WOBURN - Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) officials are working hard to take I-93/95 Interchange Task Force members' comments into account when drafting a request for responses (RFR - for a consultant whose job it would be to design and conduct a study on interchange improvement alternatives), but made it clear yesterday there is a limit.

When asked what the voting rights of the task force were, Ken Miller, director of MassHighway's Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development, said the "task force is advisory to MassHighway. We want to hear what everyone on the task force has to say. Sometimes when you get into voting, minority opinion gets washed out."

"MassHighway conducts the study in consultaiton with the task force," Miller said. He added that ultimately it is up to the state planning organization to include the project in its regional transportation plan.

Bob Frey, manager of statewide planning for MassHighway, reiterated the concern that someone with a minority opinion that always gets voted down might get discouraged from expressing the opinion, and said that's why the department generally doesn't have voting advisory committees.

Twice during the task force meeting Thursday afternoon at the Shamrock School, members asked whether they should vote to indicate their approval of the revised "scope of work" for the RFR, and twice were deflected, but asked if they had any additional comments or input.

One member, Jeff Everson of PRESERVE, a residents group based in Reading and someone who said he works in the transportation safety field, said he felt there was a fundamental flaw in proceeding with a study because he does not believe there is an adequate database of good, detailed accident information.

Miller said MassHighway spends a lot of money to upgrade the data obtained from the Registry of Motor Vehicles' accident database and is confident it is sufficient on which to make certain decisions.

Also, the revised scope of work references other sources of accident and traffic data which the consultant may use in addition to specified sources.

Paul Sodano, a task force member from the Stoneham Chamber of Commerce, asked Everson if he were proposing to wait 2-4 years until data could be collected under strict specifications. Everson said he was proposing at least six to obtain a sufficient amount of data and do the "kind of analysis to justify a major reconfiguring of the interchange."

Sodano said he felt Everson had made a very important point, but didn't think it should sidetrack the process of getting the RFR "out the door."

Miller noted that safety is only one factor in wanting to redesign the interchange and noted the consultant should be given a chance to say how he or she would be looking at the data. Later in the meeting, he suggested adding something to the scope of work that asks the consultant to assess the adequacy of the data available.

The task force also reviewed other changes which had been made to the scope of work on the basis of comments received from members following the last meeting in January when the draft was intially presented.

The potential local focus area of the proposed study was extended several interchanges in all directions, along Route 93 north to Route 129 in Wilmington and south to Route 28 in Stoneham; and on Route 95, east to Route 129 (Reading/Wakefield line) and west to Route 38 in Woburn. The potential regional focus area extends on I-93 from Wilmington to Medford and on I-95 from Peabody to Burlington.

Language stressing that right-of-way issues and the avoidance of property takings by eminent domain were important criteria in choosing preferred alternatives was strengthened.

Other revisions included adding wording that put greater emphasis on looking at the impact on local roads, residents and environments.

Miller asked that the draft scope of work not be distributed in its entirety until it was officially released so as not to give an unfair advantage to potential respondents.

Broadly, it asks consultants to propose a study. Once a consultant is selected, they will conduct the study in consultation with MassHighway and the task force, and produce a recommended plan of "futre transportaiton improvements (short-term and long-term), based on the alternatives analysis.

It lays out six tasks:

- developing the study area, goals and objectives, evaluation criteria and public participation;

- existing conditions and issues evaluation, along with projections of future conditions;

- alternatives development;

- alternatives analysis (including impacts on mobility, safety, environment, land use and economic development, community effects, and cost);

- recommendations;

- final report.

Time frame and costs

State Rep. Carol Donovan, who represents all three communities affected, asked if MassHighway had the money for the study, how much was left from the last study, and how much they expected the new one to cost.

Frey said about $100,000 was left; Miller said the new study was estimated to cost around $500,000. He said MassHighway intended to use federal-state planning and research funds (80 percent federal, 20 percent state match). He added that the federal government would have to sign off on the scope of work proposed.

Asked what the timeline for the project was, Frey said he expected any additional modifications that resulted from the review of the latest draft could be made within the next two weeks or so. He said he hoped to have an RFR released by August, and intended to give consultants 45 days to respond (more than the usual 30 due to its complexity).

Selection will be based on a number of factors, he said, including: completeness, avoidance of conflict of interest, minority and women business enterprise, professional competence of the project team, the role of each principal and representation of all relevant disciplines, qualifications and experience, demonstrated understanding of the scope, technical approach and methods, capacity to perform the work on schedule and budget, performance on previous contracts, overall project value.

The submissions would be reviewed, he said, and he expected the field would be narrowed, probably to three, with the finalists being brought in for the task force's review, probably in October, if all goes according to plan.

He noted the study is expected to take 18 months, but could take longer.

Miller said options proposed could range from doing nothing to some much larger redesign plan and a whole bunch of options in between.

After the task force members were given a final opportunity for comment, the meeting was opened to the public.

George Katsoufis of the Reading Interchange Committee expressed concern that the study look at the potential impact on development within the communities that improvements to the traffic situation might have.

Bob Soli of Reading, noting the rampant ignorance of or adherence to basic traffic rules, said he felt the study should look at improving enforcement of existing traffic laws. Miller said the consultant could be asked to look at the issue of enforcement.

Task force

The task force was created last year after the initial MassHighway study, which proposed numerous land-takings for the multi-level flyover designs under consideration, was derailed by community and political opposition.

Directly affected towns included Woburn, Reading and Stoneham.

MassHighway, under Commissioner John Cogliano, proposed stepping back and soliciting more input from residents and businesses in the communities in designing a study that looked at a wider range of options and reduced the impact on property owners along the corridor.

Members include residents, business representatives and officials from the municipalities of each town, as well as state, federal and regional transportation organization representatives.

Woburn's representatives attending yesteday included: Mayor John Curran, Ward 5 Alderman Paul Medeiros, Planning Director Edmund Tarallo, city Engineer John "Jay" Corey, resident Darlene Bruen, Woburn Business Association Executive Director Paul Meaney Sr. and state Rep. Carol Donovan.