Tag: Boston

Comments on ENF for Caesars Resort at Suffolk Downs

Comments on ENF for Caesars Resort at Suffolk Downs

By |

March 26, 2013

Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston MA 02114

RE:     Comments on ENF for Caesars Resort at Suffolk Downs – EEA #15006

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the ENF for Caesars Resort at Suffolk Downs. We find agreement with the general design, as it seems directed toward providing safe facilities for pedestrians. A number of design details should be more closely investigated as part of the DEIR. Our comments about those details follow.

Underlying Assumptions
Many of the patrons and staff of the casino complex and racetrack will arrive on foot from transit stations or parking lots. Thus walking should be a significant element of the project design, coordinated with vehicular routes to minimize potential conflicts. Walking, transit and bike use should be maximize d in keeping with the Commonwealth’s goal of tripling the share of walking, biking and transit use. Access to and from the two MBTA stations and the Route 1A bus lines, and access between distant parking locations and the casinos and the racetrack are the primary routes to be addressed. Walking access between the site and adjacent residential areas should also be addressed.

Good information about the projected volumes of pedestrians (and bicycles) should inform the design and size of facilities.
For example, the ENF states that most employees will come to the site via public transportation. While not explicitly stated, we would anticipate that nearly all would walk from the MBTA stations into the site (unless shuttle service is provided). Because the Suffolk Downs Station is considerably closer to the proposed buildings than Beachmont Station, it will likely attract more users. The walkway from the station into the site should be designed to accommodate the anticipated volume of walkers (and bicyclists if they will use the same route) and the projected volumes should be included in the DEIR.

Overall Design Issues to be addressed
• The design of walkways and walk routes should be attractive, include high quality landscaping, and feel inviting both day and night, winter and summer. Designs should include:
– A network of short distance walkways to encourage people to walk on site.
– Lighting for safety, using designs that do not spill into residential areas or obscure the night sky
– Safety and security especially given late night operations for employees and patrons, where there are fairly long walks such as the one to the Suffolk Downs MBTA station
– Benches
– Smooth surfaces on all walkways
– Year round maintenance including snow shoveling
– Shade while walking to the casinos and hotels
– In New England, inclement weather is inevitable, suggesting the possibility of providing shelters or coverings along walkways, or alternative means of reaching destinations, such as a shuttle bus service
– Wayfinding for pedestrians – Signage should be employed as fully as possible to help pedestrians find their routes within this very large site. Signs would also encourage the use of MBTA bus routes and subway facilities, and should be used to designate access points in the event an on-site bus shuttle service is provided. Other off-site locations of interest should be included, such as the Belle Isle Marsh Reservation, Revere Beach and potentially the Target/Super Stop and Shop complex , the racetrack’s horse barns and other sites that might improve the experience of nearby residents as well as patrons of the casinos, the racetrack, and the hotels.
– Parking lots should be designed attractively, with trees and with defined walking paths that are separated from moving vehicle areas within the lots

• Multi-use path design.
The paths on the site that are walking/biking multi-use paths should provide appropriate widths to allow for safe shared use. MassDOT standards (Mass Highway Department Project Development and Design Guide, 2006), call for multi-use paths to be 10—14 feet wide to accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles, and for wider facilities if substantial volumes of foot and bike traffic are anticipated.

Tomasello Way/Rte 1A intersection and Tomasello Way Design
 • Bus service
Bus service along Rte 1A is already substantial. Routes along the roadway connect Salem Center, Marblehead and Peabody Square to Haymarket and Downtown Crossing – 6 bus routes in total. Well-designed and highly-visible bus stops, along with weather-protecting shelters, should be included in the revamping of the intersection of the Tomasello Way/Rte 1A intersection.
• Signals and crosswalks
 In keeping with the intersection’s importance as the front door of the proposed development, the intersection will need to be fully signalized for safety for all users, including pedestrians who will be crossing Rte 1A to and from the new bus stops and shelters. In the re-signalization of the intersection, pedestrian count-down signals should be employed.
• Access between the intersection and the on-site facilities
 The proposal includes a major pedestrian way leading from the intersection of Tomasello Way and Rte 1A into the main entrance to the casinos, the racetrack and the hotels. It appears to be useful and attractive, but it must be made safe for walkers and is worthy of significant improvements to make it safe. According to the preliminary drawings, the walkway will be located in the median strip of the rebuilt south portion of Tomasello Way. This is a formal design that could be handsome, but it results in a strip of walkway in the median that could be difficult for walkers to access, because it requires them to cross roadways on both ends of the walkway – near Rte 1A and at the casino/racetrack entrances, as well as at intermediate locations in between – five crosswalks in all. A better solution might be to have the pedestrian way located on the south side of Tomasello Way, with more direct access across the street at a point where the walkway is closest to the casino. This would reduce potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts along the full length of this stretch of Tomasello Way.
• Amenities along Tomasello Way 
Pedestrians walking via Tomasello Way have a relatively long walk between Rte 1A and the site (roughly equivalent to 3-4 city blocks). The preliminary drawings show lines of trees that will be very appropriate to make a pleasant walk. Seating along the way would also make the route more attractive and allow people to rest as they make their way to the casinos or the racetrack.
• A sidewalk connecting Tomasello Way and Waldemar Avenue in Orient Heights
A wholly new but short on-site sidewalk connecting Tomasello Way and Waldemar Avenue would allow Orients Heights residents to reach the bus stops at the intersection of Rte 1A and Tomasello Way, and to be able to walk to the casinos or the racetrack.
• A roadway connecting Tomasello Way to Waldemar Avenue in Orient Heights
Consideration of a sidewalk connecting Tomasello Way and Waldemar Avenue should include examination of a future road connection as well. A new, relatively short street to link Tomasello Way to Waldemar Avenue could reduce problems at the intersection of Waldemar Avenue and Route 1A near the Tomasello Way entrance to the site because it would allow Orient Heights access to be diverted to the Tomasello Way entrance to the site. The connection could include options for improving the safety of nearby residents:
– Waldemar Avenue could become a dead-end street before reaching Rte 1A; or
– It could be made one-way inbound toward the residences; or
– It might be connected to Vallar Road if gradients are favorable.

The continuation of Tomasello Way to the Suffolk Downs MBTA station
A driveway currently exists along the proponent’s property line between the Rte 1A entrance to the site and the small turnaround space in front of Suffolk Downs T station. The west half of this route has been covered above. However, the future of the east half of the driveway is unclear, even though it could be used for vehicular and pedestrian traffic as part of the larger plan. An explanation should be provided as to:
– Whether this driveway will become an access roadway providing service both to the south entrance to the casino, and to the Suffolk Downs MBTA Station.
–  Whether this driveway will be extended to connect into the local roadways of Orient Heights, such as Waldemar Avenue, Walley Street and Bonito Square. This connection could relatively easily reach Bennington Street as well, and could become a major route for vehicles entering or leaving the site.
–  Whether an improvement is planned for the pedestrian component of the service plaza at the MBTA Station.
–  What the pedestrian connections along this roadway will become, as it provides a major walkway between the MBTA station and the casinos and hotels. This connection might also be used to enhance direct access from neighborhood walkways into the station.

Pedestrian access from off-site locations
• Pedestrian access between Orient Heights and a potential Route 1A bus stop at Boardman Avenue.
A partial interchange is proposed for the intersection of Boardman Avenue (Route 145) and Route 1A. The proposal calls for a northbound overpass above Rte 1A to pass over the turning between Rte 1A and Boardman Avenue. The overpass design and focus of turning traffic at the intersection suggests some difficult crossings for pedestrians from Orient Heights. Bus stop access for pedestrians should be explored as part of the proposed partial interchange. It may be possible to link Boardman Street access to the bus stop at Tomasello Way.
• Pedestrian access between Orient Heights and the Target/Super Stop and Shop complex
The ENF notes that walkers from Orient Heights need to cross the Suffolk Downs site to get to the shopping complex located near the intersection of Tomasello Way and Furlong Drive, which are important businesses for Orient Heights residents to use. Data support-ing this suggestion would be useful. The multi-use path along Tomasello Way will improve this walk. From a pedestrian point-of-view, the suggested location of the walkway on the east side of Tomasello Way results in pedestrians from Orient Heights crossing at least 6 streets on route to the shopping complex, unless they follow the alternative walking route that hugs the buildings. The proponent should examine whether the walkway could be moved to the west side of Tomasello Way to reduce the number of crossings. Pedestrians walking along Tomasello Way should also be protected from walking through either of the two roundabouts at the approach to the hotels and casinos. Roundabouts are not very safe for pedestrian because of the potential conflicts with turning vehicles.
• Pedestrian access between Crescent Heights and the Target/Super Stop and Shop complex
 Residents of the Crescent Heights neighborhood at the north edge of the site could also reach the shopping area via the Tomasello Way walkway.
• Racetrack walkway to the Target/Super Stop and Shop complex
The plan includes a walkway between the racetrack and the Target/Super Stop and Shop via the edge of the northern parking lots. The intersection of this walkway and Tomasello Way should be moved slightly to align with the front entrance to the shopping complex. The volume of foot traffic at this intersection may be low, but further exploration may suggest the need for a traffic signal with WALK signals.

Potential shuttle bus service
 Shuttle buses should be considered to help people get around and to provide options during inclement weather. Options for shuttle bus stops include main entrances to the casino and race track, the Suffolk Downs and Beachmont MBTA stations, bus stops on Route 1A at Tomasello Way, the bus stop on Winthrop Avenue, and for access to the more remote parking areas. Facilities to support shuttle bus service may include the addition of a turnaround area in front of Suffolk Downs MBTA Station and a u-turn on Tomasello Way just short of Route 1A. Shuttles may also be useful to serve future night transit service on the Blue Line and elsewhere.

Local Community Benefits – pedestrian improvements at other locations
 The ENF includes suggestions that certain improvements outlined by the Lower North Shore Traffic Study of 2000 could be included as part of the mitigation for the construction of this facility. Although no detail has been supplied on these locations, they appear to include intersections at Route 16 at Winthrop Avenue/Harris Street, the vicinity of the Beachmont MBTA Station in Revere, in the vicinity of Route 16/Route 1A/Bell Circle in Revere, and, in East Boston, at Bennington & Saratoga Streets at Orient Heights MBTA station and Boardman St. in East Boston. Many of these improvements have been requested by the affected communities and will need to be detailed in further submittals to show potential impacts on pedestrians.

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

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Boston: Charles River/North Station Map

Boston: Charles River/North Station Map

By |

The pedestrian/bicycle bridge linking the Charles River Basin and Boston Harbor is the centerpiece of the new riverside park system near North Station. WalkBoston played a critical role in galvanizing support to assure its construction. When hope for construction by the Central Artery Project was failing in 2005, WalkBoston led a walk with community and agency leaders highlighting that the riverside trails to the new parks would dead-end without a bridge over the rail tracks. The walk led to Globe and Herald editorials that revitalized widespread interest and encouraged the state to seek funding. The bridge was completed in 2012.

The banks of the Charles River between the Museum of Science and Boston Harbor were once heavily industrialized with a landscape of railyards, polluted drainage ditches, wharf warehouses, and no walking access to the river. Dubbed the “Lost Half Mile” by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, the construction of the Central Artery’s Zakim Bridge and its ramps high above the river brought an opportunity for a new riverfront, with 40 acres of new parks, a skate park, two housing towers, and the U.S. headquarters for the Education First company.

The reclaimed Half Mile is the site of a beautiful new walking facility: the North Bank Bridge, a 690-foot pathway that curves under the Zakim Bridge and over the MBTA commuter rails that used to be an impassable barrier. The bridge is one of three that are planned. The second will be a walkway attached to the MBTA rail bridge over the river into North Station. The third, a South Bank Bridge, will connect Charles River walkways along the Boston side of the river to the HarborWalk in a richly historic and highly visited area.

Click for “Charles River/North Station Walking Map” PDF


Click for “Charles River/North Station Walking Map” on Google Maps

Comments on Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project

Comments on Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project

By |

January 8, 2013

Gerald Autler

Boston Redevelopment Authority
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201-1007

RE: Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project
Expanded Project Notification Form
Submitted Pursuant to Article 80 of the Boston Zoning Code

Dear Mr. Autler:

WalkBoston has reviewed the EENF for the Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project in Allston. This project is a first step in a major redevelopment of the surroundings of the intersection of North Harvard Street and Western Avenue, and thus will set the stage for many additional improvements in the vicinity. Our comments reflect the aspects of the proposal that most affect pedestrians, as these components are likely to play an important role in the way in which the project functions and relates to its surroundings.

  •  The area is planned to become the principal focus of North Allston
    Preliminary plans for this site are generally following the consensus presented in the 2005 North Allston Strategic Framework for planning and in Harvard’s Institutional Master Plan from 2012. Both plans call for intensive retail and other development at the intersection. The site of this proposal is but one of several sites that will comprise the North Allston activities. Considering only the north side of Western Avenue, plans call for 200,000 square feet at the Charlesview site, 45,000 square feet on the site of this proposal, and, on the arena site, 60,000 square feet for the arena and 140,000 square feet for the office/retail structure that encloses the basketball court. This totals 445,000 square feet altogether – a number that suggests a need for intensive analysis of the vehicular and foot traffic that will be utilizing all of the sites, including the one that is currently being analyzed. Any proposal for a center that will include at least 400,000 square feet should provide for carefully-considered pedestrian interconnections between its parts.
  • The proposed basketball arena/office building
     The Institutional Master Plan of the Allston campus recently distributed by Harvard introduces a combination of a 3,000-seat basketball arena and 140,000 square feet of retail/office/residences on land immediately north of the project site. The arena will attract many people to games during the basketball season, and perhaps, depending on uses of the facility, in other months as well. What it means in terms of future pedestrian or vehicular traffic is not at all clear from this EENF. The scale of the arena project warrants consideration of its effects on this site. For example, retail activities on the proposed site might benefit from consideration of additional retail on the street level under the arena to make the retail functions of the intersection more prominent.
  • The sidewalk in front of the arena
    The arena site is nearly a mile from Harvard Square. People coming to the area will be largely on foot (they will be discouraged from driving because of the paucity of nearby parking spaces). Large numbers of people will be attracted to the basketball arena for games and perhaps for other uses that may be scheduled there, but the volume of visitors has not been described in the EPNF. Many people will walk from Harvard Square, the Yard and from residence halls north of the river, and most will arrive via the west side of North Harvard Street. These walkers should be provided with a very wide sidewalk along the full length of North Harvard Street (currently shown as a wide sidewalk in front of the existing building but not along the stadium or this development proposal). We would recommend that it be wider than the standard 10’ – 12’ width for multi-use paths, something on the order of 20’ would be appropriate.
  • Extending the sidewalk to the south
    A wide sidewalk along North Harvard Street should not end at the arena, but should provide access to the intersection of Western Avenue and the North Allston activity center. This wide sidewalk would pass directly along the North Harvard street side of this project, and connect to the 45,000 square feet of retail activities that occupy most of the ground floor of this proposal.
  • The Charlesview site
     This site on the northeast corner of the intersection of North Harvard and Western has been planned for retail activity and some residential or office development. The current plan estimates 200,000 square feet for the building complex. Access between sites will take place at the intersection, where crosswalks should be redesigned to more directly connect the two sites.
  • The parks at the North Allston Center
     Two potential sites for parks touch directly on the intersection. The existing grove of trees in front of the Charlesview development and the triangle occupied by the gas station are potential assets to the retail center and should be further developed as landmarks within this center. Either of the two sites could become intensively used by walkers as outdoor spaces to get fresh air, to sit, to read or have a picnic. Pedestrian access to either or both of the sites should be carefully considered as a part of developing the network of sidewalks and street crossings.
  • Crosswalk redesign
    The layout of the existing crosswalks at the intersection of North Harvard Street and Western Avenue maximizes the crossing distances for walkers because all the crosswalks have been laid out as diagonals. This layout makes pedestrian crossings unnecessarily long and require walkers to stay in the street longer than they would if the crosswalks were perpendicular to the streets they cross. One example on Western Avenue shows that the existing crosswalk is nearly 80 feet long, while a perpendicular crossing would be approximately half that length. As part of the intersection improvements associated with this project, crosswalks should be redesigned for the safety of pedestrians. Removal of the refuge island on the Charlesview corner should also be considered as part of the project’s efforts to improve the North Harvard Street/Western Avenue intersection.
  • A new pedestrian crosswalk on North Harvard Street
    Access to the proposed arena and to the site of this proposal will require pedestrian access across North Harvard Street. This is particularly important for people arriving by northbound transit, currently served by bus stops at the north and south ends of the Charlesview site. The existing pedestrian crosswalk at Western Avenue may need to be supplemented by an additional crosswalk at the intersection of North Harvard Street and Smith Field Drive Extension, which is more than 500 feet from Western Avenue, suggesting that a new crosswalk at that location would be convenient and well used. It is made particularly important because it does not make sense to have a crosswalk at Grove Street, because the distance between Western and Grove is very short.

Uses of land within the site
The relatively small size of the site and the need for specific services results in relatively constrained pedestrian access.

  • Vehicle uses
    Almost one-quarter of the parcel will be devoted to vehicle access and surface parking because of the proposed new streets. Vehicular access to the site is one-way northbound from Western Ave. on Smith Field Drive, and two-way on Grove Street between Smith Field Drive and North Harvard Street. The description of vehicular access needs (particularly on-site loading and unloading requirements) implies that a further extension of Smith Field Drive will be constructed soon – perhaps in conjunction with this project, to allow full site access in- and out-bound from its intersection with North Harvard Street. Three streets are to be devoted to providing access to a 2.74 acre site. This may be excessive, unless they are necessary to serve the proposed arena, either temporarily or permanently
  • Parking on the site
     The proposal calls for 180 below-grade parking spaces and 41 surface private spaces, making a total of 221 spaces on-site. These spaces will serve the 325 residences proposed for the site, and potentially some of the retail uses as well. A question remains of whether the underground parking could be reached from Smith Field Drive rather than Grove Street, which seems destined to be degraded by many autooriented uses.
  • New on-site street – Grove Street
    Grove Street is primarily a service street designed to provide truck access to the buildings, access to the below grade garage, and 23 surface parking space. The EPNF does not discuss whether service for the arena (potentially including loading/unloading access for trucks and access to underground parking) will also be provided on the street. The combination of service uses could compromise the character of the street and the street-facing residential units as well. In terms of pedestrian use, Grove Street was designated as a “pedestrian trail” in the university’s Institutional Master Plan. This suggests continuity between Charlesview and Smith Field via Grove Street, which would need a crosswalk located midway between Western Avenue and the Smith Field Drive Extension. Such a crossing – likely to be unsignalized – could be dangerous for pedestrians and drivers alike.
  • A bulky arena as a neighbor
     Depending on its design, the proposed arena may loom dramatically over the site of the current proposal. The project design fort his site actually calls for residential units along Grove Street, along with an irregularly shaped sidewalk and major vehicular access for loading and parking. While the vehicular portions of the proposal for this side of the site are not affected by the neighboring arena, the residential units may well be. Although the dimensions of the proposed arena are unknown, its height may reach more than half of the proposed dwellings on the proposal’s site. The prospect of a looming building also affects the proposed sidewalk, where vehicular impacts are major, and where proposed street trees or wider sidewalks will do little to mitigate the impacts of a large building.
  • New on-site street – Smith Field Drive and Smith Field Drive Extension
     Smith Field Drive and its extension have been designed as a major service way for both this project and the proposed basketball arena. It may have operating difficulties when the arena is in use. A convergence of vehicles and pedestrians would be expected, and traffic control on either has not been discussed.
  • Open space
    Roughly 3,600 square feet of the site’s land has been designated as street-level open space. The two parcels are located at the two corners of the buildings – one facing N. Harvard Street and the other on Western Avenue – and both serve to enhance the entrances to the residences. Additional open space of about 8,000 square feet is provided on the second level above the retail uses, and will only be accessible to residents of the site.
  • Sidewalks
    Sidewalks surround the buildings on all sides and are of irregular widths to accommodate building entrances, potential sidewalk cafes, retail entrances and the vehicular entrances to the building. The proposal for a wide sidewalk on the west side of North Harvard Street suggests the possibility of an overhanging building or a street-level colonnade.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Bob Sloane
Senior Project Manager

Group letter to MEEI 8/17/12

Group letter to MEEI 8/17/12

By |

September 17, 2012

Mr. John Fernandez
Chief Executive Officer
Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary
243 Charles Street
Boston, MA 02114

Dear Mr. Fernandez,

We write on behalf of the community and advocacy organizations listed below regarding the proposal of Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (MEEI) to build a 1065-car parking garage beneath the Esplanade, to extend its existing 243 Charles Street building over Charles Street and into the park, and to return to park use the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) land used currently by MEEI for parking.

Our organizations are a diverse group, some with broad interests and constituencies and others more specifically focused. One or more of us:

  • Advocates for improved multimodal transportation, meeting the needs of walkers, drivers, riders (on bicycles and mass transit), businesses and residents;
  •  Focuses on the Charles River, its cleanliness, its success as a natural habitat, its recreational opportunities and its accessibility;
  • Focuses on the parklands along the Charles River, preserving and reclaiming parkland, improving the horticultural and physical plant, protecting the parks’ historic features,enabling all manner of recreational activities;
  • Addresses public policy issues such as privatization of parkland and ensuring public benefit from government action; and
  • Represents the interests of area residents.

We all respect the excellence of MEEI, support the continuation of its clinical and research activities, and value its importance to the greater Boston area by treating patients from around the world, burnishing Boston’s reputation as the seat of one of the great medical communities in the world, and providing thousands of jobs to area residents. We understand your interest in expanding your facilities and would like to provide input as you develop more detailed plans.

We know that you are developing an understanding of how your project could impact the diverse interests represented by our organizations. We appreciate that you dropped your plan to press for approval of the proposed land transfer during the current legislative session so that these impacts can be evaluated and addressed further. We also appreciate your acknowledgement and commitment that this project will not go forward without community support.

Our organizations are committed to exploring in good faith how our interests and yours can both be satisfied, and it is in that spirit that we have joined together to identify what we see at this time as our major concerns. Because your proposals are at this point very early stage and few, if any, studies have been completed, we can speak now only in the most general terms, but each of us is available to meet with you to discuss our concerns and identify what information and studies would enable us to explore ways to meet your needs and our concerns.

We are not a monolithic group insisting that all of the concerns of all of the participating organizations be met to the complete satisfaction of each. We are intent, though, on ensuring that all the concerns are clearly communicated to MEEI, are taken seriously, that adequate information about the concerns is provided, and that good faith attempts at resolution are made. We have committed to each other that we will operate in a transparent fashion, alerting each other about upcoming meetings with MEEI and government officials, inviting our representatives to attend such meetings as observers, and summarizing the proceedings. We ask that you similarly commit to a transparent, open process.

As we consider your proposals, we have two over-arching needs:

  •  We need to understand your objectives, your needs, why you see these as a solution, and what alternatives have been considered and discarded. For example, the capacity of the parking garage would seem to be the primary driver behind many of the issues that concern us. Why 1065 spaces? What has changed since you submitted your draft IMP in early 2011?
  • We need a shared understanding of the likely benefits and deficits of your proposals. Some of this will come from studies commissioned by you (such as a traffic study, which we understand is already underway), and some will come from informed judgments made by all of as to likely effects.

With this in hand, we will all be in a better position to look for solutions. Below we outline in broad terms the concerns we have, recognizing that over time some will vanish, others will grow in importance, and new ones may arise.

Transportation. Adding more than700 additional parking spaces will inevitably increase vehicular traffic in a highly congested area. Storrow Drive is already over capacity, and Charles Circle and Leverett Circle consistently resist all attempts to either reduce traffic counts or improve flow.

  • While we support the goal of making it easier for infirm patients to visit MEEI, we want MEEI to explore different ways of meeting that need without constructing such a large facility. Perhaps special drop-off or parking programs can be targeted specifically at patients and visitors needing special assistance. Perhaps MEEI can reduce employee-parking needs by adopting additional programs that encourage employees to use alternative transportation. Perhaps the involvement of state and city leaders can encourage area institutions, businesses and garage operators to increase MEEI’s access to existing parking facilities or even partner with MEEI to facilitate convenient multimodal transportation in the area.
  • Charles Circle and Leverett Circle appear to be particularly vulnerable to increased traffic generated by the garage. These impacts must be studied and solutions proposed to ameliorate new impacts and perhaps existing problems.
  • The potential of the garage to interfere with the proposed Blue Line/Red Line connector should be explored.
  • There are a variety of suggestions of how to make Storrow Drive work better for the benefit of all concerned (not just car drivers), such as reconfiguring ramps, realigning lanes, installing traffic signals and adopting traffic calming measures. Your proposal could benefit from them, enable them or render them impractical. We should all look at all the options.
  • Traffic caused by the garage during evenings and weekends, when MEEI usage is presumably reduced, should also be studied. The availability of parking could be a benefit if concert-goers and charity-walkers stop parking illegally on area streets, but it could also exacerbate the situation if the incentive to use other means of transportation is reduced.

Parkland. It seems that the Commonwealth’s parks are always at risk. They are underfunded; what used to be true parkways through and adjacent to parks often morph into highways; open, undeveloped land too often gets converted to non-park uses, sometimes to private uses; and parks don’t vote. The history of Storrow Drive and the Esplanade illustrates all too many of these risks. The MEEI proposal comes to the fore during a hard-fought battle over the privatization of Daly Field, alongside the Longfellow Bridge rehabilitation project, and on top of the a long-term “2020” planning effort led by The Esplanade Association which among other things calls for significant changes in MEEI’s neighborhood.

  • MEEI currently uses for parking parkland leased from DCR. The Esplanade Association’s Esplanade 2020 Vision calls for the conversion of this parkland back into park uses. MEEI’s plan does the same, but at the expense of the other issues raised by this letter. Clearly this is something we will have to explore.
  • The 2020 plan proposes to return to park uses land adjacent to the Charles River through a significant realignment of Storrow Drive that is also projected to make Storrow safer. At first blush, MEEI’s plan appeared incompatible with the 2020 plan, but you have indicated that design changes could fix that. We look forward to having that discussion.
  • The Longfellow Bridge rehabilitation project will affect the Esplanade and area business and residents adversely during construction but positively up its completion. We want MEEI to make every effort to ensure that its project not delay the Longfellow rehabilitation and to manage its own construction as much as possible so as not to make it seem like the Longfellow rehabilitation will never end.
  • The proposed garage is largely underground, out of sight from the parkland, but we will all have to look closely at how the entrances, exits and ramps would affect access to the Esplanade, safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, and enjoyment by all.

243 Charles Street Expansion. This part of the proposal raises classic “parkland” issues, such as dedication of public land to private purposes, and many of the other issues described above. It also raises the issues typically posed by any development in an urban area such as wind, shadow, massing and design, some of which are especially sensitive because the project is close to residential areas.

Environmental and Construction Impacts. You are no doubt cognizant of the environmental issues that must be studied such as air pollution, stormwater run-off, water quality in the Charles River, and the water table impacts, many of which receive heightened attention because of the proximity of the project to the river. These will, of course, be addressed in reviews under MEPA and the BRA’s Article 80, and we suggest that earlier consideration, in consultation with our organizations, would be beneficial to all concerned.

Public Benefit. Privatization of parkland has become increasingly controversial as governments seek to off-load maintenance expense and find low-cash means of advancing private interests that are compatible with government goals. Some work well. Some don’t. Calculating the public benefit is hardly an exact science but, in the case of the proposed dedication of state parkland to underground parking and to landing the extension of 243 Charles Street primarily to support a private activity, it will be important to be able to answer questions such as the following:

  • Are measurable economic benefits likely to flow to the state, the city and local businesses and residents?
  • Will use and enjoyment of adjacent public land be significantly enhanced by the project
  • How significant are the projected adverse impacts of the project?
  • How can the $30 million state investment requested by MEEI be justified? Does it come at the expense of other priorities?

These are serious issues that may prove very difficult—even impossible—to solve. For instance, the amount of increased traffic may be insurmountable; the environmental issues may be insoluble; the privatization of parkland may fail on its merits for this project or as an unacceptable precedent for other state parks; and the final financials may not prove attractive. But the fact that these hurdles exist should not discourage any of us from looking for solutions to the challenges MEEI faces now and will in the future.

We will do our part, you will, no doubt, do your part, and we expect the myriad of public players—MassDOT, DCR, EEA, the City of Boston and the BRA—to do their part as well.

We look forward to working with you.

With kind regards,

Margo Newman, Chair of The Esplanade Association
on behalf of the organizations identified below

CC: Richard A. Davey, Secretary, MA Dept. of Transportation
Richard K. Sullivan, Secretary, MA Dept. of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Edward M. Lambert, Jr., Commissioner, Dept. of Conservation and Recreation
Mayor Thomas M. Menino
Peter Meade, Director, Boston Redevelopment Authority
Senator Anthony Petrucelli
Senator Sal DiDomenico Senator William Brownsberger
Representative Marty Walz
Councilor Michael Ross

Cooperating Organizations and Contact Information

Boston: City Routes and Downtown Map

Boston: City Routes and Downtown Map

By |

Walking in Boston is easy and fun, and the more you walk, the better it is for you. Every hour of brisk walking can add two hours to your life. And brisk walking means bring your sneakers to match the times on this map! Many popular destinations are no more than a 10-minute walk away – and many are closer. You’ll be surprised how short the walks are – from subway stops, commuter rail stations and major thoroughfares to all points of interest in Back Bay, Downtown, Waterfront and South Boston Seaport.

Click for “Boston City Routes and Downtown Walking Map” PDF