Tag: Cambridge

Environmental Notification Form (ENF) Alewife Brook Greenway MEPA #14431

Environmental Notification Form (ENF) Alewife Brook Greenway MEPA #14431

By |
June 29, 2009

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

RE: Environmental Notification Form (ENF) Alewife Brook Greenway
MEPA # 14431

Dear Secretary Bowles:

WalkBoston is pleased to review the Alewife Brook Greenway Environmental Notification Form (ENF). We have found the proposal extremely interesting, as it expands the off-road network of trails and walkways that are so important to metro arearesidents for transportation and recreation. The ENF details improvements that will be made for both pedestrians and bicyclists on a corridor between Alewife Brook MBTA Station and the Mystic Valley Parkway that leads through Cambridge, Somerville and Arlington, and has connections to the Minuteman Pathway, the Linear Park/Community Path route into Somerville, the Mystic River parklands and future paths into Belmont and Watertown.

This is an extremely important piece of the regional trail network. We are happy to endorse its construction and even happier to realize that it may be constructed relatively rapidly as part of the national stimulus construction agenda.

In our review, we noted a few concerns of importance to pedestrians:

1. The proposed network does not provide for fully separated bicycle and pedestrian paths.
In two segments of the proposed improvement (1. Between the Mystic Valley Parkway and Broadway; and 2. between Henderson Street and Massachusetts Avenue) there appears to be a partial separation of bicycle and pedestrian paths. By contrast, there is only a single path between Broadway and Henderson Street and between Massachusetts Avenue and the MBTA Alewife Station. This will result in an effective capacity of two 10’-wide paths in the areas of separated paths and only one 10’-wide path in the other parts of the corridor. We are concerned about the safety of pedestrians in portions of the corridor where the capacity is limited. In those areas, consideration should be given to a wider cross-section on the path to accommodate potential demand.

2. The proposal does not indicate whether there will be signage to can foster safe walking. Pedestrian safety in mixed walking and cycling traffic can be an issue of concern, depending on the volume of traffic that uses the paths. While we would prefer separate facilities that are clearly designated as such, it does not appear to be feasible throughout the entire corridor. We therefore suggest that signing and warnings be provided to make the route safe for all users. This might include, for example:

  • Lane separation lines for the north and south directions.
  • Signs warning pedestrians to stay to the right of the path.
  • Signs advising cyclists to ring a warning bell as they approach pedestrians from behind.
  • Route signs designating a cyclist trail along the paths that abut Alewife Brooke Parkway.

3. The Boardwalk parallel to Alewife Brook Parkway has the potential for becoming a bottleneck, as it accommodates all path traffic in a narrow corridor. The boardwalk overlooks and is cantilevered over the river in the section extending north of Henderson Street and is one of the most accessible portions of the pathways for nearby residents. It is also close to Dilboy Field, which has occasional special sports events. If the boardwalk accommodates both pedestrians and cyclists and is closely fenced on both sides, it has the potential for becoming heavily used and potentially unsafe for people on foot. Would it be possible to widen the boardwalk to at least 12 feet in this location?

4. Seating and observation areas should be maximized.The path promises to be a very pleasant route. Many people will want to sit occasionally along the route, and children, among others, will be interested in closely examining the stream.

5. For the security of people who are using the path lighting may be appropriate. Lighting of the paths would extend their usefulness to walkers and cyclists in evening hours and in fall and winter.

6. Crosswalks may be needed in several locations. Near the Dilboy Park baseball diamonds, a fence opening and curb ramp have been provided that appear designed to help people cross Alewife Brook Parkway. The addition of a crosswalk in this location would be appropriate. Other crosswalks should be examined to cross Alewife Brook Parkway at Massachusetts Avenue, at Matignon Road, at Powder House Boulevard (two curb ramps), and at Broadway. For continuity of the path network, a Mystic Valley Parkway crosswalk should be considered at the north end of this project.

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

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Cc Dan Driscoll, DCR Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner

Concord Avenue Reconstruction Comment Letter

Concord Avenue Reconstruction Comment Letter

By |

March 5, 2009

Cambridge Department of Public Works 147 Hampshire Street,
Cambridge, MA 02139

Attn: Rebecca Fuentes, Community Relations Manager

Dear Ms. Fuentes:

WalkBoston is the Commonwealth’s leading advocate for pedestrians and safe walking. We work throughout the state – encouraging walking, supporting pedestrian improvements and sponsoring walks. We have extensive experience in helping residents and local governments with pedestrian issues, safe routes to schools, and safer street crossings and sidewalks.

We are very pleased to support the application by the City of Cambridge for Public Works Economic Development (PWED) funding for the Concord Avenue Reconstruction project, from Fresh Pond Parkway to Blanchard Road. The proposed improvements will make the corridor safer and more attractive for walkers, thus encouraging local trips on foot, and longer trips via transit.

We believe the balance of improvements for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles is an appropriate mix for this important urban corridor.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Comments on Expanded Environmental Notification Form for the Green Line Extension EOEA # 13886

Comments on Expanded Environmental Notification Form for the Green Line Extension EOEA # 13886

By |

November 23, 2006

Secretary Robert Golledge
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Comments on Expanded Environmental Notification Form for the Green Line Extension in Cambridge, Somerville and Medford.

EOEA # 13886

Dear Mr. Golledge:

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for the Green Line Extension submitted by the MBTA. We are commenting because of concern about the pedestrian issues associated with this proposal.

If the EENF is to become a single EIR as requested, we would like to see these issues addressed:

1. Philosophy of the project.

  • Pedestrian access to the project should be paramount in planning the new facility. Thisis an unusual project, with virtually no parking envisioned at transit stations. All riders will arrive on foot – directly from their homes, from a kiss and ride drop off spot, from a bicycle parking area or from a bus stop. Thus, pedestrian movements should guide station locations and designs. Sidewalk widths, surfaces, street furniture, signing and street crossings are major concerns. Bus stops and drop off sites must be incorporated into the design to maximize convenient pedestrian access, Bicycle storage racks must be provided at all stations.
  • Consideration should be given to extending the Green Line terminus to Mystic Valley Parkway at the Mystic River at the Medford/Somerville line, as is recommended by the Medford Green Line Neighborhood Alliance, to serve an additional densely populated area and to spur transit-oriented development. This terminus should also be evaluated in terms of potential ridership and ways of integrating it with area bus lines.
  • Potential integration with commuter rail service should be examined as EIR work gets underway. For example, the proposed location of the station near Tufts University may be worthy of consideration for commuter rail service. Since Tufts can be considered a regional destination, a commuter rail station nearby may attract more riders to the MBTA system. The proposed Tufts station is roughly the same distance from downtown Boston as Forest Hills, where a commuter rail station is also immediately adjacent to the Orange Line rapid transit station. No stations are proposed for this geographic quadrant of the region where riders can be exchanged between the Green Line and the commuter rail line except for North Station.

• The proposed Community Path should be integrated with the transit proposal from the beginning. The Somerville community agrees on the need for it. Medford residents and officials should be interviewed for views on extending the path from Lowell Street in Somerville to Route 16 at the Alewife Brook Parkway via the Green Line right of way.

2. Planning for the Community Path.

  • The available railroad right of way has sufficient width to include a path for nearly its fulllength. The path can be constructed at the level of the tracks or up the hillside on an alignment supported by retaining walls. If absolutely necessary, the path could be cantilevered above track level.
  • For safety, the path should be completely grade-separated. All new or rebuilt bridge structures should be wide enough to accommodate the proposed Community Path beneath them. Bridges to be retained should be examined carefully for adaptations that accommodate a right of way for the Community Path. Bridge issues for the pedestrian pathway will be particularly difficult at McGrath Highway and at Washington Street, where grade crossings may be unsafe because of heavy street traffic.
  • Pedestrian access between cross streets and the Community Path should be maximized. All street crossings above the right of way should have ramps between the path and street level.
  • Between Washington Street and Lechmere Station, the Community Path should share the alignment of the Green Line extension. A bridge shared with the Green Line will be the only way for the pathway to cross the Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line.
  • The relocation of Lechmere Station in Cambridge is on schedule for construction prior to the Green Line extension. It is important that the station project be designed and built to permit connections to the Community Path from the relocated station and the North Point walkways.

3. Maximizing access and use

  • Pedestrians will literally be coming to this project from all directions. The project shouldfacilitate access to all cardinal points surrounding each station, and not just north-south over the bridges. Pedestrians and cyclists should be able to arrive at stations directly from the Community Path. Additional right of way crossings may be necessary where existing north-south streets do not suffice.
  • An extension to the Mystic Valley Parkway site offers the possibility of extensive transit- oriented and pedestrian-friendly development around a new station that affects both Somerville and Medford. Transit-oriented development will help grow ridership at this station.
  • In examining the proposed extension to the Mystic Valley Parkway, it is important to look at potential pedestrian connections into the neighborhood north of the river to maximize the transit market for the terminal station. At Route 16, the proposed extension of the Green Line can also connect with the growing network of intercity pathways along the Mystic River and Alewife Brook.
  • As recommended by the Medford Green Line Neighborhood Alliance, a station between College Avenue and Winthrop Street in Medford Hillside may be extremely desirable. It could replace the need for the two closely-spaced stations proposed for College Avenue and Winthrop Street. The densely populated area within a half-mile radius might be

2

better served at this location, and it might be the best location to serve Tufts University

riders. Several bus lines run along Boston Avenue and can readily serve this location.

  • The dangerous pedestrian path from the end of Brookings Street in Medford should bereplaced with a bridge connecting this neighborhood to the proposed new Green Line Station. The bridge will provide good access for this portion of Medford Hillside to the Green Line, as Brookings Street forms the central axis of the residential neighborhood which lies north of the tracks.
  • Somerville High School, directly on the Green Line Extension, will provide many potential users of the Green Line Extension. Great care should be taken to design good connections to the High School, as well as the adjacent City Hall and Main Library.
  • Both Somerville and Medford may want to examine the potential for air rights above the tracks to expand open space in the city or to provide the basis for other needed construction, such as housing.

4. The Union Square Connection

  • To best serve pedestrians, the proposed Union Square station should reach the heart ofactivity in the square. An underground station beneath Webster Avenue at the square should be examined to provide efficient and easy access from the business community and the surrounding residents. All station options should be connected to the square’s pedestrian facilities by convenient pathways or sidewalks.

The Community Path should be extended into Union Square. An opportunity exists to coordinate the path with local development. Somerville is redeveloping the area adjacent to the Fitchburg Commuter Rail Line. The 80-acre Boynton Yards Revitalization Area, planned as a mixed-use area, already includes office buildings constructed as the first step in the renewal process for the area.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EENR. Please feel free to contact us for clarification or additional comments. We would be very pleased to work with the MBTA on this important project.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Comments on Cambridge Discovery Park EOEA #13312 Final Environmental Impact Report

Comments on Cambridge Discovery Park EOEA #13312 Final Environmental Impact Report

By |

November 7, 2005

Secretary Steve Pritchard
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

RE: Cambridge Discovery Park, EOEA #13312 Final Environmental Impact Report

Dear Secretary Pritchard,

We were pleased to review the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Cambridge Discovery Park. It is gratifying when a project proponent makes considerable effort to comply with EOEA’s certificate.

EOEA’s DEIR certificate called for identification of pedestrian sidewalks, footpaths and bicycle facilities for the proposed development. As shown in the plans provided in the FEIR, the proponent indicates that they will construct all of their off-site pedestrian improvements as part of Phase I of the project, thus making these facilities available to help set non-auto commuting patterns.

The Proponent has agreed to take on significant responsibilities for constructing pedestrian pathways in and near the site. Especially noteworthy is the commitment by the proponent to construct and maintain a path through DCR’s Alewife Reservation on land lying between the proponent’s project and Alewife Station. This path will be wide, well-lighted for pedestrian safety, and maintained in all weather by the proponent.

The proponent has also agreed to take responsibility for improvements to the intersection of the EB Route 2 off-ramp and the entrances to the MBTA’s Alewife Garage. This intersection is of critical importance to pedestrians because several pedestrian pathways – both existing and proposed – will intersect: the Minuteman Bicycle and Pedestrian Path, the new pedestrian path from the proponent’s site through DCR’s Reservation, and the proposed Fitchburg cut-off pathway from Belmont. All three of these routes currently lead pedestrians through an unsignalized intersection that has heavy peak-hour traffic adjacent to the MBTA station. The improvements to be provided by the proponent are a major step in making the intersection safe for pedestrian access to the MBTA Alewife Station.

We remain concerned about maintenance of the sidewalks from the proponent’s site to the Alewife MBTA Station via the Route 2 off-ramp. Although sidewalks exist and may be improved by the proponent, WalkBoston is concerned that this pedestrian route may not be adequately maintained because of the overlapping responsibilities of governmental organizations and the proponent’s position that future developments by abutting landowners should bear incremental or additional costs for maintenance of this walkway. The lack of existing development on abutting land should not relieve the proponent of responsibility for maintaining the sidewalk until such time that another developer is on the scene and an agreement for sharing responsibility is reached.

The DEIR Certificate called for the creation of a pedestrian access master plan that takes a longer-range look at the area and develops a future pedestrian path network. The FEIR does not include this long- range plan. We request that it be added, and that it include three elements that would improve pedestrian access this site:

  1. The proponent has agreed to make a contribution of $400,000 toward the design and construction of a footbridge (which would be constructed by others) over the Little River to the south bank multi- use paths. Since a plan for this footbridge is being actively pursued, it would be useful to know how paths from the proponent’s property would access it, even if the information must be tentative or diagrammatic. Possible locations for the bridge or paths are not shown on the maps.
  2. The existing footbridge over Route 2 is not included or discussed in the planning for the site, even though it is noted on FEIR maps. All of the FEIR pedestrian facility maps (Exhibits 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, and 5-11) show the existing footbridge over Route 2. In addition, one of the maps (Exhibit 5-13) shows a bus stop on the north side of Route 2 that will require connection via the footbridge to the site. We wonder whether there are other pedestrian connections to the footbridge that should also be shown on a long-term plan for the area, such as through Thorndike Field in Arlington; or paths connecting the footbridge over Route 2 with the Minute Man Bike/Pedestrian Path. If such paths exist or are planned, it would be useful to show them on a long-term plan for the area to indicate options for people walking to the site from the Arlington side of Route 2. Again, the connections could be tentative or diagrammatic. The benefit of an Arlington footpath to the bridge would be to provide a shorter route to get to the proponent’s site and avoid a route that requires walking to the Alewife MBTA Station and backtracking to get to the site.
  3. A pedestrian connection to the site from the west through Belmont via Frontage Road and Acorn Park Drive has been briefly mentioned as a longer-term goal. This should also be a part of the master plan for pedestrian facilities in the area. As part of this investigation, consideration might also be given to a sidewalk parallel to the south side of Route 2.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director