BE WARNED South Street, here comes highway access!!!

[Harry]

Again....let's think about what happens when you put people next to a Super Fund Site.



http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_14285574

[barney]

"I believe that Tewksbury has reached a point where we have earned a reprieve from 40B Pimping and have a much stronger say for the next 2 years."

Harry, whereas your 2 year statement is right, I believe your timeline is wrong and I think we have maybe 6 months top left in the 2 year reprieve, as the Ames Hill project was approved back in 2008 and thats when the clock started on the reprieve. You could check with Steve Sadwick to be sure.

[DavePowers]

On the Selectmen 's agenda tonight:
Steve Sadwick – 8:00 P. M. Mass DOT Interchange Studies

People with opinions about the interchange should go to the meeting.

[dougsears]

Memorandum

To: Steve Sadwick, Community Development Director
From: Beverly Woods, Executive Director
Subject: South Street Traffic Analysis
Date: February 5, 2010

Based on data provided by AECOM, MassDOT’s consultant for the Lowell Junction project, the NMCOG
transportation staff has analyzed existing traffic conditions at key intersections along South Street in Tewksbury, in order to ascertain whether the roadway currently operates at an acceptable level of service and to quantify the impact of additional traffic on the operations of the roadway. The analysis examined the operating conditions under the scenarios outlined in AECOM’s Memorandum, dated November 18, 2009, which was provided to the Task Force. The AECOM memo examined the following buildout scenarios for the Priority Development Sites within the Lowell Junction area, and assumed that access to future development would be provided via South Street:

Scenario 1 - Development under by-right zoning in all three Lowell Junction communities, without a new interchange

Scenario 1A - 40B development is assumed for the Tewksbury PDS, and by-right development for the Andover and Wilmington PDS parcels, without a new interchange

Scenario 2 - Regional retail development for the Tewksbury PDS using the HCOD overlay district, and by-right development for the Andover and Wilmington PDS parcels, with a new interchange

Scenario 3 – Mixed-Use development in Tewksbury and Wilmington, and by-right development in Andover, with a new interchange

Scenario 3A - Light industrial/R&D development in the Tewksbury PDS and by-right development in Andover and Wilmington, with a new interchange.

Geometric Conditions

South Street is generally 22 feet wide, which exceeds the minimum design requirement for a roadway with a local functional classification. There are several large trees lining the roadway, making expansion difficult. Any widening or expansion project would require the removal of many mature trees, and would impact the character of the neighborhood.

South Street and Bridge Street Intersection

There are sight distance issues for vehicles turning from the southbound approach of South Street due to the curvature of the existing roadway. The intersection itself is very large and there is a need for better delineation and traffic channelization as part of any mitigation project.

Existing conditions analysis shows that the intersection operates well with a level of service (LOS) A during the peak travel periods of the day. Under Scenarios 1 and 1A, the South Street southbound left turning movements will deteriorate to a LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours without any mitigation being provided. Saturday peak operating conditions will remain acceptable under both of these scenarios. Scenarios 2, 3, and 3A do not add enough additional traffic to South Street to inhibit the operations at this intersection. Under all three scenarios, the intersection will operate at LOS B or better for each movement.

Hill Street at South Street Intersection

Under each development scenario, the intersection of Hill Street and South Street will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service during the A.M. Peak period and the Saturday Peak period. However, during the P.M. Peak, the eastbound turning movements experience unacceptable delays, operating at level of service E under Scenario 1A. Operations during the P.M. peak remain acceptable under the other scenarios analyzed.

Salem Road at South Street Intersection

Under existing conditions, traffic operations analysis of the intersection of Salem Road and South Street shows that the northbound and southbound movements experience unacceptable delays during both the A.M. (LOS E) and P.M. (LOS F) peak travel periods. Adding additional traffic under the various development scenarios only exacerbates the already unacceptable delays for the South Street movements. During the Saturday peak hour, Scenarios 1 and 1A experience unacceptable delays for southbound South Street movements. All other scenarios operate under acceptable conditions.

Conclusion

As shown in the attached table, development of the Lowell Junction area without the new interchange would overwhelm the local street network (assuming access to the development area was provided via South Street), with unacceptable operating conditions occurring at the intersections of South Street and Bridge Street, South Street and Hill Street, and South Street and Salem Street. The South Street and Salem Road intersection already experiences operational deficiencies, and any additional traffic will only cause further deterioration of operating conditions. At this point in time, the traffic modeling being conducted by MassDOT’s consultant has not advanced to the stage where NMCOG staff is able to analyze the traffic impacts under the various interchange design alternatives. It is expected that this information will be provided by MassDOT as work on the environmental permitting documents advances.

[sean_czarniecki]

"with a new interchange" - I would have to look at each scenario, but I'm assuming that none of the interchanges evaluated were of the trumpet variety nor the original huge interchange which didn't access South Street, yet still provided access to the Perkins property. This summary doesn't quite give the whole picture - people need to find out more details.

*Disclaimer - I currently work for AECOM, but not in the same division....nor do I even know who is working on it. Any comments I make are as a resident and only meant to make everyone think about this a bit more, not to criticize the work performed.

[DavePowers]

I agree, we need to know more details.

On the first page of this pdf there is a drawing of a trumpet interchange that is the same as one of the images the MassDOT used to tonight in it's presentation.
http://i93tritowninterchange.mhd.state.ma.us/documents/pdfs/ENF_Alts.pdf

I think the Board was good tonight. It was made clear that the position hasn't changed; No Access.
Good questions were asked by all.

We must continue to pay close attention to this.

[swampy10]

The writing is on the walls folks. You better get ready to fight if you want to save your neighborhoods. What a joke, one of the stated purposes of this project is to improve traffic congestion on local roads........ ya right, in Andover........in Tewksbury and Wilmington the proposal is to create traffic congestion on local roads, and it won't just be on South ST. I watched some of the presentation at home. I would not be praising your board of selectmen just yet. When they were told it was ultimately up to the feds regarding the local connection, not them, did they take a vote to send a letter? Did they appear shocked? Angry? Did any one of them state that this was not acceptable? Or make it perfectly clear there is a Tri-Town Agreement that all three towns will back away from the proposal if there is a connection to local roads? No they did not. Now I could be off the mark, but silent is golden. Don't you wonder why they did not? It raises a question in my mind about how serious they really are about no local connection. Personally I believe there has been a sell out some time ago. This should not be a shocker. People have known for some time there will not be a ramp with access to the west side with out a local connection. The Feds have been clear - no local connection, no access to west side. It is called a full service interchange. Full service means local connections........DUH!The Feds can NOT build private driveways with public funds, and why the heck should they!!!! Yet the towns plowed full steam ahead with 300,000 dollars of grant money like rats into a tunnel trap with promises of tax dollars as bait.

Oh and their 40B card - nice scare tactics there by the state presentation.- wonder how many of the selectmen will use that card in the future debates advocating for local connection. If they do use it, it will reveal their deception because it is a bogus card to play and will only work on those who do not know or understand. Simple FACT - Even with the ramp, the developer, like Simons, can still put in a 40B. Funny how they only did an analysis of 40B and the costs to the town under the scenario of no ramp with a drive down the RR easement and how it would ultimately cost the town revenue to educate all those kids, yet no analysis of 40B with the ramp. From what I understand Simons has already said they want mixed use to include housing in the development area. The zoning proposal by the town is no housing. Therefore all Simons has to do is over-ride that zoning with 40B and it looks like that is exactly what they intend to do. Hey it happened in NReading at the JT Berry site, years of planning for zoning, commercial market tanked, they 40B'd. Don't be fooled! Under the current law, nothing would stop them from doing this.

It will be interesting to see what kid of heart Tewksbury and Wilmington have to prevent a tax payer funded degradation to neighborhoods such as this. The injustice not only contemptible it is ironic also. Andover gets it all, and we get the shaft.

Will we fight back? Fight for our neighborhoods, for our quality of life, for everything we have worked so hard for. It is not like it is free, we all pay taxes, mortgages. We work hard, why to have it taken away by profiteers, putting prices on our neighborhoods during these difficult economic times? Will we promise to hold our elected officials accountable if they break their promises to us? If they breach the public trust to no access on local roads and not fight with us against these profiteers? Or will we roll over like the weaklings some of these people think we are? The later is no option for me.
SS

[dougsears]

Tewksbury to state officials: No development off Route 93
By Ed Burns, Sun Correspondent
Updated: 02/10/2010 06:41:56 AM EST

TEWKSBURY -- With state officials continuing to look at a controversial new interchange off Interstate 93, potential plans for developing the land around the interchange are still coming up despite many in town saying they don't want it.

Representatives from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation brought a new set of studies to the Board of Selectmen that showed the potential economic and traffic impact that developing the land may have.

Steve Sadwick, director of community development for Tewksbury, told selectmen the studies were mainly done because permits for the interchange from the Federal Highway Administration required such studies of the surrounding area.

The interchange coming from I-93 as proposed gives no access to Tewksbury roads, but the land around the interchange is still being looked at for development.

The studies all showed developments coming off South Street, ranging from townhouses to large-scale commercial projects. All of the options showed increases in traffic along South Street, though the residential developments proposed no connection from South Street to the highway interchange.

Selectmen, however, said they are not interested.

"What part of no don't these gentlemen understand?" Selectman Douglas Sears said.

Selectman Anne Marie Stronach repeatedly asserted that the board's position is that it doesn't want development that will impact traffic on South Street.

With the continued objection to development in the area, Selectman Scott Wilson wondered why all the state resources are being poured into the studies.

"It just doesn't make sense to me that this much time and energy is being put into it," he said. "South Street is so narrow and it's not a viable option. It barely handles the traffic it has now."

For now, there are no specific plans for starting development, though state officials will continue to study the area and plan for the interchange.

[Harry]

Swamp, I saw the 40B boogie man scare as well.

I hate to keep harping on this but the State and Federal Governments must first answer as to how safe the surrounding land is for human habitation. Every time someone builds near a Super-Fund site it seems the "capped" poisons somehow leech into surounding parcels and causes an environmental mess and heath issues.

If this happens who will be held accountable?

Town?

State?

Builder?

Feds?

This is a legit concern!

[Jobs]

Well, it looks like Tewksbury has a take it or leave it attitude when it comes to the interchange. Since the FHA won't allow access to the west side land without a connection to local roads, I guess the answer is to build the interchange, solve the traffic problems on the east side for Wilmington and Andover and have no west side connection. I think few people actually know there is a sizable chunk of land in Tewksbury on the east side that will benefit anyway. So all won't be lost. However, Andover and Wimlington will reap the majority of a east side only connection. This is sad, but maybe Tewksbury will just get what it expresses it deserves and wants. The best thing to do is build the alternative that could be accessed in the future on the west side in the event Tewksbury elects some more rational and creative people in the future.

[Duffyhouse1]

Whoops...

[swamper]

Personally, I don't think the gentlemen presenting last night were "fooling" anyone with their 40B scenario and skewed numbers re. Townhouses vs. single family... Tewksbury has been down this road before. Most of the Planning Board was in attendance last night and are well aware of any discrepancies. Tewksbury is not setting any precedent if we are granted no local road access via a waiver....the Feds may not like it, but it HAS been done under certain circumstances in other places throughout New England. Our town focus should be on compiling the data and proof we need to convince them that our situation is equally unique to warrant said waiver. Economically speaking, a west-side ramp WITHOUT local road access but access ONLY to the development area would BEST serve Tewksbury's needs and goals. Our town officials need to do their homework and stand steadfast and unified on this.

[swampy10]

Hey Swamper,
Could you tell me where there has been any ramps built without local access? I have heard this before but I have not been able to find any. The Commerce way one has been brought up several times, but that does have local access, to Woburn's roads ( Commerce and Presidential) and eventually Wilmington's Woburn St . The regs are really tight, especially the new ones that were done about a year ago.
Thanks
SS

[Duffyhouse1]

swampy-

STOMP looked into that years ago, so I am a bit foggy on the location...I think it was in Braintree? Maybe the mall there? Where ramp(s) were built and there was an "emergency only" access gate into an adjacent neighborhood. This was info we had found when the same type of emergency only access was being discussed for South St.

Any other members of STOMP remember this?

Good luck,
Susan Duffy