Special Meeting of the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission

Minutes of the Commission Meeting

March 1, 2001

held at Pittsfield High School, 300 East Street, Pittsfield, MA

I.                   Call to Order and Roll Call

A.     Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at approximately 7 p.m. by Chair Lois Lenehan.

Ms. Lenehan read the Conflict of Interest Statement. Recorder of minutes: Sean Loughlin

B.     Roll Call

A roll call was taken by Clerk Richard Roussin. A quorum was present.

Delegate / Alternate Attendance:    

Public Attendance:

II.                Presentation of Transportation Committee Comments Concerning the North-Central Berkshire Access Study

Chair Lenehan stated that the intent of the meeting was to discuss the comments prepared by BRPC on the North-Central Berkshire Access Study, which will be forwarded to MassHighway before the end of the comment period (March 9^th). As for comments from the public, she stated that they should be forwarded directly to MassHighway.

Mr. Karns discussed the origin of the study, which dates back to 1993 when Governor Weld pledged that if a regional consensus could be reached regarding transportation needs in the Berkshire region the State would implement the consensus. This led to the creation of the Transportation Task Force and in April, 1996, the beginning of North-Central Berkshire Access Study (Major Investment Study).

Mr. Karns stated that BRPC is directly responding to recommendations of the draft report and stated that upon completion of the Access Study, it is hoped that its findings can be incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan.

Ms. Ausman, Chair of the BRPC Transportation Committee, paraphrased the Transportation Committee’s comments. These comments were made available to everyone in a 15-page document, which was handed out.

The main ideas were:

(1)   The Study has produced some useful data.

(2)   The Study is incomplete.

(3)   The MassHighway recommendations are not consistent with the Study data.

(4)   The data in the Study can be used as a crude filter to identify the more viable alternatives.

(5)   Based on the Study data to date, the preferred solutions should focus on:

(a)    A bypass on the west side of Pittsfield since it shows the best cost-benefit ratio, and the most benefits per building impacted. This is consistent with all previous studies since 1965.

(b)   A new access to the Mass Pike from Route 7 in the vicinity of Stockbridge and the Lee town line but with a modified configuration to minimize the impacts while retaining the benefits such as only having two ramps providing access to and from the east. This is also consistent with previous analyses and findings.

(6) Next steps should be to advance these into the preliminary engineering phase utilizing special federal funding that has been set aside for this purpose. This will produce specific design plans and the required environmental assessment that will contain more detailed documentation of impacts and benefits of alternatives, which can be used to verify, modify and confirm these initial conclusions.

Mr. Haupt felt there were four important issues at stake: 1- Preservation of the environment; 2- retaining a sense community and a high quality of life; 3- economic development; and

4- efficient land use management and development. He emphasized the importance of balancing all of these issues and pursuing economic opportunity through transportation improvements. 

He stated that there are more cars, few changes have been made to the existing transportation system, there is limited roadway capacity and that projects identified within the draft Access Study are essentially just piecemeal efforts to improve the system.  He felt they do not reduce congestion or increase the capacity of the system.

Mr. Lee commented that wider lanes in downtown Pittsfield, for example, will not help north-south access, as they will only encourage faster traffic. Instead, alternative routes need to be investigated, such as a Pittsfield bypass for north-south traffic.

Mr. Tublitz stated that one of the main problems is that “we need a defined problem before we can make any sound solutions.” The traffic model that was prepared by MassHighway was not articulated appropriately and the Regional Study Committee was not allowed to review the final model. Better participation was definitely needed and the engineering that was conducted and the approach that was taken was inappropriate.

Mr. Gunn stated that he would like to see a bypass to improve the timeliness of trips within the region. More traffic lights do not help and there needs to be more conclusive data in the Study pin-pointing the problems within the Berkshires.

Mr. Birch stated that the Study is not complete and does not even come close to making sound solutions for improving transportation within the Berkshires.

An individual asked whether the traffic model that was used could have been wrong, making reference to a Becket interchange being constructed and projected traffic volumes. The response was that “imprecise” is not the same as “wrong,” and that the model would have needed to be “so far off” to make erroneous traffic projections. Previous studies that have been done came up with similar numbers.

Mr. Stokes asked whether the model differentiated between truck and vehicle traffic. He was told “no” and that the model incorporated all vehicles. BRPC was hoping for more adequate truck information.

An individual asked what MassHighway’s consultant, Rizzo Associates, charged for its services. The response was $490,000, however Tublitz stated that was just one portion. With the Commonwealth administering the study, the total cost was probably somewhere in the range of $800,000 to $1 million.

III.             Public Comments Concerning the Access Study Recommendations

State Senator Andrea F. Nuciforo, Jr.: He stated that it is not his job to choose which proposals move forward and he reaffirmed his belief in residents being proactive and choosing proposals that work best for themselves and the region.

Marya Kozik, Aide for State Representative Peter Larkin: She stated that Representative Larkin is on the same page as Senator Nuciforo. Furthermore, she indicated that the Mr. Larkin supports the role of BRPC and the idea of interchanges, however, is concerned about transportation issues within Pittsfield.

State Representative Christopher Hodgkins: Mr. Hodgkins humorously stated that he is tired of dealing with “the bypass,” as north-central access issues have been going on for years with prior administrations. He stated that he agreed with the rationale of planning, sitting back and asking “what is the problem?” He passed out his Hodgkins’ North/South Corridor Initiative, a proposal that recommends ramps connecting Stockbridge to the MassTurnpike via Route 7 in the northern part of Stockbridge. This proposal also recommends the removal of tollbooths in West Stockbridge and Lee and the construction of a new toll plaza on the MassPike between Lee and Becket.

Hodgkins emphasized that proposals should not “annihilate” communities, nor “blow them up” with road widenings. He strongly urged them [MassHighway] to construct something that would greatly improve north-south access. He felt his proposal would not negatively affect Stockbridge and that the Town should seriously consider his proposal.  “I know that my plan will be fought by residents of Stockbridge,” his proposal stated, “but I do not only represent Stockbridge, I represent Berkshire County. If anyone can come up with a proposal that has less environmental impact, solves the north/south commuter problem quicker for less than 4 million dollars, without taking anyone’s home, then by all means step forward.”

Bill Barry, Pittsfield City Council: He stated that his ward is very concerned about the widening of Route 8. “There is no rush to go to the mall and there is nothing that warrants the road being widened,” he stated.

Peter Arlos, County Treasurer: He expressed his strong discontent over this so-called “closet study” and how it failed to provide sufficient, conclusive data. He stated that the widening of South Street would cut into St. Teresa’s Church and Memorial Park. Similarly, the widening of Cheshire Road is not a wise option either. He encouraged MassHighway to listen to the citizens of the Berkshires and regard conclusions from numerous studies that have already been done in years past.

Robert Wallace, Stockbridge Selectman: He firmly stated that according to Commissioner Amorello, Stockbridge was not an option at all for north/south transportation improvements due to the environmental constraints within the town. He also stated that the draft report is not a proposal; it is just ideas. He questioned why BRPC was treating it like a proposal.

Christopher Irsfeld, Stockbridge Selectman: He made reference to the unveiling of the draft report from MassHighway in January. At that meeting, State Rep. Christopher Hodgkins was outraged at MassHighway because they failed to contact the Town of Lee regarding the Canal Street proposal within it. That controversial proposal would have annihilated many vital businesses in Lee along the Canal St. / Housatonic River corridor.

Due to Representative Hodgkins’ discontent, MassHighway agreed to meet with the Town of Lee and Hodgkins to discuss other alternatives. Mr. Irsfeld expressed discontent over the “Hodgkins North/South Corridor Initiative.” The proposal consists of building two ramps connecting Route 7 in Stockbridge to the Massachusetts Turnpike. To Mr. Irsfeld, Rep. Hodgkins’ actions were the same as when MassHighway did not consult with the Town of Lee regarding the Canal St. proposal.

Mr. Irsfeld also expressed his discontent with the lack of communication among members of the Berkshire Metropolitan Planning Organization. This lack of communication and disregard of the regional planners in this area left the Berkshire partners in the dark regarding the conclusions of the Study.

Mr. Irsfeld firmly stated that it is impossible for ramps to be built in Stockbridge without widening Route 7. He questioned why the Route 7 proposal should given any more credence if the North-Central Berkshire Access Study as a whole is seriously flawed and has essentially been conducted “illegally.”

Alan Marden, North Adams City Council: Mr. Marden stated that he did not think one house has ever been taken with a road widening, or similar road project. A lot of money has been spent on this study and there appears to be no new answers. He emphasized that one of the main complaints from individuals in North County is the lack of access to the MassTurnpike. While he expressed concern over the relationship between partners of the Berkshire Metropolitan Planning Organization, he applauded Commissioner Amorello for moving forward and doing something, as opposed to doing more planning.

Diane Gallese Parsons, North Adams City Council: She stated that she randomly asked friends if they felt the recommendations within the draft report would improve north-south access. Mr. Parsons stated that they felt the Study did not adequately address north-south access issues. She stated that she uses many of the backroads anyway and that an eastern bypass might help; not a western bypass.

Gordon Dillard: He stated that the quality of life is an issue for everybody and that transportation issues have hurt Pittsfield and the region population-wise. The transportation system does not allow people to enjoy the quality of life here in the Berkshires and that is why adequate transportation planning is very important.

Denis Guyer, Pittsfield: “We are on the road to nowhere and don’t need more band-aids,” he stated. He strongly felt that we need to investigate eastern and western bypass alternatives. He felt the widening of Dalton Avenue (Route 9) between Hubbard Avenue and South Street in Dalton was not warranted. Furthermore, he felt that alternative forms of transportation definitely need to be further investigated.

Jill Allen, Pittsfield: She thanked BRPC for its efforts and felt that South Street should not be widened. Ms. Allen felt that speeding should not be encouraged and she does not want her kids to be paranoid and have to look both ways when they are stepping off their front porch.

Mary Ward: She felt that there is no need for a 4-lane highway from Coltsville to Dalton. Ms. Ward explained that it is already difficult enough countering the traffic on Route 9. Furthermore, there is no point in widening this area if traffic will be bottle-necked further east on Route 9. She encouraged improvements for cyclists.

A letter from the Town of Dalton Planning Board opposing the widening of this corridor was submitted for the record.

Judy Spencer, Stockbridge: She stated that in 1995 the Secretary of Environmental Affairs designated the area along the Mass Turnpike/Route 7 corridor in Stockbridge as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) due to Kampoosa Bog, a very important and significant natural resource. The proposed Route 7/Turnpike ramps are precisely in the middle of the ACEC.

Cathy Huber, Pittsfield: Widening of Cheshire Road is not an improvement and does not address north/south access issues. 

Jack Spencer, Stockbridge: He stated that he has tremendous respect for the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. However, he was concerned that just 13 communities were at the table, making very significant transportation recommendations along with very poignant comments to MassHighway. He stressed that the Commission make use of its stance very wisely and perhaps raise the quorum requirements for very important regional topics, like this one.

Len Schiller, Stockbridge:  As a resident near the Turnpike, he stated that Rep. Hodgkins’ proposal is using “fuzzy math” and is over-simplified; there are 32 homes near the immediate location.

Ed Dartford, Stockbridge: He stated that he served on the Technical Steering Committee for the Study before being “put out of business” by MassHighway.  He and the Committee heard nothing from MassHighway until the draft report. He also expressed discontent that suddenly Chris Hodgkins’ proposal was on the table, which he felt was significantly flawed. He urged that Hodgkins’ proposal be given as much scrutiny and analysis as the proposals brought forth by MassHighway, or anybody else. He urged proposals that have no impact on people be pursued, such as a scenic route from the MassPike to the northern Berkshires through the eastern side of the County.

Richard George: He expressed his opposition to the widening of Route 8.

Steve Ricci, Pittsfield: He felt that it is important to better utilize and maximize to the extent possible the existing transportation system, such as the Route 8 corridor through Becket.

Tom Martin: He stated that unused railroad along Route 8 corridor could be used for transportation improvements. Furthermore, he felt that a western bypass will make people not want to go to the downtown area of Pittsfield; they will completely bypass the City. Mr. Martin felt that “tearing up” the area should be avoided, if at all possible.

Aldo Pascucci, Lee Selectman: Mr. Pascucci stated that the Town of Lee endorses the Hodgkins’ plan and definitely wants to solve problems with its neighbors. He thanked BRPC for its efforts.

Dan Bianchi, Pittsfield City Council: As Councilor of Ward 6, he stated that a western bypass would affect a nursing home, three schools and a church. He thanked BRPC for its efforts. 

Henry Hebert: He stated that Mr. Hodgkins needs to be more realistic with his proposal, as ideas similar to his have been shot down in the past.

Thomas Stokes, Stockbridge: He thanked BRPC for its efforts. However, he stated that if the Commission moves forward with its potentially controversial recommendations (such as a western bypass in Pittsfield), it could set itself up for the same criticism MassHighway received by not conferring with the public first. 

The public comment period ended at 10:15 PM.

IV.              BRPC Discussion and Action on Comments to MassHighway Regarding the North-Central Berkshire Access Study

Mr. Birch reaffirmed that fact that Hodgkins’ proposal is separate from the comments BRPC will be submitting to MassHighway. Furthermore, he emphasized the importance of a balance between needing to know more due to the inadequacies of the draft study and moving forward and actually doing something good for the area. He supported the Commission going on record making pro-active recommendation(s) instead of taking no stance at all.

Mr. McMahon made reference to the fact that the Town of West Stockbridge is in support of an interchange on the MassPike in their community. However, in its draft comments, the Commission has stated that there needs to be analysis to support an interchange in West Stockbridge and to incorporate that into the Regional Transportation Plan. Mr. McMahon suggested the Commission indicate its support for an interchange in West Stockbridge, acknowledging the need for more a more complete analysis.

Mr. Karns reaffirmed that the Commission is simply making recommendations on the draft report from the information that was provided within it.  The information leads the Commission to believe that a western bypass in Pittsfield and the connection of Route 7 to the MassPike in Stockbridge are two potential steps in improving north-south access. He stated that these are the conclusions of the Commission; albeit the report is lacking sufficient data and analysis.

Mr. Lee felt that it was extremely important for the Commission to take some sort of stance on the draft Access Study.

Mr. Roussin expressed concern over the two Commission recommendations, indicating that they might get blown out of proportion. He was concerned, despite the fact the Commission is simply making recommendations to MassHighway based on information provided within the Study, just like the public is entitled to do.

Mr. Tublitz stated that the Commission has essentially been “mouse-trapped” by the State. “The State clearly did not live up to the obligations of the Access Study,” he stated. “Instead of clear answers, we are in a situation where more planning needs to be done.” Since MassHighway did not live up to the contractual agreement, Mr. Tublitz indicated that he felt MassHighway must live up to its contractual obligations and finish work that was agreed upon, plain and simple. When the Study is sufficiently completed, he felt it would then be appropriate for the Commission to make its recommendations.

Mr. Gunn felt it might be appropriate to possibly make one recommendation out of the two, perhaps the western bypass in Pittsfield.

Ms. Ausman stated that while she understood the frustrations people were feeling, there is a “chance in a million that they [MassHighway] will fulfill the Study.”

Mr. Phelps stated that the Commission needs to move forward and take a stance. He also stated that his recollection was that the Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) was not originally designated in Stockbridge because of potential transportation needs, yet the Commonwealth still designated it as an ACEC.

Mr. Roussin reaffirmed the importance of the Commission making proper judgements in improving north/south access within the County. Mr. Zelazo indicated his support in “focusing the energy and moving things forward.”

Mr. Birch stated that although the Study is flawed, things will not change, regardless of the vote.

A motion was made by Sam Haupt and seconded by Vincent Lee to adopt the comments as drafted and unanimously approved by the BRPC Transportation Committee, and forward them to the MassHighway Department. A cover letter regarding the comments will also be submitted. The motion was approved, on a vote of 12-1.

A roll call vote was taken:

Florida (Zelazo): Yes

Hinsdale (Roussin): Yes

Lee (Birch): Yes

Lenox (Lenehan): Yes

New Ashford (Phelps): Yes

Otis (Lee): Yes

Peru (Haupt): Yes

Pittsfield (Bradley): Yes

Sheffield (Gunn): Yes

Stockbridge (Tublitz): No

Tyringham (Hudson): Yes

West Stockbridge (McMahon): Yes

Williamstown (Gardner): Yes

Upon a motion by Steve McMahon, seconded by Robert Birch, it was agreed that aside from the Commission’s comments on the North-Central Berkshire Access Study to MassHighway, a letter would be sent expressing the Commission’s dissatisfaction with the way the Study was conducted. This was unanimously approved.

V.                 Other

None

VI.              Adjournment

Chair Lenehan adjourned the meeting at 10:55 PM.