Tag: comment letter

Beacon Street Multimodal Improvements and Streetscape Enhancement Comment Letter

Beacon Street Multimodal Improvements and Streetscape Enhancement Comment Letter

The Beacon Street project area extends from the bridge abutment at Oxford Street to Dickinson Street, a distance of approximately 1.1 miles. The project is intended to enhance pedestrian and bicycle movements with improved streetscape, wider sidewalks, a new cycle track/bicycle lanes, and new ADA compliant curb ramps. The project goal is to enhance the multimodal connectivity of the Beacon Street Corridor.

Read the full letter here:
WalkBoston-CommentENF-BeaconSt-Somerville

Clipper City Rail Trail Comment Letter

Clipper City Rail Trail Comment Letter

WalkBoston has reviewed the Environmental Notification Form for the Clipper City Rail Trail Phase II, which calls for a new multi-purpose trail on a 1.5 mile section of former rail property – the old City Branch line – in the eastern part of the city. Phase II will also extend along a significant portion of the Merrimack River waterfront in the city center. This new trail adds to the existing 1.1 mile rail trail (Phase I) which links the MBTA commuter rail station and Merrimack River not far from the center of the city. A later Phase III will join these two segments in the vicinity of the existing commuter rail station south of the city, but not along the Merrimack River.

Read the full letter here:
WalkBoston-CommentENF-ClipperCityRailTrail-Newbury

Mass Central Rail Trail – Wayside Branch, MEPA # 15133

Mass Central Rail Trail – Wayside Branch, MEPA # 15133

December 16, 2013
Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Purvi Patel
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form for the Mass Central Rail Trail – Wayside Branch, MEPA # 15133

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form for the Mass Central Rail Trail – Wayside Branch. We are very pleased that this facility is being seriously examined for construction, as it is essentially the spine of a trail network that will eventually extend east-west across the full width of the state. As proposed, the new trail will extend 23 miles through eight communities, through a 19 feet wide corridor reserved for construction. The proposed trail will be 10’ wide. Its importance cannot be understated: it will serve as the main stem of a network of state-wide greenways.

Our analysis of this proposal suggests that design of the rail trail should ensure that it includes features attractive to a wide range of users, including more than pedestrians, cyclists, and in-line skaters. The trail should be designed to encourage extensive use by runners and joggers. We bring this suggestion into the current review process because it may lead to a consideration of additional width and different materials on a trail surface that provides the best possible conditions for runners and joggers.

Why is WalkBoston involved with runners and joggers? WalkBoston has become involved with runners and joggers because we work for all people on foot –whether they walk slow or run fast – all using the same facilities. For 6 years, WalkBoston has been the recipient of support from the running community through the Boston Marathon Charity program, first as a Boston Athletic Association team and subsequently with charity bibs provided by the John Hancock Insurance Corporation. Our runners have enjoyed partnerships with us and with our coaching team under a program we have called RunBoston. Our staff includes competitors who have run the Marathon and we now have a staff person who is a United States Track & Field (USATF) Certified Level 1 Coach and an Executive Board member of the Mass State Track & Field Coaches Association (MSTCA).

Why add space for runners and joggers? Running and jogging are growth industries. In 2012 over 29,000,000 people ran 50 or more days per year. Evidence of runners is often seen near pathways throughout the state, where they have made their own parallel trails, running in the grass until a semi-permanent dirt path becomes established. Recognizing that such running paths are beneficial to runners, the state Department of Conservation and Recreation has not only retained the informal paths, but is also thinking of new ways to add permanence to running paths that would fully incorporate runners and joggers in their path-making.

Why are runners different from other trail users? Runners prefer a ‘soft’ running surface, yet rail trails are most frequently constructed with a firm surface such as asphalt or concrete, chosen because these surfaces can serve the maximum number of potential users. But nearly all runners agree that a softer surface would be preferable. Concrete is uniformly cited by runners as the hardest surface – the most harmful surface for runners who want to avoid physical injuries. Paths constructed of grass, dirt, wood chips or stone dust are the four top preferred options for surfaces for running, because these surfaces are less likely to result in physical injuries such as a twisted ankle, shin-splints, sprains, Achilles tendonitis or other impact-related injuries. Soft surfaces, such as stone dust, lacking pebbles or rocks that might make running dangerous, also provide runners with greater traction and more control over pace and muscle use.

What design features could encourage running? Parallel running paths could be on both sides of the trail or on only one side, where a path would need to provide for two-way running traffic. The running path could be immediately adjacent to the paved trail or separated from it by a few feet. The path could be from 2-6 feet wide and should be as nearly free of camber in cross-section as possible. The former use of the corridor for rail service means that the gradient of the trail will be easily manageable for runners. Special signage is not necessary, as the alternative trail surface provide explanation for the existence of the addition to the trail.

A separate, parallel path would be useful for runners and possibly walkers as well. Such a path could not only provide the running surface runners prefer, it would also remove runners from the stream of bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the principal portion of the trail. Walkers could also use the path if they prefer a soft walking surface or would like to be somewhat removed from other trail traffic.

Where have running surfaces and separate facilities been provided? The 10 mile long Battle Road footpath is the best-known example in Massachusetts, as it provides a stone dust surface for its entire length between Lexington and Concord.

In Janesville, WI, off-street sections of the proposed bicycle path system are designed to meet AASHTO guidelines and WisDOT recommendations. A 10-foot two-directional paved path is the intended design for most sections. These off-street path segments are required through local regulations to include a two foot wide crushed gravel shoulder on at least one side to accommodate runners and walkers.

In Colorado Springs, CO, the Design Guidelines for US 24 Rural Section 25 include two types of trails paralleling the highway: primary trails, usually 12’ wide and paved with concrete; and secondary trails, adjacent soft surface trails, varying in width and designed to accommodate walkers, joggers and equestrian users.

In Denver, CO, several local trails provide both hard-surface and soft-surface parallel trails. The same approach has also been used in St.Louis, MO, Scottsdale, AZ., Minneapolis, MN, Newark, DE, at several locations in Florida, and along the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal in Maryland.

How can a soft surface be added to the Massachusetts Central Rail Trail project?
The proposal for this rail trail includes a specified right-of-way (negotiated with the MBTA) 
that is 19 feet wide. Within this right-of-way, a 10-foot wide path is proposed to be constructed. The 9-foot space that remains will provide a buffer to neighboring land uses, but a portion of it might be used for a running path, which could be constructed at the same time as the proposed rail trail. This space may vary in width as the rail trail passes over or under bridges, or near physically dangerous, precipitous banks. Locations where it is impossible to construct a parallel path might be avoided by requiring runners to rejoin the main path for a limited distance.

What costs might be incurred? Anticipated costs for construction of a running path vary considerably, but brief research suggests that the use of stone dust appears to cost less than asphalt. This would need to be corroborated.

Adding separate elements for runners fits with the state’s self-image as the most well- known and important marathon running state in the country. The running trail would clearly support the burgeoning running shoe industry that includes three shoe-building companies with headquarters in Massachusetts. Because of its considerable length, the rail trail could well serve as a training facility for runners who are vying for a running bib for the Boston Marathon. It could serve the Boston Athletic Association, which has just declared its intention to form a high-performance elite team to dig in and focus on creating a national-caliber and, hopefully, a world-class-caliber team that lives and trains in the Boston area. The trail just might also provide the setting for preparing a winner for the annual race in April!!

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

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc Joe Orfant, DCR
Dan Driscoll, DCR
Paul Jahnige, DCR
Craig Della Penna, Mass Central Rail Trail , Coordinator 

—————————————————————————–
Join our Mailing List to keep up to date on advocacy issues. 

Like our work? Support WalkBoston – Donate Now! 
Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook 

Silver Line Gateway Comment Letter

Silver Line Gateway Comment Letter

WalkBoston has reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form for the Silver Line Gateway Bus Rapid Transit proposal, which will provide additional MBTA service between South Station and the Seaport District into Chelsea and East Boston. The new transit service will be a welcome addition for residents needing improved access into the heart of the metropolitan area.

Read the full letter here:
WalkBoston-CommentENF-SilverLineGateway-Chelsea

Arlington Massachusetts Avenue Redesign Regional Advocate Comment Letter

Arlington Massachusetts Avenue Redesign Regional Advocate Comment Letter

To: Richard Davey

Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation

From: Phil Goff, Co-Chairman, East Arlington Livable Streets Coalition
David Watson, Executive Director, MassBike
Wendy Landman, Executive Director, WalkBoston
Charlie Denison, Advocacy Committee Chair, LivableStreets Alliance
Chris Hart, Director of Transportation Projects, Institute of Human Centered Design
Pete Stidman, Executive Director, Boston Cyclists Union

Re: Arlington Mass Ave Corridor Plan redesign project
Date: March 28, 2013

Dear Secretary Davey:

As a group of neighborhood and regional advocacy organizations that promote Complete Streets, safer walking and bicycling, and sustainable transportation planning policies, we are unanimous in our support of the Town of Arlington’s current plan for the reconstruction of Massachusetts Avenue from the Cambridge line to Arlington Center. The Town’s current plan includes the reconfiguration of the de facto four-lane street into a three-lane roadway with striped bike lanes, wider sidewalks, improved crosswalks with refuge islands and an assortment of streetscape enhancements. We are collectively writing to express our concern that MassDOT may give too much weight to a non-binding ballot question on the local ballot in Arlington that contradicts state policies and guidelines.

Public support for the Mass Ave project is strong throughout East Arlington and among a number of businesses in the Capitol Square business district. This has been made clear in numerous meetings in the past three years, including MassDOT’s 2011 25% design hearing where over 60% of the public comments were made in support of the three-lane plan. More recently, MassDOT’s Feb 26th 75% hearing drew hundreds of supporters from throughout the Town and public comments in support ran 3:1 versus those opposed. The Arlington Board of Selectmen unanimously supports the plan and would like to see the four-and-a-half year process come to a conclusion soon.

Similar to other projects that promote a reduction in the available space for motor vehicles, opposition has formed among some neighbors and businesses. For the past four years, the opposition group has become more entrenched and has tried to delay or stop the project on numerous occasions. Most recently, opponents to the current three-lane plan gathered enough signatures to place a non-binding referendum on the April 6th ballot for Town elections. The question simply asks if Arlington voters desire to “retain four lanes on Mass Ave in East Arlington as currently practiced.”

The question discusses none of the safety benefits of the three-lane plan, whether four lanes would accommodate MassDOT design guidelines or the potential impact on funding of a “yes” vote. While we respect the use of a ballot referendum to guide local decision-making, the simplicity of the question is an inappropriate response to a complex roadway design and engineering project. A resulting “yes” vote to recommend a four-lane plan would contradict MassDOT guidelines for safe bicycle accommodations and puts numerous pedestrian safety features at risk. Four travel lanes would also contradict the goals set forth in the Healthy Transportation Compact, the GreenDOT policy, the Governor’s “Way Forward” and the Mode Shift Goals to triple the share of walking, bicycling and transit use by 2030.

The Board of Selectmen has made clear their support for the project and, short of an extremely-unlikely lopsided vote, will continue to support a three-lane design in accordance with state policy and guidelines. However, in both individual meetings and at the 75% hearing, Town officials and community members have received mixed messages from MassDOT staff about the potential results of the referendum. This included hints that a majority “yes” vote for four lanes could endanger state support and funding for the current three-lane plan. This possibility is a serious concern to our organizations as a worrisome precedent to future roadway reconstruction projects that incorporate pedestrian and bicycle enhancements that may be controversial.

In conclusion, we strongly encourage MassDOT to maintain support and full funding for the reconstruction of Mass Ave in Arlington no matter the results of the simplistic non-binding referendum. To abandon support would send a message that MassDOT is unwilling to stand behind its own Complete Streets policies, guidelines and goals, and would encourage opposition to Complete Streets in projects throughout the Commonwealth.

CC: Tom Broderick, Chief Engineer, MassDOT
Kim Sloan, Project Manager, MassDOT
Senator Ken Donnelly
Representative Sean Garballey
Representative Dave Rogers
Kevin Greeley, Chair of the Arlington Board of Selectmen Adam Chapdelaine, Arlington Town Manager Congressman Ed Markey