Cambridge Archives - WalkMassachusetts

WalkBoston Attends the NACTO Designing Cities 2022 Conference

Last week three of our WalkBoston staff had the exciting opportunity to attend the NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) Designing Cities 2022 conference! Our Executive Director Stacey, our Deputy Director Brendan, and our new Senior Program Manager Iolando spent the week exchanging ideas with over 1,000 officials, planners, and practitioners in NACTO’s first in-person conference since 2019. They participated in “Walkshops” (mobile workshops that allow attendees to visit, learn about, and reflect on local transportation projects) and attended talks whose topics ranged from best practices in public communications to universal basic mobility. WalkBoston attendees also got to hear from compelling speakers such as Mayor Michelle Wu and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley.

The conference was pervaded by a spirit of optimism for the future of cities which Iolando found contagious. He left feeling “upbeat and happy,” because NACTO was “such a great opportunity to build relationships with like-minded people who are working on the ground on these topics,” including how to make transportation more equitable. Iolando attributes this energy in part to the many transportation experiments conducted since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; experiments whose failures and successes provided plenty for practitioners to come together and reflect over. “As a person who is new to this organization, it felt like ‘Wow, this is such an awesome time to get started!’”

Iolando believes this positive energy (even in the midst of Boston’s current struggles to adapt to the Orange Line closures) is a testament to the conference’s skillful highlighting of the strides Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville have made towards a more equitable, safe, and sustainable transit system. For example, Iolando attended a Walkshop in Cambridge entitled “Reimagining Shared Spaces in Cambridge’s Cultural District” that took participants to explore Central Square. It focused on how transforming parking for cars into places for people improves walkability, thereby expanding the community’s access to services, arts, and cultural items. Another Walkshop Iolando attended, “Making Tremont Street Safer: A Journey through Space and Time,” looked at Boston’s South End and featured an interesting discussion of what it looks like to improve pedestrian safety and accessibility while balancing historical preservation in a storied neighborhood. Participants even observed construction crews building safety features such as raised crosswalks, lane reallocations, and separated bike lanes.

WalkBoston is immensely grateful for the opportunity to attend NACTO this year. Thanks to generous support from the Barr Foundation, NACTO was able to provide funds to support attendance to the conference for people from New England cities.

Comment on Mount Auburn Corridor Study

September 27, 2017

RE: Mount Auburn Corridor Study – Comments on Concepts Presented on August 18, 2016

WalkBoston would like to submit the following comments on the draft concepts for the Mount Auburn Corridor Study presented on August 18, 2016. We understand that the concepts may have changed since the presentation, but we feel it is valuable for these comments to be captured. We have organized our comments according to specific intersections.

While we appreciate the detail with which the consultants have addressed road crossings for people walking, we feel that the overall pedestrian pathway network has not been adequately addressed. Overall, there needs to be more attention paid to the areas of overlap where people walking and people biking intersect.

Intersection of Mt Auburn Street at Brattle Street

Under the assumption that vehicular traffic volumes at this intersection warrant a traffic signal, the plan diagram (shown on slide 9 of the August 18 presentation) shows both a crosswalk and bike crossing at the east side of the intersection. At the southern end of this dual use crossing, the sidewalk appears to narrow and there is limited (if any) area for people walking to wait for the signal. We would like some assurance that there is a continuous sidewalk and adequate space for pedestrians waiting to cross.

The northern end of the dual use crossing appears to require pedestrians to cross the bike lane to reach the sidewalk running east on Brattle Street and to use the crosswalk when walking west along Mount Auburn Street. There is also no delineated path for people walking west along Mt Auburn Street to safely cross the proposed driveway connections or the proposed bike path leading west from Brattle Street. While we realize this diagram is preliminary, we would like to see that people walking are given the same connected network as people biking and driving.

Gerrys Landing, Memorial Drive, Eliot Bridge, Greenough Blvd

The shortened crossing distances and single-phase crossings in the Two-T Alternative concept are significant improvements to the pedestrian infrastructure that exists today (shown on slide 46 of the August 18 presentation). Our concerns in this area lie in the interactions between cyclists and pedestrians at the crossing locations. The diagrams indicate that cyclists and pedestrians will be sharing waiting areas and in some cases crossing paths to reach destinations. We would like to see a finer grained delineation of space for each user group. Furthermore, the bike paths appear connected, but the sidewalk network is either disjointed or not present.

Intersection of Fresh Pond Parkway at Huron Ave

The plan diagram (shown on slide 52 of the August 18 presentation) shows a raised intersection at Fresh Pond Parkway and Huron Avenue. Given the vehicular traffic volumes in this location and the allowance of trucks, we were surprised to see this proposal. Furthermore, the pedestrian refuge island at the intersection’s southeastern corner seems to interrupt the bike lane without providing benefit to walkers. If there is extra room at this location, we would rather see a curb bump-out or wider sidewalk.

Mid-block Crossing on Fresh Pond Parkway at Larch Street

The mid-block crossing proposed across Fresh Pond Parkway near the Larch Street intersection (shown on slide 55 of the August 18 presentation) seems dangerous even with the introduction of a raised crossing and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). Pedestrians using this crossing may presume cars will stop once the beacons (RRFBs) are flashing which could lead to tragic consequences. The sight lines along this curvy section of Fresh Pond Parkway and the traffic speeds make this proposal inadvisable. We would suggest that more study be done to substantiate the need for the crossing, and for a safer location to be identified should the need be justified.

Intersection of Fresh Pond Parkway and Brattle Street

The proposed tightening of curb radii at this intersection is welcomed, but we question the proposed raised intersection once again given traffic volumes.

At the August 18 presentation, the guardrail along the western edge of Fresh Pond Parkway was discussed. Some people in the Stakeholders Meeting felt that the “highway scale” guardrail may make drivers feel that they can speed. Furthermore, the railing is not in character with the “park-like and historic” space adjacent to it. Neighborhood residents advocated for the guardrail to be installed to protect children and other pedestrians walking along Fresh Pond Parkway. Several harrowing stories were told about high traffic speeds and erratic drivers. If there is a solution that protects walkers and is more in character with the surroundings, then it could be considered. However, safety must be prioritized in this location given its proximity to Shady Hill School and Buckingham Browne and Nichols School.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments and for inviting us to be a member of the stakeholder group. We welcome any questions you may have about these comments and look forward to your response.

Comments on proposal for development of One Bromfield Street

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