Central MA Transportation

Friday, September 15, 2006

My Prediction

Warning: this is at least a bit though not completely tongue-in-cheek so smile at least a little as you read it.

  • Sept 06 - MassHwy fails to complete takings on time - Bidding delayed (but for only a month)
  • Fall 06 - MassHwy eventually completes takings - property owners express disbelief at how little MassHwy plans to pay for land (lets just say it's less than the city tax assessment - note for a partial taking the compensation is supposed to be the difference in value before and after the taking not the value of the portion of land taken.)
  • Summer 07 - construction begins, probably in August/Sept
  • Summer 08 / Fall 09 - Construction period traffic in knots every day during commuting hours.
  • Fall 09 - major construction operations completed but "upgraded" signals remain inoperative
  • Winter 09/2010 - Wider roadway with reduced shoulder widths provide inadequate space for snow accumulations. Height of snow banks limits sight lines makes turning onto the roadway hazardous. Businesses, residents and commuters complain to city officials in Fitchburg and Leominster about snow and ice buildup on Rt 12 and ask what happened to the snow removal plans MassHwy indicated the cities would need to develop. Fitchburg responds by sending out a front end loader to reduce height of snow banks at the intersections.
  • Spring 2010 - Residents complain that the snow, sand and salt the front end loaded dumped in their front yard killed their grass and shrubs. Silent response from city officials is deafening.
  • Fall 2010 - signals at all 5 intersections are functional. Commuters recall fondly the construction period when the traffic wasn't this backed up. Residents and businesses recall the pre-construction period when the traffic tie ups where caused by only 3 set of traffic signals instead of 5 traffic signals and having to cross two lanes of traffic at every left turning entry/exit to the roadway.
  • 2011 - First fatal collision since construction completed. Candidate intersections are Rt 12 with Battles or Benson. Probability greater than 60% that one of the vehicles will be a ambulance or other emergency vehicle struck by vehicle that ran a red light.
  • 2014 - Right hand southbound lane on Rt 12 begins to show significant deterioration. Northbound lanes and left hand southbound lane were construction by repaving on the already compacted and stable cobblestone roadbed. New pavement in the southbound lane is constructed on a new foundation which is still being compacted by traffic and has sunk below the level of the other lanes.
  • 2020 - Fitchburg is still requesting a connector but it's out of the question due to development of land on all paths between Rt2. and downtown.
  • 2050 - Oil is scarce - price at $65/gallon. No one is driving anymore. Problem solved.

Commercial vs Residential

One of the questions asked at the Rt 12 meeting of the council on 12 September concerned the land on the west side of Rt 12 between Carey St and Old Leominster Rd situated roughly where the old Twin City Diner sat. Councilor Donnelly seemed to be suggesting that little spot of land might be put to use. Perhaps a small commercial properly. Councilor Kaddy followed that up with a comment that driving south on Rt 12 he noticed very few residential properties and that residents on Rt 12 would eventually realize that their property had more value as commercial property. Councilor Joseph took note and exception to councilor Kaddy's remark.

By my count between Bemis Rd and Rt 2, there are 17 residential properties in Fitchburg and 8 in Leominster on the west (southbound) side or Rt 12 and on the east (northbound) side the count is 10 in Leominster and 19 in Fitchburg.

Given that some councilors believe property values along Rt 12 will increase with the completion of the Rt 12 project do you suppose the expect us residential owners to PAY the state for taking the land. After all according to them our property will go up in value. More on that in the discussion on eminent domain.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Wa Wa

Not surprisingly there was nothing in either the T&G or the S&E about the joint meetings of the Public Works and Public Safety committees. Guess everyone figures this stuff is a done deal.

Being the only non-politician, non-city-employee non-MassHwy-employee and only private citizen at the meeting who will be effected by the eminent domain takings for this project, I was given some latitude by councilor Kaddy in asking questions of MassHwys representatives. After it became apparent that my questions were directed more toward design short comings and eminent domain as it relates to Bemis/Water and the rail trail rather than my own property I was cut off.

I have to work late today but time permitting will try to post about eminent domain after work.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Rt 12 Project Timeline (per MassHwy)

For anyone that is interested this is the basic timeline for the project.
  • Sept 06 - Complete eminent domain takings and put project out to bid
  • Dec 06 - Bid Openings (my note) probably followed by awarding contract(s)
  • Spring 07 - begin constructions - the road will remain open through out constructions as one lane in each direction.
  • Fall 08 - project completion

The outcome on these ordinances.

The results are in

Each committee met and each had the same results
  1. 261-06. AN ORDINANCE: Amending Chapter 169-24 of the Code of the City of Fitchburg (Parking prohibited at all times) as it pertains to Water Street, Benson Street and Bemis Rd.
    This ordinance change will move forward. The petition will eliminate all parking on Water St. from the city line to Abbott Ave and add no parking on Benson St. for 50 Ft from the intersection with Water St.
  2. 262-06. AN ORDINANCE: Amending Chapter 169-59 of the Code of the City of Fitchburg (One way streets) as it pertains to Devlin Passway and Old Leominster Rd.
    This ordinance change will be withdrawn. The original design called for Devlin Passway to be closed to Bemis Rd. However this was opposed by the fire department because there were issues with fire apparatus ability to turn on to Devlin Passway from the other end. The decision to leave Old Leominster Rd two way was not discussed. I would have liked to hear what the reasoning had been for their original decision to make this road one way southbound. I can only think of a few possible reasons and all of them would have made MassHwy appear inept.
  3. 263-06. AN ORDINANCE: Amending Chapter 169-76 of the Code of the City of Fitchburg (Stop intersections) as it pertains to Carey Street, Old Leominster Rd., Falulah Street and Abbott Avenue.
    This ordinance change will move forward.

    These intersections clearly meet the warrant for stop signs (that means they meet the minimum requirement that permit the signs to be installed) but meeting the warrant does not mean the signs are required. There are almost always several design options available and that's where engineering judgement comes in. In this case the engineers decided that these intersections will get stop signs.
    However, at the Phase I hearing for the Rt 12 project (Fitchburg Public Library Theater 28 Feb 2002) MassHwy displayed computer simulations of traffic on the proposed roadway. The simulations showed how signals will bunch vehicles together into packets with gaps between the packets. Vehicles will be able to enter the roadway from businesses that line the road by filling in the gap. Additionally in the new design MassHwy will close the spur with yield sign for traffic turning south onto Rt 12 from Wanoosnoc Rd forcing that traffic to drive down to Rt 12, but that traffic will not be controlled by traffic signals instead having a free turn allowing drivers to move into the gaps in the traffic. This suggests that MassHwy still believes the simulation remains accurate. So how is the free turn from Wanoosnoc to Water or any turn from a businesses or home along Water St. different from a right turn at the intersections of Abbott Avenue, Old Leominster Rd or Carey St onto Water St?
    This ordinance change will move forward despite the fact that these stop signs are not clearly needed at this time. Obviously if after the project is completed traffic patterns developed in ways that indicated a clear need it would be easy to correct the problem by installing stop signs.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Ordinance Changes

At the most recent City Council meeting (5 Sept 2006) three ordinance changes and a petition relating to the Rt 12 project were on the agenda. These changes we're told must be made before MassHwy can put the project out to bid and they want to put it out to bid by the end of the month so destruction can begin in the spring.

Pardon me, but when did poor planning on the part of MassHwy become an emergency for the city. Seems to me that the urgency is overstated, especially considering that MassHwy must also complete all takings before the project can go to bid and I've yet to meet anyone whose property involves a partial taking that has recieved any notice of taking at this time.

These ordinance changes need to be explained and evaluated before they are approved. They should not be rubber stamped as it appears the council is headed towards doing. As indicated by the fact that they moved the petitions to first and second readings and they suspended the rules and passed Mr. Meunier's petition.

Here are the ordinance changes so you don't have to go to the city's website to read them.
  1. 261-06. AN ORDINANCE: Amending Chapter 169-24 of the Code of the City of Fitchburg (Parking prohibited at all
    times) as it pertains to Water Street, Benson Street and Bemis Rd.
    (First Reading)
  2. 262-06. AN ORDINANCE: Amending Chapter 169-59 of the Code of the City of Fitchburg (One way streets) as it pertainsto Devlin Passway and Old Leominster Rd.
    (First Reading)
  3. 263-06. AN ORDINANCE: Amending Chapter 169-76 of the Code of the City of Fitchburg (Stop intersections) as it pertains to Carey Street, Old Leominster Rd., Falulah Street and Abbott Avenue.
    (First Reading)
  4. The Petition
    264-06. Denis R. Meunier, Commissioner Dept. of Public Works, to make various changes in the Code of the City of Fitchburg
    related to traffic patterns on various streets necessitated by the redesign and construction of Route 12.


Notice anything about the ordinances and petition? That right - the text tells you absolutely nothing about what the actual changes are. You'd think that the councilors who voted to move these forward had a more detailed description of the changes like maybe which way travel would be allowed on Old Leominster Road, but from what I've been told by one councilor, they didn't have anything more that what was printed in the agenda. And of course they did pass the petition and moved the ordinances to First and Second readings. BTW: Councilor Donnelly took offense to Mr Boutwell's, Politics as usual comment, but it didn't stop him from voting to move these forward without even knowing what was in them. Sounds to me like Mr Boutwell hit the nail on the head.

In any case there will be a special joint meeting of the Public Works and Public Safety Committees this Tuesday 12 September at 6 PM with the three ordinances on the agenda. Not surprisingly the S&E, longtime supporters of this project did not include this special meeting in the list of public meetings in the Sunday Edition today.

So what are the issues as I see them.

Regarding the ordinance changes.

  1. 261-06. Exactly from where to where and on which side of the street will the no parking at any time be implemented on Bemis, Water and Benson.
  2. 262-06. Devlin Passway is one way so lets assume it will become two way - Old Leominster Rd is currently 2 way so they must plan on making it a one way. Why is it deemed neccessary to make it one way. Which direction? Expect follow up questions depending on the responses.
  3. 263-06. Stop intersection - which intersections are get stop signs - which will have stop signs removed. Is the list complete?

Other issues I'd like to see addressed before this project goes to bid.
  1. It's been over three years since MassHwy held the 25% hearing for Phase II of the project at Leominster City Hall (June 03). I'd like to MassHwys responses to my comments for that hearing.
  2. Some of MassHwys responses to my comments on Phase I indicated that certain issues are responsiblity of the various city departments. Included in those are traffic violations and snow removal - no city department has yet provided a plan for either.
  3. A signifiant Right of Way issue at the Water St/Bemis Rd intersections remains unexplained. Any widening of Rt 12 at that location requires land from the Railroad ROW. Original plans showed 6 lanes. (Later plans showed only 5 - probably a response to my Phase II comments) A 5 lane road would require a 66 ft ROW where today there is only a 50 ft ROW. How can this project move forward without MassHwy taking the land needed from CSX? I've heard rumors that MassHwy will only be granted an easement on CSXs ROW. What will happen to Rt 12 if CSX takes the ROW back as it would be able to do if the ROW is Banked?

There will be one representative of MassHwy at this special meeting. I don't think that's going to be sufficient. I would think as a minimum, the district director, the district's chief engineer, and a representative versed in ROW and Rail Banking to back them up. But of course that's just my opinion.