After introductions, Tom Sommers gave a brief history and the current status of the project. Tom reviewed the formal Purpose and Need Statement that has been developed for the project. After explaining the alternatives development process, Tom gave an overview of the remaining alternatives. The four new location alternatives are known as A (southern interchange – Tsienneto Road), B (southern interchange – bypass of Tsienneto Road), C (northern interchange – Route 28 – bypass of Tsienneto Road), and D (northern interchange – Route 28 – Tsienneto Road). The minor upgrade of NH Route 102 is Alternative F. Two different locations for a potential new interchange are being considered. One interchange is located 0.4 miles north of the Ash Street overpass. Alternatives A and B would both begin at this point and extend easterly from there. Alternative A would continue down Folsom Road and Tsienneto Road to Route 102, while Alternative B would follow on new alignment from Ashleigh Drive easterly to Route 102. The second interchange is located just south of the Stonehenge Road overpass. Alternatives C and D would begin there and extend to the south and east.

New alternatives involving improvements to Londonderry Road and connections to the existing Alternatives A and B were suggested by an individual at the January, 2001, Public Informational Meetings. FHWA and NHDOT felt those options might have some merit and suggested that the Towns further investigate these new options. CLD was then directed by the Towns to develop pre-conceptual plans and initial impact studies and report back to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Local Administrative Oversight Committee (LAOC).

After completing these initial studies, a joint meeting with the TAC and LAOC was held on July 17, 2001. It was determined that although Alternatives G and H provided only minimal traffic reductions along Broadway and involved substantial right-of-way impacts on Londonderry Road, more input from the Resource Agencies, the Town Councils and the public should be solicited before these alternatives are removed from further consideration. A similar meeting was held with the Resource Agencies (Federal and State agencies with permitting and/or review responsibilities) on July 18, 2001 and with the Londonderry Town Council on August 20, 2001.

Tom Sommers also referred to previous action by this Council, which had voted in favor of Alternatives A and B (terminating at NH Route 28) earlier this year, and that there is no local support for Alternative B. However, he noted that the FHWA has suggested that another local road option besides Tsienneto Road should be included in the detailed analyses to be conducted for the Draft EIS. Therefore, CLD may need to carry Alternative B through the Draft EIS to satisfy the FHWA’s concern that a reasonable range of alternatives has been studied, thus improving the "approvability" of the EIS. With the support of both Towns and the public to remove Alternatives C, D, G and H from further consideration, the FHWA might go along with it.

CLD has developed a conceptual plan showing a hybrid alternative (Alternative G) using Londonderry Road and connecting to Alternative A. Tom Sommers explained that this alternative would begin on NH Route 102 (Broadway) just east of the Exit 4 ramps and require modifications to the Broadway/Londonderry Road intersection, providing a primary through movement for traffic along Londonderry Road and a secondary movement for traffic continuing down Broadway. This intersection would be signalized. A second hybrid alternative (Alternative H) also uses Londonderry Road and would connect to Alternative B. A preliminary environmental impact matrix and a 1 inch/2000 ft. plan view including the two new alternatives and the other remaining alternatives (A, B, C, D, and F) was distributed for discussion.

Both Alternatives G and H would require the expansion of Londonderry Road to five lanes and would involve substantial right-of-way impacts to homes and businesses along Londonderry Road and NH Route 102. Potential traffic benefits along Broadway if the new alternatives progressed were discussed. Southern NH Planning Commission completed a traffic model analysis for the new alternatives. Alternatives G and H would provide only minimal traffic volume reductions on Broadway. The new alternatives would provide less relief (for Broadway) than the two northerly alternatives (C and D) and much less relief than Alternatives A and B.

Tom Sommers summarized the additional expenditures necessary to complete the studies of additional alternatives. These costs are beyond the amended scope and fees negotiated for the EIS studies to date. The additional costs are:

A) develop Alternatives G and H, including meetings $26,000

B) continue detailed studies of alternatives A, B, F, no-build $18,200

Tom explained that most of the costs to develop alternatives G and H have already been incurred but have not yet been billed to the Towns. These are the total cost, which would be evenly divided between the two Towns. If the proposed B option were to be studied, it would be at no additional cost to the Towns.

Tom Sommers indicated that the FHWA does have the final say after the Public Hearing is held and the Final EIS prepared. They have not indicated any willingness to contribute to the study or to any additional construction costs at this time, but this does not preclude their participation at a later date.

Tom explained that that was the total amount to be split between the two towns.