Final Environmental Impact Report - Whittier Bridge/I-95 ...
Final Environmental Impact Report - Whittier Bridge/I-95 ... Final Environmental Impact Report - Whittier Bridge/I-95 ...
TO: Pamela S. Stephensen, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Richard K Sullivan. Jr., Secretary Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office (MEPA) Thomas F. Broderick, P. E., Acting ChiefEngineer MassDOT Highway Division FROM: Cindy and Scott Taylor, 525 Main Street (Whittier Point), Amesbury, Whittier Point Abutters Date: December 21, 2011 RE: Whittier Bridge/I-95 Improvement Project ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• We are responding to the invitation for comments on the Environmental Assessment /Draft Environmental Impact Report that was announced in the Press and in the public meeting on December 7 th • We have reviewed the Report and have several concerns about the proposed project and its impact on our property and quality oflife. Unfortunately for ourselves and the other residents ofWhittier Point, the proposed widening of1-95 will impactl the east side ofthe bridge, bringing the interstate within 15 feet ofour property, an alanningly close distance. As the owners ofthe unit closest to the interstate, this is ofparticular concern to us. We currently have a beautiful property but the noise and safety concerns that have arisen due to this impending project make staying here during and after the construction untenable. We are concerned about the quality ofour home life during construction, given the likely noise and pounding that is anticipated not only during the day but also occasionally at night. We have three young children and this kind of disruption to their lives is simply not acceptable. We are quite concerned about the long term effects on them ofthe constant noise etc. As you are probably aware, the Hines Bridge (to the east ofour property a short way) is currently under construction. This bridge is not as close to our property as the Whittier Bridge and we are·keenly aware ofthe construction noise from this project. It's unimaginable how disruptive the Whittier Bridge will be to our lives. We are aware that barriers have been proposed for this project, but it's hard to fathom that these would be sufficient barriers for the residents ofWhittier Point. In addition to the noise, we have serious concerns about the impact ofthe construction on our home (e.g. the physical structure itself). With so much disruption ofthe earth around our home, it is likely that our physical structure will experience negative side effects. This worries us for the safety ofour children. In addition, with numerous construction vehicles, changing traffic patterns, and a highway very close to our home, we are quite concerned about the possibility ofaccidents that could quite literally end up on our project, both during and after construction. Once the project begins, our children will no longer beable to play outside as they do now. The safety concerns are simply too frightening. There are five families who will be most affected by the changes to the Whittier Bridge, and we have put forth a proposal to sell our properties, allowing them to be used by the project team during construction and potentially ultimately be developed as a park or other public venue. We have put forth this proposal because ofthe untenable situation we are facing with the bridge project. There are many benefits for the project itself, as well as for the residents most affected by this project. We ask that you please do whatever you can to facilitate the sale ofour properties so that we do not have to experience the negative side effects ofthe construction and so that the project can continue unimpeded. Thank you for your attention to this very import~t.matter.
Kempton E. Webb, PhD 525 Main ST. #2 Amesbury, MA 01913 Relevant Background: 'Emeritus Professor & Chair, Dept. ofGeography, Columbia University [1961-90] AB Harvard '53; Major: Geology(seismology, engineering geology] MA, PhD Geography, Syracuse University '55, '58 Trustee, Whittier Point Condo Association, Amesbury, MA Former, or current owner/renter ofwaterfront properties in Vermont (Lake Champlain, 40 years), N. Tarrytown, NY (Hudson River, 18 years), Clearwater Beach, FL (Gulfof Mexico, 40 years) and Amesbury, MA (Merrimac River, 8 years) The massive Whittier Bridge 1-95 Project EIR-Draft report presents a biased point of view which does not adequately reflect the opinions ofthe most negatively impacted 13 1 , residents ofWhittier Point. 1. A cynic sees a $285 million behemoth which produces deafening noises, seismic shocks/vibrations, diesel exhausts and bright lights 24 hours a day by being located 95 feet from the bedroom of3 little girls under 6 years ofage. This nightmare will go on for 1400 days and nights (4 years, from 2013 - 2016). 2. The discussion ofpermanent and temporary easements on p. 3-29 stresses that de jury 'no fee takings would be required for this alternative" (the Preferred Bridge Design Alternative). Our point is that MA Dot, by locating the ROW 15 feet from our property, with all the horrible effects oftheir project, is de facto taking our property and therefore making our living conditions unbearable, especially during the 4 year construction period. 3. It is a pity that the EIR report does not include a'sound recording ofthe noises of actual construction which are listed in detail on page 5-88. Under section 5.18.3 on that page we learn that the daytime work interval extends from ' 7 am to 10 pm! The report also states that" blasting is not anticipated for the project". Elsewhere in the report are many statements about mitigation being attempted, as ifthat solves the problem. 4. I was not able to absorb the entire report with the diligence which I used in over 200 doctoral dissertation defenses at Columbia University, but I was surprised to note the distance ofthe new ROW from the edge ofthe Whittier point property as 150 feet on page 4-1, and as 15 feet on page 5~8! I hope carelessness and not professional incompetence was not the cause. 5. A general problem concerns the cartographic integrity ofnumerous maps in the report. For example, Figure 3-6 does not include key features in the Legend, namely ROW boundaries, Wetlands, etc. In Figure 5-8E the Legends' yellow dashed line showing the ROW is invisible. 6. The draft report, impressive and admirable in many ways, needs some serious cartographic oversight and some serious copyediting. Information is referred to but missing. Finally we hope that an amicable solution to the problems ofimpacts upon Whittier Point can be reached thru ongoing discussions with Amesbury and other governmental entities.
- 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 254 and 255: 42 Prospect Street Newburyport, Mas
- 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 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
- Page 304 and 305: 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 306 and 307: 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 308 and 309: 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 310 and 311: 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- Page 312 and 313: 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Kempton E. Webb, PhD<br />
525 Main ST. #2<br />
Amesbury, MA 01913<br />
Relevant Background:<br />
'Emeritus Professor & Chair, Dept. ofGeography, Columbia University [1961-90]<br />
AB Harvard '53; Major: Geology(seismology, engineering geology]<br />
MA, PhD Geography, Syracuse University '55, '58<br />
Trustee, <strong>Whittier</strong> Point Condo Association, Amesbury, MA<br />
Former, or current owner/renter ofwaterfront properties in Vermont (Lake Champlain,<br />
40 years), N. Tarrytown, NY (Hudson River, 18 years), Clearwater Beach, FL (Gulfof<br />
Mexico, 40 years) and Amesbury, MA (Merrimac River, 8 years)<br />
The massive <strong>Whittier</strong> <strong>Bridge</strong> 1-<strong>95</strong> Project EIR-Draft report presents a biased point of<br />
view which does not adequately reflect the opinions ofthe most negatively impacted 13 1 ,<br />
residents of<strong>Whittier</strong> Point.<br />
1. A cynic sees a $285 million behemoth which produces deafening noises, seismic<br />
shocks/vibrations, diesel exhausts and bright lights 24 hours a day by being<br />
located <strong>95</strong> feet from the bedroom of3 little girls under 6 years ofage. This<br />
nightmare will go on for 1400 days and nights (4 years, from 2013 - 2016).<br />
2. The discussion ofpermanent and temporary easements on p. 3-29 stresses that<br />
de jury 'no fee takings would be required for this alternative" (the Preferred<br />
<strong>Bridge</strong> Design Alternative). Our point is that MA Dot, by locating the ROW 15<br />
feet from our property, with all the horrible effects oftheir project, is de facto<br />
taking our property and therefore making our living conditions unbearable,<br />
especially during the 4 year construction period.<br />
3. It is a pity that the EIR report does not include a'sound recording ofthe noises of<br />
actual construction which are listed in detail on page 5-88. Under section 5.18.3<br />
on that page we learn that the daytime work interval extends from '<br />
7 am to 10 pm! The report also states that" blasting is not anticipated for the<br />
project". Elsewhere in the report are many statements about mitigation being<br />
attempted, as ifthat solves the problem.<br />
4. I was not able to absorb the entire report with the diligence which I used in over<br />
200 doctoral dissertation defenses at Columbia University, but I was surprised to note the<br />
distance ofthe new ROW from the edge ofthe <strong>Whittier</strong> point property as 150 feet on<br />
page 4-1, and as 15 feet on page 5~8! I hope carelessness and not professional<br />
incompetence was not the cause.<br />
5. A general problem concerns the cartographic integrity ofnumerous maps in the<br />
report. For example, Figure 3-6 does not include key features in the Legend, namely<br />
ROW boundaries, Wetlands, etc. In Figure 5-8E the Legends' yellow dashed line<br />
showing the ROW is invisible.<br />
6. The draft report, impressive and admirable in many ways, needs some serious<br />
cartographic oversight and some serious copyediting. Information is referred to but<br />
missing.<br />
<strong>Final</strong>ly we hope that an amicable solution to the problems ofimpacts upon <strong>Whittier</strong> Point<br />
can be reached thru ongoing discussions with Amesbury and other governmental entities.