Tag: ENF

Hamilton Canal District Comment Letter

Hamilton Canal District Comment Letter

June 6, 2008

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

RE: Environmental Notification Form (ENF)
Hamilton Canal District, Lowell
MEPA # 14241

Dear Mr. Bowles:

We have reviewed the ENF for the Hamilton Canal District in Lowell, a proposed mixed-use retail, office and residential redevelopment in the historic canal district near downtown. We are pleased that walking and pedestrian facilities are major organizing features of the development. We are commenting because details of this worthy project may need further analysis to serve the needs of pedestrians throughout the city.

WalkBoston is the Commonwealth’s leading advocate for pedestrians and safe walking. We work throughout the state encouraging walking, advocating for pedestrian improvements and working for design improvements. We have extensive experience helping residents and local government with pedestrian issues, safe routes to school, and safer street crossings.

Project description
The proposed Hamilton Canal District is located adjacent to downtown Lowell and is bounded on the south and west by Thorndike/Dutton Street, a major arterial into downtown Lowell with relatively heavy traffic. The north boundary of the site is immediately adjacent to the National Park Service Visitor Information Center on Market Street. The development is separated into three parts by the Middlesex, Pawtucket and Hamilton Canals which spread through the site. Considerable vacant land remains where factories were demolished. The few on-site historic buildings will be retained, rehabilitated or rebuilt as parts of larger structures.

The proposal comprises 11 new buildings on 13 acres with 50,000 SF of ground level retail space, 420,000 SF of office space, 600 new housing units and 1800 new parking spaces. Components are designed to blend with the historic city: frontage is lined with retail outlets and on-street parking and pedestrian amenities are key design elements. Building heights will range from 6 to 15 stories, with the tallest structures adjacent to the open space along the canals. A new trial court building is located south of Jackson Street.

A trolley line now arcs through the National Park sites along Dutton Street at the edge of the site. The trolley will be realigned to pass directly through the site over new bridges and right-ofway. The ultimate goal for the trolley is a further off-site extension to the Gallagher Transportation Center’s buses and commuter trains to Boston.

We believe that there are five issues that need more detailed exploration:
1. Sidewalk widths and surfaces
2. Canal crossings
3. Signage and wayfinding
4. Access to transit
5. Conflicts with vehicular traffic

Issue 1: Sidewalk widths and surfaces
A rule of thumb for a minimum clear sidewalk width is 5.’ A minimum of 8’ clear width is preferable in commercial areas. The proposed “Street Types,” as detailed by diagrams for this project do not always meet this standard.

  • Sidewalk widths of 7’ to 10’ should be adequate, but these widths are frequently diminished because of lights and signs located on the sidewalk.
  • On Street Types 1B, 1C, 2B, sidewalks are 6’ wide, but include space for light poles and other streetside elements. As these intrusions into the width of the sidewalk will be centered 20” from the curb line, the remaining clear width of the sidewalk will be 4’ – possibly a little less. This does not allow for wheel chairs or baby carriages to smoothly pass each another or other walkers or for people to walk comfortably side by side.
  • Street Type 3B permits only a 4’ wide sidewalk on one side. This width is not acceptable for foot traffic, as there are intrusions for railings.
  • Most of the canalside paths are the responsibility of the National Park Service. The NPS standards for sidewalk widths appear to be somewhat more generous than those designed by the developer and/or the City of Lowell. What happens when the two systems must be integrated, as, for example, where connections between canal paths require walkers to cross the bridges over the Pawtucket and Hamilton Canals?
  • How will bicycles be accommodated in the project area? It is not clear whether some of the paths are intended to be multi-purpose, and designed or signed for use by cyclists.
  • Walkway surfaces will be made of scored concrete with broom finish. Care should be taken that walkers are not forced to use cobble- or brick-paved surfaces along any part of their routes through the development. All “tree ways” abutting the sidewalks should be crossed by smooth sidewalks at intersections.

 

Issue 2: Canal crossings
Six bridges and one trestle over the canals will be rebuilt or rehabilitated; two bridges and the trestle are solely for pedestrian use, and the bridge at the Swamp Locks serves only pedestrians and the trolley. The trestle, with rail removed, will be rehabilitated as part of the canalside pedestrian path network and constructed separately from this project.

  • The two Hamilton Canal pedestrian bridges appear to connect through the Appleton Mills buildings. Are both bridges part of the pedestrian network? Will walkers have access into and through the buildings?
  • The reconstructed bridge at the Swamp Locks will offer a spectacular view of the locks and waterfall at the center of the site. Will the bridge (Street Type 1C) have a wide sidewalk where visitors may stand to view the locks and the waterfall? Will the bridge have extra width to accommodate the continuation of 10’ wide canalside paths?
  • Will the trolley bridge over the Merrimack Canal also be available for pedestrian crossings? If not, how will pedestrian access be controlled?

 

Issue 3: Signage and wayfinding
Central to the use of a new pedestrian network are wayfinding directions and signage for pedestrian pathways.

  • The central axis of the development will connect the NPS Visitor Center to the Swamp Locks, a highly desirable destination for visitors to the site. Will there be wayfinding signage or pavement markings along this route to help walkers get to the attraction?
  • Wayfinding is also essential for the large canalside pedestrian network envisioned for the site. Does the proposed plan include wayfinding on these pedestrian ways, especially in locations where continuation of the path involves turns to cross a bridge?

 

Issue 4: Access to Transit
We hope that transit will play an important role in connecting visitors and employees to this project and other parts of downtown. Shuttle bus services may be provided through or near the project. Ultimately the trolley will connect downtown Lowell to the Gallagher Transportation Center’s buses and trains.

  • Will trolley construction be phased into an early stage of development? Can shuttle services be routed through the project for service until the trolley is constructed?
  • Will pedestrians be able to reach the Gallagher Center on foot?

 

Issue 5: Conflicts with vehicular traffic
Through movements by vehicles are minimized by an indirect routing via a large “S” curve on a single street connecting Broadway and Revere Street. Several pedestrian issues remain:

  • Jackson Street at the south edge of the development site now serves the large Jackson- Appleton-Middlesex (JAM) parking garage and is being extended to Thorndike/Dutton Street. Where Jackson intersects Revere Street, monitoring will be necessary to determine if traffic and pedestrian signals are warranted.
  • The intersection of Jackson Street and Thorndike/Dutton Streets will need to be made safe with traffic signals and countdown pedestrian signals, as it is the replacement for a longplanned pedestrian overpass above Thorndike Street.
  • The intersection of Broadway and Thorndike/Dutton Streets will become a primary access point to this development, connecting to a new on-site parking garage and other new underground parking. The intersection may warrant countdown pedestrian signals.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document, which offers great promise for pedestrians. Please feel free to contact us for clarification or additional comments.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman                                            Robert Sloane
Executive Director                                          Senior Planner

Haverhill-Merrimack River Walkway Comment Letter

Haverhill-Merrimack River Walkway Comment Letter

October 1, 2007

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

RE: Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF)
Haverhill-Merrimack River Walkway
MEPA # 14097

Dear Secretary Bowles:

WalkBoston is the Commonwealth’s leading advocate for pedestrians and safe walking. We work throughout the state – encouraging walking, helping with advocacy for pedestrian improvements and sponsoring walks. We have extensive experience in helping residents and local government with pedestrian issues, safe routes to school and safer street crossings and sidewalks. We have reviewed the ENF for the Haverhill- Merrimack River Walkway proposed by the City of Haverhill, and offer the following comments.

The proposal calls for a 2.5 mile walkway circling the Merrimack River on both banks between the Upper County/Comeau Bridge and the Basiliere Bridge in the center of Haverhill. The proposal will provide access to the river in areas where the downtown area is visually and physically walled off from the river by the seawall built in 1935. The proposed walkway connects to the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority bus station, downtown bus stops and the Haverhill MBTA commuter rail station. It is consistent with Haverhill’s ongoing efforts to improve the riverfront and with the discussions generated by the EOEEA’s UrbanRiver Visions Charette, held in Haverhill in March 2007. The project is also consistent with the Merrimack Valley Regional Planning Commission 2006 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS), and the 2006 Priority Regional Economic Development Actions List.

The proposed walkway will take advantage of the improvements to the river water quality resulting from intensive pollution abatement efforts. It also builds on increased public awareness of and interest in the river. On the north side of the river, the walkway will begin at the existing Riverfront Park walkway and will extend it, with a limited portion at grade and behind a 3-high seawall, and an extension by means of a 12-foot wide boardwalk atop the seawall, cantilevered 10 feet over the water. On the south side of the river, the walkway will be a 10-ft paved pathway with a 2-ft gravel border on each side to allow storm water infiltration. The south side walkway may be located on an abandoned rail line, which the city is negotiating to purchase.

WalkBoston heartily salutes the city for undertaking this project that will help make downtown Haverhill a destination for recreational walkers. The project is imaginative in its proposal to cantilever construction over the river. The project, to be built in stages, will ultimately provide a valuable resource to the city and the region. This is precisely the type of project that should be copied throughout the Commonwealth.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal.

 

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Taunton High School, Parker Middle School, New Pole Elementary Additions and Renovations Comment Letter

Taunton High School, Parker Middle School, New Pole Elementary Additions and Renovations Comment Letter

September 28, 2007

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

RE: Comments on Taunton High School and Parker Middle School Additions and Renovations/New Pole Elementary School Environmental Notification Form

EOEA # 14099

Dear Mr. Bowles:

We have reviewed the ENF for the proposed project at the site of the existing Taunton High School. The 105-acre site includes the existing High School and Parker Middle School Building. The proposal calls for renovation and additions to the existing buildings and the addition of the new Pole Elementary School. When completed, the High School/Middle School building will have 3200 students and 660 staff and the Pole Elementary School will have 770 students and 87 staff. We are pleased that the city is making investments in this relatively centrally located facility that can be accessed on foot by many students.

We received detailed site plans from the proponent, showing facilities for walking – sidewalks, paths and plazas at the entrance to major facilities. We were impressed that new pedestrian access to the renovated High School/Middle School is a major portion of the renovation plan. In particular there are plazas at the main entrances and sidewalks extending out to the frontage on Williams Street and on Hon. Gordon M. Owen Riverway. Sidewalks surround the new “green” and line the loop road in front of the building. Access from parking lots into the main entrances connect to these walkways.

We do not know from the ENF if pedestrian access off-site is included and hope that the city will make an effort to address off-site issues. The site is about a mile from the center of the city. Its central location suggests that it is accessible by walking for many students. Sidewalks along Williams Street and Owen Riverway already exist and some are being rebuilt as part of this project. Encouraging walkers may require special attention to crosswalks and pedestrian countdown crossing signals, for example, at the intersection of Williams Street and Owen Riverway.

On the site, we suggest that the plans be reviewed to assure that crosswalks are available in all principal pedestrian activity areas. The plans are a bit unclear about pedestrian access to tennis courts, playing fields and the stadium. While we hope that students will be discouraged from driving if they are within walking distance of the school, we also hope that the site improvements will ensure the safety of people who do drive. We note that the major parking area near the school entrance has sidewalks along each edge, and suggest that marked walkways across the parking areas be considered as an added safety feature for students. The principal parking area near the main entrance to the High School has only indirect pedestrian facilities. As a result, many walkers will cross diagonally on the lawn, a situation that could be remedied by installation of a diagonal walkway. We also suggest that sidewalks be provided between the High School/Middle School and other buildings on the site, such as the skating rink.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this ENF.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Osborn Hills

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Osborn Hills

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

Lowe’s of Hadley Comment Letter

Lowe’s of Hadley Comment Letter

The Lowe’s of Hadley project is a proposal to add a significant retail facility situated on Route 9 in a suburban setting that is typical of those found throughout the state. We have reviewed the proposal and commented on it because of the importance of its planning concepts to pedestrians and to all of us who live and work in Massachusetts.

Read the full letter here:
WalkBoston-CommentENF-Lowes-Hadley