Tag: comment letter

Green Line Extension Comment Letter

Green Line Extension Comment Letter

By |

September 7, 2007

Katherine Fichter
Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation katherine.fichter@eot.state.ma.us

Christine Kirby
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection christine.kirby@state.ma.us

Re: Green Line Extension
Dear Ms. Fichter and Ms. Kirby:

WalkBoston is Massachusetts’ leading pedestrian advocacy organization, and we are currently working with the City of Somerville on their innovative efforts to improve the health of their citizens through community-wide nutrition and physical activity programs. The City recently received international attention for these efforts, which are beginning to have measurable benefits for Somerville children. The State should do its part to vigorously support Somerville by following through on its commitment to extend the Green Line to Somerville and Medford.

Why should the Commonwealth promptly honor the commitment to construct the Green Line?

  • The project will serve the densest community in Massachusetts – one with a high proportion of low-income, minority and transit-dependent residents.
  • Somerville and Medford are poorly served by existing transit and suffer from poor air quality as a result of extremely high vehicle volumes and rail diesel fumes. As a result of this poor air quality, Somerville suffers from high rates of lung cancer and heart disease. Thus, the residents of Somerville bear the burden of rail impacts without the benefits of transit service.
  • Since 1990 the state has been legally obligated to provide this transit expansion – it is time to make good on that commitment.

    While we believe the state should vigorously pursue federal transit funds, such efforts should in no way slow progress on the Green Line extension.

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project. Sincerely,

    Wendy Landman
    Executive Director

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Osborn Hills

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Osborn Hills

By |

January 22, 2007

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

RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Osborne Hills, Salem, MA

EOEA # 13965

Dear Mr. Bowles:

WalkBoston is delighted to have the proponent of Osborne Hills in Salem respond positively to our comments on the ENF for this project. After addressing certain comments satisfactorily in the DEIR, the proponent has modified aspects of the plan to incorporate these suggestions.

We would like to take this opportunity to review our comments and refine the observations in view of the ENF responses from the proponent. We request that the proponent respond to these issues as described below:

 

A.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 1 in the ENF has been satisfactorily answered. The proponent will be constructing sidewalks on both sides of all internal roadways – a commendable and very useful incorporation of physical facilities that will provide significant safety and convenience for pedestrians living in the community. We are very happy that this change was made by the proponent.

B.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 2 in the ENF suggested that on-site trails currently planned to be dead end should loop back into the path network. There are three such locations: Two are in the northeast corner of the site and connect to the site boundary and dead end there. A third loops into and through the grounds around the Water Storage Tank, ending at the site boundary. We continue to think it would improve the project to do so.

C.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 3 in the ENF referred to trail connections between the on-site trails and paths or sidewalks outside the property. No connections are indicated, although we remain hopeful that, at minimum, a pedestrian connection might be feasible at the site boundary where a proposed roadway ends in a cul-de-sac that abuts the end of Barcelona Avenue.

D.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 4 in the ENF has been satisfactorily answered. The proponent will use the irregular site topography to make trails interesting and challenging.

E.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 5 received a response that is discouraging. WalkBoston had hoped that on-site resident children might be able to walk to school – a feature that many suburban communities do not encourage. The response indicated that walking to school could not be accomplished because busing was likely to be available. Furthermore, Marlborough Road would have to be crossed by the children and the adjacent neighborhoods there are no sidewalks. We would hope that, the sidewalks being produced for the proponent’s site may show the way toward a neighborhood sidewalk network that allows children to walk to school.

F.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 6 did not receive a response in the DEIR. It suggested that the proponent try to show all pedestrian connections on the map as “actual” proposals rather than “potential.” The DEIR shows pathways along the west property line and a path connection at the northeast corner of the site as “potential” additions to the network. Both would add significantly to the ultimate network of paths and should be included in the build-out of this plan.

G.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 7 in the ENF has been satisfactorily answered. Small footbridges will be constructed as needed for wetland crossings.

H.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 8 in the ENF has been satisfactorily answered. The utility corridor is not a good alignment for walking paths.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Chestnut Hill Square Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report

Chestnut Hill Square Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report

By |

January 5, 2007

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

Attn: Bill Gage

RE: Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report
Chestnut Hill Square
200 Boylston Street, Newton, MA
EOEA # 12928

 

Dear Mr. Bowles:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Chestnut Hill Square in Newton, MA. The proposal will have significant impacts on future circulation in and near several malls and residential towers on Route 9, an essential regional artery. We conclude that the pedestrian aspects of the proposal may play an extremely important role in alleviating congestion.

We are pleased that the project proponent has made so many substantial efforts to integrate pedestrian facilities into the project. In general, we think it is a promising basis for a more complete pedestrian network on the site – one that draws its neighbors together. In addition, we have several concerns about the project which are described below:

• Assessing the market for walking in the area

• Encouraging nearby residents to walk

• Providing a comprehensive network of pedestrian pathways

o The Florence Street frontage

o The west boundary of the property

o The east boundary of the property

o The Route 9 frontage

o Interior walkways

• Integrating access to public transit

• Assuring construction of pedestrian bridge over Route 9

• Establishing sidewalk construction standards

 

Potential Walkers In The Area

The site of Chestnut Hill Square is one with substantial potential for walk-in customers from nearby residential districts (within a 1000’ radius or 2-3 city blocks). Transportation policy and wise management would suggest that local residents should be encouraged to walk these short distances, rather than being required to drive such short distances because pedestrian infrastructure is lacking. Short very local trips add to the total number of vehicles on-street, exacerbating congestion that could instead be alleviated by pedestrian connections to nearby sites.

Within a 1000-foot radius of the site (less than . mile!), are high-density residential towers, townhouse developments and single-family homes accounting for more than 1,700 units.

Collectively, these units have a population of about 2,600 people (assuming an average occupancy of 1.5 persons/unit). These potential customers are within very convenient walking distance of the proposed retail development, and may readily be interested in walking access if it is encouraged. Assuming .5 trips/day/unit, if only half of these trips were made on foot, it could mean a reduction of more than 850 daily vehicle trips.

 

Attracting Walkers to The Site

For the many nearby residents to walk to the site, a network of pedestrian facilities is essential, as is pointed out in the FEIR. Even with the infrastructure in place, these potential customers will need persuasion to walk to the center – to overcome ingrained driving habits and to be persuaded to try out the new walking routes. Specific walking encouragement could take the form of publicity about the site’s walkability, offers of free delivery services (for people who purchase more than they can comfortably carry), sales of grocery carts, walking clubs based at the grocery store (or other retailers), or the provision of walking maps showing the pedestrian routes. Not only will walking help alleviate congestion, it may be an important marketing tool highlighting the convenience of the site.

 

A Comprehensive Network of Walkways

The FEIR states that sidewalks and pedestrian promenade areas will be provided along all roadways within the site. (p. I-13, Section 6.2.1. and IV-24, Section 5.2.4.2.) Yet the Illustrative Site Plan (Fig. I.1-2) and the Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation Diagram (Fig. II.1-7) show sidewalks only in certain areas: along Boylston Street, along Florence Street, and in front of the entrances to the retail areas on both sides of the central east-west street. In addition a second-level walkway is proposed, (as diagrammed in Figs. I.1-2 and II.1-7) to supplement access from sidewalks at the lower level.

The on-site pedestrian network should include sidewalks along all roadways within the site, and all of the sidewalks should be of adequate widths. The widths may vary, depending ontheir intended uses. Considerable thought has been given to the retail-pedestrian precinct, where sidewalks are wide, reflecting the greatest concentration of outdoor pedestrian traffic on the site. Elsewhere it is unclear what sidewalk standards can or will be met.

Sidewalks are to be constructed so as to be flush with all garage entrances (p. I-13, section 6.2.1). We are pleased that this standard will be followed in the project.

The following sidewalks should be added to the site design:

• West boundary road (abutting the Capitol Grille and the rear parking lot.) A proposed roadway provides access between Route 9, the garages and the loading areas, but does not extend all the way from Boylston Street to Florence Street (a paved area is provided for emergency access only). A missing pedestrian link along the west boundary is a full connection between Florence Street and Route 9. This would be a convenient way for pedestrians to reach Route 9 if there is to be a pedestrian crossing at the at-grade signalized intersection between this site and the Mall at Chestnut Hill.

• Sidewalks on the east side of the site facing Milton’s, Barnes & Noble, and Avalon Bay. A roadway is proposed here, to extend from Route 9 to Florence Street, but part of it is to be used only for emergency access. Only a very short segment of sidewalk along it is diagrammed in Fig. 1.1-2 or Fig. II.1-7, yet a sidewalk here would form a major element of a full pedestrian network. It could serve people walking to the lifestyle food center and other retailers from Florence Street, as well as residents of Avalon Bay and residential areas near Hammond Pond Parkway and Heath Street. A gracious touch would be to provide abutting properties such as Avalon Bay Residences and Milton’s direct pedestrian access to this walkway. The Milton’s building is clearly visible from the site (it forms a visual terminus of the central plaza access to the retail areas), and a fence between properties without pedestrian access seems inappropriate.

• Sidewalks on the north boundary of the site along Route 9. This is potentially the most difficult area for pedestrians. Sidewalks are in place along the Route 9 frontage between Hammond Pond Parkway and Florence Street. But, the heavy traffic on the roadway and the turning movements at numerous curb cuts make the environment unpleasant and threateningly dangerous.

• The entrances and exits for Chestnut Hill Square pose potential conflicts with pedestrians. The one-way inbound west entrance will serve significant traffic volumes into the site. Pedestrians following Route 9 should be able to cross when turning movements into the site are not permitted by the signal.

• The east entrance and exit location is somewhat more difficult, as it is presently proposed to be unsignalized. Eastbound entering and exiting traffic may not be able to see pedestrians on the Route 9 sidewalks.

• The mid-site exit onto Route 9 (abutting David & Co.) is one-way outbound to the highway, incorporating both a truck loading zone and vehicles exiting the site from the west parking garage access points. This exit has pedestrian connections on the west side with the potential for significant conflict with pedestrians. It is not shown to have any signalized intersections.

• There is a proposed new on-site lane parallel to Route 9 for a bus lane/stop for the project (Fig. II.1-7). This lane may have a conflict of uses – a bus lane/bus stop serving the site and an acceleration lane for traffic entering Route 9. Pedestrian access to the bus lane and stop appears to be by way of the mid-site exit described above.

• In summary, the difficulties facing pedestrians on Route 9 sidewalks support the concept of constructing the central plaza as an attractive alternative route for pedestrians.

• Sidewalk along Florence Street. Sidewalks are clearly included along Florence Street. They are interrupted by three driveways into the site, but seem appropriate for the setting. The Florence Street sidewalks connect to residences along the length of Florence Street (Heath Street in Brookline) from Hammond Pond Pkwy to Route 9. The street may become less safe and attractive for pedestrians if it becomes a bypass for Route 9.

Internal Walkways

The retail center of the site is the focus of proposed internal pedestrian ways. The internal walkways at the central plaza look potentially interesting and lively, connecting numerous retail outlets, and both the east and west residences. The buildings are not isolated from the world by vast parking lots, and the central plaza is about 500 feet long – slightly longer than a city block – walkable and easily comprehended by pedestrians. The space is complemented by existing buildings at either end, with the Milton’s store, backed by the Avalon Bay tower to the east, and the Capital Grille, backed by the high-rise Imperial Towers at the west.

This central space cries out for physical connections to the off-site buildings at either end. The proponent has indicated that conversations are underway with abutters to provide pedestrian links. (see p. II-6, section 1.4.3) We hope that this happens in conjunction with careful traffic controls on-site to ensure that the significant amount of site-generated traffic that may pass through the heart of the central plaza does not impede pedestrian travel. All traffic entering the site at the new signalized intersection from an eastbound direction and via the new turn lanes on westbound Route 9 will pass through the retail area eventually –primarily to and from parking areas. Traffic entering the site at the eastbound driveway from Route 9 can avoid passing directly through the pedestrian precinct.

In the DEIR, inhabitants of the Florence Street Residences appeared to have additional access through the interior of the adjacent parking garage into the retail areas via a second floor arcade. This connection is not shown on Fig. 1.1-2, and we hope that it will be provided. If available, this route would also be attractive to off-site residents coming to the retail areas, as a weather-protected walkway.

Integrating Public Transit Access

The addition of a bus stop at the site is very useful. As proposed, MBTA Route 60 would continue its present route to Langley Road, just past the new Chestnut Hill Square/Mall to the Chestnut Hill intersection on Route 9, and use the jughandle and signal as a u-turn location. The new bus stop should be coordinated with the bus stop on the opposite side of Route 9 (in front of the Mall at Chestnut Hill). This would help alleviate the need for transit riders to walk across Route 9 to reach either site.

The proposed shuttle service from the Green Line Station at Chestnut Hill is a valuable addition. This station is more than a mile away, and a shuttle would provide access for both employees and customers if provided on frequent headways. We hope that the proponent will work with area retailers to make the shuttle service a success.

Pedestrian Bridge Over Route 9

Since it was suggested by the proponent, the possible pedestrian bridge over Route 9 between this site and the Mall at Chestnut Hill has engendered great interest. The proposal was made to provide a thorough integration of the two malls on opposite sides of Route 9. It would expand the shopping opportunities available, in much the same way that Copley Plaza and Prudential Center malls are related via the pedestrian connection over Huntington Avenue. The combination of retail opportunities at the two malls would create a significant concentration of shopping to attract both regional and local residents. The bridge would eliminate the difficulties inherent in pedestrian at-grade crossings on Route 9. Even with a signalized intersection, this will not be a pedestrian-friendly location due to the speed and volume of traffic, and the width of the roadway. Getting the bridge built may be difficult. There seems to be little likelihood that public agencies will fund the construction. Therefore, the proponent should pursue the steps outlined and make efforts to ensure that the bridge is constructed.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this FEIR. Please feel free to contact us for clarification or additional comments.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

 

 

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