Tag: EOEA

Comments on the DEIR for the Redevelopment of the Government Center Garage MEPA #15134

Comments on the DEIR for the Redevelopment of the Government Center Garage MEPA #15134

By |

July 11, 2014

Secretary Maeve Vallely Bartlett
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
Attn: Holly Johnson
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on the DEIR for the Redevelopment of the Government Center Garage MEPA #15134

Dear Secretary Vallely Bartlett:

WalkBoston reviews significant proposed development projects to provide comments about their impacts on pedestrians, and to suggest measures that may mitigate negative impacts or generally improve the projects for walkers.

We have reviewed the DEIR for the Redevelopment of the Government Center Garage and find exciting aspects of the project that will benefit walkers. These include:

Enhancement of a major pedestrian-transit hub
The East Parcel contains a high-volume transit hub with extensive pedestrian access. Access to the Orange and Green Line Haymarket Station access points will be maintained, as will access to the many MBTA bus services. Some of the difficult pedestrian crossings to the site will be improved by narrowing the width of the New Sudbury Street and thus the length of the crosswalks at its intersection with Congress Street.

The sidewalk through the East Parcel
The new pedestrian connection proposed for this project between Congress Street and Canal Street respects a traditional walking route between Downtown and North Station. This route will see more intensive use over the coming years as the significant developments at North Station and at this site occur, and the proposed design reflects the many circulation activities that are required of this parcel.

A new signalized intersection for Bowker Street
The proposed signalized intersection at New Chardon Street and Bowker Street is a welcome addition for pedestrians. The nearby intersection of New Chardon and Congress Street is skewed in such a way that the crossing is very long and is inconvenient for walkers going to the courthouse across the street. The new crosswalk makes the move much more convenient.

Improvements to on-site parking
As parking ceases to be the principal use of this site, the plan is much less auto-oriented. A reduction of number of available parking spaces reduces vehicles circulating around the site for access. This is accompanied by a reduction in the number of places where vehicles must cross sidewalks, enhancing pedestrian safety. The removal of garage access from New Chardon Street and its potentially busy sidewalks is a major pedestrian benefit of the proposal.

In addition to these project benefits, we also note several issues that need more attention.

Weather protection for walkers
The current garage has the unusual benefit of covering the bus waiting area and access to the transit station below, thus protecting walkers from rain and snow. Removing the garage and opening up the area for new development is beneficial to the project, and we believe that Figure 1.8 shows that the new structure will also provide cover for the bus station area. However, no cover for the subway entrance area is shown. The diagrams are less than clear on this point and we ask the developer to clarify how the bus waiting area and subway entrance areas will be designed and whether they will be covered.

Widths of sidewalks
Pedestrian improvements included in the project will improve safety at crosswalks and along the major streets. A note suggests that the current sidewalks widths are varied throughout the project, and are “rarely less than eight feet wide.” We trust that the standards for future sidewalk widths in this pedestrian-friendly project will be considerably wider and in keeping with the City’s complete street guidelines.

Services provided at the bus station
Six bus stops are proposed in the redesign of the bus station. Three of the stops will be in the area where they are now located, and three stops will be provided by a nominal widening at the side of the Central Artery Surface Road. The design and operation of the bus stops is critical for pedestrian safety and convenience. We ask that the proponent provide detailed diagrams and sketches of how this area will operate and ensure that bus patrons are well served by the new design.

Truck loading bays facing New Chardon Street
New Chardon Street is the major Downtown/North End access to and from the Central Artery (I-93). Four truck loading docks are proposed for the section of New Chardon between Congress Street and the on- and off-ramps leading to the I-93. The site plan suggests that trucks will back into these docks from the street travel lanes across the sidewalk on this side of the East Parcel. Unless use of the docks are restricted to the middle of the night it is difficult to comprehend how trucks backing into place across the sidewalk on a ramp to I-93 can be safely accommodated. We request that the proponent describe this element of the project in detail, including how pedestrian safety will be maintained.

Cut-ins on sidewalks
Cut-ins are proposed on three sides of the East Parcel and two sides of the West Parcel:
1. New Seabury Street near the Surface Artery
2. New Chardon Street near Canal Street
3. New Chardon Street near Bowker Street
4. Congress Street Near New Sudbury Street toward Leverett Circle
5. Congress Street near New Sudbury Street toward State Street

Although not well defined in the DEIR, a cut-in appears to be a pull out lane that reduces the width of the sidewalk to accommodate vehicles. The drawings in the DEIR show these indentations only vaguely but imply that a cut-in is a lane for vehicles separate from the adjacent thoroughfare but parallel to it.

The next stage of development of the project should include details of:

  •  Why the cut-ins are needed in each of the five locations?
  • How they are proposed to be used (back-in, parallel movement, etc.)?
  • How they relate to, or potentially conflict with, all major adjacent pedestrian flows?
  • Design guidelines that include minimum widths for adjacent sidewalks or crosswalks, as well as bollards or other protections for walkers. We are concerned that the sidewalks seem quite narrow adjacent to some of the proposed cut-ins.

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                                 Robert Sloane
Executive Director                              Senior Project Manager

Comments on New Brighton Landing EENF MEPA #49909

Comments on New Brighton Landing EENF MEPA #49909

By |

July 20, 2012

Secretary Richard Sullivan
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: New Brighton Landing Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) MEPA # 49909

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the EENF for the New Brighton Landing proposal. The potential improvements that this project will be able to bring to the area are substantial. The pedestrian aspects of the proposal are likely to play an important role in the way in which the project functions and relates to the surrounding neighborhood and nearby public buildings.

The core of the project is a series of new buildings on a campus focused on a new headquarters building for New Balance Corporation. A hotel, offices and a new sports center are included, along with open space and wide sidewalks that will add pedestrian amenities to the area.

We do have concerns that the surrounding area will be impacted greatly and that, so far, the project proponent has specified very little about what changes will be made to the neighborhood streets that will bear the brunt of the access into this site, including the changes that will be made to sidewalks and street crossings for those who choose to walk to the site. In May, we submitted comments to the BRA regarding this project, and had hoped that the proponent would address our comments in this filing. There are many questions remaining, and we repeat our comments to the City below.

The New Brighton Landing Master Plan includes a major indoor sports facility to be shared with neighborhood residents. It includes new office buildings that will house many new workers on the site and small retail facilities to serve people coming to the site. The proposed sports facility is an exciting addition to the neighborhood’s recreation resources and will be a major attraction for the surrounding community, and pedestrians will need access to and from the site from many directions. We have a number of suggestions for the streets that surround the site.

North Beacon Street
Bounding the south side of the site, North Beacon Street will serve as a collector for pedestrian access into the site from several local streets including Etna, Dustin, Murdock (connecting directly to Brighton High School), Gordon and Saunders Streets.

Pedestrian improvements suggested for this portion of North Beacon Street:

  1.  Pedestrian signals and signs should be placed at the intersections where most pedestrians are likely to cross North Beacon Street for access into the site: Life/Etna Streets and Arthur Street.
  2. Wayfinding signs should be added at these locations to help residents find the new facility.

The Mass Pike splits the development site from the North Brighton/North Allston community and pedestrians from that neighborhood must access the site via either Everett Street (along the eastern edge of the site) or Market Street/Birmingham Parkway (along the western side of the site). Both of these streets need improvements to provide good access for walkers.

Everett Street
Everett Street connects North Beacon Street to Western Avenue and Soldiers Field Road via a bridge over the Turnpike. The street has sidewalks along its entire length, but they are of poor quality: most are asphalt that is indistinguishable from the roadway surface and may thus be dangerous to walkers. No curbs separate sidewalks and vehicular traffic lanes.

Pedestrian improvements suggested for Everett Street:

  1. Everett Street is so important to neighborhood walking and for access to the river that its sidewalks should be totally rebuilt for pedestrian safety – widened and separated from road traffic by a curb where none now exists.
  2. Crosswalks should be added at all major intersections on Everett Street, including North Beacon Street and Soldiers Field Road.
  3. Cut-through traffic should be discouraged and pedestrian safety should be considered along streets where traffic diversions are predictable, such as Franklin Street.
  4. Wayfinding signs on Everett Street should be added at intersections to help local residents and visitors find the proposed site. Wayfinding signs should also be provided to help pedestrians find the Telford Street pedestrian overpass across Soldiers Field Road. This is the only place where there is pedestrian access from Allston to the river that does not require crossing at least four lanes of relatively high-speed roadway.

Market Street/Birmingham Parkway
On the west side of the site, Market Street and Birmingham Parkway form a continuous straight route that links North Beacon Street to Soldiers Field Road. Sidewalks exist on both sides of Market Street and on the east side of Birmingham Parkway between Lincoln Street and Western Avenue. Birmingham Parkway may be unique in the city; for more than one-half mile – between Western Avenue and its intersection with Soldiers Field Road near Watertown – it has no pedestrian crosswalks of any kind, although there are traffic signals where crosswalks might be located.

Pedestrian improvements suggested for Birmingham Parkway and Market Street:

  1. The sidewalk on the east side of Birmingham Parkway will provide the primary pedestrian access route between the proposed development and the North Brighton/ North Allston neighborhood and is also the primary access route to the parks along the Charles River for on-site workers. Given New Balance’s product line and work force we anticipate that there will be a significant number of runners who will seek to reach the Charles River’s world famous running paths.
  2. Birmingham Parkway between Lincoln Street and Western Avenue is very wide. North of Lincoln the Parkway has two southbound traffic lanes and four northbound, this widens to five lanes between Lothrop Street and Western Avenue. This wide street provides an opportunity: one lane of northbound Birmingham Parkway plus the existing sidewalk should be converted into a combined bicycle-pedestrian greenway between the New Brighton site and the river.
  3. Pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian countdown signals should be added at the intersection of Western Avenue and Birmingham Parkway (where signals already exist) to allow walkers to safely gain access to the riverside parklands.
  4. The sidewalk along the east side of Market Street connects via a crosswalk at Lincoln Street to the sidewalk on the east side of Birmingham Parkway. Pedestrian countdown signals may be appropriate at this location as traffic may increase as a result of the proposed development.

Suggestions for future walkways in the area

  1. A master plan for pedestrian and bicycle access between this site, its surrounding neighborhoods and the river should be considered. There are presently no high quality connections and there are great opportunities to link the existing and proposed residential and commercial uses to the wonderful open space resources that are nearby.
  2. The portion of Birmingham Parkway between Lincoln Street and North Beacon Street is an access road to just a few adjacent properties, and provides “back-door” access to Soldiers Field Road businesses via Wexford Street. It appears to have low traffic volumes and would seem to be a candidate for a ‘greenway’ toward the west where it meets the river. This portion of Birmingham Parkway should be examined to see if its vehicular use could be reduced in speed by physical reconstruction of lanes to a narrower width, and whether the road could be reconfigured into a greenway comprised of major walking and biking routes to the river.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Please feel free to contact us with questions you may have. We look forward to hearing how our suggestions are addressed in subsequent revisions to the plan.

Sincerely

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc: Keith Craig, Project Manager
Harry Mattison, Allston/Brighton North Neighbors Forum
Herb Nolan, Solomon Fund
Guy Busa, Howard/Stein-Hudson

Christian Science Plaza Revitalization Project MEPA #14828

Christian Science Plaza Revitalization Project MEPA #14828

By |

January 9, 2012

Richard K. Sullivan, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and Environment
100 Cambridge St., 9th floor
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Christian Science Plaza Revitalization Project, MEPA #14828

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

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 worked with over 65 communities throughout the state, helping residents and local government with pedestrian issues, safe routes to school, and safer street crossings.

The proponents of the Christian Science Plaza Revitalization have done a splendid job serving and welcoming the public to the plaza. The entire plaza is open to walkers and is a very special place to walk and enjoy the city. The rows of trees are well-maintained and are beautiful even in winter. The fountain in particular is a major attraction to people from the region. It is a wonderful spot that does double duty by providing significant summer service to children from all neighborhoods of Boston.

WalkBoston has many comments on the pedestrian street crossings at the edges of the site. Many of these work well, while some are not as safe for pedestrians as might be possible. For example, the intersection of Cumberland Street and Huntington Avenue is a signalized crossing that does not allow sufficient time for people to cross the street safely.

Thank you for the opportunity to common on this important project. We think it is a good project that could be even more pedestrian-friendly with some modifications to surrounding traffic signals. WalkBoston will continue to work with the city on this issue.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman                                    Robert Sloane
Executive Director                                  Senior Planner

Comments on the Expanded Environmental Impact Report for Two Brookline Place

Comments on the Expanded Environmental Impact Report for Two Brookline Place

By |

January 22, 2010

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

RE: Comments on the Expanded Environmental Impact Report for Two Brookline Place, Brookline, MA
EOEA #14522

Dear Secretary Bowles:

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Expanded Environmental Impact Report for Two Brookline Place in Brookline. The proposal calls for construction of an 8- story building with space for medical and general office space. The site is a part of the Gateway East Development Area, for which the town has prepared a Public Realm plan, which, of course includes sidewalks throughout the area.

We are concerned about several of the details of the proposal and request that they be given further attention during upcoming work on the project. They are:

Pedestrian islands. Generous, large pedestrian refuge islands should be provided at the intersections where Route 9 crosses Washington/High Street, Pearl Street, Brookline Avenue and the proposed new crossing linking the bicycle and pedestrian paths inside the Emerald Necklace. After completion of the proposed development, Route 9 will remain a 6-8 lane boulevard, which is too wide for many pedestrians to cross within one sequence of traffic signal changes. A refuge will provide a safe place for pedestrians to wait for the next opportunity to cross traffic lanes legally and without jaywalking.

Intersection mitigation. It appears that only a few of the nearby intersections will be provided with mitigation of traffic impacts from the proponent’s project. Two locations cited in the document are Brookline Avenue and Pearl Street and Brookline Avenue and Washington Street. Pedestrian crosswalks and signal phases at these two intersections are critical to the overall success of the project and integral to the proposed pedestrian network in the Gateway East Public Realm Plan. On Washington Street large pedestrian refuge islands should be provided for the pedestrian crosswalk, and a pedestrian refuge island is also desirable on Pearl Street (but has not been singled out as an element of the Gateway East Public Realm plan).

Truck/pedestrian conflict. The loading zone for Two Brookline Place and the principal access point into the garage are both located on the portion of Pearl Street nearest Washington Street. The nearby new street intersection at Pearl/Juniper and Washington Streets may encourage pedestrians to use this portion of Pearl Street as they seek out the relatively short route between residential areas and direct access to the MBTA station. Pedestrians and trucks may come into conflict on this section of Pearl Street, depending on the frequency of the use of the loading zone and the vehicular traffic diverted to use the Pearl Street/Washington Street intersection. Conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians may also occur. Both of these issues should be addressed as the design moves forward.

Encouraging walking. Walking should be encouraged with good on-line walking directions, provision of area maps and through encouragement programs as an integral part of the proponent’s TDM program for local residents, workers and patients.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Two Brookline Place Project.
Please feel free to contact us for any clarification or additional comments that you may need.

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