Author: WalkMassachusetts

Chelsea Complete Streets Support Letter

Chelsea Complete Streets Support Letter

By |

December 4, 2017

Chelsea City Council
500 Broadway
Chelsea, MA 02150

RE: WalkBoston support for Chelsea Complete Streets Resolution and Policy

Dear Councilors:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Chelsea’s Complete Streets Resolution and Policy. As a statewide pedestrian advocacy organization working to make Massachusetts more walkable, WalkBoston enthusiastically supports this policy and encourages the Subcommittee and then the full City Council to pass it.

WalkBoston is deeply committed to safer streets in Chelsea, where we have had the privilege of working for several years now. In the past year we have conducted walk assessments in the Sector 4 and Park Square neighborhoods, working collaboratively with city departments, local residents, community organizations, and state agencies to recommend pedestrian safety improvements. (Copies of these walk assessment reports are included with this letter.) Such Complete Streets concepts are already informing the City’s Re-imagining Broadway initiative, and formalizing the policy order will ensure that this great progress continues.

The needs and opportunities around Complete Streets in Chelsea are great. The City was ranked as the top pedestrian crash cluster in the entire state for 2005-2014, highlighting the urgent need for safety improvements. The Re-imagining Broadway initiative, the forthcoming Silver Line Gateway, and ongoing urban revitalization efforts all present opportunities to create safe walking, biking and transit connections. More Complete Streets that accommodate all road users will bring substantial health, safety and economic benefits to Chelsea residents. The City Council has already taken a great step towards increased safety by reducing the default speed limit in Chelsea to 25 miles per hour, and adopting a Complete Streets framework will ensure that roadway designs help accomplish this objective.

To date 142 cities and towns all over Massachusetts have adopted Complete Streets policies, including dense urban municipalities near Chelsea like Cambridge, Somerville and Everett. These communities are pursuing innovative measures like protected bike lanes, painted curb extensions, and dedicated bus lanes to enhance mobility and connectivity for their residents.
WalkBoston encourages the City of Chelsea to follow suit, and we look forward to our continued work here to help advance Complete Streets that work for everyone.

Sincerely,

Adi Nochur
Project Manager

Seaport Square Expanded NPC Comment Letter 11/1/17

Seaport Square Expanded NPC Comment Letter 11/1/17

By |

November 1, 2017

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

Gary Uter
Boston Planning and Development Agency
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201

Re: Comments on the Seaport Square Expanded NPC, MEPA 14255

Dear Secretary Beaton and Mr. Uter:

Roughly 13 acres of the Seaport Square project remains to be developed. The remaining parcels primarily sit behind the major frontage of the project on Seaport Boulevard, are sandwiched between off-­ramps to the Harbor Tunnel approaches and reach from Summer Street to the water’s edge at Fan Pier. The expanded Notice of Project Change describes a project that is framed around the north-­south local streets that flank “Harbor Way,” a new and wide interior pedestrian street that will extend 5-­6 blocks between the Harbor and Summer Street.

1. The concept for Harbor Way is very strong. The major and continuous pedestrian street is planned and designed to encourage its use by large numbers of people. Harbor Way is intended to create the focus for a sort of ‘downtown’ for the Seaport District that will serve commuters, visitors and tourists. The success of Harbor Way is critical to attracting and retaining tenants and users of the corridor.

2. Generally, mid-­block crossings are provided for pedestrians.

  • At Congress Street the proposed mid-­block pedestrian crossing is protected by signalization, bump-­outs to narrow the crossing distance, and a refuge median.
  • At Autumn Lane, a privately owned minor street designated primarily for service vehicle access, the possibility of a platform or raised crossing has been mentioned.
  •  At Seaport Boulevard the pedestrian crossing is mid-­block and will be a fully signalized crossing.

3. At this time a mid-­block crossing of Summer Street seems to be missing from the plan and needs to be addressed.

  • We ask that the proponent work closely with the City and the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (MCCA) to plan for a major mid-­block pedestrian crossing at the end of Harbor Way, where it would logically cross Summer Street. We hope that the MCCA will be able to take on some of the responsibility for helping to plan and fund this mid-­block crossing, as its main entrance is only a long city block away and the Harbor Way is likely to form a major attraction for the visitors to BCEC events in the future.
  •  The City should be involved, as it is already programming a major reconstruction of the cross-­section of Summer Street from the Fort Point Channel up to Boston Wharf Road, a mere half-­block away from this proposed crossing. Continuing this improvement to the BCEC should be a major objective for development of the area. The Summer Steps at the terminus of Harbor Way should not be constructed until the mid-­block pedestrian crossing is laid out and programmed for construction.
  • A disappointing aspect of development along Boston Wharf Road is the existence of the very large Park Lot C owned by the U.S. Post Office Department, which abuts Summer Street, where Boston Wharf Road passes under it. This particular site, with difficult roadway access, is unfortunately situated so that improvements in connection with the construction of Harbor Way are unlikely, even though the mid-­block crossing that is so essential for the future success of Harbor Way at its terminus with Summer Street. Ownership and physical configuration of the site mean that the proponent, the City and the Convention Center Authority will need to work together to plan and build the mid-­block crossing at this location.

4. The anchor for the south end of Harbor Way has been left partially undefined. The proponent has designed the Summer Steps to take advantage of a 24’ grade change between the site and the level of Summer Street. A supplementary elevator is provided, and the steps have a ramp to be used by cyclists. A portion of the steps could also become the seating in a performance facility, aided by electronic connections and lighting to encourage its use. A generous setback between the bottom of the stairs and Congress Street will allow for staged performances. The two sites that flank the steps are loosely defined as office and a possible hotel, and include the possibility of a 650-­seat public performance space. Without development of the two sites, the Steps may not be feasible.

5. A strong anchor for the north end of Harbor Way appears somewhat elusive. Harbor Way ends at a pavilion that would mirror District Hall across the park known as Seaport Common. The building will house a stairway and elevator leading to its roof, which will be open to the public. The two lower floors will house the Mass. Fallen Heroes Mourning Room and perhaps a restaurant. Access to the waterfront will continue along the side of the building, leading to a street to the ICA building and the harbor’s edge. Thus the ICA and its waterfront area is the true anchor at the north end of Harbor Way. Access to the large, nearby Fan Pier Public Green (another possible anchor on the north end of Harbor Way) is indirect, and a diagonal trip across the proponent’s Common Park would complete a slightly different connection between Harbor Way and the waterfront. However, this kind of connectivity to the Fan Pier Public Green appears infeasible with the present plan for the Seaport Common pavilion.

6. Preservation of the pedestrian way between Seaport Boulevard and Northern Avenue should be central to planning of the north end of Harbor Way. The proponent has proposed that service and parking access to Parcel G will be via Northern Avenue which WalkBoston believes is an appropriate location. We believe that an alternative location for this access on Harbor Way (as proposed by others) would introduce very unfortunately add parking entrances and loading docks along this quiet and pleasant pedestrian way and transform it’s character. Harbor Way is designed as a special pedestrian space and parking and loading should not occur in the space, especially since reasonably convenient and accessible alternatives are easily available. We concur with the developer’s plan to keep Harbor Way free of these vehicular functions.

7. The streets flanking Harbor Way may pose challenges for successful pedestrian-­focused development. The proponent is committed to expanding the Harbor Way walking focus by lining two parallel streets with retail uses designed to appeal to pedestrians. Boston Wharf Road and the East Service road, parallel to Harbor Way, are proposed to be lined with retail and other public attractions. As the Harbor Way development blocks come on line, retail will be a major element to attract walkers into the district. It seems likely that retail will be somewhat slow to locate on either of the parallel streets until Harbor Way is successfully launched, a challenge in today’s low energy retail environment.

  • The East Service Road in particular may be difficult to develop as a retail spine. It will provide access to and from the Third Harbor Tunnel and I-­90 with connections into and through the Seaport District. Bicycle facilities have already been eliminated from the street because they were precluded by the many highway ramp links into the Interstate system. At the same time, pedestrian connections have been expanded with wider sidewalks, leading to an expanded retail area. Given the anticipated vehicular traffic on the street, retail activities seem unlikely in the near term, especially with the competition of the nearby Harbor Way with its robust pedestrian environment.
  • Pedestrian crossings should be explored at a mid-­‐block crossing of the East Service Road at Autumn Way to connect between Harbor Way and the so-­called M-­block development on the south side of East Service Road.
  •  Boston Wharf Road may attract retail uses, but will need to contend with the fact that this two-­way street provides major roadway access to the Seaport District and is likely to become a major access route for vehicles coming to the Harbor Way pedestrian spine. Sidewalks have been widened in anticipation of this evolution of the area.
  • Special attention may be needed at two locations on Boston Wharf Road. The first is the connection to Seagreen Park – Site Q – a park on the north side of the street, where a mid-­block pedestrian crossing is likely to be needed. Second, attention is being given to a through-­building connection further south to provide additional connections with Harbor Way, and it would be appropriate to evaluate whether a mid-­block crossing is warranted at this location.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the pedestrian environment at Seaport Square. We are happy to answer any questions you have about our comments.

Best regards,

Wendy Landman                                 Bob Sloane
Executive Director                               Senior Planner

Cc Yanni Tsipis, WS Development Jim Fitzgerald, BPDA Fred Peterson, MCCA Pat Sullivan, Seaport TMA

Vision Zero Coalition Letter to Mayor Walsh 11/21/16

Vision Zero Coalition Letter to Mayor Walsh 11/21/16

By |

November 21, 2016

Dear Mayor Walsh,

On behalf of the Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition we would like to thank you for meeting with us to discuss how we can work together to advance progress toward the City’s Vision Zero goals.

We look forward to working with you on the ideas you shared at the meeting including:

  • Supporting the addition of crashes to your dashboard. We believe that the dashboard should show separate statistics by mode (walking, biking, vehicle, other) and should include both injuries and fatalities. We also think that this crash count should include crashes on state roads that have occurred in Boston -­‐-­the public is blind to this nuance and this is how the federal data is recorded. We’ve recommended this to your staff and are happy to follow up with them.
  • An education campaign, and we would like to take you up on your offer to participate in a PSA pertaining to Vision Zero. We are also glad that City staff are working with MassDOT to find ways to collaborate on State and City safety education campaigns.
  • Doing walking assessments to further explore and experience some of the specific signal issue we discuss. We chatted with BTD staff after the meeting and they offered to go on a walk with us first. We look forward to going on a walking tour with you in the coming months as well.

We would also like to reiterate the requests we made of you in the meeting:

  1.  That you will personally commit to ensuring that every department involved in Vision Zero feels the same obligation to bring the number of fatal crashes on our streets to zero, and that all departments are working from the same play book (i.e. the Vision Zero Action Plan; GoBoston 2030) to achieve this goal.
  2. That you will provide additional resources to BTD for Vision Zero in 2017. One way to do this is to charge for parking permits (as is done in surrounding communities: Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville). For example, $30/permit could create 3 million dollars in new revenue in 2017.
  3. That you will work with your staff to create more ambitious Vision Zero goals for 2017 -­‐ 2020 that include:
    a) Completing all of the goals in the 2016 Action Plan by June 2017
    b) Bringing neighborhood slow streets to every residential neighborhood in Boston by 2018 (which the staff have indicated would require additional staff and capital resources).
    c) Working toward a city-­wide network of separated bike lanes on all major arterials in the next 10 years and a commitment to 10 miles of separated or low stress bike facilities each year.
    d) Fixing all of Boston’s traffic signals by 2020, which we understand will require a substantial capital investment by the City (and which we understand to be a very ambitious goal). This would include automatic recall of WALK signals (unless a lightly used, mid-­‐block location), Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) with a minimum 7 sec. interval, concurrent signals in all locations where safe (with documentation where concurrent should not be used), maximized WALK time at every intersection (no “reservation” of Don’t WALK time for vehicle throughput), re-­‐balancing of signal phasing to serve large volumes of pedestrians (e.g. Park/Tremont), addition of bicycle signals in all locations that include separated bike lane.

 

We fully recognize that these are not simple or easy asks, so we would like to reiterate our offer to work with your staff to better understand the challenges you are facing, so we can work together to find solutions that can be more quickly implemented. We believe that there is enormous community support for these actions, and that they will result in significant quality of life improvements across the City.

We are more than willing to:

  • Provide training for City staff
  • Suggest national experts who have helped other cities manage change
  • Meet with your leadership team to identify specific issues needing the most attention
  • Work with the City Council on these questions as well

We would also like to request a follow up meeting with you in June of 2017 to check in on our progress.

As we mentioned, the MA Vision Zero Coalition will be releasing a progress report on December 7th to report on the City’s progress toward the goals set forth in the Vision Zero Action plan.

We have already met with BTD staff to discuss the progress report in more detail and to determine the best way we can work together to both celebrate the progress made, while acknowledging the urgency of this issue and need to set more ambitious goals in 2017. We appreciate their cooperation and willingness to work with us to share information that will help the public see how Vision Zero is advancing in Boston.

Thank you again for your personal commitment to Vision Zero and your willingness to work with us on this critical issue.

For the Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition -­
Becca Wolfson, Boston Cyclists Union Doug Johnson, Boston Cyclists Union
David Read, Dana Farber
Stacy Thompson, LivableStreets Alliance
Brendan Kearney, WalkBoston
Wendy Landman, WalkBoston
Matt Lawlor, WalkUp Rozzie, Walk Boston

Cc Chris Osgood
Gina Fiandaca
Mike Dennehey
Mike Brohel
Vineet Gupta
Charlotte Fleetwood
Kris Carter

Comments on the Supplemental Information Document for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project

Comments on the Supplemental Information Document for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project

By |

October 5, 2017

Brian Golden, Director
Boston Planning and Development Agency
ATTN: Michael Rooney
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201-­1007

RE: Comments on the Supplemental Information Document for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project dated August 18, 2017

Dear Mr. Golden:

WalkBoston has reviewed the documents for Back Bay/South End Gateway Project many times. Although the proponent has made efforts to address some of the issues we raised in our prior comments, we continue to have concerns about the project impacts to the extremely busy pedestrian environment around the project area, and to several of the design elements suggested by the proponent.

We have reviewed the letter submitted by South End resident Ken Kruckemeyer and would like to concur with his comments and his very thoughtful suggestions about how to remedy some of the problems that he describes.

Possible garage exit ramp across the Dartmouth Street sidewalk adjacent to the Station
We remain vitally concerned about the possibility of an exit ramp from the project garage onto Dartmouth Street into the heaviest pedestrian traffic in the area. Back Bay Station Orange Line, Commuter Rail and Amtrak service presently serves approximately 64,000 passenger trips (alighting and boarding) each day. Many more pedestrians are simply walking by the site, arriving on buses, via cabs and in automobiles. The MBTA, MassDOT, and all people concerned with the continued economic vitality of the Boston area and a more sustainable transportation system, hope that this number will rise significantly over the coming decades. The Back Bay/South End Gateway Project must be designed and managed in such a way that the transit and transportation functions of the station are enhanced.

WalkBoston does not think that a project design that includes a garage exit ramp that requires cars to cross the Dartmouth Street sidewalk is acceptable. Putting the interests of drivers above those of the tens-­of-­thousands of pedestrians who use this sidewalk is not an appropriate use of public space. Given the intensity of sidewalk use, and the overlap of peak transit and garage use, we do not believe that the ramp can be designed and/or managed acceptably. Asking pedestrians to wait while single cars exit the garage is not a reasonable solution.

We are very concerned about the changes proposed for the station, the bus layover and the sidewalks and interior passageways, but we believe the exit ramp onto Dartmouth Street is a potentially disastrous step to take in such a congested area. We urge the BPDA to recommend that further consideration of the project as presently designed be delayed until this issue is resolved favorably with no garage ramp exiting across the Dartmouth Street sidewalk.

We would appreciate your consideration of our comments and look forward to your responses to them. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack City Council President Michelle Wu City Councilor Josh Zakim Ellis South End Neighborhood Association Bay Village Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Association of Back Bay Ken Kruckemeyer

Comments on 24 Ericsson Street Development (Neponset Wharf)

Comments on 24 Ericsson Street Development (Neponset Wharf)

By |

September 29, 2017

Tim Czerwienski
Boston Planning and Development Agency
One City Hall, Ninth Floor
Boston, MA 02201

RE: WalkBoston comments on 24 Ericsson Street development (Neponset Wharf)

Dear Tim:

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Neponset Wharf development at 24 Ericsson Street in the Port Norfolk neighborhood of Dorchester, Boston. This project has the potential to advance walkable community goals by promoting active outdoor uses and enhancing pedestrian access to the waterfront. At the same time the project site remains highly inaccessible without a motor vehicle, which raises broader concerns about pedestrian safety and connectivity. Significant Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and mitigation measures would be necessary to address these issues.

The project proponent’s goals of creating two acres of new landscaped outdoor space on the site, including 28,000 square feet of continuous publicly accessible Harborwalk, will significantly enhance the local public realm, while also promoting active living and outdoor recreation. We are intrigued by the proponent’s consideration of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge to connect the project site with Tenean Beach. While such a bridge would certainly improve public access to the Harborwalk, we have also heard resident concerns about the bridge’s potential impacts on the local ecology and its potential to put excess demand on the availability of parking for Tenean Beach if users of the new development use the public parking lot park at the Beach.

Relatedly, the proponent has stated their intention to “provide pedestrian and bicycle transportation infrastructure that is consistent with Boston Transportation Department’s Complete Streets guidelines.” Creating streets, sidewalks and paths that accommodate road users of all abilities and travel modes is critical to developing more livable and walkable communities, so WalkBoston is pleased to see a commitment to these issues reflected in the project’s Environmental Notification Form. However actually implementing these concepts in a heavily car-dependent neighborhood and project site means that significant challenges must be addressed.

High proportion and number of motor vehicle trips: Given poor transit access and limited street connectivity to the Port Norfolk neighborhood and the proposed Neponset Wharf site, the proponent estimates that only five percent of trips generated by the project will be bicycle and walking trips. The remaining 95 percent of project-generated trips will be in motor vehicles, for a total of 1,440 new vehicular trips on an average weekday. To accommodate this traffic, the proponent has proposed 185 parking spaces on the project site. We are concerned that the number of trips and the number of parking spaces do not seem to be aligned, as these figures would suggest nearly eight trips per day per parking space. This suggests a need to more fully explore appropriate transportation options for the development of this site.

In addition, the increased volume of motor vehicles this project would generate in Port Norfolk will increase risks to people walking and biking on the neighborhood’s narrow streets and sidewalks. The project proponent has stated their intention to develop a TDM plan for the project in the forthcoming Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). This plan should include a full accounting of how proposed TDM measures would reduce the overall number of motor vehicle trips and increase the overall percentage of trips using walking, biking and transit modes.

Neighborhood access and pedestrian safety: Redfield Street, Tenean Street/Conley Street, and Woodworth Street/Walnut Street are the primary routes for motor vehicles to enter and exit the Port Norfolk neighborhood. The proposed project will significantly increase the number of motor vehicles traveling these streets, so the proponent should explore ways to implement traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures along these streets as mitigation. Given that much of this increased traffic will come from Neponset Circle/Morrissey Boulevard, the intersections of Redfield, Walnut, Conley and Tenean Streets at these locations should also be assessed for safety improvements in coordination with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).

Site access and pedestrian safety: The project site abuts Ericsson Street, with a one-way entry to the site to be aligned with Port Norfolk Street and a one-way exit from the site to be aligned with Lawley Street. The proposed project will significantly increase the number of motor vehicles traveling these streets as well, so the proponent should also explore ways to implement traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures along these streets as further mitigation.

The proponent should also clarify how pedestrians will safely enter and exit the project site at Port Norfolk and Lawley Streets. The current site access/egress points at these locations lack sidewalks and are relatively narrow for motor vehicles even in the absence of sidewalks. These access/egress points also abut existing buildings, so while the proponent “envision[s] multiple accessible sidewalks along the entry points into the site,” it is unclear where the space for safe pedestrian accommodations will actually come from. Increasing the number of motor vehicles traveling through this area will pose additional safety risks to pedestrians, so the proponent should explore plans for mitigation here as well.

Thank you for considering these issues and please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director