Project No.: 52049.00: / 2
Transportation
Land Development
Environmental
S e r v i c e s
/ Six Bedford Farms Drive, Suite 607
Bedford, New Hampshire 03110-6532
Telephone 603 644-0888
Fax 603 644-2385
www.vhb.com
Meeting Notes
Attendees: / Victor Langelo – TopshamRich Roedner - Topsham
Anna Breinich – Brunswick
John Gerard – BDA
Leighton Cooney – Governor’s Office
Dave Markovchick – Brunswick
Benet Pols, Brunswick
John Shattuck, Topsham
Jeffrey Jordan, MRRA
Leighton Cooney - Office of the Governor
Chris Mann - MaineDOT
Marty Kennedy – VHB
Carol Morris, Morris Communications / Date/Time: / July 1, 2010
3:00 – 5:00 PM
Project No.: / 52049.00
Place: / Topsham Town Office / Re: / Advisory Committee Meeting #9
Notes taken by: / Carol Morris
The meeting started at 1:04 pm.
Agenda
- Additional Public Input Since Last Meeting
- Discussion on Project Phasing
- Project Schedule
Introduction
Mr. Chris Mann, MaineDOT Study Manager, opened the meeting by thanking everyone for attending. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Marty Kennedy, Study Manager for VHB.
Additional Public Comments
Mr. Kennedy began with a brief summary of recent public input, which included:
- Provide better signage to direct regional through-traffic to the Coastal Connector as opposed to Pleasant Street.
- Reduce Pleasant St. to 2 lanes with a center turning lane: Mr. Kennedy noted that it would be great if a 3-lane section could work, but the traffic volumes are too high for a 3-lane section. We continue to hear support for consolidated curb cuts and parallel connector roads.
- Mill St.: People have commented that the 3-lane option with a left turn lane is best, that crosswalks with traffic signals will solve the problem, and some have also said that the 4-lane option is a no-brainer. The comments range from do nothing and leave the roadway at 2 lanes, to widen it to 4 lanes.
- Coastal Connector: reduce number of traffic signals
- Other comments include:
o Provide full access to Maine St.
o Make Pleasant St. east of Stanwood St. 2-way. Mr. Kennedy noted that adding an additional phase to the traffic signal would result in substantial delay at the Stanwood/Mill St. intersection. However, if in the future enough traffic could be redirected to the Coastal Connector, it could potentially work.
- A new I-295 Interchange at River Rd.: Mr. Kennedy reminded the Committee that we have discussed this at previous meetings and it does not meet federal criteria for constructing a new interchange.
- Run a connector road along the rail line from Union to Stanwood Streets: Mr. Kennedy said this idea may make sense from a local perspective; however it is not consistent with this study’s purpose and need. He noted that such a connection might direct more traffic through the downtown. Mr. Kennedy asked if the idea had been considered in the past.
Mr. Pols said that he had heard discussion of a connection from Stanwood to Church, but not to Union St. Mr. Kennedy noted that a route from Church to Stanwood would tend to encourage high-volume, high-speed bypass traffic. As currently proposed, the connections, which do not extend to Stanwood, serve to provide all properties access to one of the major intersections.
Mr. Kennedy then shared with the Committee an idea proposed by Mr. Roedner, which is to show a future connector roadway along the Central Maine Power (CMP) ROW that would connect Route 201 with the Crooker property and with the Mallett Drive intersection. The idea is that this connector roadway on the north side of Route 196 would serve a similar function as the connector roadway that currently exists on the south side of the roadway. If this area develops in the future; this action would provide enhanced connectivity. He added that they would plan to show this at the next public meeting. This was followed by some discussion on how difficult it could be to build on or obtain some of the CMP ROW. Mr. Jeff Jordan suggested that CMP would generally not allow a roadway to run along its length, but they generally would allow the ROW to be traversed.
Project Phasing
Mr. Kennedy then initiated a discussion on the potential phasing and implementation of various solutions.
He noted that the overarching comments focused on the need for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Bike/Ped accommodations. He reminded the Committee that to be successful, TDM will require a long-term commitment of both the public sector as well as the private sector. It is also important to recognize that to getting motorists out of their cars will require some level of roadway congestion. The options being evaluated do incorporate bike/ped accommodations. However, many are asking for bike trails throughout Brunswick and Topsham. It is important to recognize that the towns have a responsibility as well. Brunswick, like Topsham, should prepare an overall bike/ped master plan and then put an implementation plan together.
Strategies 1 and 3: Mr. Kennedy noted that these two strategies are fairly straightforward in terms of process. The proposed Route 1 interchange (Strategy 1) will need to proceed through the NEPA process and therefore the MaineDOT may want to pursue Strategy 1 as an early action item. Similarly, with the rail spur, the results of the feasibility study suggest that the idea of extending the rail spur is feasible. However, the timing would be based on the redevelopment needs of the base and when demand occurs.
Strategies 2a, 2b and 2c: Mr. Kennedy noted that these strategies are more involved, but that overall there is one primary decision to be made first: What is the function of the Coastal Connector? He said that the answer to this affects the final strategies and the timing. Right now, Pleasant St. and the Coastal Connector are both arterials, and the study input shows that most people believe that the Coastal Connector should have a higher classification. If this is the desire, then the options to widen the Connector and perhaps to grade-separate the Route 196/Route 201 intersection should occur sooner than later.
Mr. Kennedy then talked about how this might affect the other alternatives. He noted that if and when it is determined that the traffic calming is the desired action for Pleasant Street, it might make sense to begin with the roundabout at the Pleasant St. “gateway”. Other actions along Pleasant Street, such as the access management connections will take time as they will likely occur as redevelopment takes place. With regard to Mill Street, decision makers need to come to consensus on the long-term function of this roadway. If the Connector is designated to be the primary route, it is less important that Mill Street be widened to 4 lanes. In fact, if the Connector is designated as the primary route for regional through traffic, consideration should be given to reconfiguring the Route 1/Coastal Connector interchange.
Mr. Shattuck added that the access road across the Crooker land to connect Rtes. 201 and 196 may also make sense as an early action item. This would relieve much of the Rte. 201/Rte. 196 intersection burden and it is a low cost - under a million dollars to relieve this pressure. He said it would be good to see the effects of this and it would support both strategies.
Mr. Kennedy said that his thinking was that this connection through the Crooker property, much like the access management connections along Pleasant Street will be driven by the time table for redevelopment opportunities along those properties. Mr. Shattuck noted that the Topsham project may not be driven by development, but by providing congestion relief with some support for base area.
Ms. Breinich noted that at the Downtown Master Plan Outer Pleasant St. Corridor Study committee meeting (on July 22), they will likely recommend that at least temporarily that actions be taken to direct traffic to the Coastal Connector and away from Pleasant Street.
Mr. Cooney noted that he has heard that businesses on Pleasant Street were concerned with this possibility of directing traffic away from Pleasant Street. He asked how widespread is this sentiment?
Ms. Breinich noted that 30 businesses attended the Saturday morning meeting on Pleasant Street (many of whom they had not seen before) and the attendees were fine with proposed changes. She said that most of merchants want people to stop – they want people who have a purpose for being there. They’re not interested in those who are simply driving through.
Mr. Gerard said that business properties are valued based on the volume of traffic that passes their front door and that owners of the businesses would likely not be in favor of redirecting traffic away from Pleasant Street. Ms. Breinich noted that this only affects through-traffic. He added that business owners do not necessarily show up at our public meetings. However, the town will hear from them once a position is taken. Ms. Breinich noted that much needs to be done and many people need to be consulted before the final recommendation is made. Mr. Roedner asked if there was a time and a place for the July 22 meeting and Ms. Breinich said it was at McLellan from 5:00 to 6:30 pm.
At this point, a Ms. Judy Gorby (a resident of Brunswick who was sitting in the audience) asked what is the purpose of these roundabouts on Pleasant Street.
Mr. Kennedy asked if she had viewed the plans, and Ms. Gorby said yes and they would all affect her property. Mr. Kennedy explained the purpose behind the proposed change is to allow left turns to occur safely and efficiently and at the same time make connections between Pleasant St. and the side streets in a safer, smoother way. Ms. Gorby asked why not make it all with no left hand turns allowed. Mr. Kennedy explained the importance of making it possible for customers to get to the businesses on Pleasant St. Ms. Gorby said she lives on Westminster and does not want her property taken. Mr. Kennedy said he did not believe her property on Westminster would be directly impacted and then suggested that they talk one-on-one after the meeting. Ms. Gorby agreed.
Mr. Kennedy then asked what Topsham’s view would be on the Coastal Connector taking on more traffic. Mr. Roedner said that viewpoints are split. People have been against an overpass in the past. He noted that even though Topsham sent out their own notices to the public meeting, turnout from the town was low. He asked if the next public meeting could take place in Topsham.
Mr. Langelo noted that part of the lower turnout could be that perception is that the study is focused on the NASB or Pleasant St., but now he said they realize it is a key piece of the area’s transportation strategy. Mr. Shattuck added that the Coastal Connector was built for and designed for through-traffic and a flyover was even suggested originally but people thought it would harm Main Street. However, that view appears to be changing.
Mr. Cooney asked if there was consensus that the purpose of the study is to get traffic to and from the developed base, and does it make sense that the Connector is the right solution for that?
Mr. Roedner and Shattuck noted that this was true only for traffic coming from the west.
Mr. Roedner noted that the strategies were presented to Topsham selectmen two weeks ago and most comments were positive, with the most concern relating to property issues.
Mr. Gerard commented that a signalized intersection is worth four times what a property is worth if you take the signals away. Mr. Roedner asked if this was true even if there is a parallel access road. Mr. Langelo stated that he believed that it has more to do with the type of business as opposed to access to a signal.
The group then discussed having a public meeting in Topsham and it was generally agreed this would be a good idea. Various locations were discussed and Mr. Roedner volunteered to get back to Mr. Kennedy with possible options. Mr. Kennedy noted that a decision had to be made soon in order to get the time, date and location in the upcoming newspaper insert.
Mr. Gerard made the point that in order to attract business to the base, in order to be competitive, it would be necessary to have certain infrastructure in place as opposed to having only a promise to build it. It takes years to get a permit and move to construction, and he believes the state should decide what is most important and do it right away. Mr. Pols asked if Strategy 1 was the most important, and Mr. Gerard agreed, with the second priority getting traffic to Route 1. He said that in his opinion the widening of the Coastal Connector makes sense but only if the Route 201 intersection is addressed. He also recommended getting the design, permitting and property acquisition completed on the rail line so it could be built within 8-9 months.
Mr. Langelo asked if fixing the Maine St. /Mill St. intersection would be helpful, and Mr. Kennedy said that in his opinion addressing the left-turn issue at Route 1 and Maine Street would improve traffic flow in the area. However, it needs to be considered within the context of Downtown master plan, which is somewhat separate from the Purpose and Need of this study.
Mr. Shattuck said that he agreed with Mr. Gerard in terms of enhancing redevelopment. Mr. Jordan also agreed, saying that the Lewiston-Auburn Labor Market Area will provide the lion’s share of technical and blue collar workers and those connections will be important. He added that it will be tough to get Strategy 1 approved, but that the upgrade of Route 196 will be more competitive. He thinks Mill and Pleasant Streets will be more difficult because there is as of yet no consensus.