Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-10 Board of Selectmen HandoutPage 1 of 2 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: RRRED [info@rrred.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:44 PM To: Town Manager; Reading - Selectmen Subject: Tonight's BOS Meeting Peter, Nice talking with you today, here is the letter we would like to present on behalf of the RRRED members. Caryn To The Reading Selectmen and Town Manager, We have been advised that Reading CARE is going to attend tonight's Board of Selectmen's Meeting and they are going to present two speakers during the open comment portion of the meeting. (see below) It is our understanding that they are going to say that it is a falsehood that the majority of our Town is really in favor of Park Square at Reading. We further understand that they are going to ask you to go back on your decision of last week to further discuss Park Square at Reading and to then have the developer come back in for a discussion at a later point in time. We ask that you listen to the comments of Reading CARE and take them under advisement, but that you then stand by your decision to further discuss Park Square at Reading on October 17th and -thereafter. We realize that as Selectmen you already have a number of items on tonight's agenda that are also important to the Town, and we ask that you spend tonight's meeting discussing those important items, rather than rehashing the Park Square at Reading topic in an unappropriated time slot. While Reading CARE has urged their members to show up at Town Hall this evening, we decided that it would be best to let the Board continue on with their current business and not have 100's of RRRED supporters also inundate the meeting. As a group, we trust that you will do the right thing and keep the Park Square at Reading topic on next week's agenda as is currently planned. Thank you once again for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Caryn Hayes RRRED - Corresponding Secretary 10/10/2006 D Page 2 of 2 From: "nomall01867" <noma1101867@comcast.net> >To: "noma1101867" <noma1101867@comcast.net> >Subject: Reading CARE Update >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:35:09 -0400 >Thank you for your continued support of Reading CARE. >Reading CARE will be making a statement tonight (10/10) at the Board of >Selectmen's meeting. We have two speakers lined up. To make it more >effective we need all of you to join us. >We need a very strong turn out tonight from 7:00 to 7:30PM at Town Hall. >We need to demonstrate that there is not a "Town wide demand for a shopping >mall in Reading" as the developer has told several Selectmen. >It would be great to have 200 people there. >See you there and thank you for your continued support. >Jay AVIV& 10/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Goldy, Stephen [Stephen.Goldy@smith-nephew.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:01 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Hours of Construction Attachments: Hours of Construction.doc All, Attached is a draft of changes and thoughts for the hours of construction article. Bear in mind that this is not meant to be used as the actual language but more to spark a discussion. I apologize for the late submission. See you tonight. Steve Stephen A. Goldy Financial Services Manager, US Smith & Nephew Endoscopy 978-749-1207 978-749-1209 (fax) stenhen. tioldvn smith-nephew. com 10/10/2006 0 Hours of Construction Note: Existing language from the first draft is in italics and underlined. 5.5.8.2 - Definition • Differentiate between construction set-up including deliveries from actual construction activities. • Define "small contractor" as a licensed person hired to perform "less substantial" work being performed at a single or multi family owner occupied residence. • Differentiate between "less substantial" work being performed by contractors at a single or multi family owner occupied residence versus a large addition, building a complete structure, or a development. Maybe exempt "less substantial" work in section 5.3.8.4 5.3.8.3 - Hours • .7:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays to allow at least 9 hours of daylight for actual work. • None on Sundays and legal holidays (allow "less substantial" work on Sundays and holidays.) • Allow for set-up and deliveries at 6:30 am. 5.3.8.4 - Exemptions • "less substantial" work being performed by contractors at a single or multi family owner occupied residence. • By a resident on or in connection with his residence, without the aid of hired contractors (add "less substantial), whether or not such residence is a detached single family home. As written this encourages homeowners not to pull permits. • Sundays and holidays are allowed for "less substantial" work. /Y A ryT MASSACHUSETTS "MISS A MEETING" LAW If your board and committee members are unable to attend each and every meeting of their respective boards, help is on the way, at least in Massachusetts. On May 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed H4489, An Act Further Regulating Meetings of Municipal Boards. In summary, this long-awaited bill, known as the "Mullin Rule" (see case law summary below), would enable a member of a municipal board, committee or commission (Planning Board, ZBA, Con Com) who misses testimony at one session to participate in future proceedings where the same matter continues to be discussed. Details of the bill include: ❑ This is local option that reciuires town meeting/city council acceptance; ❑ The municipality can pick and choose which boards, committees, or commissions it may apply to; ❑ Only 1(one) session may be missed; ❑ The member shall examine audio, video, or transcript of the meeting; ❑ The member shall provide a written certification that they have examined such evidence, and this certification must be included as part of the written record of the hearing; ❑ It would seem that multiple members may miss testimony on the same hearing, but rules for quorum still apply to each session of a public hearing; ❑ Municipalities may continue to impose a stricter standard if they so choose.* The new law creates a new Section 23D to MGL Chapter 23D, will be cited as Chapter 79 of the Acts of 2006, and will take effect 90 days after its endorsement on Friday, May 12th, which is believed to be August 10tH Section 23D. (a) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, upon municipal acceptance of this section for 1 or more types of adjudicatory hearings, a member of any municipal board, committee or commission when holding an adjudicatory hearing shall not be disqualified from voting in the matter solely due to that member's absence from no more than a single session of the hearing at which testimony or, other evidence is received. Before any such vote, the member shall certify in writing that he has examined all evidence received at the missed session, which evidence shall include an audio or video recording of the missed session or a transcript thereof. The written certification shall be part of the record of the hearing. Nothing in this section shall change, replace, negate or otherwise supersede applicable quorum requirements. (b) By ordinance or by-law, a city or town may adopt minimum additional requirements for attendance at scheduled board, committee, and commission hearings under this section. The "Mullin Rule" arises from the Appeals Court decision of Mullin v. Planning Board of Brewster, 17 Mass. App. 139 (1983) which held that a planning board decision on a subdivision plan is an adjudicatory proceeding. The members of the board who vote on the plan must have attended the hearings on the plans. The Mullin case involved, at most, two hearings on a proposed subdivision plan. At least two Massachusetts Trial Court judges have refused to apply the Mullin rule in an overly stringent fashion when there are a series of public meetings. These judges have ruled, in essence, that if a planning board member misses a meeting when non-substantive issues. were discussed, it makes little difference. Furthermore, if a planning board member misses a meeting where there may have been substantive discussion and presentation but that substantive material was undoubtedly reiterated at a later meeting which the planning board member did attend, the Mullin rule should not apply. See Truman v. Travers, 11 LCR8 (Mass. Land Court) (Jan. 8, 2003) (Kilburn, J.) and Xarras. v. Snyder, 1998 WL 1184169 (Mass. Superior Court) (June 17, 1998) (Fremont-Smith, J.). Page 5 The New England Clerk Summer 2oo6 I91=93/1=95 Interchange Transportation Study This public informational meeting (the second of three) will give an update on the study underway to examine problems at the 1-93/1-95 Interchange (Exit 37) in Reading, Stoneham, and Woburn and recommend ways to improve traffic flow and safety. Both highway and non-highway options are under consideration, and will be reviewed at this meeting. Along with various transit strategies, four potential highway alternative plans are being evaluated and refined (none would require any residential property takings). After further input and evaluation, the third public meeting will present the proposed recommendations for improvements at the interchange. m "Open House" at 6 p.m. - Exhibits of existing and future conditions, highway and transit options studied, and details on four highway improvement alternatives. m Presentation and question/answer period at 7 p.m., followed by time after to review exhibits. sponsored by MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION Parking Available Handicapped Accessible Light Refreshments Served a+~ k DIRECTIONS TO COOLIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL From 1.95/Route 128 Southbound Exit 40 to Rte 129 west (Salem Street) to Reading Square. Turn right at signal onto Rte. 28 (Main Street] north. Travel about 1 mile and turn left onto Birch Meadow Drive. From 1-95/Route 128 Northbound Exit 38 to Rte. 28 north [Main Street]. Travel about 21/2 miles [through Reading Square] and turn left onto Birch Meadow Drive. From 1.93 Exit 38 to Rte. 129 east (Lowell Street) and travel under 2 miles to Reading Square. Turn left onto Ate. 28 (Main Street] north and t^avel about 1 mile and turn left onto Birch Meadow Orive. Coolidge Middle School 69 Birch Meadow ®r. Reading informattion www.9395info.com 617-973-7449 93/95 Newsletter and Flyer for 10/25 Public Meeting Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter. From: Frey, Bob (EOT) [Bob. Frey@state.ma.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 9:03 AM To: Corey, John; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen, Darlene; Casey, Paul' Clarke, Dennis; Cosgrove, Joe; DiBlasi,' Joe; Durrant, Ian; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike; Florino, Ron; Gallagher, Jim; Grover, Robert; Grzegorzewski, Josh; Hamblin, Eileen; Havem, Robert; Jones, Bradley; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; Mayo, Rich; McLaughlin, Tom; Meaney, Paul; Medeiros, Paul; Motter, Andy; Natale, Patrick; Rogers, Maureen A.; Smith, Suzanne; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill Cc: Blaustein, Joan; Callan, Melissa (HOU); Chong, Michael; Cooke, Don; DiSarcina, Tony; DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark (MAPC); Edwards, Adriel (EOT); Frey, Bob (EOT); Harwood, Tracey (Mayor McLaughlin); Town Manager; Lindstrom, Michael (SEN); Lutz, Elaine; Martel, Justin (HOU); McKinnon, Anne; McLaughlin, Thomas; McVann, John; Medeiros, Paul (work); Miller, Kenneth (EOT); O'Rourke, Carmen (HOU); Purdy, Jim; Reilly, Chris; Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Tafoya, Ben; VanMagness, Frederick (HOU) Subject: 93/95 Newsletter and Flyer for 10/25 Public Meeting Importance: High Attachments: News-Web.pdf; Flyer 9395-Layout.pdf Hello Task Force Members, Here are the electronic copies of the newsletter and flyer, covering our October 25 public meeting: <<News-Web.pdf» <<Flyer_9395_Layout.pdf>> Copies of this same flyer were distributed at the 10/4 ITF meeting, while this final version of the newsletter reflects Task Force comments regarding the evaluation matrix discussed,at that meeting. These same files are also available on the www.9395info.com web site on the documents page. Please distribute these via e-mail as you see fit (all pages are standard size). NOTE: Printed copies in the larger 11 X 17 "fold-over" newsletter format are being delivered to those of you who requested them. This is available electronically as well - please contact me if you may need to print out additional copies in this format (there are special printing considerations). Otherwise, the attached files should be fine for all electronic or print distribution. Thanks, - Bob Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (617) 973-7449 bob.frey@eot.state.ma.us 10/10/2006 9> I-93/ I-95 Interchange www.9395info.com The Interchange The 1-93/1-95(Route 128) Interchange, used by over 375,000 vehicles on an average weekday, is the busiest in New England. As a "system" interchange connecting two interstate highways, it serves as a vital link for the movement of people and goods, and a key to the economy of the region. The existing interchange experiences heavy traffic congestion and many accidents compared to other interchanges in Massachusetts. Traffic is projected to increase more than 20 percent over the next 20 years making the existing problems worse. The Process The Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) is conducting a planning study of the interchange, working closely with a task force composed of citizens, business people, and local elected officials. This study aims to reach a consensus solution that improves traffic and safety, maintains local access, avoids takings, and minimizes community impacts. EOT, the Interchange Task Force (ITF), and the consultant team have examined the problems in detail, highlighted at a public meeting in Stoneham in April 2006. For more information, Please visit our Web site! www.9395info.com Transportation Stu Developing Alternatives BOTH HIGHWAY & NON-HIGHWAY Both highway and non-highway alternatives are being considered as part of this study. Four highway improvement alternatives have been developed after examining and screening num- erous component parts. These alternatives all maintain local access and none of them re- quires residences to be taken. At the same time, a package of transit improvements and Trans- portation Demand Management (IDM) meas- ures has been investigated. After evaluating the highway alternatives; the best alternative will be combined with transit and TDM and other measures in a recommended plan of action. POTENTIAL HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVES Alternative Hl: Extend the 4th Lane on Route 128 This alternative extends the fourth lane on northbound Route 128 to Exit 40 (Route 129) removing the north- bound bottleneck that backs up into the I-93/Route 128 interchange. It also begins the fourth lane on southbound Route 128 at Route 28; this does not solve the problem that grid- locks the interchange, but by giving traffic more room to get by, the backups that cascade around the interchange are reduced in magni- tude. The H1 improvements are incorporated in the" other three alternatives, making it a potential first-phase action. Alternative H2: Eliminate 1 Loop Ramp- This alternative removes the weaves on southbound Route 128 and southbound I-93 by removing the northwest loop ramp and substituting a more direct ramp that goes under I-93 and over Route 128. It eliminates the primary source of cascading interchange back- ups and improves safety in the north half of the interchange. October 2006 2 s .~o E~M s Alternative H3-C: Eliminate 2 Loop Ramps and Relocate Washington Street Ramps- This alternative eliminates all weaves by removing the northwest and southeast loop ramps. The direct ramp to I-93 southbound goes under I-93 and Route 128, while the direct ramp to I-93 northbound goes over I-93 and Route 128. (Versions with both new ramps going over I-93 have also been studied.) This alternative also relocates the ramps from northbound Route 128 to and from Washington Street, taking one industrial building but improving the circulation in the commercial area north of Olympia Avenue; a direct surface connection to Olympia would allow a large share of the commercial traffic to avoid the residential end of Olympia and the traffic signals on Washington Street. H3-C improves traffic and safety in all parts of the interchange. Alternative H4: Provide Collector- Distributor Roads- This alternative provides 2-lane collector-distributor (CD) roads on both directions of Route 128, sepa- rating local and through traffic and improving traffic flow and safety. H4 fits into the existing highway right-of way except for very small strips of property in the northeast and south- east quadrants of the interchange. 1-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study October 20 www.9395info.com 106 I 95 evelopin Alternatives POTENTIAL NON-HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVES Transit and TDM Transit improvements could include shuttles and/or buses from the Anderson Regional Transportation Center (ARTC), a park-and-ride in Peabody serving businesses locally and in the Route 128 corri- dor and improvements in commuter rail service to and from Boston. Transportation demand management (TDNv actions could include information and incentives to use transit and participate in ridesharing. Evaluation of these measures suggests that approximately 10,000 daily vehicle trips could be removed from area roadways in 2025. While this is not enough to solve the prob- lems in the interchange, it would contribute to their solution and offer better mobility and choice to people in the area and utilize the unused parking at ARTC. NEXT STEPS Planning Study Recommendations . 1 , Environmental Study/ Preliminary Design 1 Funding Process MPO Transportation Improvement Program „ 1 Final Design 1 Implementation Strategies/Services/ Construction 1-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study www.9395info.com Alternative H1: Extend 4th Lane on Route 128 WOBURN i 1 r 1 i l y a sue. ' a 1 Y t1 s Key Advantages: Moves northbound Rte. 128 lane drop to Exit 40 where traffic volumes are lower, provides more room for vehicles on southbound Rte. 128 to avoid weaving traffic can be done as inexpensive first phase of other alternatives. Key Disadvantages: Leaves most problems unchanged. S_ To / Ezit40 STONEHAM t N Alternative H2: Eliminate One Loop Ramp VV06URN 4~Jh , q,:; .y_ _ c\ \ Eliminate 1 1 XV . .a; s . Loo Ram \ . bil`'' Stm Kglmrylyvul an 't-..'.^rt1! ~ "~I p6,1F ~j to - , tF3 ,.7 j i SmreHghwnYr^)°'Iti a 1 1 1. w\ New fourth lane on Rte. 128 North of 1-93 M 1 1111 New ramp elevated O m m l New ramp below grade New fourth lane on Rte. 128 North of 1-93 READING New Ramp Under AV, New Ramp '1 Elevated i/1T ' I Key Advantages: Solves the backups that 2 ` i ; cascade around the interchange and reduces delays; improves safety on Rte. 128 southbound. Key Disadvantages: Does not address safety on Rte. 128 northbound. October 20 / 1-951 Alternative H3-C: Eliminate Two Loop Ramps and Relocate Washington St. Ramps , l tom ~i4~ V. \ t ' f Eliminate ~ Loc S Hghwrytgwtlbte J~~ V~ 'k~ t l 1 1 \ Realignd i 1+l '7 Rte 128 - Sate HgAwvyla,w,lMe _ _ - t Washington St. (Rte.118Off-romp ( On-tamp to - to Washington S) ` Rte. 118 t R l d e ocate Ramps t; f Key Advantages: Eliminates all weaves in the New ( ) interchange and improves the Rte. 128 weave T.McSignal between Washington Street and 1-93; improves the safety of all remaining conflict areas. Key Disadvantages: Taking of one business N building and relocation of adjacent parking; more Ram Y - complex to construct than H2. Alternative H4: Provide Collector-Distributor Roads I t ~ i tE d / Washington St n-ramps to Rte I28 Rte. 128 North Nonh andC/D CID Off-ramps - i . to WashtngtonSC ~ `i Key Advantages: Separates through traffic from local traffic; improves traffic to about the same extent as H3-C; removes one weave and improves all remaining conflict areas. Key Disadvantages: Twice as costly as 1,13-C and very complex to construct. 1 1 i i New ramp elevated New ramp below grade ® Newfourth lane on Rte. 128 North of 1-93 Surface roadway Ij 4' Realigned Ramp - t ItI. _.a s:` ' ` I 1 r r New ramp elevated ,g •;v;° ; ' New ramp below grade 's "C/D RoadsserveromlhaRctd(rom Rte 128 1 and Washington SVMisha-m Rd tea,..' t A t 1Rte.1-935outh ' t N-mmp- (+i 4' ~roRtr.1185outh) i4 RC/DO'11 outh V. L.RmV93Noa') ` art \re Rt 193 Narth Off romp ~tdR[e128South 1r at;sr0 S' J Rte. i 93 North off-romps to Rte. 128 ~.NonhandCID) J i In & i, 1-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study www.9395info.com Realigned l Ramp 1 Note: ■ No alternative requires a residence to betaken; and ■ All alternatives maintain all local access. Visit Our Web Site! 1 ■ Details on Alternatives ■ Presentation and Comments from April 2006 Public Meeting ■ Background Data ■ and more! Z FIX i9. "S MYE90"Wr "LOP, TMIPMATOVAMM October 2006 0 EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES Visit the study Web site at www.9395info.com and/or contact: Bob Frey EOT Planning Project Manager (617) 973-7449 Jim Purdy LBG Project Manager (781) 444-3330 ext. 335 MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION nRo EIN ~ N A 550 G I AT E9 Evaluation criteria were developed with the Interchange Task Force at the start of the study. The four highway alternatives are being evaluated for their traffic and safety benefits, physical and social impacts, constructibility and cost. The table below summarizes the preliminary results, which will be presented in more detail at the October 25 public meeting. Preliminary Evaluation Overview of Highway Alternatives Highway Traffic Safety Mobility Highway Design Takings Residential Business Access Residential Business Local Traffic Noise (Varies by Location) Visual V Q O 0 0 low, 5liverTakings 0 (DIN 0 0 ❑0 ❑O ❑ Q 6 15 $49 MIL $94 MIL+ 0 110 Q 12 $213 MIL Wetlands (1000 sq.ft.) 0 EconJDevelopment O Difficulty of Construction ❑ Capital Cost $4 MIL Benefits Impacts ❑ No change 'C1 1-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study October 2006 www.9395info.com A S Page 1 of 3 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Frey, Bob (EOT) [Bob. Frey@state.ma.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:51 PM To: William Webster Cc: jcorey@cityofwoburn.com; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; jebames@mit.edu; bruen-n- bruen@comcast.net; rep.paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us; michael.a.chong@fhwa.dot.gov; dac@cummings.com; jcosgrove@mbta.com; rnrchambercom@aol.com; Durrant, Ian (EOT); CnJ4@aol.com; rep.mikefesta@hou.state.ma.us; jgailagher@mapc.org; rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; ehamblin@aol.com; rhavem@senate.state.ma.us; rep.bradleyjones@hou.state.ma.us; katsoufis.9395info@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast.net; akinsman@aaasne.com; cleiner@massport.com; tmclaughlin@cityofwobum.com; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; paulderman@verizon.net; andy.motter@dot.gov; rep.patricknatale@hou.state.ma.us; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; sueandmikes@comcast.net; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; dansullivan@assetleasing.com; etarallo@cityofwoburn.com; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us; jblaustein@mapc.org; melissa.callan@hou.state.ma.us; Lindstrom, Michael (SEN); dcooke@vhb.com; adisarcina@hshassoc.com; ddizoglio@mbta.com; Draisen, Mark (MAPC); Edwards, Adriel (EOT); rflorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us; Frey, Bob (EOT); Joshua.Grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; THarwood@cityofwoburn.com; Town Manager; Lucas, Barbara (MAPC); elutz@hshassoc.com; justin.martel@hou.state.ma.us; amckinnon@hshassoc.com; thomaslmclaughlin@comcast.net; John.Mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; pmedeiros@sigcom.com; Miller, Kenneth (EOT); carmen.o'rourke@hou.state.ma.us; jpurdy@louisberger.com; kpyke@louisberger.com; Reilly, Chris; wschwartz@thecollaborative.com; kstein@hshassoc.com; Tafoya, Ben; frederick.vanmagness@hou.state.ma.us; rmayo@mass-trucking.org; rietty@kmchng.com Subject: RE: NE Quadrant Ramp Traffic Increases Bill and Task Force: We all know that noise is a substantial concern as we continue to evaluate the alternatives. Of course there are many factors involved in measuring and estimating noise levels adjacent to highways, and Bill, you've touched on some of them - height, vertical grade, location, etc. The consultant team will be looking into this further, and we expect to have more information available for future meetings. As Rich Letty mentioned at the 10/4 ITF meeting, order of magnitude is important when evaluating potential changes in noise levels. We also indicated on 10/4 that a thorough, detailed examination of all noise issues will not be done until the environmental phase. Within the scope of this planning study, the aim is to provide a general level of analysis so that we can make some informed judgments about noise along with all the other evaluation criteria. As for air pollution, again many factors determine the true level of contaminants from the highway, but in general, better flowing traffic equates to less overall vehicle emissions. This would apply for any of the alternatives under consideration, and again would be covered further in the environmental phase. We will have time to review, discuss, and debate this further in the upcoming meetings. Remember that we will NOT have a preferred alternative for the 10/25 public meeting. But regardless of the alternative package we ultimately decide to recommend, noise attenuation will be a substantial - and required - part of the mitigation measures. Thanks, - Bob Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning / 1 kLooolr 10/10/2006 Page 2 of 3 Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (617) 973-7449 bob.frey@eot.state.ma.us From: William Webster [mailto:billwhome@juno.com] Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 1:31 PM To: Frey, Bob (EOT) Cc: jcorey@cityofwoburn.com; rick schubert@harvard.edu; canthony@ftmc.net; jebarnes@MIT.EDU; bruen- n-bruen@comcast.net; rep. paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us; michael.a.chong@fhwa.dot.gov; dac@cummings.com; jcosgrove@mbta.com; rnrchambercom@aol.com; Durrant, Ian (EOT); Cn74@aol.com; rep.mikefesta@hou.state.ma.us; jgallagher@mapc.org; rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; ehamblin@aol.com; rhavern@senate.state.ma.us; rep. bradleyjones@hou.state. ma. us; katsoufis.9395info@comcast.net, anthonykennedy@comcast.net; akinsman@aaasne.com; cleiner@massport.com; tmclaughlin@cityofwoburn.com; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; paulderman@verizon.net; andy.motter@dot.gov; rep. patricknatale@hou.state. ma. us; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; sueandmikes@comcast.net; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; dansuilivan@assetleasing.com; etarallo@cityofwoburn.com; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us Subject: Re: NE Quadrant Ramp Traffic Increases Bob, I would like to re-iterate the concern I have, and raised at the 10/04/06 ITF meeting, about the additional ramp traffic that would be added to the Northeast (NE) quadrant under the H2, MA, H3B and H3C alternatives. Under these alternatives, the two existing ramps in the NE quadrant would remain in place, and would basically stay as they are currently with some possible geometric tweaking. These are the 93N to 128S ramp, and the 1285 to 93N ramp. The traffic counts that exist now would remain the same. The 93N to 128S ramp has the highest traffic count of all ramps in the interchange, and the 128S to 93N ramp has one of the lowest, if not the lowest traffic count. Under alternative H2, the 1285 to 93S ramp in the NW quadrant would be removed, and replaced with a new ramp from 128S passing through the NE quadrant under 93 to the NW quadrant, and over 128 into the SW quadrant to connect with 93S. I believe this ramp carries one of the higher traffic counts. Under alternatives MA, H3B and H3C two ramps would be removed, the 1285 to 93S ramp in the NW quadrant and the 128N to 93N ramp in the SE quadrant. These would be replaced by two new ramps. One is a new ramp from 128S passing through the NE quadrant over/under 93 to the NW quadrant, and over/under over 128, depending on the alternative. The second is a new ramp from 128N in the SE quadrant passing over/under 93 passing through the NE quadrant to 93N depending on the alternative. In addition, alternatives 143A and H3B employ the use of two flyovers, while H3C has one flyover and one fly under. Aside from the visual impact of flyovers, I would think they would add to the noise factor, as opposed to fly enders. The key point is that there would be significant additional ramp traffic flowing through the NE quadrant. Under the H2 alternative, traffic from one of the busiest ramps would flow through the NE 10/10/2006 Page 3 of 3 quadrant in addition to the existing traffic. Under the MA, 113B and H3C alternatives, traffic from two ramps would flow through the NE quadrant, effectively doubling the ramp traffic counts that exist currently. This would add significantly to the noise and pollution that impacts the neighborhoods adjacent to the NE. quadrant. The goal of the ITF is to come up with a solution that will improve safety and congestion at-the interchange. This should not be done at the expense of the neighborhoods. Under the above noted alternatives, neighborhoods in the NW and SE quadrants would benefit from improvements that reduce the amount of traffic, and/or move it further away from homes. This is very positive byproduct of the study, but the solution should not have a negative impact on other neighborhoods. It is imperative that if any of the above noted alternatives are ultimately endorsed by the ITF, measures must be included in the chosen alternative that ensure that the noise and pollution impacts in the NE quadrant are significantly improved over current conditions, and at least, no worse than they are today. Environment and noise consultant Rich Letty stated that the primary source of noise is from the two mainline highways, 128 and 93. While this may be true relative to the overall interchange, ramp traffic generates a significant amount of noise in the adjacent neighborhoods. The ITF is supposed to be offering a solution that improves all aspects of the current conditions, not worsening some of them. For what it is worth, alternative H4, with all of its drawbacks, seems to be the most neighborhood friendly alternative. It appears to reduce the traffic affecting the neighborhoods in all quadrants since it looks like the remaining loop ramps carry less traffic, primarily from the CD roads. Thanks, Bill Webster THAG 10/10/2006 G