Tag: dcr

HANDOUT: Gas Tax Indexing is Necessary for Meeting Mode Shift Goals

HANDOUT: Gas Tax Indexing is Necessary for Meeting Mode Shift Goals

By |

This is an informational handout that was part of the 2014 Bike/Walk Summit presented by MassBike and WalkBoston.

The Issue – The Transportation Finance Bill (H. 3535), passed during the current legislative session, includes a provision for indexing gas tax to inflation – meaning that the gas tax will allow for continued funding of transportation investments by rising incrementally with inflation.

A group called “Tank the Gas Tax” has qualified a question for the November 2014 ballot that would repeal the indexing of gas tax to inflation. The referendum proponents have incorrectly stated that the indexing money goes to the General Fund, rather than for transportation.

Without indexing, we will lose over $1B in the next 10 years.* Construction costs are expected to increase approximately 3% annually over the next several years, and we will be unable to keep up with this growth in costs without indexing. Biking and walking infrastructure is paid for through transportation funding, and without gas tax indexing it will be much more difficult for Massachusetts to reach the goal of tripling the share of trips made by biking, walking, and transit by 2030.

Losing this needed money for transportation means that we won’t have adequate resources to make the critical transportation investments that will grow jobs and the economy. For instance, if the legislature had not acted, Massachusetts could have faced losses of up to 15,000 jobs and as much as $11 billion in increased operating costs due to the deteriorating transportation network.*

The Ask – We need the support of our legislators to make sure that this significant piece of transportation funding does not get rolled back in November.

Ask our legislators to vocally oppose the repeal of gas tax indexing to preserve funding for transportation investments. As active members of the Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) Coalition, MassBike and WalkBoston are asking legislators to join  their constituents and the 23 organizations of T4MA – representing the business sector, public health, and transportation – from across the Commonwealth who are opposed to repeal.

Bottom Line – The repeal of gas tax indexing will jeopardize bike and pedestrian projects across Massachusetts by defunding crucial transportation investments, hurt our economy, continue the cycle of deferred maintenance, reverse the momentum for investing in infrastructure, and doom efforts to reach mode shift goals.

*Source: Transportation for Massachusetts (http://www.t4ma.org/)

Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Wynn Everett, MEPA #15060

Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Wynn Everett, MEPA #15060

By |

February 10, 2014

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

RE: Comments on the EIR for Wynn Everett, MEPA #15060

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston offers the following comments on the Wynn Everett Draft Environmental Impact Report. While we are pleased to see that the DEIR includes the proposal for the harbor walk and water transportation docking facilities, we are concerned about the traffic impacts and the lack of sufficient preparation for pedestrian access to the site. Improved pedestrian access is crucial to encouraging transit use as a significant travel choice for both employees and patrons.

Our comments are organized around two key issues: (1) enhancing and encouraging walking and transit, (2) mitigating the impacts of auto trips.

Enhancing and encouraging walking and transit
An Everett casino should be viewed through the lens of an urban re-development project that fits within its neighborhood and enhances the lives of its neighbors as well as its patrons and employees. In order to do that, the development should maximize the number of transit and walking trips, and minimize the number of auto trips.

1. Transit access and emphasis.
As currently planned, primary subway transit access will be provided by the Orange Line Sullivan Square MBTA Station which is about .75 miles from the site. Transit stations at Wellington and Assembly Square are each over 1.5 miles from the site, and currently have indirect, time-consuming pedestrian routes to the proposed casino. Transit should be encouraged through a number of different carrots and sticks.

• Bus service should be enhanced by improving nearby bus stops or providing subsidies to provide additional service for nearby routes. The safe use of bus stops on the far side of Route 99 is especially important to consider; the proponent should assure that there are traffic signals at all bus stops to provide safe passage for pedestrians crossing at these locations.

• Providing an off-site, transit-convenient and/or shuttle-served location for parking used by the majority of employees is one important option. The connection of proponent- or operator-controlled shuttles to these locations will reduce the impact of vehicles at the access points into the site. To attract patrons to use the bus, the proponent may want to experiment with shuttles that are attractive and “fun.”

• The proponent has included shuttle buses to nearby subway stations and to offsite parking lots. Frequency of the proposed service should allow Orange Line and bus riders to be served within very short (maximum 15-minute) wait times. All shuttle services should be made free for employees and patrons.

• The proponent and operator of the casino should price parking spaces to discourage parking during all times of day and evening during which transit service is available.

• Carpooling should be encouraged and subsidized for employees who live outside the MBTA service area or who work late-night shifts.

• The proponent should subsidize ferry services to make use of the proposed water transportation facility.

• The proponent should establish a transportation management organization that can efficiently deal with transit encouragement through subsidized transit passes, and other means that encourage the use of transit.

• Monitoring and reporting on the successes of the proponent and operator of the site in reducing vehicular traffic should be undertaken on an annual basis for the first 10 years of use of the new facilities.

2. Pedestrian access improvements
• Significant improvement of pedestrian access to Sullivan Station should be included in the proponent’s transportation mitigation plan. Access for pedestrians along Lower Broadway remains a concern. When Route 99/Broadway was reconstructed by the state, new bicycle lanes were added in both directions, but the existing sidewalks were narrowed to permit expansion for other transportation modes. The proponent should detail the ways in which sidewalks will be upgraded for pedestrian access into the site. Improved sidewalk access should extend at least as far as the MBTA Sullivan Square Station, which will require the proponent to work closely with the City of Boston.

• The new intersections serving the site should be carefully planned to include safety measures for pedestrian crossings. This should include pedestrian phase timing at these and other signalized intersections constructed or modified as part of the proposal.

• The potential new pedestrian and bicycle connection that the proponent proposes to create an approximately .75 mile direct route between the site and Santilli Circle – is intended to encourage pedestrian traffic. The proponent should be required to continue its work with the DCR and the MBTA to assure that this very short, relatively inexpensive connection actually gets constructed. The proponent should promote use of this route to encourage its use.

• A connection between the site and the City of Somerville could be provided by access over the Amelia Earhart Dam. This connection would lead to both the new Assembly Square MBTA Station and to the Somerville/Charlestown Mystic River path network. A connection across the dam could make the Assembly Square station the closest transit access point for the site. The proponent should work with the cities, as well as the DCR and the MBTA (owners of the land) to see whether this long sought pedestrian amenity that would link the extensive riverfront path networks on the two sides of the river, could be provided by the project.

• A concept plan for the streetscape in Everett has been mentioned. We trust that the plan, if developed, will be generous in its recommendations for pedestrian access.

Mitigating/managing the impacts of auto trips
We are concerned that the location of the site and its considerable distance from centers of population and regional transit stations will result in motor vehicles providing the majority of the access to the site, as the proponent has stated. The emphasis on access for vehicular traffic via Broadway leads to potentially difficult traffic concentrations – not only for Broadway, but also for Sullivan Square and the Sweetser Circle at Route 99/16. Both of these locations are already challenged by daily traffic patterns and the addition of casino traffic would seem to bring new and extensive challenges.

All of the access via Sullivan Square will deeply affect the Charlestown neighborhood and its plans for improvements at Sullivan Square. The proponent should work closely with residents of Charlestown and the City of Boston to reach an improved understanding of potential traffic volumes and impacts and the methods that might be used to partially mitigate the effects on the neighborhood. This should include traffic data collection and analysis, and detailed work with the City of Boston to review and assess all options for mitigating the impacts that casino related traffic will have on city streets, intersections and sidewalks. A community agreement between the City of Boston and the proponent should be reached prior to further planning.

Thank you for considering our comments. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Project Manager

 

——————————————————————————————————————-
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

Mass Central Rail Trail – Wayside Branch, MEPA # 15133

Mass Central Rail Trail – Wayside Branch, MEPA # 15133

By |

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 

Comments on Charles River Basin Connectivity Study

Comments on Charles River Basin Connectivity Study

By |

December 16, 2013

Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Dan Driscoll
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Charles River Basin Connectivity Study

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Charles River Basin Pedestrian and Bicycle Study for Pathways and Bridges, the so-called Connectivity Study. Our comments arise from the document and from the recent presentation of the study to the public.

The Connectivity Study is very exciting work, as it assembles the issues of movement along the basin very effectively, and points out the possibilities for positive changes in the paths, walkways and running facilities along the River. DCR should be very proud of this feat, and should proceed into implementation of priority aspects of the planning effort as soon as possible.

We were particularly heartened by the Study’s general recommendations for the Basin: “DCR should strive to develop a 10’-wide paved path with a parallel soft-surface trail or shoulder for runners (emphasis added) where possible….. In “pinch point” conditions, a minimum 8’ paved path, with 3’ shoulder on one side, should be incorporated.”

This acceptance of separate paths for runners and joggers – and also pedestrians – is a very important aspect of the planning and represents continuity with past planning efforts.

In the 2002 Master Plan for the Basin a stated goal was to provide safe and continuous bicycle, skating, and pedestrian access along the entire length of the Basin, with a “separation of footpaths and bike paths where doing so will not create excessive pavement near the shoreline.” The master plan also called for reducing congestion and minimizing conflicts on the paths (presumably conflicts between bicycles and pedestrians).

In 2005, users were surveyed to discern attitudes about the river facilities. The survey asked respondents to list and rank how they used the Basin. The top twelve responses were, in order of frequency:
• Walking for pleasure
• Attending concerts or events
• Relaxing in the park
• Driving on the parkways
• Running or walking for exercise
• Biking
• Using Riverbend Park in summer
• Picnicking
• Enjoying the outdoors with children
• Inline skating
• Walkathons
• Informal sports

More than sixty percent of those surveyed used the Basin more than once a week for strolling, relaxing, attending concerts or attending special events. Eighty-six percent asked for easier and safer pedestrian access to the Basin, and an equal proportion recommended separating pathways by user types. Users also frequently called for more benches and places to sit, more wildlife areas, more park rangers, and more convenient parking.

If the Continuity Study can be regarded as an update to the Master Plan, we think it may be leaving out some of the emphasis that the authors of the two planning documents clearly stated. In particular, the separation of bicycle and pedestrian paths does not seem to be as important an aspect of the plan as the users of the park suggested to be of high importance. WalkBoston believes that path separation should be integral to all elements of the plan, as it will help deal with the many problems inherent in an area that is so heavily used with so many potential conflicts between users.

We urge consideration of the following:
1. The elimination of conflicts between users of the paths should be uppermost as a safety precaution. Conflicts arise where bicycle traffic is moving rapidly through areas where pedestrians are strolling, causing dangerous situations for all. The conflicts are particularly difficult for commuting cyclists, some of whom are loath to slow down.

2. An expansion of the definition of ‘multi-use path’ would open options that are not clearly included at the moment. Multi-use pathways in the Basin should have an element – probably a parallel, separate path – that would cater to slow-moving walkers, runners and joggers. The foot traffic path could be built entirely separated from the paved path or built as a non-cambered shoulder.

3. Multi-use paths are appropriate for areas where there is low density of use by walkers, runners and cyclists, but should not dominate planning for the heart of the very heavily used park system in the center of Boston. Instead, the overriding goal should be provision of facilities in which space is plentiful for all park users and potential conflicts between users are minimized using methods that are appropriate to each location.

4. Existing multi-use paths should be expanded all along the river to meet the definition of separation between paths based on user needs.

5. Recognition of what runners and joggers show about their desires for facilities would help in planning new paths. Narrow dirt paths that exist informally alongside many of the paved paths in the Basin demonstrate a clear desire for a softer surface preferred by runners. The softer surfaces can also be used by pedestrians and will clearly help separate cyclists from people on foot.

6. A demonstration of the path separation is included in the proposal for the Greenough Boulevard narrowing. The effects on users would be an important element to explore.

7. Path separation in the near term may only be possible on one side of the river. The Greenough Boulevard proposal and the Memorial Drive narrowing between the Eliot and Anderson Bridges point in the direction of path separation as a major feature on the north bank. Continuation of path separation both west and east of these two segments would be a next logical step. Except at intersections, parkland seems to be available for new or modified paths.

8. An unfortunate aspect of all path planning along the river is the intersections with streets at the bridges. The narrow paths that exist at many of the bridges will be a major feature of riverfront paths for a long time, but should not preclude path separation away from the bridge intersections.

9. As long-term improvements, underpasses at bridge intersections are appropriate and important options that will enhance the recreational and transportation options for many Basin users.

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                                    Bob Sloane
Executive Director                                  Senior Project Manager

Cc Nicole Freedman, Boston Bikes
Cara Seiderman, City of Cambridge
Steve McLaughlin, MassDOT
Margo Levine Newman, The Esplanade Association
Renata von Tscharner, Charles River Conservancy
Herb Nolan, Solomon Fund
Jackie Douglas, LivableStreets Alliance
Pete Stidman, Boston Cyclists Union
David Watson, MassBike
Tom Grilk, Boston Athletic Association

Comments on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form for Wynn Everett

Comments on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form for Wynn Everett

By |

July 12, 2013

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

RE: Comments on the EENF for Wynn Everett, MEPA #15060

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form for Wynn Everett, a resort proposed to include 2.9 million square feet of development along the west side of Lower Broadway (Route 99) in Everett, with frontage on the commuter rail line and an existing embayment of the tidal Mystic River. The proposal includes 3,490 structured parking spaces, and waterfront features that include a harbor walk and water transportation docking facilities. Principal access to the site is from two proposed intersections with Lower Broadway.

Traffic is significant: there will be an additional 29,384 new vehicles trips on a Friday, and 35,754 new vehicle trips on a Saturday, with the largest peak-hour volumes occurring on Friday and Saturday evenings. To accommodate this traffic, a new signalized intersection with Lower Broadway is to be constructed, connecting with an on-site boulevard. Lower Broadway is to be widened to allow two southbound right turns into the boulevard. Northbound left turns will be handled by a widening of Lower Broadway or a jughandle using Bow Street that would allow vehicles to turn to the south and enter the site.

 

A secondary service drive is contemplated that will intersect Lower Broadway north of the site. The intersection of this drive with Lower Broadway is also anticipated to be signalized.

Transit access will be provided at the Sullivan Square MBTA Station, 1.2 miles from the site. Transit stations at Wellington and Assembly Square are each 0.8 miles from the site, but currently have indirect pedestrian routings to the proposed resort. Shuttle buses to all subway stations have been proposed.

Our comments center on pedestrian access into and within the site. We are basically concerned that the location of the site and its considerable distance from centers of population and regional transit stations will result in motor vehicles providing the majority of the access to the site. Despite that concern, we have reviewed the proposal for individual improvements in pedestrian access associated with the project.

Off-site access to and from the proposed resort

Lower Broadway was recently reconstructed by the state as part of its enhancements to State Route 99, which included the addition of new bicycle lanes in both directions and the narrowing of existing sidewalks to permit expansion for other transportation modes. The proponent should detail the ways in which sidewalks will be upgraded for pedestrian access into the site. Sidewalk access should extend at least as far as the MBTA Sullivan Square Station, which will require the proponent to deal with that portion of the sidewalk within the City of Boston.

 

A new commuter rail station being investigated by the City of Everett on the commuter rail line that is adjacent to this site. To make this proposal a realistic option, the proponent should detail the ways in which rail connections to the site will be integrated with the resort, including major pedestrian routes into the heart of the site. A brief mention was made of an existing underpass; perhaps this could be upgraded to provide a connection to both sides of the track.

 

The new intersections with Lower Broadway for both the major boulevard access and the service access should be carefully planned to include safety measures for pedestrian crossings. This should include pedestrian phase timing at these and other signalized intersections constructed or modified as part of the proposal.

 

A potential connection between the site and the City of Somerville could be provided by access over the Amelia Earhart Dam. This connection would lead to both the new Assembly Square MBTA Station and to the Somerville/Charlestown Mystic River path network.

 

Riverfront access

The proposal envisions an extension of the Mystic River trail system from this site to the west. This extension involves going under the elevated commuter rail line along the River to reach Gateway Park and other open spaces planned for the banks of the Malden River. This will extend parks in appropriate riverside locations and in accordance with local and regional park planning.

One of the uses of the proposed trail system to the west is suggested to be a connection to allow access to and from the MBTA Wellington Station. This station is nearly a mile away, and it may be difficult to attract transit riders to use the trail, as access to it involves walking in open spaces where walkways are not readily visible from the street. The proponent should investigate making this walkway safe for access to its site with improved signage and lighting.

A portion of the embayment along the Mystic River is located inside the City of Boston and is occupied in part by public agencies. The proponent should explore with these agencies the potential for riverside access for pedestrians, in effect extending the Mystic River pathway network closer to Sullivan Square.

We look forward to the details of these and other elements of the plan. 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,

Robert Sloane
Senior Project Manager