Sustainable Tranportation for the Pioneer Valley?
Not.
Concept 15, No Environmental Impact Report Required:
In February and March of 2003, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB)--a civil engineering firm---and MassHighway met with "local planning officials" to solicit ideas for tranportation projects in the valley. These ideas were presented to the Connecticut River Crossing Transportation Study Advisory Group (SAG), a regional committee that was convened in 2001. The SAG, whose members included Mary Clare Higgins, Stan Rosenberg, Tim Brennan, and UMass Chancellor Lombardi, was known colloquially as "the second bridge committee." They produced a study (Connecticut River Crossing Transportation Study) in which "concepts" were evaluated, and either recommended or dismissed.
Concepts 12-17 were devoted to the 191-exit19 area just west of the Coolidge Bridge. (The idea of a second bridge was rejected because the perceived degree of environmental and social impact exceeded the projected benefits.) Concepts 12 and 14 (roundabout and rotary) were dismissed. Retained for further study were concepts 13 (signal at SB entrance on Bridge St), 15 (the fully-directional interchange, the only option currently on the table) and 16 and 17, which involved fly-over ramps.
It is not clear how "Concept 15" was ultimately chosen as MassHighway's proposal for this area. A May 7, 2003 memo from VHB to the SAG (the "Preliminary Screening memo") in fact recommended the elimination of concept 15 (then called concept 14), because of the high costs of the project. While the concept was seen to improve conditions on Damon Road and Rt. 5&10, VHB admitted that the concept would not improve conditions on Rt. 9, is not compatible with bike path plans, and that the property takings are not justifiable.
In December of 2006, Option 15 was suddenly back in the good graces of our elected and appointed officials. MassHighway submitted an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, which ruled in early 2007 that no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required. A million dollars of federal TEA-LU funds had been earmarked for the "design phase" of Option 15, which allowed it appear as a high-priority project on the FY 2007-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) of our Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
The Regional Tranportation Plan, with its included spending priorities, is reviewed, amended, and approved or rejected by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, a committee administered by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. On February 28, 2007, at the West Springfield office of the Pioneer Valley Regional Planning Commission (PVPC), the MPO voted to approve the RTP. Clare Higgins, a member of the MPO, did not move to down-prioritize Concept 15, even though citizens in attendance pleaded to "put the brakes" on this project. She explained that her straight "Yes" vote was necessary in order to "move discussion forward." This important vote, which occured in Hampden County, was not covered by Hampshire County reporters, a fact duly noted by Mayor Higgins when citizens questioned her about transparency within the transportation planning process.
Questions and concerns:
New: "The Missing Options"
If you'd like to donate to our group, stopsprawlmart.org is accepting tax-deductible donations on our behalf. Click on "contribute" and make sure to specify "No Exit."