Category Archives: DPW

Rte. 109 repaving starts tonight

Repaving Starts Tonight

Per Mike Sullivan at the Board of Selectmen meeting last night, the repaving of Rte. 109 starts this evening, with all work running from 7PM to 6AM:

  • Wednesday – grinding from RR tracks to Brook Street
  • Thursday – grinding from RR tracks to Causeway Street
  • Sunday and Monday – paving

Route 109 repaving

Route 109 Repaving

Chief Meaney provided the explanation below to Colleen Sullivan in response to her query today about the details of the Rte. 109 road work that starts next week.  Look for Colleen’s more complete story on Patch.

=========================================

Colleen,

 

Maurice Goulet of the DPW is away this week but I will give you my understanding of the project. I attended a pre construction meeting on July 24 and these are the highlights:

 

The work is currently scheduled to begin next week as the signs indicate.

 

The area of Route 109 affected will be the center of Medfield as well as a short distance east of the intersection with South Street and west of the intersection with Route 27.

 

The work will involve grinding the surface of Route 109 down two inches. There may be some leveling of the roadway done at this point.

 

Any structures in the roadway that need to be leveled or repaired will also be done at this point.

 

The roadway will then be repaved to the same level.

 

The part of the project most disruptive to traffic (grinding and paving) will be done at night.

 

As part of the grinding process, the loop detectors, which assist in controlling the traffic lights during non-peak traffic times, will be replaced. This will mean that for a few days the traffic lights will be on an automatic cycle. You will likely only notice this late at night. Normally, when you approach the lights at night or during light traffic periods, the loop detector would realize there is a vehicle there and the lights will change to provide a green light to the motorist. While the lights are on the automatic cycle, this does not happen, so people will wait a short time longer during the overnights.

 

There will be some work done during the day but this will be less of a disruption to traffic.

 

Once started, the project should be done in a couple of weeks.

 

Mike Sullivan is also willing to discuss the project with you and Maurice Goulet will be back on Monday.

 

Hope this helps…..Bob

More on chip seal

I asked Maurice Goulet, the Director of the DPW, a follow up question about chip seal and got more really useful information back from him this morning (a copy of that email appears below – I also inserted Moe’s original information at the end).  The “capital” he references is the town’s annual capital budget, which typically allocates monies to resurface subdivision roads.

chip seal

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Osler L. Peterson <osler.peterson@verizon.net> wrote:

Moe,

I am sorry to be late in responding to your materials, but yes, that is hugely helpful, and exactly the quantification of the cost differential that assists me to understand the magnitude of savings.  I just had time to post your data on my blog, and I am betting that the residents will be equally as appreciative as I am at your putting that material together for us.

So a big thank you from me for doing that and for doing it so well and so clearly.

I guess I do have one follow up chip seal question as I think about it today, namely how many miles of chip seal do we typically do per year?  Even if the savings percentage is really high, if the actual total spending amount is not too great per year, we might still opt to asphalt – e.g. I bet the town residents might opt for pavement over chip seal if it only cost us $100K more per year.  Thanks in advance.

Best,

Pete

Osler L. Peterson, Esq.

===========================================================

Pete,

It would be difficult to give you an estimate in roadway miles as our roadways differ so much in width, however speaking with Bobby Kennedy we average about $150,000 – $200,000 per year on chip seal.

With the calculations I had sent you, it would cost approximately $425,000 – $575,000 for overlay (does not include costs of adjusting castings and repairing driveway aprons) and $555,000 – $750,000 for mill and overlay if we were to resurface the same amount of roadways. This would drastically reduce the number of roadways we could maintain per year. Once our pavement management system is in place, we will have a better understanding of the town’s needs. Even with the pavement management system, it may not consider to utilize chip seal as much, reducing the number of roadways that are resurfaced. (Chapter 90 state funding allotment for Medfield is $395,076 per year plus usually $30,000 – $40,000 from capital) The roadways that are not resurfaced puts added pressure on the Highway Division for maintenance throughout the year.

Thanks,

===========================================================

From: Maurice Goulet [mailto:mgoulet@medfield.net]
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:30 AM
To: Osler L. Peterson <osler.peterson@verizon.net>
Cc: Mike Sullivan <msullivan@medfield.net>
Subject: Chip Seal and Overlay Comparison

Pete,

Below is a comparison of Chip Sealing roadways vs. Pavement Overlay and/or Mill and Overlay as requested.

Consider a scenario of 1 mile of roadway that is 20 feet wide at current contractor prices:

5,280 feet long X 20 feet wide / 9 = 11,733 square yards

$24,639 – chip seal

$69,922 – pavement overlay

(65% savings)

(pavement overlay does not include raising structures such as catch basins, manholes and gates, and reconstructing driveway aprons affected by raising pavement elevation, pavement elevation changes also creates new drainage issues)

Overlaying on a distressed roadway develops reflective cracking through the new surface within a few years affecting longevity of the surface. Milling (grinding) and overlay would then be considered as the preferred method.

$24,639 – chip seal

$91,628 – mill and overlay

(73% savings)

 

Please let me know if you have any questions. Hope this is helpful.

Maurice G. Goulet

Director of Public Works

Medfield, Massachusetts

 

Chip seal

chip seal

None of prefer the chip seal treatment of our side streets, but given the cost differential, I have come to accept it as a cost effective solution.  Please understand that residents are free to opt at the annual town meeting (ATM) to vote to pave streets with asphalt instead of using chip seal.  All spending decision ultimately belong to us, the residents, at our ATM. –

Since I recently had a resident question me about the use of chip seal on his street and since I have historically heard the same questions, I asked our DPW Director, Maurice Goulet,  if he could quantify the cost savings to share with residents.

=========================================================

Pete,

Below is a comparison of Chip Sealing roadways vs. Pavement Overlay and/or Mill and Overlay as requested.

Consider a scenario of 1 mile of roadway that is 20 feet wide at current contractor prices:

5,280 feet long X 20 feet wide / 9 = 11,733 square yards

 

$24,639 – chip seal

$69,922 – pavement overlay

(65% savings)

(pavement overlay does not include raising structures such as catch basins, manholes and gates, and reconstructing driveway aprons affected by raising pavement elevation, pavement elevation changes also creates new drainage issues)

 

Overlaying on a distressed roadway develops reflective cracking through the new surface within a few years affecting longevity of the surface. Milling (grinding) and overlay would then be considered as the preferred method.

 

$24,639 – chip seal

$91,628 – mill and overlay

(73% savings)

 

Please let me know if you have any questions. Hope this is helpful.

Maurice G. Goulet

Director of Public Works

Medfield, Massachusetts

 

Department of Public Works

55 North Meadows Road

Medfield, MA 02052

(508) 359-8597 office

(508) 359-4050 fax

mgoulet@medfield.net

www.town.medfield.net

EPA Agrees to Our Request to Postpone MA MS4 General Permit

The application of the Federal M4S stormwater regulations to Medfield are being postponed a year, per the email below that Mike sent along today.  Medfield joined with Franklin and other towns to seek this redress.

 

Great News! EPA agrees to our request to postpone the
MA MS4 General Permit.
View this email in your browser
About the Coalition

The Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship (MCWRS) is a nonprofit organization committed to promoting watershed-based policies and regulations that effectively manage and conserve water resources.

MCWRS is unique in its focus on protecting municipalities’ interests in an ever changing regulatory environment. We promote using scientifically based and fiscally responsible approaches to realize environmental and community goals.

Members include municipalities; public agencies that transport and treat drinking water, wastewater and stormwater; quasi-government agencies; and private organizations whose members are committed to the principles of stewardship and sustainability in protecting the environment and public health. Invite your colleagues to visit the Coalition website for membership information.

CONNECT WITH US:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
MCWRS Blog
Dear Michael,
We have exciting news to share. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed to our request to postpone the implementation of the Massachusetts Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) General Permit. The request, jointly filed with the Town of Franklin and City of Lowell, delays the permit implementation that was scheduled for July 1, 2017, by one year to July 1, 2018. It also postpones the September 28, 2017 due date for communities’ Notices of Intent. Feel free to download and share our press release on this important announcement. You may also review EPA’s announcement of the postponement.

When EPA issued the final MS4 General Permit in April 2016, MCWRS and Franklin jointly filed an appeal of the permit in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The City of Lowell, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), and the Conservation Law Foundation also filed appeals in Boston. These appeals were transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and consolidated with an appeal first filed in the D.C. Circuit by the Center for Regulatory Reasonableness. The consolidated appeals will be heard in the D.C. Court.

The appeals continue to move forward, but the postponement will provide communities with immediate relief from the cost of complying with the permit until the matter is resolved. Philip Guerin, President of MCWRS, stated, “The postponement is very important to our member communities and municipalities across Massachusetts. It will give them a break from excessive spending on stormwater management until the Court rules on some highly contentious permit language. During the postponement, most cities and towns will continue to implement reasonable and effective practices to improve stormwater quality and decrease stormwater quantity, just as they have been doing for many years.”

The MS4 permit regulates municipal stormwater discharges under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. At issue in the appeal is the standard EPA seeks to apply to discharges from municipal storm sewers, which collect rainfall from streets, buildings, and developed areas. MCWRS, Franklin, and numerous municipalities supporting the appeal contend that certain permit conditions exceed EPA’s authority under the CWA. They go far beyond what Congress ever intended EPA might do to regulate municipal stormwater discharges. The MS4 permit applies to over 260 Massachusetts communities. The costs for communities to meet these new water quality standards vary widely, with independent estimates ranging from $260,000 to $750,000 annually for some medium-sized municipalities.

The draft MA MS4 General Permit generated over 1,300 individual comments by more than 150 entities, many of them municipalities impacted by the permit. EPA made some revisions in the final permit, but did not adequately address key issues raised by many municipal interests. The only process to address contentious matters contained in a final NPDES permit is through the courts. The use of the courts to challenge EPA actions is a step frequently employed by environmental advocacy groups in Massachusetts and across the country. This action by MCWRS, the Town of Franklin, and City of Lowell is very much in keeping with that practice.

We thank our contributors and contributing members for their support of the Coalition’s appeal of the MA MS4 General Permit.

Copyright © 2017 Massachusetts Coalition for Water Resources Stewardship, All rights reserved.

Chip sealing streets this summer

This schedule of streets scheduled for chip sealing this summer was part of the 6/20 BoS agenda materials –

 

Medfield, MA
2017 Chipseal Estimates

Street Length Width Culdesac Double Chip Seal

Indian Hill 6585 34
Granite Street Sect 5568 31
Forest to Walpole TL
Rocky Lane 2961 28

 

Single Chip Seal

Noonhill Road 711 16
Camelot Lane 366 28 100
Lakewood Road 1050 34
Lakewood Terrace 350 35 100
Forest Street 1933 16
Henderson Way 462 14
Summer Street 1400 20

Your three year bid price is $ 2.22 for single and $ 4.20 for double.
The unit prices reflect the de-escalation in asphalt.

Transfer Station closed tomorrow

Transfer Station sign - Copy

The DPW has announced that the Transfer Station will be closed tomorrow in recognition of Veterans Day.