Below are excerpts from an article penned by Holly Angelo in the Sunday, February 18, 2007 Springfield Republican, "Transportation plan gets update.” [You’ll need to do a site search for the article.] Depending upon the audience, I’m beginning to wonder which Clare Higgins is running Northampton. What do you think? -Daryl G. LaFleur
“"I think it’s important for all of us to be talking together from all the regions about these issues," said Northampton Mayor Mary Clare Higgins, a member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization.
We’re not going to get everything we need. I think (the plan) is trying to balance all these differing needs."
In regard to the proposed I-91 Exit 19 improvements, Higgins said she isn’t comfortable with the current plan.
"Something has to happen there, but I’m not sure that gets it quite right," Higgins said.
In addition to that project, Higgins said she’s interested in promoting alternative forms of transportation, such as bicycle paths and rail alternatives.”
Below is the complete post from Mary Serreze, a woman standing in opposition to the current Interstate 91 Interchange 19 expansion plans who attended the meeting where Mayor Higgins voted to approve the interchange.”-Daryl G. LaFleur
Three of us attended the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) vote
on the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), in the Auditorium of the
West Springfield Municipal Building on Tuesday, March 6, 2007. We
witnessed the unanimous approval of the RTP by the MPO, on which
Northampton Mayor Mary Clare Higgins sits as a voting member. The RTP
vote granted "High-Priority Status" to the Interstate 91 exit 19 expansion
project.
Frank Werniky (sp?), Lola Reid from the Ward 3 Neighborhood
Association, and (this writer) Mary Serreze spoke during the comment
period. Frank asked three [I only count two-dgl] clear questions: 1.What exactly is the problem that this project is supposed to fix? The problem itself seems poorly defined. 2. Why were not citizens of Northampton told about this project till now? Even Marilyn Richards, the Ward 3 City Councilor, was surprised by the announcement. Frank also noted that opportunities for citizen participation in this project have not been clearly explained or publicized.
The rep from EOT (name?) said that if citizens had wanted to weigh in
on whether an EIR was necessary, they should have submitted public
comment regarding the ENF, or Environmental Notification Form.
Lola Reid, long-time homeowner in Ward 3, stood and advocated for
careful environmental review and enhanced citizen participation before
any additional steps are taken. She requested that the MPO "put the
brakes" on this project.
I spoke for the exit 19 group [the group standing in opposition-dgl], and reiterated our concerns regarding public participation and environmental review. I asked that the project
be removed from the RTP. In retrospect, I think I should have given
another option: that it be re-prioritized to a lower level. Higgins
could have moved to re-prioritize the project, which would have slowed
it down and allowed more discussion, but she took the either-or
approach and, after we all spoke, simply voted to approve the RTF
without amendment.
I presented the high points of James Lowenthal’s recent letter to Luisa
Paiwonsky, Mass Highway Commissioner. In Brief:
1. There is significant public opposition to this project
2. The project is in conflict with stated goals of existing local and
regional transportation plans, which emphasize environment, sense of
place, sustainability, and public participation in planning.
3. Reasonable alternatives have not been explored, as called for the
MassHighway Design Guide.
4. In the Connecticut River Crossing Study, bicycle accommodation on
Rt. 9 was rejected out-of-hand, as was winter maintenance of the bike
path. This conflicts with MassHighway Design Guide policy of always
assuming bicyclist will be present, and accommodating bicycles whenever
possible on all non-restricted roadways in the Commonwealth.
5. The project would require that the rail trail go underground 150
feet in a tunnel, then go under two highway underpasses.
6. Opportunities for public input on the project have been almost
non-existent. The SAG held only two public hearings near the end of
their deliberations in 2004. There have been no detailed studies since
then that we know about. Now it’s been designated a High-Priority
Project in the Regional Transportation Plan, and has been placed on the
TIP (2007 Transportation Improvement Plan) for funding the design phase
of the project, jumping ahead of other projects. It was only after the
project was placed on the TIP that a public information meeting was
held.
7. The project would require razing houses, would cut through the
meadows, would further deteriorate quality of life in the neighborhood.
8. The Study ignores the effects of Induced Traffic, and will only
encourage sprawl (If you build it they will come.)
9. The land bordering the Connecticut River is very ecologically
sensitive, and is important in maintaining the ecological health of our
region. Yet no Environmental Impact Report is being required by the
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
I then had the opportunity to read Northampton resident Susan Lantz’s
letter to the MPO in its entirety. Her letter was, in my opinion, a
beautiful and powerful piece of writing, and I think members of the
audience and of the MPO were briefly humbled and moved by her words.
Susan, would you be willing to post your letter?
Clare Higgins mentioned that the SAG, on which she also sat, had, in
2004, recommended mass transit along Rt 9 as well as the highway ramp
project, and was concerned the RTP did not reflect that
recommendation. My recollection of her words: she said that she would
not support removing the I91 exit 19 project from the RTF, because to
do so would prevent dialog and discussion about how best to deal with
the problem of the intersection at the Coolidge Bridge, which includes
a solution for Damon Road and the Bike Path. I am not quoting her
exactly, and did not get a chance to clarify, so perhaps someone ought
to ask her for her reasoning on why she did not move to remove, or at
least down-prioritize this project, which would have slowed it down and
allowed for more review and civic process.
Higgins, and several others on the MPO, asserted that there had been
plenty of public participation and publicity surrounding the
Connecticut River Transportation Study Advisory Group (AKA the "2nd
Bridge Committee"). I countered that a search of the Gazette archives
had returned very little information on this group.
She responded to our concerns about lack of public process by pointing
out that there were no newspaper reporters in the room, and that if the
newspapers choose not to devote coverage to public participation in
development and planning, then there was nothing she could do about it.
Other MPO members pointed out that newspapers prefer to report
"hard-hitting news" instead of complex information about the civic
process. Clare suggested that we all buy our local newspaper every day
so that there will be enough money to hire more reporters. She referred
to "conspiracy theories," which might be a reference to our questioning
why the public feels excluded from the process, and might be a
reference to our letter to the MPO and other officials, which pointed
out her membership on both the SAG and the MPO, which asked how the SAG
was appointed, and which decried the secretive nature of these
meetings.
There were a number of citizens there speaking about projects in
Hampden County, most prominently the Rt 57 expansion project, which was
granted a higher priority status after a motion by the MPO rep from
Agawam (?).
Before the meeting, I spoke w/ Henry Barton, who I believe is the PVPC
board chair. He is concerned about suburban sprawl and expressed
reservations about the project, which he said he would express to the
other members.
Mary Serreze
