Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-09 Board of Selectmen HandoutOF RE`gdl~~ c~° j o~~o s 639:INCt14Q • ~1,+D11 - Ce,rt,71rcate elf r reciatl®n by t Certificate of ~'pp usetts s awarded this a~~g9 -MasSach city service ~ ,..Fowu of R.e and~g community •nn®t •®n for his ®utst h~m,.self by give g 11.1. appreciate ht to he has 'fir°ug and treasures too • but of his talents and the hou°r e only of hiS tim da of ®ctober, ZQ01 Given this 13t1i Board of Selectmen By the Beadxxig d of Selectmen: Reading- 1 eadg Boar tax rates pear R whenyOn vote this fall urge property 1 do not su)°rt ptpertY tax uniform you to keep P - pe - g fo lowing the public h Date, Sued - -printNam ~ p~ c~. ~ Qom` ~`C Beading Business s OF DYRBC`t'ORS OF Z3 D BY BOAEDR OF c03v1ME? -ED END~C,D1sORtSTRtB~O CHAD ear rates iii Beading 1 Board of Selectmen:. tax D Reading tial Property when you vote this fall 1 do not suoor dlffeerty tax inform to keep prop urge y 011 - to hearing- ►Q ~ d- 7 fo~ow1ng the p Date, Slgn-ed ~~l t~ ' ~ f S 7~`..~tt Print Name . p Business G ! RIB ED BY T EoAREDR OF CO E°RRCEOF ENDORSED AND DIST INO c ~ RE~~O rIOR'r~ RF'AD i ~ l ~ ~ •f ? Z1.~~;'"'SiZk.~':'~•~~~~. ~!"~'.~r~.,rG~r~w,~"~~.l.F"~1 ~7:wfi,~,`.`.~,•~i'.;~dDy.a i~~r~t~:in r .E!~`k.,,rir-p~~Azi-sg Q~C T~"O!?,t4' ..1~1 p33f;rt !U~f Y f 11.1 S I~2~.•1~Iat"I2P< ;'ti .e'', y 77~< Leading: gait§ihea.,:;- -t'~~'`?~P~ k.. . ElTD ?!.~~T F NT rLJr i b~ tiT!E. _ "OrCz T'ITF REALING-T10RTri P<EADING CLIAi~1?EI!.(1FF O1v1i.%::SI~C:?, Dear Reading Board of Selectmen: I do nofaiioort differential`prbperty tax rates in Reading.— I urge you to keep property tax uniform when you vote this fall following the public hearing. Signed T Date 41 Print Name c sSe-P 1 /4. HJLL, Reading Business °f 44 - i AfiW- 1- ENDORSED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE READING-NORTH READING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE a a Page 1 of 2 Hecher'bleikner, Peter From: Everson, Jeff Deverson@foster-miller.com] Sent: ' Tuesday, Octobe'r,09, 2007 1:56 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc:. Carrie Russell Subject: EVERSON REPSONSE TO THE ENF, AUGUST 31, 2007 Importance:;: °High Attachments: ENF REPSONSE-EVERSON 1042D.doc; NewlVlresume11_01Vers2.doc To the Reading Board of Selectmen: Attached to this email is my response to the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF). In summary, this response makes the following assertions based on the Feasibility Study Final Report (i.e., issued after 4 years, 45 Task Force meetings and more than $1 M of study money) and the ENF: (1) Problems due to congestion, rear end accidents and air quality have been transferred to connecting roadways by the new interchange concepts. (2) These are valid reasons to believe that computer modeling of interchange designs is incorrect. (3) The Interchange Task Force (ITF) is incapable of recognizing, addressing and proposing solutions to issues 1- 2 because -almost all members (i.e., nearly 90%) are not technically qualified. ITF membership should have been heavily weighted on technical qualifications. Problems 1 and 2 above could have been avoided with less time and money. (4) The Reading Board of Selectmen (BOS) rejected the concepts presented in the Feasibility Study Final Report. Further, the BOS suggested that MA DOT "return to the drawing board" and re-address issues related to noise, visual impacts and eminent domain takings. The MA DOT through the ENF has explicitly ignored BOS recommendations. Based on items 1-4 above. I propose the following recommendations: (1) Expand the current Citizen's Advisory Council (CAC) to include several members with solid technical credentials in air quality, accident and congestion analysis, as well as expertise in computer modeling of these three areas. (2) Invite outside environmental legal expertise to provide oversight during the Environmental Study. Without resident expertise in the CAC, what is the point of an advisory group where most members "do not have a clue " on technical and legal issues? (3) Proceed immediately with my recommendations on the use of electronic countermeasures to manage congestion along Route 95 (i.e., Reading to Waltham) during the AM peal. period. See Section 4 of the attached document. These measures may promote a more efficient use of a redesigned interchange and avoid merely rushing to the next point of congestion. Regards, Jeff Dr. Jeffrey H. Everson 10/9/2007 Page 2 of 2 Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I-93/I-95 Task Force, 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cni4 a.aol.com PS. I realize you are required by law to avoid communication outside regularly scheduled board meetings and that there is only one 30 minute window per month to discuss matters outside the board. A fraction of 30 minutes is not enough time to discuss complicated highway/environmental issues. So, what would you suggest? 10/9/2007 To: Ian Bowles, Secretary, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Bob Frey, Manager, State Wide Planning, Massachusetts Highway Department Nicholas Zavolas, Analyst, Office, Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Cc. Luisa Paiewonsky, Commissioner Massachusetts Highway Department Bradley Jones, State Representative, 12`1' Middlesex District Patrick Natale, State Representative 13'h Middlesex District Board of Selectmen, Reading, Massachusetts From: Dr. Jeffrey Everson, Member: PRESERVE, I-93/I-95 Interchange Task Force' Date: October 10, 2007 Subject: Everson Response to the Expanded Environmental Notification Form ENF, August 31, 2007 1. Introduction 1.1 Background: The Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) is part of the current Environmental Study that follows a previous Feasibility Study for the proposed redesign of the I-93/I-95 interchange. This four year Feasibility Study (2003-2007) was supported by nearly 3 dozen members of the Interchange Task Force (ITF) from Reading, Stoneham and Woburn. Members provided input on impacts related to noise, visual affects and eminent domain takings. Information on this Feasibility Study and the ENF can be found at www.9395info.com. My response was prepared based on my professional experience in the field of highway transportation safety systems. (See attached resume). I am prepared to defend my assertions in whatever venue is deemed appropriate (i.e., technical or legal). I request a review process that includes a timely written rebuttal from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs related to this response, followed by a public hearing. 1.2 Major Failure of the Feasibility Study: A major failure of the previous feasibility study was to confine the study area to a relatively small region in the vicinity of the interchange and to ignore exacerbating effects created by a redesigned interchange on connecting roadways beyond the study area. Based on the ENF and the Feasibility Study that preceded it, the current embodiment of the redesigned I-93/I-95 interchange is expected to have the following frequent negative impacts on the segments leading away from the interchange along Route 93 to Boston and along Route 95 to Waltham during the weekday AM peals commuting period: 1. Increased congestion 2. Added stop and go driving (due to #1) 3. More exhaust emissions from stop and go driving (resulting from #2) 1 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work) 5) 4. Degraded air quality along these routes due to increased stop and go driving (caused by #2) 5. Increased likelihood of rear end accidents (due to #2) 6. More rear end accidents will lead to additional stop and go driving with added exhaust emissions and degraded air quality. 7. No improvement in overall commuting time from home to office. An alleged "spot improvement" merely shifts interchange issues (items 1-6 above) to connecting segments. 8. Incidents (i.e., "fender benders") cause additional congestion that could lead to more exhaust emissions and poor air quality. The relationship between these effects and incidents due to rear end and run-off-road accidents occurring in the interchange or on connecting segments were never explicitly addressed by the Feasibility Study 9. Computer modeling of the interchange is incorrect because items 1, 2, 5, and 6 were ignored. Therefore, the proposed interchange concepts are flawed and should be rejected. These same issues are likely to plague the return trip through the interchange during the weekday PM peals period. However, my response will focus on the AM peals period for purposes of illustration. Sections 2 and 3 provide referenced justification in support of issues 1-9. 1.3 Major Failure of the Feasibility Study and the Interchange Task Force: In the course of four years of Task Force meetings, members of the Task Force showed that they were incapable of grasping the significance of the nine issues cited above for the following reasons. Most members have absolutely no technical background in general,' and only one (i.e., me) has expertise derived from US DOT contracts in both transportation accident analysis and congestion mitigation. Further ITF members have no background in air quality and absolutely no civil engineering qualifications to be assisting the MA DOT in the redesign of anything, not to mention a major interchange. The ITF did make recommendations regarding impacts due to noise, visual effects and eminent domain for candidate interchange redesigns. However, the ITF is not technically qualified to make the connection between such recommendations and impacts on accidents, congestion and air quality. The MA DOT never provided justification with accessible references on the use of a "committee of amateurs" to redesign highway infrastructure. It is not clear that the trivialization of highway design by amateur talent would be legally defensible if the MA DOT were confionted with a class action suit related to an accident-causing design flaw of a redesigned interchange, for example. 1.4 Major Failure of the Feasibility Study and the Reading Board of Selectmen (BOS): During the four years of the Feasibility Study, there were two members of the Reading Board of Selectmen in attendance at most Task Force meetings. It should be noted that the Reading BOS rejected the proposed interchange redesign concepts due to insufficient noise reduction, unmitigated visual disturbances, and a failure by the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) to reduce eminent domain takings to zero. The ENF has ignored the BOS decision. One may justifiably conclude that the BOS wasted their time over the course of 45 Task Force meetings. I am not aware that the BOS ever publicized their decision on the Feasibility Study. One might ask why... My recommendation: either forthrightly address these issues or abandon any major change to the I-93/I-95 interchange. See my recommendation in Section 4 on addressing issues 1-9. 2 Exceptions to this general observation are Jay Corey, Woburn City Engineer and Jim Gallagher, Senior Transportation Planner, Metropolitan Area Planning Council. There are 35 Task Force members, 3 qualified technical members and 11 elected officials. Thus, Task Force technical membership = 8.6 political membership = 31.4 technically unqualified membership = 92.4 % 2 Section 2 summarizes certain claims made by the ENF. My rebuttal to these claims is provided in Section 3. The failings of the proposed interchange design might be mitigated by means of electronic countermeasures to regulate the flow of vehicles onto Route 95 from Routes 3 and 2 during the AM peak period. This subject is discussed in Section 4. The Appendix poses clarifying questions on air quality issues. 2. ENF Claims This section summarizes certain claims asserted by the ENF. These are alleged interchange efficiency and air quality. My rebuttal does not address issues related to land or water, 2.1 Claim No. 1: "...Analvsis with a CORSIM micro simulation model of the area indicates that traffic operations would be substantially improved and delays would be reduced. With reduced delays, the interchange would process more vehicles, which would have travel time benefits for many drivers, and would shorten the period of maximum congestion in the area. With fewer drivers seeking alternate routes to avoid the original congestion, traffic on local streets used as "cut-throughs" (cited as a significant problem by the local communities) would be reduced as well. Although Route 128 and I-93 would continue to operate near capacity downstream from the interchange, svstem-wide travel and mobility are improved throughout the region."' 2.2 Claim No. 2: The ENF claims that project will not meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality (see 301 CMR 11.03). It is further claiined that the project will not require any state permits related to air quality, a 3. Rebuttal to ENF Claims My rebuttal to the above claims is given below. 3.1 Rebuttal to Claim No. 1 3.1.1 "...Analysis with a CORSIM micro simulation model of the area indicates that traffic, operations would be substantially improved and delays would be reduced:" The program CORSIM is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2000 edition. "The HCM does not take into account or apply to the influence of downstream blockages or queuing on a segment without modification by the analyst." 3 Further, the HCM does not address demand conditions in excess of capacity (op. cit. 3). There is nothing in the I-93/I-95 Interchange Feasibility Study to indicate that the down stream blockage due to peals period bottlenecks, or downstream demands in excess of capacity in the same time period, were ever explicitly considered in the use of the traffic simulation, CORSIM. 4 . The EOT has made every effort to ignore downstream affects during the past four years. Therefore, one may justifiably conclude that the results of CORSIM are incorrect. Conclusion: There is no reason to believe that claim 3. 1.1 is true and should be rejected until credible, verifiable evidence is made available. 3.1.2 "...systemwide travel and mobilitv are improved throughout the region." "A freeway bottleneck is the critical point of congestion with queues upstream and freely flowing traffic downstream. Recurring bottlenecks (those not caused by atypical conditions such as incidents) can occur for manv reasons. including high volumes of entering and merging traffic. lane drops between ramps or at off ramps, heavy weaving sections, horizontal or vertical curves, and long upgrades. Proper identification of freeway bottlenecks and their causes is the key to formulating plans for reducing congestion.i5 Thousands of commuters know that Routes 95 to Waltham and 93 to Boston from the interchange suffer from constant recurring bottlenecks during the AM peals period. An interchange with improved flow properties would only add more vehicles to these routes that are already at or near capacity. The ENF admitted that these routes have limited capacity, if any. • Conclusion: There is no reason to believe that claim 3.1.2 is true and should be rejected until credible, verifiable evidence is made available. 3.2 Rebuttal to Claim No. 2 3.2.1 "The hroiect will not meet or exceed anv review thresholds related to air cuality and the nroiect will not require anv state hermits related to air aualitv." "Studies link congested stop-and-go driving to sharp increases in emissions of carbon monoxide, dioxide, hydrocarbons and particulates from heavy- and light- duty trucks, as well as from cars. Cars and diesel trucks are much less fuel efficient and much worse pollution generators in congested stop-and-go driving than in free-flowing traffic at moderate speeds." 6 Accidents that occur along roadways connecting the interchange will lead to more stop and go driving in addition to that, which already exists. The extent of this congestion build up depends on the length of time needed to remove vehicles involved in an incident and time for the congestion to dissipate. Since the current interchange redesign concept will create additional stop and go driving on connecting segments, there will be an increased likelihood of rear end accidents on them. This increase in rear end accidents is due to the following reason. Rear end crashes occur primarily under conditions of clear weather and on dry, straight pavements. During 77 percent of the time, they result when the lead vehicle (i.e., the driver in front of you) is stopped. The primary causal factor is inattention to the driving task. These statements are found in the reference given below. It is a US DOT report where I am a co-author.' Note that the key issue is "When the driver in front of you is stopped, albeit momentarily." Therefore, increased stop and go driving conditions will correlate with increased rear end accidents. A redesigned interchange that promotes increased traffic flow through it will (1) contribute to the downstream bottleneck, (2) more stop-and-go driving, (3) more rear end accidents, (4) additional exhaust emissions and (5) additional degraded air quality beyond what would normally be present based on the current interchange design. • Conclusion: There is no reason to believe that claim 3.2.1 is true and should be rejected until credible, verifiable evidence is made available. 4 ~ 4. Improving Air Quality, Mitigating Bottlenecks, and Reducing Rear End Accidents Traffic congestion during the peals period on roadway links connecting the interchange cannot be ignored because it will affect the interchange level of service (LOS). The redesigned interchange concept H3 (i.e., a fully directional flyover type) and the link between the interchange along Route 128 and Waltham during the weekday peal, AM period are used as an example (i.e. my daily commute): By itself, interchange redesign concept (H3) promotes an efficient flow of vehicles through the interchange because the weaving segments are eliminated (i.e., improved level LOS). I raised this point at a recent Task Force meeting. No one disagreed. However, concept H3 incurs a penalty per the discussion below. Vehicles traveling through this improved LOS facility will encounter frequent congestion [LOS (F)] along Route 128 to Waltham during the weekday peak AM period. This weekday peak AM congestion along Route 128 will impede the flow of vehicles from the interchange such that congestion will flow back toward the interchange. (The same affect will occur during the weekday AM peak period for Route 93 heading south to Boston. I've traveled this route many times on my way to Logan airport during the peak AM period). My recommendation: The LOS potential of concept H3 could be approached and air quality improved by slowing congestion build up along Route 95 during the peals AM period by regulating traffic flow onto Route 95 from Routes 3, 2 and 2A using ramp metering and/or adaptive speed control on these three roads. There are many precedents for this approach. 8 9 to The cost for this electronic augmentation is expected to be minor relative to the construction expense of a redesigned interchange. The efficacy of this electronic countermeasure approach could be computer simulated with and without a redesigned interchange. If found worthy, a pilot test with traffic sensors, computers and controlling algorithms could be conducted at first without a redesigned interchange to actually measure the effect of controlling traffic entering Route 95 during the AM peak period. This first step should be undertaken to improve air quality at the very least. No eminent domain takings would be necessary. There would be no draconian flyovers causing visual blight of the landscape. Traffic noise impacts could be measured as a function of traffic flow (i.e., versus LOS). This approach may also lead to improved roadway safety and reduced home-to-office commuting time. Appendix: Questions (Q) on Air Quality The questions below are not meant to be regarded as an arbitrary "hoop jurnping" exercise. The point of the matter is that 375,000 vehicles (EOT count) traverse the I-93/1-95 interchange daily. That many vehicles, frequently found in stop-and-go driving, could contribute massive exhaust emissions and substandard air quality, both for drivers, passengers and local inhabitants. For example, "An average vehicle emits aDDroximately 3.8 tons of CO,, into the atmosphere Der vear. COz accounts for more than 956/o of total GHG emissions from motor vehicles." 11. The process that led to Claim No. 2 (Section 2.2) needs considerable clarification and justification in order to be credible, and legally defensible. 5 0 Claim 2 stated that project will not meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality. Q1. How was this claim determined for highways connecting the interchange (e.g., Route 93 south to Boston and Route 95 to Waltham)? Would you please send me your justification documentation. Q2. What are federal and state air quality requirements for these highways? Q3. How do you measure vehicular exhaust emission pollutants, such carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, NO,,, SO,,, particulate matter (PM) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)?" How accurate is your measurement instrumentation? What are the calibration requirements? Q4. Are you able to distinguish exhaust emissions from automobiles versus trucks, as well as spark ignition versus diesel engines? Please explain how you would proceed with this differentiation. Q5. Are you able to account for exhaust emissions due to seasonal variations? Please explain how you would treat this issue. Q6. Are you able to computer simulate variations in exhaust emissions based on different highway geometries and different percentages of vehicles versus trucks? Please explain how.. Q7. Have you published technical reports on issues related to questions 1-6? I would appreciate copies. For example, current and previous contracts come to mind, as well as publications that appear in the annual Transportation Research Board (TRB) meeting. Q8. Has the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and/or its contractors ever been subjected to legal action on air quality issues? Please cite cases and summarize results. References 1 ENF August 31, 2007, page 4/19, 3`a paragraph 2 ENF op. cit., page 16/19 3 Appendix A, Limitations of the Highway Capacity Manual, Table 12, Federal Highway Administration, }httu://ops.fbwa.dot.pov/traflicanalvsistools/tat vol2/sectaup a.htm 4 I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Study, Final Report - June 2007 "Low-Cost Improvements for Recurring Freeway Bottlenecks," NCHRP 03-83 [Active], http://www.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectED=839 6 "What About Air Quality? Thoughts from WSDOT on Air Quality Concerns and Transportation," httD://www.wsdot.wa.Qov/Dublications/folio/AirOualitv.Ddf 7 Hendricks, D., Allen, J., Tijerina, L., Everson, J:, Knipling, R., Wilson, C., WNTSC IVHS Program Topical Report No. 1: Rear-End Crashes," Final Report, Omni Task RA1039-Intelligent Vehicle/Highway Systems (IVHS) Program (Contract No. DTRS-57-89-D-00086) Final Report, July 1992. 8 M25 Controlled Motorway, httD://www.hiahwavs.aov.uldlmowledae/14334.aSDX 6 I~ 9 Variable Speed Limits. htto://safetv.fhwa.dot.eov/speed manaee/docs/warren vsl.nbt#1 10 Controlled Motorways,llttn:Usafetv.fhwa.dot.eov/speed manaee/docs/novntonl.odf " Transports Quebec, Exhaust Emissions, httD://www.mto.eouv.oc.ca/nortal/> aee/portal/ministere en/ministere/envi onnement/chaneements climati aues/transport chaneements climatiaueshm echannement 0 Ala S /V1 0/9/2007 Reading Economic Development Opportunities October 9, 2007 r,:n OIFFeCE SPACE - - SOB-735.7729 S 10/9/2007 315 Mistry Associates Inc. FOR LEASE 781-944-64001 ~ ~J l~r1 l a ; I f -f I 1 ~ , t 1 E• , Jeremy Cyri r rim r 1 " t3 F:,~ -7- 1-~ i Htalt - F in y 0-5499 - ~ . , W L 2 .9ION-IN SHEET FOR THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING DATE: J d 0 B °7 NAME " ADDRESS (Please print) 13,11 Aw S--tare V4orloso AA vo c a+e-) e R v~ v~l citei.c)Z~ r ~ Li-f g~JlV i e L (rte-o-n wr.~/ ~f ~v nr fir. ryN ol-vl,\ VI)v a V-\ V')