Category: Comment Letter

Route 138 Reconstruction Comment Letter

Route 138 Reconstruction Comment Letter

By |

March 2, 2010

Secretary Ian Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Environmental Notification Form for the roadway reconstruction of Turnpike Street, Route 138 in Canton.
EOEA #14535

Dear Mr. Bowles:

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Environmental Notification Form for the roadway reconstruction of Turnpike Street, Route 138 in Canton. The proposal calls for reconstruction of the roadway between Sassamon Street and Randolph Street in Canton, and includes a sidewalk on the west side of the street. This sidewalk will be 5.5 feet wide.

We applaud the state for constructing this sidewalk in an area that is in need of facilities for the safety of pedestrians and are pleased to see a pedestrian network beginning to evolve in the vicinity of the town center and the educational campuses on Randolph Street. Our concerns about the installation of the new sidewalks are discussed below.

It appears that the proposed new sidewalk on the west side of Turnpike Street will complement the existing limited width sidewalks along this street north and south of the project area. When completed, this sidewalk plus the sidewalks to the north and south of it will provide a pedestrian facility extending along Washington/Turnpike Street from the Route 128/I-93 interchange to about 600 south of Randolph Street. This is commendable and very welcome. It also suggests the need for continuity of the sidewalks on the full length of this important local street and its connections via sidewalks on Washington Street and Randolph Street into the center of the community. One of the problems we see regularly in sidewalk construction is that the necessary clear walking widths are not always preserved. Frequently, utility poles and signal utility boxes are placed directly within the sidewalk, significantly reducing the clear width available to pedestrians. This is the case with the existing sidewalks along Turnpike and Washington Streets which are very narrow and which have utility poles rendering them difficult to use, particularly for those in wheelchairs. We trust that the new sidewalks will be designed with sufficient clear width to enable comfortable and safe use by pedestrians and people in wheelchairs.

Adequate sidewalk widths are also important if bus service is provided. While there is apparently no current bus service along this portion of Turnpike Street, if future bus service is anticipated, the clear width should be enlarged where buses might stop – especially near intersections such as Randolph Street.

The sidewalk cross slope design should be closely examined for its effects on walkers or wheelchairs, in particular at driveways where steep slopes can be uncomfortable for both pedestrians and wheelchair users, can be slippery in snowy or icy conditions, and potentially dangerous if pitched steeply toward the street.

We note that the principal intersections with Turnpike Street at Randolph Street and at Washington Street already have traffic signals in place. As part of this project, countdown signals should be added in both locations to help pedestrians cross the intersection.

Wheelchair ramps are already in position at both sides of the intersection at Turnpike and Randolph Streets and at Turnpike and Washington Streets, and cut-throughs are in place in the pedestrian refuge island in the intersection of Turnpike and Washington Streets. However, no marked crosswalks exist to connect these facilities. Marked crosswalks should be added to both intersections.

We suggest that the plan include signs in advance of each pedestrian crossing to warn drivers to slow down and be alert for pedestrians.

Over time, we urge MassDot to consider widening the existing sidewalks on Turnpike and Washington Streets which are narrow and have frequent utility poles. In addition, new and or improved sidewalks should be added wherever possible. Future construction of walkways along Randolph Street to the Blue Hills Regional Technical High School and Massasoit Community College would be a welcome improvement.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Notification Form for the roadway reconstruction of Turnpike Street, Route 138 in Canton. Please contact us for any clarification or additional comments that you may need.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Comments on the Expanded Environmental Impact Report for Two Brookline Place

Comments on the Expanded Environmental Impact Report for Two Brookline Place

By |

January 22, 2010

Secretary Ian Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Expanded Environmental Impact Report for Two Brookline Place, Brookline, MA
EOEA #14522

Dear Secretary Bowles:

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Expanded Environmental Impact Report for Two Brookline Place in Brookline. The proposal calls for construction of an 8- story building with space for medical and general office space. The site is a part of the Gateway East Development Area, for which the town has prepared a Public Realm plan, which, of course includes sidewalks throughout the area.

We are concerned about several of the details of the proposal and request that they be given further attention during upcoming work on the project. They are:

Pedestrian islands. Generous, large pedestrian refuge islands should be provided at the intersections where Route 9 crosses Washington/High Street, Pearl Street, Brookline Avenue and the proposed new crossing linking the bicycle and pedestrian paths inside the Emerald Necklace. After completion of the proposed development, Route 9 will remain a 6-8 lane boulevard, which is too wide for many pedestrians to cross within one sequence of traffic signal changes. A refuge will provide a safe place for pedestrians to wait for the next opportunity to cross traffic lanes legally and without jaywalking.

Intersection mitigation. It appears that only a few of the nearby intersections will be provided with mitigation of traffic impacts from the proponent’s project. Two locations cited in the document are Brookline Avenue and Pearl Street and Brookline Avenue and Washington Street. Pedestrian crosswalks and signal phases at these two intersections are critical to the overall success of the project and integral to the proposed pedestrian network in the Gateway East Public Realm Plan. On Washington Street large pedestrian refuge islands should be provided for the pedestrian crosswalk, and a pedestrian refuge island is also desirable on Pearl Street (but has not been singled out as an element of the Gateway East Public Realm plan).

Truck/pedestrian conflict. The loading zone for Two Brookline Place and the principal access point into the garage are both located on the portion of Pearl Street nearest Washington Street. The nearby new street intersection at Pearl/Juniper and Washington Streets may encourage pedestrians to use this portion of Pearl Street as they seek out the relatively short route between residential areas and direct access to the MBTA station. Pedestrians and trucks may come into conflict on this section of Pearl Street, depending on the frequency of the use of the loading zone and the vehicular traffic diverted to use the Pearl Street/Washington Street intersection. Conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians may also occur. Both of these issues should be addressed as the design moves forward.

Encouraging walking. Walking should be encouraged with good on-line walking directions, provision of area maps and through encouragement programs as an integral part of the proponent’s TDM program for local residents, workers and patients.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Two Brookline Place Project.
Please feel free to contact us for any clarification or additional comments that you may need.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

 

TIP Amendment Comment letter

TIP Amendment Comment letter

By |

November 2, 2009

Boston Region MPO
10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150,
Boston, MA 02116-3968

RE: TIP Amendment

Dear MPO Members:

WalkBoston writes to express our support for two of the projects included for ARRA funding in the recommended TIP Amendment that is currently under consideration. Of particular importance to WalkBoston’s members – because of their benefits for pedestrian safety and encouragement of active transportation and access to transit are the Alewife Greenway (Minuteman-Mystic River Connector) and the reconstruction of Nonantum Road. Each of these projects will serve large numbers of people – including walkers, bicyclists and drivers – and each addresses pressing safety concerns.

This Alewife Greenway will develop a critical pedestrian and bicycle off-road link between two of the region’s most heavily used pedestrian and bike path corridors (Minuteman and Mystic River Reservation) and will provide a new direct off-road link to the Alewife T station, the most highly accessed T station via bicycle in the Boston area. Safety improvements will be provided at the crossings of Massachusetts Avenue and Broadway, thus helping to provide safe linkage for major residential neighborhoods and Tufts University to the Mystic River, Dilboy Stadium, Dilboy area ballfields and children’s playground, DCR pool and basketball courts, the Minuteman Bike path and the Alewife T station. Presently there are no safe sidewalks, crossings or paths serving many of the aforementioned facilities. The project will include development of two new ADA accessible public paths in a highly urbanized area and will feature ecological restoration of sections of the Alewife Brook, thus serving as a nature trail as well as a bike/pedestrian path.

The Nonantum Road project is intended to improve the safety of all roadway users – pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers – in this dangerous roadway alignment. This badly needed project gives important consideration to all roadway users, and pedestrian access is especially important because residents of the neighborhoods adjacent to Nonantum Road must be able to cross the road to safely access the path and the river’s edge.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide comments on the Amendment. Please let us know if you have any questions or need further detail.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc  Secretary Jeff Mullan, MassDOT
Dan Driscoll, DCR Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner

Alewife Brook Parkway Bridge Comment Letter

Alewife Brook Parkway Bridge Comment Letter

By |

October 13, 2009

Secretary Ian Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Attn: Anne Canaday

RE: Environmental Notification Form (ENF)
Mystic Valley Parkway Bridge No. 2 over Alewife Brook Somerville, MA
MEPA # 14487

Dear Secretary Bowles:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for Mystic Valley Parkway Bridge No. 2 over Alewife Brook in Somerville.

Located on an historic parkway bridge, the project is a reconstruction that will add significant width to the bridge cross-section to widen the bridge sidewalks and better accommodate pedestrians and bicycles, while maintaining access for automobile traffic.

Our understanding of the project is that the DCR plans to retain the curb-to-curb width of the bridge, striping 12’ lanes with 8’4” shoulders that could be converted to bike lanes in the future. An addition of 8 feet to the sidewalks will make both directions 10 feet wide to better accommodate pedestrians and bicycles and connect to the existing and proposed multi-use paths in the adjacent riverbank parks.

While we are very pleased that the sidewalks will be widened, we urge DCR to consider the following possibilities:

  1. With the guidance of DCR, we have learned over time that a parkway is not solely a road,but a park that has a road that passes through it. The Mystic Valley Parkway is a case in point. It is a set of continuous open spaces located within neighborhoods that are densely built. These open spaces are the major parks available to nearby residents. Since roadways are but one element of the parkway, they should not be allowed to determine the character of this remarkable string of urban parks.
  2. It is difficult to imagine traffic moving more rapidly than 30 mph inside a park. That should be the maximum speed. All speed limits in the park and on the parkway roads should be made 30 mph or less to safely accommodate non-motorized traffic.
  3. The parkway and its roads are intended for non-commercial traffic only. We have serious reservations about the need for 12’ lanes for traffic if no trucks are using the bridge. Wide lanes will encourage drivers to move faster through the corridor, to the detriment on non- motorized traffic of all kinds. Since it is not a truck route and will never serve heavy trucks in the future, it seems that narrowing the travel lanes to 11’ or less could be accomplished without inconveniencing traffic. This very simple design feature would produce safety benefits for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles by slowing speeds.
  1. The shoulder of the roadway should be designed for installation of bike lanes, even if not intended immediately. The Mystic River Corridor Parks are destined to become increasingly attractive to bicycle riders for both commuting and recreation. As bike traffic grows, all parts of the Mystic Valley Parkway should be upgraded to accommodate on- road bike lanes that are sufficiently wide for rider safety. The bridge sidewalks should be reserved for pedestrians, in keeping with a long-term goal of separate paths for pedestrians and bicycles through the length of the riverbank parks.
  2. The Mystic Valley Parkway Bridge No. 2 is in line to provide major access to the future Route 16 Green Line station at the Somerville/Medford line. It has been described as one of three key routes people will use to get to the new station. That means that there will be peak hours of all types of traffic on the bridge. It should be designed to accommodate peak hour transit rider traffic on foot and by bicycle.
  3. The nearby rotary at Mystic Valley Parkway and Alewife Brook Parkway is only a few hundred feet from this bridge. This rotary is to be redesigned to bring it up to modern standards in connection with the proposed Green Line extension to Route 16. The rotary is on the walking route to the new Green Line station, a new senior housing facility, Dilboy Stadium and the Mystic River Reservation, and is currently extremely dangerous to cross, as there are NO pedestrian accommodations of any kind. The plans (or at least conceptual changes) for this rotary should be considered when deciding how to reconstruct the bridge so all the elements ultimately work together for the benefit of all the users.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this ENF. We look forward to further development of the project.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Cc:DCR Commissioner Rick Sullivan
DCR Planner Dan Driscoll
MHD Chief Engineer Frank Tramontozzi

 

Renaissance Village Comment Letter

Renaissance Village Comment Letter

By |

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the Renaissance Village project in Brockton. The project is a 40-R mixed use project of 6 stories, including 308 residential units, commercial and retail space, and a 460-space parking garage.

The project is located in an urban setting that occupies one full city block of downtown Brockton. It is readily accessible on foot to the Brockton commuter rail station, one of three serving the city. It will be a good addition to the city by helping to establish downtown as a place to live as well as work or shop.

Read the full letter here:
WalkBoston-CommentENF-RenaissanceVillage-Brockton