Final Environmental Impact Report - Whittier Bridge/I-95 ...
Final Environmental Impact Report - Whittier Bridge/I-95 ... Final Environmental Impact Report - Whittier Bridge/I-95 ...
42 Prospect Street Newburyport, Mass. 01950 December 16, 2011 Thomas Broderick, P.E. MassDOT, Highway Division 10 Park Plaza Boston, Mass. 02116 Attn: James Cerbone Re: Whittier Bridge AtECEIVED DEC 2 0 2011 MEPA Mr. Broderick: , I have been following the Whittier Bridge project for over two years now and although ' , the recently released Draft EIR is certainly thorough, I found the case for a new bridge less than compelling on several counts. 1) Safety: The report claims (p. 4-27) that two interchanges within the projected work area were on the state's top 1000 list from 13 years ago. (NOT THE BRIDGE IT SELF) Is this the best the department could come up with I notice that no part of the area is on the current list of the state's top 200 dangerous locations. 2) Shoulders: The lack ofadequate shoulders is mentioned as a safety concern. Indeed the crash rate (.73) on the northbound section from Rt. 113 to Rt. 110 is 28% higher than the statewide average for interstate highways. However traveling southbound the rate is 38% LOWER (.35). (Table 4-10) As the shoulders are the same, clearly something else is responsible for the crash rate. In any case the rate is lower than the statewide average for all roads, either urban (2.12) or rural (.86). 3) Congestion: The proposed, wider bridge would reduce peak travel time across the span from 34.1 seconds to 30.6 seconds in 2030. (Table 3-2) This savings of3.5 seconds at peak weekend travel times hardly seems worth the projected $300 M price tag, especially given that most ofthat peak traffic will come to a full stop shortly after it crosses the state line and reaches the Hampton Tolls. As to the projected 'D' Level of Service for the 'No Build' solution (Table 3-3), that doesn't seem to be a problem for the section of1-95 between 1-495 and Rt. 286 which would still be at Level 'D' even after spending $300M (p. 5-19). 4) N-S Corridor: Neither ofthe bridges immediately to the north or south ofthe Whittier handles more than six travell~es. The Tobin Bridge also carries three lanes in each direction with no shoulders, while the Piscataqua to the north carries three lanes with shoulders. Nevertheless, the DOT's contention that making the necessary repairs to the existing
structure would necessitate building a temporary bridge during construction and would thereby make that approach economically unfeasible seems to be a convincing argument. (p.5-49) I share the concerns ofthe Historic Preservation Office, but I agree that building a temporary bridge is not a practical alternative. My only reservation is that your analysis and conclusion can only reasonably be evaluated by another engineer and I am not sure that anyone in either the commonwealth's legislative or executive branches with the appropriate qualifications has reviewed the report. As a layman, I am struck by the different approaches taken by the DOT toward the Whittier compared to the Corps ofEngineers toward the Sagamore Bridge. One can't help but wonder why a bridge ofessentiaUy the same design, with spans twice the length ofthe Whittier and trusses proportionally larger, seventeen years older, subject to the same, ifnot worse weather conditions, is still functioning smoothly and is well-maintained, while the Whittier is undoubtedly in need ofa major overhaul or , replacement. WHY IS IT THAT THE SAGAMORE WAS REHABILITATED IN . THE 1980'S, INCLUDING DECK AND CABLE REPLACEMENT, FOR $20 MIL LION, CLOSING ONE LANE AT A TIME, WHILE THE DOT CLAIMS TillS IS IMPOSSmLE FOR THE WIllTTIER As I mentioned above, the DOT's report can only be intelligently reviewed by an engineer, and I believe this is imperative. I would hope that the state could arrange for a panel of'independent' engineers (hopefully including someone from the Corps who is familiar with the Sagamore and Bourne Bridges) to confIrm the report's conclusions. Secondly, the Sagamore comparison begs the obvious question which the DOT should also address:. How is it that between the yearly inspection process and the Dept's budget and maintenance procedures the Whittier ended up in the decrepit condition it is in today The DOT's own inspection reports claim they have no idea when the bridge was last painted. Is this really possible (Neighbors don't recall it being painted since the early 1970's.) Shouldn't the DOT be looking for 'lessons learned' here so we don't end up in the same situation down the road with a new bridge Obviously, ifthe bridge had been properly maintained all these years, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place. Considering the size ofthe project, the loss ofa historic structure, and the huge infrastructure needs throughout the state, I hope the Environmental AssessmentlDraft EIR will get the professional review it deserves.
- Page 204 and 205: For infiltration basin and trench s
- Page 206 and 207: not acceptable to meet regulatory r
- Page 208 and 209: ide lot that is also being expanded
- Page 210 and 211: MassWi/d/ile December 20, 2011 Comm
- Page 212 and 213: Patel, Purvi {_E_EA .... } _ From:
- Page 214 and 215: process. Ifthe project avoids simul
- Page 216 and 217: THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS E
- Page 218: imack Valley ning Commission plan *
- Page 227 and 228: Mayor Thatcher w. Kezer III Town Ha
- Page 229 and 230: are connected are there any other p
- Page 231 and 232: Revised 12/19/11 Town ofSalisbury's
- Page 233 and 234: Neil J. Harrington Town Manager Tow
- Page 235 and 236: Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
- Page 237 and 238: Coastal Trails Coalition December 2
- Page 240 and 241: Patel. Purvi~ _ From: Sent: To: Cc:
- Page 242 and 243: 1. The Whittier Bridge Replacement
- Page 244 and 245: Whittier Bridge and 1-95 reconstruc
- Page 246 and 247: forested and open character, though
- Page 248: Thank you for the opportunity to co
- Page 252 and 253: On the cost front, we are in an eco
- Page 256 and 257: 12-~:TII ~~.. MASSACHUSETTSHIGHWAYD
- Page 258 and 259: Patel. Purvi~ _ From: Sent: To: Cc:
- Page 260 and 261: argument or disagreement. We have p
- Page 262 and 263: Patel. Purvi (.... E_EA .... ) _ Fr
- Page 264 and 265: TO: Pamela S. Stephensen, Division
- Page 266 and 267: Patel, Purvi ~ ...... _ From: Sent:
- Page 268 and 269: TO: Pamela S. Stephenson, Division
- Page 272 and 273: PUBLIC MEETING WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER
- Page 274 and 275: 3 SPEAKER INDEX Name Page Karen Eme
- Page 276 and 277: 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 278 and 279: 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 280 and 281: 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 282 and 283: 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 284 and 285: 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 286 and 287: 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 288 and 289: 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 290 and 291: 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 292 and 293: 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 294 and 295: 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 296 and 297: 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 298 and 299: 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 300 and 301: 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 302 and 303: 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
structure would necessitate building a temporary bridge during construction and would<br />
thereby make that approach economically unfeasible seems to be a convincing argument.<br />
(p.5-49) I share the concerns ofthe Historic Preservation Office, but I agree that building<br />
a temporary bridge is not a practical alternative. My only reservation is that your analysis<br />
and conclusion can only reasonably be evaluated by another engineer and I am not sure<br />
that anyone in either the commonwealth's legislative or executive branches with the appropriate<br />
qualifications has reviewed the report.<br />
As a layman, I am struck by the different approaches taken by the DOT toward the<br />
<strong>Whittier</strong> compared to the Corps ofEngineers toward the Sagamore <strong>Bridge</strong>. One can't<br />
help but wonder why a bridge ofessentiaUy the same design, with spans twice the<br />
length ofthe <strong>Whittier</strong> and trusses proportionally larger, seventeen years older, subject<br />
to the same, ifnot worse weather conditions, is still functioning smoothly and is<br />
well-maintained, while the <strong>Whittier</strong> is undoubtedly in need ofa major overhaul or ,<br />
replacement. WHY IS IT THAT THE SAGAMORE WAS REHABILITATED IN .<br />
THE 1980'S, INCLUDING DECK AND CABLE REPLACEMENT, FOR $20 MIL<br />
LION, CLOSING ONE LANE AT A TIME, WHILE THE DOT CLAIMS TillS IS<br />
IMPOSSmLE FOR THE WIllTTIER<br />
As I mentioned above, the DOT's report can only be intelligently reviewed by an engineer,<br />
and I believe this is imperative. I would hope that the state could arrange for a<br />
panel of'independent' engineers (hopefully including someone from the Corps who is<br />
familiar with the Sagamore and Bourne <strong>Bridge</strong>s) to confIrm the report's conclusions.<br />
Secondly, the Sagamore comparison begs the obvious question which the DOT should<br />
also address:. How is it that between the yearly inspection process and the Dept's<br />
budget and maintenance procedures the <strong>Whittier</strong> ended up in the decrepit condition<br />
it is in today The DOT's own inspection reports claim they have no idea when the<br />
bridge was last painted. Is this really possible (Neighbors don't recall it being painted<br />
since the early 1970's.) Shouldn't the DOT be looking for 'lessons learned' here so we<br />
don't end up in the same situation down the road with a new bridge Obviously, ifthe<br />
bridge had been properly maintained all these years, this discussion wouldn't even<br />
be taking place.<br />
Considering the size ofthe project, the loss ofa historic structure, and the huge infrastructure<br />
needs throughout the state, I hope the <strong>Environmental</strong> AssessmentlDraft EIR<br />
will get the professional review it deserves.
Change language