’t have to say in the stimulus grant application what the specific alternatives are?
A: The grant application is for a remediation; in NH’s case, it will be for money to rehab the bridges.
Q: Is the construction on lower State Street in Kittery going to affect the traffic studies, given that many people will be using alternate routes?
A: We already completed the first round of data collection in anticipation of the summer construction. Another piece of the data collection will be an Origins and Destination survey, which determines where people are coming from and where they’re going. We also have an extremely large amount of historical traffic data that will be factored in.
Q: How can you say there are no predetermined outcomes? Doesn’t the very purpose of the Study imply that there have already been decisions about what won’t work? This patient is sick—what are you going to do to save it? Whatever this Study “decides” will take almost two years, this patient needs to be on life support during that time.
A: We know we need to take action and that it needs to be soon—stimulus could be part of that in the short term. The Study is to evaluate long-term needs. Short-term actions can also be based on what the Study uncovers, particularly the inspection update.
Q: Is NH currently working on possible alternatives to Memorial and Sarah Long bridges?
A: No, we need to do inspections first. That would be part of the Study.
Q: Is there a group out there that’s focused on the repairs, or are people only looking at alternatives?
A: Regular maintenance crews are out there, patching things up as needed. The bridge inspection data could call for other repair actions, too. We’ll know more about that after inspections are completed.
Q: (directed at C. Morris and P. Godfey) Who are you affiliated with?
A: (C. Morris) I’m with Morris Communications. (P. Godfrey) I’m with HNTB, a transportation and planning firm.
Q: And who is your client?
A: Both MaineDOT and NHDOT. It’s a 50/50 effort between both states.
Q: The last major inspection was in 2003—that’s the data this rehabilitation plan is based on. Were Sections 4f and Section 106 the “gun” in the process? Are you accepting the current 4f?
A: No, we’re updating them now.
Q: What are Sections 4f and Section 106?
A: [from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)] Section 106 requires we complete an analysis of historic components and archeology. 4f requires we demonstrate that no feasible alternative exists before we can use historic property. Both of these provisions will look at again and tied into the study process.
Q: The ongoing maintenance of the bridges is funded by current methods—will these maintenance costs be part of stimulus?
A: Maintenance is funded by state gas tax money—there is no federal participation. Stimulus funding does not cover general maintenance types of activities.
Q: This is a navigable waterway—how much input does the federal government have?
A: A lot of input. The Coast Guard controls the waters and requires that the river be navigable. Boat traffic takes precedence over vehicle traffic.
Study Committees and Public Process—Paul Godfrey, HNTB
• We’ll continue to hold two meetings for each public forum (one in the afternoon and one in the evening.) If we find that one is more heavily attended than another we might reevaluate, but for now that is our intention.
• Two committees: 1. Steering Committee made up of MaineDOT, NHDOT, Federal Highway Administrations, State Historical Preservation Officers, Portsmouth, Kittery, Regional Planning organizations, etc. This committee will guide and direct the study, but ultimate deciders will be MaineDOT and NHDOT. 2.) Stakeholder Committee will be made up of organizations from a variety of categories (historic, business, conservation, bicycle, pedestrian, ports and harbors, community and neighborhood groups, emergency services, etc.) and will interpret feedback, identify holes, develop next steps and more. Stakeholders also include Section 106 Consulting Parties, who are required by law to be kept informed (examples are tribal organizations and historic preservation). Requests to be Consulting Parties must be formally submitted in writing to either the Maine or NH Federal Highway Administration). Carol Morris (cmorris@morriscomm.net) can help with this. The Stakeholders Committee will meet six times, same as the public meetings.
Q: Is there a deadline to apply to be a Section 106 Consulting Party?
A: No—anyone interested must submit a formal request in writing to either Maine or NH Federal Highway Administration. We’d love to hear from you if you’re interested and/or if you have an idea of who would be a good voice on this committee, either as a legal Consulting Party or simply as a Stakeholder Committee member.
Means of Public Feedback/Involvement—Carol Morris, Morris Communications
• Public feedback is crucial to the success of the study. We want to hear your questions, comments and concerns throughout this process. You can write, email, speak at public forums, fill out comment forms, or call Carol Morris at (207) 329-6502. You can also check the study website regularly—there will be an interactive section where you can post questions or comments, and you’ll be able to access meeting summaries and other materials.
Q: How did the Study get started? Did Maine just decide they didn’t want to pay extra costs? Why are we here?
A: Maine has many competing transportation needs than New Hampshire, which is why when the bids for rehabilitation of the Memorial Bridge came in over budget, it was decided to take a step back to determine if rehabilitation was the best use of taxpayers’ money.
Q: Wouldn’t you say that the initial NH study was a multi-million dollar error? They conducted an entire study, engineers estimated, and they were WAY off. Now we’re back to the drawing board and in for another 15-month study when we were told originally that we had a two-year window on the bridges.
A: (from NHDOT) We were off by about 35%, but this Study was written into the initial agreement between NHDOT and MaineDOT prior to the previous bid. (from C. Morris) It’s also not uncommon for bids to be different than the original estimate, given the economy, fluctuating oil prices, etc.
Q: But what about the two-year window we were originally given? They said there was a crack in one of the bridges that needed immediate attention.
A: (from NHDOT) That’s why this Study is being accelerated as much as it is. We’re also rechecking that crack on a regular basis (every six months) and performing in-depth inspections.
Q: Has anyone addressed the possibility that something could happen to one of the bridges while this Study takes place? If the crack splits then we’ll be down to two bridges. I don’t think the seriousness of these repairs is being taken into account. Lifts are going down, capacity is going down. We might lose this bridge. What’s the plan?
A: (from C. Morris) The new data we collect will give us a more updated sense of how much time is left and that is top priority. (from P. Godfrey) The perception that this Study is going to stop action of safety efforts on the bridge is not accurate—near term needs ARE being addressed. The Study is a parallel effort to look at the long term. We’re doing two things at once.
Q: Can we reduce lifts to prolong life of the bridge?
A: We did get the Coast Guard to allow lifts only on the ½ hour from May 15 to November 15.The lifts are also reducing as there were 4800 lifts in 2007 down to about 4000 in 2008. But there are still cost and aging issues at play. We’re doing what we can to maintain the crossing and keep it safe.
Q: What’s plan B if stimulus is denied?
A: Continue the Study, identify best alternative and find a way to fund it.
Q: What is the cost of the Study?
A: $1.4 million
Q: What’s the most you can get out of stimulus?
A. (from C. Morris) Based on what I have heard, there’s a minimum of $20 million per project. (from MaineDOT Commissioner David Cole) By statute, no state can get more than 20% of the total funds available ($300 million).
Q: If both Maine and NH apply for funds, could both states get it?
A: We don’t know.
Q: Stimulus money won’t be available forever. If we wait too long, will we lose our chance for funds?
A: There’s a deadline of November 2009 for applications for this round of stimulus. The first round went to shovel-ready projects with a predetermined amount going to each state. This round will be in the form of competitive grants; decisions are expected next February.
Q: I’m an engineer at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard—50% of us live in NH but we pay Maine income tax. That’s about $5 million NH dollars going to Maine, and all we get for it is two miles of road and an unsafe bridge. Someone should remind Maine of that.
A: Noted, thank you.
Q: Can we use stimulus money to cover the $15 million shortfall? i.e. use money from three pools—MaineDOT, NHDOT and stimulus—to rehab both bridges?
A: (from MaineDOT) Until guidelines come out in May we won’t know; also—we don’t know yet if rehabbing these bridges is worth the cost. That’s what the Study is for.
Q: Are you collecting economic impact data as well as traffic data?
A: Yes—business data, wage data, employment data. Any ideas or alternatives will certainly be evaluated by economic impact data.
Q: How transparent is the decision-making process?
A: MaineDOT and NHDOT will be main decision makers, and the Steering Committee and Stakeholder Committee will help to inform that decision. Meetings are always open to the public and meeting minutes will always be available on website. We will try to have all study data on the website—if there’s something we can’t post on the website, we will make it available in other ways. We want this process to be as transparent as possible.
Q: Are we going to go through this whole process only to find out that Maine is going to use their stimulus application to extend I-95 to Canada?
A: (from MaineDOT) That is one of the projects on our list, but there are dozens of high priority requests coming through the legislature. Until we know what the rules are we won’t know what we’ll apply for.
Q: How transparent is the process of developing the “priorities list.”
A: We recommend you let MaineDOT, the Maine legislators, the Governor and the Congressional delegation know how you feel.
Q: I find it interesting that within the Maine transportation bureaucracy, money DOES exist. They’re spending $40 million on a York tollbooth, yet can’t commit to bridge repairs?
A: The tollbooth is not within MaineDOT jurisdiction and is not paid for with taxpayer dollars. It’s run by the Maine Turnpike Authority, and paid for via tolls. You may disagree with that concept, but that is not something we can address right now.
Q: Why can’t we just re-bid the project based on the fact that costs have gone down?
A: (from NHDOT) It’s true that steel prices have gone down, but there’s also a major component in the rehab project of labor-intensive work, which hasn’t come down. Also, because this is a three-year project, the contractor would need to build in the cost risk regarding where steel prices will be down the road.
Q: Why didn’t we apply for stimulus in the first round?
A: (from MaineDOT) We wanted to make sure the cost was worth it. The level of investment was approaching the cost of a brand new structure, so we had to take a closer look at the needs of the towns, etc. We wanted to back up far enough to see the greater needs of the area.
Comment: I work for Rep. Chellie Pingree. I’d he happy to talk with anyone after the meeting.
Q: You stated, the cost of rehabilitation is close to the cost of a brand new bridge—what is that cost?
A: (NHDOT) A really rough estimate is about $80 million to replace the superstructure and have it function as a lift bridge—but those are very rough numbers.
Q: You said that normal maintenance will be ongoing throughout the Study—is there a monetary limit to the short-term upkeep of these bridges?
A: (from MaineDOT) We’re spending a million dollars a year on each bridge, and last year we spent 1.3 million for electrical work on the Sarah Mildred Long Bridge.
Q: What if something catastrophic happens? Will you close the bridge?
A: Too early to tell—the priority is certainly to keep them open.
Q: Has anyone looked at a single-span option?
A: Not yet.
Q: Aren’t these studies typically 10 years long? I know it was for the I-95 process. How can you move this quickly? Even if you make a decision, how can you provide a new bridge or a rehab in time?
A: (from MaineDOT) We recently replaced the Waldo-Hancock Bridge after an unexpected failure, and we were able to do it in three years. It won national awards. (from C. Morris) The process can be accelerated, as evidenced by the Waldo-Hancock Bridge.
Q: Is there a lift span bridge in the world that could be used to replace the Memorial Bridge? Are they still building them?
A: (from P. Godfrey) We design them every year—they have a place in the transportation world today. They’re being built and rebuilt every year.
Comment: The new single span bridge in Bath looks horrendous—it’s a white monstrosity. I hope we’ll look at aesthetics in this project.
Comment: I propose that the historic bridges stay in place. Erect strands in the middle to let boats through, and then build a new center strand bridge between the two with entrance ramps from Rte. 1 and Rte. 1 bypass. I have a sketch (which was turned over to HNTB).
Q: How will you identify alternatives? Who is proposing them?
A: (from C. Morris) The study team will be looking at design ideas from a professional standpoint, and we’ll be soliciting ideas from you. Then we’ll evaluate all options and choose some preferred alternatives to study further. The public and the committees will be involved in all stages of the evaluation process. (from P. Godfrey) The Purpose and Need statement will help guide the process too.
COMMENTS/UNDERLYING ISSUES
• We work/commute at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and are concerned that we’re going to lose our bike/ped access. We just moved to be closer to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for the very reason of being able to bike or walk.
• Having a bike path is critically important to the creative economy. Being able to bike/walk freely is an intangible quality that drives people to the region.
• Memorial Bridge also connects the commercial and historic areas of the two towns – the low bridges don’t detract from the historic appeal (like what’s been done to Bath)
• Economic impact on Kittery–Kittery is revamping its downtown area and many NH residents are coming to Maine to take advantage of the revitalization of our foreside and gourmet alley. Eliminating Memorial Bridge would be a great detriment.
• I’ve worked in Portsmouth for 20 years, live in Kittery. Without Memorial Bridge people will have to go out of their way and won’t support the businesses along Route 103. It’s a quality of life issue. I don’t mind if I have to wait for the bridge to go up, it’s a beautiful coastal ride.
• The Sarah Long Bridge is critical to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which we know is growing. Some of what was closed down in Brunswick is coming to the Navy yard. It’s a major employer in this area so don’t jeopardize that access.
• This is a working memorial to WWI—it’s not just historical, it’s a monument.
• Having the 3 bridges is important to navigating the Portsmouth traffic coming from Kittery, and traffic patterns aren’t likely to change.
• There’s a Save the Bridges rally at noon tomorrow in Kittery.
• People have set up their businesses and bought houses because of proximity to the bridges, so to even suggest we change the physical placement of them seems ludicrous.
• Socio-economic data is very routine (jobs, wages, etc.) I think it’s important to look deeper into it, like the effect on property values.
• The traffic study is a short window, which might not reflect long-term trends.
• Greenhouse emissions are going to be capped – you don’t talk about the fact that the future is going to be different from now. Our travel modes will change in a significant way – integrate this into what you’re talking about. The present is not a good model for the future.
• Chamber of Commerce – Cathy Goodwin. Tourism must be a major consideration. We are the center of an hourglass – people use the bridges in an intensive way. We had an accident in York that shut down traffic in a 50-mile radius, and Camden and Rockport took a hit from that. If they can’t get through us they’re not getting to the rest of the state. It’s not just imperative to the local area. There are also safety factors related to the shipyard—it’s nuclear. We have to be able to move products and people safely.
• The East Coast Greenway is just as important as Route 1. It’s a complete shift in our transportation system.
• The bridges are part of the state’s evacuation plan—there are major safety implications.
• There must be room for a bike lane that meets state safety guidelines.
• Aggressive maintenance schedule should be in place, and we should also look at alternatives that allow for less maintenance in the future.
• You’re playing with 360 years of history here with these two connected communities. How can you rip that history apart?
• To land something on either side of the river will create issues in and of itself. If we change where the bridges land, there will be potential zoning issues, approval processes, maybe even lawsuits.
• The Federal government doesn’t prevent charging recreational boats a lift fee—we could impose something like that to offset the cost.
Q: What happens if we can no longer get across Memorial Bridge?
A: Not sure yet—but what is great about this area is that there are two other bridges. I realize you’d lose bike/ped access, but you can cross.
Q: Why is there no bike lane on the Sarah Long? I know it has the necessary width.
A: Safety considerations deemed it unsafe, and we’re not even sure pedestrians would use that bridge because it doesn’t have the communities on either side. (There was disagreement on this statement and it was retracted.)
Q: Preservation of the Memorial Bridge has not been adequate. I haven’t seen it painted in 12 years. Why?
A: Painting requires road closures and significant funds. But it was painted in ’88, which is a typical timeframe. Re-painting usually happens every 20-25 years.
Q: Does anyone represent boating besides the US Coast Guard?
A: Yes, the Port Authority. We’ll also be reaching out to the different people/groups who use the river to find out what their needs are.
The meeting ended at 5:25 pm.
Portsmouth Meeting Report
Portsmouth High School Little Theatre
6:30 p.m.
April 27, 2009
PANEL: Carol Morris, Morris Communications; Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Gerry Audibert, Maine Department of Transportation; Bob Landry, New Hampshire Department of Transportation.
Intro/Opening—Carol Morris, Morris Communications
• Study purpose and goals are to look at ALL possible alternatives to determine the best long-term solution for the river crossings.
• Land use and transportation planning are completely intertwined, which is why this study will take an in-depth look at many variables, including not just travel information but sociological, environmental, economic, etc.
• There are no predetermined outcomes. We don’t yet know what the study will reveal or what type of solution we’ll end up with. Every possible alternative – replacement, rehabilitation, etc. - is on the table in the first round of analysis, which will be completed in December of this year. At that time we will take the alternatives that are feasible – that meet the purpose and needs of the study and the region – subject them to a more intense analysis in order to winnow them down to a preferred alternative or alternatives.
• Stimulus: the $1.5 billion 2010 Federal Discretionary Stimulus Grant program will be a very competitive process, and there will not be sufficient funding to cover all applications. The New Hampshire Legislature has officially designated the Memorial Bridge as its highest priority; Maine has a list of priorities and possible subjects for a stimulus application – and the Memorial Bridge is one of them – but the Governor, MaineDOT, Legislature and Maine’s Congressional delegation cannot make a decision on which of these have the best chance for a successful grant application until the see the guidelines. Rules and guidelines from the Federal Government will be released no later than May 17th.
Q: What is the $1.5 billion specifically for?
A: We know it is targeted for urban areas. But that’s all we know so far without speculating.
Q: What is this Federal Discretionary Grant Funding package?
A: It’s competitive—proposal based. Not one lump sum per state as was distributed in the first round of stimulus funding.
Q: Is there a state-to-state agreement?
A: Yes, both states are working together on this study, and they will also be working together on the best approach for the grant proposals.
Q. I thought there was more than $700 billion dollars for stimulus – why do you continue to talk about $1.5 billion?
A. That is the entire sum of money that covers everything for which these dollars will be targeted. That includes not just transportation infrastructure but everything - education, energy, the environment, utilities, etc.
Overview of Study Areas—Paul Godfrey, HNTB
• There are two study areas—the greater Kittery/Portsmouth area (the “traffic/travel demand model” area) where we’ll be looking at traffic data , travel demand, etc. The second study area is more targeted—the immediate area surrounding the bridges. Bike/pedestrian, historic, economic, and environmental issues will be important here, and we anticipate this targeted area taking on the heaviest emphasis during the study.
Draft Schedule—Paul Godfrey, HNTB
• The Study expected to take 15 months.
• The public is our best feedback mechanism—we need and want to know your reactions and feedback. To ensure continued public involvement there will be five more public meetings throughout the study.
• First part of process will be to develop a Purpose and Need statement, which the public will help to draft. We’ll review the draft P&N statement with you to make sure all public needs and concerns have been heard and addressed and adapt it as you direct.
• A broad and detailed 3-4 month data collection process will coincide with thorough bridge inspections by NHDOT. These efforts will be completed by August, at which time we’ll finalize the Purpose and Needs statement.
• After the full range of alternatives has been identified in December 2009, a Fatal Flaw Analysis will be conducted to determine which alternatives “hold water” and deserve a closer look. This in-depth look at the feasible/preferred alternatives will begin in January 2010.
Q: Is there any scenario where the study process could be terminated?
A: The study and the stimulus funds have different timeframes—stimulus is short term while the study will remain in place to evaluate long-term options. They should be viewed as separate yet connected things.
Q: Could the study be sped up to allow for a more viable proposal for stimulus funds?
A: Don’t see any reason why that couldn’t be pursued—to the degree that we can. It would have to make sense, and both states would have to offer direction on that.
Q: Is there concern that you’re destroying the history of Portsmouth?
A: Yes, and we’ve heard that concern voiced a lot. It’s one of the issues we’ll definitely be looking at.
Q: What happens if NH doesn’t reach an agreement with Maine?
A: The bridges remain the #1 priority of New Hampshire.
Q: How does this study fit in with maintenance of the bridges? Is there maintenance scheduled past 2010?
A: NHDOT will be conducting inspections to get better info—last inspection of the Memorial Bridge was in 2003. By August we’ll have a better sense of the possibilities and potential actions needed to prolong its life. We intend to continue our regular and ongoing maintenance.
Q: How did you all come together? Is it a citizen’s group?
A: Both states came together after the bids for rehabilitation came in so high and decided it was prudent to begin a study before major decisions are made, given the sizable investment and age of bridges.
Study Committees and Public Process—Paul Godfrey, HNTB
• We’ll continue to hold two meetings for each public forum (one in afternoon and one in evening.) If we find that one is more heavily attended than another we might reevaluate, but for now that is our intention.
• Two committees: 1.) Steering Committee made up of MaineDOT, NHDOT, Federal Highway Administrations, State Historical Preservation Officers, Portsmouth, Kittery, Regional Planning organizations) etc.) This committee will guide and direct the study, but ultimate deciders will be MaineDOT and NHDOT. 2.) Stakeholder Committee will be made up of organizations from a variety of categories (historic, business, conservation, bicycle, pedestrian, ports and harbors, community and neighborhood groups, emergency services, etc.) and will interpret feedback, identify holes, develop next steps and more. Stakeholders also include Section 106 Consulting Parties, who are required by law to be kept informed (examples are tribal organizations and historic preservation). Requests to be Consulting Parties must be formally submitted in writing to either the Maine or NH Federal Highway Administration). Carol Morris (cmorris@morriscommm.net) can help with this. The Stakeholders Committee will meet six times, same as public.
Means of Public Feedback/Involvement—Carol Morris, Morris Communications
• Public feedback crucial to success of study. We want to hear your questions, comments and concerns throughout this process. You can write, email, speak at public forums, fill out comment forms, or call Carol Morris at (207) 329-6502. You can also check the study website regularly—there will be an interactive section where you can post questions or comments, and you’ll be able to access meeting summaries and other materials.
Q: There’s been talk of competing priorities in Maine—can we see a list of what those are?
A: We don’t know what the stimulus criteria is yet, so it’s premature to say for sure, however, continuing I-95 to Canada and replacing Veterans Bridge in Portland are two candidates.
Q: Is the Memorial Bridge on that priorities list?
A: Yes.
Q: What number?
A: There is no prioritization at this time.
Q: Was there an existing high-need list before the stimulus list?
A: Yes.
Q: Was the Memorial Bridge on that list?
A: Yes.
Q: The Wall Street Journal said recently that transportation bids are coming in at around 30% less than last year. It would be prudent to re-bid it now. This study just doesn’t add up—the time or the money. Seems like a great stimulus for the consultants, and that’s about it.
A: It’s true that steel prices have gone down, but there’s also a major component in this rehabilitation project of labor-intensive work, which hasn’t come down, along with custom-ordered items, which are also still high due to the labor costs. The bigger questions is whether a $60 million investment in rehab, which will give us 35-40 years, makes more or less sense than replacement, which would have a longer life span. That’s the question driving this study.
Q: What’s the cost of the study?
A: $1.4 million
Q: Do you have designs of other bridges that could replace Memorial?
A: That’s part of the bridge study cost analysis—we did a guestimate, about $85 million for a completely new superstructure—but that’s a very rough guess.
Q: What’s a superstructure replacement?
A: The part you ride on and above.
Q: Who’s paying for the study?
A: Maine, New Hampshire and the Federal Highway Administration.
Q: What kinds of alternatives have you developed that allow for bike/ped access?
A: We’ll have a list of all those alternatives by September, a list you will be adding to in August. We anticipate that bike/ped will be a strong component in any feasible alternative.
Q: What is going on concurrently with the study? Are designs in the works, etc?
A: We won’t start looking at designs until December, but NHDOT is looking at various options/costs as part of the inspection process.
Q: Wouldn’t we have a strong application for stimulus funds on the rehab of Memorial Bridge, given the job creation, etc?
A: We really won’t know until guidelines come out in May.
Comment: Simplicity is lacking in your presentation. What you’re talking about has already been done in Bath. That bridge would be perfect for Portsmouth.
Q: Do we have any opportunity to go after stimulus funds outside this $1.5 billion?
A: That money has already been distributed. Much of it went to shovel-ready projects like paving. The first round of stimulus money was required to be used within two years. This project didn’t qualify because it is a three year-project.
Q: What was the budget surplus on the bids?
A: $15 million.
Q: Can’t we get that from somewhere?
A: We need to make sure we are making the best long-term investment.
Q: Are commercial enterprises on the committees precluded from bidding
on the final result?
A: No.
Q: Then that's a conflict of interest-they could push for results in
their favor.
A: We'll take that under advisement. (It was later noted by FHWA that
the issue of study consultants bidding on final design projects would be
researched and clarified.)
{CLARIFICATION: The following was not stated at the meeting, but is additional information provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to more clearly answer the question. The original response was correct, that commercial enterprises on the Study Team are not precluded from bidding on the final result.
FHWA has rephrased the question for clarity and provided this response:
Q. Could the consultant conducting the current Maine-NH Connections Study be the same consultant used to complete the final design?
A. We researched the Federal-aid statutes regarding contracts and consultant selection and we provide this response: The consultant contract procured for the Maine-NH Connections Study is a single contract for the completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process on which the Study is based. It includes preliminary engineering but does not include any final design. Any future contract for final design will meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. (United States Code) Section 112 (f). There is no conflict of interest because both MaineDOT and NHDOT will review and assess the NEPA environmental analysis prior to submittal to FHWA for approval. Any subsequent or future contract for final design will be competitively bid.
(f) Selection Process--A State may procure, under a single contract, the services of a consultant to prepare any environmental impact assessments or analyses required for a project, including environmental impact statements, as well as subsequent engineering and design work on the project if the State conducts a review that assesses the objectivity of the environmental assessment, environmental analysis, or environmental impact statement prior to its submission to the Secretary.}
(Back to Meeting Notes.)
Q: Will the length of this study get in the way of our application for stimulus funds?
A: Stimulus money will be applied for regardless of the study. The study will not prevent us from applying for funds.
Q: Isn’t the real problem that Maine is back-peddling and decided they’re no longer interested in this project? They’re moving on to other projects, correct?
A: Not true. Both states are involved in this study and want the most feasible long-term option.
Comment: I find this a wasted study. Finding an alternative that would change/alter the current traffic and landscape has substantial negative implications. It’s all a waste (agreement from many people).
Q: Doesn’t the proximity of the shipyard advance this in terms of priority?
A: It’s definitely a factor, which will be addressed in the Purpose and Need Statement.
Q: If we go through all this elaboration and hot air only to be told that Maine isn’t going to follow through, it would have all been for naught and we still won’t have a solution for the bridge. It seems to me we need an endorsement from the state of Maine.
A: MaineDOT will accept and follow through on the results of this study.
Q: The bridge is going to fall down. You have to do something.
A: There is an immediate need. We know that. We just want to make sure a long-term solution is carefully thought out—it might be that an investment of “x” will be necessary to take care of things short-term. We don’t know yet. Nobody disagrees that money will be spent on these bridges—it just must be wisely spent.
Q: Isn’t there a clause in the Constitution that says the federal government can step in on issues of interstate commerce? It seems wrong that Maine and NH fight this out themselves, as there’s clearly an impasse.
A: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA has representatives in both states that are actively involved. From FHWA: We try not to be in the business of telling states what to do and how to make decisions.
Q: I’d like to hear the gentleman from MaineDOT reinforce that they will support and endorse the results of this study.
A; (MaineDOT) Yes, we will. “Creative funding” (bonds, earmarks, etc) will play a role either way because there’s no way stimulus or existing transportation funding can pay for all of it. But both states will do everything in our power to implement it.
• Comment from NHDOT Commissioner George Campbell: We’re a partnership. The real difference between Maine and New Hampshire in this project is that NH has a 10-year capital plan and it sets up a red list of bridge and highway programs. Last year we had this bridge on our list – our half was funded – when I met with MaineDOT last year I talked to them about bringing it forward and we made an agreement. New Hampshire has its money to build this bridge because the legislature has said these bridges are high priority. Maine doesn’t have that. We want to build the Memorial Bridge but we can’t do it until our partners can step up with the money. The study is helping them stay involved and find a way to come up with the money. It’s not a wasted project.
Q: Can we have a condition that bike/ped access be non-negotiable in developing alternatives.
A: That is certainly an important factor that can be part of the Purpose and Need Statement.
Q: I just don’t feel that we need this big study—why not hire an urbanist to evaluate the situation for a lot cheaper? And honestly, it’s pretty much common sense to determine what would work and what wouldn’t—obviously we’re not going to build a high span bridge. Also, the project seems way too focused on transportation and movement, not enough on landscape, quality of life, etc.
A: Urban planners wouldn’t have the kind of data that we’ll be collecting. And land use, historic, economic and social factors will all be taken into account. It’s not just transportation. Please refer to the data list that is in your handout.
Comment: This is a large tourism region, and the bridge is a HUGE draw for tourists and should be rehabbed.
Q: Will you look at the cost of taking land off the tax rolls? Even just one acre would have adverse effects.
A: Yes.
Q: Are we implementing a solution to try to solve I-95 summer traffic? Are we definitely NOT trying to put high-speed traffic on another bridge?
A: We’re not precluding anything, but there’s an opportunity to look at high level bridges and see what speed they could accommodate. But high level can’t support rail, which serves the shipyard. Yet high level is a HUGE decrease in maintenance costs, so there are pros and cons to every option. That’s why we need to look closely and not just go straight for a solution.
Q: Do we need to accommodate rail transport for the future, or ship access in and around Dover?
A: Yes, we will be talking to lots of folks who use the river to see what their needs are and how they envision using it down the road. We’re definitely going to be thinking multi-modal. These considerations are part of the overall effort, and you all will be the judge of how well we meet those needs when we bring our findings back to you.
Q: If the two bridges were completely replaced, what would that mean for costs?
A: Maintenance costs on the bridges are currently huge, and it could dramatically increase or decrease depending on the alternative selected. It’s a similar principle to investing in a new car vs. continuing to put money into an old one. Operating costs wouldn’t change much, but there’s potential to reduce maintenance from $1 million to around $100,000. There’s always room for efficiencies.
Q: Is it imperative that we keep rail going to the navy yard? It’s a tremendous economic generator for BOTH states.
A: Both states have been in discussion with the shipyard about the transportation of goods and services, but it’s safe to say that rail is an important asset to both states. If the shipyard says, “We can’t function without rail,” then any alternative without rail would be dead, off the table. That’s why the Fatal Flaw analysis is so important to this study and the process.
Q: Would a return to tolls be considered? It could help with partial funding.
A: We looked at it in the 80s and it was determined that people would avoid Sarah Long if there was a toll. But it would make sense to reevaluate that now.
Comment: We need to plan for the future, not just the present.
Q: I renovate old houses, and I know that if I keep replacing little things here and there cheaply, it will cost me more in the long run than investing in a total overhaul. Does it make sense to apply that here?
A: Yes, that’s exactly what we’re trying to do with bridges.
Q: Is taking Memorial Bridge down and not replacing it still on the table?
A: Everything is on the table in the first round. Even tunnels were looked at before, but they were quickly fatal-flawed.
Q: Are metrics being considered for more obtuse aspects (outside of just economics, things like history, etc.)?
A: Bridges are protected under Section 106 and 4f, so we have to demonstrate no feasible or prudent alternatives before we can alter them. If these communities say historic is the number one factor, then its going to hold a lot of weight. A lot depends on the Purpose and Need Statement that you will all help us draft.
Q: Can we re-bid?
A: It’s difficult and unfair to put contractors through a lengthy and costly bid process when we don’t have any concrete plan to move ahead at this time.
Q: So you’ll be using old numbers when going after the stimulus?
A: Yes.
The meeting ended at 8:20.