Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-28 Board of Selectmen PacketPROCLAMATION WHEREAS: Don Young has announced his retirement as a photojournalist for the Daily Times Chronicle at the end of June, 2005; and WHEREAS: Don has been a photojournalist for 53 years, has been a part of the Reading Community for his career, and has helped to document our history through his photographs and captions; and WHEREAS Don started taking pictures when he was in elementary school and worked for his High School newspaper and yearbook taking pictures. He attended the New England School of Art for advertising design and the Franklin Institute for photography; and WHEREAS: Don has a long history of service to the Town of Reading including: e He has worked with Police, Fire Fighters and Town Officials to use his pictures as a tool to educate the public; ♦ Photos of various events have been picked up by national publications including the Associated Press and People Magazine; ♦ He has photographed multiple generations of Reading families in his years in Reading and other surrounding communities; He is a friend of athletics in Reading, having photographed many school and other athletic events in the community; and WHEREAS: Don Young is recognized, respected and loved in this community. NOW9 THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Reading, Massachusetts on this 28th day of June 2005, and on behalf of the entire Reading community, thank Don Young for his commitment and dedication to his craft of photojournalism and through that craft, his commitment to and support of the Town of Reading and its residents. Don's legacy will be everlasting in documenting the history of this community through photographs. BOARD OF SELECTMEN Richard W. Schubert, Chairman Camille W. Anthony, Vice Chairman Joseph G. Duffy, Secretary James E. Bonazoli Ben Tafoya .~a APPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE-JULY-1,1005 Commissioners of Trust Funds Term: 3 years 1 Vacancv Appointing Authoritv: Board of Selectmen Orig. Term Present Member(s) and Term(s) Date Exy. Robert S. Cummings, Chairman 105 Gleason Road (78) 2005 Dana E. Hennigar, V. Chairman 146 Van Norden Road (89) 2006 John J. Daly 163 Woburn Street (95) 2007 Candidates: Elizabeth HIepeis *Indicates incumbents seeking reappointment I ...k 1. COMMISSIONERS-OF TRUST FUNDS Term Appointing Authority Number of Members Meetings Authority Purpose Three years Board of Selectmen Three Members whose terms are so arranged that one term shall expire each year As needed Special Act, Chapter 82 of Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1926 Management of all trust funds given or bequeathed for the.benefit of the Town or its inhabitants. Town of Reading 1-6-Lowell-Street Reading; MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager&l.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Robert S. Cummings 105 Gleason Road Reading, MA 01867 FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikne DATE: April 11, 2005 RE: Reappointment to Commissioners of Trust Funds TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 Our records indicate that your term of office on the above Board, Committee or Commission will expire on June 30, 2005. The Board of Selectmen's policy provides that: 1. All incumbents for terms that are expiring will be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This form must be returned to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9, 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with terms expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. 3. Incumbents will not be required to fill out new citizen volunteer forms. The Board requests that all incumbents be available for an interview, or if you are not available, that you submit a written statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you do not wish to be re-appointed. I wish to be considered for reappointment. I do not wish to be considered for reappointment. Signature cc: Committee Chairman Date 61610's- q.13. v NIXON PEABODY LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 Summer Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2131 (617) 345-1000 FAX: (617) 345-1300 W JUN 15 PH 2.. 10 Robert S. Cummings Direct Dial: (617) 345-1317 E-Mail Address: rummings@nixonpeabody.com June 14, 2005 Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Peter: My term as a Commissioner of Trust Funds will expire at the end of this month. Although I would have been willing to stay on for another term had the Board seen fit to reappoint me, I think it is necessary that I not seek reappointment. As you know, I have been a member of the Board of Hallmark Health for many years and it is possible that Hallmark might seek to participate in a project which would involve the use of the Hospital Trust Funds. This, of course, would put me in a conflict position. I had intended to resign earlier, but the progress of the committee looking into the potential use of the Funds has been such that the Commissioners have not, as yet, been called upon to consider the use of the Funds for any purposes other than those to which they have customarily been put. In the months ahead, the Commissioners may very well, however, be called upon to participate in a decision making process regarding the future of the Funds which could involve Hallmark so it makes no sense for me to continue as a Commissioner. Should any matter potentially concerning the use of the Hospital Trust Funds be considered by the Hallmark Board in the future, I will participate in neither any vote nor discussion of the matter. To date, there has been no such discussion by the Hallmark Board. I have had some participation in Reading government for over forty years and feel very privileged to have been involved, at least in some small way, in the work of our wonderful community. Reading has benefited fr om the decision of hundreds of selfless individuals who have given freely of their time and talent and I have greatly enjoyed knowing and working with many of them. BOS 1501364.1 1-f4---y ALBANY, NY BOSTON, MA • BUFFALO, NY • GARDEN CITY, NY • HARTFORD, CT . LOS ANGELES, CA . MANCHESTER, NH • MCLEAN, VA NEW YORK, NY • ORANGE COUNTY, CA • PHILADELPHIA, PA • PROVIDENCE, Rf . ROCHESTER, NY • SAN FRANCISCO, CA . WASHINGTON, DC Peter I. Hechenbleikner June 14, 2005 wig Page 2 NIXON-PEABODY LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Please convey to the Board of Selectmen my wishes that the mantle of their responsibilities may rest lightly upon their shoulders and my thanks for allowing me to serve as a Commissioner. My very best wishes to you and the Board. Sincerely, Robert S. Cummings RSC/lrw Enc. cc: Trust Fund Commissioners Beth Klepeis, Town Treasurer John J. Daly q ~,,5` ALBANY, NY BOSTON, MA . BUFFALO, NY • GARDEN CITY, NY • HARTFORD, CT • LOS ANGELES, CA • MANCHESTER, NH • MCLEAN, VA NEW YORK, NY • ORANGE COUNTY, CA • PHILADELPHIA, PA • PROVIDENCE, RI • ROCHESTER, NY • SAN FRANCISCO, CA • WASHINGTON, DC 2~5 _7 ,23 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARD/COMMITTEE/COMMISSION 41 Name: ~ leve- Is E (Last) I (First) Address: kk I n Vi gab n K4 Occupation: re ° ,(r ek Are you a registered voter in Reading? 1` e S e-mail address: fi,~e k C(4+, n u Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #1 being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available.) Advisory Council Against the Misuse and Abuse of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Aquatics Advisory Board Audit Committee Board of Appeals Board of Cemetery Trustees Board of Health Board of Registrars Bylaw Committee Celebration Committee >C Commissioner of Trust Funds Community Planning & Development Comm. Conservation Commission Constable Contributory Retirement Board Council on Aging Cultural Council Custodian of Soldier's & Sailor's Graves Finance Committee -Historical Commission -Housing Authority -Human Relations Advisory Committee -Land Bank Committee MBTA Advisory Committee -Metropolitan Area Planning Council Mystic Valley Elder Services -Recreation Committee -Solid Waste Advisory Committee -Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Committee Town Forest Committee Water, Sewer and Storm Water Management Advisory Committee West Street Historic District Commission Other Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: A- 7VI c-'-G 07Cr ri r-eas R rte- / & l r T 1t)aS AM -gy ` 0 `psi c o the A, / C0 (hm/' 5 s r'a k?e r S r) -F- roc c ~u Pi S- I q 7 9, y fi,5 ` rPa~u ems, wa S q GvtS G is v, 0~ *e - v Vtjs a+d sect-e ~Sr-q - ee ate( , J~ h axQ- i ri vcs~- imen-( and,, a klr► m~Iedge o f ~-~`~_S e- o-tas ccYf-r f Y? f -4-a ^s)'vgo v, -M ~oa+4~ t9 ~m~Y+i'ssi ~`s. G+ 7, 0~ S bi - Date: (ti n C (Middle) ea J(r nQ Tel. (Home) q Lp y ~ G Tel. (Work) (Is this number listed?) # of years in Reading: 1~ 1 APPOINTMENTS TO BECOME-EFFECTIVE-JULY-19-2005 Board of Cemeterv Trustees Term: 3 years Appointing Authoritv: Board of Selectmen Present Member(s) and Term(s) Mary R. Vincent, Chairman Ronald Stortz Janet Baronian William C. Brown, Secretary Vacancy *Ronald O'Connell 17 Indiana Avenue 538 Summer Ave. 75 Mill Street 28 Martin Road 63 Colburn Road 3 Vacancies Orig. Term Date Exp. (94) 2006 (04) 2007 (99) 2005 (96) 2006 ( ) 2007 (96) 2005 Candidates: Douglas A. Bruce *Indicates incumbents seeking reappointment qol BOARD-OE-CEMETERY -TRUSTEES. Term Three years Appointing Authoritv Board of Selectmen Number of Members Six Members whose terms are so arranged that two terms shall expire each year. Meetings First Tuesday of each month Authority Reading Charter - Adopted March 24, 1986 Purpose Responsible for the preservation, care, improvement and embellishment of the Town's cemeteries and burial lots therein and such other powers and duties given to the Board of Cemetery Trustees by the Charter, by Bylaw or by Town Meeting votes. t(c,z OFR~q~ Town of Reading -1 6_L.oweII Street s3 0¢~~° Reading; MA 01867-2685 9' tNCORe FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager&l.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Janet Baronian 75 Mill Street Reading, MA 01867 1- FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner • .1~+ DATE: April 11, 2005 RE: Reappointment to Board of Cemetery Trustees TOWN MANAGER (781) 942.9043 Our records indicate that your term of office on the above Board, Committee or Commission will expire on June 30, 2005. The Board of Selectmen's policy provides that: 1. All incumbents for terms that are expiring will be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This form must be returned to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9; 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with terms expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. 3. Incumbents will not be required to fill out new citizen volunteer forms. The Board requests that all incumbents be available for an interview, or if you are not available, that you submit a written statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9, 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you do not wish to be re-appointed. I wish to be considered for reappointment. I do not wish to be considered for reappointment. Signature cc: Committee Chairman Date 4 c,3 Town of Reading 'i 6. Low-el I _Street__ Reading; MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald O'Connell 63 Colburn Road Rendincy.,MA 01867 FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleilazer DATE: April 11, 2005 TOWN MANAGER 781) 942-9043 o co ~C-) M r o 0 RE: Reappointment to Board of Cemetery Trustees Our records indicate that your term of office on the above Board, Committee or Commission will expire on June 30, 2005. The Board of Selectmen's policy provides that: 1. All incumbents for terms that are expiring will be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This form must be returned to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with terms expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. 3. Incumbents will not be required to fill o,j t, new.citizen volunteer forrns. The Board requests that all incumbents be available for an interview, or if you are not available, that you submit a written statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9, 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you do not wish to be re-appointed. I wish to be considered for.reappointment. I do not w' 1 to be consi ed for reappointment. Signature Date cc: Committee Chairman q Cq APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARD/COIVMTTEE/COADUSSION, +,Av cam. U--) Date: S,-/~ /~S• Name: (Last) (First) (Middle) Address: 7 iN Tel. (Home) 7 5` y a= vS o, -/~-1) r N C~ MA O ( ~F~ 7 Tel. (Work) 7, 1 ~ Occupation: (Is this number listed?) Y" eg C 2~7 ('SNPr(~7i years in Reading: of i H nt] Co/(~_c- ii ~ S # Are you a registered voter in Reading? e-mail address:--b 00 6c.AS , t/s'2UC(Z-±(2- Conn e~9 s7-- Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #1 being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available.) Advisory Council Against the Misuse and Abuse of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs _Aquatics Advisory Board -Audit Committee Board of Appeals Board of Cemetery Trustees Board of Health Board of Registrars Bylaw Committee Celebration Committee -Commissioner of Trust Funds -Community Planning & Development Comm. Conservation Commission Constable -Contributory Retirement Board -Council on Aging -Cultural Council Custodian of Soldier's & Sailor's Graves Finance Committee -Historical Commission -Housing Authority -Human Relations Advisory Committee -Land Bank Committee MBTA Advisory Committee -Metropolitan Area Planning Council --Mystic Valley Elder Services -Recreation Committee -Solid Waste Advisory Committee Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Committee -Town Forest Committee -Water, Sewer and Storm Water Management Advisory Committee Other --c Ln Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: r- i2-C~ `i r n i /S e M 12 2 t? S A M 1' =C'' c av G P- e S c7 eDI' 0 fZ A~ c7 P> /Le C e r f,( 0 w N C' ~m~ r~vY~S r,n e e-rF-) N6 M eo7 11-~ S 1 NJ C. 7 (~rt,eS e Z%~ 2 U' 2SZ rvcr e ~-r r nom. yam. APPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY-I-20-05 Recreation Committee Term: 3 years Term: 1 year - Associate Members Auvointint! Authoritv: Board of Selectmen & School Committee Present Member(s) and Term(s) John Winne Vacancy *Jack Downing Francis P. Driscoll *Mary Anne Kozlowski (Sch.Com.) Frederick Shaffer Mary Ellen Stolecki Nancy Linn Swain, V. Chr. *Patrick Fennelly Christopher Campbell (Associate) *Catherine R. Kaminer (Associate) *Michael DiPetro (Associate) 29 Clover Circle 91 Whittier Road 7 Ordway Terrace 16 Weston Road 67 Woburn St. 33 Lewis Street 35 Minot Street 9 Arlington St. 12 Overlook Road 37 Warren Avenue 23 Sanborn Lane Orig. Date (97) (97) (04) (03) (03) (00) (03) (02) (93) (88) (04) 4 Vacancies + Associates Term Exp. 2006 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007 2006 2006 2005 2005 2005 2005' Candidates: *Indicates incumbents seeking reappointment yd/ RECREA-T-ION COMMITT--EE-- Term Three years Appointing Authority Board of Selectmen Number of Members Nine Members - eight appointed by the Board of Selectmen and one appointed by . the School Committee for a one year term whose terms are so arranged that three terms shall expire each year Meetings Held monthly on the second Wednesday Authority Reading Charter - Adopted March 24, 1986 Puruose The Recreation Committee shall'be responsible for the evaluation of program activities, formulation of overall plans for the. program development and for the scheduling of Town parks and the Field House when not in use by the School Department.. q d 2.. Town of Reading -1-6-Lowell--Street Reading; MA 01867-2686 FAX: (781) 942-9071. Email: townmanager&l.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Christopher Campbell 12 Overlook Road Reading, MA 01867 FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner DATE: April 11, 2005 RE: Reappointment to Recreation Committee (Associate) TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 Our records indicate that your term of office on the above Board, Committee or Commission will expire on June 30, 2005. The Board of Selectmen's policy provides that: 1. All incumbents for terms that are expiring will be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This form must be returned to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9, 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with terms expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. 3. Incumbents will not be required to fill out new citizen volunteer forms. The Board requests that all incumbents be available for an interview, or if you are not available, that you submit a written statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9, 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you do not wish to be re-appointed. I wish to be considered for reappointment. I do not wish to be considered for reappointment. cc: Committee Chairman Signature Date ~d3. Town of Reading 1-6-Lowell--Street Reading; MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Catherine Kaminer 37 Warren Avenue Reading, MA 01867 FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner DATE: April 11, 2005 RE: Reappointment to Recreation Committee (Associate) TOWN MANAGER (781) 942.9043 Our records indicate that your term of office on the above Board, Committee or Commission will expire on June 30, 2005. The Board of Selectmen's policy provides that: 1. All incumbents for terms that are expiring will be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This form must be returned to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with terms expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. 3. Incumbents will not be required to fill out new citizen volunteer forms. The Board requests that all incumbents be available for an interview, or if you are not available, that you submit a written statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you do not wish to be re-appointed. V I wish to be considered for reappointment. I do not wish to be considered for reappointment. F.r,j Signature (o f-2-i/D s Date cc: Committee Chairman q~q- Town of Reading 16 Lowell--street Reading; MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Downing 91 Whittier Road Reading, MA 01867 FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner DATE: April 11, 2005 RE: - Reappointment to Recreation Committee TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 O ' N ~ C 7 G -0 r1 rrI ~:o C:) N cn o ' co Our records indicate that yourjerin of.office on the above Board, Committee or.Cormnission will expire on June 30, 2005. - - Th.e Board of SelectmeWspolicy plovides_thatr; I "p, 1. All incumbents for term. s - that,are expiring will be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This form must be returned to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with terms expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. 3. Incumbents will not be required to fill out, new citizen volunteer forms. The Board requests that all tu~utii'v~.,___.._....L......a_a i. 'lia an intenfie.Af, or if Vnll a e .l r i_fl,, t ava» :it vti- i'_'vitbl~, ivi ;a.l . _ llabl_P tl?at.yotl Slibnllt a written statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9, 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you do not wish to be re-appointed. I wish to be considered~for reappointment, u.,. rr° ? I°do notwish be consr . d., eappointment. Signanlre.. ; cc:. Committee Chainnan Date. Town of Reading -16 Lowell Street Reading; MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager&i.reading.ma.us TO: Michael DiPetro 23 Sanborn Lane Reading, MA 01867 FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner c DATE: April 11, 2005 MEMORANDUM RE: Reappointment to Recreation Committee (Associate) t rv Our records indicate that your tern of office on the above Board, Committee or. Commission will expire on June 30, 2005. The Board of Selectmen's Policy i)rovides-tbat: 1. All incumbents for terns that are expiring-will- be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This fora must be returned to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with tens expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. 3. Incumbents will not be required to fill out new citizen volunteer forms. The Board requests that all. ii:.... vv iiv.:larui'~. yr an or at yLt. not aiTarlaO G,`iL1Cit YOU SUl") 1111 a VYr1llG11 statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9, 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you do not wish to be re-appointed. I wish to be considered for reappointment. I do not wish.to be considered. for reappointment. SignVire Date cc: Committee Chairman TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 e Town of Reading 1{E(,EIVEo 16--Dowell-Street C~fgqol!~~~ytj1 0LER6 ~ 19 tj, Reading; MA 01867-2685 ICL.. ri [J MASS, 1005 APR 22 P 2 00 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager@ci.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Patrick Fennelly 9 Arlington Street Reading, MA 01867 FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikner DATE: April 11, 2005 RE: Reappointment to Recreation Committee TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 Our records indicate that your term of office on the above Board, Committee or Gbinmission will expire on.June 30, 2005. The Board of Selectmen's policy provides that: 1. All incumbents for terms that are expiring will be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This form must be returned to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with terms expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. 3. Incumbents will not be required to fill out new citizen volunteer forms. The Board requests that all incumbents be available for an interview, or if you are not available, that you submit a written statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9, 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you do not wish to be re-appointed. I wish to be considered for reappointment. I do t wish t be considered for appointment. Sig&&re bate a , cc: Committee Chairman Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading; MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager&i.reading.mams TOWN MANAGER (781) 942.9043 MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Anne Kozlowski C~ 16 Weston Road y'r _v Readin a. MA. 01867 ~E = C-. w ~nr:•< FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleilaler > 3 M M - = c7 DATE: April 11, 2005 w RE: Reappointment to Recreation Committee Our records indicate that your term of office on-the. above-Board, Committee or. Commission will expire on June 30, 2005. The Board of Selectmen's policy provides that: 1. All incumbents for terms that are expiring will be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This forrn must be returned to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9, 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with terms expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. 3. Incumbents will not be required to fill out new citizen volunteer forms. The Board requests that all incumbents be available for an interview, or if you are not available; that you subniit a vr'rittin statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9, 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you do not wish to be re-appointed.- I I wish to be considered for reappointment. i I do not wish to be considered for reappointment. 87afure Date o cc: Committee Chairman a APPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY-192005 Town Forest Committee Term: 3 years AvDointinLy Authority: Board of Selectmen Present Member(s) and Term(s) George B. Perry III, Chairman *Louis deBrigard Benjamin E. Nichols, Secretary *Thomas W. Connery (Associate) *Alice C. Grau (Associate) 230 Franklin Street 37 Auburn Street 25 Avon Street 101 Beaver Road 12 Walnut Street 1 Vacancy + Associates Orig. Term Date Exp. (76) 2006 (02) 2005 (77) 2007 (03) 2005 (04) 2005 Candidates: `Indicates incumbents seeking reappointment tl~ - TOWN-FOREST-COM1VHTTEE Term Three years Appointing Authoritv Board of Selectmen Number of Members Three Members Meetings As needed Authority Reading Charter - Adopted March 24, 1986 Purpose The Town Forest Committee's primary function is to oversee the care, custody and management of the Reading Town Forest. qi;~, - Town of Reading 16 Lowell -Street - - Reading; MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager&l.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Alice Grau 12 Walnut Street Reading, MA 01867 FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleikrier DATE: April 11, 2005 RE: Reappointment to Town Forest Committee (Associate) TOWN NAGER (78 42-9043 1 Our records indicate that your term of office on the above Board, Connnnittee or Commission will expire on June 30, 2005. The Board of Selectmen's-policy provides that: 1. All incumbents for terms that are expiring will be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This form must be returned to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with terns expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. J. 1111:14111UG11tJ wiii not be required to fill out new citizen volunteer forms. Tree Board requests ihat all incumbents be available for an interview, or if you are not available, that you submit a written statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9, 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you do not wish to be re-appointed. I wish to be considered for reappointment. I do not wish to )e considered f r e~(ppointment. . fl IV J-64 Signature Dat6 l cc: Committee Chairman q.0 3. Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading; MA 01867-2686 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager&i.reading.ma.us MEMORANDUM TO: Louise deBrigard 37 Auburn Street i2e~;&u g, MA. 01967 FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleilaier r , DATE: April 11, 2005 RE: Reappointment to Town Forest Conu-nittee TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 Our records indicate that your tei-in of office on the above Board, Committee or Commission will expire on June 30, 2005. The Board of Selectmen's policy piovides that: 1. All incumbents for terms that are expiring will be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This form must be returned to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with terms expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. 3. Incumbents will not be required to fill out new citizen volunteer forms. The Board requests that all incumbents be availabie for an interview, or if you are not availabic., chat you submit a ritLciI statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you do not wish to be re-appointed. I wish to be considered for reappointment. I do not wishlo be coned • d for reappointment. -5 2 ~Sigati i Da e cc: Committee Chairman s Town of Reading 16- Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager&i.reading.mams TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas Conneiy 101 Beaver Road Reading, MA 01857 FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleilcner ` DATE: April 11, 2005 RE: Reappointment to Town Forest Committee (Associate) Our records indicate that your, term of.office on the above Board, Conuinittee or Commission will expire on June 30, 2005. The Board of Selectmen's policy,provides_thw. 1. All incumbents for terms that are expiring will be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This fbim. must be returned to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with terms expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. 3. Incumbents will not be required to fill: out new citizen volunteer forms. The Board requests that all inc11 LYc.-its be vw lab fog a.: nte~ lies or i you aj•e not available, that you submit a wr'ttzr~ statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005., If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you do not wish to be re-appointed. A ~ I wish to be considered for reappointment. I do not wis _ e. gonsidered, for reappointment. . 4- -t ~ A) A 2,A Signature , Date cc: Committee Chairman APPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY 1 2005 Water. Sewer & Storm Water Management Advisorv Committee Term: 3 years 2 Vacancies Appointing Authoritv: Board of Selectmen Present Member(s) and Term(s) *Richard J. Moore, Chairman Stephen L. Crook, Secretary John Wood Steve Oston Vacancy Orig. Term Date Exp. 5 Elm Street (94) 2005 137 Pleasant St. (01) 2006 213 Pleasant Street (02) 2007 66 Sturgis Road (01) 2007 2005 Candidates: Gail Wood David Tuttle Michael McIntyre - unable to be present, will reschedule for 7/12 *Indicates incumbents seeking reappointment qj I I WATER. SEWER AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Term Appointing Authoritv Number of Members Meetings Authoritv Three years Board of Selectmen Five Members As needed Board of Selectmen - Adopted January 26, 1987 Purpose To provide advice to the Board of Selectmen regarding the water, sewer and storm water systems for the Town of Reading. The Committee will hold at least one public water rate hearing and one public sewer rate hearing each year. These hearings and the Committee's recommendations shall be timed so as to provide information to the Board of Selectmen prior to the adoption of the coming year's budget. The Committee shall review with the Director of Public Works and recommend to the Board of Selectmen items to be included in the enterprise systems for the water and sewer systems. The Committee shall review the Public Works Director's recommendations with regard to inclusion of items in the annual capital budget and Capital Improvements Program of the Town and make appropriate recommendations to the Board of Selectmen. The Committee will provide other advice regarding the water, sewer and drainage systems to the Board of Selectmen as requested. Town of Reading CE:IVED 16 Lowell Street .OWN CLERK Reading; MA 01867-2686 IMDIN , MASS. 2005 tW 12 P 4: 02 FAX: (781) 942-9071 Email: townmanager&i.reading.mams MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Moore 5 Elm Street Reading, MA 01867 FROM: Peter I. Hechenbleilme DATE: April 11, 2005 TOWN MANAGER (781) 942-9043 RE: Reappointment to Water, Sewer & Storm Water Management Advisory Committee Our records indicate that your term of office on the above Board, Conunittee or Commission will expire on .tune 30, 2005. The Board of Selectmen's policy provides that: 1. All incumbents for terms that are expiring will be sent this questionnaire regarding their desire for reappointment. This form must be returned to the Town Cleric's Office by May 9, 2005. 2. All positions which are vacant or with terms expiring will be posted, including those where the incumbent desires reappointment. 3. Incumbents will not be required to fill out new citizen volunteer forms. The Board requests that all incumbents be avsilabie for nn.: int.(e. vie...w, or if you are not a.~a~;~i?t le, thaat -y ou siibi- it a xxMitten statement outlining your experience and your interest in being re-appointed. Please indicate below whether or not you desire reappointment to this position, and return this signed for to the Town Clerk's Office by May 9, 2005. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assume that you doy~ot wish to be re-appointed. I wish to be considered for reappointmett. I do not to be consi ered for reappointment. !G~ ~ ~1 CC7/ a~ ignature `.Data cc: Committee Chairma APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARD/COMMITTEE/COMMISSION Name: /V l C-A)l Date: ~'C~~ (Last) (First) (Middle) Address: c9 1 r~ L z'~`A S A ~.t i % Tel. (Home( 7"/) Tel. (Work)~ (Is this number listed?) 7 Occupation: ; # of years in Reading: tl r Are you a registered voter in Reading? ~S e-mail address: o Y C:i. Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #1 being y1r first roiity. (Attach a resume if available.) r,,? M Advisory Council Against the Misuse Finance Committee and Abuse of Alcohol, Tobacco and Historical Commission, Other Drugs Housing Authority" Aquatics Advisory Board Audit Committee Board of Appeals Board of Cemetery Trustees Board of Health Board of Registrars Bylaw Committee Celebration Committee Commissioner of Trust Funds Community Planning & Development Comm. Conservation Commission Constable Contributory Retirement Board Council on Aging Cultural Council Custodian of Soldier's & Sailor's Graves Human Relations Advisory C~ittee Land Bank Committee MBTA Advisory Committee Metropolitan Area Planning Council Mystic Valley Elder Services Recreation Committee Solid Waste Advisory Committee Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Committee Town Forest Committee Water, Sewer and Storm Water Management Advisory Committee Other Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: -/err.ot ~jq- 35 JUN 14 AN 1!:14 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARD/COMMITTEE/COMMISSION Name: ti 't, 44e-, .fwd (Last) (First) (Middle) Address: hr v`e. Occupation: ' e-` I ^e4V-r- v Are you a registered voter in Reading? ye-9 Date: 6 -74.,.,. --26OS' Tel. (Home) 7r1 ` 9#-3*,9, ' Tel. (Work) 91?-31e- 7SJ`? (Is this number listed?) xe, # of years in Reading: 22- e-mail address: J44,441 e- 0 acm o I Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up.to four choices) with #1 being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available.) Advisory Council Against the Misuse and Abuse of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Aquatics Advisory Board Audit Committee Board of Appeals Board of Cemetery Trustees Board of Health Board of Registrars Bylaw Committee Celebration Committee Commissioner of Trust Funds 1 Community Planning & Development Comm. Conservation Commission Constable Contributory Retirement Board Council on Aging Cultural Council Custodian of Soldier's & Sailor's Graves Finance Committee Historical Commission Housing Authority Human Relations Advisory Committee Land Bank Committee MBTA Advisory Committee Metropolitan Area Planning Council Mystic Valley Elder Services Recreation Committee Solid Waste Advisory Committee 2- Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Committee _Town Forest Committee 3 Water, Sewer and Storm Water Management Advisory Committee West Street Historic District Commission Other Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: fZs[Z,~ O~ V ~ l 3~vo (ve,t r o. 3~, r5r a W"5 '4~, Nis. David B. Tuttle 27 Heather Drive Reading, MA 01867 Tel: (781) 944-5788 dtuttle@acm.org httn: / /home.comcast.net/ -Viewnt SUMMARY OF OUALIFICATIONS Principal / Consulting Engineer with over thirty years of product development experience creating state of the art technology in operating system software, I/O device interfaces, data communications, and hardware/software combined systems. Extensive experience with all aspects of system product conception, software and hardware architecture, planning, design, implementation, delivery, and support in a wide range of company environments. Proven ability to quickly understand and effectively exploit new and emerging technologies in both hardware and software. EXPERIENCE Independent Contractor, Principal S/W Engineer Sept. 2004 - Present Crossbeam Systems Inc. Concord, Mass. www.crossbeamsvstems.com Experimental Linux kernel development for Intel-compliant x86 SMP platforms, supporting Crossbeam Systems' network security products for safer, simpler networking. Principal Engineer Jun. 2003 - May 2004 Virtual Iron Software Inc. (formerly Katana Technology) Acton, Mass. www.virtuabxon.com Extensive kernel-level design and development for x86 SMP platforms, including kernel interfaces for Tnfiniband, RDMA, IPMI and DMI. Principal Engineer StarBak Communications Inc. Waltham, Mass. www.starbak.net Feb. 2003 - Jun. 2003 [StarBak merged with Vividon in February 2003] Integrated Vividon WCCP Linux demon with StarBak Origin Server Appliance (OSATM), then worked on OSA implementation of Windows Media Server 9 server-side playlists. O/S Software Engineer Vividon Inc. (originally Exotec) Sudbury, Mass. David B. Tuttle Jun. 2000 - Jan. 2003 ya ge 1 of 4 Operating system kernel and file system development supporting a very high performance streaming media Internet appliance. Proprietary ExOS kernel, based on the MIT Exokernel research projects. Extensive work in i686 architecture dependent layer, PCI device discovery and drivers, VMM, system call interfaces, process management, SCSI block I/O, network I/O. Major revision of ExOS virtual address space, block cache, memory allocators (malloc/free), file system space allocation and file system performance. Application-specific asynchronous file system I/O for RedHat Linux; Linux demon for Cisco Web Cache Control Protocol (WCCP) version 2, operating with "iptables' and 'squid'. Project Engineer Hammer Technologies Inc. Wilmington, Mass. Feb. 2000 - jun. 2000 Project lead for PacketSphereTM network analyzer and network behavior simulator for Gigabit Next Generation Networking (Voll?), based on C-Port C-5 Programmable Network Processor. Compact PCI appliance with PowerPC processor running VRTXsa. Hardware and software design work on platform, plus technical oversight of internal microcode/firmware team, on- site consultants and external consulting firm on applications and GUI. Chief Engineer Northstar Internetworking Inc. Waltham, Mass. Sep.1999 - Feb. 2000 Took over the NetFlare IDU (Internet Diagnostic Unit) project with 6 weeks to a Beta target. Completed Beta trials, continued development and additional customer qualification testing of Compact PCI appliance with dual Ariel T1/E1 adapters and multiple Ethernet ports. Technical lead on hardware component selection and integration with customized RedHat 6.1 Linux kernel. Co-inventor on two patent applications, U.S. and international. Consulting Engineer VideoServer Connections Inc. Marlborough, Mass. Oct. 1997 - Feb. 1999 Individual contributor in New Products Engineering. Responsible for multi-platform driver software support of the new BrickTM family of ISDN interface components. Developed initial functional and preliminary design specifications for the BrickTM PCI Carrier Card and some alternative products based on BrickTM modules. Sole engineer on speculative project to utilize a BrickTM module and an unusual multi-processor ASIC to build standalone ISDN videophone reference design for 8x8 Inc. and TeleTek (TeleEye-384). Chief Technology Officer Augment Systems, Inc. Westford, Mass. Nov. 1993 - Aug. 1997 Lead technical role in successful reorganization, refinancing, and revival of the company. Designed and developed the AFX-210 and AFX410 SuperServer for MacOS 7.6/8.x and WindowsNT, via multiple-initiator, multiple-target FC-AL Storage Area Network (SAN). David B. Tuttle q Page 2 of 4 Chief Engineer Ungermann-Bass Inc., Product Operations Group Andover, Mass. Mar. 1990 - Jul. 1993 • Chairman of the Product Operations Technical Review Board • Instigator, architect, Project Engineer for Access/ Open rack-mount servers • Instigator, architect for Peregrine Fibre Channel project (UB, Siemens, Emulex) • Principal contributor to UB Virtual Network Architecture (VNA) definition Principal Technical Consultant Jun. 1985 - Oct. 1989 Prime Computer Inc., Technical Consulting Group Framingham, Mass. • Delegate to the Corporation for Open Systems (COS) Strategy Forum, member of COS Strategy Forum Architecture Committee • Assisted architecture and design of NetWare for UNIX joint project with Novell Inc. • Participated in X/Open XNET, UNIX International Comms SIG Chief Scientist, PAD Architecture GTE Telenet Communications Corp. Burlington, Mass. Oct. 1981- May 1985 • Packet Assembler/Disassembler products and protocols for CCITT X.25, X.3/X.29, IBM 3270, BSC, and SNA networks • Telenet representative to GTE corporate task forces on integrated voice/ data networks, digital switching architecture, carrier network services (ATM precursors) • Co-author and editor, 3270 Display System Protocol, jointly issued by Telenet, Tymnet, and Datapac (Bell Canada), 1981 and 1983 Manager, Front-End Software Oct. 1978 - Sep. 1981 Cambridge Telecommunications Inc. (purchased 10/79 by GTE Telenet) Burlington, Mass. Managed a group of 5 to 8 programmers responsible for development and field support of X.25 network software for the IBM 3704/3705 communications front-end processors (FEP). Rescued 6 troubled customer installations while developing new features and stable code. Principal Software Engineer Sep. 1976 - Sep. 1978 Digital Equipment Corp., Distributed Systems Group Maynard, Mass. • Project leader and primary developer for the RSX-11M/3790 SNA Protocol Emulator • Member of DECnet Stage H design task force and the DECnet Review Group (DRG) Staff Programmer IBM Corp., VM/370 Development Group David B. Tuttle Aug. 1971- Aug. 1976 U r* Page 3 of 4 Burlington, Mass. Control Program (CP) developer for IBM Virtual Machine Facility/370 (VM/370). Primary developer for many CP virtual machine services and communications I/O support. VM/370 representative to SNA Architectural Maintenance Board (AMB). Technical reviewer of IBM SNA Formats and Protocols (FAP) manual, rev. 1.0 Project leader of 5-person team to design and develop "native" SNA support in VM/370 Control Program. CP Architect responsibility for VM/370 Release 3. Senior Associate Programmer IBM Corp., Cambridge Scientific Center Cambridge, Mass. Oct. 1968 - Jun. 1971 Program design and development based on CP-67/CMS and OS/360, including an advanced online editor, BSC protocol design, subsystems for client server interactive graphics system and graphical object database. System Programmer/ User Consultant MIT Computation Center Cambridge, Mass. Feb. 1967 - May 1968 Part-time user technical support for IBM 7094, CTSS and IBSYS; IBM S/360, OS/360 and ASP 1.0; Fortran IV, OS/360 Job Control Language and Utilities; SHARE software'librarian'. Extensive S/360 system programming in assembler; scientific programming in Fortran. SKILLS SUM MARY "Been there, done that, enjoyed it." Data Communications, Networking, Kernel and I/O Wizard, from mainframes, minis, and PCs to embedded systems and 8-bit microcontrollers. Intel/PC, Motorola/Macintosh, IBM mainframe, DEC PDP series, Prime 50 Series, embedded processors from 8-bit to multi-engine 32-bit customs. Fortran, Algol, PL/1, Pascal, C, many assemblers; familiar with C++ but more experienced in critical-path software development. AFFILIATIONS / MEMBERSHIPS / RECOGNITION Voting Member, Association for Computing Machinery Associate Member, IEEE and IEEE Computer Society Charter Life Member, National Space Society Life Master, American Contract Bridge League Who's Who in the East, 23rd and subsequent editions Who's Who in America, 5151 and subsequent editions Who's Who in the World, 1111, and subsequent editions Who's Who in Science and Engineering, 2nd and subsequent editions Who's Who in Finance and Industrv, 291h and subsequent editions Who's Who of Emerging Leaders in America, 4th edition Who's Who in the Media and Communications, lst edition G 0 David B. Tuttle Page 4 of 4 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARD/CONMTTEE/CONMUSSION Name: MG L AJ T Y 4 C AC-14A& t f" Date: _YIY-1145- (Last) (First) (Middle) Address.--", W-/<- Tel. (Home)-7?(-7'7?-a3Y;L Tel. (Work)2k/-,<71- a y~ (Is this number listed?) Occupation :~d'lt vsu ~7`~~ # of years in Reading: Are you a registered voter in Reading? e-mail address: At Ate iA(vVrE:.317 G cawcds`f.- J 0 Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with 41 being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available.) Advisory Council Against the Misuse and Abuse of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs -Aquatics Advisory Board Audit Committee -Board of Appeals Board of Cemetery Trustees Board of Health Board of Registrars Bylaw Committee -Celebration Committee Commissioner of Trust Funds 02 Community Planning & Development Comm. Conservation Commission Constable -Contributory Retirement Board -Council on Aging -Cultural Council Custodian of Soldier's & Sailor's Graves -Finance Committee Historical Commission Housing Authority -Human Relations Advisory Committee -Land Bank Committee _MBTA Advisory Committee _Metropolitan Area Planning Council -Mystic Valley Elder Services -Recreation Committee -Solid Waste Advisory Committee Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Committee -Town Forest Committee Water, Sewer and Storm Water Management Advisory Committee -Other Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: L~ ~ ~ ,~~b~ ~~,ruer K.Mts4-~~ /°..iszu.»~c~ G✓1~ j'/t G(JG~3 !K IA~U ~G / 1 47 AA-e- 60-94 C41 el R 4 o q-tl Michael F. McIntyre 25 Park Ave. Reading, MA 01867 Tel. 781-779-2342 Mobile 781-572-6014 E-Mail mmcintvre.2170),comcast.net CP Consulting Principle, 02/05 to present Assist stakeholders in their efforts to meet the requirements of Chapter 149 Construction Services provisions, to include*Chapter 193 of the Acts of 2004. Perform reviews of existing construction/engineering services procurement procedures to ensure conformity with existing state requirements. Assist municipal and engineering entities with the procedures and filing requirements of the Massachusetts Revolving Trust Fund for drinking water and clean water projects. Assist communities with their review of engineering and construction proposals. INTERNATIONAL GROUNDWATER TECNOLOGIES GROUP Boston, MA, Director U.S. Operations, 08/04 to 01/05 Management of the firm's expansion into the U.S. market, primary responsibilities included; market analysis, establishment of market position, business development and budget management. Management of project activities to include: submission of competitive and non-competitive proposals, establishment of project controls and materials procurement. In addition I performed reviews of projects in Australia and Singapore, recommending changes to existing project procedures and personnel. EARTH TECH. INC Concord, Massachusetts, Governmental Affairs Manager 01/04 to 08/04 Managed permitting activities for the design build group. Coordinated the submittal activities for financing through the State Revolving Fund for municipal clients and assisted municipal clients with the implementation of state and federally mandated directives. Assisted Program and Project Managers with the implementation of state bidding regulations and reviewed contractor proposals for compliance with governmental bidding requirements. Reviewed the affects of Chapter 193 of the Acts of 2004 on the existing business model and commenced adjustments to the business model to affectively meet the challenges of the statutory changes to the Municipal Construction Statutes. 91st Avenue WWTP, Unified Plant 01 Project, Phoenix; Arizona. Logistics Manager, 07/02 to 01/04 Managed construction permitting activities on the $110 million sewage treatment plant expansion, managed the issuance of requests for proposals and managed site support subcontracts, logistics activities and on-site warehousing of contractor and subcontractor materials and equipment. Managed the construction de-watering efforts of the project and liaised with governmental stakeholders and Treatment Plant operations personnel in an effort. to maintain accurate de-watering information and de-watering affects on the existing treatment facilities operations. Boston Harbor Cleanup Project, Deer Island WWTP Construction Boston, Massachusetts. Logistics Manager, 10/94 to 07/02 Provided contract management and administrative review of Logistics contracts valued at more than $110 million for the construction of a $4 billion sewage treatment plant. Management of the logistics activities required for the delivery of personnel, equipment and materials to the remote construction site of Deer Island, maintaining efficient and cost-effective delivery systems. Managed an in house staff of 6, assigned to three remote sites supporting the main construction project on Deer Island. Liaised between the construction staff and surrounding communities, guarantying compliance with a Memorandum of Understanding. Managed liaison and coordination activities between the project staff and the operating treatment plant staff in an effort to reduce construction delays and improve communications. Citv of Brockton, Massachusetts, Chief Procurement Officer, 11/91 to 09/94 Managed the procurement activities of the city government as the Chief Procurement Officer, established a centralized procurement system and authorized the issuance of requests for proposals and qualifications. Submitted applications for state and federal grants on behalf of the City of Brockton.. Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Senate, Boston, Massachusetts Senator Michael C. Creedon, Committee on State Administration Staff Director, 09/86 to 10191 Liaise between the Senators' office and the city and town governments within the Senators' district. Assisted communities in obtaining State and Federal grants, managed the Senate staff of The Committee on State Administration, directing staff research efforts and drafting legislation pertaining to the Procurement Codes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, its cities, towns and subdivisions. Education BS, Political Science, Northeastern University, 1986 Trainine and Certifications Professional Certificate, Construction Project Management, Northeastern University Skills of Negotiation Marketing Strategies APPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2005 Ad Hoc Task Force to Evaluate the Need for an Advocacv Program for the Frail Elders 9 Vacancies ppointine Authoritv: Board of Selectmen Present Member(s) and Term(s) (BOS) (Council on Aging) (Finance Committee) (Housing Authority) (Hospital Trust Fund Task Force) (Frail Senior) (Resident) (Resident) (Resident) Candidates: Bob LeLacheur (FinCom) Carol Patterson (COA) Anne Marie Bourque (Resident) q5 /I Policv establishing an "ad hoc Task Force to evaluate the need for a Nurse Advocacv Program for Frail Elders" (Task Force) There is hereby established a nine (9) member ad hoc Task Force to evaluate the need for a Nurse Advocacy Program for Frail Elders (Task Force), and to make recommendations to evaluate the needs of frail seniors for nurse advocacy, and to determine the resources necessary to provide nurse advocacy for frail residents in Reading.. The terms of the ad hoc committee shall expire on November 30, 2005, unless extended by the Board of Selectmen. Town Meeting, through an instructional motion of May 5, 2005, has asked the Board of Selectmen to establish such a task force, whose purpose will be to: e Review the need for a nurse advocacy program for frail elders in Reading o Determine to what extent that need is currently being met Review different models to meet the need ♦ Explore the role of local government in meeting any identified need for nurse advocacy ♦ Determine appropriate levels of funding ♦ Explore alternative approaches for funding including private funding, funding by clients, utilizing the Hospital Trust Fund, funding through the town budget, and other sources of funding ♦ Present a report on the work and recommendations of the task force to the Selectmen and Finance Committee. e Report to Town Meeting at the 2005 Subsequent Town Meeting. In selecting the Committee membership of 9 members, the Board of Selectmen shall appoint all members and shall attempt to fill the positions as follows: Member of Council on Aging recommended by the COA ♦ A "frail senior" from the Reading community o Reading Housing Authority representative recommended by the Housing Authority ♦ Selectman e Representative of the ad hoc committee of the Hospital Trust Fund recommended by the ad hoc committee e Member of the Finance Committee recommended by the FINCOM ♦ 3 citizens of Reading The Task Force shall, at a minimum, perform the following: 1. Develop a work plan and schedule for accomplishing its Mission, and review it with the Board of Selectmen, including key decision points by the Board of Selectmen; 2. Become thoroughly familiar with the concept of nurse advocacy by talking with a number of agencies involved in Senior Citizen care; 3. Become thoroughly familiar with the Community Parish Nursing and other programs that are models of providing nurse advocacy for frail elders in Reading, including all staffing, financial, and service aspects of the program; 4. Determine within existing resources of the Town, what the demand for such services is currently in the community, and what the likely demand for such services will be over the next 10 years as the elderly population of the nation rises because of the aging of the "baby boomers"; 5. If a need is determined, explore what options for providing those services in Reading might be; what the cost might be; and what the funding source or sources might be; 6. If a need is determined, look at various models for providing this service in Reading, including a review of what other communities are doing, and what other agencies are or might be able to do; Nyz 7. Provide interim reports on the work of the Task Force to the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee; 8. Provide a final report to Town Meeting. Staff will be assigned by the Town Manager to work with the Committee. The ad hoc Task Force to evaluate the need for a Nurse Advocacy Program for Frail Elders will be considered to be part of the Department of Community Services for Administrative purposes. The services of Town Counsel, and other expertise will be available through the Town Manager. The ad hoc committee will make an interim report to the Board of Selectmen no later than October 30, 2005, and a final report to Town Meeting no later than December 31, 2005, except as the Board of Selectmen,may extend that date. Adopted 6-7-05 q43, 1N JUN 16 Vii' Q' APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS/COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS, 1a s°' Name: Date: (Last) (First) (Middle) Address: ,~_g 7 YVC41f,-ILSJ Tel. (Home) 7 -~7 ~V/ 3 Tel. (Work)Y78'- X7'7-- ? 7/ (Is this number listed?) /V 6 Occupation: 6. e rok.iV ofl C PW~ P # of years in Reading: P(_ ,CTI 7 i T2 0.(_ Are you a registered voter in Reading? S` e-mail address: O U r_(~ U P Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #1 being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available.) Advisory Council Against the Misuse and Abuse of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Aquatics Advisory Board Audit Committee Board of Appeals Board of Cemetery Trustees Board of Health Board of Registrars Bylaw Committee Celebration Committee Commissioner of Trust Funds Community Planning & Development Comm. Conservation Commission Constable Contributory Retirement Board Council on Aging Cultural Council Custodian of Soldier's & Sailor's Graves Finance Committee Historical Commission Housing Authority Human Relations Advisory Committee Land Bank Com ittee MBTA Advisory Committee Metropolitan Area Planning Council Mystic Valley Elder Services Recreation Committee RMGD Citizen Advisory Board Solid Waste Advisory Committee Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Committee Town Forest Committee Water, Sewer and Storm Water Management Advisory Committee West Street Historic District Commission Other - ~ A~ A o,-r(- ,e- ~~d J 0 C o Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: w ow, tD us /J ,(o-" 6C"w41QS-P1 z 0 . riv e~; el an, Iz► /0 P? aX /U U (S P f AA_66 Y 6-A~ ~ PeAeA" LA, t 4 . 6T d V/ Ad6 n; v~ , ~ q O&Y ed elcc4z L,,, O C,\(- 7 ~e Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 MEMORANDUM Dawn Folopoulos Administrator Elder/Human Services Phone: (781) 942-9058 Fag: (781) 942-9071 TO: Peter Hechenbleikner FROM: Dawn Folopoulos G-k Date: June 15, 2005 Subject: Ad Hoc Task Force to Evaluate the Need for a Nurse Advocacy Program for Frail Elders Peter, The Council on Aging would like to recommend Carol Patterson to serve on this Ad Hoc Task Force. Carol Patterson 128 Grove St h)781-944-6592 Reading, MA 01867 w)781-939-1911 Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you. ,figs e APPOINTMENTS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2005 Ad Hoc Health Insurance Task Force 3 Vacancies Apnointine Authoritv: Board of Selectmen Present Member(s) and Term(s) (BOS) Charles Robinson (Finance Committee) Carl McFadden (School Committee) Pat Iapicca (Health Insurance Advisory Committee) (Resident) Candidates: Donald M. Green 23.8 Policv establishing an ad hoc Health Insurance Task Force (Task Force) There is hereby established a five (5) member ad hoc Health Insurance Task Force (Task Force), to make recommendations to the Town Manager on options and efforts to contain health insurance costs for Reading employees and retirees, as well as to make any recommendations about needed changes on a State or Federal level to stabilize the cost of health insurance. The Task Force membership of 5 members shall be established as follows: ➢ One member from the Board of Selectmen appointed by the Board of Selectmen; ➢ One member from the School Committee appointed by the School Committee; ➢ One member from the FINCOM appointed by the FINCOM; ➢ one member from the Insurance Advisory Committee appointed by the Insurance Advisory Committee ➢ One resident of the community, appointed by the Board of Selectmen, who does not represent the above groups, and who has broad experience in community affairs and/or expertise in finance, health insurance, or other areas of expertise which, in the opinion of the Board would be helpful in meeting the ad hoc committee's mission. The mission of the ad hoc Health Insurance Task Force (Task Force) is to advise the Town Manager on what, if any, options exist at this time to contain the cost of health insurance for employees and retirees of the Town of Reading for the coming year(s). The Task Force will: 1. Develop a work plan and schedule for accomplishing the Mission of the ad hoc committee, 2. Become thoroughly familiar with the Town's current health insurance program structure and costs; 3. Become familiar with State and Federal law governing health insurance for municipal employees and retirees; 4. Review health insurance programs utilized in other communities of similar size and location as Reading; 5. Determine what options for health insurance are currently available in the marketplace which will meet the mandates of law and cover all eligible Reading employees and retirees; 6. Advise as to options which might be considered for bidding the Town's health insurance program in the summer/fall of 2005 towards award and implementation effective March 1, 2006; 7. Advise the Board of Selectmen as to what recommendations may be made for changes in State and/or Federal budget, laws, or regulations, which would have the effect of stabilizing health insurance costs. Staff will be assigned by the Town Manager to work with the Committee. The Task Force will be considered to be part of the Department of Finance for administrative purposes. The services of Town Counsel, and other expertise will be available through the Town Manager. The Task Force will make a preliminary report to the Town Manager on matters related to the bid specifications no later than September 1, 2005; and will make a final report to the Board of Selectmen no later than December 31, 2005, except as the Board of Selectmen may extend that date. Adopted May 31, 2005 705 JUN 16 PH - - APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARD/COMMITTEE/CO"SION Name: 6 /tm", oet,' - ,tC Date: C NO (Last) (First) . (Middle) Address: d Tel. (Home) l7 I 4~ t{ cS S"J Tel. (Work) 1i5-1 cot 141 Q E d 0 (is this number listed?) Occunatinn:1~5r f fiiti # of years in Reading: .2 -7 Are you a registered voter in Reading? e-mail address: } hC? ~l3~' d< < Place a number next to your preferred position(s) (up to four choices) with #I being your first priority. (Attach a resume if available.) -Advisory Council Against the Misuse and Abuse of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs ____Aquatics Advisory Board -Audit Committee Board of Appeals Board of Cemetery Trustees Board of Health Board of Registrars -Bylaw Committee Celebration Committee Commissioner of Trust Funds 'Community Planning & Development Comm. Conservation Commission Constable Contributory Retirement Board -Council on Aging Cultural Council Custodian of Soldier's & Sailor's Graves -Finance Committee Historical Commission -Housing Authority -Human Relations Advisory Committee -Land Bank Committee _MBTA Advisory Committee ,Metropolitan Area Planning Council Mystic Valley Elder Services -Recreation Committee Solid Waste Advisory Committee Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Committee Town Forest Committee Water, Sewer and Storm Water anagement Advisor,y Committee Other di) Mt C ( i ZY Please outline relevant experience for the position(s) sought: Pik! 7 Z fk'-fJ ~~,~yZ ors; ~ C ..cam /a c r~r~'~l c s T- , ~>zr' c' F- A--~ -'x`71 C4' J C s (A/ C: c=- (-9 ?s u:~~ fj ~ ~fz,/S'~C.f ~ f r~ l~t-C~ ✓~j~`' ~i~6 r1.~~ .Y C/ 17 qj 3 %Full= I V1 GVVJ I. I V 1 IV, 1 1V111. IVIIVIV 1 GA 1~u111YC1 . I I W. - - - - - - - ■ u{V,. G I- L o i ' j ~IIIBI~IIIII' ~ h Date: Thursday, June 16, 2005 Time: To: Peter Hechenbleikner Company: Reading Town Manager Fax Number: 17819429070 From: DONALD GREEN MD Subject: APPLICATION FOR HEALTH INS AD HOC COMM Total Number of Pages (including cover): 2 0 L, 1:16 PM Memo: Peter my email is gred43@comcast.net and is the best way to reach me. Will you confirm June 28th interview date? If all pages were not received, please call back immediately: 4,9 q Page 1 of 1 Schena, Paula From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:33 AM To: 'gred43@comcast.net' Cc: Schena, Paula Subject: RE: Ad Hoc Comm on Town Employee Heath Care Ins Thanks Don - We'll need you to fill in the application form - you can get it on the Town web site at www.ci.readina.ma.us or we can send you one in the mail. On the web site, go to the "boards" link and you'll see volunteer application. The Board of Selectmen will be interviewing on June 28. Pete -----Original Message----- From: gred43@comcast.net [mailto:gred43@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:09 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Ad Hoc Comm on Town Employee Heath Care Ins Dear Peter: Ben Tafoya asked me if I had interest in being on the Health Care Ad Hoc Comm and I would be glad to bring whatever input I could to the group, if invited. As a citizen, business person in town, and an ex-chairman of the Bd of Health, I have seen this problem from different aspects. I am formally asking to be a participant. Regards, Don(Dr. Donald Green) q1 S % 6/16/2005 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF READING To the Inhabitants of the Town of Reading: Please take. notice that I. Board of Selectmen of the T6.vVn of. Reading. will' hold the folloW ing public hearings on Tues June 28, 2005 in., Selectmen's Meeting Room Lowell Street, Read.i~:.; Massachusetts: • Chute Street - One Way 8:1 • Water Conservation Pia All interested parties M& appear in person, may subr~t their comments in writing,'r may ema.ll townmanage'rC,y. reading.ma.us. By ordeal Peter 1. Hechenbleik'A Town Man, 6/21 Sal Marino, Lillian From: Ingraham, Faye Sent: Monday, June 20, 200 5 11:53 AM To: Marino, Lillian Subject: CHUTE 0006+ CHUTE ST 0063 0017 MOLETTIERI GINO P ETAL TRS 0007+ CHUTE ST 0063 0016 MARK G HALL TRUSTEE 0015 CHUTE ST 0063 0052 PATEL KALPESH D 0016 CHUTE ST 0063 0018 MOLETTIERI GINO P ETAL TRS 0035 CHUTE ST 0063 0029& DOHERTY LAURA A 0036 CHUTE ST 0063 0027 DIGIOVANNI SUSAN 0041+ CHUTE ST 0063 0028 FOLEY KENNETH J 0042 CHUTE ST 0074 0034 BOVIARD CAROLYN E 0045 CHUTE ST 0074 0033A WALDEN RACHEL S 0049 CHUTE ST 0074 0033 CALLAHAN SEAN W 0050 CHUTE ST 0074 0035 YOUNG DONALD C S~ ~ READING NEIGHBORHOOD MAP Map by: Town of Reading Legend Parcels Trail Map date: 1..._sa Town Boundary Buildings Fence Data are for planning purposes only. -i-+ Railroad Sidewalks m m ® Hedge Roads ' Driveway C~3 Trees Bridge Retaining Wall , Streams Paved oo- Wall Open water o 135 270 54C { I Unpaved UWTPtltl Path ( Wetlands 'F . J n APR 26~'' 02 Julie A. Callahan 49 Chute Street Reading, MA 01867 April 25, 2005 Reading Town Manager Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA. 01867 Re: Chute Street Dear Sir/Madam, I have resided at the above Reading address for more than six years and would like to offer a few observations regarding traffic in the neighborhood. Chute Street is very narrow and is reduced to one-way on Sundays when the Episcopal Church holds service. There are many children in the neighborhood, including my own that are three and five years old. Many cars turn onto Chute Street from Woburn Street to "cut through" to Route 129 without going through the center of town. These cars drive quite fast and many fail to stop at Mount Vernon Street. For these reasons, I would like to recommend that Chute Street be made a permanent one-way street heading southbound. I have spoken with many local residents who also feel this would improve traffic conditions and reduce the possibility of injury. I will be following up with Town Hall later this week to discuss possible solutions to this matter. Thank you for your assistance in reviewing this request. Sincerely, ?Julie Callahan Sa3 Carolyn E. Boviard 42 Chute Street Reading, MA 01867 22 June 2005 Dear Board of Selectman and Town Manager: IM5 3t,, 74 m II 08 . As a 12 year resident of Chute Street and a 45 year resident of Reading, I am writing to you in strong opposition to the proposal to make Chute Street a one-way street. I cannot be at the meeting on Tuesday, June 28, due to a previous commitment, so I am writing to you in order to be on record in opposition. My concerns about this proposal are two-fold: safety and quality-of-life. Since I moved to Chute Street in 1993, the street has blossomed into a neighborhood with very young children. There are 10 children currently living in the part of Chute Street that runs between Woburn and Mt. Vernon Streets, and there are more young children living nearby on Mt. Vernon and School Streets. If Chute Street is made one-way, both the volume and speed of traffic will increase on Chute Street and the adjacent streets. Chute Street will become a major cut-through to and/or from Haven Street that will jeopardize the safety of our children and diminish the quality-of-life in our neighborhood. Although some drivers currently use Chute Street as a cut-through, the two-way traffic flow forces drivers to slow down. By eliminating the two-way traffic, there will be little impetus for drivers to slow down and this safety issue will be exacerbated by the additional traffic to the area that the new building at the corner of Haven and Chute Street will generate. In addition, the character of the street will change if it becomes one-way. Over the many years I've lived in Reading, I've seen streets that have become one-way slowly transform into mere extensions of the downtown and loose their residential character. As a residential taxpayer and a mother of two young children, I do not want this to happen to my neighborhood. Despite living near Haven Street, Chute Street remains a neighborhood. In recent years, the Reading Police Department has done an excellent job in enforcing the parking laws. This has greatly reduced the number of cars that park all day on Chute Street while their owners take the train to Boston or work in office buildings along Woburn Street. I applaud the diligence of the Reading Police and appreciate the results of keeping parking along Chute Street as it should be in any neighborhood, and as it is in most Reading neighborhoods for short term visitors only. Unfortunately, this is not the case on Mt. Vernon Street, where employees of commercial establishments along Woburn Street park all day and interfere with turning onto Chute Street. This parking situation should be stopped and I would recommend similar parking regulations along Mt. Vernon as currently exist on Chute Street. Residential property owners should not dLs, Chute Street ...2 of 2 have to accommodate the owners of commercial establishments who do not plan for enough parking for both their employees and their customers. Unfortunately, with the new development at the corner of Haven and Chute Streets and its apparent lack of parking, I fear there will be increased pressure to allow parking along Chute Street and more parking along Mt. Vernon Street. This should not be allowed. Residential property owners located near commercial establishments should not have our children's safety jeopardized by increased traffic and speed, our property values diminished by the sprawl of development, be inconvenienced by parked cars blocking entrances and exits to streets and driveways, and our neighborhood character drastically altered. Chute Street is a wonderful neighborhood that currently enjoys a harmonious co-existence with the downtown commercial area. I urge you to help us maintain this balance by opposing the proposal to make Chute Street a one-way street and any future proposal that seeks to loosen the parking regulations as well. <-,t L' LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF READING To the Inhabitants of thy; Town of Reading. Please take. notice that,.. Board of Selectmen of the Td*n of Reading will hold the foll.omr ing public hearings on Tuesi June 28, 2005 in Selectmen's Meeting Room Lowell .Stre'et, Read iW:; Massachusetts: • Chute Street One 1IVay a 8:15, • Water Conservation Pla,~~; 9:15 All interested parties m.4 appear in person, may sub4ilf their comments in writing,'gr may email town manag&b, reading.ma.us. By order))? Peter I. Hechenbleik(.kr Town Man r 6/21 s1~ / Section 4.9 - Water Conservation Prouram 4.9.1 - Staee 1 Water Conservation Restrictions Stage 1 provides for mandatorv water conservation, subject to penalties in accordance with law for violation of these restrictions. Water may be used for outdoor purposes only from 4:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., and 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., Monday through Sunday, and only in accordance with the following schedule: • Even numbered addresses: Outdoor use is permitted on even-numbered days of the month only during the hours specified above. • Odd-numbered addresses: Outdoor use is permitted on odd-numbered days of the month only during the hours specified above. There is no restriction on hand held devices. In addition, the following regulation on filling swimming pools is mandatorv: Swimming pools shall be filled in accordance with the above schedule only, unless a waiver is granted by the Town Manager. 4.9.2 - State 2 Water Conservation Restrictions Stage 2 provides for enhanced outdoor water restrictions when flows in the Ipswich River are at a critical stage. The Town will daily monitor total Reading water use from all sources, and will monitor the Ipswich River stream flows at the USGS South Middleton guage.If the Town water use during the May 1-October 31 period equals or exceeds those amounts in Table 1, and if the streamflow as measured at the USGS South Middleton gage (#01101500) is at or below 18.7 cfs (0.42 cfsm) for any three consecutive days during the 30 day period following the Trigger Dates in Table 1, then the Town will implement the additional outdoor water use restrictions as noted in Table 2 below. These restrictions will remain in place until October 315` or until streamflows are above the threshold for seven consecutive days or the Town's water use at the next trigger date is below the Table 1 threshold volume. The Town will implement each additional water conservation measure as indicated within 7 days of reaching the Reading water use/streamflow level. Table 1 Trigger Dates and Reading Water Use Thresholds Trigger Date Total Reading water use threshold June 1 75 million gallons or more July 1 158 million gallons or more August 1 228 million gallons or more September 1 290 million gallons or more October 1 350 million gallons or more Table 2 Reauired Town Actions Based on Strearnflow and Reading Water Use Additional Conservation Town actions if streamflow is below threshold for 3 consecutive restrictions days First Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by four hours per day from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 mandatory restrictions. Second Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by four hours per day from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 mandatory restrictions and will require that only hand-held watering devices be used. Third Town will implement its Stage 3 water restrictions (a ban on all outdoor water use) On or after the first trigger date (Table 1) at which Reading water use threshold is equaled or exceeded, if the streamflow is below the threshold for three consecutive days, the Town will implement the first level of additional conservation measures shown in Table 2. On the next trigger date at which Reading water use volume is equaled or exceeded, and if an additional level of conservation is still available, the next level of restrictions will be applied. 4.9.3 - StaLre 3 Water Conservation Regulations Stage 3 is provided for the eventuality that only enough water is available for essential public health and safety purposes. In this event, no outdoor water use of anv tvtie is permitted. Water use is restricted to domestic home use only for purposes including normal bathing, laundry, and sanitary uses. 4.9.4 - Exemutions from Water Conservation Regulations Notwithstanding the foregoing, irrigation of public parks and recreational fields by means of automatic sprinklers equipped with moisture sensors or similar control technology may also be permitted Additionally, Town approved private automatic sprinkler systems equipped with water- saving, weather-responsive controller switches will be allowed to continue irrigation operations. Properties with these systems must display a sign approved by the Town indicating that they are exempt. 4.9.5 - Deleeation to Town Manager to imulement Water Conservation Regulations, in advance of "triggers" If, upon monitoring the weather, the Town's water use, the South Middleton gauge, and other factors, the Town Manager determines that the above restrictions should be put in place earlier than required in order to try to avoid more stringent restrictions in the future, the Town Manager is authorized to do so, and will notify the Board of Selectmen immediately of such action. 4.9.6 - Waivers from Water Conservation Regulations The Town Manager may develop policies and procedures to grant waivers from these restrictions as appropriate. 4.9.7 - Penalties for violatine Water Conservation Regulations Violation of these regulations is punishable by a fine of up to $300.00. Adopted 4-25-89, 11104, Revised 1-4-05, Revised 6-28-05. S-~ 3 . Page 1 of 1 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: julie callahan Bacallahan@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:03 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RE: Chute Street Pete, Thanks for your assistance regarding this matter. I will watch for the hearing notice. Julie -----Original Message----- From: Hechenbleikner, Peter [mailto: phechenbleikner@ci. read ing.ma. us] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:27 PM To: julie callahan Subject: RE: Chute Street Julie Thanks for your suggestion regarding Chute Street. We will be forwarding this recommendation on to the Board of Selectmen with a favorable recommendation. the Board will be having a hearing - probably in June, and will make their decision following the hearing. If you are an abutter to Chute Street you will get a copy of the notice of the hearing. Pete -----Original Message----- From: Julie callahan [mailto:jacallahan@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:02 AM To: Town Manager Subject: Chute Street Dear Sir/Madam, I am following up on a letter I sent you last week regarding Chute Street becoming a permanent one-way heading southbound. Have any possible solutions be discussed thus far? Please contact me with any information you have regarding this matter. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Julie Callahan 6/24/2005 Julie A. Callahan 49 Chute Street Reading, MA 01867 April 25, 2005 Reading Town Manager Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Chute Street Dear Sir/Madam, I have resided at the above Reading address for more than six years and would like to offer a few observations regarding traffic in the neighborhood. Chute Street is very narrow and is reduced to one-way on Sundays when the Episcopal Church holds service. There are many children in the neighborhood, including my own that are three and five years old. Many cars turn onto Chute Street from Woburn Street to "cut through" to Route 129 without going through the center of town. These cars drive quite fast and many fail to stop at Mount Vernon Street. For these reasons, I would like to recommend that Chute Street be made a permanent one-way street heading southbound. I have spoken with many local residents who also feel this would improve traffic conditions and reduce the possibility of injury. I will be following up with Town Hall later this week to discuss possible solutions to this matter. Thank you for your assistance in reviewing this request. Sincerely, Julie Callahan S~2_9 Board of Selectmen Meeting May 31, 2005 For ease of archiving, the order that items appear in these Minutes reflects the order in which the items appeared on the agenda for that meeting, and are not necessarily the order in which any item was taken up by the Board. The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Richard Schubert, Vice Chairman Camille Anthony, Secretary Joseph Duffy and Selectmen James Bonazoll and Ben Tafoya. Also present were Police Chief James Cormier, Recreation Administrator John Feudo, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner and the following list of interested parties: Pat Fennelly, Sgt. David Clark, Attorney Brad Latham, Anna Colonano, Diane Pinheiro, Paula Koppel. Reports and Comments Selectmen's Liaison Report and Comments - Selectman Ben Tafoya noted that the Memorial Day events were terrific. There was a great crowd, wonderful weather and excellent speeches. Selectman James Bonazoli noted that the Recreation Committee has a Board opening. The Solid Waste Advisory Committee has two openings. Concerns were raised by Longfellow Road/Park View Road about traffic when the High School opens. Selectman Joseph Duffy noted that the Reading Municipal Light Department is 111 years old. They provide $1.9 million to the Town of Reading. There is a CAB opening. Vice Chairman Camille Anthony noted that we were supposed to have a Task Force regarding the distribution by the Light Department. The Adopt-An-Island Reception was excellent. There were 101 islands adopted. The Board received a petition for Louanis Drive. She also noted that we automatically have petitions on the Agenda (the Town Manager noted that it would probably be preferable to have it on the Agenda with the staff recommendation and this is the intent). Vice Chairman Anthony asked about the Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director position, and the Town Manager noted that he is finalizing the job description and will have a schedule put together for advertising and filling that position by the end of August. He asked for an additional Selectman to be involved in the process, and Vice Chairman Anthony agreed to serve. The Pearson traffic meeting needs to be scheduled - it is scheduled for June 13th. This is a joint workshop with the Community Planning & Development Commission. The progress on the downtown plan needs to be conveyed to the Downtown Steering Conunittee and a meeting schedule once the 100% design is completed. We should send a letter to Avellino Well thanking them for doing the work in the front of the property. Chairman Richard Schubert asked if the downtown project was on the Transportation Improvement Program. The Town Manager noted that it was. Public Comment - There was no public comment. a / # Board of Selectmen Meeting - Mav 31.2005 - Paue 2 Town Manager's Report The Town Manager gave the following report: ♦ The Town Manager reiterated the process for the Assistant Town Manager/Finance Director. ♦ He reminded residents that we would not be picking up trees and brush. Selectman Ben Tafoya asked what the process was in making that determination. The Town Manager noted that we do not have the staff to do it and the Compost Center is open. ♦ The Town Manager noted that the possible Trust Fund has been meeting actively. He also commended those involved in the Memorial Day celebration. Personnel & Appointments Badge Pinninia - Sergeant David Clark - The Police Chief presided over the ceremonial badge pinning for the new Police Sergeant David Clark. Sergeant Clark's family and friends were in attendance. Discussion/Action Items Presentation on Imagination Station Improvements - Recreation Administrator John Feudo and Recreation Committee Member Pat Fennelly made a presentation to the Board of Selectmen. They reviewed different options and costs. Vice Chairman Camille Anthony expressed concern about using the artificial timber product regarding heat generated by it. Chairman Richard Schubert asked if the current Imagination Station was dangerous. John Feudo commented that it was not - it is inspected monthly and repairs were made. John Feudo noted that the proposal would be to replace the contact surfaces with the artificial timber material, replace several items in the playground including hardware, and redo the playground fill. It is anticipated that the existing infrastructure which includes telephone polls is adequate. These improvements would meet ADA requirements for accessibility to play components. There was discussion about the surface material. Additional fill would not be required - this material has been compacted significantly. The preferable material would be the rubberized material but it is expensive. If you were going to use that, you would put sand underneath and then put the poured in place rubber on top. The Board expressed concern that doing Imagination Station work would effect the replacement program for the other smaller playgrounds around the community. The Town Manager noted that the Capital Improvements Program addresses the 11 playgrounds within the community. It does not address Imagination Station. The Board asked for a list of the playground replacement schedule in accordance with the Capital Improvements Program. Selectman Ben Tafoya asked what the time frame would be for doing improvements. John Feudo thought that it could be done in four stages with approximately six months per stage. Each "stage" would take three to five working days. Hopefully, the project would be completed in about two years. The useful life of the project is extended to the guaranteed useful life of the artificial timber material - 50 years. ~,t Z Board of Selectmen Meetina - Mav 31.2005 - Page 3 Selectman James Bonazoli asked if there were any conflicts with the school projects, and it was noted that this should not conflict in any way. Chairman Richard Schubert felt that this should be done through fund raising. The next steps would be to develop a final estimate and then do fundraising. The consensus of the Board would be as follows: Determine that the artificial timber material would not be problematic in terms of heat retention. 2. Develop a final estimate which would use the composite with replacement material on all the contact surfaces, and the bark mulch material for cushioning (with an alternative of going to the rubber surface material that funding allows). 3. Develop a fundraising strategy hopefully using many of the people who were involved in the initial Imagination Station project. 4. Stage implementation with as little disruption to the playground as possible. On another matter, Chairman Richard Schubert asked for the schedule of removal of the fence section at Morton Field. The Town Manager raised the issue of the Board's approval of the last phase of the Hunt Park improvements which would be a four foot black chain link fence. The Board felt that this was consistent with their prior approval and had no objection to proceeding as long as all conservation issues are addressed. On motion by Bonazoli seconded by Duffv, the Board arrroved the Ulan for fencing and benches at the Hunt Park vlaveround by a vote of 5-0-0. Hearing - No Parking on Walkers Brook Drive - The secretary read the hearing notice. The Town Manager noted that Walkers Brook Drive that extends from the Wakefield line to Lakeview Avenue has been improved, and is not designed for parking. It was noted that there were several items of correspondence from 128 Sales Inc. and there was no objection to the proposed regulations. There was no public comment. On motion by Anthony seconded by Duffv, the Board voted to close the hearing on "No Parking, Standing or Stopping - Walkers Brook Drive both sides. from Lakeview Avenue to the Wakefield Town Line" by a vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Anthony seconded by Duffy, the Board approved an amendment to the Town of Reading Traffic Rules and Regulations as follows - Add "No Parking, Standing or Storming - Walkers Brook Drive both sides. from Lakeview Avenue to the Wakefield Town Line" by a vote of 5-0-0. 4 p,3 Board of Selectmen Meeting - Mav 31, 2005 - Page 4 Hearing - Hamden Yard and Parker Street Parking Regulations - The Secretary read the hearing notice. The Town Manager made a presentation that showed the layout of the proposed parking lot. He went through the proposed parking regulations which would amend Section 5.9 - No All Night Parking relative to Parker Street and Hamden Yard, and to delete Appendix A-9b. To amend Section 5.14 relative to the Hamden Yard lot. Add Appendix A-2b to allow 60 minute parking in the Harden Yard parking lot. Attorney Brad Latham spoke on behalf of Walgreen's and the Danvers Savings Bank. They would prefer 30 minute parking but would live with the one hour parking in the Hamden Yard parking lot. They were concerned about enforcement of overnight parking. He noted that two independent studies of overnight parking indicated that there is adequate overnight parking available in the Parker Street lot. The Town Manager noted that the Hamden Yard lot was going from 23 parking spaces now to 28 parking spaces plus eight reserved by Walgreen's. Selectman James Bonazoli asked if we do enforcement on weekends and the Town Manager noted that the Parking Enforcement Officer works random hours, and the Police Department also does parking enforcement. Chairman Richard Schubert asked about the construction impact on the parking lot. Attorney Latham noted that they were going to be staging the construction so that it would not effect the existing lot other than when the transition is made from the existing to the new lot. Attorney Latham noted that there is one tenant in the building who has occupancy which ends in August. They anticipate being into construction in August. Selectman James Bonazoli asked why we shouldn't go to 30 minutes for the parking lot. The Town Manager noted that the anticipation is that people will park in the lot and shop at more than just one facility - Walgreen's. Anna Colonano of 38/40 Pleasant Street which abuts the project indicated that she uses the Hamden Yard lot for her tenants. She has a four family home. They park overnight in the Hamden Yard lot. The Town Manager noted that they will be able to park in the Parker Street lot. She hadn't realized that and was fine with the proposal. Diane Pinheiro of 279 Haven Street spoke in favor of regulations greater than one hour. One hour does not allow people to eat Downtown, or shop at more than one location. Chairman Richard Schubert noted that there is a balance that needed to be struck. Attorney Latham noted that the regulations can be evaluated in six months to a year. He also noted that the average stay at Walgreen's is five to eight minutes. ~6,q Board of Selectmen Meeting - Mav 31.2005 - Page 5 Tony Devito of 140 John Street spoke. He.noted that the Senior Center is in the proximity of this lot, and one hour is too short for meetings that may take place in the Senior Center. He noted that Walgreen's can make their eight parking spaces 30 minutes if they want to, and that Hamden Street could be 30 minute parking. He also noted that when he shops downtown, if the CVC lot is filled he has to go down to the Depot area to park. He suggests an evaluation after three months. On motion by Bonazoli seconded by Anthonv, the Board voted to close the hearing on the Harnden Yard and Parker Street Parking Regulations by a vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Anthonv seconded by Bonazoli, the Board voted to approve an amendment to the Town of Reading Traffic Rules and Regulations for the* Harnden Yard and Parker Street Parking Regulations dated Mav 31, 2005, and effective upon the filing of the deed to transfer land from Walereen's to the Town of Reading, by a vote of 5-0-0. Hearing - Establish a Health Insurance Task Force - The Secretary read the hearing notice. The Town Manager reviewed the draft policy on establishing a Health Insurance Task Force. The Board felt that nine members was too large, and reduced it to one member each from the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Finance Committee and Insurance Advisory Committee thereby making it a five member committee. He also noted that the Task Force should make a preliminary report to the Town Manager on September 1" regarding the specific specifications for the health insurance, and would make a final report no later than December 31, 2005 as that date may be extended by the Board of Selectmen. On motion by Anthonv seconded by Tafova. the Board voted to close the hearing on a Policv Establishing a Health Insurance Task Force by a vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Bonazoli seconded by Anthonv, the Board voted to approve a Policv Establishing a Health Insurance Task Force dated Mav 31.2005 by a vote of 5-0-0. Approval of Easement Agreement - Walgreen's - The Board of Selectmen reviewed the proposed agreement between McGriff Reading LLC and the Town of Reading relative to the Hamden Yard parking lot. On motion by Anthonv seconded by Bonazoli, the Board of Selectmen voted to apurove the execution of an Agreement between McGriff Reading LLC and the Town of Reading relative to the construction of modifications to the Harnden Yard parking lot, and the deeding of additional lands to the Town of Reading following the construction of such a lot. as detailed in a seven item agreement presented to the Board of Selectmen dated Mav 31. 2005 by a vote of 5-0-0. Review of Instructional Motions from Town Meeting - The Board of Selectmen reviewed two instructional motions from Town Meeting - one related to providing Nurse Advocacy for frail elders, and one related to Cities for Climate Protection. (as % Board of Selectmen Meeting - Mav 31.2005 - Paize 6 Paula Koppel was present to discuss the Nurse Advocacy Program. The Town Manager raised two questions with regard to that matter - one question was whether a member of the Community Parish Nursing should be on the committee, and one suggesting that the staff should not be on the committee. There was a discussion including members of the Board and Ms. Koppel. The sense was that Community Parish Nursing should not have a member on the committee, and that the policy should be fairly explicit as to the charge of the committee. Specific concerns would be who needs the Nurse Advocacy Program and who is currently providing the services. From that information, a gap analysis should be conducted. The Board approved going forward with establishing a committee for the Cities for Climate Protection Program. The Town Manager expressed concern about staff support for such a group, and the sense was that this may be a committee that operates without staff support. The Board asked that when we have a discussion of shade trees, that part of that discussion include what is the homeowner's responsibility. Approval of Minutes On motion by Anthonv seconded by Bonazoli. the Board of Selectmen approved the Minutes of Mav 4, 2005, as amended, by a vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Bonazoli seconded by Duffv. the Board of Selectmen approved the Minutes of Mav 9, 2005, as amended. by a vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Anthonv seconded by Bonazoli. the Board of Selectmen approved the Minutes of Mav 10.2005. as amended, by a vote of 5-0-0. On motion by Anthonv seconded by Bonazoli. the Board of Selectmen voted to P-o into Executive Session for the purpose of discussion of strateev with respect to litigation and labor negotiations not to come back into Open Session. On a roll call vote. all five members voted in the affirmative and the Board adjourned the Open Session at 10:50 u.m. by a vote of 5-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary 6 QG 205 JUN 13 AN 9: 17 Director Reading Board of Health 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Madam: 42 Willow Street Reading, MA 01867 Monday June 13, 2005 Whereas there is no air conditioning in student areas in the new Wood End Elementary School, and ventilation is inadequate, we ask that you take immediate action today to assure that the school is vacated of students should the inside temperature exceed 85 degrees. We have received several complaints indicating that temperatures last week reached as high as 104-110 degrees have been recorded in student areas on the second floor. Last week District Attorney Martha Coakley shut down the Middlesex District Courthouse when temperatures there were in the 80's because she felt the state's business could not be carried out effectively in those temperatures. Students with asthma, students and adults taking medications, and expectant teachers are at unnecessary risk under such conditions. We sincerely hope this urgent condition is not allowed to happen again when it is absolutely unnecessary. Sincerely, Gary and Linda Phillips Cc: Supt. P. Schettini Town Mgr. P. Heckenbleikner 9~zw CAW4 C/ LATHAM9 LATHAM & LAMOND, P.C. 643 MAIN STREET READING, MASSACHUSETTS 01867-3096 W W W.LLLLAW.COM KENNETH C. LATHAM (1939-1996) 0. BRADLEY LATHAM* JOHN T. LAMOND SHEILAH GRIFFIN-REICHARDT JOSHUA E. LATHAM CHRISTOPHER M. O. LATHAM *ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN MASSACHUSETTS & NEW HAMPSHIRE Patrick A. Schettini Jr. Superintendent of Schools 82 Oakland Road P.O. Box 180 Reading, MA 01867 James W. Cormier Reading Police Chief 15 Union Street Reading, MA 01867 TELEPHONE: (781) 944-0505 FAX: (781) 944-7079 June 6, 2005 Richard Davidson, Principal Woods End School c/o Birch Meadow School 2TArthur B. Lord Drive Reading, MA 01867 Peter Hechenbleikner, Reading Town Manager 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Re: Unauthorized Use of Private Section of Sanborn Lane 11.4 8 .1~ cry We have been asked by residents of the private portion of Sanborn Lane to write to you regarding the improper use of that private way. Since the opening of Woods End School, staff, parents and contract transportation vehicles have been using the private portion of Sanborn Lane as a cut through between the school and Main Street, even though they have no right to use that private property. Such use constitutes a trespass. Before our clients proceed with prosecution against individuals, they request that each of the addressees of this letter take action within his respective purview to prevent this continuing trespass and unlawful use of the private way. Please notify those affiliated with the school not to use the private way. Sincerely, Latha atham & Lamond, P.C. L amond 8'k. L I C ~c~ IIIENJAMIN NICHOILS w5 AVON STREET - 1~.H`.~ADINC.9 A. 01866 June 9, 2005 Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2685 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner This letter is to confirm a phone call on Monday June 6, 2005 with Paula Schena, when I turned in my membership and chairmanship of the Land Bank Committee of the Town of Reading. At age of 97, I feel that this most important function of the town should now be handled by a younger generation of knowledgeable and committed residents. I understand that the other two current members of this committee will be requesting a gathering with you and the Selectmen to discuss the next formation of the committee. They both have an excellent background of the history and the workings of the Town of Reading as well as the Land Bank which should make them a valuable resource to the town in the future. I truly have appreciated the opportunity to serve. Sincerely, 41~ G f-:9 8 geI b ic W June 10, 2005 8 C CERTIFIED MAIL No: 7000 0600 00291050 5968 Peter Hechenbleikner Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867-2683 RE: WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION DECISION Town of Reading Interbasin Transfer Application Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: On June 9, 2005, the Water Resources made a final action to approve, with conditions, the town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application. Enclosed please find the Decision with Conditions of the Commission. Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 21 § 8C and 313 CMR 4.06(3), within thirty (30) days from the date of the final action of Water Resources Commission, June 9, 2005, will file a report of its findings, justification, and decisions in relation to such approval with the clerks of the house of representatives and the senate, and with the state secretary for publication in the Massachusetts Register. This Decision is issued pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 21 sections 8C and 8D. Appeal thereof is subject to the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 30A. Sincerely, Karl Honkonen Water Resources Commission Enclosure : Decision with Conditions g6t (I D l THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION DECISION Town of Reading Interbasin Transfer Application On June 9, 2005, The Water Resources Commission, in a six to three (6-3) vote, approved, the town of Reading's request for an Interbasin Transfer for its proposed water purchase from the MWRA, with conditions as follows: 1. DECISION After review of the facts provided by the applicant, analysis of the associated data, and consideration of public and agency comments concerning the proposal, the Water Resources Commission (WRC) approved with conditions, the town of Reading's request for an Interbasin Transfer for its proposed water purchase from the MWRA. Final compliance with the performance standards must be achieved as stated in the Amended Staff Recommendation, dated June 9, 2005. 2. EVALUATION CRITERIA (313 CMR 4.05) Criteria Criteria #1: MEPA Compliance Criteria #2: Viable In-Basin Sources Criteria #3: Water Conservation Criteria #4: Watershed Management Criteria #5': Reasonable Instream Flow Criteria #6: Groundwater/Pumping Test Criteria #7: Local Water Resources Management Plan Criteria #8: Cumulative Impacts CONDITIONS Application Meets? Yes Yes Yes Not Applicable Yes Not Applicable Yes Yes Based on the analyses and concerns expressed about this project, the WRC approved 8~~ Reading's application under the Interbasin Transfer Act for admission to the MWRA System subject to the following conditions. Reading must commit in writing to abide by these conditions. 1. (a) Reading will manage its sources so that for the months of May through October, it will limit use of its Ipswich River Basin sources to i mgd and will purchase up to 219 million gallons of water from the MWRA during that period. If the Town of Reading has purchased 219 million gallons from the MWRA prior to October 31, it will rely on withdrawals from its Ipswich River basin sources, as described below in conditions lb and lc. (b) As noted in the MEPA letter of March 31, 2005, "in the event that the Town of Reading should require the withdrawal of additional water supply from within the Ipswich River basin beyond the proposed 1 mgd during the May 1-October 31 low flow period as described in the FEIR to respond to an unforeseen, isolated or emergency situation, the Town would not be required to notify the MEPA Office. Should the Town require additional water supply from within the Ipswich River Basin in amounts beyond the proposed 1 mgd during the May 1-October 31 period to address its water supply needs to respond to more than an unforeseen, isolated or emergency situation, then the Town would be required to submit a Notice of Project Change (NPC) to the MEPA Office." (c) The WRC interprets "unforeseen, isolated or emergency situation" to mean either a "Short-term water supply emergency" or "Interim water supply emergency" as prescribed in the DEP Declaration of a State of Water SuDvly Emergency (August 2000 Printing) Policy, SOP or Guideline #87-05 (See Note #1 below). (d) If, for any reason Reading amends its contract with the MWRA to increase the amount of water purchased, the Town will need to apply to the WRC for additional ITA review. 2. In order to ensure that the water purchased from the MWRA will last through October, and that restrictions on Reading's outdoor water use are linked to streamflow in the Ipswich River, the following conditions apply: (a) If the Town purchases water from the MWRA during the May 1-October 31 period in volumes that equal or exceed those in Table 3, and if the streamflow as measured at the USGS South Middleton gage (#01101500) is at or below 18.7 cfs (0.42 cfsm) for any three consecutive days during the 30 day period following the Trigger Dates in Table 3, then the Town will implement the outdoor water use restrictions as noted in Table 4 below. These restrictions will remain in place until October 31 st or until streamflows are above the threshold for seven consecutive days or the Town's MWRA water use at the next trigger date is below the threshold volume. (b) By "three consecutive days", the WRC means the daily mean streamflow for any three consecutive days as reported at the USGS South Middleton streamflow gage. If Pd a this occurs, the threshold has been crossed and the Town will have 7 days to notify citizens and enforce the required restrictions, as noted in Table 4 below. If the Town's use of MWRA water does not equal or exceed the volumes on the Trigger Dates, the streamflow threshold will not apply and the Town will maintain its existing mandatory conservation measures (The Town's Stage 1 restrictions on outdoor water use are in effect at all times; see Note #2 below). c) Similarly, the "seven consecutive days" above the threshold means that when conservation measures in Table 4 have been implemented, and when the daily mean stredrnflow reading is above 18.7 cfs for any seven consecutive days, the Town may revert back to the previous mandatory conservation measures in Table 4 level or to the Town's stage 1 mandatory conservation restrictions or keep the extra measures in place, at its discretion. (d) The Town will implement each additional water conservation measure within 7 days of reaching the MWRA water use/streamflow level, and the Town may grant waivers. If the Town determines that some other restrictions will be at least as effective as those noted in each threshold above, the Town may petition the WRC for modification of these restrictions. Waivers are usually not given for landscaping, but for exceptional, short-term cases such as pressure washing houses prior to painting and some swimming pools that require filling after completion or repair. (e) Within ten business days of each Trigger Date, the Town will provide a written report of cumulative MWRA water consumption for the calendar year to the Water Resources Commission. In the same report, the Town also will report on the current conservation restrictions in place and any waivers granted. Table 3 TrieLyer Dates and MWRA Water Use Thresholds Trigger Date MWRA water use threshold June 1 44 million gallons or more ( . July 1 197 million gallons or more August 1 136 million gallons or more September 1 167 million gallons or more October 1 197 million gallons or more 8j. y- Table 4 Required Town Actions Based on Streamflow and MWRA Water Use Levels Town actions if streamflow is below threshold for 3 consecutive days First Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by four hours per day from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 mandatory restrictions. Second Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by four hours per day from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 mandatory restrictions . and will require that only hand-held watering devices be used. Third Town will implement its Stage 2 water restrictions (a ban on all outdoor water use) (f) On or after the first trigger date at which MWRA water use volume is equaled or exceeded, if the streamflow is below the threshold for three consecutive days, the Town will implement the first level of additional conservation measures shown in Table 4. On the next trigger date at which MWRA water use volume is equaled or exceeded, and if an additional level of conservation is still in place, the next level of restrictions will be applied. 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, irrigation ofpublic parks and recreational fields by means of automatic sprinklers equipped with moisture sensors or similar control technology may also be permitted outside of the hours 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Additionally, for the purpose of data collection for EPA's Targeted Watershed Grant Program, and at the discretion of the town, up to fifteen private automatic sprinkler systems equipped with water-saving, weather-responsive controller switches will be allowed to continue irrigation operations outside the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., until the conclusion of the data collection period on March 31 st, 2009. 4. It is expressly recognized that the streamflow threshold noted above reflects the levels proposed in the DEP Water Management Act water withdrawal permits issued to permitees in the Ipswich River basin in May 2003 and that these thresholds may be further modified in the future. If the thresholds set forth in the water withdrawal permits issued to permittees in the Jpswich River basin change, the Town or the WRC may request an amendment of the thresholds in this Interbasin Transfer Act document to be consistent with the thresholds in withdrawal permits applicable to other communities with sources in the Ipswich River basin. 5. After the new water treatment plant is on line in Reading, the Town will consult with the WRC relative to alternative purchase and withdrawal scenarios. 6. Reading must provide annual reports to WRC Staff detailing how much water was pumped from its own sources and how much water was purchased from the MWRA for the first five years after the town begins to receive MWRA water. After this period, Reading must furnish these reports to WRC Staff if requested. Rds-' 7. Reading must work with DEP to condition its registration statement to address the three registration issues presented in the Secretary's Certificate on the FEIR dated October 31, 2003. (Note that this was done via a letter from the Town to the DEP of November 28, 2004.) 8. Reading must continue effective demand management programs that meet the Interbasin Transfer Performance Standards for Criterion #3, Water Conservation. 9. Reading must provide the DEP Annual Statistical Reports to the WRC for the first five years after the town begins to receive MWRA water to determine if the programs in place are successful in keeping unaccounted-for water at or below 10% and residential gallons per capita per day (gpcd) at 65 or less. 10. If the amount of unaccounted-for water increases to greater than 10%, Reading must either provide an explanation of why this has occurred (e.g. water main break, large fire, etc.) or provide a plan, for WRC approval, to reduce unaccounted-for water to acceptable levels. 11. If residential gpcd increases above 65, the Town must implement a comprehensive residential conservation program that seeks to reduce residential water use through a retrofit, rebate or other similarly effective program for encouraging installation of household water saving devices, such as faucet aerators, showerheads and toilets and through efforts to reduce excessive outdoor water use. If this occurs, the Town must provide a plan for this program to the WR.C for approval. 12. Reading must notify the WRC when the High School and Barrows Elementary School renovations have been completed, with documentation of the retrofit devices installed. Reading must provide annual reports detailing the water conservation actions taken as part of the four-year, $1 million program. This should include an accounting of the money spent and the successes of the program. 2,46. June 10, 2005 8 Mr. Peter I. Hechenbleikner c , Town Manager Town of Reading 16 Lowell St. Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: y The recent Census Bureau population projections provide us with a glimpse into the future of our communities: They will be made up of more and more older residents. As the massive baby boom generation begins to reach retirement age, the growth of the 65+ population will start to swell - in Massachusetts growing to nearly 20 percent of our total population by 2025. For our communities, this demographic shift poses both challenges and opportunities requiring forethought and planning. This year, AARP takes an in-depth look at communities in Beyond 50.05, our annual report to the nation on issues important to the 50+ population. Specifically, AARP examines the various components that contribute positively to livable communities, and for the first time, establishes a link between qualities of livable communities and a person's ability to age successfully. What qualities make a community "livable"? • Dependable public transportation • Safe, well-designed sidewalks • Roads designed for safe driving • Security and safety • Affordable housing options • Home design that allows for maximum activities of daily living • Well-run community centers, parks and other places where people can socialize • Ample opportunities for volunteerism As you undertake planning for the needs of your community, I encourage you to keep a minds-eye on the coming age wave and incorporate changes that will benefit your community today, tomorrow, and for years to come. I have enclosed a copy of our Beyond 50.05 report, and hope you find it helpful in that regard. If you have any questions or require additional information, please don't hesitate to contact Shannon Satterwhite in the AARP Massachusetts State Office at 1-866-448-3621 or email ma@aarp.org. Sincerely, Deborah E. Banda State Director got One Beacon Street, Suite 2301 Boston, MA 02108 toll-free 866-448-3621 1617-723-4224 fax I toll-free 877-434-7598 TTY Marie F. Smith, President William D. Novelli, Chief Executive Officer I www.aarp.org/ma gze z W ~,at~~e a~~e~eder~tature~ t d ate oau~e,a9ta~z 027 A054 v0W 20'" MIDDLESEX DISTRICT BRADLEY H. JONES, JR. READING • NORTH READING STATE REPRESENTATIVE LYNNFIELD • MIDDLETON ROOM 124 MINORITY LEADER TEL. (617) 722-2100 Rep. Bradley-Ionesftou.state.ma.us June 16, 2005 r+s E3 Peter I. Hechenbleikner, Town Manager ~ Town of Reading Reading Town Hall 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 Dear Mr. Hechenbleikner: Thank you for your correspondence dated June 13, 2005 regarding the construction of sidewalks along Franklin Street, near the Wood End School: I have begun consultation with officials at MassHighway to determine what funding might be available to assist the town with this important project. Specifically, we are exploring the possible availability of funds under the so-called Safe Routes to School Program and other relevant sources. I hope to obtain more information from MassHighway soon and I will report my findings to you promptly. If fluids are not directly available from MassHighway it might be possible to secure payment though other means, such as state capital appropriation. My staff and I shall explore such avenues in due course. Please let me know if you or any of the town staff have any questions about this project. I look forward to working with you, the Board of Selectmen and the School Committee in an effort to make the neighborhoods around Wood End School safer for all. H. Jones, Jr. Leader,,: . , , , VVir, LV. LVVJ I? JJi in I LJ`tJU im 17I r. L EDWARD M. KENNEDY MASSACHUSETTS 'HiLlttfll ~5t$tcs *ftatt WASHINGTON, DC 2(510-2101 Jw+e 20, 2005 Mr. Carl Peed U.S. Department of Justice Director, COPS Program 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Mr. Peed: L I c~os . I'm writing to express tray strong support for th+., applicatioai by the Police Department of the Town of Reading in Massachusetts for a grant of $.'25,000 under the COPS in Schools 2005 grogram. The Town of Reading struggles with alcohol-re fated issues, vaaidaljsn; bullying and stress-related anti-social behavior that affect the safety of students in school and the community, and these problems need to be addressed with effective collaborative strategies. The COPS in Schools initiative is designed to prevent crime by deve.opWg positive stud( t/police relationships ead enhancing respect for law. If the gra= it is approved, the tom will be able to implement a multi-purpose School Resource Officer P,. ogram to strengthen crime prevention and safety programs in. Reading schools and other pails of ~ he community. The officer assigned to the program will partici pate in school functions, including classroom instruction and after-school activities iuvoIN ing students, parents, faculty, and members of the neighborhood. By being availtible to t tudents in these ways, the officer can transcend the role of "cop" aud become, teacher, coun;:elor, coach and friend as well. Through certified SRO training, the officer will be able to provi a services that reduce crime, alcohol zed drug abuse, and offer training for teachers relating to g, narcotic attd other criminal activities. The office will also cooperate with student programs s ch as Peer Mediation, Violeace Prevention, and Students Against Destructive Decisio . In providing youth in Reading with these services, the COPS in Schools initiative will pr ote a safer, more productive, and more uDifned community. I uxge you to give the highest consideration to ` he Tows A of heading's application. Please let me Imow if you have any questions of would like additional information. With respect and appreciation, S Ce , 00 ;1- An . B lward , I< 2400 IFK Federal Building Boston, MA. 02203 ~ c i3Us K Memorandum To: Peter Hechenbleikner CC: From: Jane Fiore Date: 6/15/2005 Re: Atlantic health news Letter Peter, On May 26, 2005 I received emails from members of the Substance abuse Prevention advisory Council regarding complaints they had rec'd (emails attached). The complaint dealt with the Health Newsletter produced by Atlantic and placed in all grocery bags. I spoke with Paul Duffy; store manager regarding the newsletter's and source of information regarding the use of alcohol intake. After our conversation Paul removed the remaining newsletters from the bagging centers and relayed my concerns to Arnold Rubin, owner. I received the attached fax from Arnold Rubin and we spoke briefly about health information sources. The newsletter was taken from a website. General health information regarding nutrition, if verified by registered dietitian is a wonderful idea for a newsletter. Although other health information should be researched for appropriate medical communications to the general public before being reproduced. My conversations with Atlantic were all recommendations from the Health Division, not mandates. It was a responsible action by Paul Duffy to remove the alcohol related newsletters. giv 05/2?/2005 10:25 TO; N0.887 D01 ATLANTIC FOOD Ivi13RT WW W.ATLA.NTICF00DMART'.C0M . -'.WIC"---... • -.'GR{'-: _ FACSIMILE TRANSMUTAL SKEET ' FROM: DATg: 1f~ PAX NTJDIfB&R% TOTAL n✓~~ 5i~NU1t'S RT 1°ullt~lGL Uut~b~t~ _ M. XODR RE NcB Nuns lb 4] uILGENT © POR REVZF•W 13 PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLIRME RMY Q PLEASa RECY= MOTBSJ MTadT3N7S ~ f i ' 3p PTNVEN ST, READINO, MA 01B67 TaL 761,944,0054 PAX 781.944.4827 05/27/2005 10:25 NO. 8B7 P02 Drink Your Medicine? Neighing the Health Benefits and Disks of Alcohol To Your Health o There is it drug that can lower your risk of bears attack? diabetes, osteoporosis and metal decline by 30 /o EWA LTEI RSK EFFECT OF to 601/o, but doctors aren't prescribing it, ALCOHOL The reason? it is alcohol, Heart Attack 37% lower risk in /Increasingly, scientific research supports the idea that drinking a small amount of alcohol each day is men who drink five better for you than never drinking at all. This isn't true for people with some conditions, but overall, to seven days a data collected, from large observational studies shorn that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol can week lower the risk of dying by about 25% in any given year for the average person, compared, with those Diabetes 3496 lower risk of who rarely drink, developing discasc; The evidence that alcohol is good. for you continues to spark debate in the medical community about up to 600/. more protection for dia- whether doctors have an obligation to inform patients about the health benefits of drinking, Because laetios at a high risk excessive consumption can bo harmful-causing addiction-,traffic accidents and potentially fatal medical of heart attack problems-mast doctors say it is never a good idea to tell a non-drinking patient to start consuming aloo- Strokce 40% to 6W4 lower hol. Although most people can drink responsibly, it is impossible to know which patient may eventually risk with one to start to abuse alcohol as a result of moderate daily consumption, two drinks a clay In addition, even small amounts of alcohol can increase risk for certain health worries, such as breast Dementia 42% lower risk ~ and colon cancer, And much of the research on alcohol's benefit comes from studies that observe peo- with consumption ple over time, rather than controlled clinical trials, which are more reliable. of one to thm So while the evidence is strong, it isn't conclusive. As a result, the American Heart Associa- drinks cLtily tion doesn't recommend drinking alcohol to gain cardiovascular benefit, noting that there are less risky Osteoporosis Women who have ways to protect your heart. six or seven drinks But the issue poses a. significant dilemma for doctors. If a physician is aware of a drug that s week have a could have life-salving benefits, he or she has an ethical and legal obligation to inform the patient-even shone d nsity t',&aner if the drug oarries risks. Shouldn't that same rules apply to alcohol? nondrinkers "There's not doubt in my mind that if we had a public policy encouraging people to drink a lit- ' tle bit of alcohol, the net outcome would be very negative," says Pittsburgh cardiologist Richard N. Fogoros. "But doctors don't treat society-they treat individuals, and for any given individual, this information may be materially beneficial." Mother reason doctors should be talking more about alcohol is that patients are confused.. Countless news reports have touted the health benefits of alcohol, while others have linked it to higher risks for certain cancers and, other problems. Few people understand how much alcohol is good. for you and at what point is can start to cause harm. In a scit Mfw advisory statement issued in 2004, the American Heart Association noted that there were at least 60 studies linking alcohol consumption with lower hear-attack risk. Research also shows that regular and moderate alcohol consumption lowers risk for diabe- tes, osteoporosis, dementia, and Stroke, for Instance, in the Nurse Health. S'tudy, which follows more than 80,000 women, those with diabetes who drank at least a half- serving of alcohol a day bad a 52% lower risk ofheart attack than nondrinkers. (A serving is a glass of wine or beer or a shot-1 to 1.25 ounces of whiskey). A 2,000-patient study showed that people who were moderate drinkers in the year before heart attacks had a 32% lower risk of dying during the four years after the heart attack. A 17- year study in England of more than 5,000 men found, that moderate drinkers were 34% less likely to develop diabetes. But even in small amounts, alcohol can .increase some health risks, A. person. who has two drinks a day has a 75% higher risk for oral cancers and a 51% higher risk of esophageal cancer that the average person who rarely drinks. Two drinks a day increases the risk the risk for colon cancer by 8%. for women, even smaller amounts of alcohol increase breast cancer risk by 30%_ As a result, people need to take into account family history, and personal concerns. A women with a strong family history of breast cancer or someone with a family history of alcoholism might decide to forgo alcohol altogether. But someone without those added risk fac- tors who is worried about heart attack might consider drinking small amounts of alcohol daily, This summer, the Southern Medical Journal published a review of the major studies looking at alcohol and health, including data collected in the nurses study and on 88,000 doctors in the Physician's Health Survey. The bottom. line: the maximum health benefits come with one half to one serving of alcohol a day. At that amount, heart protection is high bill' risk for other alcohol-related health problems is at its lowest. People who drink somewhat more-for women, two to three drinks a day, for men, three to four- aren't changing their odds. Their overall risks are the same as people who don't drink at all. But once women, go above three drinks and men go above four drinks, they put themselves at far higher risk for other alcohol.-related problems. John B, Standridge, associate professor at the University of Tennessee and a specialist in. both addiction and family medicine who authored the SMJ review, doesn't drink doctors should advise patients to start drinking because it is impossible to know who might become addicted. At the same time, be notes that a patiernt who is well-known by a doctor, has no abuse history and needs aggressive intervention for heart risk, might consider moderate alcohol. "Nowhere in medicine is the double-edged sword so sharp on both sides," Dr. Standridge notes. Page 1 of 1 Fiore,' Jane From: gnihan@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 8:34 PM To: William CARRICK; Fiore, Jane; Lisa DiTrapano; gary nihan; karyn storti; Mark Staniul Subject: Re: Atlantic Flyer I saw the flyer and had the same feelings that Bill expressed. I'll bring it to our nrxt meeting. Gary Nihan Wellness Coordinator Reading Public Schools 85 Sunset Rock Lane Reading, MA 01867 781-942-9136 Original message FYI. I was telephoned this evening by a concerned Reading citizen. She expressed dismay that a neighbor receive 8 flyers in 8 grocery bags from the Atlantic. The flyers are essentially espousing the use of alcohol. The flyers are very confusing, misleading, and seek to justify alcohol intake for medicinal reasons. The flyer is titled "Atlantic Health Journal". It begins with "Drink your medicine? Weighing the Health Benefits and Risks of Alcohol." "There is a drug that can lower your risk of heart attack, diabetes, osteoporosis and mental decline by 30% to 60%, but doctors aren't prescribing it. The reason? It is alcohol. The flyer makes a very lame attempt to balance positive and negative attributes of alcohol consumption. A fairly large table is on the left side of the flyer that only highlights the positive attributes of alcohol consumption. I find the flyer cheap, deceitful, misleading, and irresponsible. I share the concern of the Reading resident that phoned me, that this is a subtle message to our youth that alcohol is, in fact, good for your health. And it is an "in your face" message to current drinkers to drink daily. Please obtain a copy of this flyer and let's continue a dialogue. Thanks, Bill Rkq. 5/27/2005 Page 1 of 1 Fiore, Jane From: gnihan@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 8:34 PM To: William CARRICK; Fiore, Jane; Lisa DiTrapano; gary nihan; karyn storti; Mark Staniul Subject: Re: Atlantic Flyer I saw the flyer and had the same feelings that Bill expressed. I'll bring it to our nrxt meeting. Gary Nihan Wellness Coordinator Reading Public Schools 85 Sunset Rock Lane Reading, MA 01867 781-942-9136 Original message FYI. I was telephoned this evening by a concerned Reading citizen. She expressed dismay that a neighbor receive 8 flyers in 8 grocery bags from the Atlantic. The flyers are essentially espousing the use of alcohol. The flyers are very confusing, misleading, and seek to justify alcohol intake for medicinal reasons. The flyer is titled "Atlantic Health Journal". It begins with "Drink your medicine? Weighing the Health Benefits and Risks of Alcohol." "There is a drug that can lower your risk of heart attack, diabetes, osteoporosis and mental decline by 30% to 60%, but doctors aren't prescribing it. The reason? It is alcohol. The flyer makes a very lame attempt to balance positive and negative attributes of alcohol consumption. A fairly large table is on the left side of the flyer that only highlights the positive attributes of alcohol consumption. find the flyer cheap, deceitful, misleading, and irresponsible. I share the concern of the Reading resident that phoned me, that this is a subtle message to our youth that alcohol is, in fact, good for your health. And it is an "in your face" message to current drinkers to drink daily. Please obtain a copy of this flyer and let's continue a dialogue. Thanks, Bill P1 S- I 5/27/2005 Ll ~ ~~-3 r CL,- Town of Reading, Massachusetts General Fund Revenues and Other Resources (Cash Basis) Month Ending May 31, 2005 Revenues: Property taxes: Current Delinquent Deferred Tax liens Payments in lieu of taxes Excise taxes Penalties on taxes and excise Charges for services Licenses and permits Special assessment Fines Investment income: Unrestricted Stabilization fund Intergovernmental: Medicaid reimbursement State aid Other Total revenues Operating transfers and available funds: Cemetery sale of lots Sale of real estate funds Reading Ice Arena Authority Earnings distribution - light Abatement surplus Reserved for debt service Certified "free cash" Total operating transfers and available funds Total revenues and other resources Actual Variance Prior Year Current Year Favorable % Actual to Actual Over (Under) Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Year to Date Prior Year 41,859,706 41,517,829 (341,877) 99.18% 37,566,948 3,950,881 182,508 182,508 209,051 (26,543) 36,293 (36,293) 134,159 134,159 175,756 (41,597) 230,000 136,150 (93,850) 59.20% 178,919 (42,769) 2,700,000 2,696,826 (3,174) 99.88% 2,692,658 4,168 160,000 144,321 (15,679) 90.20% 154,142 (9,821) 1,360,000 1,350,861 (9,139) 99.33% 1,286,323 64,538 60,000 74,189 14,189 123.65% 63,381 10,808 5,000 4,965 (35) 99.30% 6,389 (1,424) 130,000 127,763 (2,237) 98.28% 117,373 10,390 525,000 1,025,052 500,052 195.25% 376,050 649,002 15,919 15,919 2,528 13,391 75,000 256,244 181,244 341.66% 256,244 11,617,950 9,146,576 (2,471,374) 78.73% 8,762,687 383,889 4,231 4,231 27,719 (23,488) 58,722,656 56,817,593 (1,905,063) 96.76% 51,656,217 5,161,376 47,737 47,737 100.00% 10,000 37,737 300,000 300,000 300,000 107,256 107,256 100.00% 116,074 (8,818) 1,894,829 1,894,829 100.00% 1,826,062 68,767 94,674 94,674 100.00% 201,820 (107,146) 150,000 (150,000) 2,222,038 2,222,038 2,222,038 4,666,534 4,666,534 100.00% 2,303,956 2,362,578 63,389,190 61,484,127 (1,905,063) 96.99% 53,960,173 7,523,954 Town of Reading, Massachusetts Enterprise Funds Revenues and Other Resources (Cash Basis) Month Ending May 31, 2005 Variance Favorable % Actual to Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Water Fund Revenues: Charges for services 2,889,732 2,781,768 (107,964) 96.26% Earnings on investments 20,000 16,869 (3,131) 84.35% Accrued interest 551 551 Water main (Johnson Woods) 187,000 187,000 MWRA buy-in (Walker Brook) 202,000 202,000 Total revenues 3,096,732 3,188,188 91,456 102.95% Operating transfers and available funds: Water surplus 212,000 212,000 Total revenues and other resources 3,308,732 3,400,188 91,456 102.76% Sewer Fund Revenues: Charges for services 4,046,823 3,112,364 (934,459) 76.91% Earnings on investments 10,000 767 (9,233) 7.67% Special assessments 10,000 26,456 16,456 264.56% Sewer Ill (Walker Brook) 38,312 38,312 Sewer Ill (Walker Brook) 57,048 57,048 Total revenues 4,066,823 3,234,947 (831,876) 79.54% Operating transfers and available funds: Sewer surplus Total revenues and other resources 4,066,823 3,234,947 (831,876) 79.54% ~5,~ 2 ED ST~N You Are Invited to Attend a Pubic Information Meeting Public Information Meeting Attend the Information Meeting to Learn More About the Proposed Plan 7:00 - 9:00 p.m., Thursday, June 30th Public eating Attend the Hearing to Formally Comment on the Proposed Plan 7 :00 - 9:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 2 7 th Both Meetings will be at the Shamrock Elementary School Cafeteria 60 Green St., Woburn For additional information about the meetings, or should you have specific needs or questions about the facility and its accessibility, please contact: 888-372-7341 x 81034 Angela Bonarrigo at 4 zTe6zJ TRACKING OF LEGAL SERVICES - FY 2005 Monthly Hours $ Month Monthlv Monthlv Hours Cumulative Available Monthly Monthly Cumulative Available Hours Hours Used vs Remainder $ i Cost Remainder Allocated Used Allocated of 112 vear Allocated Used Year July 83.5 73.4 (10.10) (10.10) 427.6 $9,583 $9,548 $9,548 $100,702 August 83.5 86.6 3.10 (7.00) 341 $9,583 $11,321 $20,869 $89,381 September 83.5 86.8 3.30 (3.70) 254.2 $9,583 $10,696 $31,565 $78,685 October 83.5 75.4 (8.10) (11.80) 178.8 $9,583 $9,197 $40,762 $69,488 November 83.5 103.7 20.20 8.40 75.1 $9,583 $12,268 $53,030 $57,220 December 83.5 47 (36.50) (28.10) 28.1 $9,583 $5,875 $58,905 $51,345 501 472.9 $57,498 $58,905 January 83 .5 51.3 (32.20) (60.30) 500 $9,583 $6,413 $65,318 $49,678 February 83.5 42.4 (41.10) (101.40) 457.6 $9,583 $5,327 $70,645 $44,351 March 83.5 55.9 (27.60) (129.00) 401.7 $9,583 $6,980 $77,625 $37,371 April 83.5 35.9 (47.60) (176.60) 365.8 $9,583 $4,487 $82,112 $32,884 May 83.5 35.7 (47.80) (224.40) 330.1 $9,583 $4,463 $86,575 $28,421 June 83.5 (224.40) 330.1 $9,583 $86,575 $28,421 Subtotal 501 221.2 $57,498 $27,670 Total 1002 694.1 -224.4 $114,996 $86,575 $28,421 Town of Reading 4, M w 16 Lowell Street f Reading, MA 01867-26$3 Phone: 781-942-9612 fax: 781-942-9071 website: zvww.ci.readingarta.uslplantting Town Planner (CPDC Clerk): Chris Reilly e-mail: creilly@ci.reading.wa.us Community Planning and Development Commission Agenda Meeting Dated: June 27, 2005 Location: Selectmen's Hearing Room, Town Hall Time: 7:30 PM 1. Subdivision Approval Not Required Plan (ANR) 7:30 Mark and Lori O'Neill, 30 Apple Gate Lane (Action date: June 27, 2005) 2. Public Hearing: Definitive Subdivision (continued) 7:45 Deer Run Developers, Inc., 160-166 Walcefield St. Proposed definitive subdivision for 5 lots in the S-20 zoning district. (Action date: August 8, 2005) 3. Site Plan Review Waiver Request 8:30 Jimbo's Roast Beef and Seafood, 454 Main St. 4. Administrative Review: 9:00 ➢ Request for Design Review Modification Bank of America Signage, Phase 2-Walkers Broolc Crossing ➢ Zoning Workshop agendas and scheduling ➢ Site Plan Review determinations/compliance issues ➢ CPDC Reorganization 5. Public Comment/Minutes 10:00 g1 . C:\DOCUME-1\PHECHE-1\LOCAIS-1\Temp\6.27.05 Agenda.doc L l qcf A~ t ~ Transit b Volume 11, Issue II 00 oov~Av 01000 Summer 2005 A The quarterly newsletter of TransitWorks - www.TransitWorks.org Special Stops of • rans'tW®rks Update! Interest: Jessica Conaway, TransitWorks Executive Director TransitWorks has been busy over the past several months in our efforts to collect and • TransitWorks shares report MBTA customer feedback. Our primary focus has been processing the informa- findings of the 2004 "MBTA tion reported via the almost 150 "Charlies Project" Transit Diaries received. The Char- Ridership Survey" lies Project was a two week diary effort in which volunteers logged detailed information • Barbara Boylan from the about their transit use including MBTA on-time performance, cleanliness, etc. We spent MBTA gives us an update almost 6 weeks entering the information gathered via the "link report sheets" in our da- and description of the new tabase, and have also entered all of the comments received. We will now spend the next Government Center several months analyzing the data and will report the results of the effort to the MBTA Station some time this summer. Thank you to all Transit Diary participants for your extraordi- • Jane Lindsay, a Transit- nary efforts in January and February. 3,738 "links", or rides on an individual MBTA Works Charlies, describes vehicle, were logged! how her neighbors work together to make a differ- TransitWorks has also been working with the Automated Fare Collection (AFC) project ence in their community office at the MBTA and conducted a focus group of AFC preview program participants from the lower South End Transportation Management Association (TMA), TransComm. This focus group was successful in communicating important customer feedback to the MBTA and TransitWorks looks forward to conducting additional focus groups in the fu- ture. In addition to analyzing the Transit Diary feedback, TransitWorks will now turn our attention to the Orange Line Station Evaluation we are leading the week of June 13th, an evaluation of Red Line Stations, and our yearly MBTA Ridership Survey to be con- ducted next fall. Thank you for your continued support, and enjoy the summer! Inside this issue: Water Transportation Awareness Week Results: 2004 MBTA 2 David Straus, Executive Director, Artery Business Committee TMA Ridership Survey The NEW Government 3 It is hard to imagine the city without its harbor, piers, and docks that for centuries have wel- Center Station comed millions of immigrants, cargo ships, tourists, and commuters. Yes commuters. Every day thousands of residents from the South Shore to Charlestown hop on board one of the four Neighbors Who Make a 3 commuter boats offered by the MBTA. These services, from Charlestown, Hingham, Hull, and Difference Quincy, provide commuters an escape from the crowded roadways and stress of driving in congestion along Route 3 and the Central Artery. TransitWorks Mission 4 and Goals After three years of driving alone into Boston from Marshfield, Kevin MacKinnon finally de- cided to make the switch to the commuter boat. "I use to dread the Monday morning com- Automated Fare Collec- 4 mute and the Friday drive home during the summer. Now, I look forward to the Friday com- tion Update, Questions mute home on the boat. Now, I only drive into the city when I absolutely have to." and Answers You can make that switch too. June 20-24, 2005 is Water Transportation Awareness Week, a time to celebrate one of the oldest forms of public transportation, the boat. To celebrate, the MBTA, Artery Business Committee Transportation Management Association (ABC TMA), MassCommute, and private boat carriers are planning a week of activities to encourage com- muters to hop on board a commuter boat during the week. And to make it even easier for you to try out the MBTXs water transportation the ABC TMA will be raffling off free one-week passes to potential new riders. For more information about Water Transportation Awareness Week activities visit the ABC TMA at www.abctma.com. For more information about the MBTA's water transportation services visit the MBTA online at: www.massferryroutes.com. AAA /FN I PAGE2 V11 721~10210- ~iorvnev~tion VOLUME II, ISSUE II 1 Results: 2004 MBTA Ridership Survey Jessica Conaway, TransitWorks Executive Director As you may recall, TransitWorks conducted a survey of MBTA users in September and October of 2004. Our partners and the members of the TransitWorks Steering Com- mittee were absolutely essential in helping TransitWorks distribute an estimated 75,000 surveys, and as a result of this effort, Transit- Works received 2,671 responses. Respondents received this survey via e-mail and clicked through to take it on the TransitWorks web- site, or mailed in a bright green paper copy they received on a plat- form or in a station. Thank you to all those who completed and returned a survey. categories scored over "4" or satis- fied. This leads us to believe that although respondents are not gener- ally dissatisfied with the service they receive, there is definitely room for improvement. Respondents were most satisfied with the categories pertaining to information, safety, signage and the ability to get to stations and stops via foot or bicycle. Respondents were less satisfied with the catego- ries pertaining personal comfort, announcements on platforms and seating. Respondents also indicated that MBTA ser- vice reliability was by far the most important category to `After averaging the satisfaction 'expressed'by al1.2,671 respondents, we. are `Happy to report that respondents scored their 'satisfaction as `neutral': The survey was designed to deter- mine MBTA customer satisfaction with 15 "quality categories", as il- lustrated to the right. We asked respondents to rate their satisfac- tion with these categories by scor- ing their satisfaction from 5 to 1- 5 being highly satisfied, and 1 highly dissatisfied. We also asked respondents to se- lect which of these categories were of greatest importance to them. Findings After averaging the satisfaction expressed by all 2,671 respondents, we are happy to report that respon- dents scored their satisfaction as "neutral". No category scored lower than a "2" or dissatisfied - that is a great sign for overall MBTA satisfaction. It is equally important to note, however, that no them. The cate- gories pertaining to personal com- fort and safety were also important, followed by cleanliness, announce- ments, and customer service. Recommendations and Next Steps TransitWorks used these findings to develop over 55 recommendations for improvement. The bulk of these recommendations are targeted to- wards those categories that respon- dents selected as important, and those categories that respondents expressed lower levels of satisfac- tion about. These recommendations are a menu of ideas that the MBTA can pursue to improve overall MBTA customer satisfaction. TransitWorks has presented these results to the MBTA, and we look forward to working with them in the coming months as they imple- ment several of the recommenda- tions suggested. We will conduct a second survey this fall, in September and October 2005, and look forward to analyzing and reporting the feedback received via that effort. It is our hope that this critical customer feedback will help the MBTA make improvements to existing transit infrastructure, and that the resulting improvements will improve MBTA customer satis- faction, keep people using the MBTA's services, and encourage more to get on-board. Quality Categories Availability of general information about MBTA services Signage that helps you find your way to and around stations MBTA announcements and messages on platforms and in stations MBTA announcements in vehicles Customer service of MBTA personnel Cleanliness of ABTA stations and stops Cleanliness of MBTA vehicles Attractiveness of MBTA stations and stops Availability of seating on MBTA vehicles Personal comfort on MBTA vehicles (temperature, crowding) MBTA service reliability Personal safety when using MBTA ser- vices Accessibility of system for persons who rely on lifts, ramps, elevators or escala- Ability to get to stations and stops on foot or bicycle Availability of parking at or near stations g~L' VOLUME II, ISSUE II The N Government Center Station Barbara J. Boylan AIA, Director of Design, MBTA The NEW Government Center station will be a catalyst for change on City Hall Plaza. The contempo- rary station architecture will provide the neces- sary junc- tion and natural ter- minus to the Community Arcade (which redefine the urban edge of the plaza along Cambridge Street) built a few years ago by the City of Boston. The entire existing Government Center station will be renovated Its 111 lr~~l~lA11~, w"'TI ❑~t2L I and modernized, with the demoli- tion of the bunker type head- house which was built in 1964. The station will be outfitted with new elevators, escalators, stairs, lights, and com- munication sys- tems. The plat- forms on the Green Line level will be raised to be compatible with the new low- floor vehicles, and the platforms on the Blue Line level will be extended to accommodate six-car trains. These improvements will bring the station complex into i Rendering of Proposed Headhouse Design Looking East from Cambridge Street. - Courtesy of the ABTA PAGE 3 II ADA compliancy. Above ground, a new glass and steel headhouse will be constructed on City Hall Plaza, bringing natural light into the Green Line level. Additionally, a second head house with elevator and escalator will be constructed adjacent to the JFK building, lead- ing directly to a new subsurface Blue Line mezzanine and fare- collection line. The design work was completed by CityBuilders: A joint venture of SYSTRA and Thomson Design Associates. Jacobs, Inc, are the Construction Phase engineers. The project is due to be advertised for construction later this summer. For more information, visit: www.mbta.com/projects-underway/pid.asp Neighbors Who Make a Difference Jane Lindsay, TransitWorlcs Charlie Anyone who has ever tried to recon- cile their bank statement knows it takes a little discipline to do any- thing on a monthly basis. That's why it's even more remarkable that a dedicated group of neighbors gathers on a monthly basis at our local Red Line station, Shawmut in Dorches- ter, to caretake the station and sur- rounding tunnelcap area. The activi- ties of the group include monthly clean-ups, where volunteers spend ``The entire existing Government, Center station will be renovated and modernized, with the demolition of the bunker type headhouse which was built'in 1964:,2. Saturday mornings picking up litter, sweeping, clearing weeds and brush, planting, weeding, mulching, shovel- ing, or whatever the season requires. For several years I have watched their care for the station bring out the best in riders and the neighbor- hood. Their dedication to transit doesn't end with the physical maintenance of the station. Several members of this group have spent the last several years attending meetings with T officials around the planning of the renovation of Shawmut station. These volunteers understand the value of cooperation and steadfast- ness in working with T officials to improve the quality of transit in Dorchester. They are an inspira- tion to those of us still struggling with that bank reconciliation issue! Nighttime Rendering of Proposed Headhouse Design at Government Center Station. - Courtesy of the MBTA n arm www.Tran.sitWorks.org 75 State Street, 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02109-1814 Phone: (617) 557-7349 Fax: (617) 227-7505 Email: transitworks@transitworks.org In Collaboration With: ABC MMMAJ MBTA. Advisory Board The TransitWorhs Mission The mission of TransitWorks is to improve the quality and increase the use of all modes of transit in the Boston metropolitan region. Using valuable customer feedback, TransitWorks seeks to work collaboratively with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) in order to improve the riding experience for all transit users. Our Goals TransitWorks has four main goals that guide our activities: 1. Enable effective, proactive communication between transit users and transit providers in order to improve the riding experience. 2. Use customer outreach activities to increase the sense of public ownership of the transit system. 3. Retain current riders and attract new riders to the transit system. 4. Promote the entire transit system and increase region-wide transit aware- ness and pride. Automated Fare Collection (AFC) Update - Questions and Answers The AMTA will roll out components of its new service enhancements (including new fare vending machines, new cards and tickets, new fireboxes, customer service personnel, new gates and state-of-the-art safety systems) in the coming months. These Questions and An- swers provide some information about what you can expect. If you have additional ques- tions, please feel free to contact TransitWorks at 61 7 557-7349. Q: What is the order of conversion for the stations and how long will this take? A: Airport and Aquarium Stations were converted to the MBTNs new fare collection equipment on May 17, 2005. Installation of new equipment is planned for 6 additional Blue Line stations throughout this summer. The conversion of Orange, Red, and Green lines begins later in 2005 and is projected to continue through 2006. The bus and Green Line fleet will be converted in 2006. Q: When will CharlieTickets and CharlieCards be available, and what is the difference? A: CharlieTickets will be available right away, and the CharlieCards will be available in 2007. When they become available, CharlieCards will last longer, hold more products (both passes and stored value) and allow for additional optional features such as loss protection. Q: Is the CharlieTicket a monthly pass? A: You can store a pass on it, and it can act just like a monthly pass, or it can contain stored value - but not both at the same time. Q: How do I know how much value is left on my card or ticket? A: When you tap your card or insert your ticket to pay your fare, the farebox or fare gate display will show the remaining value. Nothing about the value is actually printed on the ticket or card, but you can check the value of the ticket and the card at the fare vending machines. If your CharlieTicket is a monthly pass, the pass is valid for the purchased month; just like it is today. Q: What happens if you lose your CharlieTicket or CharlieCard? Can someone else use it? A: If you lose your ticket, it is not replaceable or refundable. More information on the process for lost CharlieCards will be available closer to their debut in 2007. Q: What do people do with tokens they already bought? A: Tokens will continue to be accepted at stations with the existing fare equipment. Customers can convert tokens to stored value tickets at the fare vending machines at converted stations. Q: Currently, I receive my monthly pass through my workplace. How will this change? A: During this transition period, nothing will change. You will continue to receive a monthly pass through your employer. Changes to the corporate pass program will be announced in advance of any im- plementation. Q: I ride the Commuter Rail and/or Boat. How will I be affected? A: New fare vending machines and ticket office equipment will be installed at Back Bay, North Station and South Station, and fare vending machines throughout the system will sell commuter rail monthly passes and multi-ride tickets, and commuter boat passes. Monthly commuter rail and boat passes will continue to allow customers to ride on the bus and subway system, just as they do today. ~^q 4. ~.rCW;n.,~at THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS N Mr k r WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION s> .f 100 CAMBRIDGE ST., BOSTON MA 02114 LJ9• c... REPORT OF THE FINDINGS, JUSTIFICATIONS AND DECISION OF THE WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION Relating to the Approval of the Town of Reading's Request for an Interbasin Transfer Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 21 § 8C DECISION On June 9, 2005, by a six to three (6-3) vote, the Water Resources Commission (WRC) approved an amended Staff Recommendation concerning Reading's request, under the Interbasin Transfer Act,. to join the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Water Works System. This vote was taken after review of the facts provided by the applicant, analysis of the associated data, and consideration.of public and agency comments concerning the proposal. INTRODUCTION On September 20, 2002, the WRC received a request for approval of an action to increase the present rate of interbasin transfer under the Interbasin Transfer Act (M.G.L. Chapter 21 8B-8D) from the Town of Reading. The Town applied for admission to the MWRA System to purchase up to 219 million gallons (mg) of water annually to supplement its existing water supply sources. (Figure 1) The WRC accepted Reading's application as complete on April 8, 2004. Two required public hearings were held on May 18 and May 19, 2004. On June 10, 2004, a Staff Recommendation to approve Reading's application was presented to the WRC. A public hearing on this,Staff Recommendation was held on June 23, 2004. Responses to comments received through the public hearing process are available in a separate report. The merits of the proposal were discussed at the July 8, 2004 WRC meeting. Because of concerns with some of the conditions of the Staff Recommendation, Reading requested an extension of the decision date. (Reading's concerns are discussed later in this document). In late September 2004, Reading requested to change the time period of the water purchase from May through October back to May through September, .as originally proposed in the DEIR. The WRC voted to approve the revised proposal on December 9, 2004. After that vote, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) unit of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) responding to WRC Staff inquiries from October 2004, determined that the project should have obtained a Notice of Project Change (NPC) because Reading had changed the time period for purchasing MWRA water. Although analysis on this scenario had also been conducted through the MEPA process, it deviated from the Secretary's Certificate on the FEIR, and thus represented a material change under MEPA. Reading decided June 9, 2005 Page 1 of 37 84 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application % ! • - Text MajorWatersheds.Labels {f r tro MajarBasins Y+ c,sY. y ~gRY F! ~324t~t Wbhc Water Supplies t r. 'a" r 4a~.;•~' rr 1.. z''. 4 r i Cornmtmlly QrowdWater Y` ran .Y ! ky1,.FVrr'z Yiy~ 4L .n,r3id 1~"~*''' n TS> E t k1 r "r r1 X11 j a ....ti s y 1 ;.;{t5;y y .erar"} <T.tt •r r .a• !!L!-.✓ ((~~r~~!'r, • ~t P y ~z} ~ • CanmWy Smlon Site !R ,,j ,.mot D3:e,' ' y ?~_^T'" Ya{"`• *y;:~ :.C f a .StrltaC@IXstrAxrim Site r` . Non-TranslentNon•Cornnunity ;,..y's', 'v .iig; .r; 1"' :S.rf.r4.:'~c'.)~."_P+: ,T. _•t''t;~+' yr ~ Transient Non-Commmity Z.5 L Proposed Well , • ~z fi.t'Fvr,'~-'.`4«~ sF">~r~~_~~G~^ r [ ~.i i MATowns f ,i^f'r, x, ,'t~ r- r' ra,,. r yYi `•x , r, 4251+r~{ Fi ~g ~ti try !fi r" r' ~.n^al• r rairwi r til,+i:._.x•?i+S'- • a 1~..r, .r , • vu. ~+x~'t tz. ?-.:''..4 ! TT7[x; L r +ar r Lx~'- r ~~nt, ji F ~-Y1 r.r. _ t-_.~..._,~ j j n;. r > c n: srf ,.r,~ T t a• ia~ I% ':CyY,t ~ r. p .w, 7 'r it t t: P, (t^ i r' vim. ic. + y~ 'F v'ta ' •:r 1~ a Y•dt.;J . •,~-V) -t$7*1y 4 `'t rr t y j U,,^L4,f rtp~ / A y r i, a F a / t 1 t 1. , ti r . 5 t-'~,,. F ♦ b r.-~ r r ~ i. J ' ' } ! a'",ti•S Y Y-}' Y A* • y'r tx ~ ~F l ~ ~ ~ .z; 1 a}z''Z.. F 1'4 i~,,• ~\~'~3a~... 4 ~~,f~. IBM.4r' . .j. ~.e .w 5 Pr ~r '4i~ 1 S s'~M t r 9. ~ j l tS%"~,',' C''r"" . f . I ~a rt-+'Y..'..tc. 1f+f:'2 ,s w .r may' r ! ° r .+.y,t`~.• 7 q. 'n t t Ar r ? } ryi i1. n4J " v n n Y r 1ON, A'ft' zt k ! rr l t', , 1. [ h 'y~~ry~, i _ / Rr i....'4^'>r 'E t j y- 4 , gat a n r y Wf Tr' 4 el ' ~'n kr' i rn~ 0i' 1 '7 1t./.,'t~-y ~ '%.ix^ F. S~•a^Y .t r S"f'f' y~ '+S f- F ,t rj!!'eyi i. Q.,.g ni`.^~.ze y7I ~~y fi f,l 41 .K. ^aa~ J ~'ta ~ ~ ~ Y'./~)a. ~ ~~~r `i ` a. ~ 'i• ~ iy + t y~~ ~,t~ =i#'it ~ ~ r. X. r [f' 'fA"JYTJ~r~v~''~-b`r~.. `X'•'~LS "'~~~~a' i~ ~ 111y. ~k~ .71, .mod ,~~~`~~`~:wrtt tbz f {A.. ,.'?l_'S.!arX'S r ee 'J ~11~,. s_?. ,-r.; ~ a_~Sy 7~ !'`'-'x"~'.''.. a ~wn ~t..~~.` Yrl:.~~ .s. ~..^..r§,~. "pt ' yz. rtza 7a .,t,Yi t r ' ~ ~t r.~, K r~+..r d s ~ Yat A ~ 1411-2115 r'.} ~L 1.r r ',y!>,'! aY a7 , j tv ~ t7 tJ~ r ~ n y fl..c tL .e • _ .,~i-r Y t re: :~`.~-t !i r>-f'ti t v~~ ~ -.•.~rj' ~3;.~ .t Ak,/e aTtt } f ~~:~5 y, ~ fiDt x"" ^'I :~,~~=r'''U•t Fq{l7.t s ~ 'F c w +a+tti Figure 1. Reading public water supply wells `:•!si. ~~7'.,4 u..F.fi! ~.(C~r 5! `i~4 :'~t r R}`i w~>+.-a.-•xc-~..-.~:c ~-r-.-.srs,.rw . r>.._ r x~ . _ ~ :f June 9, 2005 Page 2 of 37 Massachusetts Water Resources Cominission Report on the Findings. Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application that rather than filing an NPC, the Town would revert to the project presented in the FEIR: purchasing up to 219 million gallons of water annually from the MWRA between the months of May through October, while limiting withdrawals from its Ipswich River basin sources to its typical production of 1 million gallons per day during that period. On April 8, 2005, the Commission discussed and clarified some key issues, deciding to postpone the final vote on Reading's application until the May 12, 2005 meeting. On May 12`h, the Water Resources Commission (WRC) reviewed the merits of Reading's request, under the Interbasin Transfer Act, to join the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) System. Due to continuing discussions on several issues, the Commission and the Town agreed to postpone the final vote until the meeting of June 9, 2005. FACTS PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATION 1. The proposed interbasin transfer by the Town of Reading is entirely voluntary and is not required by any regulatory authority. 2. The application was part of the DEIR submitted to MEPA. The WRC requested that additional information be provided through the FEIR. The FEIR was filed on September 15, 2003. Most of the requested information was provided. The Secretary issued a Certificate on the FEIR on October 31, 2003. 3. 'The outstanding information to evaluate the project under the Interbasin Transfer Act was provided in December 2003. 4. Reading has land area in the Ipswich River basin, the Mystic River subbasin of the Boston Harbor basin and. the North Coastal basin. 5. The Town has nine existing water supply sources in the Ipswich River basin. Estimated capacity for these sources is 8.36 mgd. 6. The MWRA Water Works System's sources are located in the Chicopee River basin and the Nashua River basin. 7. Reading has determined that use of its sources during certain times of the year causes impacts to the Ipswich River and is proposing to purchase water to supplement its existing water supply sources during these periods. 8. Two required public hearings were held to take comment on this application, one in Reading, the receiving basin, on May 18, 2004, and one at the Quabbin Reservoir, in the donor basin on May 19, 2004. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED INTERBASIN TRANSFER This Interbasin Transfer application was reviewed on its own merits. The Decision was made on facts relevant to the Interbasin Transfer Act and its regulations. The application was evaluated against the eight criteria, outlined in the regulations (313 CMR 4.05), as well as the Interbasin Transfer Act Performance Standards, and with consideration of comments received through the public comment process. June 9, 2005 Page 3 of 37 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application SYNOPSIS OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA (313 CMR 4.05) Criteria Application Meets? Criterion #1: MEPA Compliance Yes Criterion #2: Viable In-Basin Sources Yes Criterion #3: Water Conservation Yes Criterion #4: Watershed Management Not Applicable Criterion #5: Reasonable Instream Flow Yes Criterion #6: Groundwater/Pumping Test Not Applicable Criterion #7: Local Water Resources Management Plan Yes Criterion #8: 'Cumulative Impacts Yes BASIS FOR THE WRC DECISION DCR's Office of Water Resources, DEP's Drinking Water Program and Northeast Regional Office, and DFG's Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and the Riverways Program reviewed this application. The WRC Decision was made after an extensive evaluation of the project and of Reading's compliance with the six applicable criteria of the Interbasin Transfer Act regulations. The following section describes in detail compliance with the criteria. Attachment 1 goes into greater detail concerning compliance with the criteria and performance standards. Criterion #l: MEPA Compliance The Interbasin Transfer application was part of the DEIR, submitted on September. 20, 2002. The WRC requested additional information through the MEPA process. The Secretary's Certificate on the DEIR was issued on November 1, 2002- The certificate directed Reading to address the WRC's Request for Additional Information through the FEIR. The FEIR was submitted on September 15, 2003 and contained most of the information requested by the WRC. The Secretary's Certificate on the FEIR was issued on October 31, 2003. As noted in the' introduction, additional steps have been taken to bring the decision of the Commission into compliance with MEPA. Criterion #2: Viable In-Basin Sources The Interbasin Transfer Act requires that "that all reasonable efforts have been made to identify and develop all viable sources in the receiving area of the proposed interbasin transfer" (MGL Ch. 21 §81)). It is unlikely that a new water supply source developed in the Ipswich River Basin section of Reading would be able to meet the permitting requirements of the various agencies. However, because Reading also has land in the Mystic River subbasin of the Boston Harbor basin and North Coastal basin, the town was directed to describe its efforts to "identify and develop all viable sources" in these areas of town. Mystic River Subbasin of the Boston Harbor Basin The geology of the Mystic River subbasin consists primarily of exposed bedrock and dense till. Medium and high-yielding sand and gravel aquifers are not present within Reading's land area in this basin (MAGIS). Due to the dense development in this area, it was deemed by Reading's consultants not to offer suitable locations for high-yielding wells. A small area within Conservation Trust Land was tested in 1997 to determine if a shallow unconsolidated wellfield nnrniri he developed at this location. The results were not favorable. June 9, 2005 Page 4 of 37 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application The town-wide Fracture Trace Study, conducted in 1997 to assess the potential for bedrock wells in Reading, did not identify areas for bedrock well investigation in this basin. This, combined with the existence of ground water contamination in neighboring Woburn, eliminated this area from further consideration. North Coastal Basin This area of Reading is heavily developed. Zone I protection for any well that might be developed here. cannot be obtained. The only undeveloped lands in this section of town with potential aquifer formation are wetlands. Furthermore, this area is the headwaters of the Saugus River, which has also historically experienced low flow problems during summer months. Although the North Coastal basin was not classified with respect to flow stress, Saugus River impacts were documented in a June 2002 report, "Saugus River Water Budget and Instream Flow Study" by Gomez and Sullivan Engineers and Environmental Scientists. "The findings indicate that the Saugus River flow is affected during low flow periods in the summer and during certain periods in the fall and spring, when water suppliers are attempting to refill their storage reservoirs." This area of Reading is also upstream of the Reedy Meadows wetland in Wakefield and Lynnfield. Reedy Meadows is a National Natural Landmark recognized for its wetland habitat. Additional water withdrawals that may impact Reedy Meadows and further exacerbate impacts to the Saugus. River should be avoided. Ipswich River Basin Reading considered bedrock well development within the Ipswich River basin. A fracture trace analysis was used to identify potential bedrock well sites. and was followed by test drilling at the Town Forest area (the site of the town's existing wells). Although two wells with a potential yield of 75 gallons per minute each were identified, the approvable yield of the two wells would be limited to less than 200,000 gallons per day. The bedrock wells were found not to be viable and DEP concurred in a letter dated January 22, 2003 that, "based on the test wells installed to date, the available yield is not sufficient to justify conducting the New Source Approval process for the wells." Also, additional withdrawals from this area would contribute to water depletion .from the Ipswich River basin even if the hydrologic impacts were delayed or minimized by withdrawing from the bedrock aquifer. Reading has nine existing water supply sources in the Ipswich River basin. Estimated capacity for these sources is 8.36 mgd. Reading's average day demand (2.0 mgd) is well under the capacity of its sources and of its Water Management Act registration (2.57 mgd). The spirit of the Interbasin Transfer Act requires that local sources be maximized before a water supplier looks out-of-basin to address its needs. However, the regulations define a "viable source" as one "which can be used while preserving reasonable instream flow as determined by the same criteria provided to evaluate impacts on the donor basin". (313 CMR 4.02). All of the town's sources are located in the Ipswich River basin. The USGS study, "A Precipitation-Runoff Model for Analysis of the Effects of Water Withdrawals on Streamflow, Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts" (Zarriello and Ries, 2000, Water-Resources Investigation Report 00-4029) found that cumulative ground water withdrawals substantially decrease the magnitude, and increase the duration and frequency of low flows in the Ipswich River. Water withdrawals have little effect on moderate to high flows. June 9, 2005 Page 5 of 37 ti5 - Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application Reading acknowledges that use of its public water supply sources to meet its full demand during certain low flow times of the year contributes to the severe impacts to the river and so is proposing to purchase up to 219 mg from MWRA and restrict use of its sources to 1 mgd from May through October. Reading demonstrates in its application that reducing use of its wells during the targeted low-flow months (May through October) will reduce their impacts on streamflow in the Ipswich River during those periods (as measured at the USGS South Middleton stream gage). However, if the Town has purchased 219 mg from the MWRA prior to October 31St of any year, it will need to use its Ipswich River basin sources to provide for public health and safety. DEP is concerned about the impacts of Reading's wells on low flow conditions within the Ipswich River. In comments provided on the ITA application, DEP notes, "the portion of the river at Reading's streamside wells is the most impacted stream segment. Under Reading's present pumping regime, the Department has observed that during the summer, period, streamflow is frequently depleted to a dry riverbed. Since Reading's pumping contributes to this severe impact, the Department has determined that continued pumping of the Reading wells at existing levels is not a viable option. An alternative is necessary to protect the ability of the Ipswich River to function as a reliable source of safe drinking water, a suitable habitat for aquatic life and wildlife that are adapted to riverine conditions, and an area for primary and secondary contact recreation." In addition, DEP has expressed concern about use of Reading's existing sources at current levels. The Department notes that the Town's existing water sources are highly susceptible to contamination. Several businesses that use hazardous materials generate hazardous waste, or store oil or hazardous material in above ground or underground tanks are within the Zone H of the Town's wells. Interstate Route 93 crosses the west side of the protective Zone I area around Well No. 15 and Well No. 13. Enhanced Water Conservation As an additional source of water, Reading has begun to implement a four-year, $1 million conservation program to reduce water usage by 190,000 gallons per day (gpd). This program is discussed in more detail in the next section of this document. Criterion #3: Water Conservation Reading has an existing water conservation program which meets all of the 1992 Water Conservation Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and most of the 1999 Interbasin Transfer Act (ITA) Performance Standards for Criterion #3. Reading does not meet the Performance Standard for retrofitting all public buildings or for having a mechanism in its drought/emergency plan to tie water use restrictions to streamflow levels; however, the Performance Standards acknowledge that in certain cases, local conditions may prevent a proponent from meeting a standard or there may be alternative means of meeting a standard. Retrofit programs were identified as, a priority through the 2001 water audit. Because of the way projects are funded at the town level, these programs were underway, but not completed at the time of the application. Most were scheduled to be completed by mid-August 2004. All public buildings, with the exception of the High School and Barrows Elementary School, had been retrofit by September 30, 2004. In a letter dated October 25, 2004, Reading informed the WRC Q June 9, 2005 Page 6 of 37 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application that the retrofit program for all other public buildings had been completed. The High School and Barrows Elementary School are undergoing a total renovation. The Barrows Elementary School renovation is expected to be completed by September 2005. The contract for the High School renovation project was awarded in May 2004. As part of this renovation, all plumbing fixtures will be replaced with low flow devices. The renovation is scheduled to be completed by June 2007. The Town has a two-stage outdoor water conservation regulation modified in January 2005, with the ability to levy a $300 fine for violations. The modification removed all voluntarv outdoor water use restrictions and now includes only mandatory outdoor water use restrictions. Stage 1 provides for mandatory outdoor watering restrictions on odd or even days (depending on house number) and restricts time of day watering (4:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.). Stage 2 is provided for the eventuality that only enough water is available for essential public health and safety purposes. In this event, no outdoor water use of any type is permitted. The Town believes that the continued applicability of the ban, coupled with its high water and sewer bills serves to heighten community awareness of the need for water conservation and significantly dampens summer demand. Reading's water conservation by-law is not based on streamflow thresholds, as required by the Performance Standards. However, the conditions of this interbasin transfer approval do require a linkage of outdoor water use and streamflows. The Town has demonstrated that through the reduction in use of its Ipswich basin water supply sources, combined with the purchase of MWRA water, impacts to the Ipswich River strearnflow are at least as protective of streamflow as directly linking water conservation measures to streamflow. Reading's outdoor water use restrictions are deemed adequate for most years, and Reading's reduction in pumping its wells during the summer months will reduce impacts to the Ipswich River. If it appears that Reading's purchase of water from MWRA will exceed 219 mg prior to the end of October in any year, (expected only as a result of drought conditions), more restrictive limits on non-essential water use are appropriate to reduce impacts of pumping Reading's wells on the Ipswich. River. The requirements of this condition are consistent with those issued by DEP in its 2003 Water Management Act permits for the Ipswich River basin. Refer to the Conditions section at the end of this document for specific requirements. DEP's recently implemented Water Management policy recognizes that communities with a summer to winter water use ratio of 1.2 to 1 or lower are doing a good job of controlling peak water use and only requires that this ratio be maintained. Reading's ratio of summer to winter water use was 1.2 for the years 1998 to 2002. In addition, the analysis conducted to demonstrate the benefits to the Ipswich River from restricting use of local sources during the months of May through October showed that there was almost no difference between using the wells at 1 mgd and tying use of the wells to streamflow. The WRC has determined that Reading is adequately addressing the Performance Standard for retrofit, and that water use restrictions outlined in the Town's by-laws, together with their overall water conservation program and the proposed well use restrictions, are protective of strearnflow resources. Thus, Reading meets this criterion. I MGL Chapter 21 §81): "that all practical measures to conserve water have been taken in the receiving area, including but not limited to the following: June 9, 2005 Page 7 of 37 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating. to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's I iterbasin Transfer Application This Decision requires that Reading notify the Commission when the High School and Barrows School renovations have been completed, with documentation of the retrofit devices installed, and provide annual reports detailing the water conservation actions taken as part of the $1 million program discussed below. This should include an accounting of the money spent and the successes of the program, including the estimated amounts of water conserved. Reading has implemented a four-year, $1 million conservation effort in order to reduce water usage by 190,000 gallons per day (gpd). Programs being implemented include: • Residential water audits: 64 audits were completed in 2003. The program is ongoing. • A rebate program for low flow toilets, washing machines and irrigation sensors began in March 2004. Approximately 90 rebates ($17,000) have been processed through April 2004. Reading completed a system-wide water audit in December 2004. The last system- wide water audit was conducted in April 2001. This led to the retrofit program now underway. • Table 1 lists Reading's water conservation accomplishments with respect to all of the standards. (a) the identification of distribution system sources of lost water, and where cost effective, the' implementation of a program of leak detection and repair; (b) metering of all water users in the receiving area and a program of meter maintenance; (c) implementation of rate structures which reflect the costs of operation, proper maintenance and water conservation and encourage the same; (d) public information programs to promote water conservation, including industrial and commercial recycling and reuse; and (e) contingency plans for limiting use of water during seasonal or drought shortages" June 9, 2005 Page 8 of 37 CONSERVATION MEASURE Public Education Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application Table 1 Reading's Conservation Status 1.992 STANDARD 1999 I9T PERFQRMANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS STANDARD Active Public Education Program in place which should include: - Targeting largest users - School program - Bill stuffers or worksheet to calculate water use - Advertising/media stories - Conservation information centers Speakers - PSAs etc - Promoting use of water saving-devices - Civic/professional resources - Special events - Multilingual materials (as needed) - Contests/recognition A broad-based public education program which attempts to reach every user at least two times per year - refer to the WRC's 1992 "Water Conservation Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" and the Massachusetts Water Works Association for recommended public education measures Once per year, Reading sends out bill inserts. There are daily PSAs. Water conservation information is available at multiple locations, including the library, Town Hall and Water Treatment Plant. Tours of water treatment plant are offered. Newspaper articles appear at least annually. The town website is updated monthly with conservation information. Targeting largest users The town seeks to specifically contact its largest users and provide educational programs. MEETS -STANDARD?` Yes June 9, 2005 . Page 9 of 37 ~O~SER~pTtON ,1V1Ep5t~RE etecteon and leak D Repair Commission royal Water ReSources Relating to the APP Massachusetts Decision lication mdings, 3nstif'tcati n erbasin Transfer ADP s `STANl7ARD [V►EE'f Report on they a of Reading TS of the row u pNCE~ Yes RPORNt detection. Last 1999 iB,PE 'RG Annual leak June 2003 conducted in e-- ' survey 1.992 ST'PNCSARG STANQ survey . Fuli leak Deter-bOon two years of within the previous the app , rising lication Included in full cost p Full leak Detection survey every two years include in full cost pricing 100% Metering "Metering , Regular maintenance, calibration, testing and repair program entaticn of survey ai ed l Docum of teaks Identified and re completed by method the least as cornPrehens",Ons for leak MNtRA's reg detection has provided Reading of leaks documentation of its leak detection surveys and identified and repaired Reading's lec)nducted th a 4 surveys alecomprehensWe as manner as , re ulafions the MWRA s t 1000/() Metered i 100,10 Metering I Regular maintenance, libration, testing and repair ca program; description of llcatton program lncluded m apP Ail public buildings should be metered billing, based on actual l T titer readings actual master meters calibrated annually i COQ Cr r..aa 9. 2005 Yes. changed over en Meters were '88; a phased replacem~ Begin program is scheduled an repair in FY `0' Reading has ongoing maintenance & program. . All public, buildings are metered and belled for water use.. . puartertbilling, based on titer readings; actual m monthly billing, considering ed full second meters charg price calibrated Master meters are annually. Documentation of meter calibration A11 public buildings should be metered Quarterly billing, basedboins actual meter readings:, . easily understood by should be customer calibrated master' annual master titers as orovided annually; documentation of annua`aster meter calibration w - page To of 37 CO.NSEIZ~1ATlON NjEp,SUR~..-=-- pricing Residential water use 00C) 1. mcot""tissioll roval Water Resources. n - elating to the App Massachusetts . lieatIon and the Findings, Justifieats .fnterbsill rfrausfer APP Report on ading 'STANDYAR . Of the Town of Re MEETS p;ECON1PiSH1MEN TS GE - • Yes 1:99" t8T F'EF~RA. ARD STANQ,ARp. 2 STAND me ~QC,nm was p ov ded cost 199 ` ntatton of f11 cost pricing Docu Enterprise Full cost Pricing pricing Reading has an account Enterprise accounts Regular evaluation of rate structure Make watedrevs available tou residential customers Strictly enforce State plumbing code Rate structure must encourage water conservation Reading has a flat rate structure, but the rates are high $3.661100 cu, ft. The ratstra t chance was annually 8/01 g9cd Reading's res,dent1999 to community`s residential averaged 59 from if the er capita/day is .2001. gallons p the proponent greater than 65 should be irnpementmc a comprehens,ve reside that conservation progres,denttai seeks to ret cough a retrofit, water use rebate or other similarty effectlve program ior encouraging installation of household water saving including faucet devices, showerheads and aerators, efforts to toilets and -through reduce excessive outdoor water use. Reading begIan at customersr audits in 2003. Reading offers retrOfl at no residential custom cost. 't 0i Reading began a rebate rogram for the instaluaaase of p 1ow-flow toilets anmachines. low flow washing -The plumbing code is strictly enforced bY_the building inspector page 11 of 37 Yes Tune 4, 2005 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission . Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application CONSERVATION ' :MEASURE Public sector water use 19M2 STANDARD All public buildings metered and water use accounted for 1999`I8T PERFORMANCE- STANDARD... . AII. public buildings should be metered ACCOMPLISHMENTS: All public buildings are metered and billed for water use MEETS STANDARD? Yes No, however, the performance standards recognize that local conditions may prevent a proponent from meeting a standard. Because of the way these projects are funded at the town level, Reading is just now in the process of renovating the High School and Barrows Elementary School, which will include retrofit with low flow devices. This provides an alternate method of meeting intent of the criteria, as provided in the Performance Standards. Retrofit all public buildings with low-flow devices Meter hydrants used for pipe flushing and construction; charge for use Water audit every 3-5 years Retrofit all public buildings with low-flow devices Proponents should provide records of water audits conducted on public facilities. The most recent audit should have occurred within two years prior to the application for Interbasin Transfer approval. The High School and Barrows Elementary School are currently being renovated. Low flow devices will be installed as part of this renovation. All other public buildings requiring retrofits have been completed. Hydrants used for pipe flushing and construction are metered; there is a charge for use A system-wide water audit is currently being conducted. The last water audit was conducted in April 2001. This led to the retrofit program now underway Yes June 9, 2005 Page 12 of 37 CO M~AS RE N Water Supply System Management Other C June 9, 2005 Water Resources Rfera Commisstol= to the Approval Massachusetts . rt on the Findings, dustifi ationIn, ecisiO nsApplication the Town of Read g Repo Of '1992~STAN~t?.RD` T999 tBSTANnARD ANCE: groughvemergency contingency plan, to include: seasonal use guidelines measures for voluntary and mandatory water use restrictions and dec °W these will be implemented tie water use restrictions to + streamflow and/or surface water levels in the affected basin( s) where this information is available Drought management plan Strategies to reduce peak daily and seasonal peak demands update to deduce usestplan unaccounted-for water Develop interconnections with other systems ACCOMPt ►SViI ENT* Re has a gY-law to restrict ading and a EP- outdoorhandb ook to deal with approved allwafer supply emergencies. Unaccounted-for water should be at I o% or less MEETS STANDARD? Yes. Reading's water conservation by taw does not irnol eVertthe to streamflows. H conditions of this interbasin transfer require a linkage between strearnflows and outdoor t weaer it s appears that drought ye Reading's purchase of water from MW RA will exceed 219 MG, additional outdoor water use restrictions are appropriate. Yes Unaccounted-for water averaged 1001, over the Pa has five years; Reading's UAVq generally declined over this period. Reading has emergency With \N obuln, iinterconnectjonS akef'+ Id and the Stoneham, MWRA• Reading's land use controls meet ea s Guidelines R an aquifer protection hasl Readi ng by-taw. Reading has a tong-term water conservation program Whit r complies with the 1992 conservation Standards for commonwealth of Massachuhsetts, place. Page 13 of 37 A program of land,use controls-to protect existing Water supaply that rea sources of the lec of the meet the requirements Department of Environmental Protection- A long-term water conservation mplies with Program that co the 1992 Water conservation Standards shout' be in tth, of Yes Yes Yes mission roval Water Resources Co Relating t° the App Massachusetts ecisi°n ati°u s on . ~rausfer Alp;* ctings+ Justirica Slute b MEN Repo pVISH its. rt °n the Ftn eazi►ug Of the ~"~u of P -ea_, vGE . AOp MEESSgTANO~R r -"`"rYes water i--- ARD Reading has tied to 92 ~ - ~ rvatlon by-law S~RVA`~.tON . CON.t3RE ~ -----u ublic MEA ~oes and p rtvate water `'Lawn and Water and p should Landscape . SupplIersdrought servation develop laps that con rnanagernent p identify water seupa`y 1 1 and env1ron sere as tndica~°t stage triggeCs droug tag e a set of + i and that oul't 1 stringent , increasing restrictions water us~esi ned to 'that are ealth protect public h and the environment and that can be rough implemented th bylaw, ordinance or regulat'on. and public Gomrnuntt1eWater and pi e s should supp a water use implement b law , restriction or regulation ordinance that provideor water comrnunitY e ability supplier went m andatorY to tmpluse restrictions- + water strictions These re tied to should mental and environrr' ly indicators water supp . drought as outlined ~n a rnar,acement htan• -)1)05 s which copse l indicator water supp Y strictions outline a set tncreas tfi Y t water use re stringen Yes a by-law, which Reading.Town the aWlltY to gives the mandatory Water ruse rrestr ct ons. page 14 Of 37 Criterion #4: Watershed Manaeement This criterion is not applicable to this proposal. Reading's sources are ground water sources. Criterion #5: Reasonable Instream Flow and Criterion 48: Cumulative Imuacis Reading is proposing to purchase up to 219 mg of water from the MWRA from May through October. This is an average of 1.2 mgd. The Town proposes to operate its Ipswich River basin wells at a rate limited to 1 mgd during these months and to supplement its needs with MWRA water. This would enhance flow in the Ipswich River basin. MWRA's sources are the Quabbin Reservoir in the Chicopee River Basin and the Wachusett Reservoir in the Nashua River basin: Reading is located in the Boston Harbor Basin (Mystic River subbasin), the North Coastal basin, and the Ipswich River basin. Most of Reading's wastewater (90% of the population) is sewered to the Massachusetts Coastal Basin via MWRA's Deer Island Treatment Facility. Approximately 350 on-site wastewater disposal systems are present in Reading, most of which are located in the Ipswich River basin. The Interbasin Transfer Act regulations (313 CMR 4.05) direct the WRC to consider that "reasonable instream flow in the river from which the water is transferred is maintained" in making its decision to approve or deny an Interbasin Transfer request. In this case, WRC Staff evaluated the impacts of transferring 1.2 mgd during the months of May through October on the operations of the MWRA Water Works System, which include impacts to reservoir levels, drought levels, uncontrolled releases (spills) and the MWRA's mandated downstream releases. In addition, the cumulative impacts of the Reading transfer and other potential transfers (Wilmington and Dedham-Westwood) were evaluated on a monthly basis. These other potential transfers could result in an additional annual average of 1.7. mgd and an additional maximum of up to 2.96 mgd being transferred. during the months of June through October. The safe yield of the MWRA reservoir system is approximately 300 mgd. Demands on the MWRA water supply system peaked in 1980 at 343 mgd. Subsequent demand management programs reduced demand, and MWRA water demand continued its decline to 220 mgd in 2004, the lowest in 50 years. The average annual baseline demand for the past five years on the MWRA water supply has been 251 mgd_ Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) future water demand estimates for the system indicated additional demands of 13 mgd through 2025 (prior to Stoughton's connection to the system). This results in a future system demand of 264 mgd. With the addition of Stoughton, the future system demand is 265 mgd. (Stoughton began receiving water from the MWRA in October 2003). The future monthly demands for Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham-Westwood were added to this amount to simulate total impacts on the MWRA reservoir system. MWRA Svstem The construction of Winsor Dam on the Swift River was .completed in 1939, creating the Quabbin Reservoir. In addition to the water impounded by Winsor Dam, Quabbin Reservoir can receive water from the Ware River in the Chicopee River basin. The MWRA system also includes the Wachusett Reservoir in the Nashua River basin. According to the FEIR for the Reading proposal (CDM, September 2003), "The MWRA reservoir system is operated with the primary objective of ensuring high quality adequate water supply. Secondary operational objectives include maintaining an adequate flood protection buffer particularly during the spring melt and hurricane seasons and maintaining required minimum releases to both the Swift and Nashua River." Quabbin Reservoir has a storage capacity of 412 billion gallons and is fed by a well-protected watershed. The Wachusett Reservoir has a storage capacity of 65 billion gallons and is fed by a June 9, 2005 Page 15 of 37 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application slightly more developed watershed. The MWRA controls Wachusett Reservoir elevation through transfers from Quabbin Reservoir to Wachusett Reservoir. The objective is to operate Wachusett Reservoir over a narrow operating range (between elevation 390 and 391.5 feet) while allowing Quabbin Reservoir to freely fluctuate. The Quabbin Reservoir elevation at the spillway is 528 feet. The structural controls of the MWRA/DCR water system also allow Quabbin Reservoir to receive water from the Ware River watershed through diversions in the Quabbin Tunnel. The operation of Quabbin Reservoir includes maintenance of a flow threshold in the Swift River at Bondsville (five miles downstream of Winsor Dam) of 20 mgd, or 30 cubic feet per second (cfs). This threshold was mandated in Chapter 321 in the 1927 Acts of Massachusetts. Releases from Quabbin through its bypass at the Winsor Dam are used to meet this requirement, supplemented by intervening drainage between Quabbin and the Bondsville stream gage that contributes flow. An Army Corps of Engineers permit also requires seasonal releases to maintain flow for navigability on the Connecticut River. The seasonal releases, which are in effect June 1 through November 30, are 70 cfs (45 mgd) if the flow in the Connecticut River, as measured at the Montague stream gage, falls below 4,900 cfs, and 110 cfs (70 mgd) if the flow in the Connecticut River falls below 4,650 cfs. During its normal operation, the Quabbin Reservoir maintains the required thresholds stated above through controlled releases via the by-pass. The by-pass has a capacity of approximately 100 MGD (155 cfs). In addition, uncontrolled releases, or spills, occur periodically over the spillway. Uncontrolled releases are avoided due to downstream flooding impacts and the rapid increase of high flow these cause. While a high spring flow is normally considered beneficial for channel maintenance, the sudden high flows caused by Quabbin spills can be detrimental to downstream aquatic habitat. In addition, warm water spills from the surface of the reservoir during the summer have negative temperature impacts on both instream aquatic habitat and a downstream fish hatchery that uses Swift River water. Flow thresholds are also part of the operation of the Wachusett Reservoir on the South Branch of the Nashua River. Chapter 488 of the 1895 Acts of Massachusetts requires a release of 12 mg per week or 1.71 mgd. Although uncontrolled releases, or spills, can also happen over the Wachusett Dam, they rarely occur. Transfers from the Ware River to Quabbin Reservoir are only allowed at flows above 85 mgd, and must be limited to the period from October 15 to June 15. In addition, permission must be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers to transfer water during the periods of June 1 through June 15 and October 15 through November 30. Historically, transfers from the Ware River have been made only on a limited basis for flood control or to help fill the Quabbin under drought conditions. Hvdroloaic Analvsis Several types of data are available to evaluate the potential impact of the Reading transfer, as well as any planned or proposed transfers, on the Quabbin Reservoir. Streamflow in the Swift River is measured at a gage in West Ware. The gage is located 1.4 miles downstream from Winsor Dam and has a period of record from 1913 to present. Other available data include t modeled reservoir releases, spills and drought levels. e June 9, 2005 Page 16 of 37 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application Streamflow data, or a hydrograph showing the impact of the proposed transfer on the donor river basin, is usually evaluated as part of the interbasin transfer review. However, several factors make the use of downstream flow data difficult. First, the Quabbin Reservoir has a huge storage capacity, which is used to maintain a constant minimum flow. Second, the current MWRA system demand is significantly lower than its historic demand; therefore superimposing the transfer on a historic downstream hydrograph would not be realistic. For these reasons, other types of data, including releases, spills and drought levels, are being used to evaluate these criteria. To account for the change in system demand, some of the analyses have used a shortened period of record on which to superimpose the transfer. The period of record chosen for the analysis of the impact of the proposed, transfer is 1990 to 2000, which reflects current demands. Because the Quabbin has met the mandated flow requirements, even during periods when demands were nearly 100 mgd (155 cfs) over the current level, it is assumed that those thresholds will continue to be met under the proposed transfer scenarios, which are significantly less than the historic use. Therefore the analyses focus on the impact to the reservoir inmeeting required releases and the impact to uncontrolled releases. Several facts have been considered in the review of the data: • An instream flow requirement for the Swift River, as measured at Bondsville, of 30 cfs (20 mgd) has always been met. • A seasonal. 70 to 110 cfs flow release, based on levels in the Connecticut River, has also always been met June through November, as needed to supplement Connecticut River flow. • The instream flow requirements listed above are intended to maintain pre-existing mill operation on the Swift River and navigation on the Connecticut River, but do not take into account the other instream uses which are evaluated when determining a reasonable instream flow. • The flow in the Swift River was significantly impacted when the' Quabbin Reservoir was built. • An Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) analysis of pre-1939 flows compared to post-1939 flows indicates that in general, streamflows in the Swift River have been significantly reduced. The mean annual flow has gone from 313 cfs to 100 cfs. In addition: 1. All monthly flows have been reduced. 2. The timing and duration of high flow events have changed significantly. 3. The duration of low flow events has increased. Uncontrolled Releases Uncontrolled releases from the Quabbin Reservoir, hereafter referred to as spills, have been evaluated. for potential changes over the base 1990-2000 period, due to the proposed transfer. These spills represent the annual peaks on the Swift River hydrograph. The addition of the potential future demands from Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham-Westwood are projected to June 9, 2005 Page 17 of 37 g~~ Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application significantly decrease the amount of annual spills by an average of 18.41/o.2 Table 2 shows the amount of water that would have spilled from Quabbin for each year from 1990 through 2000 at a demand of 265 mgd. The additional demand from Reading and the other communities would have decreased the annual amount of water spilled by 0% to 100%. The highs of 85% and 100% would have occurred in 1998 and 1992, which appear to be years with relatively low amounts of snow, which likely resulted in little spring runoff. The issue of-uncontrolled releases and spring flows are further discussed under the section Impacts to Other Uses. Fisheries. Table 2 Modeled Swift River Spills with the addition of Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham-Westwood Demand Demand 265 265+Future Difference Difference Difference Year (MG) (MG) (MG) (MG/day) 1990 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.0% 1991 0.001 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.0% 1992 973.661 0.001 973.60 2:671 -100.00/o) 1993 1 11,242.981 10,283.14 959.841 . 2.631 -8.5 1994 1 0.001 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.0% 1995 1 0.001 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.0%) 1996 1 28,654.131 26,583.611 2,070.521 5.671 -7.20/d 1997 22,843.361 22,416.261 427.101 1.171 -1.9% 1998 729.711 107.411 622.301 1.701 -853% 1999 1 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.001 0.0°/~ 2000 1 0.001 0.001 0.001 ..0.001 0.0%1 [Average for the Period 1 1.261 -18.4 Total Releases Increasing demands can impact the amount of water that is released from Quabbin to maintain the instrearn flow requirements, through both controlled and uncontrolled releases. Increased amount and frequency of releases can impact the reservoir level. The total amount of water released was estimated for: 1. actual historical releases (1990-2000), 2., current system's future demand at 265 MGD, and 3. demand at 265 MGD plus Reading and other potential future transfers (Wilmington and Dedham-Westwood). The flow duration curve for the three, scenarios is shown as Figure 2. There was almost no difference in the flow releases necessary for the Reading and other future transfers (3) as compared to the current system's future demand scenario (2). However, both of these scenarios depict a decrease in the frequency and magnitude of high flow releases from the Winsor Dam to the Swift River compared with the actual historical releases (scenario 1). ' This value is different than the value of 7.8 percent presented in the FEIR only as a result of the method used to determine the average. While the FEIR. used the reduction in the sum of the volume of the spills over the period, WRC staff calculated the average of each year's percent difference for an overall average for the period. June 9, 2005 Page 28 of 37 % fi~, k~ Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application Ouabbin Levels/Drou2ht Analvsis Quabbin Reservoir levels fluctuate by design, but minimum percent full values have been established and are the basis for drought designations. The applicant evaluated maximum pool level reductions at various demands and hydrologic conditions simulated for 1948 through 2000. The results of the analysis are that at the base withdrawal plus Reading and future community demands, the maximum pool descent does not vary considerably and does not decline below the minimum acceptable pool descent of 470 feet elevation. An analysis was done to determine the impact of the proposed transfer on the Quabbin Reservoir during a drought. Increasing demands can impact the frequency with which a reservoir system reaches various drought levels. This analysis is useful to determine impacts to levels in the reservoir as well as impacts to other communities currently on the MWRA system. Finally, this analysis supplements the data presented from 1990-2000, which includes several dry years but does not include any prolonged dry periods such as the 1960s drought. Analyses of the increase in demand due to the proposed Reading transfer and future community transfers show that the MWRA system would result in an insignificant increase the frequency and duration of drought levels. Specifically, modeling showed that compared with a base demand of 265 mgd, the system would be in a Drought Warning for two additional months, and would be in a Drought Emergency stage 1 for two additional months, with the addition of . Reading, Wilmington, and Dedham Westwood. This analysis was based on a period of 1948 to 2000. If the 1960's drought were removed from the analysis, a drought Emergency level would not be reached. impacts to Flow Characteristics The September 2003 "Overview of Water Use and Transfer in the Chicopee River Basin" (Gomez and Sullivan Engineers, P.C.) evaluated Swift River flows and concluded, "The operation of Quabbin Reservoir significantly alters the timing and magnitude of streamflow in the Swift River.... This diversion of water from Quabbin Reservoir results in alterations to the timing and magnitude of flows within the Swift River watershed, which may result in adverse impacts 'to downstream aquatic biota. Alterations in flow are particularly evident during the typical spring high flow period, when flows are drastically reduced in the Swift River because of flood skimming and water storage operations at the Quabbin....MRWA is required to release a minimum flow of 20 mgd (32 cfs) from Quabbin Reservoir to the Swift River. There are also additional release requirements, when flows in the Connecticut River drop below certain thresholds. This flow release has beneficial effects such as maintaining Swift River flows, during late summer/early fall 2001." The study recommended, "Evaluate alternative schedules for minimum flow releases from Quabbin Reservoir to the Swift River to mimic natural flow patterns to the extent possible... It may be possible to minimize the potential impact of these water withdrawals on downstream aquatic biota through alternative reservoir management practices." June 9, 2005 Page 19 of 37 , r 24000 'Figure ~ e . Flow Duration Cu at W rotor Dam River Releases S,Aowing S ~ me period '100 r-rulat""Or Releases t em arid 265 Modeled at errand 255 ,Nlth odeled at D demands A I r 1 Sgrrt t ~ 0 1 ' ~°-y„ 10444 i ' 00 / aw+" 4 /0 i r .+'^'+o""M►"° w'J Ty.r 64.0°j° 74• ceeded 44.0°f° called or [im$ Ex g0.0% in Months q 4 10,p°jo 0°J° 0 of 37 t . 80.4% Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on. the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application Impacts to the Swift River Aquatic Base Flow (ABF), 95% flow duration, flood flows, and flow velocity will be minimal compared to existing conditions. The estimated natural 7Q10 flow and the 95% flow duration are less than the required controlled releases from Quab bin Reservoir. Therefore they will be maintained by the current operations and will not be affected by the proposed transfer. The frequency of the summer aquatic base flow (ABF) of 0.5 cfsm (94 cfs at the Winsor dam or 1,830 MGM) based on simulated releases will not be reduced due to the Reading transfer and other planned or proposed future.community withdrawals, when compared with the current system's future demand of 265 MGD. Flood flows will not be reduced based on the data. It should also be noted that since 1990,.the annual 1-day, 3-day, 7-day, 30-day and 90- day maximum flows have increased. In addition the timing of the annual 1-day maximum (i.e. the Julian date of the 1-day maximum flow) improved from a median value of July 15 to June 11 between 1990 and 2000. This is an improvement because the timing of this 1-day maximum value has moved closer to the spring season, when natural high flows typically occur. Although flow characteristics are not expected to change significantly over current conditions, it is worth re-stating that the Swift River has had large impacts from the construction of Quabbin Reservoir, which overshadow the addition of the Reading transfer. Also, the future demands of the existing water supply system will have a more significant impact than the Reading transfer. Impacts to Other Uses Fisheries According to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Swift River below Winsor Dam down to the confluence with the Ware River, contains significant fisheries habitat. In addition, the river is one of only two rivers in Massachusetts, which receive a cold-water release that significantly benefits habitat, such as the catch and release trout fishery directly below the dam. The current required flow releases are beneficial to the fishery, as they provide a continuous source of fresh cold water. However, DFW has stated that the amount of the controlled releases, although beneficial in terms of quality, have not been determined to be optimum in terms of quantity for the cold water fishery. In addition, DFW operates a trout hatchery downstream of the Winsor Dam on the Swift River, which uses river intakes as part of its water supply. Relatively warm-water spills from the surface of Quabbin Reservoir are detrimental to both the instream cold-water fishery and the fish hatchery operation. An IFIM study of the Swift River in 1997 by Normandeau Associates indicates that the current flow releases are adequate. However this study concedes that fish may have to seek refuge in pools when bank to bank flows are not present and further recommends that "provision of higher flows ...would enhance habitat ...as long as highly cyclic flows are avoided". DFW, MWRA and DCR Division of Water Supply Protection (as defined by MGL Chapter 92A1/2, and hereinafter referred to as "the Watershed Agency") have been discussing habitat improvements that could be made within the limitations of existing permits. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with MWRA, the Division of Water Supply Protection acts as "the Watershed Agency" responsible for developing policies and procedures to be followed during wet weather or flood periods, to enable MWRA to determine how much water (above statutory requirements) shall be discharged through MWRA controlled waterworks facilities into the Nashua, Swift, Ware, or Sudbury Rivers. During winter and spring months when the Quabbin Reservoir is filling, it may be possible to increase releases to the Swift River (using the June 9, 2005 Page 21 of 37 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application Winsor Dam by-pass and/or other future improvements) and avoid late spring/early summer spills when it appears the'reservoir is filling at an acceptable rate. Winter/spring diversions from the Ware River (in accordance with permitted limitations) may be used to supplement Quabbin and allow for enhancement of higher controlled Swift River releases in the spring months. Similarly, Quabbin releases maybe reduced during summer months if it appears that the flow targets at Bondsville can be maintained with inputs from the intervening drainage area. This approach would allow for a more natural seasonal hydrograph for the Swift River, and avoid late spring spills. The WRC recommends that DFW, MWRA and the Watershed Agency continue to cooperate to establish and implement enhanced releases to the Swift River from the Quabbin Reservoir. Hydropower A hydropower turbine was in use at the Winsor Dam until 1991, when it was damaged by a fire. The Normandeau study was commissioned to determine suitable flow levels for fisheries during drought periods. This information would directly impact the feasibility of generating hydropower while maintaining a trout fishery. As stated above, the report concluded that the current releases are adequate for the trout fishery. However, no action has been taken to re- implement the hydropower production. There are no plans at this time to reactivate the hydropower station at the Winsor Dam. Recreation Aside from the sport fishery addressed above, there is some boating recreation on the impoundments in Bondsville. Again, these uses will not be affected because operation of Quabbin reservoir will not change with the Reading transfer. Wetlands Other than Quabbin Reservoir itself, the only significant wetland in the Chicopee River basin that could be affected by the transfer is in Ware, along the Swift River. The area is 70 acres of open water impounded by a dam in Bondsville. Because this area is open water and is part of the river,. current minimum flow requirements appear to be adequate to protect the wetland area. Judament of the WR.C that a Reasonable Instream Flow will be maintained The analyses of release data indicate there will be no significant change in the operation of the Quabbin Reservoir in response to the proposed Reading transfer. Current resources will be unaffected by the transfer. Obviously, current conditions represent an impacted environment. Proposed modifications to the timing and magnitude of Swift River releases in the spring months would benefit the downstream aquatic habitat. This recommendation attempts to achieve a balance between water supply needs and aquatic habitat needs of flow, water quality and water temperature in the Swift-River through minor release modifications. Criterion #6 Groundwater/PumpinLy Test This criterion is not applicable to this proposal. MWRA's sources are surface water sources. Criterion #7 Local Water Resources Management Plan A Draft Local Water Resources Management Plan was submitted with Reading's Interbasin Transfer Act application. The Plan addresses the issues identified in the 1999 Interbasin Transfer Act Performance Standards Appendix B Local Water Resources Management Plan o June 9, 2005 Page 22 of 37 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application Outline. The WRC approved Reading's Local Water Resources Management Plan on December 9, 2004. OTHER ISSUES CONSIDERED Alternative Out-of-Basin Source Reading investigated another potential water supply, not within the receiving basin, namely, a connection to the Andover water system. This action would also require Interbasin Transfer Act review and approval. As stated. in a previous decision, the WRC does not advise a proponent to pursue one out-of-basin source over another. The proponent must make this judgment. Any proposed transfer will need to meet the applicable criteria of the Act and its regulations in order to be approved. After studying the infrastructure improvements needed and the costs of this alternative, Reading decided that application for admission to the MWRA Water Works System was in its best interests. Timing of the Application An issue raised through the public comment period was that this application should not be considered until a larger plan for the Ipswich River headwaters is coordinated and underway. The WRC cannot unilaterally choose to delay rendering a decision on this application until completion of the larger Ipswich River Plan. The WRC is required by the regulations to make a decision Within 60 days of the final public hearing" unless both the WRC and the proponent agree in writing to extend the deadline (313 CMR 4.04(5)(g)). In addition, the WRC has been unsuccessful in the past in coordinating the actions of different communities. The Ipswich River Plan and Wilmington's proposed Interbasin Transfer application are still many months from completion. The WRC believes it is not good public policy to hold up one community's application until another community has done the work necessary to enter the process. Downstream Flow Improvements Another issue considered during this review was streamflow downstream of the MWRA's reservoirs. When the WRC approved Stoughton's request for admission to the MWRA's Water Works System in 2002, it noted that the Swift River is one of only two rivers in Massachusetts which receive a cold-water release that significantly benefits fishery habitat, and that there was potential for improving the fisheries habitat downstream of the Quabbin Reservoir and restoring the natural variability of flow in the Swift River. DFW. stated that modifications to downstream habitat and to the flow release scheduling (even without increasing the overall amount of releases) could significantly benefit the fishery resource below the Winsor Dam. The WRC.acknowledged that any potential changes to operations or any downstream improvements would involve multi-party, multi-year discussions and negotiations. Therefore, the WRC recommended that before the MWRA. entered into negotiations with additional communities wishing to apply for admission into the Water Works System, the Authority should enter into discussions with DFW and other interested parties to determine if any changes could be made to improve habitat or flows downstream of both Winsor and Wachusett Dams. The 3 313 CMR 4.04(5)(e) states "The Commission shall, within sixty (60) days of completing said (public) hearings complete its review and approve or deny the requested action to increase the present rate of interbasin transfer." (emphasis added) June 9, 2005 Page 23 of 37 ~ A, 4'' Massachusetts Water Resources Commission ' . Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application MWRA has stated that any actions that would impact compliance with its existing permits are not negotiable; however, since the time of the Stoughton decision, DFW, MWRA and the Watershed Agency have been discussing habitat improvements. MWR.A and the Watershed Agency have either completed or offered to undertake the following actions: • MWRA and the Watershed Agency have no authority over and do not own the Bondsville Darns, which DFW would like to see removed to improve habitat by mitigating temperature issues, however, the Authority and the Watershed Agency have stated that they have no objection to removal of the dams by a third party, if this would not impact permit requirements to monitor flow at Bondsville. • Operations of the turbines at Winsor Darn, which resulted in pulsing flows, no longer occur. Flows since 1991 have been steadier. As stated earlier, there are no plans at this time to reactivate the hydropower station at the Winsor Dam. • MWRA and the Watershed Agency have a history of working with DFW on downstream channel improvements including removal of debris. The Watershed Agency will continue to consult with DFW and provide mechanical assistance when possible, to improve habitat in the channel downstream of Winsor Dam- • DFW has stated that the ramping rates used to reach permit requirements, are too high. MWRA and the Watershed Agency will decrease to a rate of approximately 93-186 cfs per hour. • DFW has stated that releases in summer should only be cold water, not warm water spills from top of reservoir. MWRA and the Watershed Agency have stated that operation of the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs requires maintenance of water quality criteria for . drinking water. In maintaining these criteria it was necessary to allow Quabbin to fill in the spring resulting in some uncontrolled spills during the summer. The Watershed Agency will work with MWR.A to transfer water to Wachusett Reservoir, and so reduce the number of uncontrolled spills in the spring, as water quality concerns permit. This may be more possible once the Walnut Hill Treatment Plant is put on line. Discussions between DFW, the Watershed Agency, and MWRA are ongoing. Concerns with the June 2004 Staff Recommendation After the issuance of the June 10, 2004 Staff Recommendation on this proposal, the Town expressed concerns that the conditions recommended would not allow flexibility in the way they managed their water sources. In particular, Reading was concerned that the requirement under Criterion #2 which stated "Reading must limit use of its existing local sources to no. more than 1 mgd (total) during the months from May through October" would not allow the Town to address public health and safety concerns that could arise if the interbasin transfer limit of 219 mg had been purchased from the MWRA before the end of this time period. Reading's original proposal outlined in the DEIR was to limit use of its sources for the months of May through September, but was extended to October based on comments received through the DEIR process. Reading was confident that it could meet its demand under the original scenario, but was not sure that it could restrict use of its sources through October under this condition. Over the summer of 2004, discussions between WRC Staff and the Town took place. Reading requested a return to their original position of reducing use of its sources from May through September. The WRC agreed to this request because review of the data indicated no significant change to impacts on the donor June 9, 2005 Page 24 of 37 q Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to. the Approval Of the Town of Reading's'Interbasin Transfer Application basin compared with the May through October transfer from MWRA.. However, as stated earlier, the WRC and the Town subsequently learned from MEPA that this change would require a NPC, so Reading rescinded its request. Another condition in the June Staff Recommendation that caused Reading concern was the requirement to revise its drought/emergency plan to tie water use restrictions to streamflow levels in the Ipswich River under Criterion 43. As stated in the revised July 8, 2004 Staff Recommendation, this is a Performance Standard for Interbasin Transfer Act compliance. However, the Performance Standards allow for alternative methods to address the criteria of the Act. As discussed earlier in this document, Reading has since demonstrated that restriction of local sources to.l mgd from May through*Qctober and the current water use restrictions are as protective of streamflow resources. In addition, the conditions of this interbasin transfer approval include a linkage of outdoor watering with streamflows. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS At the June 23, 2004 public hearing on the June 10, 2004 Staff Recommendation, the Town of Reading requested an extension of the comment period to July 31, 2004. During this extended comment period, public comments were received from WSCAC and the Watershed Action Alliance. These comments reflect comments made earlier by others. The additional written public comments have been provided to the WRC in a separate document. Since the December meeting of the WRC, additional comments were received from the IRWA, the WAA and several citizens regarding the WRC's approval of Reading's application. As noted previously, these comments, and those provided by EOEA have led the WRC to reconsider of Reading's application under the Act. Copies of comments received have been distributed to the WRC and discussed at the January 2005 WRC meeting and via mailings. Since January, several additional comments have been received, and these will be distributed in an upcoming mailing from the WRC. EO 385 This Decision is consistent with Executive Order 385, which has the dual objective of resource protection and sustainable development. This Decision does not encourage growth in areas without adequate infrastructure nor does it cause 'a loss of environmental quality or resources. CONDITIONS OF THE WRC DECISION Based on the analyses and concerns expressed about this project, approval of Reading's application under the Interbasin Transfer Act for admission to the MWRA System is subject to the following conditions. Reading must commit in writing to abide by these conditions. 1. (a) Reading will manage its sources so that for the months of May through October, it will limit use of its Ipswich River Basin sources to 1 mgd and will purchase up. to 219 million gallons of water from the MWRA during that period. If the Town of Reading has purchased 219 million gallons from the MWRA prior to October 31, it will rely on withdrawals from its Ipswich River basin sources, as described below in conditions 1 b and 1 c. (b) As noted in the MEPA letter of March 31, 2005, "in the event that the Town of Reading s., should require the withdrawal of additional water supply from within the Ipswich River basin ~a June 9, 2005 Page 25 of 37 9 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification -and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application beyond the proposed 1 mgd during the May 1-October 31 low flow period as described in the FEIR to respond town unforeseen, isolated or emergency situation, the Town would not be required to notify the MEPA Office. Should the Town require additional water supply from within the Ipswich River Basin in amounts beyond the proposed I, mgd during the May 1-October 31 period to address its water supply needs to respond to more than an unforeseen, isolated or emergency situation, then the Town would be required to submit a Notice of Project Change (NPC) to the MEPA Office." (c) The WRC interprets "unforeseen, isolated or emergency situation' 'to mean either a "Short-term water supply emergency" or "Interim water supply emergency" as prescribed in the DEP Declaration of a State of Water Suvply Emergency (August 2000 Printing) Policy, SOP or Guideline #87-05 (See Note #1 below). (d) If, for any reason Reading amends its contract with the MWRA to increase the amount of water purchased, the Town will need to apply to the WRC for additional ITA review. 2. In order to ensure that the water purchased from the MWRA will last through October, and that restrictions on Reading's outdoor water use are linked to streamflow in the Ipswich River, the following conditions apply: (a) If the Town purchases water from the MWRA during the May 1-Oct6ber 31 period in volumes that equal or exceed those in Table 3, and if the streamflow as measured at the USGS South Middleton gage (#01101500) is at or below 18.7 cfs (0.42 cfsm) for any three consecutive days during the 30 day period following the Trigger Dates in Table 3, then the Town will implement the outdoor water use restrictions as noted in Table 4 below: These restrictions will remain in place until October 31st or until strearimflows are above the threshold for seven consecutive days or the Town's MWRA water use at the next trigger date is below the threshold volume. (b) By "three consecutive days", the WRC means the daily mean streamflow for any three consecutive days as reported at the USGS South Middleton streamflow gage. If this occurs, the threshold has been crossed and the Town will have 7 days to notify citizens and enforce the required restrictions, as noted in Table 4 below. If the Town's use of MWRA water does not equal or exceed the volumes on the Trigger Dates, the streamflow threshold will not apply and the Town will maintain its existing mandatory conservation measures (The Town's Stage 1 restrictions on outdoor water use are in effect at all times; see Note #2 below). c) Similarly, the "seven consecutive days" above the threshold means that when conservation measures in Table 4 have been implemented, and when the daily mean streamflow reading is above 18.7 cfs for any seven consecutive days, the Town may revert back to the previous mandatory conservation measures in Table 4 level or to the Town's stage 1 mandatory conservation restrictions or keep the extra measures in place, at its discretion. (d) The Town will implement each additional water conservation measure within 7 days of reaching the MWRA water use/streamflow level, and the Town may grant waivers. If the Town determines that some other restrictions will be at least as effective as those noted in each threshold above, the Town may petition the WRC for modification of these restrictions. June 9, 2005 Page 26 oj37 It- V B Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application Waivers are usually not given for landscaping, but for exceptional, short-term cases such as pressur6 washing houses prior to painting and some swimming pools that require filling after completion or repair. (e) Within ten business days of each Trigger Date, the Town will provide a written report of cumulative MWRA water consumption for the calendar year to the Water Resources Commission. In the same report, the Town also will report on the current conservation restrictions in place and any waivers granted. Table 3 Trisryer Dates and MWRA Water Use Thresholds Trigger Date MWRA water use. threshold June 1 44 million gallons or more July 1 97 million gallons or more August 1 ( 136 million gallons or more September 1 167 million gallons or more October 1 197 million gallons or more Table 4 Required Town Actions Based-on Streamflow and MWRA Water Use Levels Town actions if streamflow is below threshold for 3 consecutive days First Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by four hours per day from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 mandatory restrictions. Second Town will reduce hours of allowed outdoor water use by four hours per day from the existing Town of Reading Stage 1 mandatory restrictions and will require that only hand-held watering devices be used. Third Town will implement its Stage 2 water restrictions (a ban on all outdoor water use) (f) On or after the first trigger date at which MWRA water use volume is equaled or exceeded, if the streamflow is below the threshold for three consecutive days, the Town will implement the first level of additional conservation measures shown in Table 4. On the next trigger date at which MWRA water use volume is equaled or exceeded, and if an additional level of conservation is still in place, the next level of restrictions will be applied. 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, irrigation of public parks and recreational fields by means of automatic sprinklers equipped with moisture sensors or similar control technology may also be permitted outside of the hours 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Additionally, for the purpose of data collection for EPA's Targeted Watershed Grant Program, and at the discretion of the town, up to fifteen private automatic sprinkler systems equipped with water-saving, weather- responsive controller switches will be allowed to continue irrigation operations outside the June 9, 2005 Page 27 of 37 ~1 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., until the conclusion of the data collection period on March 31st, 2009. 4. It is expressly recognized that the streamflow threshold noted above reflects the levels proposed in the DEP Water Management Act water withdrawal permits issued to permittees in the Ipswich River basin in May 2003 and that these thresholds may be further modified in the future. If the thresholds set forth in the water withdrawal permits issued to permittees in the Ipswich River basin change, the Town or the WRC may request an amendment of the thresholds in this Interbasin Transfer Act document to be consistent with the thresholds in withdrawal permits applicable to other communities with sources in the Ipswich River basin. 5. After the new water treatment plant is on line in Reading, the Town will consult with the WRC relative to alternative purchase and withdrawal scenarios. 6. Reading must provide annual reports to WRC Staff detailing how much water was pumped from its own sources and how much water was purchased from the MWRA for the first five years after the town begins to receive MWRA water. After this period, Reading must furnish these reports to WRC Staff if requested. 7. Reading must work with DEP to condition its registration statement to address the three registration issues presented in the Secretary's Certificate on the FEIR dated October 31, 2003. (Note that this was done via a letter from the Town to the DEP of November 28, 2004.) 8. Reading must continue effective demand management programs that meet the Interbasin Transfer Performance Standards for Criterion #3, Water Conservation. 9. Reading must provide the DEP Annual Statistical Reports to the WRC for the first five years after the town begins to receive MWRA water to determine if the programs in place are successful in keeping unaccounted-for water at or below 10% and residential gallons.per capita per day (gpcd) at 65 or less. 10. If the amount of unaccounted-for water increases to greater than 10%, Reading must either provide an explanation of why this has occurred (e.g. water main break, large fire, etc:) or provide a plan, for WRC approval, to reduce unaccounted-for water to acceptable levels. 11. If residential gpcd increases. above 65, the Town must implement a comprehensive. residential conservation program that seeks to reduce residential water use through a retrofit, rebate or other similarly effective program for encouraging installation of household water saving devices, such as faucet aerators, showerheads and toilets and through efforts to reduce excessive outdoor water use. If this occurs, the Town must provide a plan for this program to the WRC for approval. 12. Reading must notify the WRC when the High School and Barrows Elementary School renovations have been completed, with documentation of the retrofit devices installed. Reading must provide annual reports detailing the water conservation actions taken as part of the four-year, $1 million program. This should include an accounting of the money spent and the successes of the program. June 9, 2005 Page 28 of 37 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application NOTE #1 From: DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WATER SUPPLY EMERGENCY (YEAR 2000 PRINTING) Policy; SOP or Guideline #87-05; effective Date: 2-13-97 httt)://www.mass.Rov/deD/bro/dws/files/L-uides/8705.doe "Water supply emergency" means one of the following situations. "Short-term water supply emergency" means the problem has been identified and can be remedied quickly and is not expected to recur. (Short-term water supply emergencies do not include water supply emergencies that occur repeatedly for the same reason. That type of water supply emergency indicates a more serious, longer-term problem and will be classified as an interim or a long-term water supply emergency). "Interim water supply emergency" means that additional sources have been identified or are in the process of being developed or that water sources which had been previously closed will be brought back on line. NOTE #2 Section 4.9 Town of ReadinLy Water Conservation Proeram Stage 1 Stage 1 provides for mandatorv water conservation, subject to penalties in accordance with law for violation of these restrictions. Water may be used for outdoor purposes only from 4:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through Sunday, and only in accordance with the following schedule: • Even numbered addresses: Outdoor use is permitted on even-numbered days of the month'only during the hours specified above. • Odd-numbered addresses: Outdoor use is permitted on odd-numbered days of the month only during the hours specified above. There is no restriction on hand held devices. In addition, the following regulation on filling swimming pools is mandatory: Swimming pools shall be filled in accordance with the above schedule only, unless a waiver is granted by the Town manager. Stage 2 Stage 2 is provided for the eventuality that only enough water is available for essential public health and safety purposes. In this event, no outdoor water use of anv tvpe is Dermitted. Water use is restricted to domestic. home use only for purposes including normal bathing, laundry, and sanitary uses. Violation of these regulations is punishable by a $300.00 fine. Adopted 4-25-89, 11104, Revised 1-4-05 June 9, 2005 Page 29 of 37 4~` roval eSau .Ces Cottcmiss. 1 to the App Decis ts Water R ion Relating MassachuSe ransfer ApFl1Catian _ endings, 3ustificatio rite basinT Report °of he Tavn of Readings I • ATTACI'IMENT ~ ADMISSION ApP! JCATIR1:0P, S SYSTEM . 'Tf DINGlS RTo THE MwR As I~ TRANSFER AppLICAT14N sed 8 IN EVA1-UAT1N~ ANA complied with for the pCO~° CRITERIA FOR been c and 62K inclusive has be or this project was issued nt to MGL, c• 30, a , ificate on the Final EIR € ursua s Cert ental review pursuant of the F-IR, The Secretary 0N #j An environrn . CR was part area. ITERI ' a lication the receiving 181 The lnterbasin Transfer pp all viable sources in evelop alternatives consi o he u Th 2003 on October 3 ade to ldentify and d ater supply e included as pa Must not os been to discuss thew should b efl have a proponent ation ulations, a local source 2; All reasonable directs stated. This inform in the reg source as stated water supply , should be clearly addition, DEP has stated that CRITERION it. fora alternativeride s Critertorn #7' lRC pedormance of these requited rwere low yielding The In Reason for the rele sources includ ct1°ement plan we merit Of-these w I including: w rejected. Manag These p evelop ater Resource Sironmental damage' own Forest area. use ated that d contamination. ow yield, DEp has st I W en' several potential local Tater supp e l tial f coca cceptable aced seve ells in the of th sources. C4, aria. has inves )r bedrock w ecause because ding develop ent of s is not viable b, ation of abandoned existing sour source was ~j ected o ' Rea The developm source and reactiv Ipswich MRiver a This so geologic merit r, of these existing pacts to the eadow area. nature ohave f the been found o The expansion because of imwells in the Bare cost. stic River. Due to source water supply of viable merit of bedrock Coastal and My public difficulties a the Noah no suitable p ubl sources .is bie develop permitting in ental impacts, otential sources meet density Q The POs m tigated p develop is not viable. environ has inves , o Reading ential contamination and Reading material, pot meet of local sources within there, that develop 0 Dip concurs page 31 of V o_ 2005 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application It should be noted that any local source developed by Reading would result in an Interbasin Transfer of wastewater, as Reading is sewered to the MWRA. DEP has determined that continued pumping of the Reading wells at existing levels is not a viable option due to impacts on streamflows. CRITERION #3: All practical measures to conserve water have been taken in the receiving area... For a water supply transfer, the WRC performance standards require: 1) A full leak detection survey should have been completed within the previous two years of the application. The proponent should provide documentation regarding repair of leaks identified during the survey. Leak detection surveys should be carried out in accordance with the MWRA's leak detection regulations (360 CMR 12.00). • Reading conducts an annual leak detection survey. The last survey was completed in June 2003. • Surveys are included in the full cost pricing system. • Documentation of the leaks identified and repaired has been provided. • The surveys are conducted using methods at least as comprehensive as the MWRA's regulations for leak detection. 2) The water supply system should be 100% metered, including public facilities served by the proponent. A program of meter repair and/or replacement must be in place. Documentation of annual calibration of master meters and a description of the calibration program should be included- in the application. • The system is 100% metered, including public buildings, • Reading has a regular maintenance, calibration, testing and repair program; documentation of the program was included in the application. • Reading will begin a phased meter replacement program in 2005. • Documentation of annual master meter calibration was provided. • Reading has problems with iron and manganese that cause faulty readings at the production meters. The Town is piloting a new cleaning technique and the use of a magnetic meter to begin to address this issue. 3) Unaccounted-for water should be 10% or less. The proponent. should provide documentation of unaccounted-for water, in both gallons and percentage of the total water pumped and withdrawn, for each of the past five years. The definition of accounted-for and unaccounted-for water for use in Interbasin Transfer applications is given in Appendix C of the Performance Standards. The plan by V~ , 24115 Page 32 of 37 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application which the community intends to maintain or reduce this level should be included in the water resources management plan required under Criterion #7. • Unaccounted-for water averaged 10% over the 5 years prior to this application: 15 % in 1998; 11% in 9999 and 2000; in 2001 it dropped to 4% and in 2002 it was 6%. • DEP reports that in 2003, Reading's unaccounted-for water was 8.96%. 4) The proponent should. provide documentation to show that there are sufficient sources of funding to maintain the system, including covering the costs of operation, proper maintenance, proposed capital improvements, and water conservation. The rate structure must encourage water conservation. • Reading's water rates are high, $3.66 per 100 cubic feet. The rate is flat, but the high cost encourages conservation. • Reading has an enterprise account. • The rate structure is evaluated annually. It was last changed in August 2001. • Documentation of full cost pricing was provided. 5) The proponent should bill its customers at least quarterly based on actual meter readings. Bills should be easily understandable to the customer (e.g. providing water use in gallons and including comparison of the previous year's use for same period). • Reading bills its customers quarterly, based on actual meter readings. • Reading is considering monthly billing. • Second meters are charged for the. full price of water. • Bills are easily understandable to the customer and include a comparison of the previous year's use for same period. 6) A drought/emergency contingency plan, as described in 313 CMR 4.02, should be in place. This plan should include seasonal use guidelines and measures for voluntary and mandatory water use restrictions and describe how these will be implemented. There should.be a mechanism in place to tie water use restrictions to streamflow and/or surface water levels in the affected basin(s) where this information is available. The plan should be part of the Local Water Resources Management Plan required under Criterion #7. • Reading has a written drought/emergency plan. • Reading has a water conservation by-law tied to water supply indicators. • Reading's by-law outlines a set of increasingly stringent water use restrictions and gives the Town the ability to implement mandatory water use restrictions. Reading has shown that these restrictions, combined with restriction of its local sources to 1 mgd from May through October provide an equivalent level of environmental protection as restrictions based on streamflow levels. • Additional outdoor water use restrictions are appropriate during drought years, as specified in the conditions. ew June Z.$65 1 Page 33 of 37 ommissiore roval ts Water resources Relating to the APP Massachuset K litation Report on the, Findidings, s Justification and d Deets' s D . A1?P ater Saving deVICeS Rep n Reading's Interbasin Transfer Of the-TOW retrofit with w of the Proponent should have been other public far completed by June 30, s under the cO taf the ePPiicatian0. ovations 4, R d by September tic building time 0 en are scheduled to rded in May ected. to be vided T All governorent and buildings had been retrofit at the as awe ovation Not ation is expected } all public with the ren. of the retrofit was Pro p • for the high school rn conjunction. renovation. This renov enta€ion The contract t completed oing 2004• Docum Retrofit will be chool is also underg September 30, 2007. s Elementary completed by occurred within as The Barrow s w dit th he most recent au should have 2005. the remaining public pudding The retrofit of 2004. on October 25, ublic facilities. ucted ter audits co ad prbval on p is have been provided. comprehensive rovide records of Wa Transfer p Results a e ril 2001, implementing Orients should p ffective program the proponent should be imp is and through efforts 'Prop o the application for es was sconducted in April 8} ears prior t ublic facile#jter than 65, h a retrofit, rebate or and toleilarly ° y A water audit on p italday is Brea showerhea ,lions per c,p faucet aerators, teal g educe residential way tngse thro eks to r devices, ►nc 1999. community's residential ram that sewa g} if the ter saving 54 in 2000 to 62 in og old residential conservation p )I ho use. The range was from h such means as ncourag►ng installation watere 998 to 2002. throng lace. fore raged 59 from 1 cd was54, per year, should be in p to reduce excessive outdoor averag two times p 's residential gP user at least tw of other media, „ the . Residential gp t in 2003, Reading every or the use assschusetts and rfs the attempts to reach onwealth of M ram, which ents or programs, Comm ric DEP repo 0} Standards for the d public educat~ori ,s~cable television C Consi . em ation on measures. 1 A broad-base P a er article G, s l w2 W ate ublic educat' billboards, neWsl P ed p mailings, commend tiers should refers Assoc lion for re e/daY• Water suPP ater Work s once per year , onsored one Massachusetts Ws mailing cable TV are sp Reading provide ents on ublic service announcemonsbred at least annualipublic librarY- • P per articles are sp is available at the public punt. m • Newspap ation information tours of water treat • Water conserv during . Handouts are distributed page 34 of 37 Ju 2.S$ Massachusetts Water ResourcesCom mission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval Of the Town of Reading's Inferliasin Transfer Application ~ 1) A program which identifies and ranks all commercial, industrial and institutional customers according to amount of use; and requires regular contact with the largest users to promote water conservation, should be in place. The water supplier should make regular contact with these users to promote water conservation. Materials on water reuse and recirculation techniques should provided' • The Town has provided a list of the top ten water users. There is nos pecific outreach program, as most of these be are residential complexes. Outreach is conducted in conjunction with Reading's normal water conservation programs. 12) A program of land use controls to protect existing water su l sou Department of Environmental Protection. pp Y sources of the receiving area that meet the re u' • Reading's program ofland use controls to protect existing water su l q ~rements of the Environmental Protection. pp y sources meets the requirements of the Department Reading has an aquifer protection by-law. of 13) As part of the local water resources management plan, there should be a long-term water conservation program, which complies 13) the a1992 rt o Water Conservation Standards € the Commonwealth of Massachu with maintaining-unaccounted-for at 10% or less of all water used; and of reducin place, This plan should reflect the goal re operating the system v balance water supply with other g future residential , sidential water use through a comprehensive residential water conservation program, if residential gpcd is greater than 65. The water conservation program should also have a goal e submit a copy of its Public Water Supply Annual Statistical Report required er environmental needs. If the transfer is approved, the proponent Will need continued effectiveness of the program, by DEP) to the Commission annually to de to • Reading has along-term water conservation program, which complies with the 9992 Water Conservation' y demonstrate the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Reading's residential Standards for the 14) In 2002, the WRC amended the 1992 Water gpcd is under 65. . for Lawn and Landscape Water Conservation: Conservation Standards for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to include standards Communities and public and private water suppliers should develop drought in management plans that identify water supply and environmental indicators to serve as drought stage triggers and that outline a set of increasingly stringent water use restrictions that are designed to protect public health and the environment and that can b ' • Reading has a water conservation by-law tied to water supp/ e implemented through bylaw, ordinance or regulation. restrictions. y indicators which outline a set of increasingly stringent w ater use fur99,, 2005 X. Page 35 of 37 Report on the Massachcrsetts Water Findin Resources commission Of the Tatty gs' Justification and Decision communities an n ofReading~s Interbasin Relating to the Approval and Provides the communit private. water su tied to environmental and or water su PPl1eC pPliers should im water sup with the ability to ?cement a wafter use restriction b by-law PIy Indic ' atars as outlined in a law that n meat mandatory water use restrictons.ordinance or gives the Town the abilit drought mono regulation that Reading has a Y to imp le gement plan. These restrictions should be CRITERION meet mandatory Water use restrictonsi #4 t watershed lands . AI/of A comprehensive forest Presently servin h' management Reading's public g the receiving area and program which balances wat ater supply sources are control of the water Yields ground waf Proponent has 'wildlife habitat, and natural beauty on CR CRITERION er sources. been implemented. • Reasonable instrea #5; Therefore this criterion /s not applicable to thi pr An instrearn f/ow m flow an the river from to this always met requirement for the Swift River below the project. maintained, ' A seasonal 70 to /0 cfs flow re%ase the water is transferred is • A release of 92 Mg uabbin Reservoir from Quabbin ' as measured at Bondsvil/e flow is ngd Analyses of the increas Anr week from the Reservoir of 30 cfs Wachusett Re ,based on levels in the (20 r Impacts on the f, demand due to the servoir o Connecticut Rive • The anal quenc proposed on the South Branch of the YSes of release Y °r duration of drou Readin r rs alwa the proposed Rea data indicate there ght levels. 9 transfer show that the /4w ashua River is requ react, ding transfer, will be no significant Chan RA system. w Current resources will be unaffected Dula have minimal in the operation of the mal by the transfer, Quabbin Reservoir in re CR TEFt1ON #s; The results of the Pump resources and adjacent wells. test have been used to indicate the potential impacts of this pro Spouse to • a bl e ~ the donor sources are su Not ppl ica l on other e Project water sources, CRITERION #7; Cora nvironmenta! ' A Draft Local munities have . ' The Plan Water adapted or are active) addresses to Mana actively engaged in developing Resources Manacrer identified in the Plan was ubmitted a local water res nent Plan Outline. pplication 7999 Interbasln Tra 11th the a . ourceS management June as nsfergctPerformance Standards, plan. Apendix B Local Water -page 3e of37 Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Report on the Findings, Justification and Decision Relating to the Approval . Of the Town of Reading's Interbasin Transfer Application CRITERION #8: The Commission shall consider the impacts of all past, authorized or proposed transfers in the donor basin. • Although the Reading request would not adversely impact existing conditions downstream of the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs, current conditions represent an impacted environment. • Issues surrounding the amount of flow released, timing of releases, timing of spills (which are indirectly determined by system operation) and maintaining steady flow could become significant if demand increases. DFW, DCR Division of Water Supply Protection (`the Watershed Agency", as defined by MGL Chapter 92A 912) and MWRA have been discussing these issues. EO 385 • This Decision is consistent with Executive Order 385, which has the dual objective of resource protection and sustainable development. This Decision does not encourage growth in areas without adequate infrastructure nor do they cause a loss of environmental quality or resources. June 9, 2005 • Page 37 of 37 Page 1 of 3 ( c S Hechenbleikner, Peter To: tunacat@comcast.net Subject: RE: Addison Wesley development meetings Thanks for the information - there is no way to combat misinformation other than through accurate information, which we will continue to do. Pete -----Original Message----- From: tunacat@comcast.net [mailto:tunacat@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:15 AM To: Reading - Selectmen Subject: Addison Wesley development meetings Dear Board of Selectmen, I don't know if you are aware of this information, but I thought you might be interested in seeing this string of e-mails concerning the Addison Wesley development that is circulating amongst (mostly) Joshua Eaton parents, containing much misinformation about the project that is being spread by Brian Sciera of S.R. Weiner. According to the e-mails, Sciera held an "information session" on June 9 at Aroma Cafe with certain local residents to "address concerns that were not covered in town meeting." According to him, the project will actually IMPROVE traffic flow! People are being asked to spread the good news. Is there a way to combat such inaccurate information from being spread around by the developers? Shouldn't these issues be addressed in a more public forum, or is this tactic common from developers? Sincerely, Angela Binda 10 Orchard Park Drive Original Message Subject:Fw: South street development Date:Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:26:04 +0000 From: CJBNJBOcomcast.net To : tunacatr&..comcast.net FYI Forwarded Message: From: "Meghan Dynan" <madvnanl7a.comcast.net> To: "Janine Balboni" <cibniba.comcast.net>. "Susan DiMambro" <sue2ravncomcast.net>, "Beth Mello" <bbmello cr.comcast.net>, "Carolyn Missert" <cmissert@.comcast.net>. "Cindy Barbera" <cindvbarberancomcast.net>, "Diane Cohen (CHA)" <dcohen cni_ .chelseaha.com>, "Dynan, Paul (US SSA)" <paul.dvnannbaesvstems.com>, "Joan and Dan Cotter" <bcotter49acomcast.net>, "John b 6/15/2005 Page 2 of 3 and Jen Bogosian" <creativestaffinsna..comcast.net>. "Kara Miele" <Karamielea,aol.com>. "Lenox Family" <ilenox41 a.comcast.net>, "Lisa Blume" <lisa.blo6mna.verizon.net>. "Lisa D'Alessio" <dalessio23@,comcast.net>. "Liz Ward" <ewarda.ix.netcom.com>. "Mary Kate Fischer" <rmfischer@att.net>, "Nathan Plano" <mlc.blanoa.verizon.net>, "Nicole Hardy" <nhardv88@..comcast.net>, "Sheila Tully" <sctttula.comcast.net> Subject:~Fw: South street development Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 02:25:21 +0000 Just an FYI.... many of you are so much more on top of this than me so I hope I am not boring you with news you already know. Original Message From: Dana Spinuzzi To: kremondi(a)comcast.net; 'Meahan Dvnan' Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:34 PM Subject: FW: South street development Hi, Thought you might be interested in reading this. Pass it along. Julie From: Elizabeth Krugman rmailto:ekruaman@comcast.netl Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 12:49 PM To: Elizabeth Krugman; Susan Bowe; Leslie Haley; Andrea Caggiano; Ann McGoldrick; Ann Webster; Anne Jack; Bente Starble; Beth Ferraro; Betsy Ziegler; Camille McCormick; Carolyn Missert; Catherine Martin; Emily Marvin; Hayley Barrett, Julie Spinuzzi; Kathy D'Angelo; Katrin Wynns; Laura McGovern; Lori Conway; Maria Higgins; Michelle Anderson; michelle healy; Michelle Hopkinson; Sharon Petersen; Sonnia Maria O'Connor; Susan Schwartz; Suzanne Wilson; Tina Erwin; Tina Torman Subject: Re: South street development Hey everyone. I attended the meeting yesterday with Brian Sciera who is the representative from the company S.R. Weiner, the developer which is proposing this upscale shopping area at Addison Wesley. 1 have listed some of the key points he brought up. In addition to the Whole Foods market, he is talking about stores such as Ann Taylor, Banana Republic, Talbots, Williams Sonoma, etc. and restaurants like PF Changs, Capital Grille and McCormick and Schmicks. The next town wide meeting concerning this will be at Parker Middle School on Monday June 13th at 8:00pm. Please consider going. They are going to develop this land no matter what and this looks like one of the better options. We could end up with something like what is going up at Spence Farms!M! They are calling this project Park Square at Reading and they believe it will: 1) Will increase and diversify the tax base for the town of Reading providing financial resources/support for the town, its schools and its residents. 2) Create a POSITIVE HALO EFFECT in home values and the MAIN STREET BUSINESS CORRIDOR...."quality begets quality"(which will have a long range positive impact on the tax base beyond Park Square's direct impact). 3) Is a project that FITS IN to the neighborhood and the town great architecture(new england/residential based), great landscaping, great "pedestrian experience" and great merchants and sit-down restaurants all in an upscale village-park-type setting (hence ...the name, "PARK SQUARE at READING"). 4) Will be a source of civic pride a "PLACE" that the community can be proud of, a unique, upscale gathering place. 6/15/2005 Page 3 of 3 5) Will be home to WHOLE FOODS MARKET-- the premiere Organic/Gourmet Grocer in the Boston and the country. 6) Is being developed by a Boston based developer. We are not going anywhereM 7) Is committed to being a good neighbor, both from a design and and operations point of view. We are also very committed to being a valued participant in the community, in many ways. Park Square will have a General Manager on site who's job responsibilites will include these very commitments. 8) Is committed to seriously studying the town's request to add mixed use to the project. 9) Will IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW and safety for automobiles and pedestrians going to the project...... 80% of PARK SQAURE'S traffic will come from 128/95. 10) Will be a beautiful, upscale shopping and dining environment focused on the PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE for the CONVENIANCE of the residents of Reading, PROVIDING AN AMENITY FOR THE TOWN THAT WILL BE UNMATCHED IN THE REGOIN. Thanks, if anyone would like to be included on Brian's email list, please let me know. Liz Original Message From: Elizabeth Kruaman To: Susan Bowe ; Leslie Halev ; Andrea Caaaiano ; Ann McGoldrick ; Ann Webster ; Anne Jack ; Bente Starble ; Beth Ferraro ; Betsv Ziealer ; Camille McCormick ; Carolvn Missert ; Catherine Martin ; Emilv Marvin ; Havlev Barrett ; Julie Soinuzzi ; Kathv D'Anaelo ; Katrin Wvnns ; Laura McGovern ; Lori Conwav ; Maria Hiaains ; Michelle Anderson ; michelle healv ; Michelle Hopkinson ; Sharon Petersen ; Sonnia Maria O'Connor ; Susan Schwartz ; Suzanne Wilson ; Tina Erwin ; Tina Torman Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 2:59 PM Subject: South street development I know some people are very concerned about the proposed mall development in the old Addison Wesley space. The developers will be holding an informal question and answer forum tomorrow, June 9th at Aroma Cafe, downtown. They may be able to address some concerns that were not covered in town meeting. Please pass this info along to anyone else who would be interested. Thanks Liz c6a3 6/15/2005 Page 1 of 7 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Michael Smith [sueandmikes@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 5:18 PM To: bruen-n-bruen; cnj4@aol.com; canthony@ftmc.net; Bob. Frey@state.ma.us; jcorey@ci.woburn.ma.us; rick.marquis@fhwa.dot.gov; Schubert, Rick; canthony@cdmtitle.com; jebarnes@mit.edu; rep. paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us; jcurran@ci.woburn.ma.us; rnrchambercom@aol.com; Ian. Durrant@state.ma.us; rep. mi kefesta@hou.state. ma. us; jgallagher@mapc.org; mgallerani@ci.stoneham.ma.us; rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; ehamblin@aol.com; rhavern@senate.state.ma.us; rep.bradleyjones@hou.state.ma.us; g- r@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast.net; akinsman@aaasne.com; cleiner@massport.com; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; paulderman@prodigy.net; andy.mofter@fta.dot.gov; rep.patricknatale@hou.state.ma.us; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; psodano@stonesav.com; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; dansullivan@assetleasing.com; etarallo@ci.woburn.ma.us; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us; billwhome@juno.com; swoelfel@mbta.com Cc: jblaustein @mapc.org; mary.burggraff@hou.state.ma.us; melissa.callan@hou.state. ma.us; tricia@lynchassociates.net; dcooke@vhb.com; cdame@rcn.com; ddizoglio@mbta.com; mdraisen@mapc.org; Margaret. Dwyer@state. ma. us; Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us; rflorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us; Joshua.Grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; Town Manager; blucas@mapc.org; elutz@hshassoc.com; Lauren.Mauriello@state.ma.us; amckinnon@hshassoc.com; John.Mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; Kenneth. Mille r@state.ma.us; carmen. o'rourke@hou.state. ma.us; jpurdy@louisberger.com; Reilly, Chris; wschwartz@neighborhoodamerica.com; kstein@hshassoc.com; Tafoya, Ben; frederick.vanmagness@hou.state.ma.us; mossywood@juno.com Subject: Re: FEASIBILITY STUDY CONTINUATION? Darlene I couldn't agree with you more. It seems as though Jeff is being treated more as a hinderance than a help, when he is clearly an asset to the task force and residents in total. Maybe it is time to address his issues as it appears relatively clear that we can not consciously proceed otherwise. Why continue to PUSH forward and table such important matters for a later date. From a residents point of view full investigation up front is a must and we are not even remotely there yet. Couldn't have said it better. Sue Smith Stoneham Resident Original Message From: bruen-n-bruen To: cni4 ..aol.com ; canthonva-ftmc.net ; Bob.FrevO-state.ma.us ; icorev(a-),ci.woburn.ma.us ; rick. marauis(c)..fhwa.dot. aov ; rick schubertn-harvard.edu ; canthonvC7a.cdmtitle.com ; iebarnese.mit.edu ; ; reo.oaulcasevO-hou.state.ma.us ; icurran(cDci.woburn.ma.us ; rnrchambercom(@.aol.com Ian. Durrant(Nstate.ma.us ; reo.mikefestaO.hou.state. ma.us ; jaallaaher anmar)c.orq ; maallerani a(~.ci.stoneham.ma.us ; rarover(@ci.stoneham.ma.us ; ehamblin(Caol.com ; rhavern(o)senate.state.ma.us ; reo.brad levionesO-hou.state.ma.us ; a-r(cr~.comcast.net ; anthonvkennedv(o).comcast.net; akinsman(o)aaasne.com ; cleiner(crmassr)ort.com ; woburnbusiness(aearthlink.net ; Daulderman(awrodiav.net; andv.motter aefta.dot.aov ; rep. patricknatale(afhou.state. ma.us ; maureenO.northsuburbanchamber.com. ; sueandmikes(ftomcast.net; osodano(a).stonesav.com ; rstinson ..wakefreld.ma.us ; dahsullivanOassetleasina.com ; etarallo(aD.ci.woburn.ma.us ; rtisei aC ..senate. state. ma. us; billwhomeOiuno.com ; swoelfelOnbta.com Cc: iblaustein cr.maoc.ora ; marv.buraaraffO..hou.state.ma.us ; melissa.callan (o)hou.state.ma.us ; triciae..lvnchassociates.net; dcooke ..vhb.com ; cdameO..rcn.com ; ddizoalioO.mbta.com ; mdraisen(@maoc.ora. ; Maroaret.Dwver ..state.ma.us ; Adriel.Edwards5.state.ma.us ; 6/13/2005 Page 2 of 7 rflorinoO.ci.stoneham.ma.us ; Joshua. Grzeao rzewski ..fhwa.dot. aov ; town manaaerCa)ci.readina.ma.us ; blucasO.maoc.ora. ; elutza-hshassoc.com ; Lauren. MaurielloD-state. ma.us ; amckinnon(@hshassoc.com ; John. Mcvann(a.fhwa.dot.aov ; Kenneth.Miller(o)state.ma.us ; carmen. o'rourkee.hou. state. ma. us ir)urdvCa2louisberger.com ; creilly( .ci.readina.ma.us ; wschwartzO.neiahborhoodamerica.com ; kstein(dhshassoc.com ; btafova(ftomcast. net; frederick.vanmaanesse.hou.state. ma.us ; mossvwoode.iuno.com Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 7:54 PM Subject: RE: FEASIBILITY STUDY CONTINUATION? Dear Bob and Fellow Task Force Members: Although Jeffs presentation is a bit "harsh", his points have always been valid. Wouldn't it be in all of our best interest to finally address them head on? The discussions about the data have gone on and on, but in Jeffs defense, they have yet to be adequately addressed. During our last meeting, the data presented suggests to me that the problem, although not defined as yet, is too many cars on a highway that wasn't designed for so many cars. I believe the information presented during the last meeting suggests that the interchange is actually doing an ok job considering how many cars actually pass through it. When Ed Tarrollo mentioned at least twice that it appears the problem is with the "main line" and not the interchange, MHD still pushed us to discuss alternatives for the interchange. I understand the need and desire to want to move forward, but any alternatives suggested have to be backed by the data and provide a reasonable expectation by taxpayers that whatever work may be performed, will make a difference. Sincerely, Darlene Bruen -----Original Message----- From: cni4(cDaol.com [mailto:cnj4@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:10 AM To: canthonv(a)ftmc.net; bruen-n-bruen(&comcast.net; Bob. Frev(&state.ma.us; icorev(&ci.woburn.ma.us; rick.marouis(abfhwa.dot.aov; rick schubert(a harvard.edu; canthonv(abcdmtitle.com; iebarnes@mit.edu; reD.Daulcasev@hou.state.ma.us; icurran@ci.woburn.ma.us; rnrchambercom@aol.com; Ian. Durrant(&state.ma.us; reD.mikefesta(?hou.state.ma.us; ,jaallaaher(dmaDC.ora_; maallerani(abci.stoneham.ma.us; rarover(&ci.stoneham.ma.us; ehamblin(abaol.com; rhavern(a)senate.state.ma.us; reD. brad leviones(& hou.state.ma. us; a-r(@comcast.net; anthonvkennedv(&comcast.net; akinsman@)aaasne.com; cleiner@0massp0rt.c0m; woburnbusiness(abearthlink.net; Daulderman(a)Drodigv.net; andv.motter@fta.dot.gov; reD.Datricknatale@hou.state.ma.us; maureen(&northsuburbanchamber.com; sueandmikes@)comcast.net; Dsodano@stonesav.com; rstinson a)wakefield.ma.us; dansullivan(@assetleasina.com; etarallo@ci.woburn.ma.us; rtisei@)senate.state.ma.us; billwhome(&iuno.com; swoelfeKbrnbta.com Cc: iblaustein(a)maoc.ora; mare.buraaraff(abhou.state.ma.us; melissa.callan(&hou.state.ma.us; triciaCa lvnchassociates.net; dcooke(Dvhb.com; cdame@rcn.com; ddizoalio(@mbta.com; mdraisen@maac.orq; Maraaret.Dwver(&state.ma.us; Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us; rflorino(&ci.stoneham.ma.us; Joshua. Grzeaorzewski(5)fhwa.dot.aov; townmanaaer(&ci.readina.ma.us; blucas(aj)maoc.ora; elutz(cbhshassoc.com; Lauren.Mauriello(a)state.ma.us; amckinnon@hshassoc.com; John.Mcvann(@fhwa.dot.aov; Kenneth.Miller(abstate.ma.us; carmen.o'rourke@hou.state.ma.us; jDurdv(&Iouisberaer.com; creillv(&ci.readino.ma.us; wschwartzaneiahborhoodamerica.com; kstein(&hshassoc.com; btafova(@comcast.net; frederick.vanmaaness(&hou.state.ma.us; r% ')-,o mossvwood(abiu no.com Subject: FEASIBILITY STUDY CONTINUATION? 6/13/2005 Page 3 of 7 Bob, Thank you for your written response. However, you avoided the following issues. References related to these issues can be found on www.PRESERVE.ws. 1. US Inspector General: During January 2005, 1 petitioned the US Inspector General to determine whether Mass Highway Department (MHD) committed fraud by using accident data known by the MHD to be worthless. You did not address this topic in your written response. Why? Are you asking the Task Force to bury its head in the sand on this issue while brain storming solutions? 2. Transportation Research Board (TRB): The TRB claims that Massachusetts accident data is not suitable for use at the state and local level. This organization did not state that such data could be restored, that it was OK to use it anyway (e.g., to determine crash rates) or that you can push on with those solutions. 3. Accident Data Restoration Claims: You claim to be able to restore missing information from police accident reports, including crash location data. You offer no proof to substantiate your claims or that you have actually used this process. Instances when this restoration process should have been used include the following cases: 193/95 Feasibilitv Studies: During the summer of 2002, Neil Boudreau of Mass Highway sent me the 1997-1999 accident data set used during the first feasibility study. Attached are the cautionary comments that accompanied this accident data set. Clearly, no restoration process was applied to this data. In other words, the MHD threatened my home, neighborhood and community with eminent domain based on worthless accident data during the first feasibility study. Your Commissioner owes this community a public apology. You continue to use this accident data set from 1997-1999. And you wonder why I am on your case? Other Transportation Plannina Studies: Attached is a file listing 8 other transportation planning studies that used Massachusetts accident data collected from 1994 to 2001. These studies were done after the state-wide accident data audit during the first quarter of 2001. Did you subject this accident data to your restoration process? Officials from Amesbury, Avon, Berkshire County, etc. might want to know. 4. Accident Data Audit: That audit was undertaken during the first quarter of 2001 with participation from Mass Highway, The Governor?s Highway Safety Bureau and the State Police. The audit results were publicly presented by William Bent (Mass Highway) and Robin Riessman (Governor?s Highway Safety Bureau) later in 2001 at a conference. In other words, the state and US transportation safety community knew about this worthless accident data problem, but not the 193/95 Task Force?until I made it known. I can?t image that the Task Force appreciates being treated like a mushroom. 5. Accident Data Fundamentals: There are two primary considerations involving accident data on a highway segment. This first is the number of accidents per year (i.e., the severity of the problem). The second is where they occurred in relation to highway features that may be causal factors. The number of accidents can vary considerably between years. You can either accumulate several years of accident data to estimate the mean number of accidents per year or, equivalently, you could use just a few years of accident data in combination with accident data from similar highway segments. You cannot know the severity of the accident problem based on merely one year of accident data. Plotting locations of accidents within the interchange is helpful, but not sufficient to address the accident problem. Do not complain that you have only one year of accident data. That is your problem, not ours. I told you months ago that you don?t have your ducks lined up to do this study properly. 6. What Is the Problem? (Written for Camille Anthony, Bill Webster): Accidents The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is developing software, called Safety Analyst, to analyze highway locations and their attendant accidents. In particular, this program ?Will have the capability not only to identify accident patterns at specific locations and determine whether those accident types are 6/13/2005 Page 4 of 7 overrepresented, but also to determine the frequency and percentage of particular accident types system wide or for specified portions of the system (particular highway segment or intersection types). This capability can be used to investigate the need for system wide engineering improvements?? Further information can be found on htto://www.safetvanalvst.ora/index.htm Safety Analyst has been under development for a few years. It will be available in 2006. It has the potential to provide nearly everything that Mass Highway has omitted in this feasibility study. Mass Highway has only recently become a supporting organization. Why were we not told about this development? Are we merely ?killing time? now with useless brain storming while waiting for Mass Highway to roll out Safety Analyst? Conaestion It would be enormously helpful to know whether, for example, the main lines of the 193/95 interchange have more, about the same or less congestion that connecting roadways. This can be determined by counting vehicles over a sufficiently long period within the guidelines of statistical significance testing. Us similar to determining whether drug A is better than drug B. There is nothing in the current Statement of Work by the Louis Berger Group (LBG) that addresses this issue. This problem cannot be solved alone with maps, tracing paper and magic markers (i.e., wonderful outreach public relations, but of no engineering value). 7. To the Task Force: I have made every effort to supply references to all my writing. You are free to check on the veracity of my work. Call engineers at the FHWA. It?s OK with me. The Task Force has been in force for nearly three years. So far, there is no clear definition on the problem (see comments by Anthony, Webster), insufficient accident data, accident data under legal review, insufficient congestion data, no accident analysis tools and a price tag of at least $1M (two feasibility studies combined with MHD staff time). I cannot and will not lend my professional reputation to any solution stemming from this study for reasons cited above. The rush to solutions versus due consideration of safety is appalling. Are you tired of this endless wheel spinning? Let us have a vote. Us time for Mass Highway to give it up. Regards, Jeff Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force 21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); eni40aol.com June 6, 2005 Original Message 6/13/2005 Page 5 of 7 From: Camille Anthony <canthony@ftmc.net> To: 'bruen-n-bruen' <bruen-n-bruen@comcast.net>; 'Frey, Bob (MHD)' <Bob.Frey@state.ma.us>; 'Corey, John' <jcorey@ci.woburn.ma.us>; 'Marquis, Rick' <rick.marquis@fhwa.dot.gov>; 'Schubert, Rick' <rick_schubert@harvard.edu>; 'Anthony, Camille' <canthony@cdmtitle.com>; 'Barnes, Jonathan' <jebarnes@mit.edu>; 'Casey, Paul' <rep.paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us>; 'Curran, John' <jcurran@ci.woburn.ma.us>; 'DiBlasi, Joe' <rnrchambercom@aol.com>; 'Durrant, Ian' <Ian.Durrant@state.ma.us>; 'Everson, Jeff' <Cn34@aol.com>; 'Festa, Mike' <rep.mikefesta@hou.state.ma.us>; 'Gallagher, Jim' <jgallagher@mapc.org>; 'Gallerani, Michael' <mgallerani@ci.stoneham.ma.us>; 'Grover, Robert' <rgrove r@ci.stoneham.ma.us>; 'Hamblin, Eileen' <ehamblin@aol.com>; 'Havern, Robert' <rhavern@senate.state. ma.us>; 'Jones, Bradley' <rep. bradleyjones@hou.state. ma.us>; 'Katsoufis, George' <g-r@comcast.net>; 'Kennedy, Anthony' <anthonykennedy@comcast.net>; 'Kinsman, Art' <akinsman@aaasne.com>; 'Leiner, Craig' <cleiner@massport.com>; 'Meaney, Paul' <woburnbusiness@earthlink.net>; 'Medeiros, Paul' <paulderman@prodigy. net>; 'Motter, Andrew' <andy.motter@fta.dot.gov>; 'Natale, Patrick' <rep.patricknatale@hou.state. ma.us>; 'Rogers, Maureen A.' <maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com>; 'Smith, Susan' <sueandmikes@comcast.net>; 'Sodano, Paul' <psodano@stonesav.com>; 'Stinson, Richard' <rstinson@wakefield.ma.us>; 'Sullivan, Dan' <dansullivan@assetleasing.com>; Tarallo, Ed' <etarallo@ci.woburn.ma.us>; 'Tisei, Richard' <rtisei@senate.state. ma.us>; 'Webster, Bill' <billwhome@juno.com>; 'Woelfel, Steve' <swoelfel@mbta.com> Cc: 'Blaustein, Joan' <jblaustein@mapc.org>; 'Burggraff, Mary' <mary.burggraff@hou.state.ma.us>; 'Callan, Melissa' <melissa.callan@hou.state.ma.us>; 'Christello, Tricia' <tricia@lynchassociates.net>; 'Cooke, Don' <dcooke@vhb.com>; 'Dame, Chris' <cdame@rcn.com>; 'DiZoglio, Dennis' <ddizoglio@mbta.com>; 'Draisen, Mark' <mdraisen@mapc.org>; 'Dwyer, Margaret' <Margaret.Dwyer@state.ma.us>; 'Edwards, Adriel' <Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us>; 'Florino, Ron' <rflorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us>; 'Grzegorzewski, Josh' <Joshua.Grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot. gov>; 'Hechenbleikner, Peter' <townmanager@ci.reading. ma.us>; 'Lucas, Barbara' <blucas@mapc.org>; 'Lutz, Elaine' <elutz@hshassoc.com>; 'Mauriello, Lauren' <Lauren.Mauriello@state.ma.us>; 'McKinnon, Anne' <amckinnon@hshassoc.com>; 'Mcvann, John' <John.Mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov>; 'Miller, Kenneth' <Kenneth.Miller@state.ma.us>; 'O'Rourke, Carmen' <carmen.o'rourke@hou.state.ma.us>; 'Purdy, Jim' <jpurdy@louisberger.com>; 'Reilly, Chris' <creilly@ci.reading. ma.us>; 'Schwartz, Bill' <wschwartz@neighborhoodamerica.com>; 'Stein, Kathy' <kstein@hshassoc.com>; 'Tafoya, Ben' < btafoya@comcast. net>; 'Van Magness, Frederick' <frederick.vanmagness@hou.state. ma.us>; 'Wood, Gail' <mossywood@juno.com> Sent: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:29:03 -0400 Subject: RE: I-93/I-95 Interchange: Latest News Comments from Camille Anthony To All Task Force Members I would assume any discussions of alternatives will be discussed after the task force is done hearing the final reports from all subcommittees. To talk about alternatives until we have come to an understanding of all the different facets involved, could and, I think, will undermine the whole process. I wish we could just get down to the hard work of defining the problem before we talk about alternatives. We will never get to even considering alternatives if we keep delaying the real work that needs to get done. I would appreciate hearing others thoughts on this matter. Camille %k 6 -----Original Message----- From: bruen-n-bruen [mailto:bruen-n-bruen@comcast.net] 6/13/2005 Page 6 of 7 Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 2:15 PM To: Frey, Bob (MHD); Corey, John; Marquis, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Casey, Paul; Curran, John; DiBlasi, Joe; Durrant, Ian; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike; Gallagher, Jim; Gallerani, Michael; Grover, Robert; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones, Bradley; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; Meaney, Paul; Medeiros, Paul; Motter, Andrew; Natale, Patrick; Rogers, Maureen A.; Smith, Susan; Sodano, Paul; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill; Woelfel, Steve Cc: Blaustein, Joan; Burggraff, Mary; Callan, Melissa; Christello, Tricia; Cooke, Don; Dame, Chris; DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark; Dwyer, Margaret; Edwards, Adriel; Florino, Ron; Grzegorzewski, Josh; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Lucas, Barbara; Lutz, Elaine; Mauriello, Lauren; McKinnon, Anne; Mcvann, John; Miller, Kenneth; O'Rourke, Carmen; Purdy, Jim; Reilly, Chris; Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Tafoya, Ben; Van Magness, Frederick; Wood, Gail Subject: RE: I-93/I-95 Interchange: Latest News Hi Bob: When was it determined that alternatives would be discussed in the subcommittee meetings? Will they be discussed in all subcommittees or fuse one? Thanks in advance for the info. Have a great weekend. Darlene -----Original Message----- From: Frey, Bob (MHD) (mailto:Bob.Frev@state.ma.us] Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 2:55 PM To: Corey, John; Marquis, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen, Darlene; Casey, Paul; Curran, John; DiBlasi, Joe; Durrant, Ian; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike; Gallagher, Jim; Gallerani, Michael; Grover, Robert; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones, Bradley; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; Meaney, Paul; Medeiros, Paul; Motter, Andrew; Natale, Patrick; Rogers, Maureen A.; Smith, Susan; Sodano, Paul; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill; Woelfel, Steve Cc: Blaustein, Joan; Burggraff, Mary; Callan, Melissa; Christello, Tricia; Cooke, Don; Dame, Chris; DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark; Dwyer, Margaret; Edwards, Adriel; Florino, Ron; Frey, Bob; Grzegorzewski, Josh; Hechenbleikner, Peter; Lucas, Barbara; Lutz, Elaine; Mauriello, Lauren; McKinnon, Anne; Mcvann, John; Miller, Kenneth; O'Rourke, Carmen; Purdy, Jim; Reilly, Chris; Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Tafoya, Ben; Van Magness, Frederick; Wood, Gail Subject: I-93/I-95 Interchange: Latest News Greetings Task Force Members: Just a brief update on our activities for this month: 1) The Data Subcommittee will be meeting next Tuesday, June 7, from 11 to 1 at Woburn City Hall. 2) The newly formed Travel Demand Management (TDM) Subcommittee will hold its first meeting next Thursday, June 9, from 2 to 4 at the Eastern Middlesex Association of Realtors (EMAR) in Reading. 6/13/2005 Page 7 of 7 3) Our next ITF meeting will be Wednesday, June 22, from 4:30 to 6:30 at the Reading Senior Center We have all discussed that - given the complexities of many of these issues - these subcommittees are the appropriate venue to perform initial work and then report back to the entire Task Force. Accordingly, at the 6/22 ITF meeting, we will have reports from the Data and TDM subcommittees, and will review various materials discussed in those meetings (materials will first be reviewed by subcommittee members, and after comments/discussion and any needed revisions, will then be provided to all Task Force members in advance of ITF meetings). Also, we will continue with our brainstorming session for alternatives, with specific ideas from the consultant team (based partly on discussions in the subcommittees) for ITF feedback. In the meantime, we also welcome any additional suggestions for alternatives (general or specific) from ITF members. As for the Congestion Subcommittee, we have yet to set a date for our next meeting due to scheduling conflicts and some pending data issues. As it stands now, we will likely meet sometime between the 6/22 and 7/13 ITF meetings. I will keep everyone posted on further developments. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, - Bob Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (617) 973-7449 bob.frev@state.ma.us ,e1 6/13/2005 Page 1 of 1 Hechenblefter, Peter L, c gar From: cnj4@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 10:16 AM To: john.cogliano@state.ma.us; Bob.Frey@state.ma.us; Kenneth. Mill er@state.ma.us; Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us Cc: canthony@cdmtitle.com; bruen-n-bruen@comcast.net; jcorey@ci.woburn.ma.us; jcurran@ci.woburn.ma.us; Bob.Frey@state.ma.us; Town Manager; rep. brad leyjones@hou.state.ma.u s; anthonykennedy@attbi.com; Schubert, Rick; ben@tafoya2004.com; Reading - Selectmen; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us; swoelfel@mbta.com; etarallo@ci.woburn.ma.us; tricia@lynchassociates.net; mary.burggraff@hou.state.ma.us; caria.beaudoin@hou.state.ma.us; jblaustein@mapc.org; dansullivan@assetleasing.com; cleiner@massport.com; Elizabeth.Lintner@state.ma.us; akinsman@aaasne.com; g-r@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast.net; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; psodano@stonesav.com; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; paulderman@prodigy.net; andy.motter@fta.dot.gov; Reilly, Chris; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; melissa.callan@hou.state.ma.us; smurthy@trafinfo.com; Tafoya, Ben; kpyke@louisberger.com; rep.patricknatale@hou.state.ma.us; Ian. Durrant@state.ma.us; george@northsuburbanchambercom; rep. paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us; jebarnes@mit.edu; frederick.vanmagness@hou.state.ma.us; rick.marquis@fhwa.dot.gov; rep.mikefesta@hou.state.ma.us; Ehamblin@aol.com; rhavern@senate.state.ma.us; rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; jgallagher@mapc.org; mgallerani@ci.stoneham.ma.us; kstein@hshassoc.com; Joshua.Grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; blucas@mapc.org; rflorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us; Margaret.Dwyer@state.ma.us; Lauren.Mauriello@state.ma.us; carmen.o'rourke@hou.state.ma.us; amckinnon@hshassoc.com; John.Mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; jpurdy@louisberger.com; billwhome@juno.com; dcooke@vhb.com Commissioner Cogliano, Bob Frey, Task Force members: Please see the attached file. Regards, Jeff Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force 21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com 6/10/2005 Commissioner Cogliano, Bob Frey, Task Force Members: Before the Mass Highway Department (MHD) attempts to sell "solutions" at a public meeting, they need to do the following: (1) Receive exoneration from the US Inspector General on the issue of fraud. This might take months. (2) Provide legally certifiable proof that their "new" (i.e., from 2002 onward) accident data is acceptable. How do we know that it's any better than the "old" (i.e., from 2001 to previous years) accident data? This might be accomplished in conjunction with the US Inspector General or the Transportation Research Board (TRB). (3) Demonstrate what is meant by acceptable accident data (4) Prove that their accident data restoration process for "old" accident data is valid (5) Provide legally certifiable proof that the MHD did, in fact, apply this accident restoration process to accident data used in the two 193/95 interchange feasibility studies, and for the 8 other transportation planning studies that I recently cited. The MHD may need to do this for the US Inspector General. The issue here is...TRUST! (6) Cease using members of the Task Force to help redesign the interchange. This is ludicrous given that most members have no highway engineering experience, sufficient congestion data or data analysis tools. Maps, tracing paper and magic markers won't cut it (See #9 below). The Task Force could be better employed using their input on eminent domain, community impacts, noise pollution and cost versus benefits. (7) Acquire sufficient accident data to estimate the yearly mean accident count. This can be done by collecting several years of accident data or using a few years combined with accident data from similar highway facilities. The latter approach is based on the Empirical Bayes method that was described in a book written by Dr. Ezra Hauer (Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto) in 1997. The MHD has had 8 years to read his book. Well? (8) Acquire acceptable accident analysis tools. The current version of the LBG SOW cites Accident Modification Factors (AMF). After about 20 minutes on the Internet and one call later to a nationally recognized expert on AMF, I learned that AMF's are only applicable for two lane, rural roads, not freeways and NOT interchanges. It's about time that the MHD paid attention to business. They ought to know by now that I'm likely to check on things like this. I assume that this matters to the rest of you. (9) Acquire sufficient vehicle count data to determine whether, for example, the main lines of the interchange contribute more, about the same or less congestion than connecting roadways. This can be done using statistical significance testing. Although you won't get a Nobel prize for it, it is do-able. These are my non negotiable demands, and are not subject to some fuzzy notion called consensus (sorry Kathy). Put it this way...what am I supposed to give up? Good accident data? $~2 If anyone thinks that I am in error on these technical matters, then speak up and show me your references. This presentation might seem a bit "harsh," but so what. What happened to public safety in our collective rush to "solutions." And...please don't tell me that you don't have the funds or time to address the 9 issues above. The 193195 interchange has been an object of your interest at least since the award of the first contract to Edwards & Kelcey in May 1997. The combined price tag for the two feasibility studies is at least $1 M. Enough is enough.... Regards, Jeff Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, 193/95 Task Force 21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cni4e.aol.com June 9, 2005 ~g3 Hechenblefter, Peter From: patricia.a.harty@verizon.com Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 3:19 PM To: Town Manager Subject: Verizon FIOS Billboard Trucks and Hummers Hi Peter, Thank you for returning my call today regarding your progress with the Verizon Cable proposal. We look forward to receiving your response following your open meeting on July 12, 2005. I apologize again for the issues involving the Verizon FIOS Billboard Truck and Hummer. I have requested that all Verizon advertising vehicles be completely removed from the Town of Reading. I look forward to working with you in the near future. Thanks, Pat Patricia A. Harty Regional Director Public Affairs 781-224-2005 O 1 wc ~6 Hechenblelkner, Peter To: Kerry Kreppein Cc: Feudo, John Subject: RE: Imagination Station: Community Input? Kerry - thanks for your comments. We have not made any final decisions on details - but the Board has given our Recreation Administrator and the Recreation Committee some general direction - which is to see if the artificial timber in fact does have a heat problem in the summer. If not, then that is a more long lasting solution. Your input is very appropriate and appreciated and If you and the "groupies" can give that feedback to John Feudo, our Recreation Administrator, that would be great. We'll also probably want to rely on you all for financial support and for helping with the actual construction. Thanks again. Pete -----Original Message----- From: Kerry Kreppein [mailto:kerrykreppein@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 2:01 PM To: Reading - Selectmen Cc: kerrykreppein@hotmail.com Subject: Imagination Station: Community Input? To Whom it May Concern: I just read an article in the paper about the Imagination Station's potential refurbishment. While I am encouraged by the playground getting some needed attention, I am unclear on what will be happening there, and how the decisions are being made. I have two young children who love the park and we go there a couple of times per week, so we have a vested interest in what happens there. Will users of the playground have a say in this decision? I know of at least one quick and easy way to get community feedback for you, and I am sure that many of the playground "groupies" would like to be included before any decisions have been made. Thank you for your time, Kerry Kreppein 781-944-4247 kerrykreppein@hotmail.com P.S. Hot playgrounds are pretty unfriendly from June until September. My vote is for the polymeric coating and how about some tall shady trees? 1 Hechenbiefter, Peter From: Feudo, John Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:50 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Follow-up on Morton Fence Peter, I contacted Peter Moscariello regarding the removable piece of the fence. He stated the plan for the fence was to remove it August 22nd at the conclusion of the Summer Babe Ruth Season and it would not go up again until Early April. The fence is easily removed by two people if the need comes up. Please let me know if you have any questions. John John Feudo Recreation Administrator Town of Reading 16 Lowell Street Reading, MA 01867 (781)942-9075 1 D~. Page 1 of 1 V / Hechenblelkner, Peter To: John & Natalie Gill Cc: Chris Reilly Subject: RE: Concerned about Addison Wesley site Natalie Thanks for your email. I will pass it along to the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Commission. There is not another meeting scheduled to date, but I would suggest that you periodically consult the Town' Planning web page - meetings on development issues are posted there. The site address is www.ci.readinci.ma.us. Pete -----Original Message----- From: John & Natalie Gill [mailto:flsigill@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 9:29 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Concerned about Addison Wesley site Hi Peter, I live on Francis Drive and just read the front-page article in The Reading Advocate about future plans for the Addison Wesley site. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the "lifestyle shopping center" described in the article, and add my voice to the concerns raised about adding to the town's traffic problems by many town officials and residents. Even though I am a huge shopper, I would rather drive 10 minutes to the Burlington Mall or North Shore Mall to do my shopping. I don't want any more retail development in Reading. I would prefer an office park or hotel that would add to the tax base, but have less of an impact on traffic in our town center. As it is, Route 28/Main Street is a nightmare to navigate during evening rush hour because of the traffic. I recommend putting a referendum on the next town ballot giving residents a chance to select the best option for the future of the site. I agree with others that a "lifestyle shopping center" will also threaten the character of Reading. Having lived here for eight years, I have witnesses the explosive growth of retail in Reading and I don't believe we need any more. We moved here because it was a bedroom community with excellent schools and a strong sense of community - and we do not mind paying higher taxes to maintain the charming character of the town. I supported the Home Depot/Jordan's Furniture development because we needed a solution for the town dump and because of its location. Because of the room for development and road expansion in that corridor, the traffic patterns don't seem to be a problem. However, the Addison Wesley site is different. There is no hazardous waste to dispose of or cap and the surroundings are already crowded and busy. There must be commercial real estate developers and companies that would be interested in this prime location right off of routes 128 and 93 for office space. Please let me know when the next meeting will be about this site because I would like to attend and voice my concerns. Thanks, Natalie Gill 12 Francis Drive Reading 781-944-7420 I 6/20/2005 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 9:52 AM To: Fiore, Jane Subject: RE: Fuscia Faux Pas I would suggest that the Council express their feelings to the Atlantic with a copy to the BOS. Pete -----Original Message----- From: Fiore, Jane Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 9:29 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: FW: Fuscia Faux Pas Peter, Page 1 of 1 L ( c ~S This is not the best solution to the removed newsletter "drink your medicine " This keeps it up in the public eye since May 15, 2005. The council and the health division are wondering about the "game". Any comments. Jane From: William CARRICK [mailto:wmpcarrick@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:33 PM To: karyn storti; Fiore, Jane Subject: Fuscia Faux Pas There are thirteen laminated fuscia postings of our favorite "Atlantic Health Journal" confined to the aisle and cap areas of the liquor displays. There are no handouts. There are no postings on the side of the snacks. Inspector Clouseau 6/20/2005 Page 1 of 2 Hechenblefter, Peter From: cnj4@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 4:44 PM To: john.cogliano@state.ma.us; Bob. Frey@state.ma.us; Kenneth. Mill er@state.ma.us; Adriel.Edwards@state.ma.us Cc: canthony@cdmtitle.com; bruen-n-bruen@comcast.net; jcorey@ci.woburn.ma.us; jcurran@ci.woburn.ma.us; Bob. Frey@state.ma.us; Town Manager; rep.bradleyjones@hou.state.ma.us; anthonykennedy@aftbi.com; Schubert, Rick; ben@tafoya2004.com; Reading - Selectmen; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us; swoelfel@mbta.com; etarallo@ci.woburn.ma.us; tricia@lynchassociates.net; mary.burggraff@hou.state.ma.us; carla.beaudoin@hou.state.ma.us; jblaustein@mapc.org; dansullivan@assetleasing.com; cleiner@massport.com; Elizabeth.Lintner@state.ma.us; akinsman@aaasne.com; g-r@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast.net; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; psodano@stonesav.com; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; paulderman@prodigy.net; andy.mofter@fta.dot.gov; Reilly, Chris; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; melissa.callan@hou.state.ma.us; smurthy@trafinfo.com; Tafoya, Ben; kpyke@louisberger.com; rep.patricknatale@hou.state.ma.us; Ian.Durrant@state.ma.us; george@northsuburbanchambercom; rep. paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us; jebarnes@mit.edu; frederick.vanmagness@hou.state.ma.us; rick.marquis@fhwa.dot.gov; rep. mikefesta@hou. state. ma. us; Ehamblin@aol.com; rhavern@senate.state.ma.us; rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; jgallagher@mapc.org; mgallerani@ci.stoneham.ma.us; kstein@hshassoc.com; Joshua.Grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; blucas@mapc.org; rf1orino@ci.stoneham.ma.us; Margaret. Dwyer@state. ma. us; Lauren. Mauriello@state.ma.us; carmen.o'rourke@hou.state.ma.us; amckinnon@hshassoc.com; John.Mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; jpurdy@louisberger.com; billwhome@juno.com; dcooke@vhb.com Subject: SELLING: "SOLUTIONS" AND DECEPTION To Commissioner Cogliano, Bob Frey and the 193/95 Task Force: Mass Highway wants you, members of the Task Force, to sell interchange redesign "solutions" to the community. Before you begin this sales chore, consider the basis of these "solutions." You already spent a few hours brain storming "solutions" with magic markers and tracing paper. A few minutes of your time now is all I ask. Click on the attached file. It's the introduction to the accident data set of 1997-1999 that was used for the first feasibility study and also for the second feasibility study. Neil Boudreau (Mass Highway) sent me this accident data during the summer of 2002. Notice the sections highlighted in yellow (my highlighting). What do you see? First of all, different names for the same street are used. Possible crash locations on an interstate might be on ramps, breakdown lanes, and roadway above/below a divided highway. Notice this particular comforting note: "A street name listed with an interstate/divided highway may or may not have an exit associated with it, and the crash may have occurred on EITHER roadway." That accident data set of 1997-1999 ran the gambit from inconsistent street names to crash listings without a clue where crashes occurred. Obviously, this accident data set did NOT receive the benefit of Bob Frey's touted accident data restoration method (i.e., a "fix up'), assuming that he has such a method, and assuming that it works. In the latest Mass Highway document, 19311-95 Interchange Transportation Study: Safety Analysis, June 16, 2005, page 2/4, third paragraph, it was stated, " "Given the fact that vehicle collisions are random events and that the data collection process is not an exact science, the end results show that the data elements reported are not always perfect and complete." Based on my experience, that accident data set from 1997-1999 was total rubbish! The accident data set from 1997-1999 was the principle justification for the first feasibility study. Several dozen homes would have been consumed by eminent domain. includina mine! Such arrogance and disdain for public safety from Mass Highway. All of this for a project? For whose benefit? A highway construction company looking for work? 6/20/2005 Page 2 of 2 Bob, you continue to cite this accident data set from 1997-1999. Have you "fixed it up" yet? What about those 8 other transportation-planning studies that I referenced recently? You know, the ones that used accident data from 1994 to 2001. Did you "fix up" that accident data too? So far, Bob, you have • Never told us how bad your accident data is. • Never explained your accident data "fix up" process and its effectiveness • Never indicated whether you actually applied this "fix up" to the second feasibility study accident data for the years 1997-2001 or 8 other transportation planning studies. Bob, we trusted you to be honest with us. You have not. How does consensus treat deception? Well, fellow Task Force members, how do you plan to sell "solutions" based on these facts? Regards, Jeff Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force 21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com T 0 6/20/2005 Support Information for Using MassHighway Crash Data Files Explanation of columns and abbreviations in Excel Spreadsheets A. Town - City or Town name B. Crash Date - Date of Crash C. Crash Time - Time of Crash rounded to nearest hour D. Crash -Type - Type of Crash • Fatal • Injury • Property Damage Only • Hit and Run e School Bus E. Total Vehicles - Number of vehicles involved in crash F. Total_Injured - Number of persons injured in crash excluding fatalities G. Total Fatals - Number of persons killed in crash _ H. Veh1 _ dir - Vehicle direction for vehicle #1 L Veh2_ dir - Vehicle direction for vehicle #2 J. Collision_manner - Manner of Collision or Collision Type • Angl - Angle • Rear - Rear end; • Head - Head on; • Unknw - Unknown K. Object hit - (Crash Involved Collision With) • BICYCLE • FIXOBJ - Fixed object on shoulder, sidewalk or island • MVPRKD - Motor vehicle parked • MVTRAF - Motor vehicle in traffic • OFFRDFIX - Ran off roadway, hit fixed object • OFFRDNC - Ran off roadway, non-collision • OVERTURN - Overturned in road • PEDEST - Pedestrian • RRTRAIN - Railroad train • SCHBUS - School bus • TRUCK - Truck • MOPED • OTHER L. Collision _with - Collide (Collision Conditions) • ABUTMENT - Hit abutment • BRIDGE - Bridge rail • CURBING - Hit curbing • DITCH • EMBANK - Embankment 2 • GUARDRAIL, - Hit guard rail • LEDGE - Rock ledge • MEDIAN - Hit median barrier • SIGNPOST - Hit signpost • TREE - Hit tree • UTILPOLE - Hit utility or light pole • WALL - Hit stone wall • OTHER M. Road Surface -The road's surface status • Dry • Wet • Snowy • Icy • Other N. Light - Light conditions • Daylight • Darkness (Road Lighted) • Darkness (Road Unlighted) • Dawn • Dusk ® Unknown 0. Weather • Clear • Rain • Cloudy • Snow • Sleet • Foggy • Unknown P. Street - First intersecting street, route, address, or landmark for a crash location. Q. Intersection - Second intersecting street, route, landmark, or address for a crash location R. Feet - Distance from intersection center, in feet S. Dir - Direction of distance from intersection center: • N - North • S - South • E - East • W - West Support Information for Using MassHighway Crash Data Files 6/20/2005 a 3 Sorting Information Regarding MassHighway Crash Data The data MassHighway has supplied is in a Microsoft Excel 2000 format. To gain usefulness from this data, sorting the data properly is essential. Keep the following points in mind: • Be sure to select ALL columns and rows when sorting data. If not, the data's integrity will be lost and the changes may be UNRECOVERABLE. • If the first row represents column field names, selecting Data->Sort will select the row items as column headers. It is not necessary to highlight any data items, because MS- Excel will do this automatically. • Hitting the END button, then an arrow key, will move the cursor to the edges of the worksheet data. Sorting - Intersection Related Data (No Interstate/Divided Highway Involved) When sorting for crash locations at intersections, the following points are useful to keep in mind for determining a resolution: • Do not assume that a crash always occurred on the "S`tieet,' field, it might have occurred ,on the "Intersection" field instead.; • The street names from the R1VIV orders letters before numbers, unlike MS-Excel, which orders numbers before letters. • t rash data is N O'f standardized; so many different variations of a sil eet name (or other 'field) may exist.; Use the columns "Street" and "Intersection" to sort for each occurrence of a street name. For example, if one is interested in finding crashes at a four-legged intersection at Broadway and West Main Street in a particular town, then all occurrences of the Broadway/ West Main Street pair should be found. Some possible variations may be "Broadway - Main St." (note West is missing), "West Main Str - Brdway", "W. Main St - 350 Broadway". • If two street names are listed, sometimes the intersecting street will contain an address. This is a useful reference if the user has geocoding capabilities and an address file, like TIGER lines, in GIS to be able to place an approximate crash location. • Be sure that the two streets actually connect physically, if they don't it is possible that the crash did not occur on one or both of those streets. • An intersection's offset ("Feet" field) and direction ("Dir" field) can assist in giving a possible geographic location for an intersection. If a user has an intersection diagram, map, or GIS, the location shown in "Dir" can help a user place a crash, and the offset can help a user determine if this is actually an intersection related crash or if it occurred on a street's mainline. Use discretion because it may be unclear from an intersection diagram what direction one would place a crash based upon the "Dir" field. Support Information for Using MassHighway Crash Data Files 6/20/2005 Sorting - Specific Intersection with an Interstate or Other Divided Highway Below are several important points to consider when sorting information that contains interstate or divided highway within one of the two street fields: a A crash record that contains an interstate in one of its two street columns, with tha' ipposite colurnn having a street/value, in general, is less reliable than a crash record actually occurring at an intersection with some measure of control of access. "I • A street name listed with an interstate/divided highway may or in ay not have an exit associated with it, and the crash may have occurred on EITHER roadway.: • Some of the possible locations of a crash with an interstate fisted in one of the stieeti columns of crash data are: p on the mainline of the divided highway, 0 on the ramp; o in the breakdown lane of the divided highway, ;o in the roadway above the divided highway; o in the roadway below the divided highway; o on the other listed road or highway. • An offset may indicate how close to an exit or bridge the crash occurred but does note indicate on which read jhe crash occurred. • The direction of the crash may give assistance to place the crash data, but use discretion to be sure that the direction seems reasonable. Sorting - No Intersection Level Data Available Use discretion if only one data field is available. Keep in mind the following points: • It is difficult to get a specific geographic reference with only one street listed, but it ruay be useful for gng a general idea of the nurllber of crashes in a corridor:, • If an address number, landmark, or mile marker exists in this single field, geocoding may assist for determining a specific geographic placement. Generally speaking, a small percentage of crash records may have beqn..assigned to tile towr due to coding or data entry errors at the Registry, or in the original reports. Support Information for Using MassHighway Crash Data Files 6/20/2005 %4 V L Cc3os Hechenblelkner, Peter From: Frey, Bob (MHD) (Bob.Frey@state.ma.us] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 3:23 PM To: Corey, John; Marquis, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen, Darlene; Casey, Paul; Clarke, Dennis; Curran, John; DiBlasi, Joe; Durrant, Ian; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike; Gallagher, Jim; Gallerani, Michael; Grover, Robert; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones, Bradley; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; Meaney, Paul; Medeiros, Paul; Molter, Andrew; Natale, Patrick; Rogers, Maureen A.; Smith, Susan; Sodano, Paul; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill; Woelfel, Steve Cc: Blaustein, Joan; Burggraff, Mary; Callan, Melissa; Christello, Tricia; Cooke, Don; Dame, Chris; DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark; Dwyer, Margaret; Edwards, Adriel; Florino, Ron; Frey, Bob; Grzegorzewski, Josh; Town Manager; Lucas, Barbara; Lutz, Elaine; Mauriello, Lauren; McKinnon, Anne; Mcvann, John; Miller, Kenneth; O'Rourke, Carmen; Purdy, Jim; Reilly, Chris; Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Tafoya, Ben; Van Magness, Frederick; Wood, Gail Subject: review for 93/95 ITF meeting UK :^vr~ ER UR safety summary safety analysis TDM Transit notice.txt 06-14-05.doc 06-15-05.doc Overview.doc Services.doc Members: Hello Again Task Force At the last ITF meeting we had said we would provide all ITF members with documents from the subcommittees. Here they are: <<safety summary 06-14-05.doc>> <<safety analysis 06-15-05.doc>> «TDM Overview.doc>> <<Transit Services.doc>> These documents were distributed to subcommittee members, discussed at the meetings, and in some cases, revised afterward to better reflect the points of agreement and the views of members who attended. Please read these four documents before the ITF meeting. If you have any questions or comments, please bring them to the meeting. We will discuss these documents through the reports of the subcommittees and through the Q&A session as well if needed. If you have questions/comments and will NOT be attending the meeting, please contact me or Jim Purdy directly. We plan on sending additional review documents early next week. See you on the 22nd in Reading... Thanks, - Bob Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (617) 973-7449 1 I-93/1-95 INTERCHANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Safety Issues Summary Improving safety and congestion are both important goals of the I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Study. Safety is important because of the risk of personal injury to the motoring public, but it is not the sole or absolute goal. There are also important goals of improving mobility and minimizing impacts to neighborhoods and businesses around the interchange. As discussed when the work scope was being finalized, the crash data records for this interchange or any other location in the Commonwealth are not perfect. There are inherent limitations in collecting data from accident (crash) reports that are created at the scene of the collision in heavy traffic. Massachusetts has been working to make improvements to the quality of the data through a redesign of the crash report form (introduced late in 2001) and standardization of street and intersection tables at the Registry, as well as processing the reports to geo-code the crash locations, but this is an on-going effort. The work scope for this study recognized that there will be variations in the data, and that to make year-to-year comparisons is difficult. These issues were also discussed with Task Force member Dr. Jeffrey Everson, and documented in a May 6, 2004 memo (distributed 5/7/04 to all Task Force members). Instead, the scope emphasizes a spatial analysis of the pattern of crashes within a single year, and this analysis was done. Results were presented to the ITF in December 2004 and posted to the website, including peak/off-peak differences, cause of crash, type of crash, and severity of crash. The analysis represents roughly a 75% sample of crash reports in 2002. The consultant team carefully examined the actual paper copies of crash reports and exceeded 100 data points required in the work scope. The spatial crash analysis gives results that correspond to what we know about geometric deficiencies in the interchange, based on accepted highway design standards. By comparing the pattern of crashes with the congestion analysis and the geometry of the interchange, a pattern is built up which points to some possible solutions. For example, a short weave section exposes drivers to many conflicts with other vehicles; removing the weave will remove these conflicts. As noted in the scope and in the 5/6/04 memo, it is not possible to quantify the reduction in crashes that would result from improvements - the available data is not appropriate for this type of analysis. It is not necessary to meet a particular numerical standard - there are no "magic" numbers of crashes avoided or crash rate reduced that would justify widespread impacts when making improvements. Instead, the study's approach is to see what the problems are, how they might be improved, and what the impacts are. Given the data limitations and the state of the research, additional measures of safety analysis beyond the scope (such as quantifying the number of property damage crashes that could be avoided) would add limited value to task of evaluating alternatives. An understanding of the overall crash patterns through readily available data is more valuable for this planning study. The safety information presented to the public in the previous study showed that, for the 1997-99 period, the interchange had highest number of reported crashes in the Massachusetts, leading some to equate the need for improvement with a "worst in the state" ranking in the number of crashes (weighted by severity). Between 1995 and 2001, the I-93/I-95 interchange ranked between 1 st and 6th on the list of 1,000 worst crash sites in Massachusetts; which provides a strong indicator that a safety problem exists. IbT Office of Transportation Planning, LBG Page 1 of 2 6/14/05 I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: Safety Issues Summary (continued) All other factors being equal, locations with higher traffic volumes will have more crashes than less-traveled locations. Therefore, calculating a crash rate is the next logical step in measuring the severity of a safety problem. Crash rates are part of the overall picture and help to give a sense of priority with other locations that need improvement. A crash rate - expressed as number crashes occurring per a given number of vehicles using a location - eliminates the inflating effect of high traffic volumes on total crashes. The comparative analysis shows that the I-93/I-95 interchange had the highest crash rate per million entering vehicles (MEV) in both the 1997-1999 and 1999-2001 analysis periods (1.81 and 1.36 crashes per MEV, respectively). The later period's crash rate was about 25% lower than in the earlier period, but it was still the worst crash rate among cloverleaf interchanges, and almost the worst among all interchanges in the state (Route 128/Route 3 was higher during reconstruction of Route 3, and the Weston toll plaza interchange on I-90 (MassPike) was higher). The variation in number of reported crashes (and hence corresponding crash rates) between time periods could have been caused by a combination of factors, including: incomplete filing of crash reports, police priority on clearing crashes over filling out reports, improved methods in processing crash reports and identifying specific crash locations (eliminating more duplication of records), and drivers opting not to fill out reports at all, especially for minor damages. Whether these factors are considered each separately or in combination with one another, it is impossible to determine exactly how much effect they have had on the changes in numbers of reported crashes, as well as the ultimate number of useable crash records for analysis. The effect of these factors also varies by location as well, depending on the conditions at the location and the practices and judgment of the responders. The 2002 data were collected with a more detailed crash report form, which gives good quality information, but the transition to the new form - which takes longer to fill out and code - may lead to underreporting compared to earlier periods. Furthermore, in heavy traffic, as police and drivers are less likely to provide complete crash information, then crashes could be somewhat under-reported at the most congested locations. All of these factors make comparisons between years (or multi-year time periods) difficult or even misleading. Despite the variations between years and time periods, all available crash data has continued to show that the I-93/I-95 interchange has significant safety problems, regardless of the measure used (crash ranking, crash rate, site-specific data), and regardless of the level of comparison (statewide all intersections, or just interchanges, or just cloverleaf interchanges). With continued measures as the highest or one of the highest crash sites in the state, this helps to gauge the severity of the problem and to prioritize this location in comparison with others that may also need improvements. While additional work is underway, the existing safety data analysis provides the basis to sufficiently define the safety problems. Recognizing that limited resources exist and that it is often necessary to make decisions based on incomplete or imperfect information, safety issues and their analysis should be considered an important - but not absolute - factor for evaluating and ultimately recommending improvements for the interchange. This study will evaluate other factors as well (traffic flow, mobility, business and residential considerations, environment, etc.) in developing solutions with a minimum of impacts. Office of Transportation Planning, LBG Page 2 of 2 6/14/05 I-93/1-95 INTERCHANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Safety Analysis Safety is an important concern in improving the I-93/I-95 interchange. While many people perceive the interchange as potentially hazardous, owing to its heavy volumes and substandard geometry', there is a need to substantiate this perception. Sources of Crash Data There is one source of crash data in Massachusetts and other states: the crash reports which are filled out by the individuals involved in collisions, and in most cases, the police departments responding to the incident. In Massachusetts, crash reports are sent to the Registry of Motor Vehicles for entry into the Crash Data System according to the requirements set forth in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 90. Although the data elements required on the crash forms are standardized, there are several limitations in the data collection system: ■ Reports are not always filled out and filed, or are incomplete, for various reasons: in heavy traffic, motorists may simply not wait for police to respond, particularly if the crash does not involve major damage; ■ Responding police generally place the priority on clearing the crash when traffic is heavy, and as a result, some reports may not be complete. The rate of reporting and number of complete reports is thus partly a function of the conditions at the location and the practices and judgment of the responders. ® Reports may not have all the information that one would desire for the safety analysis; in particular, the exact location of the crash may not be well specified. ■ Reports filed by each party involved in the crash may not be properly matched when the data records are coded, leading to double counting of some crashes. MassHighway, in conjunction with the Massachusetts Division of the Federal Highway Administration, has been working for several years to improve the Crash Data System. A major change resulting from these efforts was the redesign of the crash reporting form to provide more detailed information about the location, type of crash, and contributing factors. In addition, to accommodate the new form and to better provide the RMV with the tools necessary to validate the crash location information, a new multi-layered crash database was built to host the crash data records. The new system with the redesigned crash form was deployed in the fall of 2001. The new reports may have improved the quality of the data received on each crash, but, because the form takes longer to fill out, may have actually reduced the total number of crashes that are reported. Efforts to better snatch reports and eliminate duplicates also improve quality, but result in a (more accurate) lower count of crashes in the processed data as compared with the (less accurate) higher count in the system that may have occurred from crashes being counted twice in previous years. 1 Weave sections within the interchange and between it and the Washington Street interchange are substantially shorter than minimum design standards, loop ramp curvatures are substandard in several places, and acceleration lanes are substandard. All of these factors can be expected to increase the potential for crashes because of the number of conflicts in a short weave distance and the merging of traffic at speeds below that of the mainline traffic. Office of Transportation Planning, LBG Page 1 of 4 6/15/05 I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: Safety Analysis (continued) The completed crash reports are first processed by the Registry and distributed to MassHighway in a year-end file format containing all records entered for that calendar year. Typically, the RMV does not close the annual file until six to nine months the following year due to delays in resolving some crash files. MassHighway has typically contracted out the process to clean and standardize the data with the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS). CTPS works with the raw data to geo-locate or "geocode" crashes that occurred on public roadways throughout the Commonwealth. This process is used to identify the major crash locations across Massachusetts. The new reporting system is more complex than the old Accident Record System (pre-November 2001) in that it requires more time in coding and analysis due to the increase in the quantity of information to process. MassHighway has a contract underway that is building a new application to process the raw data and use Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to locate the crashes. Due to the complexities of this new system, the 2002 and 2003 annual files have not been processed. Once complete and operational, the new system will be used to clean and geo-locate the crash records so that an updated high crash locations report may be generated. Given the fact that vehicle collisions are random events and that the data collection process is not an exact science, the end results show that the data elements reported are not always perfect and complete. The reality of reviewing and comparing annual crash data files to one another is that it is difficult to draw inferences from year-to-year trends in the data, and this is the primary reason why MassHighway traditionally reviews a combined average of three consecutive years of data. However, the value of historical annual crash data lies in their potential for general observations and comparisons to other locations (i.e., a consistently high level of accidents or accident rate). Spatial Crash Analvsis For the reasons described above, it was decided not to include a detailed longitudinal (year-to- year) analysis of crashes in the work scope for the I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Study. Instead, the work plan calls for a spatial analysis of data in one year, 2002, for which the new reporting form was in use. This approach attempts to pinpoint the exact crash locations by examining the actual crash reports. The paper reports allow the opportunity to read the crash narratives and examine the collision diagrams, which together, tend to provide more site-specific details necessary to identify the exact crash location (Note: After the work scope was developed, 2003 raw crash data became available, and MassHighway is now working with the consultant to analyze in a similar method to the 2002 data, in order to further verify the patterns observed. Pending availability, 2004 raw crash data will also be examined). The consultant team examined year 2002 crashes that were identified in the preliminary Registry data compilation as occurring in the vicinity of the I-93/I-95 and Washington Street interchanges, obtained the crash reports, and found 142 reports with complete datasets. These reports pinpointed the location of the crash on the collision diagram, which is part of the form. These data points were presented in a series of crash "scatter" diagrams, which were reviewed with the Interchange Task Force (ITF) at their December 8, 2004 meeting. The diagrams were posted to the study website (www.9395info.com). These diagrams show clusters of crashes at a number of locations in the interchange, which generally correspond to geometric problems observed there. They also suggest that sight distance limitations may contribute to the cluster of crashes entering the ramp from Route 128 NB to I-93 SB. Office of Transportation Planning, LBG Page 2 of 4 6/15/05 I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: Safety Analysis (continued) It is important to recognize that while the142 reports provide a reasonably good representation of what is occurring (the work scope calls for 100 points), it is not possible to quantify the number of crashes which result from specific interchange features - after all, some crashes occur on highways and interchanges that are ideal from a geometric point of view. Computer models that consider this problem are being developed by researchers, but are only in the development stage and apply only to simpler situations found on rural highways, not complex interchanges. Despite these limitations, we do know that removing particular sources of conflict between vehicles, such as weaving sections, would eliminate that particular cause of crashes. It is also important to note that the 142 crash reports do not represent the total number of crashes in the interchange in 2002, but rather the number of reports that allowed the crashes to be specifically located within the interchange. (The 142 crashes are roughly a 75 percent sample of all reported crashes.) Other Indicators of Safety Problems To expand on efforts from the previous study, and consistent with a more detailed approach supported by the ITF, two other indicators of safety problems were explored. The first involved reviewing the total number of crashes reported to be in the I-93/I-95 interchange and the Washington Street interchange. The second involved calculation of the crash rate to evaluate the interchange based on the exposure to vehicular traffic. The total number of crashes at the top 1000 crash locations in Massachusetts is reported for three-year intervals in a "ranking" report generated by CTPS for MassHighway. Ideally, the report will be updated on an annual basis, but due to the lengthy process it takes to "clean" and standardize the raw data, this is not always the case. Currently, the processed data files are available through 2001, with raw data available for 2002 and 2003. The number of crashes at each location varies from year to year, probably due in part to the changes in the actual number of crashes and imperfect data records that lead to un-locatable crashes. The geo-located crash data records are used to rank the high-crash locations. The ranking is based on a cumulative weighted average system based on crash severity. In this system, each property damage only (PDO) crash receives a weight of one, but crashes with personal injury are weighted times five and fatal crashes are weighted times ten. In practice, this weighting changes the relative crash ranking only for a few of the highest frequency crash locations, but gives attention to the more severe crashes. By using crash experience over the three-year period, the effects of anomalies in the data are minimized. The I-93/I-95 interchange varies in crash rank over the years, but has consistently ranked between #1 and #6 in the Commonwealth every year from 1995 to 2001. A review of the reports shows that a number of the same high crash locations are also present in the top ten ranking for most years. A graphic showing the distribution of the top rankings was presented to the ITF on March 30, 2005. To gain a better understanding of how a particular location compares to other intersections, the first step involves calculating the crash rate to factor in the traffic volumes. A crash rate is calculated by taking the total (unweighted) number of crashes on an annual basis, divided by the Office of Transportation Planning, LBG Page 3 of 4 6/15/05 I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: Safety Analysis (continued) annual average daily traffic volume. Using the rate provides a better picture of safety problems than the raw number of crashes, because it eliminates the obvious effect of traffic volumes: other things equal, busy locations will have more crashes than less-traveled locations. An analysis was done of the comparative crash rates of the I-93/I-95 interchange and other major interchanges in Massachusetts. The evaluation was done for two three-year periods: 1997-1999 and 1999-2001. The results show that the I-93/I-95 interchange has the highest crash rate of all major interchanges examined with two exceptions: the Weston toll plaza on I-90 (Mass Pike) and the Route 128/Route 3 interchange in the later period. These two interchanges have circumstances that are quite different from the I-93/I-95 interchange in that on the Mass Pike, there is traffic slowing down and stopping at the toll plazas, and on Route 3, the Route 128 interchange was under construction during the period when its crash rate was unusually high. To make the comparative crash rate analysis more applicable, other cloverleaf interchanges in Massachusetts - generally similar to the I-93/I-95 interchange in terms of design and traffic operation - were compared. The I-93/I-95 interchange had the highest crash rate among these interchanges, with a crash rate of 1.81 crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) in the earlier time period and 1.36 crashes per MEV in the later time period. Why do these rates vary? As discussed above, it is difficult to make year-to-year comparisons because of variability in both the actual number of crashes and the number of crashes that are reported and can be located geographically to the interchange. For reasons that are not understood, the number of crashes at the interchange was highest in 1998 and 1999, with a corresponding crash rate for the earlier three-year period that may be higher than the typical situation there (plus potentially higher rates for other interchanges as well, although the effect of improved crash data processing varies by interchange). What does the comparative crash analysis tell us? Regardless of year-to-year fluctuations in the I-93/I-95 interchange and other interchanges, as well as with changes to crash records reporting and data processing, the I-934-95 interchange has a very high crash rate. When comparing the interchange characteristics to others that are most similar (the I-934-495 cloverleaf, for example), the most evident differences of the I-934-95 interchange - shorter weaving distances, tighter ramp curvatures, shorter acceleration and deceleration lanes - are likely contributors to the comparatively higher crash rate. The existing data analysis (2001 and earlier data for general observations and comparisons, 2002 data for more detailed operational conclusions) will provide the basis to sufficiently define the safety problems. While the additional raw data analysis activities (with 2003, and possibly 2004 data) will be conducted as soon as possible, the timeline remains uncertain. Therefore (so as not to adversely compromise the study schedule and budget), meetings, preliminary reports, etc., covering safety issues will continue as scheduled, and the additional operational findings and information, as they become available, will be incorporated into study work products. Similarly, as the timeline is uncertain for release of the annual, fully processed crash data files for 2002 and 2003, any additional findings (for general observation/comparison purposes) will also be incorporated into study work products pending data availability. Office of Transportation Planning, LBG Page 4 of 4 6/15/05 I-93/1-95 INTERCHANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a combination of strategies and actions whose goal is to encourage travelers to use alternatives to driving alone. TDM may include: encouraging the use of public transit, public/private buses, van/carpools, ferry boats, bicycles and walking; promoting the use of alternative work hours; telecommuting; parking management and financial incentives; providing commuter information; and marketing alternatives to single- occupant vehicles. The Executive Office of Transportation promotes TDM through MassRIDES, the statewide travel options program that provides free assistance to commuters, employers, students and other traveler markets. MassRIDES works directly with employers and commuters to promote: Carpooling: Using a database of interested participants, MassRIDES provides travelers with information to make arrangements for carpooling and vanpooling. Once ridesharing groups have been formed, MassRIDES can also provide assistance and incentives to sustain the groups. In the first year of the ridematch program, MassRIDES' staff members have registered almost 5,000 individuals for inclusion in the database. Vanpooling: MassRIDES has a dedicated vanpool coordinator who works with . companies and commuters to form vanpools by identifying large clusters of employees who commute to and from similar locations at similar times. In addition, individual commuters may be matched with existing vanpools that are currently in operation, when seats are available. • Transit: MassRIDES assists commuters across the state locate and understand the transit options that are available to them. MassRIDES is a resource for the most up-to-date information on the MBTA and the Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) in the state. MassRIDES also assists companies in creating, maintaining and promoting onsite transit pass programs. Tax Benefits: MassRIDES helps employers set programs up that allow employees to set aside pre-tax dollars to purchase transit passes, pay vanpool fares, and to cover qualified parking costs. MassRIDES also assists employers that wish to underwrite the cost of their employees' transit or vanpool commutes, up to $105 and offset qualified parking expenses up to $200 - per employee, per month. These benefits are not considered taxable income for the employee, and employers may write off these costs as a transportation expense. • Bicycling and Walking: MassRIDES helps companies implement strategies to encourage their employees to bicycle or walk to work. MassRIDES may develop a plan to enhance locker room and shower facilities to increase bicycling and walking to work. Parking Management: MassRIDES assists businesses with the creation of innovative programs that reward employees who carpool and vanpool, including preferential parking designated by MassRIDES' "Carpool Parking Only" and "Vanpool Parking Only" signs. Office of Transportation Planning Page 1 of 3 June 6, 2005 J~+% I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: TDM (continued) • Other Benefits: MassRIDES assists companies in creating formal telecommuting or flexible scheduling programs (flexible hours, compressed work week, or staggered start times) at their worksite. MassRIDES helps companies tailor the programs to meet their needs. MassRIDES has launched an Employer Partnership Program to give businesses and public agencies recognition for the steps they take to expand transportation options at their workplace. Partnering with MassRIDES allows employers to receive a broad array of technical assistance, with on-site support designed to encourage employees to commute in new ways. MassRIDES is located on the web at httn://www.commute.com and at 1-888-4COMMUTE. Other strategies that promote ridesharing and public and private bus service are as follows: HOV lanes: A High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane is a special lane reserved for the use of carpools, vanpools, buses and emergency vehicles. Since the majority of commuters drive alone, the HOV lanes are far less populated with vehicles, with traffic generally flowing at higher speeds, while carrying more persons per hour during peak commuting times than a regular, general-purpose (GP) lane. Usually adjacent to the GP lanes, HOV lanes allow multi-occupant vehicles to bypass the slower moving traffic. This offers users the advantages of travel time savings and trip time reliability, an attractive incentive for those commuters that are able to give up some flexibility in order to rideshare. There are a number of different configurations and designs, but the lanes are usually categorized by designated entry and exit points. A safe location - dependent on roadway geometry - that can attract a large proportion of the commuters using the corridor is required for the entrance. Enforcement of the lane's restrictions is also necessary at the entry location, and may be achieved with video surveillance. The exit location must also be a safe location where roadway geometry allows for smooth transition of the HOV traffic into the general-purpose lanes. Configurations may include a concurrent flow lane, such as the I-93 North HOV lane which runs in the same direction as adjacent general purpose traffic, and is available for use by general purpose traffic except during the morning peak period of 6 AM to 10 AM. Another configuration is the contra-flow lane design, used for the Southeast Expressway HOV lane. In this case, a lane is "borrowed" from the off-peak direction and separated from the adjacent general-purpose traffic by moveable jersey barriers. Another configuration not in use in Massachusetts but popular in other parts of the country is a reversible dedicated lane in the median. In this case, the roadway is widened to allow for a center HOV lane that reverses direction depending on the peak hour flow. The most common objectives for HOV lanes arel: 1) To increase the number of persons per vehicle (average vehicle occupancy) 2) To preserve or expand the person-movement capacity of the roadway, and 3) To enhance bus operations (speed and schedule reliability) 1 1999 The ABCs of HOVs: The Texas Experience ht[D://www.i35austin.com/documentl/abcs of hovs.htm# 1 1 1 Office of Transportation Planning Page 2 of 3 June 6, 2005 % I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: TDM (continued) HOT lanes: High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes are HOV lanes where some vehicles are charged a toll for using the lane. In the case where the HOV lane has excess capacity, and more vehicles can be added to the lane without degrading travel times, single occupant vehicles (SOVs) may be allowed to use the lane for a fee. This is how the I-15 facility in San Diego, California works. In the case where the HOV lane usage exceeds capacity during the peak hours, as is the case with I-10 Katy facility in Houston, Texas, HOVs are charged a fee to use the lane during the peak hours. In the case of the Katy facility, 2+ person HOVs pay $2.00 during peak commuting hours while 3+ person HOVs and buses are still free. In the case of the SR-91 Express Lanes in Orange County, California, HOVs pay half the price of the SOVs. Congestion Pricing: Congestion pricing is a policy of charging drivers a fee that varies with the level of traffic on a congested roadway. This mechanism is designed to allocate roadway space, a scarce resource, in a more economically efficient manner, and offer commuters a choice. Sometimes congestion pricing techniques are combined with HOT lanes to vary the toll charged depending on the level of congestion. With today's advances in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), automatic vehicle detection eliminates the need for traditional toll facilities, and the delays that they cause. Also, detectors along the corridor in both the priced lanes and the adjacent general-purpose lanes determine the level of traffic and price the trip in the lane accordingly. Drivers are notified of the cost via variable message signs on the approach to the lane. Depending on the implementation and operational strategy, congestion pricing may encourage drivers to commute during the off-peak or carpool (if carpools receive discounts), use transit, or bike or walk. Office of Transportation Planning Page 3 of 3 June 6, 2005 U t % ~ I-93/1-95 INTERCHANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Transit Services In support of the I-93/I-95 Interchange Study, TranSystems gathered data from existing sources about all relevant transit services in the I-93 corridor. This memorandum presents the results of this data gathering effort and draws conclusions about the potential for transit to affect traffic volumes at the subject highway interchange. The transit services/facilities that were included in this effort include the following: - MBTA commuter rail service on the Lowell and Haverhill Lines - MBTA rapid transit service on the Orange Line - MBTA bus routes 136/137, 132, and 354 - Massport Logan Express from Woburn (Anderson RTC) - MVRTA commuter bus to Boston There is also private carrier bus service that uses I-93, including one daily round trip on Trombly bus lines, two commuter-oriented trips serving Nashua on Vermont Transit, and the following New Hampshire service on Concord Trailways: Londonderry - Boston: 8 morning inbound trips and 9 afternoon outbound trips Concord/Manchester - Boston: 7 morning inbound and 11 midday and evening inbound trips; 5 morning/midday outbound and 13 afternoon/evening outbound trips. These carriers were not contacted because such private companies have never divulged ridership information in previous studies. Data on the included services was collected from the Central Transportation Planning Staff, the Massachusetts Port Authority, and the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority. CTPS is responsible for most of the data collection on MBTA services and had available the requisite commuter rail and bus ridership data. M 3TA Commuter Rail Two of the MBTA's commuter rail lines are relevant to the study corridor: the Haverhill/Reading line and the Lowell line. For these services, we obtained recent ridership data and parking capacity and utilization counts at the stations on these two lines. Total weekday ridership, as reported by the train conductors, on the Haverhill/Reading line is 4,663 and ridership on the Lowell line is 4,688 (May, 2004). These totals are broken out by station and by train in the tables below. There is parking available at all 13 stations on the Haverhill/Reading line and all 7 stations on the Lowell line. The great majority of these parking lots are filled to capacity or near capacity on a daily basis. According to the most recent counts, the only lots that have available capacity are Haverhill (50 of 167 spaces available), Bradford (160 of 319 spaces available), and the Anderson Regional Transportation Center (1,140 of 1,500 spaces available). The other large parking facilities in this corridor are located at Lowell station (Gallagher Terminal) with 695 spaces, North Billerica station (541 spaces), and Reading station (414 spaces). These latter facilities are typically filled to capacity. Office of Transportation Planning Page 1 of 4 June 6, 2005 I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: Transit Services (continued) M 3TA Commuter rail inbound boardings by station Haverhill / Readinq Lowell Haverhill 484 Lowell Bradford 278 N. Billerica Lawrence 591 Wilmington Andover 605 Anderson RTC Ballardvale 279 Mishawum N. Wilmington 186 Winchester Reading 667 Wedgemere Wakefield 536 W. Medford Greenwood 99 Melrose Highlands 328 Melrose Cedar Park 238 Wyoming Hill 242 Maiden Center 130 4,663 MBTA Commuter rail inbound ridership by train Haverhill/Reading Lowell Trains Riders Trains 208 4663 Riders 166 512 428 457 298 531 258 103 239 148 107 105 96 235 134 52 10 47 26 45 8 28 27 0 4688 1224 802 453 769 25 537 409 469 4,688 META Rapid Transit Although the Orange Line does not extend as far north as Route 128, Wellington station serves a large market area due to its relatively easy access from I-93. The 1994 passenger survey on the Orange Line can tell us how many people from north of Route 128 are passing through the subject interchange, and thus may be susceptible to capture north of the interchange. According to the survey results, of the 2,000 passengers who parked at the station, some 680, or approximately one third originated north of Route 128. We have similar data available for all rapid transit stations. Office of Transportation Planning Page 2 of 4 June 6, 2005 202 366 302 204 613 304 206 691 306 208 640 308 258 558 310 212 538 312 262 268 314 214 148 316 266 28 318 218 139 320 222 32 322 220 149 324 274 20 326 226 54 328 232 97 330 280 60 334 282 35 236 284 10 336 236 77 338 288 7 340 238 103 342 292 7 344 244 20 232 ~N I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: Transit Services (continued) MBTA Bus Several MBTA bus routes serve the corridor. Four routes in particular were judged to be the most relevant to this study: • Route 132 from Redstone Shopping Center in Stoneham to Malden Center • Routes 136 and 137 from Reading Depot to Malden Center • Route 354 Express from Woburn to Downtown Boston The table below shows a summary of the most recent ridership statistics on these routes. Weekday Boardings Peak Period Load Factor Peak Period Frequency Route Inbound Outbound AM Inbound PM Outbound AM Inbound PM Outbound 132 285 219 0.78 0.70 30 45 136 515 434 0.90 0.97 30 40 137 457 509 0.95 1.06 30 40 354 401 418 0.83 0.77 14 15 Overall, these routes have moderate to low ridership levels, compared to other routes in the MBTA system. However, they are generally well used in the peak period as demonstrated by the high load factors. Only Route 132 shows more than 20% unused seating capacity for both peak periods. Of course, the capacity on these routes could be increased by running buses more frequently. Current peak period frequencies are shown above in the table. Most of the service, especially in the afternoon, is relatively infrequent. While a boost in service would most likely encourage some additional ridership, it is likely that the supply is already well calibrated to the demand. Massport Logan Express Massport operates a Logan Express route from Woburn at the Anderson Regional Transportation Center to Logan Airport seven days a week. Buses run every 30 minutes, with a total of 38 daily inbound trips and 36 daily outbound trips. Occasional extra trips are run if demand exceeds the supply of service. Using October 2004 ridership statistics, these buses carried an average of 11 passengers over all trips, though inbound trips in the early morning hours routinely carry more than 30 passengers (and sometimes more than 40), as do outbound trips in the midday period (around 1:00 p.m.). Over the past four years, ridership on this route has been increasing by an average of nearly 10% amiually. Figures from 2001 through 2004 area shown below: Year Total Riders Percent Change 2001 215,570 2002 234,511 8.8% 2003 268,943 14.7% 2004 283,436 5.4% A round-trip fare on the Logan Express is $20, and parking at the Anderson RTC at the overnight lot is $11 per day, with a weekly rate of $66. Logan employees do not pay the full cash fare, but instead show an employee pass. Among current riders, 46% pay full cash fare, 11 % pay the senior fare ($18 round-trip), 2-3% are children (who ride free), and the remaining 40% are employees who use passes. `~ry Office of Transportation Planning Page 3 of 4 June 6, 2005 I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: Transit Services (continued) There are 875 parking spaces available at the Logan Express lot at the RTC, which is physically separated from the MBTA/MassHighway lot. Parking demand is quite variable depending on the time of day, season, and day of week, but according to Massport, the lot rarely fills up. Typical overnight usage is 200 to 300 cars, with up to 500 cars at peak usage during the day. MVRTA Commuter Bus The Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority operates two commuter trips per day in each direction. The inbound trips leave from Methuen at 6:10 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. and serve additional stops in Lawrence and Andover. In Boston, the following locations are served: Haymarket Square,Government Center, Park Street MBTA Station, Essex & Tremont Streets, the Transportation Building in Park Square, Copley Square and Essex & Lincoln Streets. The two afternoon outbound trips leave from Government Center at 4:40 p.m. and 5:25 p.m. This route serves approximately 100 passengers per day, or roughly 25 passengers per trip. Service operates on weekdays only. The fare is $5 per one-way trip, but a ten-ride pass is available for $40. Other Data Available More detailed information is available, including complete schedules for all transit routes and trip-by-trip ridership figures on the MBTA bus routes. Conclusions There are a variety of transit services in the I-93 corridor. The bulk of the transit riders are carried on the two commuter rail lines. MBTA local buses serve shorter trips, while the MVRTA and private carriers serve longer-distance trips. There is likely not a large untapped market for corridor bus service within Massachusetts, since private carrier service in the corridor has dropped over the years. For trips from New Hampshire, the private carriers are presumably maximizing service consistent with profitability. The potential for increasing transit ridership, and thereby reducing volume through the I-93/I-95 interchange seems to lie mainly with commuter rail, particularly at the Anderson RTC. This station has substantial available parking capacity. Although travelers from the I-93 corridor north of I-95 who are headed to Boston do not use the current interchange (since they are traveling through on I-93), there may be ways to improve access to the RTC from other directions and to encourage drivers to park there and use transit to reach Boston instead of driving. If such efforts are successful, it is likely that additional trains on the Lowell line would be necessary to accommodate the increased demand. Another project being considered is an extension of commuter rail to Nashua, New Hampshire. If this extension is implemented, it is likely that some of the traffic using the interchange would be diverted to commuter rail, since many of these people probably use Route 3 to reach Route 128, and then use I-93 to get into Boston. It is possible that subsidy of bus trips from New Hampshire could increase transit ridership. It is unclear whether it would be feasible to subsidize what is already a profitable private business. Office of Transportation Planning Page 4 of 4 June 6, 2005 Hechenblefter, Peter From: Frey, Bob (MHD) [Bob.Frey@state.ma.us] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:28 AM To: Corey, John; Marquis, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen, Darlene; Casey, Paul; Curran, John; DiBlasi, Joe; Durrant, Ian; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike; Gallagher, Jim; Gallerani, Michael; Grover, Robert; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones, Bradley; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; Meaney, Paul; Medeiros, Paul; Motter, Andrew; Natale, Patrick; Rogers, Maureen A.; Smith, Susan; Sodano, Paul; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill; Woelfel, Steve Cc: Blaustein, Joan; Burggraff, Mary; Callan, Melissa; Christello, Tricia; Cooke, Don; Dame, Chris; DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark; Dwyer, Margaret; Edwards, Adriel; Florino, Ron; Frey, Bob; Grzegorzewski, Josh; Town Manager; Lucas, Barbara; Lutz, Elaine; Mauriello, Lauren; McKinnon, Anne; Mcvann, John; Miller, Kenneth; O'Rourke, Carmen; Purdy, Jim; Reilly, Chris; Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Tafoya, Ben; Van Magness, Frederick; Wood, Gail Subject: Next 93/95 ITF Meeting 6/22 UK En ITF 2005 06-22 ITF 2005 05-18 neeting agenda.., summary.doc Greetings Task Force Members: Just a reminder that the next meeting of the I-93/1-95 Interchange Task Force will be: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:30 PM - 6:30 PM Reading Senior Center 49 Pleasant Street Reading Directions if you need them: Traveling north on Route 28, take a right on to Pleasant at the traffic light post in the center of town. The Senior Center is the brick building on the right. Parking is on street or in the lot behind the building. The 6/22 meeting agenda and a summary from the last ITF meeting (5/18) are attached: «ITF 2005 06-22 meeting agenda.doc>> «ITF 2005 05-18 summary.doc>> At this meeting, we will hear reports from the Data Subcommittee, which met on June 6th, and the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Subcommittee, which met on June 9th. We will also continue to cover two of our recent topics: Defining the problems and developing potential alternatives. Stay tuned for various review documents prior to the meeting... Thanks, - Bob Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (617) 973-7449 bob.frey@state.ma.us 1 ~L~- Mitt Romney Governor ;•..,C,f.;G Pfr~f l,.'f%"r'~• -1%v:'f.% ti w - jf.1.'/J%'~' 1.t1'lrI,CY/~f.I'/l ~iJ;~. ...,~'~~/I^ ._//(,f,7%:s`:t7: <_JC~:`jlr:/Z~ •../ie.: ~ ,~~i/ /f ,:.1 ~t/.,.~ Kerry Healey John Cogliano Lieutenant Governor Secretary of Transportation 1-93 /1-95 INTERCHANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY TASK FORCE MEETING Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:30 PM - 6:30 PM Reading Senior Center 49 Pleasant Street Reading, MA 01867 MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 4:30 2. Administrative Items and Review: 4:35 (Meeting Summaries, Study Approaches, ITF Communications) 3. Report of the Data Subcommittee 4:45 4. Report of the Transportation Demand Management 5:00 (TDM) Subcommittee 5. Problem Statement Review 5:15 6. Potential Alternatives: 5:30 (Previous Concepts, New Ideas) 7. Questions & Answers / Other Business I Next Meetings 6:15 Telephone (617) 9;73-7000 TDD (617) 973-7306 Telefax (617) 52376454 a I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study Task Force Meeting Wednesday, May 18, 2005 4:30 PM Shamrock Elementary School Woburn, Massachusetts Attendance Task Force Members and Public who signed in: Camille Anthony Reading Selectman Jonathan Barnes Reading CPD Darlene Bruen Woburn Citizen Jeff Conti Rep. Bradley Jones Don Cooke Consultant for Woburn Jay Corey Woburn City Engineer John Curran Mayor of Woburn Tony DiSarcina Public Ian Durrant MassRIDES Jim Gallagher MAPC Eileen Hamblin Board of Realtors Paul Meaney Woburn Business Assn. Patrick Natale State Representative Rick Schubert Reading Selectman Paul Sodano Stoneham Chamber of Comm.Bob Soli Public Ed Tarallo Woburn Planning Director Steve Woelfel MBTA Doug Wood-Boyle Pragmatic Public Relations EOT/MassHighway staff: Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning, Study Project Manager Adriel Edwards Planning Consultant team: Jim Purdy Louis Berger Group (Project Manager) Keri Pyke Louis Berger Group (Traffic) Rick Azzalina Louis Berger Group (Engineering) Anne McKinnon Howard/Stein-Hudson (Public Participation) Kathy Stein Howard/Stein-Hudson (Public Participation) Meetine Summarv Welcome and Introductions Bob Frey opened the I-93/I-95 Interchange Task Force meeting and distributed the sign-in sheets. In accordance with MassHighway's policy of a fair and open study process, all Task Force meetings are open to the public, but agenda items are discussed first with Task Force members. Information is regularly updated on the project website littD://www.9395info.com/. Administrative Items and Review Bob Frey said meeting summaries for the April 6th Task Force meeting and the May 5th Congestion Subcommittee meeting had been emailed and posted to the website. He asked if there were any questions or comments. There were none. Regarding the Data Subcommittee, Bob explained that their next task is to assess the current status of the safety data analysis and issues and propose next steps. Office of Transportation Planning Page 1 of 6 Printed: 6/16/2005 I-93/1-95 Interchange Task Force Meeting of May 18, 2005 In preparation for the subcommittee meeting, the Louis Berger Group, with the assistance of MassHighway, is drafting two documents related to the work done to date. One is a brief summary of the safety analysis, which explains the process, discusses the issues and summarizes how they have been addressed. The other is a more detailed explanation of the results of the analysis. Bob explained that the subcommittee would receive these materials in advance of their meeting. Their assessment will be presented by a subcommittee spokesperson for discussion at the next full Task Force meeting. Ed Tarallo asked that all Task Force. members be informed of when the subcommittees are going to meet. He also asked that all Task Force members be sent the materials or have them posted on the website. Bob agreed to this. Report of the Congestion Subcommittee Bob explained that the Congestion Subcommittee meeting on May 5th covered four topics: historical CTPS congestion data compiled and presented by George Katsoufis; recent CTPS travel time runs; ramp analysis; and the CORSIM microsimulation model. He commented that it was a productive meeting, and, similar to the data subcommittee, a lot of information was presented. He then turned to Jay Corey to give an overview. Jay discussed the ramp analysis, saying that a histogram for each ramp displayed hourly traffic volumes. He commented that the data revealed that most of the ramps run at capacity for 12 to 16 hours of the day, starting from 5 AM to 8 PM or 9 PM. Darlene Bruen asked if this corresponds to bumper-to-bumper traffic throughout that time period. Jay said the flow is more continuous than bumper-to-bumper traffic, but around 1,200 vehicles/hour translates to conditions at or above capacity, and most ramps carried that volume (or more) most of the time. Jay then described the CORSIM microsimulation model in detail. He listed the inputs to the model, including the October traffic counts on the interstates and local roads, geometric features of the interchange and adjacent roadways, as well as actual travel time runs performed by CTPS. He characterized the model as very credible given the level of detail and customization, adding that currently it is calibrated to within 8% of measured conditions during the 7 AM to 8 AM peak hour. He said that once the model is completely calibrated, it would be used as a tool to test alternatives. Jay expressed confidence with the progress made at the meeting. Darlene asked if all subcommittee members agreed with this assessment. Jay explained that his brief overview was based on his impressions - that there was considerably more information shared at the meeting, that the meeting went over schedule and the group did not summarize afterwards. Jim Purdy pointed out that today's agenda includes George Katsoufis' congestion data presentation. Bob added that George suggested that more regional data be incorporated into the analysis. Bob explained that the CORSIM model will be presented to the full Task Force at a later date when it is fully calibrated and its results more understood. Darlene asked the team to describe what the CORSIM animation looks like. She wondered if she had seen a similar animation previously. Bob and Jim described the animation and Darlene realized she has not seen this previously. Keri Pyke added that driver characteristics are programmed into the model, allowing for customization of the percentage of drivers that are "aggressive". Jim Purdy noted that the model also calculates the number of lane changes going on any given length of roadway. Bob added that one of the most useful features of the model is that it highlights queue lengths. Jim Gallagher asked if the model is also calibrated to travel time runs and not just traffic volumes. Keri and Bob answered in the affirmative, explaining that the travel time runs are one of the measures of the model's accuracy. Office of Transportation Planning Page 2 of 6 Printed: 6/16/2005 I-93/1-95 Interchange Task Force Meeting of May 18, 2005 Bob invited Keri to present George Katsoufis' slides on historical congestion data. Keri explained that the data was assembled from the Central Transportation Planning Staff's (CTPS) reports "Speeds and Travel Times on Limited-Access Highways in the Boston Metropolitan Region" from 1994-1995 and 1999-2000. Superimposed on an aerial photograph, highway segments in the immediate interchange area were color-coded by average traveling speeds at certain peak times. George selected dark orange to represent the slowest speeds from 0 to 29 miles per hour and very light orange to represent speeds in excess of 60 miles per hour, with four other colors in between to represent 30 to 44, 45 to 49, 50 to 54 and 55 to 59 MPH. George also selected half-hour increments between 7 AM and 8:30 AM and between 4:30 and 6 PM to display the peak hours. The slides offer a graphical representation of the congestion on the highway segments in the immediate interchange area during the peak hours. Keri first went through the 1994 slides. Camille Anthony asked if the colors were so dark on I-93 southbound in the morning between the off- and on-ramps because of the activity surrounding those movements. Keri answered in the affirmative. Jonathan Barnes also questioned the source of that congestion, and asked if the data was available before 7 AM and further north than what was displayed. Jay commented that that phenomenon also occurs at the Route 128 weave section. Paul Sodano noted that the congestion continues further south of the interchange. Keri confirmed Paul's observation, saying that one of the things that came out of the subcommittee meeting was that congestion is also a regional issue, and not isolated to the interchange. Keri then went through the 1999 slides. Camille noted that the colors were different in the sections on I-93 southbound during the morning peak period than in the 1994 slides. Adriel Edwards discussed how the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project may have affected that. In response to a question from Camille, Keri said the I-93 data was displayed to Commerce Way. As Keri went through the slides, she noted that the colors were darker earlier, indicating slower speeds earlier in the commute. Paul Sodano noted that in the PM, on Route 128 northbound, north of Route 28, speeds improve. Jim Purdy cautioned all not to equate the speed change with the exact location displayed in the graphic. The speed changes are displayed where the speeds are measured but the actual change in speed may occur at a slightly different location, for example, not exactly at Route 28. Jeff Conti asked when the CTPS does the speed runs. Jim Purdy said speed runs are done in October, which is considered a typical month, and are discarded and re-done if there is an incident. Keri Pyke distributed the "Volume to Practical Capacity" maps created by CTPS that show historical traffic volumes on all interstates and major highways in Eastern Massachusetts in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Keri explained that with thickening and darkening lines for the highways over the three decades, the maps represent how the whole highway system has become more congested throughout, and the I-93/I-95 interchange in particular is becoming more congested at all four approaches. These maps are a measure of general overall congestion in the region, although the I-93/I-95 interchange remains a chokepoint. Camille Anthony asked from where the additional traffic is coming. Bob answered that population growth, more vehicles per household, more trip-making, smaller household size, more women in the workforce - all contribute to many more cars on the road today than in 1970. Keri then reviewed the levels of service (LOS) on the ramps in the interchange and immediate area. LOS is a common descriptor of traffic conditions - ranging from grades of "A" (free-flow) to "F" (breakdown, unstable flow). Several factors influence LOS, including basic highway design and the lengths of weaving sections. In terms of the density of traffic - measured by the ~j number of passenger cars per mile per lane (pc/mi/ln) - LOS A indicates that a highway weaving Office of Transportation Planning Page 3 of 6 Printed: 6/16/2005 I-93/1-95 Interchange Task Force Meeting of May 18, 2005 segment is processing fewer than 10 pc/mi/ln and LOS F corresponds to more than 43 pc/mi/ln. Keri displayed a map of the area with the ramps color-coded by LOS, which revealed that all the interchange loop ramps are LOS F and at least portions of the slip ramps are LOS E or F. Several portions of the ramps of Exit 36 and 38 are also LOS E and F. Keri then showed bar graphs of hourly volumes of each ramp. Almost every ramp has fairly steady volumes throughout the day. Jim Purdy explained that this is called "peak-hour spreading," because high volumes extend beyond the typical peak hours. Keri said that different ramps can process different volumes, but typically, a ramp with 1,200 vehicles per hour would be considered LOS F. For very tight loops, even 800 vehicles per hour could be considered LOS F. Ramp A: 128 SB to I-93 SB-This ramp has high volumes from 6 AM until 7 PM with a dip in volumes from 8 AM to 9 AM due to extremely slow-moving traffic. Ramp B: Route I-93 NB to 128 SB-High volumes from 7 AM until 7 PM. Ramp C: Route 128 NB to I-93 NB-This ramp has slightly lower volumes than the others and has fewer hours of extremely high volumes. Ramp D: I-93 SB to 128 NB-This ramp has significantly lower volumes than others, but has steady volumes from 7 AM through 7 PM. Ramp E: 128 NB to I-93 SB-This ramp experiences big spikes of traffic in the morning and evening peak hours and has fairly high volumes in between. Ramp F: I-93 SB to 128 SB-This ramp had the highest volume of any ramp in the interchange during a one-hour period (8 AM to 9 AM) with close to 1,800 vehicles processed. Volumes remain high throughout the day and spike again in the evening peak hour. Ramp G: 128 SB to I-93 NB-This low-volume ramp has steady traffic from 7 AM until 7 PM. Ramp H: I-93 NB to I-95 NB-Traffic is steady on this ramp between 7 AM and 7 PM. Darlene Bruen asked why volumes on a ramp dropped during the seemingly busiest peak hour. The team explained that downstream congestion prevents more cars from being processed on the ramp. Paul Sodano reiterated that congestion continues south of the interchange. Jay Corey noted that one of the negative side effects of congestion at the interchange is that the local roadways also become busier. Rick Schubert added that this information and the trends across the region confirm that congestion will continue to be an issue whether or not something is done at the interchange. Jim Purdy said the challenge is to determine what congestion is a result of the bottleneck here at the interchange and what is attributable to region-wide traffic volumes. Bob said all this will be kept in mind as we explore various alternatives. He invited Jim to give a review of the brainstorming session. Brainstorming Session II: Options for ImurovinLy the Interchange Jim Purdy reviewed results of the March 5th brainstorming session (there was no Group 1): Group 2: Focused on fixing the two worst ramps to improve the overall interchange, including improving access to Anderson Regional Transportation Center Anderson from Woburn which could require a bridge. They also considered improvements to MBTA service. Group 3: Proposed eliminating two ramps (I-93 SB to 128 SB and I-93 NB to 128 SB) and shift traffic to Commerce Way. Group 4: Proposed eliminating the current connection from 128 SB to Commerce Way and eliminate I-93 NB to 128 SB. Upgrade Commerce Way; relocate Washington Street \J0 Interchange south to Mishawum. (This suggestion was later the subject of the March 30 ITF 10 meeting.) QA Office of Transportation Planning Page 4 of 6 Printed: 6/16/2005 I-93/1-95 Interchange Task Force Meeting of May 18, 2005 Jim Purdy said the team would create a long list of possible options for the interchange that works within the context of the area, and not simply propose an "off-the-shelf' interchange improvement. The team and the Task Force will screen out those that don't meet specified criteria. Detailed analysis will be done on those alternatives that fare well in the first screening. Rick Azzalina asked participants to elaborate on the good work done at the previous brainstorming session and provide more ideas for individual problem areas, such as the I-93 NB to Route 128 SB loop ramp. He would provide his engineering expertise to fine-tune the ideas and make them work together and within the context of the area. Paul Sodano said he did not feel comfortable suggesting technical solutions, although it is important for the Task Force to participate in developing solutions through the process. Darlene echoed Paul's sentiment and asked Rick to share his ideas for improvements. Eileen Hamblin asked if small-scale measures, such as improvements to grades, sightlines, and signage that would not require property takings would be considered in this exercise. The consultant team responded in the affirmative, so Eileen also encouraged the team to provide some examples of feasible improvements. Jay Corey requested that the conceptual ideas be further developed. Kathy Stein suggested that, based on the comments, the rest of the session build on the work done at the March 5th brainstorming session; attack the issues in any order; and that the consulting engineers lead the discussion. Jim Purdy proposed principles to guide the alternatives development: • Stay within the existing interchange footprint and minimize takings. • Consider alternate exiting paths for interstate traffic heading to local destinations. • Utilize existing "slack" in the right-of-way for minor improvements. • Deal with the most important problems first. • All options, including ideas from the previous study (or variations of them) can be considered. Rick Azzalina described three possible options to consider: Since the ramps in the northeast quadrant cause congestion on three other ramps, eliminating the loop and providing a direct connection from I-93 NB to 128 SB in another way and eliminating the Route 128 connection to Commerce Way (Exit 36) would alleviate a lot of congestion. Eliminate the loop ramp from Rt.128 SB to I-93-SB and provide a direct connection. A short-term improvement - with minimal impact - could be made by adding a lane to Rt.128 NB east of the interchange within the existing right-of-way and extending the acceleration/deceleration ramps with minimal impact. Ed Tarallo and Jay Corey disapproved of the idea to eliminate the Route 128 access to Commerce Way, saying the economic impacts of these alternatives would be significant. Paul Meaney agreed, saying a lot of money was recently spent on access to Commerce Way. He added that it is difficult to imagine eliminating these improvements. Paul Sodano said tradeoffs between the transportation improvements and impacts need to be weighed, and asked the consultant team to provide guidance on realistic expectations. Eileen Hamblin and Rick Azzalina both noted that access to the Woburn Mall and Commerce Way developments via I-93 North is very convenient. Adriel Edwards noted that until the idea is modeled and tested, the i Office of Transportation Planning Page 5 of 6 Printed: 6/16/2005 I-93/1-95 Interchange Task Force Meeting of May 18, 2005 impacts are unknown. Eileen Hamblin reminded the group that the purpose of "brainstorming" is to generate a lot of ideas because even an unpopular idea may lead to a more constructive solution after some discussion and development. Jim Gallagher asked if a collector-distributor system could work for the area, providing access to Commerce Way in the vicinity of Route 128 as is provided now. Rick said a collector-distributor system might work very well. Jeff Conti and Camille Anthony asked what would the footage requirements be for such a system, and could land takings be avoided. Rick provided some estimates of roadway widths, but added that it is unknown whether takings would be required. Ed Tarallo said in addition to congestion at the interchange, there are problems on the mainline - which should be tackled first? Rick Azzalina said one short-term solution that may alleviate some mainline congestion is an additional lane on Route 128 NB north of the interchange, since there is room in the right of way for such a lane. Rick added that there is even more right-of-way on I-93 and that most acceleration and deceleration lanes could be lengthened with minimal impacts. For example, Rick explained that if the deceleration lane on I-93 NB to Route 128 NB were extended, that traffic could be segregated from the traffic that is continuing north or exiting to Route 128 SB. These and other possible improvements such as collector-distributor roads and braided ramps to serve Washington Street will be assembled for review at the next Task Force meeting. Maintaining direct access to the Woburn commercial area (via Exit 36) is very important to the city and businesses. Rick Schubert said there is a need to identify transit options that could help reduce traffic volumes through the interchange. Eileen Hamblin asked if there was interest in a Transit Subcommittee, which had been proposed at the last Task Force meeting. Volunteers for the newly formed "Transportation Demand Management" (TDM) Subcommittee (covering transit) included Eileen Hamblin, Ian Durrant, Rick Schubert, Ed Tarallo, and Steve Woelfel. TDM is a combination of strategies and actions whose goal is to encourage travelers to use alternatives to driving alone. The TDM subcommittee will look at these types of options, including transit, and in general explore ideas aimed at reducing the overall volume of traffic during the periods of highest congestion. Other Business/Closine Remarks Paul Meaney offered to convene a meeting of area business owners and leaders to provide an update on the interchange project. Paul Meaney said he would take the lead on publicity for this event. Steve Woelfel said the high bid for Mishawum station was $7.2 million and the proposal will be voted on at the July MBTA Board of Directors meeting. SchedulinLy Upcoming Meetings The next Task Force meeting will be Wednesday, June 22nd (location to be determined), provided that significant subcommittee work can be completed. The Data Subcommittee, the Congestion Subcommittee, and the Transportation Demand Management Subcommittee will attempt to meet before the June Task Force meeting and will report to the full Task Force. Another Task Force meeting will be scheduled for July 13th. Office of Transportation Planning Page 6 of 6 Printed: 6/16/2005 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Marcel A. Dubois [duboism@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 2:07 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: RCTV Bylaws - Revised June 14, 2005 Peter, Attached please find our most recent, and approved copy of our Bylaws. Thank you, Marcel A. Dubois RCTV President 781-944-3652 Page 1 of 1 C ~I 6/15/2005 BYLAWS OF READING COMMUNITY TELEVISION, INC. Revised: June 14, 2005 ti~ Table of Contents ARTICLE I. NAME 3 ARTICLE II. PURPOSE . 3 ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP . 3 Section 1. One Class of Membershib . 3 Section 2. Members . 3 Section 3. Voting Rights . 3 ARTICLE IV. BOARD OF DIRECTORS . 4 Section 1. Powers and Duties . 4 Section 2. Number of Directors/Term of Office . 4 Section 3. Resignation or Removal . 5 Section 4. Vacancies . 5 Section 5. Disaualification . 5 Section 6. Compensation . 5 ARTICLE V. OFFICERS . 6 Section 1. Officers . 6 Section 2. Duties of the President . 6 Section 3. Duties of the Vice President . 6 Section 4. Duties of the Clerk . 6 Section 5. Duties of the Treasurer . 7 Section 6. Notes, Checks, and Bank Signatorv . 7 ARTICLE VI. MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS . 8 Section 1. Regular Meetings . 8 Section 2. SUecial Meetings . 8 Section 3. Notice of Meetings . 8 Section 4. Ouorum . 8 ARTICLE VII. MEETINGS OF MEMBERS . 9 Section 1. Annual Meeting 9 Section 2. Sbecial Meetings 9 Section 3. Place for Meetings 9 Section 4. Notice of Meetings 9 Section 5. Presiding Officers 9 Section 6. Ouorurn 9 ARTICLE VII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF 10 ARTICLE VIII. INDEMNIFICATION 11 ARTICLE IX. MISCELLANEOUS 12 Section 1. Seal 12 Section 2. Notice 12 Section 3. Fiscal Year 12 Section 4. Conduct of Meetings 12 Section 5. Disposition of Assets 12 Bylaws of Reading Community Television Page 2 ARTICLE I. NAME The name of this corporation shall be READING COMMTJNITY TELEVISION, INC. (hereinafter in these Bylaws referred to as RCTV). RCTV is a Public, Educational and Governmental Access (PEG) Corporation. ARTICLE II. PURPOSE The purpose of RCTV shall be as set forth in the Articles of Organization and these Bylaws, including, but not limited to, producing community access programming for the residents and organization of Reading, allocating channel space and time to Reading residents to cablecast programming and providing training to Reading residents and organizations in the use of access facilities and equipment. The purpose shall be exclusively charitable, scientific and educational within the meaning of Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended from time to time. ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP Section 1. One Class of Membership Membership shall consist of one class, to be designated as regular, and shall not be limited as to number. Section 2. Members Reading residents or members of, firms, corporations, businesses, organizations, institutions and other entities in the Town of Reading who subscribe to the purpose of the Corporation and who support the corporation are eligible to become members by submitting a written and signed application. All members shall have a right to notice of and attendance at meetings of the Corporation. Any person interested in becoming a member of the Corporation shall submit a written and signed application, on a form approved by the Board of Directors, to the Clerk of the Corporation. Section 3. Votinq Rights At every regular or special meeting of the members, each member authorized to vote shall be entitled to one (1) vote, in person or by proxy, on each matter submitted to a vote of the members. Every proxy shall be executed in writing and shall be filed with the Clerk of the Corporation prior to the exercise thereof. Bylaws of Reading Community Television f Page 3 % ARTICLE IV. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Section 1. Powers and Duties The Board of Directors shall have general power to control and manage the affairs and property of the Corporation, and shall have full power, by majority vote, to adopt rules and regulations governing the action of the Board of Directors and shall have full authority with respect to the distribution and payment of the moneys received by the corporation from time to time; provided, however, that the fundamental and basic purposes of the corporation, as expressed in the Articles of Organization, shall not thereby be amended or changed, and provided further, that the Board of Directors, shall not permit any part of the net earnings or capital of the corporation for the benefit of any private individual. Section 2. Number of Directors/Term of Office The Board of Directors shall be persons named in the Articles of Organization and by the Board of Selectmen and the Reading School Committee. The number of Directors shall not be less than seven (7) and not greater than nine (9). ■ One (1) Director shall be appointed by the Board of Selectmen. ■ One (1) Director shall be appointed by the School Committee. ■ If the number of Directors is seven (7): A maximum of three (3) directors shall be elected by the members to staggered three years terms. ■ If the number of Directors is nine (9): A maximum of five (5) directors shall be elected by the members to staggered three years terms. ■ The remaining directors shall be elected by the Board of Directors to staggered three year terms. ■ All Directors shall serve for staggered three year terms. Within the limits prescribed by these Bylaws, the number of Directors may be fixed from time to time by the members at the annual meeting. A Director need not be a member of the Corporation prior to his or her election or appointment to the Board of Directors. Questions concerning eligibility shall be determined by the Board of Directors holding office prior to the election concerned. Each Director shall continue in office until the expiration of the term for which he or she is elected, or until his or her successor shall have been elected and qualified, or until his or her death, resignation or removal. V Bylaws of Reading Community Television Page 4 Section 3. Resionation or Removal A Director may resign by delivering his or her written resignation to the Corporation at its principal office or to any Corporation officer. Such resignation shall be effective upon its acceptance by the Board of Directors. Any Director who fails to attend three (3) consecutive meetings of the Board of Directors without sufficient excuse may be removed from the Board of Directors by a majority vote of those present and voting at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors. In addition the Board of Directors may remove any Director at its discretion, for sufficient cause. Any Director proposed to be removed shall be entitled to at least ten (10) days notice in writing by mail of the meeting of the Board of Directors at which such removal is to be voted upon and shall be entitled to appear before and be heard by the Board of Directors at such meeting prior to such vote for removal taking place. Section 4. Vacancies Any vacancy in the Board of Directors arising for any cause may be filled for the unexpired term by the appointing body, i.e. Selectmen or School Committee. If the membership position is vacant, the board of directors may fill the term, by a majority vote, until the next election by the membership. Section 5. Disqualification No member of the Corporation's staff shall serve as a member of the Board of Directors. No close relative of the Corporation's staff including spouse, mother, father, sister, brother, child, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, or brother-in-law shall serve as a member of the' Board of Directors, nor shall any close relative of a member of the Board of Directors be an employee of the Corporation. No employee or close relative of an employee of the Reading Cable Television Licensee, or its parent and/or affiliates, may serve as a member of the Board of Directors, nor shall any Director or close relative become an employee of the Reading Cable Television Licensee, its parent and/or its affiliates. Section 6. Comaensation Directors shall receive no compensation for their services. A Director shall not be precluded from serving RCTV in any other capacity, other than as a staff member, provided that a full disclosure of the nature of such service and compensation therefore, if any, is filed with the Clerk of RCTV. If appropriate, a formal agreement with said Director shall be approved by the Board of Directors, prior to the service being provided; provided, however, that no conflict of interest is inherent in such service. Said Director shall be precluded from voting on such formal agreement, or on any issue coming before the Board that relates to such service. Bylaws of Reading Community Television Page 5 ARTICLE V. OFFICERS Section 1. Officers The Officers of the Corporation shall include a President, a Vice President, a Clerk and a Treasurer. The Board of Directors shall elect all Officers, from the Board of Directors. No person shall hold more than one office at any one time. Each Officer of the Corporation shall be elected annually and shall hold office until the next Annual Meeting of the Corporation, or special meeting held in place thereof, and thereafter until his or her successor is chosen and qualified. Section 2. Duties of the President The President shall be the chief executive officer of RCTV. The President shall make a report on the affairs of RCTV at each meeting of the members and Directors, and shall see that all orders and resolutions of the members and Directors are carried into effect; subject, however, to the right of the members or the Directors to delegate to any other person any specific delegable duties. On Behalf of the Board of Directors, the President shall execute in the name of RCTV all deeds, bonds, mortgages, membership certificates, written contracts and other documents and, when necessary or proper, shall affix thereto the corporate seal. The president shall be the chairman of the Executive Committee. The President shall be an ex-officio member of all committees and shall perform such other duties as are usually incident to his or her office or may be required by the Directors. Section 3. Duties of the Vice President The Vice President shall fulfill the duties of the President in the event of the absence of incapacity of the President, and shall have such other powers and shall perform such other duties as are set forth in these Bylaws, as now or hereafter amended, and as the Board of Directors may designate from time to time. In the absence or incapacity of the Vice President, any other officer of the corporation shall fulfill the aforesaid duties of the President. Section 4. Duties of the Clerk The Clerk shall issue notices of Directors and Membership Meetings as hereinbefore set forth, shall attend and keep the minutes of the same in suitable Minute Books, shall have custody of all corporate books, records, papers, and the corporate seal, shall attest the signing and sealing by the President of all instruments requiring the Corporate Seal and the signing of all other instruments when so required by the President, these Bylaws, or Bylaw, shall do such other duties as are usually incident to his or her office or as may be required by the Directors. Bylaws of Reading Community Television 1 ti Page 6 Section 5. Duties of the Treasurer The Treasurer of the Corporation shall oversee the financial affairs of the Corporation and shall make regular reports to the Board of Directors, and report financial reports with the RCTV accountant. Section 6. Notes. Checks. and Bank Sianatorv All notes, drafts, checks and other orders for the payment of the money shall be signed by two persons as the Board of Directors may designate from time to time. The President, Treasurer, and Executive Director shall be listed on all bank accounts of RCTV, as authorized by the Board of Directors. Bylaws of Reading Community Television Page 7 ARTICLE VI. MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Section 1. Regular Meetings Regular meetings of the Board of Directors for the transaction of such business as may be done in accordance with law, the Articles of Organization of the Corporation and these Bylaws, and shall be held at such times as the Board of Directors may fix from time to time. Meetings of the Directors may be held by telephone conference call and/or such other means as designated by the Board of Directors. Regular meetings shall be open to RCTV membership. Section 2. Special Meetinas Special meetings of the Directors may be called by the President, or by a majority of the Directors and shall be held at such time and for such purposed as may be specified in the call for said meeting. Notice of special meetings may be given by the person or persons calling the meeting or shall be given by the Clerk at the request of such person or persons. Section 3. Notice of Meetinas Notice of regular meetings of the Board of Directors, when required, shall be given by the Clerk no less than 7 (seven) days prior to the meeting. Notice of the meetings of the Board of Directors shall be posted on the RCTV website, the CBB (Community Bulletin Board), and at RCTV no less than 7 (seven) days prior to the meeting Section 4. Quorum A majority of the Directors in office shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and the acts of a majority of the Directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the acts of the Board of Directors. Bylaws of Reading Community Television Page 8 ARTICLE VII. MEETINGS OF MEMBERS Section 1. Annual Meeting An annual meeting of the membership shall be held on the third Wednesday of March in each year at 6:15 P.M. at the principal office of RCTV in Reading, or at such other place as the Board of Directors shall from time to time designate. At such time, the members shall elect Directors and may transact such business as may be done in accordance with law, the Articles of Organization of the Corporation, and these Bylaws. Section 2. Special Meetings A special meeting of the Corporation may be called by the Board of Directors, or by receipt of the Clerk of the Corporation of a written request of ten (10) members. Special meetings shall be convened not less than ten (10) days nor more than forty-five (45) days after being called. Section 3. Place for Meetings All meetings of the Corporation shall be held at the principal office of the Corporation in Reading, or at such other place as the Board of Directors may fix from time to time, or in the event of a special meeting, at such place as the Clerk of the Corporation may designate. Section 4. Notice of Meetinas Notice of regular and special meetings of the members shall be given in writing at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled date of the meeting. Section 5. Presidina Officers The President shall preside, as chair at all regular or special meetings of the members, and the Clerk of the Corporation shall record the minutes of all such meetings. Section 6. Quorum A quorum shall consist of the presence, in person or proxy, of ten (10) members of RCTV. Bylaws of Reading Community Television Page 9 ARTICLE VII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF The Board of Directors may authorize such staff positions as may be necessary in the conduct of the business of the Corporation, including an Executive Director. The Executive Director shall have the authority and responsibility to manage and operate the Corporation's affairs in accordance with the general policies and directions specified by the Board of Directors, shall supervise the daily operations of the other employees, if any, and shall have additional authority and duties, as the board of Directors may from time to time prescribe. The President of the Corporation shall communicate all such policies, directions and duties to the Executive Director. The Executive Director shall report to and be directly responsible to the President of the Corporation. The Executive Director shall be entitled to compensation for his or her services. The Board of Directors shall negotiate a contract with the Executive Director specifying salary, initial term of service, renewal and other provisions as appropriate. There shall be an annual review of the Executive Director by the Board of Directors. The Executive Director shall not be deemed a member of the Board of Directors, nor shall he or she be deemed to be an officer of the Corporation. Bylaws of Reading Community Television Page 10 ARTICLE VIII. INDEMNIFICATION The Corporation shall, to the extent legally permissible, indemnify each of its Directors and Officers against all liabilities and expenses, including amounts paid in satisfaction of judgments, in compromise or as fines and penalties, and counsel fees, reasonable incurred by him or her in connection with the defense or disposition of any action, suit or other proceeding, whether civil or criminal, in which he or she may be involved or with which he or she may be threatened, while in office or thereafter, by reason of his or her being or having been such a Director or Officer, except with respect to any matter as to which he or she shall have been adjudicated not to have acted in good faith in the reasonable belief that his or her action was in the best interests of the Corporation; provided, however, that as to any matter disposed of by a compromise payment by which such Director of Officer pursuant to a consent decree or otherwise, no indemnification either for said payment or for any other expenses shall be provided unless such compromise shall be approved as being in the best interest of the Corporation after notice that it involves such indemnification; a) by a disinterested majority of the Directors then in office; or b) by a majority of the disinterested Directors then in office after the Corporation has received an opinion in writing of independent legal counsel to the effect that such Director or Officer appears to have acted in good faith in the reasonable belief that his or her action was in the best interest of the Corporation. Expenses, including counsel fees reasonably incurred by any such Director or Officer in connection with the defense or disposition of any such actions, suit or other proceeding, may be paid from time to time by the Corporation in advance of the final disposition thereof upon receipt of an undertaking by such individual to repay the amounts so paid to the Corporation if he or she shall be adjudicated not to be entitled to indemnification under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 180, Section 6. The right of indemnification hereby provided shall not be exclusive of, or affect, any other rights to indemnification to which corporate personnel may be entitled by contract or otherwise under the law. Bylaws of Reading Community Television Page II `N ~ry ARTICLE IX. MISCELLANEOUS Section 1. Seal The Seal of the Corporation shall consist of a flat-faced circular die with the name of the Corporation, its state of incorporation and the year of its organization cut or engraved thereon. Section 2. Notice Whenever written notice is required to be given to any person, if any be given to such person either personally or by sending a copy thereof by First Class mail, E-Mail, and return receipt, or by telegram, charges prepaid, to his or her address appearing on the books of the Corporation, or in the case of Directors or Members of another body, supplied by him or her to the Corporation for the purpose of notice. Section 3. Fiscal Year The Fiscal Year of the Corporation shall be the twelve months ending October 31St of any given year, except as from time to time otherwise determined by the Board of Directors. Section 4. Conduct of Meetinqs Robert's Rules of Order. Newlv Revised, shall govern the conduct of all meetings of the members of RCTV and the Board of Directors and its various committees, except where the same shall be in conflict with the Law, The Articles of Organization, these Bylaws and any Special Rules of Order the Corporation may adopt. Section 5. Disposition of Assets Upon termination of the agreement between the Town of Reading and RCTV, or upon dissolution of RCTV for whatever reason, all assets remaining under the control of the RCTV Board of Directors shall be assigned to a successor community access corporation designated by the Board of Selectmen, in accordance with existing laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In absence of such a designated community access corporation, within one (1) month of termination and/or dissolution, the assets will become the property of the Town of Reading. Bylaws of Reading Community Television Page 12 Page 1 of 3 Hechenbleikner, Peter L ( C ~o From: Frey, Bob (MHD) [Bob.Frey@state.ma.us] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 7:45 AM To: 'cnj4@aol.com'; Cogliano, John (MHD); Frey, Bob (MHD); Miller, Kenneth (MHD); Edwards, Adriel (MHD) Cc: canthony@cdmtitle.com; bruen-n-bruen@comcast.net; jcorey@ci.woburn.ma.us; jcurran@ci.woburn.ma.us; Frey, Bob (MHD); Town Manager; Jones, Bradley - Rep. (HOU); anthonykennedy@attbi.com; Schubert, Rick; ben@tafoya2004.com; Reading - Selectmen; Tisei, Richard (SEN); swoelfel@mbta.com; etarallo@ci.woburn.ma.us; tricia@lynchassociates.net; Burggraff, Mary (HOU); carla.beaudoin@hou.state.ma.us; jbiaustein@mapc.org; dansullivan@assetleasing.com; cleiner@massport.com; Lintner, Elizabeth (MHD); akinsman@aaasne.com; g-r@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast.net; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; psodano@stonesav.com; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; paulderman@prodigy.net; andy.motter@fta.dot.gov; Reilly, Chris; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; Callan, Melissa (HOU); smurthy@trafinfo.com; Tafoya, Ben; kpyke@louisberger.com; Natale, Patrick - Rep. (HOU); Durrant, Ian (MHD); george@northsuburbanchambercom.aol.com; Casey, Paul - Rep. (HOU); jebarnes@mit.edu; VanMagness, Frederick (HOU); rick.marquis@fhwa.dot.gov; Festa, Mike - Rep. (HOU); Ehamblin@aol.com; Havern, Robert (SEN); rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; jgallagher@mapc.org; mgallerani@ci.stoneham.ma.us; kstein@hshassoc.com; Joshua.Grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; Lucas, Barbara (MAPC); Mada, Stoneham; Dwyer, Margaret (MHD); Mauriello, Lauren (SEN); O'Rourke, Carmen (HOU); amckinnon@hshassoc.com; John.Mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; jpurdy@louisberger.com; billwhome@juno.com; dcooke@vhb.com Subject: RE: SELLING: "SOLUTIONS" AND DECEPTION Jeff and Task Force Members, As I have indicated before, we will discuss these issues at Wednesday's Task Force Meeting. Thanks, - Bob Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (617) 973-7449 bob.frey@state.ma.us -----Original Message----- From: cnj4@aol.com [mailto:cnj4@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 4:44 PM To: Cogliano, John (MHD); Frey, Bob (MHD); Miller, Kenneth (MHD); Edwards, Adriel (MHD) Cc: canthony@cdmtitle.com; bruen-n-bruen@comcast.net; jcorey@ci.woburn.ma.us; jcurran@ci.woburn.ma.us; Frey, Bob (MHD); townmanager@ci.reading. ma.us; rep. bradleyjones@ hou. state. ma.us; anthonykennedy@attbi.com; rick Schubert@harvard.edu; ben@tafoya2004.com; selectmen@ci.reading. ma.us; rtisei@senate.state.ma.us; swoelfel@mbta.com; etarallo@ci.woburn.ma.us; tricia@lynchassociates.net; mary.burggraff@hou.state.ma.us; carla.beaudoin@hou.state.ma.us; jblaustein@mapc.org; dansullivan@assetleasing.com; cleiner@massport.com; Lintner, Elizabeth (MHD); akinsman@aaasne.com; g-r@comcast.net; anthonykennedy@comcast.net; woburnbusiness@earthlink.net; psodano@stonesav.com; rstinson@wakefield.ma.us; paulderman@prodigy.net; andy.motter@fta.dot.gov; creilly@ci. reading. ma. us; maureen@northsuburbanchamber.com; melissa.callan@hou.state.ma.us; smurthy@trafinfo.com; btafoya@comcast.net; kpyke@louisberger.com; rep.patricknatale@hou.state.ma.us; Durrant, Ian (MHD); george@northsuburbanchambercom.aol.com; rep.paulcasey@hou.state.ma.us; jebarnes@mit.edu; frederick.vanmagness@hou.state.ma.us; 6/20/2005 % aw Page 24W rick.marquis@fhwa.dot.gov; rep.mikefesta@hou.state.ma.us; Ehamblin@aol.com; rhavern@senate.state.ma.us; rgrover@ci.stoneham.ma.us; jgallagher@mapc.org; mgallerani@ci.stoneham.ma.us; kstein@hshassoc.com; Joshua.Grzegorzewski@fhwa.dot.gov; blucas@mapc.org; rflorino@ci.stoneham.ma.us; Dwyer, Margaret (MHD); Mauriello, Lauren (SEN); carmen.o'rourke@hou.state.ma.us; amckin non@ hshassoc.com; John.Mcvann@fhwa.dot.gov; jpurdy@louisberger.com; billwhome@juno.com; dcooke@vhb.com Subject: SELLING: "SOLUTIONS" AND DECEPTION To Commissioner Cogliano, Bob Frey and the 193/95 Task Force: Mass Highway wants you, members of the Task Force, to sell interchange redesign "solutions" to the community. Before you begin this sales chore, consider the basis of these "solutions." You already spent a few hours brain storming "solutions" with magic markers and tracing paper. A few minutes of your time now is all I ask. Click on the attached file. It's the introduction to the accident data set of 1997-1999 that was used for the first feasibility study and also for the second feasibility study. Neil Boudreau (Mass Highway) sent me this accident data during the summer of 2002. Notice the sections highlighted in yellow (my highlighting). What do you see? First of all, different names for the same street are used. Possible crash locations on an interstate might be on ramps, breakdown lanes, and roadway above/below a divided highway. Notice this particular comforting note: "A street name listed with an interstate/divided highway may or may not have an exit associated with it, and the crash may have occurred on EITHER roadway." That accident data set of 1997-1999 ran the gambit from inconsistent street names to crash listings without a clue where crashes occurred. Obviously, this accident data set did NOT receive the benefit of Bob Frey's touted accident data restoration method (i.e., a "fix up'), assuming that he has such a method, and assuming that it works. In the latest Mass Highway document, 19311-95 Interchange Transportation Study. Safety Analysis, June 16, 2005, page 2/4, third paragraph, it was stated, " "Given the fact that vehicle collisions are random events and that the data collection process is not an exact science, the end results show that the data elements reported are not always perfect and complete." Based on my experience, that accident data set from 1997-1999 was total rubbish! The accident data set from 1997-1999 was the principle justification for the first feasibility study. Several dozen homes would have been consumed by eminent domain. includina mine! Such arrogance and disdain for public safety from Mass Highway. All of this for a project? For whose benefit? A highway construction company looking for work? Bob, you continue to cite this accident data set from 1997-1999. Have you "fixed it up" yet? What about those 8 other transportation-planning studies that I referenced recently? You know, the ones that used accident data from 1994 to 2001. Did you "fix up" that accident data too? So far, Bob, you have • Never told us how bad your accident data is. • Never explained your accident data "fix up" process and its effectiveness • Never indicated whether you actually applied this "fix up" to the second feasibility study accident data for the years 1997-2001 or 8 other transportation planning studies. Bob, we trusted you to be honest with us. You have not. How does consensus treat deception? Well, fellow Task Force members, how do you plan to sell "solutions" based on these facts? Regards, Jeff Jeffrey H. Everson, Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Member: PRESERVE, I93/95 Task Force 21 Pine Ridge Circle, Reading, MA 01867 781-944-3632 (home); 781-684-4247 (work); cnj4@aol.com 6/20/26 - - Hechenblefter, Peter From: karyn storti [k_storti@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 200512:23 PM To: Town Manager Subject: SAPAC Hi Peter, Everyone in our group is used to SAPAC and even long standing members never knew us by any other name. As we're raising our profile this year, it seems that others in town are knowing us as SAPAC and referring to us by that acronym at Town Meeting and other official meetings. Since the "official" name is so long and unwieldy, it doesn't readily lend itself to a catchy acronym. The consensus of our group is that SAPAC is our preference. I hope this works for you. Karyn Storti Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com 1 % 60 Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Frey, Bob (MHD) [Bob.Frey@state.ma.us] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 5:06 PM To: Corey, John; Marquis, Rick; Schubert, Rick; Anthony, Camille; Barnes, Jonathan; Bruen, Darlene; Casey, Paul; Clarke, Dennis; Curran, John; DiBlasi, Joe; Durrant, Ian; Everson, Jeff; Festa, Mike; Gallagher, Jim; Gallerani, Michael; Grover, Robert; Hamblin, Eileen; Havern, Robert; Jones, Bradley; Katsoufis, George; Kennedy, Anthony; Kinsman, Art; Leiner, Craig; Meaney, Paul; Medeiros, Paul; Motter, Andrew; Natale, Patrick; Rogers, Maureen A.; Smith, Susan; Sodano, Paul; Stinson, Richard; Sullivan, Dan; Tarallo, Ed; Tisei, Richard; Webster, Bill; Woelfel, Steve Cc: Blaustein, Joan; Burggraff, Mary; Callan, Melissa; Christello, Tricia; Cooke, Don; Dame, Chris; DiZoglio, Dennis; Draisen, Mark; Dwyer, Margaret; Edwards, Adriel; Florino, Ron; Frey, Bob; Grzegorzewski, Josh; Town Manager; Lindstrom, Mike; Lucas, Barbara; Lutz, Elaine; McKinnon, Anne; Mcvann, John; Miller, Kenneth; O'Rourke, Carmen; Purdy, Jim; Reilly, Chris; Schwartz, Bill; Stein, Kathy; Tafoya, Ben; Van Magness, Frederick; Wood, Gail Subject: last set of review material for 93/95 ITF meeting UK UK DR DSC 2005 TDM SC 2005 rev Transit 06-07.doc 06-09.doc Services.doc Hello Task Force Members: One final reminder for the next ITF meeting: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:30 PM - 6:30 PM Reading Senior Center 49 Pleasant Street Reading AND two more documents for review: «DSC 2005 06-07.doc>> «TDM SC 2005 06-09.doc>> Please review these draft summaries from both the Data subcommittee and TDM subcommittee meetings in order to facilitate our discussions on Wednesday. Also, I am attaching a revised version of the "Transit Services" document which now reflects some further discussions in the TDM SC meeting (mainly the addition of a new suburban transit service in the Woburn area): <<rev Transit Services.doc>> We are also working on a Problem statement document, which we will briefly cover on Wednesday. This is still a work in progress, and ITF members will have an opportunity for review and comment beyond 6/22 (plus we may be approaching the point of "document overload" for this meeting!) Anyway, you should now have eight documents ahead of time for Wednesday's meeting: 1) ITF 2005 06-22 meeting agenda 2) ITF 2005 05-18 summary 3) DSC 2005 06-07 iJ 4) safety summary 06-14-05 5) safety analysis 06-15-05 1 6) TDM SC 2005 06-09 7) TDM Overview 8) rev Transit Services (supersedes Transit Services) See you on Wednesday.... Thanks, - Bob Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning Office of Transportation Planning Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation (617) 973-7449 bob.frey@state.ma.us 0 I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study Data Subcommittee Meeting Tuesday, June 7, 2005 11:00 AM Woburn City Hall Woburn, Massachusetts Attendance Subcommittee Members: Jay Corey Woburn City Engineer Anthony Kennedy Stoneham Selectman Jim Gallagher Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) EOT/MassHighway staff: Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning, Study Project Manager Adriel Edwards Planning Consultant team: Jim Purdy Louis Berger Group (Project Manager) Keri Pyke Louis Berger Group (Traffic) Others: Don Cooke Consultant for Woburn Ian Durrant MassRIDES Meeting Summarv Welcome and Introductions Bob Frey welcomed everyone to the meeting, and thanked Woburn for hosting. Bob introduced the agenda, saying that LBG would give a presentation summarizing the safety analysis, issues and conclusions. The purpose of the meeting is to determine: Is the approach taken so far reasonable and is the subcommittee satisfied with the work accomplished? Is there anything else that can be or should be done and if so, is it worth the time and expense? How should the information be presented to the public? Bob indicated that the goal is to reach a resolution on these points by the end of the meeting. Bob added that he is looking for feedback from the subcommittee on the two safety documents, which were distributed prior to the meeting via e-mail, because he would like to post them to the website for reference. He said the group would review and discuss the documents after the P ® J presentation. Bob then invited Jim Purdy to begin the presentation. n eV Office of Transportation Planning Page 1 of 6 Printed: 6/21/2005 I-93/1-95 ITF Data Subcommittee Meeting of June 7, 2005 Presentation of Summary of Safety Analysis Jim Purdy introduced the presentation saying he hopes it is clear, concise, and yet thorough enough to be used for the public meeting. He asked subcommittee members to treat the presentation as a draft for that purpose. The presentation began by explaining that improving safety is one of the goals of this study but that other goals, like relieving congestion and preserving neighborhoods and businesses, are also important. Next, the irregularities and difficulties with the safety data were covered. The presentation then covered some of the things we have learned about the interchange. For instance, it is consistently in the top 1% of the Top 1,000 Crash Location List. Jay Corey commented that any location that falls in the top 100 is still in the top 10% and those are all problem locations. Jim Purdy agreed with this statement. Tony Kennedy asked that we clarify that the historical rankings, depicted on slide 6, are weighted by severity. Jim Purdy agreed to indicate this on the slide. Another finding highlighted in the presentation was that the I-93/I-95 interchange has a crash rate well above most other interchanges, even when controlling for volume. Some discussion ensued regarding slide 8, on which this information was displayed. Two periods are displayed: 1997-1999 and 1999-2001. The crash rate for the interchange is markedly higher than the other cloverleaves in eastern Massachusetts in both periods. But the graphic also reveals that the crash rate in the first period is much higher than the crash rate in the second period. Jim Gallagher noted that when an audience looks at this slide, their natural inclination would be to ask, "Why has the crash rate dropped?" Jim Purdy suggested that at the public meeting, we show only the latest period because it is more recent and accurate. Bob agreed with this approach, saying although the more recent crash rate is lower, showing too much information has caused confusion in the past. He asked subcommittee members for their opinions on this. Jay said that it makes little difference which period you display since they both have a crash rate well above the other interchanges. Keri Pyke agreed it may be simpler to show only the latest but cautioned against potentially withholding information. Don Cooke agreed that typically you try to show a trend, but in this case there is not a consistent story. He said there could be a downward trend or the decrease in crash rate could be from improved data collection methods (new reporting form), which has led to the decrease of duplicate records. He said it could also simply be that the variability of the data has led to this temporary downturn. Adriel Edwards reminded the subcommittee that Ed Tarallo and Mayor Curran had requested that the crash rate differences be investigated (when similar information was presented at a previous ITF meeting). Jay discussed other factors that contribute to the variability of the data collection. He said that depending on the severity of the crash and who responds to it, the concern sometimes is to simply clear the accident as expeditiously as possible without filling out reports. Bob summarized the factors that contribute to the irregularity of crash rates over the years: police priority, improved collection methods and the new reports, elimination of duplicates, and drivers inconsistently filling out reports. Jim Gallagher asked if instead of showing two points, one for each of the periods (1997-1999 and 1999-2001), if we could calculate a crash rate for each individual year. Tony questioned the 'benefit of that effort. Jim Gallagher explained that this would give us five data points instead of two. If the crash rate goes up and down over these five years it may eliminate the assumption that the crash rate is declining. Instead, it would demonstrate that although the crash rate is 0\ variable, it is consistently high at this location. Jay voiced support for Jim Gallagher's idea of Office of Transportation Planning Page 2 of 6 Printed: 6/21/2005 I-93/1-95 ITF Data Subcommittee Meeting of June 7, 2005 disaggregating the crash rate data to individual years. Jim and Bob noted that there would be some technical difficulties in segregating the crash rates into individual years since volume counts are not done every year, but Jim agreed to look at disaggregating the data to see what annual crash rates would show. Jay then asked if there is a specific crash rate - a threshold - that if exceeded, would classify the interchange as dangerous. Keri responded that for intersections, there is such a benchmark, but that for interchanges, there is not. Tony asked whether the crash rate was normalized or if it was absolute. Jim and Keri responded that the crash rate is absolute, since it was agreed at an earlier meeting that the normalized data caused some confusion. Keri elaborated by saying that a crash rate of 1.88 (which the interchange had in the 1997-1999 period) corresponds to almost 2 accidents for every million entering vehicles, which roughly equates to a crash every third day (Editor's Note: Based on the average annual ADT for 1998 and 2000, the interchange averaged one crash every 1.6 days during the '97-'99 period, and one crash every 2.2 days in the '99-'01 period). Jay commented that it seems like there is an accident almost every day. Bob agreed that if unreported crashes are taken into account then the frequency might be greater. Tony asked if the data revealed the number of fatalities. Jim Purdy said they looked at that and generally there are not too many fatalities in the area. Jay commented that the fatalities usually occur at night when speed is a factor. Tony asked the team to elaborate on the other statistics available from the crash reports. Keri said the reports contain lots of information such as weather and time of day. Tony pointed out that weather variations might also contribute to the yearly variation in crash rate since one would expect more accidents during inclement weather and some winters are worse than others. Jim Purdy distributed a sample crash report so that the subcommittee could see all the information that is supposed to be filled out. Jim Purdy continued with the presentation, which next made the point that the pattern of crashes is significant. Discussion occurred regarding this information. Jim Gallagher said that this pattern of accidents is based on only one year's worth of data. He asserted that it would be worthwhile to run this same exercise for another year of data to confirm the pattern is consistent with the 2002 data. Jim Purdy made the point that this exercise is very labor intensive and took over 100 hours. He questioned whether more information would tell a different story. Bob explained the status of the 2003 and 2004 data. He said the 2003 data is now available in its raw form and the 2004 data might be available in raw form by the end of the summer. However, since MassHighway is compiling and cleaning the 2003 and 2004 data together, the data won't be available in its final form until winter. Jim Gallagher stressed that if you want to make a convincing argument to the public to spend money on this interchange, it would be better not to assume that the pattern of accidents is consistent over the years and instead prove it by looking at more years of data. Jim Gallagher thought that there was an easier way to search the database than what had been explained previously. Jim Purdy addressed Jim Gallagher and said that if he believes the data can be more easily accessed than manual examination of reports, he would be willing to look at that. Keri said that the fields in the database are not always filled in with sufficient detail. Manual examination of the reports, although time-consuming, is the most accurate way to pinpoint the locations of the crashes, and in the end, assess whether there is a pattern. Jim Gallagher said that he felt we had definitely made the case that there is a problem at the interchange, but felt we had not definitively pinned down the "where" and the "why" of the problem. Don Cooke agreed that if more effort were to be made, and more money to be spent, Office of Transportation Planning Page 3 of 6 Printed: 6/21/2005 b % G I-93/1-95 ITF Data Subcommittee Meeting of June 7, 2005 this is the area in which to do it. He added that it also addresses some of Jeff Everson's most pressing points. Bob said an advantage to this effort is that we would be looking at another year when the new form is in place. The new year would have a consistent format with the 2002 data, which has already been examined. Bob said one of the goals of today's meeting is to determine if there is more analysis to do. He said that if the subcommittee agrees we need to do more in order to convince people of what the problem is, we need to decide what that "more" is, and consider the "value-added." Do we look more closely at older data or do we look forward to more recent data? Don Cooke added that when the expense of a reconstruction project is considered, another 100 hours in a planning study might be justified. Jay felt that what had already been done was more than adequate and was representative of the problems at the interchange. He felt we were in danger of over-studying the problem. He asked how much data is available that we have not examined. Bob said that the 2003 data is now available in raw format - the RMV has completed entering the paper forms into the database but it has not been cleaned and verified by MassHighway - and the 2004 data will not be available for a couple months. Bob added that in December 2004 when the LBG started this effort only the 2002 raw data was available. Jay responded that if we proceed with this effort and examine the 2003 data manually to establish another year's worth of accident patterns, we would have done all that we can. Jim Purdy expressed doubt that more would be learned but stressed that LBG would be willing to do this. Tony added that it might confirm for us that the problem is the ramps and not the mainline. Bob asked for confirmation from the subcommittee that this is worth looking at. There was agreement around the room. Jim Purdy then continued with the presentation, showing the various accident diagrams by cause of collision and peak vs. non-peak. LBG also included a slide, which depicts the accidents by time of day. The accidents are concentrated to the daylight hours but more accidents occur specifically during the commuting hours. Jay suggested we overlay this information with the ramp volumes by hour. He thought it would reveal a correlation between hourly ramp volumes and accident frequency. Jim Purdy related the next slide - ramp level of service (LOS) - with the accident location diagram, with a similar idea to what Jay had mentioned. Jim then concluded the presentation. Tony raised the issue of the recent chain of e-mails regarding a firm definition of the problem. Since the problems and issues have been presented in several formats to this point, he suggested that we create a summary document defining the problems, covering the three main areas of concern: 1) Safety, 2) Congestion, and 3) Geometric deficiencies. Jay expressed strong approval for this idea. Jim Purdy agreed this could be easily accomplished, adding that we could define the problem even as we continue to do more. Bob Frey also agreed, and suggested that the previous meeting summaries be used as a base for drafting a "Problem Statement" document. Jim added that this might alleviate the concerns of some Task Force members that we are not adequately defining the problem as we begin to consider alternatives. Bob said that there is a full range of opinions on the Task Force - some feel the problem is already defined and others think it will never be fully defined. Despite significant additional effort, some Task Force members still may not be satisfied. Bob agreed with Jim Purdy that some study tasks could be done concurrently. For example, we could examine potential alternatives for the interchange while continuing to refine the definition of the problems. Office of Transportation Planning Page 4 of 6 Printed: 6/21/2005 V I-93/1-95 ITF Data Subcommittee Meeting of June 7, 2005 Discussion of Safetv Documents Bob then asked if anyone had any questions or comments on the safety documents that had been distributed previously. For those that had not yet reviewed the documents, Bob explained that one was a summary of data and methods used, along with conclusions of the analysis. He said the other, lengthier document provided more detail on data limitations and analysis methods. The intention here is that all ITF members, as well as someone new to the process can look to these documents and better understand the background. He asked that subcommittee members review the documents and give feedback so that they can be posted to the website for reference. Jim Gallagher pointed out that the document needs to be updated based on the discussion and decisions reached today regarding looking at 2003 data. Bob said that before the document is updated, a decision by EOT and MassHighway would be made regarding that additional task. He said he is leaning towards performing the same analysis on the 2003 data that was done on the 2002 data, but needs to research and consider the issue further before deciding. Jim Gallagher asked if Bob would post the document before that decision is made. Bob said no, a decision will be made and if necessary, the document will be revised, and an e-mail sent to subcommittee members requesting feedback before the document is uploaded to the website. Jim Gallagher asked if the website has gotten a lot of hits recently. Jim Purdy said the web site receives three or four comments a week and that usually it is from people who travel through the interchange but originate outside of the immediate area. Bob added that he had just received a phone call from a frustrated commuter from Bedford, who seen his name on the website. Jim said he would get some statistics on the website hits. Bob added that a lot of information is available regarding website visits (busiest times and days, specific pages viewed, etc.). Jay commented that the website is a tremendous vehicle for reaching a wide audience. Jim commented that as we approach the public meeting, there will be a public information campaign. Bob elaborated, saying that as part of this public information campaign, variable message signs (VMS) might be used to advertise the website. Jay and Jim Purdy voiced support for VMS. Bob then broached the subject of Jeff Everson's recent e-mails but said that in fairness to Jeff, who could not attend the meeting, he would prepare a written response and/or discuss the information at the next Task Force Meeting. Assessment of Work Done to Date and Next Steos Bob then reviewed the questions he introduced at the beginning of the meeting: Has the anproach taken so far been reasonable and is the subcommittee satisfied? There was general agreement around the room that this was the case. Jay noted that if we can examine the 2003 accident reports in the same manner as the 2002 reports were examined, then we will have done all that we can. Jim Gallagher agreed with this assessment. Tony asked the group if they felt we had a good understanding of the problems regarding the weaving areas and the nearby interchanges. Jay discussed how the CORSIM model would shed some more light on that. Tony stressed that we need to include the weaving areas as a safety concern. Bob said it is also related to congestion, and asked the group if we take into the account that the congestion Office of Transportation Planning Page 5 of 6 Printed: 6/21/2005 1 ~~L I-93/1-95 ITF Data Subcommittee Meeting of June 7, 2005 group will consider the weave areas in more detail, do this group feel we have a reasonable approach? There were nods of approval around the room. Is there anvthinR else that can be or should be done and if so. is it worth the time and exbense? Bob said that we have already discussed it would be worthwhile to explore the option of looking at the 2003 accident reports in detail. He said he would get back to the subcommittee on this soon after he has gathered more information on time and budget requirements. How should the information be aresented to the public? Regarding the public meeting, Bob said we look at disaggregating the crash rates into individual years, instead of into three-year periods, to see if there is variability from year to year or a specific trend. The subcommittee agreed to discuss the results and then decide how to present that piece of the puzzle to the public. Bob then asked for a volunteer to give a summary of today's meeting to the whole Task Force, and Jim Gallagher agreed. Bob added that if anyone else wanted to give input during the next Task Force meeting, they were encouraged to do so. Other Business In response to a question from Jay, Bob said that we would discuss scheduling the next data subcommittee meeting at the next full Task Force meeting on June 22nd. Bob thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting at 1 PM. Office of Transportation Planning Page 6 of 6 Printed: 6/21/2005 G~ I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study TDM Subcommittee Meeting Thursday, June 9, 2005 2:00 PM Eastern Middlesex Association of Realtors Reading, Massachusetts Attendance Subcommittee Members: Ian Durrant MassRIDES Jim Gallagher Metropolitan Area Planning. Council (MAPC) Eileen Hamblin Eastern Middlesex Association of Realtors (EMAR) George Katsoufis Reading Citizen (for Rick Schubert) Ed Tarallo Woburn Planning Director Steve Woelfel MBTA EOT/MassHighway staff: Bob Frey Manager of Statewide Planning, Study Project Manager Adriel Edwards Planning Consultant team: Jim Purdy Louis Berger Group (Project Manager) Anne McKinnon Howard/Stein-Hudson (Public Participation) Keri Pyke Louis Berger Group (Traffic) Jim Wensley TranSystems (Transit) Meetine Summarv Welcome and Introductions Bob Frey welcomed everyone to the first Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Subcommittee Meeting, and thanked Eileen Hamblin and EMAR for hosting. He distributed copies of `TDM Overview.doc' and `Transit Services.doc', which had been e-mailed previously. He clarified the meaning of TDM and other similar acronyms by reading from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) website: "Transportation Control Measure (TCM): The term "transportation control measure" (TCM) encompasses elements of both "transportation system management" (TSM) and "transportation demand management" (TDM). TSM generally refers to the use of low capital-intensive transportation improvements to increase the efficiency of transportation facilities and services. These can include carpool and vanpool programs, parking management, traffic flow improvements, high occupancy vehicle lanes, and park-and-ride lots. TDM generally refers to policies, programs, and actions that are directed towards decreasing the use of single occupant vehicles. TDM also can include activities to encourage shifting or spreading peak travel periods. In practice, there is considerable overlap among these concepts and TCM, TSM and TDM are often used interchangeably." Office of Transportation Planning Page 1 of 8 AFV% Printed: 6/21/2005 till I-93/1-95 ITF TDM Subcommittee Meeting of June 9, 2005 Bob led introductions, then suggested the subcommittee review the handouts, hear from Ian Durrant about MassRIDES, and then hear from Steve Woelfel about the Program for Mass Transportation (PMT), the MBTA's 25-year capital planning document. MassRIDES Overview Bob referenced the "TDM Overview" document, asking if everyone had had a chance to review it before the meeting. Most attendees had reviewed it. Bob listed the main components of TDM: Carpooling, vanpooling, transit, tax benefits, parking management, bicycling and walking. He invited Ian Durrant to discuss the services provided by MassRIDES: Ian explained that MassRIDES is the new statewide travel options program funded through the Executive Office of Transportation. They provide two general types of services: 1) Direct to Commuter: Through their bilingual phone service and the web site, MassRIDES informs commuters of options available to them. 2) Employer Outreach: MassRIDES assists employers in encouraging their employees to try alternative modes of getting to work. Ian said he concentrates in the North Suburban area and currently works with about 20 to 30 employers. MassRIDES works with over 100 employers statewide and has almost 5,000 employees in their ridematching database. Ian described the efforts underway to formulate a Transportation Management Initiative (TMI) in the interchange area. A TMI is a branch office of the statewide travel options programs, providing dedicated assistance on transportation issues to local businesses and community leaders, who provide guidance and input to the program several times per year. Jim Purdy asked for the geographical boundaries of the TMI, and how many companies belong. Ian explained that the TMI is still in development, but will concentrate along the corridor between Woburn and Burlington. Ian continued describing the work currently underway, saying he is in Woburn almost every day and works extensively with Raytheon, who has 1,200 employees. The main benefits to employers are improved morale and retention of their employees, better attendance records, and tax benefits. The benefits to employees are time and cost savings. Ian described a cooperative effort by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the EPA to encourage businesses to provide commuting benefits and choice to their employees. The program, Best Workplaces for Commuters, is described in detail on the website httn://www.bwc.2ov, where employers that meet the program's National Standard of Excellence are listed. Ian said SunMicrosystems in Burlington is on this list. Ian spoke of two success stories where MassRIDES has made a positive impact for the companies and the employees commuting there. At Nortel Networks in Billerica, about 70 employees have signed up for inclusion in their MassRIDES' ridematching database. Through a vanpool information meeting, they attracted around 20 interested employees. Ian described the "Meet Your Match" event where prospective carpool matches meet and MassRIDES helps them iron out the details of ridesharing. MassRIDES will also hold a "Try-It-Day" event at Nortel Networks this summer to reward employees who use an alternative. His second success story is Equal Exchange, a company that enlisted MassRIDES' services when they moved from Canton to East Bridgewater. Within one month of working with MassRIDES, they formed a vanpool. Bob asked if anyone had any questions for Ian. Office of Transportation Planning Page 2 of 8 Printed: 6/21/2005 ~~b NP I-9311-95 ITF TDM Subcommittee Meeting of June 9, 2005 Eileen Hamblin asked if MassRIDES contacts businesses through the Chambers of Commerce. Ian said that some of the time, yes, but they also use referrals when possible. Eileen commented parking is a problem at hospitals in particular for both patients and employees and wondered if MassRIDES targets hospitals. Ian said MassRIDES has a strong relationship with Lahey Clinic, an employer that has an exceptional carpool rate: More than sixty carpools have been formed, although the staggered shift work makes it challenging to create carpools and vanpools. Keri Pyke asked if MassRIDES forms vanpools that go to public transit stations such as Alewife. Ian said that type of commute is more of a shuttle, to which the vanpools are not geared. Certain Transportation Management Associations (TMA), such as the Woburn Business Council, run shuttles and MassRIDES can guide the TMA or a company to those services. The vanpool leases cost approximately $140/month, requiring a large group, usually 7 -15 people, and a long distance, usually over 30 miles in each direction, to make it worthwhile. However, a significant amount of money can be saved. In response to a question from Eileen, Ian explained that the monthly cost includes insurance and maintenance, but vanpoolers share the lease and gas costs, as well as tolls and parking. Bob asked what is the average length of time that a vanpool will stay in existence. Ian indicated he would find out that information. He added that through their ridematching database, MassRIDES' dedicated vanpool coordinator works to keep existing vanpools full. Ian noted that vanpools are hard to form but the ones to Boston are the most successful. He was aware that Mitre also had some vanpools that were in operation for a very long period of time. MassRIDES tried to encourage employers to offer preferred parking in buildings or reduced parking costs for vanpoolers. Bob asked if the number of vanpools has increased or decreased since MassRIDES has been in existence. Ian responded that since MassRIDES has been in existence a little over a year, there is not enough data in their system yet to track such a trend, but he would try to find out. He said that over time as the information in their system grows, they will have a better idea of how successful they are in creating and maintaining vanpools. At this juncture, Bob introduced some commuting statistics. He said according to the 2000 Census, in Massachusetts the carpool rate is about 9% of all commuters, which is below the national average of 12.2%. However, a lower percentage of Massachusetts' commuters (74%) drive alone to work, because of the availability of transit. The national average is 75.7%. Anne McKinnon noted HOV travel is trending downward - less people are choosing that as a way to get to work. Eileen asked about Zip Cars. Ian responded that ZipCar is a private company, but MassRIDES will put people in touch with ZipCar if that is what they need. Eileen commended Ian on the education component of MassRIDES' work. She said it is important to teach employers and employees about the options and benefits available to them. Jim Purdy asked if the tax benefits are available to both the employer and the employee. Ian responded in the affirmative, and described the tax benefits in more detail. He said employers can pay for employees' parking or transit passes up to a certain amount as a tax-deductible benefit, or they can deduct the cost of employees' transit passes from employees' pre-tax income. George asked if employers offered any other kinds of monetary incentive, such as bonuses or profit sharing. Ian said MassRIDES encourages it, but it is not a popular option with employers. Adriel Edwards asked Ian to give a realistic goal for taking cars off the road. He responded that if MassRIDES works with an employer and they successfully get 10% of their employees to Office of Transportation Planning Page 3 of 8 Printed: 6/21/2005 Vi U I-9311-95 ITF TDM Subcommittee Meeting of June 9, 2005 choose an alternative to driving alone, then that is considered successful. He said they have to overcome huge barriers and a lot of resistance to encourage employees to change the way they commute; the car offers more flexibility and sometimes more convenience than other modes. He said their success also depends on company culture. Nortel is a strong supporter of their efforts and as a result they are more successful getting people to use an alternative means of transportation. Adriel made the point that 10% of one large employer in the region is still a very small percentage of the cars on the road in that vicinity. Ian agreed, saying that that sort of reduction may only amount to 1% of the cars on the road. Bob said the "guaranteed ride home" feature makes carpooling much more attractive since people know if something happens with their driver, they can still get home. Ian agreed, saying it is a free benefit they offer. Frequent carpoolers or vanpoolers are each allocated 4 free rides home per year. Jim Gallagher asked if MassRIDES is worried the feature might be very expensive for the program. Ian said the system is rarely abused since people want to have their free rides available if and when they need them. Jim Purdy asked if MassRIDES was funded through Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds and Ian responded in the affirmative. Jim Purdy asked if Ian knows whether the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) process influences a company's involvement with MassRIDES. Ian responded that a lot of their referrals come from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). If a company has a certain number of employees, that triggers certain regulations. The goal of DEP's rideshare regulations is a 20% reduction in single occupant car use by employers over the size of 1,000. Adriel asked Ian about his expectations for the interchange area. He responded that the interchange is a difficult area because of the large number of businesses with a small number of workers. He cited that as the biggest problem in this area, combined with the fact that parking is free. Jim Purdy asked Ian if he had a sense of the reverse commute. Ian did not have numbers but based on his experience, he was aware that when businesses move out of Boston to the suburbs, employees without cars (and formerly taking transit) generate interest in MassRIDES' services. Transit Services Overview Bob invited Jim Wensley to review the transit services in the area. Jim Purdy unrolled a map depicting all the area transit as described in the "Transit Services" document, including the commuter rail and bus routes. Jim Wensley started with the commuter rail, citing that as the biggest transit service in the area. The Anderson Regional Transportation Center (ARTC) is the second most-used station on the Lowell line; the Lowell station is the first. He said the average number of riders per day from ARTC is 769 and there are 1,500 parking spaces, of which 400 spaces are used on any given day; so there is significant capacity at ARTC. In response to a question from Keri, Jim Wensely answered that the Logan Airport Express parking lot is separate from the commuter rail parking, has 875 spaces, and demand varies. George Katsoufis compared the parking situation at ARTC to that at the Reading Depot, where all the available parking is used. George informed attendees that about 85% of the average weekday boardings occur during the morning peak period. Of these, most drive and park in a variety of spaces for Reading residents, out-of-town commuters and private lots and street spaces. Jim Purdy asked if the town returns parking revenue to the MBTA. Steve Woelfel answered that since the town owns the land, they keep the parking revenue. Office of Transportation Planning Page 4 of 8 Printed: 6/21/2005 U V I-93/1-95 ITF TDM Subcommittee Meeting of June 9, 2005 Jim Wensley then reviewed the MBTA bus routes serving the area and also explained the private bus carrier service from New Hampshire to Boston. Some discussion ensued as to the cost and time constraints that prevent the private bus carriers from stopping in the interchange area. Jim Wensley then pointed out the Orange Line, saying that although it does not extend as far north as Route 128, the Wellington Station serves a large number of people because of its easy access off of I-93. A license plate survey revealed that approximately a third of the 2,000 passengers that park at the station originate north of Route 128. Keri Pyke questioned why people are not opting for the commuter rail. Ed Tarallo hypothesized that riders like the frequency of the Orange Line. Jim Purdy commented that commuters whose destination lies beyond North Station might prefer the Orange Line instead of arriving at North Station and making a transfer. Ed Tarallo noted that if commuters were coming from east of the interchange, they would have to go through it to get to ARTC. Jim Gallagher suggested that a variable message sign (VMS) be used to inform riders that the Orange Line parking lot is full, and provide this information well before ARTC so commuters can opt for commuter rail instead. Jim Gallagher distributed information on the new commuter shuttle, which goes into operation on Monday, June 13, 2005. He said the 128 Business Council working with M&L Transit Systems will operate the service, which is funded by the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and private businesses. It will connect the ARTC to commercial and residential locations in Woburn, Burlington and Lexington. Anne McKinnon asked if riders would be able to use their MBTA passes or Charlie Cards. Ian and Steve Woelfel answered no, since the service is not part of the MBTA system. Ed Tarallo informed attendees of the cost to the shuttle's three destinations: $1.00 to Woburn, $1.50 to Burlington, and $1.75 to Lexington. Bob asked Jim Gallagher if he was aware of the ridership projections for the shuttle. Jim said he did not have those numbers available but would be able to get them. Various discussions took place regarding the difficulty in getting the shuttle in operation. The general consensus was that it took over two years and maybe longer because there were CMAQ complications before the service could be implemented. Jim Gallagher noted that a new CMAQ funding category, the Suburban Mobility Program, facilitated implementation. Ed Tarallo wondered whether the program would continue to be successful in the long term if the subsidy were to be discontinued. He expressed doubt that businesses would be willing to fund it entirely. Eileen asked how the service is being promoted. Ian responded that MassRIDES is identifying businesses along the route and notifying them. He said MassRIDES would advertise extensively at the Lahey Clinic. MBTA's Program for Mass Transit (PMT) Bob invited Steve Woelfel to discuss the PMT. Steve explained that the PMT is the MBTA's financially unconstrained 25-year capital plan, which they update regularly, approximately every 5 years. He distributed copies of a few pages out of the PMT that discussed projects relevant to the interchange area. He explained that the PMT is similar to a "wish list". Each time the PMT is produced, it is a two and a half year process involving an Advisory Committee, which includes the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the City of Boston, Chelsea, and Somerville, the Towns of Burlington and Sharon, and other agencies and community organizations. Discussions over one year with various companies, cities, towns and interest groups resulted in a list of 400 projects. Using the seven criteria of utilization, mobility, cost-effectiveness, air quality, service quality, economic/land-use impacts, and environmental justice, the list was screened and reduced to 120 projects ranked by low, medium, and high priority. Office of Transportation Planning Page 5 of 8 1~ Printed: 6/21/2005 I-93/1-95 ITF TDM Subcommittee Meeting of June 9, 2005 Steve then discussed the Orange Line extension project from Oak Grove to Reading via the Haverhill/Reading commuter rail line right-of-way. If the Orange Line were to be extended, commuter rail service on this line would be discontinued between Boston and North Wilmington. Service to points further north would be re-routed via Wilmington to the Lowell line, and into Boston from the Woburn ARTC. Steve added that there is a lot of transit in the area but more people could be using ARTC. He said we need to do abetter job of encouraging people to use the transit services that are already available. He added that currently the Orange Line Extension project is listed as low priority and given the existing budget situation, not likely to happen. He did add that the I-93/I-95 Study could change its priority. Jim Purdy said looking ahead to the next version of the PMT, possibly its priority could be raised. Steve said the MBTA redoes the PMT on a regular basis because needs and priorities change over time. Now the MBTA is primarily concentrating on getting to a "State of Good Repair". After Greenbush and the Silver Line Phase III project, the MBTA is not planning on doing any other expansion projects. According to some modeling that was done, if ARTC was more highly utilized, they could add trains if necessary. George asked if Steve was talking about double deckers. Steve said that as a matter of policy, the MBTA only buys double decker cars now. On the south shore, there is more demand, so they replace single-deck cars on the south shore with double deckers and recycle the single-deck cars to the North Shore, adding to the train length if possible. Their most recent analysis shows that they will not need double deck cars on the North Shore for at least 10 more years. Jim Purdy asked how full the peak hour trains are. Steve said that he has a CTPS report that outlines the ridership and capacity constraints on the various lines. Jim Purdy asked if the platform lengths at North Station would become an issue. Steve said he did not know at what critical point platform lengthening would be required. He said a bigger issue now is the waiting area inside the station, which is very congested, especially when there is an event at the Fleet Center. Delaware North will be required to enlarge the waiting area when they develop on a parcel adjacent to the station but they have instead chosen to first develop another parcel, which does not trigger the work at the station's waiting area. In response to a comment from George, Steve said that the other MBTA parking lot on the North Shore that is under-utilized is the Lynn Station, but the reasons are different in Lynn than in Woburn. Eileen asked Steve if he felt that people actually knew about the ARTC and the services offered there. She indicated that some people that use Wellington might be happy to use ARTC instead, given the amount of parking available. Steve said that when the ARTC was opened, they did a big marketing push and it is time to do another one. He suggested that as part of the Interchange Study we include a re-advertisement of the station and its facilities. He added that during the DNC, the station was heavily used and very successful. Jim Purdy asked how full it got during the DNC. Steve did not know exactly but Ed mentioned Woburn's DNC traffic study, saying it may offer some information on the transit ridership during that week. George questioned why the Route 128 Circumferential Bus Route project was not in the PMT. Steve explained that this project is in fact in the PMT, described the project and where George could find it. He said that the route goes from Beverly to Braintree and that its high operating cost makes it unlikely. He said it is easier for the MBTA to get capital costs but if they can't afford to operate the service, it is hard to rationalize building it. Office of Transportation Planning Page 6 of 8 Printed: 6/21/2005 ~a ~Go I-9311-95 ITF TDM Subcommittee Meeting of June 9, 2005 George then asked about the project that considered a double track to Haverhill. Steve explained that this is an enhancement project and that they considered double track upgrades system-wide and not for just one particular line. It is ranked as medium priority and has a huge cost, mainly because of the signal upgrades that would be required. He added that all the lines need improvements. George commented that Haverhill is a big capture point for New Hampshire drivers. Steve said that the MBTA wants to work with New Hampshire but they need to construct a partnership where New Hampshire shares in the costs of new service from or to their state. He added that the PMT did look at the cost of service that would extend beyond Massachusetts, for example, an extension of the Lowell line to Nashua. Jim asked why the double track issue was considered system-wide instead of on a line-by-line basis. Steve replied that the PMT generally looks at the system globally, with few exceptions. Bob asked if the Downeaster Amtrak service caused scheduling problems at ARTC. Steve was not aware of any such problems, to his knowledge. Bob said looking long-range, if the Orange Line were extended to Route 128 and the Haverhill line merged with the Lowell line at ARTC via Wilmington, what effect would that have on service at ARTC. George surmised that if the lines were consolidated, there would be better frequency to and from ARTC. Jim Purdy asked if there was local support for the Orange Line extension. George said the project is controversial. The analogy was made to the Red Line in Cambridge: According to various attendees, Lexington wanted the Red line to be extended there but Arlington did not, therefore it stopped in Cambridge. The same sort of thing is occurring with the Orange line except Melrose probably does not want it, given that the town has four commuter rail stops already. Eileen then asked what is the biggest motivator for getting people out of their cars. Bob surmised that the disincentives of the high gas and parking costs ultimately force people to look for an alternative. George said he hopes that the Interchange study can be a model for other studies and that TDM will be .part of every solution. Some discussion ensued about how societal changes take place over many years and how it may take many years before we become less dependent on our cars. Adriel Edwards said that in some parts of the country, states are investing heavily and experimenting with HOV and HOT lanes. HOT lanes in particular are a way to price highway lanes in such a way as to reflect the real cost of scarce highway space. Jim Purdy summarized the discussion so far, saying that he sees three opportunities for TDM in this study. The first is the ARTC, which can be utilized more fully. The second is the high concentration of employers in the area. The third is the high profile nature of this project makes it a good candidate for some innovative potential solutions. Eileen noted that tastes and lifestyles are changing and more people would like to live near affordable, clean and convenient transit services. Ed agreed noting that housing price increases near services. He pointed out that a major gap in service exists east of the interchange for Route 128 drivers. George agreed, adding that significant potential must exist for taking cars off the road given the number of larger employment centers. George asked about the possible extension of the Beverly commuter rail line to Danvers. Steve Woelfel said this is part of the North Shore Major Investment Study, and that Peabody is in favor of pursuing it but Danvers is not very receptive at this time. Steve added that it would be a difficult project because of the number of grade crossings and the fact that the line would go through Peabody's town center. Office of Transportation Planning Page 7 of 8 Printed: 6/21/2005 u~S ~bG I-93/1-95 ITF TDM Subcommittee Meeting of June 9, 2005 Ed asked if we knew where everyone on Route 128 is headed - if it is one or two destinations like Burlington and Waltham or more greatly dispersed. Bob suspected that the destinations are very dispersed, adding that the Journey to Work data from 2000 would give us a good idea. Bob added that the model would help by showing us some of the patterns. George suggested looking at the local level and examining what impact individual communities in the interchange area have on the interchange and what they do to address the issues. Ed said, with the exception of perhaps Woburn, which has a large workforce, that local traffic is a small percentage of the traffic using the interchange. He surmised that most of the traffic is pass-through trips from communities out of the area. Anne agreed with George that the local communities could make an impact and set a good example. George added that it has been the decision of communities to encourage development. Ed said that economic development spurs growth and traffic will increase as a result until the people of the community say, "No more!" Anne said that George might be suggesting that communities go beyond the basic mitigation requirements for development and do more to address traffic growth. Meetine Conclusion Bob asked for a volunteer from the subcommittee to be the spokesperson to report at the next full Task Force meeting. Jim Gallagher volunteered, and Bob added that others were encouraged to give their thoughts as well. Bob then asked if the subcommittee feels we should plan another meeting. Eileen suggested we get some feedback from the Task Force and then decide next steps. Ed suggested we have another meeting to develop some of our ideas further. He added that he thought Jim Gallagher's idea about using VMS to inform commuters about the parking situation on the Orange Line has a lot of promise and would be relatively low-cost. George asked if the consultant could compile four to five ideas based on today's discussion. Jim Purdy agreed that LBG could write a strategy document of opportunities, adding that it fits well within the scope of work. Bob thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting shortly after 4 PM. Office of Transportation Planning Page 8 of 8 Printed: 6/21/2005 G G\~ 0~ I-934-95 INTERCHANGE TRANSPORTATION STUDY Transit Services In support of the I-93/I-95 Interchange Study, TranSystems gathered data from existing sources about all relevant transit services in the I-93 corridor. This memorandum presents the results of this data gathering effort and draws conclusions about the potential for transit to affect traffic volumes at the subject highway interchange. The transit services/facilities that were included in this effort include the following: - MBTA commuter rail service on the Lowell and Haverhill Lines - MBTA rapid transit service on the Orange Line - MBTA bus routes 136/137, 132, and 354 - Massport Logan Express from Woburn (Anderson RTC) - MVRTA commuter bus to Boston - Council Connection MetroNorth Shuttle (see below) Effective June 13, 2005, a new transit service is in operation that connects the Anderson RTC to commercial and residential locations in Woburn, Burlington and Lexington. The 128 Business Council, working with M&L Transit Systems, is starting the "Council Connection MetroNorth Shuttle," which is funded by the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and private businesses. Fares within Woburn are $1, Woburn to Burlington: $1.50, and Woburn to Lexington: $1.75. Specific route and schedule information is available on-line at htt-o://www.128bc.org/wob-burl-lex/index.htm. There is also private carrier bus service that uses I-93, including one daily round trip on Trombly bus lines, two commuter-oriented trips serving Nashua on Vermont Transit, and the following New Hampshire service on Concord Trailways: Londonderry - Boston: 8 morning inbound trips and 9 afternoon outbound trips Concord/Manchester - Boston: 7 morning inbound and 11 midday and evening inbound trips; 5 morning/midday outbound and 13 afternoon/evening outbound trips. These carriers were not contacted because such private companies have never divulged ridership information in previous studies. Data on the included services was collected from the Central Transportation Plamiing Staff, the Massachusetts Port Authority, and the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority. CTPS is responsible for most of the data collection on MBTA services and had available the requisite commuter rail and bus ridership data. MBTA Commuter Rail Two of the MBTA's commuter rail lines are relevant to the study corridor: the Haverhill/Reading line and the Lowell line. For these services, we obtained recent ridership data and parking capacity and utilization counts at the stations on these two lines. Total weekday ridership, as reported by the train conductors, on the Haverhill/Reading line is 4,663 and ridership on the Lowell line is 4,688 (May, 2004). These totals are broken out by station and by train in the tables below: tJ IV Office of Transportation Planning Page 1 of 5 June 9, 2005 I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: Transit Services (continued) MBTA Commuter rail inbound boardings by station Haverhill / Readinq, Lowell Haverhill 484 Lowell Bradford 278 N. Billerica Lawrence 591 Wilmington Andover 605 Anderson RTC Ballardvale 279 Mishawum N. Wilmington 186 Winchester Reading 667 Wedgemere Wakefield 536 W. Medford Greenwood 99 Melrose Highlands 328 Melrose Cedar Park 238 Wyoming Hill 242 Malden Center 130 4,663 M 3TA Commuter rail inbound ridership by train Haverhill/Reading Lowell Trains Riders Trains 208 4663 Riders 166 512 428 457 298 531 258 103 239 148 107 105 96 235 134 52 10 47 26 45 8 28 27 0 4688 1224 802 453 769 25 537 409 469 4,688 There is parking available at all 13 stations on the Haverhill/Reading line and all 7 stations on the Lowell line. The great majority of these parking lots are filled to capacity or near capacity on a daily basis. According to the most recent counts, the only lots that have available capacity are Haverhill (50 of 167 spaces available), Bradford (160 of 319 spaces available), and the Anderson Regional Transportation Center (1,140 of 1,500 spaces available). The other large parking facilities in this corridor are located at Lowell station (Gallagher Terminal) with 695 spaces, North Billerica station (541 spaces), and Reading station (414 spaces). These latter facilities are typically filled to capacity. rJ 202 366 302 204 613 304 206 691 306 208 640 308 258 558 310 212 538 312 262 268 314 214 148 316 266 28 318 218 139 320 222 32 322 220 149 324 274 20 326 226 54 328 232 97 330 280 60 334 282 35 236 284 10 336 236 77 338 288 7 340 238 103 342 292 7 344 244 20 232 Office of Transportation Planning Page 2 of 5 June 9, 2005 I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: Transit Services (continued) MBTA Rapid Transit Although the Orange Line does not extend as far north as Route 128, Wellington station serves a large market area due to its relatively easy access from I-93. The 1994 passenger survey on the Orange Line can tell us how many people from north of Route 128 are passing through the subject interchange, and thus may be susceptible to capture north of the interchange. According to the survey results, of the 2,000 passengers who parked at the station, some 680, or approximately one third originated north of Route 128. We have similar data available for all rapid transit stations. MBTA Bus Several MBTA bus routes serve the corridor. Four routes in particular were judged to be the most relevant to this study: • Route 132 from Redstone Shopping Center in Stoneham to Malden Center • Routes 136 and 137 from Reading Depot to Malden Center • Route 354 Express from Woburn to Downtown Boston The table below shows a summary of the most recent ridership statistics on these routes: Weekday Boardings Route Inbound Outbound 132 285 219 136 515 434 137 457 509 354 401 418 Peak Period Load Factor AM Inbound PM Outbound 0.78 0.70 0.90 0.97 0.95 1.06 0.83 0.77 Peak Period Frequency AM Inbound PM Outbound 30 45 30 40 30 40 14 15 Overall, these routes have moderate to low ridership levels, compared to other routes in the MBTA system. However, they are generally well used in the peak period as demonstrated by the high load factors. Only Route 132 shows more than 20% unused seating capacity for both peak periods. Of course, the capacity on these routes could be increased by running buses more frequently. Current peak period frequencies are shown above in the table. Most of the service, especially in the afternoon, is relatively infrequent. While a boost in service would most likely encourage some additional ridership, it is likely that the supply is already well calibrated to the demand. Massvort Logan Express Massport operates a Logan Express route from Woburn at the Anderson Regional Transportation Center to Logan Airport seven days a week. Buses run every 30 minutes, with a total of 38 daily inbound trips and 36 daily outbound trips. Occasional extra trips are run if demand exceeds the supply of service. Using October 2004 ridership statistics, these buses carried an average of 11 passengers over all trips, though inbound trips in the early morning hours routinely carry more than 30 passengers (and sometimes more than 40), as do outbound trips in the midday period (around 1:00 p.m.). Office of Transportation Planning Page 3 of 5 June 9, 2005 ~rj G I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: Transit Services (continued) Over the past four years, ridership on the Logan Express route has been increasing by an average of nearly 10% annually. Figures from 2001 through 2004 area shown below: Year Total Riders Percent Change 2001 215,570 2002 234,511 8.8% 2003 268,943 14.7% 2004 283,436 5.4% A round-trip fare on the Logan Express is $20, and parking at the Anderson RTC at the overnight lot is $11 per day, with a weekly rate of $66. Logan employees do not pay the full cash fare, but instead show an employee pass. Among current riders, 46% pay full cash fare, 11 % pay the senior fare ($18 round-trip), 2-3% are children (who ride free), and the remaining 40% are employees who use passes. There are 875 parking spaces available at the Logan Express lot at the RTC, which is physically separated from the MBTA/MassHighway lot. Parking demand is quite variable depending on the time of day, season, and day of week, but according to Massport, the lot rarely fills up. Typical overnight usage is 200 to 300 cars, with up to 500 cars at peak usage during the day. MVRTA Commuter Bus The Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority operates two commuter trips per day in each direction. The inbound trips leave from Methuen at 6:10 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. and serve additional stops in Lawrence and Andover. In Boston, the following locations are served: Haymarket Square,Government Center, Park Street MBTA Station, Essex & Tremont Streets, the Transportation Building in Park Square, Copley Square and Essex & Lincoln Streets. The two afternoon outbound trips leave from Government Center at 4:40 p.m. and 5:25 p.m. This route serves approximately 100 passengers per day, or roughly 25 passengers per trip. Service operates on weekdays only. The fare is $5 per one-way trip, but a ten-ride pass is available for $40. Other Data Available More detailed information is available, including complete schedules for all transit routes and trip-by-trip ridership figures on the MBTA bus routes. Conclusions There are a variety of transit services in the I-93 corridor. The bulk of the transit riders are carried on the two commuter rail lines. MBTA local buses serve shorter trips, while the MVRTA and private carriers serve longer-distance trips. There is likely not a large untapped market for corridor bus service within Massachusetts, since private carrier service in the corridor has dropped over the years. For trips from New Hampshire, the private carriers are presumably maximizing service consistent with profitability. Office of Transportation Planning Page 4 of 5 June 9, 2005 L V) 'D I I-93/1-95 Interchange Transportation Study: Transit Services (continued) The potential for increasing transit ridership, and thereby reducing volume through the I-93/I-95 interchange seems to lie mainly with commuter rail, particularly at the Anderson RTC. This station has substantial available parking capacity. Although travelers from the I-93 corridor north of I-95 who are headed to Boston do not use the current interchange (since they are traveling through on I-93), there may be ways to improve access to the RTC from other directions and to encourage drivers to park there and use transit to reach Boston instead of driving. If such efforts are successful, it is likely that additional trains on the Lowell line would be necessary to accommodate the increased demand. Another project being considered is an extension of commuter rail to Nashua, New Hampshire. If this extension is implemented, it is likely that some of the traffic using the interchange would be diverted to commuter rail, since many of these people probably use Route 3 to reach Route 128, and then use I-93 to get into Boston. It is possible that subsidy of bus trips from New Hampshire could increase transit ridership. It is unclear whether it would be feasible to subsidize what is already a profitable private business. Gu Office of Transportation Planning Page 5 of 5 June 9, 2005 L tcbG~ Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 2:23 PM To: 'Jochmann' Cc: McIntire, Ted; Delaney, Joe; DeBrigard, Mike Subject: RE: PAVING OF STREETS Dear Kristie Thanks for your inquiry regarding the condition of Longview Road. DPW Director Ted McIntire, Town Engineer Joe Delaney, and I walked Longview Road on June 13 to see firsthand what the issues are. The following is our analysis: Longview Road is broken up on the edges. The more additional material that has been placed to reinforce the edges, the more people park/drive there and break it down. Because of this and the steep hill in places, the street needs curbs. The Town Manager will check to see whether the abutters would be willing to pay for curbing at about $26 per foot and if so we can work with them to curb the street and repave it at that time. To repave without curbing is throwing good money after bad. Although this may not be exactly what you had hoped for, we do anticipate that this is the best way to address the concerns, and the only way that a street in this location (i.e. not much of a through street carrying very little traffic) would achieve a high priority for work. Please let me know what you think. You may feel free to share this with your neighbors. Sincerely Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager cc McIntire, Delaney, debrigard, Board of Selectmen -----Original Message----- From: Jochmann [mailto:jochmann@mac.com) Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 2:49 PM To: Town Manager Subject: PAVING OF STREETS Hi Peter, The Dept of Public Works suggested I contact you about the street paving schedule. I called them to see when Longview Rd was slated for resurfacing and they told me that they have the lists for the next many years and that Longview is not on the list. The condition of Longview Road is very bad (there is really no way to walk with a stroller unless you walk stay in the middle of the road). The edges are so torn up and broken that there is no way to walk safely on the edges and being there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood is posed a big problem for the adults and kids alike. I would really like someone to come out and take a look at the road. I would be surprised if they did not agree ° that it needs significant work. I am sure you are hearing it all the time, but I am one of the people who voted for big tax increases (for schools and community services) and am now feeling it significantly in my pocket book, so I hope to see some improvements in terms of community services. Sincerely, 1 Kristie Jochmann 10 Longview Page 1 of 2 L( C~O Hechenbleikner, Peter From: George Yeomelakis [george_yeomelakis@harvard.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 3:55 PM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: McIntire, Ted; Delaney, Joe; DeBrigard, Mike Subject: RE: Park Ave. Hi Peter, thank you so much for looking into this and taking some action. I realize that you, your staff and the budget get pulled into so many different directions with many requests.This should help get us through the short term until a permanent fix can happen. My neighbor at the end of the street is a great guy and has mentioned his willingness to help. Again, thank you for your attention and action in this matter. Sincerely, George Yeomelakis 42 Park Ave. At 02:29 PM 06/22/2005 -0400, Hechenbleikner, Peter wrote: Dear George Thanks for your petition regarding the condition of Park Avenue. DPW Director Ted McIntire, Town Engineer Joe Delaney, Highway Supervisor Mike debrigard and I walked Park Avenue on June 13 to see firsthand what the issues are. The following is our analysis: Park Avenue is an old oil and stone roadway that does not have a proper base. It will need to be re-constructed at some point. Meanwhile we will do patching of potholes and a skim coat to improve the wearing surface. This should be done by the end of the summer. The skim coat will have a useful life of a year or 2 and is not as permanent as reconstruction. The property owner at the end of the street has offered to implement drainage improvements that we might design and get permitted. He proposed letting the drainage flow into the adjacent wetlands, but it's not clear that there is enough pitch to do this. Although this may not be exactly what you had hoped for, we do anticipate that it will make the conditions on Park Avenue somewhat better until we can get a full reconstruction funded and completed. Sincerely Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager cc McIntire, Delaney, debrigard, Board of Selectmen ----Original Message-----9)\ From: George Yeomelakis fmailto:aeorae veomelakis(&harvard.edul Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:21 PM 6/22/2005 Page 2 of 2 To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Subject: Park Ave. Peter, I am writing again to highlight the poor road condition of Park Ave. I was recently told from some one in the Public Works Department that all the side streets off Minot are on a 10 year plan for replacing the streets. That they were made by an old method of oil and stone and are deteriorating. Unfortunately we cannot wait another 10 years for something to happen. Park Ave has no drainage, the street is pitched backwards and water pools the entire length of the street. We have potholes, tripping hazards and ponding. The person in the Public Works office told me that he is requesting an overlay of the street to at least hold us over for another 10 years. Something has to be done. We have dealt with this for far too long. Can you please respond with what will be done to address this situation. I would really appreciate any consideration. Thanks for your help, George Yeomelakis 42 Park Ave. v 6/22/2005 Page 1 of 2 U/ C Vf Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 2:12 PM To: 'Ryan, Todd' Subject: RE: Todd - the following is to formalize our previous email - please pass this information on to your neighbors. Dear residents Thanks for your petition regarding the condition of Warren Avenue. DPW Director Ted McIntire, Town Engineer Joe Delaney, and I walked Warren Avenue last fall/winter to see firsthand what the issues are. The following is our analysis: Warren Avenue is an old oil and stone roadway that does not have a proper base. It will need to be re-constructed at some point. Meanwhile we will do pothole patching within the week and skim coat after the end of the fiscal year (July 1, 2005) to improve the wearing surface. The skim coat will have a useful life of a year or 2 and is not as permanent as reconstruction. Although this may not be exactly what you had hoped for, we do anticipate that it will make the conditions on Warren Avenue somewhat better until we can get a full reconstruction funded and completed. Sincerely Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager cc McIntire, Delaney, debrigard, Board of Selectmen -----Original Message----- From: Ryan, Todd [mailto:Todd.Ryan@yoh.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:26 AM To: Hechenbleikner, Peter Cc: McIntire, Ted; Delaney, Joe; DeBrigard, Mike Subject: RE: Hi Peter any status update on the below request? Todd Ryan New England District Manager, Yoh Company 781-647-7100 todd.ryan@yoh.com -----Original Message----- From: Hechenbleikner, Peter [mailto:phechenbleikner@ci.reading.ma.us3 Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:05 AM To: Ryan, Todd Cc: McIntire, Ted; Delaney, Joe; DeBrigard, Mike Subject: RE: Thanks Todd U I'll send this along to our DPW with a request that it get quick attention. 6/22/2005 Page 2 of 2 Pete -----Original Message----- From: Ryan, Todd [mailto:Todd.Ryan@yoh.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:01 AM To: Town Manager Subject: Good morning Peter You and I were in communication last Fall regarding the pavement condition of Warren Ave. I had asked (on behalf of all the street's residents) to have the street paved, and you denied our request. You reasoning, to the best of my recollection, was that the street was never constructed properly and was in such a state disrepair that it would require total reconstruction. You did mention that some of the more hazardous potholes would be repaired immediately, and that has not happened to date. May I ask you to send someone out to fill a few of the potholes? I am growing frustrated while trying to push my twin two-year olds on their tricycles due to the street's condition. We also have a neighbor who has severe MS, and she has had some difficulty of late trying to navigate the street's surface with her scooter. Thanks in advance for your assistance, and please feel free to call me with any questions. If this is an issue of manpower (or lack thereof), please let me know if I can come and pick up some patch as I would be happy to do the work myself. Thank you - Todd Ryan Todd Ryan New England District Manager, Yoh Company 781-647-7100 todd.ryan@yoh.com -1 6/22/2005 L Ic , (,f Hechenbleikner, Peter From: Hechenbleikner, Peter Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 4:21 PM To: Schena, Paula Cc: McIntire, Ted; Delaney, Joe; DeBrigard, Mike Subject: Please do on letterhead and send to petitioners with copies as noted Dear residents Thanks for your petition regarding the condition of Libby Avenue. DPW Director Ted McIntire, Town Engineer Joe Delaney, Highway Supervisor Mike debrigard, and I walked Libby Avenue on June 13 to see firsthand what the issues are. The following is our analysis: Libby Avenue is an old oil and stone roadway that does not have a proper base. It will need to be re-constructed at some point. Meanwhile we will do (have done) pothole patching, and will be doing a "skim coat" on the bend, which is where the condition of the road seems to be the worst. This will improve the wearing surface. The skim coat will have a useful life of a year or 2 and is not as permanent as reconstruction. Although this may not be exactly what you had hoped for, we do anticipate that it will make the conditions on Libby Avenue somewhat better until we can get a full reconstruction funded and completed. Sincerely Peter I. Hechenbleikner Town Manager cc McIntire, Delaney, debrigard, Board of Selectmen 9 1