Tag: MassDOT

Comments on MassDOT Draft Pedestrian Plan

Comments on MassDOT Draft Pedestrian Plan

By |

October 16, 2018

Secretary Stephanie Pollack
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116

Dear Secretary Pollack:

WalkBoston is pleased to provide comments on the Draft MA Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and to see so many of the comments that we and other members of the Massachusetts Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board captured in the Plan.

The vision, goals and principles set a strong context and base for the Plan, and we are especially pleased that MassDOT has adopted the principle of leading by example and supporting municipalities. As the largest single investor in the State’s roadway and pedestrian system, MassDOT has a critical responsibility to take pedestrian safety, accessibility and convenience seriously in all of its actions and investments.

We specifically applaud several of the action items including:

  • 3-3: Research on benefits and impacts of automated speed enforcement (ASE). We will continue to advocate for legislation that will allow ASE to be is implemented in an equitable manner. Automated enforcement has been shown to be an effective means of discouraging dangerous driver behavior.
  • 4-1: Construct safe crossings to connect bus stops to destinations, starting with MassDOT-owned corridors.
  • 5-1: Pilot a winter snow and ice removal initiative on pedestrian facilities in order to provide the basis for development of a comprehensive plan – and an understanding of potential barriers to make such a program permanent.
  • 6-1 – 6-3: Collecting and analyzing pedestrian focused data.

Our comments below reflect several additional issues and refinements that we believe will strengthen the Plan:

  1. The equity discussion should be updated to include MA Department of Public Health (DPH) injury data for Massachusetts which reveals substantial differences in injury rates by race. Under Initiative 2 we recommend adding an action item of preparing in-depth analysis of injury patterns across the state that combines the crash reporting provided by police and EMS and the hospital data that is gathered by DPH. We understand that MassDOT and DPH have begun this analysis, and think that this process should be formalized as one basis for the prioritization analysis.
  2. Initiative 1 sets ambitious and strong actions for MassDOT’s own design and operations practices, including maintaining pedestrian routes through work sites during construction. We are concerned that Action 1-1 will be difficult to accomplish and measure without outside review, and suggest adding a measure for tracking progress such as the following:
    • Create an annual review process of MassDOT development, scoping, scoring, design and construction that invites advocates and peers from outside the agency to comment on how pedestrians have been prioritized in agency activities. The review should be designed to guide MassDOT in a continuous improvement process to learn from each project:
      • What is working well?
      • What can be improved?
  3. Initiative 5 of the Plan should include specific reference to traffic signals, including a measure that tracks the number of signals on MassDOT roads that include pedestrian-focused attributes, such as concurrent WALK signals, Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI), and automatic recall of WALK signals (not requiring people walking to push a button). In addition, MassDOT should consider providing more in-depth guidance to municipalities about good practice for pedestrian signals – the inconsistency in signals among the State’s 351 cities and towns contributes to confusion for pedestrians and drivers which can lead to unsafe conditions. This section may also be an opportunity to share information on the safety benefit for “No Right Turn on Red.”
  4. Principle 3 of the plan describes that MassDOT will lead by example yet municipalities are critical to the success of the plan, since MassDOT owns just 8% of all sidewalk and 8.2% of all roadway miles in Massachusetts. We encourage MassDOT to add information about that other state agencies that maintain pedestrian facilities, like DCR and the MBTA, and should recommend that they also follow MassDOT’s best practices for communities to emulate.
  5. The presentation of the report was visually pleasing, but has some features that could be improved:
    • If using this web-based ARCGIS format for any future reports, please create a way to easily jump to sections within the document from the introduction. The table of contents is a static list, which makes it difficult to refer back to specific sections since page numbers are not obvious.
    • Using the share link at the top left of the page re-directs a user back to the beginning of the document, not to the page/section of the document that the user is on. There was not a readily apparent way to link to a section.
    • While this web-based ARCGIS report format allows a user to zoom in on statewide maps (which likely would be rendered difficult to read in a printed format), please provide an option to access the final version of the plan in a visually clear PDF form.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Chicopee Center Walk Assessment

Chicopee Center Walk Assessment

By |

On September 20, 2018, WalkBoston conducted a walk assessment in Chicopee Center, with support from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS). The goal of the walk assessment was to recommend improvements to the local built environment that improve pedestrian safety. Participants included WalkBoston staff and representatives from the Mayor’s Office, Planning Department, Engineering Department, Department of Public Works, Police Department, Chamber of Commerce, and Valley Opportunity Council. View the final walk assessment report here.

MassDOT’s Statewide Pedestrian Plan now available for public comment!

MassDOT’s Statewide Pedestrian Plan now available for public comment!

By |

MassDOT’s Statewide Pedestrian Transportation Plan will recommend policies, programs, and projects for MassDOT to guide decision making and capital investments, as well as develop guidance for municipalities to improve walkability in local communities.

Thursday, September 20 from 1 to 3 pm, the scheduled Massachusetts Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (MABPAB) meeting will be a special open-house style forum highlighting the finalized draft Statewide Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The event will take place in the second floor Transportation Board Room of MassDOT’s Boston headquarters at 10 Park Plaza. Released for a 30 day public review on Monday, September 17, MassDOT is welcoming MABPAB board members as well as the general public to attend, learn more about the Plan and provide comments to the final draft.

The Plan defines a vision for Massachusetts in which all people have a safe and comfortable walking option for short trips. The Plan presents an action-oriented strategy with the goal of increasing the percentage of short trips made by walking and also eliminating pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries. Pedestrian fatalities have been increasing over the last decade in Massachusetts. The plan goes into further detail about the state of walking today.

Take a look at the plan, and let us know what you think; make sure to send your comments to MassDOT!

Comment Letter Re: MassDOT and MBTA Focus40

Comment Letter Re: MassDOT and MBTA Focus40

By |

August 28, 2018
Stephanie Pollack, Secretary of Transportation
Luis Manuel Ramírez, MBTA General Manager
State Transportation Building
Boston, MA 02116

Re: WalkBoston comments on Focus40

Dear Secretary Pollack and General Manager Ramirez:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the investment plan for the MBTA.

From a system-wide perspective, we applaud the effort to provide a framework for expanding the reach and efficacy of the transit system.

However, we have concerns that more specific investments have not been identified within that framework. As just one example:

  • How will Salem, identified as a place needing better service, have its MBTA service improved?
  • What is the process to examine specific places and identify and evaluate specific improvements?

We are pleased to see walking mentioned a number of times in the document, and that walking considerations are included in the framework for future investment. Transit literally cannot function without being paired with safe, accessible and convenient walking conditions.

Our comments on the ways that walking should be more holistically addressed in the Final plan are as follows.

In proximity to existing high travel stations and bus routes and in the priority places identified in the plan, the next draft of Focus40 should address how the MBTA and MassDOT will work to:

  1. Engage municipalities in walking-to-transit safety and accessibility improvements including safe street crossings, accessible stations and bus stops, and connected sidewalk networks.
  2. Tie state investment in walkability to local incentives and approval for “better bus” implementation.
  3. Fix the issue of sidewalk snow clearance – an accessible, year-round system needs to address this. Consider higher capital investments if they could yield significant improvement for example: more extensive roofing to keep stops clear; installation of
    pavement heaters for sidewalks (WalkBoston will provide information on this possibility in the near future).

Based on questions that are called out in the document we have the following suggestions.

Leveraging data:
– Identify the cost benefits that derive from improved accessibility – higher ridership and reduced paratransit costs.
– Work with all transit providers such as councils on aging, school bus systems, and private shuttle services to coordinate services, make best use of fleets, reduce redundancy, improve services, and make better use of operating dollars.
– Review pedestrian crash data to identify MBTA rail and transit stations with pedestrian crash clusters and coordinate with MassDOT to carry out Road Safety Audits in those locations to identify safety improvements and secure safety funding to ameliorate them (e.g. Park Street, Jackson Square, Forest Hills).

Trends that should affect the long-term investment strategy:
– Where are the places that the number of older residents is growing fastest – invest in serving those residents with the basic transit system.

Specific comments on Programs
– Add safe pedestrian street crossings to Green Line accessibility improvements
– Under partnerships for improved first-mile/last mile connections:

• Consider embedding the employer focused program within MassDOT’s employer commute program
• Add pedestrian safety to the mix of efforts
• Focus the program on the locations with the highest job or residential densities

– Add improved pedestrian connectivity and safety as a program element of Bus2040

WalkBoston would be pleased to work with the MBTA and MassDOT to answer any questions and flesh out additional walking issues.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Letter to Review Team on Restoration of the River Edge

Letter to Review Team on Restoration of the River Edge

By |

From: WalkBoston, Charles River Conservancy, Charles River Watershed Association

To: MassDOT – officials, staff, consultants Review Team on the I-90 Allston Interchange Improvement Project

Date: August 15, 2018

Re: Charles River – Restoration of the River Edge

On behalf of three organizations committed to the protection of the Charles River and its parklands, public access and pathways, and environmental health we jointly request that MassDOT fulfill its responsibilities to this invaluable resource by analyzing and developing options for the ecological restoration of the severely degraded and eroded riverbank in the I-90 Interchange Project area – from the BU Bridge to the River Street Bridge. This Project directly impacts the Charles River Basin , its parkland, ecology, water quality, and overall resiliency; dealing with those impacts is integral to the Project.

A study by MassDOT in advance of the FEIR should include re-establishment of a more natural edge, bank restoration, stormwater management, and increased floodplain connectivity and storage for resiliency. It should explore at least one alternative that creates better habitat and provides flood storage through the use of fill material in the river to accomplish these objectives. We ask that between now and when the FEIR is produced, a detailed analysis of alternatives, carried out in a collaborative manner, be developed so that results can be incorporated in the FEIR.

The DEIR did not adequately consider the need to restore the river bank, improve the park, and improve water quality. The DEIR has chiefly dealt with these impacts by trying to avoid them on the theory that permitting for the Project would be more difficult if river edge improvements are included. We are convinced that the contrary is true: a serious examination of these improvements would enlist substantial support from organizations, municipalities, and agencies committed to restoring environmental quality in this area – support that will be important to obtaining required approvals.

Restoration of this area requires attention to a number of issues and several important state and federal requirements, including:

1. Protect the river bank from further degradation and restore aquatic and riparian habitat. Much of the existing bank is degraded and eroding, eliminating fish habitat. The Charles is an important fish run for alewives, blueback herring and American shad, migratory fish that return to the river each year to spawn.

2. Provide parkland and improve safe walking and biking conditions as part of multi-modal improvement called for in MassDOT’s Project “purpose and need” statement and under Article 97.

3. Reduce stormwater runoff discharging to the river via overland flows and outfalls, including the 13 outfalls along Soldiers Field Road in the Throat Area. Both MassDOT and DCR have regulatory obligations to comply with phosphorus limits established in the state’s Lower Charles River Basin Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (2007).

4. Provide flood resilience, control and storage capacity for precipitation-based inland flooding within the context of current and expected climate change impacts.

5. Develop landscape strategies and designs that provide Section 4(f) mitigation. Removing invasive species, dead trees and replanting with native vegetation, in addition to incorporating green infrastructure, should be integral to the study.

6. Plan for the riverfront parkland, which is a water-dependent use under Chapter 91.

7. Meet historic requirements for the Charles River Reservation in the Charles River Basin Historic District included in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Massachusetts Historical Commission review.

8. Comply with the Article 97 no net loss policy that requires replacement of parkland that is to be taken by the Project.

One example of how an alternatives analysis could address these issues is the environmental assessment and recommendations prepared for the North Shore Riverfront Ecosystem Restoration Project in Pittsburgh, PA. It provides extensive river edge improvements, including a natural bank, new pathways, landscaped parklands, connected floodplain, and wetlands. It was developed jointly by local environmental organizations and local, state and federal agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers. (https://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/Portals/72/docs/ProjectReviewPlans/N%20Shore%20Riverfront%20DP R%20MSC%20Approved%20for%20Release.pdf?ver=20160524161651743)

We are committed to working cooperatively with you in this process in order to evaluate the options and to achieve results in an expedited and cost-effective manner to restore and enhance this area of the Charles River and the Basin parklands.

We look forward to your response.

Wendy Landman, Executive Director, WalkBoston
Laura Jasinski, Executive Director, Charles River Conservancy
Margaret VanDusen, Deputy Director and General Counsel, Charles River Watershed Association

Please join WalkBoston, the Charles River Conservancy and the Charles River Watershed Association at a “Throat” Walk, September 12, 5:30 PM. We will meet at “BU Beach” behind the Marsh Chapel.

Images from Environmental Assessment of North Shore Riverfront, Pittsburgh