Author: WalkMassachusetts

Brookline Harvard Street Corridor Walk Audit

Brookline Harvard Street Corridor Walk Audit

By |

Brookline is one of 18 communities participating in the MassDOT multi-disciplinary program to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety in Massachusetts. One of the components of the MassDOT program is to conduct walk and bike assessments that identify infrastructure challenges to walking and biking and recommend short- and long-term improvements. These assessments are also a means of building local knowledge of the importance of well-designed pedestrian and bicycle facilities. WalkBoston and MassBike conducted an assessment of Harvard Street in Brookline, MA.

Read the full report here:

WalkBoston-HarvardStreetWalkAssessment-Brookline

Comments on proposal for development of One Bromfield Street

Comments on proposal for development of One Bromfield Street

By |

July 29, 2016

Brian Golden
Christopher Tracy
Boston Redevelopment Authority
City Hall Plaza
Boston, MA 02201

Re: Comments on proposal for development of One Bromfield Street

Dear Mr. Golden and Mr. Tracy:

WalkBoston reviews proposed public and private developments for their potential impacts on walker’s safety, convenience and amenity in municipalities across the Commonwealth.

We are particularly interested in the One Bromfield Street proposal because of its significant size and consequent effects on the pedestrian network in and around the Ladder Blocks in Downtown Boston. We recognize that the project proponent has been asked to reconsider the currently existing proposal to examine significant changes that might integrate the project more successfully into its proposed setting. In keeping with the process of reconsidering the designs of the project, we offer the following comments:

1. We are concerned that the project will significantly alter pedestrian patterns on surrounding streets. Impacts on Province Street are especially likely because so many of the project’s vehicular access points take place at its intersection with the narrow Province Court.

  •  All vehicles passing through Province Court have the potential for disrupting pedestrian flows on the sidewalks along Province Street, especially abutting this project’s site. Pedestrians will have to wait for vehicle movements from Province Street into Province Court in substantial numbers given the proposed size of the building. In addition, queues of vehicles may stretch from Province Court toward School Street – the principal access to the site – causing congestion of vehicles and potentially significant hazards for the many pedestrians using the businesses and residences along School Street, Province Street and Bromfield Street.
  • Trucks trying to get to the loading docks will have to maneuver forward on Province Street to get into a position where they can back into the docks located off Province Court. They will need to back in slowly because of the severe physical limitations of the access path. This may cause delays and safety issues for the many pedestrians walking on Province Street, and also contribute to traffic backing up along the narrow street.
  • Delivery vehicles will turn from Province Street into Province Court to get to the porte cochere area (also connected to Province Court) where there are slots reserved for them. Delays in deliveries caused by drivers carrying materials into or out of the building may cause delivery vehicles to gather in Province Street awaiting a slot in the porte cochere area.
  • Drivers of vehicles heading toward the parking area within the building are to be served by only two elevators a few feet off Province Court. Waiting for space on the elevators will result in vehicles waiting on Province Street, potentially double-parked on the street. Given the other activities taking place on Province Court, it is very unlikely that private vehicles will be able to wait for elevators within the narrow access provided by Province Court.
  • All privately-operated taxi or other carrying services will pass through this intersection into the porte cochere. Any congestion within the porte cochere will cause waiting vehicles to stand outside on Province Street prior to moving into the building.

2. The project emphasizes vehicular access.

  • The focus of vehicular access on both Province Court and Province Street will result in new traffic patterns and new vehicles that will be competing with pedestrian traffic on the narrow, pedestrian-scale streets in the area. Traffic congregating on Province Street will severely limit successful access to the project while enlarging its impacts on its surroundings.
  • Parking for the project’s residences and businesses should be scrutinized to ascertain if the scale is appropriate. Limiting the size of the building would reduce the need for some of the parking. Examining and detailing the market for residences in this location may result in a lesser need for so many spaces. Providing customer parking for any of the businesses appears unnecessary. It is difficult to discern why anyone would drive to this location and require parking on-site, given the difficulty of driving here and the location at the heart of the region’s transit system.

3. Bromfield Street has retained the look and feel of the historic Ladder District, which has been a prominent feature of planning for Downtown Boston for decades.

  • Buildings generally have a modest number of floors, reflecting a pattern of walk-up offices and residences. All buildings are small-scale, occupying only a few feet of street frontage thus allowing a clustering of many businesses into a short and very walkable street. Bromfield Street contained, in the recent past, a small cluster of owner-operated camera stores, as well as a few stores focusing on hobbies such as stamp collecting. Restaurants have occupied some sites, with new operations likely as Downtown recovers its economic footing.
  • The proposal’s frontage on Bromfield Street is out of scale with the existing street. The proposed massive opening of the vehicular exit on Bromfield is inappropriate, given present and anticipated traffic patterns of Downtown Boston, especially low-traffic ways like Bromfield Street. Any vehicular access should be kept narrow and unobtrusive in keeping with the pedestrian scale of the district. Small-scale shops on both sides of a vehicular exit would help integrate the street frontage into the historic fabric of Bromfield Street.
  • It seems unlikely that traffic on Bromfield Street will grow from sources other than this project. The pedestrianization of Washington Street will remain. New vehicular traffic from Franklin Street remains an unknown. Consideration is needed for potential access to the project site from Franklin Street – which in the recent past was used only for taxis and buses. Maintaining these limits on traffic will help retain the pedestrian feel of the street and actually make it safer for pedestrians by limiting the number of vehicles that will travel there.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. It seems clear that reducing the scale of the project and its accompanying vehicular access and trips is needed to reduce negative impacts on local pedestrian patterns and facilities. We hope that the City and the proponent will keep walkers prominently in mind during revisions to this project – the quality of life for pedestrians is what gives this neighborhood and this development the value that it has for existing and future residents, neighbors and visitors.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Comments on Dorchester Ave Planning Study

Comments on Dorchester Ave Planning Study

By |

June 22, 2016

Lara Merida

Director of Neighborhood Planning

Boston Redevelopment Authority

Boston City Hall

1 City Hall Square

Boston, MA 02201

Re: The South Boston Dorchester Ave Planning Study

As the city and state’s principal advocate for pedestrian safety, access, and utility in improving individuals’ health, WalkBoston thanks you for the opportunity to comment on this planning study.

It is unusual when a municipality is able to consider preparation for so massive a prospective change for an existing neighborhood. The area served by Dorchester and Old Colony Avenues appears to be a prime candidate for such change. This corridor has direct links to Downtown Boston and to the close-knit neighborhood of South Boston, where the market for new housing is strong.

The plan will form the basis for proposed rezoning of the 144-acre site between Dorchester Avenue and Old Colony Avenue, reaching nearly a mile between the Broadway and Andrews MBTA stations, and could prepare for an influx of between 14,000 and 16,000 new residents. Because there are few existing streets within the study area other than the two well-known arteries, it is critical that the plan address the movement needs of drivers, bicyclists and walkers to prevent the crowding of streets and sidewalks.

Circulation planning

• The plan proposes creation of a network of streets with sidewalks, midblock walkways, bike lanes, and vehicular ways that may double the amount of space currently provided for all kinds of circulation. Except for the existing streets, the network will be created through a zoning process that requires developers to include streets, sidewalks and midblock walkways as parts of their proposed developments. With the exception of the midblock walkways, the new circulation facilities may be required through zoning to be primarily on the periphery of a site that is proposed for development. With small block frontage this may be adequate for walkers. With larger sites, it may not suffice, as pedestrians may be faced with longer, perhaps inconvenient walking routes.

• The historical nature of this space as industrial has created a layout that is not conducive to walking. Distances are relatively long for access to the subway. In addition, walkers are confronted by four intersections that pose a major barrier to pedestrian access to and from the redevelopment zone:

1. Old Colony Avenue and Columbia Road

2. Dorchester Avenue, Dorchester St, Preble St, and Boston St.

3. Dorchester Avenue, Damrell St, and D Street

4. Dorchester Avenue, Old Colony Avenue, W. 7th St, and B St.

The use of Complete Streets circulation principles

Boston and the state agencies both espouse Complete Streets principles in designs for streets. Application of these principles to existing facilities may bring challenges. For example, the principles applied to Dorchester Avenue may change the character of the street considerably. As a two-lane facility with parking on both sides of the street, change may be essential to incorporate safe bicycle lanes and sidewalks, along with landscaping treatment that may involve a row of new street trees within the study area.

However, the street’s right-of-way may not be sufficient to incorporate all of these competing uses unless care is taken in the design. To maintain continuity of design and treatment, this suggests a very strong role for the city in overseeing or providing facilities for private landowners.

By contrast, with 4 lanes, Old Colony Avenue provides more space for incorporation of changes in movement patterns and in redesign to add amenities that can support the extensive development anticipated here.

Park planning

• The thoroughfare called Ellery Street is planned to be extended as a street with a contiguous greenway through much of the study area. The greenway would be constructed on land adjacent to a street and to buildable parcels created in specific locations. There are several questions that come from this proposal: Will the greenway be designed and constructed by the businesses? What role will the city play? Who will be responsible for maintenance of the greenway?

• For the proposed pedestrian/bike way running along the frontage road/train tracks, where will the funds for construction and maintenance come from? Can this path and bikeway be constructed as part of the street proposed for the edge of parcels that abut the rail yards?

• The plan calls for the creation of a 1-2 acre park by asking developers to consolidate their open space requirements into a single area. We are concerned that businesses may not want to consolidate their open space requirements. In that instance, where would the funds come for the construction and maintenance of this space?

• The creation of a park and pedestrian greenway requires the commitment of businesses willing to participate in density bonus measures that provide the city with open space. If businesses opt out of those density bonus plans then this area is reduced to 45-foot tall buildings with no parks, no open spaces, and no network of connectivity.

The pedestrian experience

• Retail amenities encourage walking. Much of the frontage of both Old Colony and Dorchester Avenue is planned to be retail – a very good idea if the demand for the space remains solid. However, there are clear indications that sales of goods in massive quantities on the internet are drying up many of the opportunities for brick-and-mortar sites for retail activities. It seems doubtful that the current market for goods will change significantly.

• Services such as dry cleaners, restaurants, banks, etc. are, of course, likely to require physical operating space. It is possible that projections of space needs specifically for services may be required to more closely balance space allocations with likely demand. However, many services do not require physical space adjacent to a sidewalk. To the extent that proposed zoning can be tailored, services might be used to occupy the space that may be zoned for retail activities. Restaurants immediately come to mind as an opportunity area. Perhaps a focus on food services may be an appropriate alternative that should be nurtured.

• It is important to note that a positive pedestrian experience requires a seamless network of spaces and attractions. If in the process of constructing on sites in this large area, businesses are filing commercial spaces at large physical intervals, it deters walking, while simultaneously promoting driving and crime by creating dead zones of activity.

While there are many admirable aspects of this plan including potential pedestrian networks and implementation of Boston’s Complete Streets Guidelines, much remains vague. Rezoning can allow for certain types of redevelopment, but in no way ensures the creation of those possibilities. If rezoning does occur as planned, we suggest that the developer guidelines and site plan review process be rigorous and keep walkability at the forefront of the development goals.

This rezoning plan allows for the creation of many great things for pedestrians, but in no way ensures those aspects of the plan will be implemented in the long run.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this emerging plan.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane

Senior Planner

Comments on ENF for 33-61 Temple Street, Beacon Hill

Comments on ENF for 33-61 Temple Street, Beacon Hill

By |

May 31, 2016

Christopher Tracy
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Boston City Hall
1 City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201

Re: Expanded Project Notification Form for 33‐61 Temple Street, Beacon Hill

Dear Mr. Tracy,

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Expanded Project Notification Form for 33-61 Temple Street in Beacon Hill. We are commenting because of concern about pedestrian issues associated with this project.

We appreciate that the project will add residential units that meet ADA standards for accessible buildings. We also agree that replacing the non-conforming academic use of the structures will improve the neighborhood by reducing street activities related to the arrival and departure of students. We anticipate that the new residents will enjoy the environmental benefits of the shared street that services their building.

In addition, replacing the façade of the more modern Donahue Building will clearly benefit the historic appearance of the Beacon Hill neighborhood and mesh the project more closely with the architecturally­‐significant structures that surround it. Wind and shadow impacts appear to be minimal.

This proposal capitalizes on a very centrally‐located site. The existing buildings to be redeveloped are located at the edge of historic Beacon Hill, across the street from the Massachusetts State House, and just a few minutes walking distance from the center of downtown Boston. The area is well-­served by public transportation – indeed, stations on all four of the MBTA’s subway lines are within a walking distance of 10‐15 minutes. Six bus lines are nearby. As a result, many future residents will be able to commute to work and walk to many neighborhood destinations without the need for public transportation or motor vehicles.

Notwithstanding the transit-­served and walkable setting of the site, the project is quite auto-­centric. In a densely built downtown neighborhood that is one of the premier walking neighborhoods in the United States, the project proposes adding 60 parking spaces for the proposed 75 units in the two buildings. As a result of this project, 60 parking spaces will be added to a street where there are none at all at present. These parked vehicles will require access via Temple Street, which was formally designated a pedestrian street in 1970 by Mayor Kevin White and Governor Michael Dukakis, with an added designation as Temple Walk in 1977. Since its designation as a pedestrian street, parking on the street has been removed, sidewalks have been widened, alternating sides of the street have a flush curb between the sidewalk and roadway. Landscaping has been added, and residents have enjoyed the environmental benefits of a prescient plan for what is now called a shared street. On shared streets, pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles all have equal rights to the street space. Vehicles must proceed slowly, parking is nonexistent or very limited, and walking or biking on the street is very pleasurable and deemed to be safe for all.

WalkBoston recommends significantly reducing the number of on-­site parking spaces
 The principal concern is that the addition of these spaces will tip the current carefully balanced pedestrian-­vehicle use of the street and make the space less pleasant for walkers. On-­site parking is an expectation that has been challenged successfully elsewhere in the city and should be challenged here.

WalkBoston suggests that the planned number of parking spaces should be reduced. Several options should be explored:

Eliminate all parking within the building. The development of Lovejoy Wharf in the North End of downtown Boston pioneered the elimination of on-­site parking for residential development with close and excellent mass transit and with nearby garages for off-­site parking.

Reduce the presumed demand for parking by reducing the number of residential units in the building or simply reduce the ratio of parking spaces/unit.

Improve services for residents and thus reduce any residual demand for vehicles. An extensive row of bicycle racks are proposed for the building and bike-­sharing appears to be a real possibility. Car-­sharing providers such as Zipcar or Enterprise Rent-­A-­Car space should be included within the garage.

Work with the owners of nearby garages to arrange for the rental or purchase of parking spaces for those residents who determine that they need to own a car.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

 

 

 

Comments on Morrissey Boulevard Reconstruction Proposal

Comments on Morrissey Boulevard Reconstruction Proposal

By |

April 22, 2016

Re: Proposal for reconstruction of Morrissey Boulevard in Dorchester

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposal for the reconstruction of Morrissey Boulevard. The proposal is very timely and demonstrates a commitment to deal with long-range issues resulting from potentially higher sea levels and the need for sustainable development along the ocean.

We are commenting because of concern about pedestrian issues associated with this project.

We are concerned about the potential speed of vehicles on Morrissey Boulevard, and believe that the designs for the roadway should incorporate deliberate methods of slowing vehicles. These include the consideration of narrowing the lane widths in both directions on the facility. Elimination of a lane in each direction would substantially reduce speeds and make the roadway safer for all users. With extra space along both sides of the roadway, safer pedestrian and bicycle facilities could be provided.

The cross-section of the proposed facility seems cramped by the need to incorporate space for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Facilities for pedestrians and bicycles should be wider than minimum standards, as this is a place for not just movement, but also enjoyment of the surroundings. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be constructed on separate alignments, perhaps with vertical separation or with landscaping and path surfacing that directs traffic into the appropriate facility. Pedestrian walkways should definitely be located directly on the water on the ocean and the Malibu Beach sides of the corridor, with the biking facility separated and located nearer the roadway. Where possible, there should be outlooks for pedestrians, and seating for walkers to use for resting and enjoying the site.

The roadway should also be designed to protect crosswalks that are included in the design. These roads need signed, and perhaps painted, warnings on approaches to crosswalks, as the current crosswalks seem randomly located, with some having minimal signals, and may not be noticed by drivers until the very last moment. The crosswalks should connect directly to local streets and their sidewalks where possible, including the walkways lining Malibu Beach. Some of the existing sidewalks are in need of physical widening and upgrading to provide for safe passage between local streets and the crosswalks.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very important project.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman

Executive Director