After introductions by Tom Sommers, Chris Bean gave a brief history and the current status of the project. Initial studies for a potential new interchange on I-93, north of Exit 4, were developed in 1985. Conditional approval from FHWA for a break in the limited access right-of-way was granted in 1991. One of the conditions was the successful completion of an EIS, which was begun in 1998. Chris reviewed the formal Purpose and Need Statement that has been developed for the project.

After explaining the alternatives development process, Chris 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. 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 investigate these new options further. 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). 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.

CLD developed a conceptual plan showing a hybrid alternative (Alternative G) using Londonderry Road and connecting to Alternative A. Chris Bean 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. These include the Derry Plaza, which contains seven businesses. The design of Londonderry Road was modified to avoid taking two new commercial/industrial buildings on the easterly side of Londonderry Road and to minimize other right-of-way acquisitions.

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.

Alternative G would require the acquisition of 21 buildings (10 residential and 11 commercial), impact 1.3 acres of wetlands, 11 historic properties, including 6 buildings, and would cost approximately $13.4 million, including engineering design, construction, and right-of-way.

Alternative H would require the acquisition of 24 buildings (13 residential and 11 commercial), impact 4.2 acres of wetlands, 4 historic properties (no buildings), and would cost approximately $15.5 million for design, construction, and right-of-way.

Chris Bean presented a chart summarizing 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

C) continue detailed studies of Alternatives A, B, C, D, F, no-build $60,700

D) continue detailed studies of Alternatives, A, B, F, G, H, no-build $60,700

E) continue detailed studies of Alternatives A, B, C, D, F, G, H, no-build $97,400

Chris explained that most of the costs for Option "A" have already been incurred but have not yet been billed to the Towns. Therefore, the following combinations of options were presented for consideration by the Council:

A + B $44,200

A + C $86,700

A + D $86,700

A + E $123,400

Chris Bean explained that the numbers noted in the matrix involved the total traffic volumes in both directions at a particular point on NH 102 (Broadway). The Southern NH Planning Commission completed the traffic model analysis.

Chris explained that public input was very important throughout the EIS process. It is also important to hear the official position from each Town, as well as the Resource Agencies.

John Silvestro felt the Council had enough information. Some Council members have been following the project development since the beginning.

Troy Brown explained that the Town Planner, Town Engineer and Town Manager have been involved throughout the project development. To wait for a review by the Planning Board would present an unacceptable, and perhaps unnecessary, delay.

Troy responded that they felt we should study Alternatives A, B, F, G, H and no-build.

Martin Bove stated that the Council certainly respects the opinion of the Planning Board, but given the involvement of the Planning Board Director, such a request would cause undue delay.