WalkMassachusetts – Page 12 – WalkMassachusetts

Comments on The Draft Downtown Waterfront Municipal Harbor Plan (DTW MHP) 11/18/16

By WalkMassachusetts | November 18, 2016

November 18, 2016

Mr. Richard McGuinness
Deputy Director for Waterfront Planning
Boston Planning and Development Agency
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201

Dear Mr. McGuinness,

We write to you with comments regarding the Draft Downtown Waterfront Municipal Harbor Plan (DTW MHP), with particular reference to the relationship of that plan to the future of the existing historic Northern Avenue Bridge.

Several elements of the draft plan are particularly relevant to our comments, and we have attached a number of citations from the DTW MHP and the Greenway District Planning Study Use and Development Guidelines that underlie our comments.

The Northern Avenue Bridge is an important contributing element to the downtown waterfront, and in fact, is a critical piece of the existing Harborwalk. Yet, the Bridge was seldom discussed at the public meetings. Mention of it was consistently dismissed or put on hold citing the City’s sponsored competition and unclear future plans for the fate of the historic bridge.

Part of the Downtown Waterfront vision included in the public realm plan includes clearly defined connections with well-‐organized, high quality, and walkable pedestrian links. Failure to include a meaningful discussion of benefits and proposed interim connections to the Northern Avenue Bridge, we feel is shortsighted. As made clear from decades of resident and visitor use, the Bridge is key to enhancing pedestrian access and should be included and acknowledged in the Municipal Harbor Plan.

The Bridge is a critical element of the walking environment providing the most convenient, attractive and harbor-‐connected way for people to walk between the waterfront, downtown and the South Boston Harborwalk. This connection is called out as a core component of the MHP. Because the bridge is flat, is directly adjacent to the Harbor, and provides at-grade connections to the street grid it is uniquely well suited to serve pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Bridge’s historic character is one of the most important contributors to District’s sense of place and connection to Boston’s industrial past. As stated in the DTW MHP (page 10), “Boston’s history and development are inextricably linked to the Downtown Waterfront District.” What better way to provide continuity than to keep the historic Bridge as a lively and well-‐used element of the Harbor and Harborwalk.

We urge the City to include the Northern Avenue Bridge in the revisions to this draft Municipal Harbor Plan, with a discussion of the relevance of its flat profile, the proximity to the water surface that it provides for Harborwalk users, and the contribution of its industrial superstructure to the downtown waterfront environment. Not doing so is a conspicuously missing piece of what is otherwise an excellent draft plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft plan.

Sincerely,

Greg Galer, Boston Preservation Alliance
Jill Valdes Horwood, Boston Harbor NOW
Paul Farrell, Michael Tyrrell, Dan McNichol, Friends of the Northern Avenue Bridge
Sara McCammond, Joe Rogers, Fort Point Neighborhood Association
Wendy Landman, WalkBoston

Cc Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary, EEA
Bruce Carlisle, Director, CZM
Ben Lynch, Waterways/Chapter 91 Program Chief, DEP
Brona Simon, SHPO, Massachusetts Historical Commission
Susan Goldberg, Circuit Executive, First Circuit Court of Appeals

Relevant citations from the DTW MHC and Greenway District Planning Study Use and Development Guidelines

From page 5 of the DTW MHP: “The DTW MHP implements the goals established in the Request for a Notice To Proceed (“RNTP”). The six goals in the DTW RNTP are to: 1. Continue to Develop the District as an Active, Mixed-‐Use Area that is an Integral Part of Boston’s Economy; 2. Promote Access to Boston Harbor, the Harbor Islands and Water Transportation; 3. Improve Waterfront Wayfinding and Open Space Connections; 4. Enhance Open Space Resources and the Public Realm; 5. Create a Climate-‐Resilient Waterfront; and 6. Implement the Greenway District Planning Study Wharf District Guidelines.”

And, from page 30 where the goals for the plan are described: “Connectivity: Strengthened connections from Downtown to the Harbor, Downtown to the South Boston Waterfront, from the Greenway to the waterfront, and from north to south. Boston has an incredible wealth of linear park systems and paths, from the Freedom Trail to the Walk to the Sea to the Rose Kennedy Greenway. This plan is an opportunity to enhance these connections and their relationship to the waterfront, and strengthen the Harborwalk and the Greenway—to draw people along the water’s edge and along one of the great park systems of the city. The key priorities are:

North-‐south connections, along both the Harborwalk and the Greenway. • East-‐west links between the Greenway and the waterfront, building on the

Crossroads Initiative.

o Connections from Northern Avenue to the South Boston Waterfront.
o Increasing water transit opportunities and connections, both within the Inner
o Harbor and beyond to neighboring communities.
o Increasing accessibility by all modes, with a special emphasis on the pedestrian.

As noted above, the DTW MHP includes as one of its goals the implementation of the Greenway District Planning Study Use and Development Guidelines that include the following Wharf District Guidelines:

“The Hook Lobster Site (15 Northern Avenue), the U.S. Coast Guard Building and 400 Atlantic Avenue together frame important new connections to the emerging South Boston waterfront. These include the Old Northern Avenue Bridge, a part of the Oliver Street/Northern Avenue Crossroad, and the Moakley Bridge. While these sites are limited in size and development potential (particularly the Hook site), they nonetheless offer the possibility of increased legibility for both pedestrians and motorists where it is currently lacking. These parcels should contribute to the continuity and accessibility of the Harborwalk, which presents a significant challenge where the Moakley Bridge ramps up above grade. (Page 20)

“All developments in the Wharf District should enhance the continuity and accessibility of the Harborwalk by providing additional points of connection from the Greenway and by “repairing” breaks in the community caused by grade changes and buildings or other obstructions.” (Page 21)

Comments on the Marine Wharf Project ENF 95585

By WalkMassachusetts | September 23, 2016

September 23, 2016

Matthew Beaton, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office Analyst: Alex Strysky
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

Re: Marine Wharf ENF 95585

Dear Mr. Beaton,

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project and the pedestrian services it provides. The project is very interesting as it occupies a key site in the South Boston Seaport District.

The site is proposed to be developed as a 245 room hotel, which will be able to take advantage of the good and direct walking access to major sites nearby: within a radius of about 2-3 city blocks (1/4 mile) are the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, the Black Falcon Pier and Cruise Terminal, and the Boston Design Center. In addition the site is about 300 feet from a direct view of the Reserved Channel and its port activities – an exciting area of the Seaport District.

Other sites in the Seaport District are more difficult to access from the development site. Although both the performance space at the Blue Hills Bank Pavilion on the waterfront and the Harpoon Brewery and Beer Hall are within ¼ mile of the site, they are accessible only via Harbor Street, through a heavily industrial district dominated by truck traffic – not uninteresting, but somewhat unpleasant as a walking route.

Bus service along Summer Street is excellent, connecting both to South Boston and Downtown. An adjacent transit service that is somewhat complex is the Silver Line, which runs a branch along Black Falcon Avenue that connects into the main tunnel to the World Trade Center Pier and South Station. To reach the airport via the Silver Line, riders must transfer at Silver Line Way Station, not far from this site, but difficult to access because there is no direct walking route leading to it. The proponent may want to work with public agencies to secure more direct and safe pedestrian access to Silver Line Station, which is nearby – slightly more than 500 feet away as the crow flies.

Waterfront walks in the area surrounding the site are not encouraged, despite the location adjacent to the Reserved Channel. The Boston Harborwalk will someday pass directly through the Raymond Flynn Marine Park adjacent to the site, because it is a major land connection between the Seaport District and South Boston. However, at the moment the Harborwalk route is not completely signed between Northern Avenue and the South Boston parks and historic sites, leaving this area without a designated portion of its route.

Wayfinding signs would help hotel patrons find the many attractions of the South Boston Seaport more easily. The proponent should work closely with the group of organizations that have been planning and experimenting with wayfinding networks throughout the Seaport over the last year.

Sidewalks surround the proposed development on both Summer Street and Drydock Avenue. The lovely Raymond Flynn Marine Park, immediately adjacent to the site, affords additional open space for hotel patrons, but has not been incorporated into plans for the building and service areas.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit these comments.

Sincerely

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Comments on South Boston Waterfront Transportation Center EEA 8505

By WalkMassachusetts | September 12, 2016

September 12, 2016

Matthew Beaton, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office Analyst: Page Czepiga EEA 8505 and 13367
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

Re: South Boston Waterfront Transportation Center EEA 8505 and 13367

Dear Mr. Beaton,

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the current proposal for the South Boston Waterfront Transportation Center. We have focused on pedestrian issues associated with this project.

This proposal is quite forward-looking for pedestrians who will be using the facility and/or passing through the site. Users of the Center will be served by pedestrian paths through the site, by the adjacent MBTA Silver Line World Trade Center station and by parking on 9 levels with pedestrian access via elevators and stairs to both D Street and the World Trade Center Avenue Viaduct. As the nine parking levels will be partly located below and partly above the principal level of the Center, the principal pedestrian movements will be centralized at a midway garage floor that corresponds to the level of the World Trade Center Avenue Viaduct. Pedestrian access between transportation modes and exits into the surrounding area will take place primarily at the level of the viaduct.

Several significant pedestrian facilities have been proposed at the viaduct level to integrate the Center into the Seaport and provide connections to business centers and activities in the area, as well as transportation modes that are focused in the area. These viaduct level facilities include:

1. A garage floor that also serves a concentration of a large number of pedestrian movements made at this level.

Pedestrian paths could be marked or painted for walkers on the garage floor or developed with imaginative lighting. These walkways would make walking through this large garage safer for walkers by providing a clear path and a physical reminder and warning to drivers. The viaduct level in particular will have many pedestrians.
It would be helpful to begin the proposed wayfinding system within the garage with emphasis on information at the elevators and at the viaduct level of the garage. A substantial installation of signs could direct arriving patrons from parking locations toward appropriate exits and show the multiplicity of potential destinations that can be reached by each of the major exits.
Smart phone apps could be developed to provide detailed information for pedestrians to use on their phones or pads to find specific routes to desired destinations.

2. A proposed pedestrian bridge between the Transportation Center and the existing Waterside Place building for residents who will be using the garage. The bridge will be connected into the pedestrian network provided for the viaduct level of the Center.

Although the bridge will not be used for access between the Center and Congress Street by non-residents, it should be integrated with the wayfinding and pathway system devised by the proponent.

3. A midblock pedestrian walkway between D Street and the World Trade Center Avenue Viaduct on the south side of the Center structure is proposed to aid pedestrians in reaching the variety of destinations around the Center. The walkway provides pedestrian connections from the World Trade Center Avenue Viaduct and the John Hancock and other buildings along D Street. The walkway, to be built primarily at viaduct level (although it slopes down to meet the grade of D Street), will be approximately 18’ wide, well-lighted and roofed for the majority of the distance between the streets that act as a boundary of the Center.

This long (xxx) walkway does not seem to be overlooked by any people other than those on the walk itself. We request that MassPort provide some details about how the security of walkers will be assured.
This walkway should be weather-protected on the side facing the MassPort Haul Road.
The walkway should be signed to guide pedestrians to destinations on either side of the Center. Signage should be integrated into the overall wayfinding network for the Center and proposed networks for the surrounding area.
The walkway could be enhanced by the addition of facilities such as benches for walkers and intervening electronic posters or interactive displays to enliven the area.

4. Pedestrian plaza facing D Street. The D Street (east) side of the Center will include a generous landscaped plaza as a major contribution to upgrading the current appearance and softening the edges of the structure.

This plaza should also be signed and designed with paths to guide pedestrians to destinations on either side of the Center. Signage should be integrated into the overall wayfinding network for the Center and the district.

5. Pedestrian plaza facing World Trade Center Avenue Viaduct. A large public open space will be provided on the viaduct (west) side of the Center. It will provide space for direct access from the viaduct into the Transportation Center, with connections into the adjacent MBTA World Trade Center Station, a shuttle bus drop-off location on the street, landscaping, bicycle parking (and possibly repair) and information kiosks. Significantly, it will include a covered walkway between the viaduct and the Center. This covered walkway will become part of an extended covered pedestrian facility that will extend between Congress and Summer Streets.

The new covered walkway will be a major feature of this project and a harbinger of the future pedestrian network that will extend beyond this location and connect between both the World Trade Center and the Boston Convention and Exposition Center. It should protect pedestrians in all weather conditions.
The covered walkway should also be an integral portion of the wayfinding network for the Seaport area. A central focus could be an interactive display that helps walkers find their desired destinations, and tells each how long the walk will be for them in the minutes 3 required to make the connection. The proposal calls for displays of real-time modal availability and schedule information, interactive kiosks and bicycle parking and possibly the availability of pedi-cabs.
This large setback seems to set the stage for a future land use that faces World Trade Center Avenue. We think that lively uses along the Avenue would be a good addition to the area’s pedestrian environment.

WalkBoston is excited about the generous additions of elements in this project that will enhance and encourage pedestrian movement throughout the area. Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely

Bob Sloane
Senior Planner

Comments on Allston Brighton CDC’s BC Neighborhood Improvement Fund Proposal

By WalkMassachusetts | August 24, 2016

August 24, 2016

Re: Support for Allston Brighton CDC’s BC Neighborhood Improvement Fund Proposal

Dear BC Neighborhood Improvement Fund Committee,

We are writing to support Allston Brighton Community Development Corporation’s proposal to improve the walking environment along Chestnut Hill Ave at Winship Street in Brighton.

WalkBoston is a nonprofit pedestrian advocacy organization that works to make walking safer and easier in Massachusetts to encourage better health, a cleaner environment and vibrant communities. WalkBoston sits on the City of Boston’s Vision Zero Task Force. When a serious or fatal crash occurs, the task force studies the crash details and location, and recommends appropriate street design changes to make the streets safer for residents walking, biking, driving or taking transit in the area.

Following a serious vehicle crash involving a runner in January at Chestnut Hill Ave and Winship Street, the Task Force discussed ways to create a shorter crossing distance for people walking, and more predictable turning movements for people driving. A bump out and expanded pedestrian area as described in the application would accomplish both of these goals, and also create new public space for the neighborhood.

You can learn more about this crash and the recommendations here:
http://www.visionzerocoalition.org/chestnut_hill_ave_and_winship_st_brighton

We hope that you will consider Allston Brighton CDC’s proposal as a step forward in making the City of Boston safer and more accessible to all members of the community, no matter how they get around.

Best regards,

Brendan Kearney

Communications Manager
City of Boston Vision Zero Task Force Representative

Comments on Jamaica Plain and Roxbury Draft Plan:JP/ROX

By WalkMassachusetts | August 19, 2016

August 19, 2016

Marie Mercurio, Senior Planner
Boston Redevelopment Authority
1 City Hall Sq, 9th Floor
Boston, MA 02210

Re: Draft PLAN: JP/ROX

Dear Marie:

LivableStreets Alliance, Boston Cyclists Union and WalkBoston appreciate the work the BRA has done thus far to ensure that neighborhood development in Jamaica Plain and Roxbury aligns with residents’ wishes and is done in a sustainable way that preserves neighborhood character. However, our organizations believe that the policies and recommendations outlined in the BRA’s draft plan can be improved. Washington Street is a high-density, transit-accessible corridor, with low rates of automobile usage and a high share of residents traveling via transit, bicycle and walking. The policies and recommendations outlined in the BRA’s report should further advance these aspects of the neighborhood. Please find comments from the LivableStreets Advocacy Committee, WalkBoston, Boston Cyclists Union, and local residents below. Many of these recommendations align with work WalkBoston is pursuing in partnership with the Elderly Commission’s Age-Friendly Boston initiative and other city agencies to improve safety and comfort for seniors and other vulnerable populations.

First, we would like to recommend general improvements for the area in the following categories: Policy Initiatives, Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure, Bicycle Infrastructure, Transit Improvements, Placemaking and the Public Realm, and Parking. In addition, we recommend a number of specific infrastructure improvements throughout the PLAN: JP/ROX study area, which are detailed later in this letter.

Policy Initiatives

 Commit to Complete Streets, Vision Zero, and other policies and standards that the City of Boston has adopted – don’t just aspire. Roadway design should prioritize pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and personal motor vehicles, in that order. Vehicular capacity/level of service should not trump other needs.

o Page 120 of the draft plan mentions that traffic calming, improved sidewalk and pedestrian crossings, and bike facilities should be created “where possible.” This statement does not go far enough and the words “where possible” should be eliminated from the final plan. Boston has committed to implementing Vision Zero, which requires that streets be engineered in ways that prevent vulnerable road users from being killed by motor vehicles when motor vehicle operators make errors. The term “where possible” implies that nothing will change on a street unless no parking spaces are lost and motor vehicle traffic speeds are not impacted.

 Implement fast and flexible programs for infrastructure that advance Complete Streets and Vision Zero goals. Use flex posts, paint and other inexpensive and temporary materials to demonstrate innovative roadway treatments such as physically separated bike lanes, curb extensions, and pedestrian plazas.

Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure

 Improve pedestrian safety through appropriately configured WALK signals.

o All WALK signals should be on automatic recall, unless there are streets with very low pedestrian volumes.

o All WALK signals should be concurrent with traffic, unless there are high volumes of turning traffic or special circumstances (e.g. locations near schools or senior centers) that should be further reviewed.

o All concurrent WALK signals should provide a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) of 6 seconds.

o All WALK signals should provide countdowns that give sufficient time for pedestrians to cross the street. At major intersections the timing should be set to accommodate the MUTCD standard of a pedestrian walking 3.0 ft/sec. (MUTCD Section 4E.06, Paragraph 14)

 Establish an aggressive minimum standard for distance between crosswalks (signalized or not) and corresponding installation of new crosswalks at minor intersections and midblock locations.

 Create landscaped pedestrian refuge areas where possible at unsignalized crosswalks.

 Install sidewalk bump-outs at all pedestrian crossings where appropriate for pedestrian safety.

Bicycle Safety and Infrastructure

 Determine feasibility of implementing separated bike lanes along all collector and arterial streets.

o On page 133 of the draft plan, fig. 89 and fig. 90 depict two different conceptual drawings of bike infrastructure. We recommend the fig. 90 conceptual drawing of a separated bike lane.

 Create bike lanes/separated bike lanes, not sharrows, on major streets, and build as much as possible using paint on existing streets.

 Expand Hubway service and stations according to station density requirements and locations within a quarter mile radius of MBTA stations, including at transit hub Forest Hills MBTA Station.

 Bicycle and pedestrian access to the Southwest Corridor should remain as safe as it is today or be made safer.

Transit Improvements

 Study additional options for improving buses and expanding BRT. Options may include extending the Silver Line from Dudley through Forest Hills as an alternative to the BRT corridor planned for Columbus Ave.

 Use transit priority signals and far-side bus stops to provide better bus service, instead of queue jump lanes as currently recommended in the draft plan. Far-side stops are better for bus operations and also help to daylight crosswalks to oncoming traffic.

 Ensure that buses are accommodated if future development takes place at the Arborway Yard and either redesign or relocate bus operations. The memorandum of agreement between the City and the MBTA calls for building a permanent $250 million facility to house 118 buses.

Placemaking and the Public Realm

 Install attractive, high-visibility, main-street-style, pedestrian-scale lighting to not only provide better illumination but to help visually narrow the street and signal to motorists that they are not on a high-speed arterial but in a village/neighborhood commercial center.

 Install attractive and coordinated benches/street furniture, parklets, public art and other placemaking features

 Minimize curb cuts through use of shared driveways and ensure that they have the tightest possible curb radii and level sidewalks.

 Create more robust incentives to encourage store owners to remove metal security covers for storefronts or to replace them with less visually obtrusive interior-mounted alternatives.

 Where appropriate, require setbacks for larger buildings to accommodate wider sidewalks and sidewalk cafes. Any residential or non-storefront, non-active groundfloor uses permitted to front on Washington St should require deeper, well landscaped setbacks, such as those along Marlborough St. in the Back Bay.

Parking

 Conduct a comprehensive neighborhood parking study to assess the proper regulations needed neighborhood wide.

o Regulate on-street parking in business districts for 15% vacancy using a combination of time limits and metering to encourage turnover.

o Assess residential streets, especially near transit stations, for viability of resident parking zones. Permits could be required during the day if people from outside the neighborhood are parking there during the day. Make residential permits required during the day and/or during the night if overnight parking by nonresidents seems to be an issue.

o Institute recommended parking ratios ranging from 0 to .7, consistent with research suggesting parking ratios of .5 to .7 spaces per unit in neighborhoods with similar mode share and vehicle ownership rates as this section of Boston. “Decoupling” usage of private parking spaces from specific residential units and encouraging commercial shared parking can further extend the usefulness of existing and proposed spaces.

o Provide enough loading/drop-off/pick-up zones to reduce/eliminate double parking.

o Explore maximums for off-street parking.

o Reducing parking would save residents more than $8,500/year, which will aid the BRA’s goal of affordable housing. (This is based on the estimate that car ownership costs an average of $8,500/year.)

In addition to these general recommendations, the plan should also address and mention specific infrastructure improvements to existing deficiencies, including the following:

 Create a road diet for Columbus Ave between Egleston Sq. and Jackson Sq.

 Add bump outs/curb extensions to narrow crossing distances and increase turning radii for vehicles turning right onto Washington St from Columbus Ave.

 Add visual cues such as rapid flashing beacons and other high visibility signage to slow northbound traffic on Columbus Ave coming downhill through Egleston Square at Washington St.

 Add and improve crosswalks throughout the study area.

o Add raised crosswalks on all side streets along Washington and Columbus.

o Add a crosswalk, preferably raised, with an in-street pedestrian crossing sign across Washington St at Beethoven St and across Washington St at Kenton Rd.

o Add crosswalks with in-street pedestrian crossing signs across Columbus Ave between Washington St and Seaver St, and across Washington St between Columbus Ave and Dimock St, to enhance pedestrian connections to and surrounding Egleston Square. (Currently there are very few crosswalks across the major arterials of Columbus Ave and Washington St along the aforementioned roadway segments. New crosswalks may be located at side streets or midblock, depending on the circumstances.)

 Fix the WALK signal across Columbus Ave outside Walnut Park Apartments (between Weld Ave and Dixwell St) to shorten wait time and provide regular pedestrian phase. Currently the wait for a WALK cycle is very long even when the button is pushed.  Widen the sidewalks on Amory Street from the Brewery Complex to School Street to a minimum of 8’.

 Establish wayfinding and pedestrian/bicycle links connecting and directing people from the Southwest Corridor, T Stations and Washington St to Franklin Park.

o Page 130 of the draft plan states that connections should be enhanced between the Southwest Corridor and Franklin Park. Maps and diagrams of proposed improvements should be updated to reflect this in the final plan.

o Page 152 of the draft plan cites proposed improvements for Egleston Square, including “new bike lanes, crosswalks, and connections to the Southwest Corridor.” Ideally these bike facilities should be two-way and protected from vehicle traffic. As with connections between the SW Corridor and Franklin Park, such proposed improvements should be consistently mentioned throughout all maps presented in the final plan.

 Install parking meters with 12-or-more hour maximum time on all streets within 1000’ of a train station to better manage commuter parking.

Thank you again for presenting to our group in July and for this opportunity to comment on the draft plan. We appreciate your consideration of our recommendations.

Sincerely,

Boston Cyclists Union
LivableStreets Alliance
WalkBoston