Tag: MEPA

Comments on the Single Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver Line Gateway Proposal – MEPA# 15124

Comments on the Single Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver Line Gateway Proposal – MEPA# 15124

By |

May 9, 2014

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

RE: Comments on the Single Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver Line Gateway Proposal – MEPA# 15124

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Single Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver Line Gateway Bus Rapid Transit proposal. The new MBTA service, which will run on a separate right-of-way between Everett Avenue and Eastern Avenue with connections through East Boston, will provide access between Chelsea and South Station and the Seaport District of Boston.

The proposal includes very positive improvements for the City of Chelsea, with significantly improved transit connections to downtown and the airport. Stations are pleasantly and attractively designed, with raised platform floors that align with the floors of the Silver Line Gateway buses, thus providing easily accessible service. Landscaping is to be added along the shared use path and the BRT where feasible, improving the route as a pleasant walking facility. The MBTA has planned for off-bus fare collection to speed the boarding of buses and reduce fare collection procedures on-board each bus.

Overall, the proposal is a very positive addition to the MBTA network of high-capacity services. However, some questions need to be addressed based on our review of the current plan:

1. The discontinuity of the shared use path may affect good pedestrian access to each of the stations. The proposed shared use path parallels the route of the BRT buses between Eastern Avenue up to Broadway. West of Broadway, there are some parallel sidewalks, but the path itself is not continuous. It would be useful for the MBTA and the City to consider longer-range goals for the planned walkway and not preclude future extensions to the walking route. For instance, the walkway might be extended from Arlington Street to Everett Avenue. Such a continuation of the path would provide direct access by foot to the commuter rail station at Everett Avenue. A continuation of the path would also afford some recreational uses of the path by both pedestrians and bicyclists.

2. At the Everett Avenue terminus of the BRT, pedestrian connections are provided to both the BRT terminal station and the new commuter rail station. However, there are presently no nearby crosswalks to help pedestrians cross Everett Avenue near the turnaround loop of the BRT. The proposed narrowing of Everett Avenue at this location would be a good location for a crosswalk. Otherwise, the nearest crosswalks appear at Spruce Street – 400 feet to the south, and Carter Street – 400 feet to the north. These distances are excessive for most pedestrians. An Everett Avenue crosswalk at the entrance to the BRT and commuter rail stations would be appropriate and useful, and should include a pedestrian phase of the proposed traffic signal at this location.

3. A similar crosswalk protected by a proposed signal would be appropriate at the crossing of the rail line and the BRT on Spruce Street. A pedestrian phase should be added to this signal.

4. At the Arlington/6th Street crossing, which is called the Downtown Chelsea station, the proposal calls for narrowing streets and instituting a one-way pattern on two of those streets going away from the rail tracks and the BRT route. The narrower streets will make pedestrian crossings safer. The proposed traffic signal should include a pedestrian phase to assure safe crossings to get to the station.

5. Figure 2.2-13, which details the Arlington/6th Street crossing, shows a concrete sidewalk on the south side of the BRT station platform. Figure 2.2-14 indicates that the sidewalk reaches the Washington Street Station, which is about 150 feet away. Completing this connection would be useful for full pedestrian access through the corridor, and should include wayfinding signs to help pedestrians reach the station.

6. Lighting the way for pedestrians is important. Many riders will be using the BRT service after dark, particularly in the winter. If the walking route is not well lit riders may be discouraged from using the stations because of safety concerns, especially for people traveling alone during the times of day when there may be few other people nearby.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please feel free to contact us with questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

——————————————————————————————————————-
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 Landmark Center Expanded Environmental Notification Form – MEPA #15183

Comments on Landmark Center Expanded Environmental Notification Form – MEPA #15183

By |

May 9, 2014

Secretary Richard Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Deidre Buckley, Director, MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

Re: Landmark Center, Boston MA
Expanded Environmental Notification Form – MEPA 15183

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

The Landmark Center, formerly the Sears Warehouse and Distribution Center, occupies an 8.8 acre site in the Fenway. It is a major city landmark and retail center that is at the heart of a burgeoning residential district. This proposed development will intensify the use of the site, making it more of a transit-oriented development, and includes 600 housing units, additional retail and new office spaces. The residential units will be housed in a high-rise building of some 12-13 stories immediately adjacent to the Fenway MBTA station. There will be 110,000 sf of new retail space, including a new Wegman’s Supermarket. Office space, already the single largest use in the building, at 635,000 SF, will be only slightly increased.

Many of the design features of this proposal will benefit pedestrians. Surface parking is replaced by about 1.3 acres of open space, setting off the historic Sears Building and including generous pedestrian walking and sitting accommodations. A new public green at the corner of Park Drive and Brookline Avenue is located where the heaviest pedestrian traffic crosses the street. The existing surface parking and the existing parking garage will be removed. A new underground garage will replace the existing 1500 parking spaces.

The proposed design is organized around pedestrian access. The existing internal circulation in the old Sears Building will be augmented by new pedestrian facilities connecting the Wegman’s market facing Fullerton Street on the east side of the property with retail facilities that face Park Drive on the west. A new pedestrian connection will be made via a walking route that passes through the building connecting the MBTA station on the north side of the site and Brookline Avenue on the south.

To build on these excellent elements of the proposal, we suggest that the proponent also consider the following possibilities:

1. Rationalize the odd combination of parallel streets on the east side of the site. 

Both Fullerton and Minor Streets, directly parallel and adjacent to each other, abut the site on the east side. At present, pedestrians may be only slightly affected by this oddity, largely because both streets are narrow and carry little traffic. However, under the proposed design Fullerton Street is being laid out as the major access route for all trucks and service vehicles and a major entrance into the underground parking garage. Fullerton Street is also called out as a pedestrian connection to the Fenway Multi-Use Path on the north side of the site, and carries large volumes of pedestrians before and after Red Sox games when the garage is in heavy use. Pedestrian safety on Fullerton Street may become an issue, depending on traffic volumes using the street for site access.

2. More clearly define and design the proposed use of the pedestrian areas.
The spacious new open space on the Park Drive side of the site is only vaguely outlined in the EENF. It replaces a large parking area, and will provide a substantial improvement in safety and amenity for pedestrians walking between the MBTA station and both the project and Brookline Avenue. To make this a successful outdoor space that functions as more than a passage around the buildings consideration should be given to sitting, eating, strolling and potential assembly areas. Design of each of the spaces might take into account the need for some protection from the elements (sunlight included). Major features of interest such as a fountain, a sidewalk café, or a sculpture or other visual displays might be added.

3. Work with the City to complete the portion of the Fenway Multi-Use Path that is adjacent to the property
This project and the air rights project (Parcel 7) at Kenmore both include segments of the proposed path that connects the Riverway and Kenmore Square. The proponent has made construction of the path contingent on the City obtaining necessary approvals, and we urge
the proponent to work closely with the City to accomplish that goal, and to work with the City to clarify a list of needed approvals and explain how they will obtained. We also suggest that the proponent explore the possible use of the space for Red Sox related displays, photos, sculptures, artifacts since it is a potentially essential walking route for fans moving between the Fenway MBTA station and Fenway Park. The proponent should also work with the City to provide wayfinding signs along the path.

4. Clarify responsibility for building the Fenway Multi-Use Path connection to the Emerald Necklace.
In addition to the portion of the path that is adjacent to the property (described above), there is an additional relatively short section of the Path between the Riverway and the project site that is extremely important. Under existing conditions, some Fenway Station patrons must cross Park Drive at grade, in a location directly above the station that does not even have a crosswalk. Driver’s sight lines of pedestrians are compromised due to the ‘hump’ of the bridge as it crosses over the Green Line. The completion of the Fenway Multi-Use Path under the Park Drive viaduct, directly adjacent to the Green Line tracks, would allow station patrons and other pedestrians to make this connection more safely and conveniently. This connection is important to the success of the site as a transit oriented development and the proponent should take a positive and active role in its construction. We urge the proponent to work with the MBTA and commit to constructing this important pedestrian facility. It would also be helpful if the pedestrian access that will be adjacent to the station could provide access to St. Mary’s Street to improve safety for riders coming to the station from northwest of the point where Park Drive crosses Fenway Station.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this significant project.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

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 

Government Center Garage Redevelopment Environmental Notification Form EOEA #15134

Government Center Garage Redevelopment Environmental Notification Form EOEA #15134

By |

February 7, 2014

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

RE: Comments on the Government Center Garage Redevelopment Environmental Notification Form (ENF)

EOEA #15134

Dear Secretary Sullivan,

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the Government Center Garage Redevelopment.

The proposal calls for partial demolition of the underutilized Government Center Garage as an early action, with subsequent demolition and redevelopment to take place over a number of years. Initial demolition will result in opening Congress Street to daylight and allowing redevelopment of the East Parcel, including a new public plaza and pedestrian connection between the Bullfinch Triangle and Greenway. The east parcel is a critical pedestrian link between Downtown Boston and North Station/Bulfinch Triangle, as well as a link to the Rose Kennedy Greenway. The total development will include 812 new housing units, 196 new hotel rooms, over one million gross square feet of office, and 82,500 gross square feet of retail. The garage will continue to provide sufficient parking for the new onsite uses, commercial parking for transient users as well as overnight resident parking.

We offer the following comments:

1. We believe the proposed development will improve the area for pedestrians compared to existing conditions. The existing garage is a large, foreboding structure from the pedestrian viewpoint. While the potential removal of the garage and the reopening of Congress Street to the sky is appealing in its own right, the proposed development offers additional benefits. As the project is refined during subsequent reviews, MEPA and the BRA must ensure that these benefits are not lost during revisions or project changes. We trust that any project approval will condition the following proposed improvements to ensure they are included in the final design:

  • The removal of overhead parking decks and associated office space, returning sunlight to Congress Street.
  • The proposed pedestrian-only extension of Canal Street through the newly-configured east parcel that greatly benefits heavy rush-hour foot traffic to/ from North Station.
  • The narrowing and redesign of Sudbury Street, including elimination and replacement of angled Police Department parking from the right-of-way.
  • The extension of Bowker Street to make it a through street, eliminating the stairs between Sudbury Street and the existing dead end of Bowker Street.
  • The project could potentially provide very substantial benefits that would have a lasting effect on the built environment of the immediate neighborhood and the entire downtown core of Boston. Careful attention must be paid to the pedestrian experience in and around the site to take advantage of its tremendous pedestrian and transit access. The project is positioned to capitalize on these features and it is incumbent upon MEPA, the BRA and the City of Boston to ensure that the final design fully accounts for these opportunities.

2. Curb cuts for the garage – All curb cuts provided for the new garage should be kept to a minimum width, should enter the street at a right angle, and should be at sidewalk grade (no curb cut for pedestrians). Appropriate vehicle exiting warning signs must be provided for pedestrian safety. The existing garage access drives are too wide and pedestrians on the sidewalk are often threatened by automobiles traveling at high speeds into and out of the garage’s overly wide parking access ramps.

3. MBTA on-site improvements – The project should not interfere with normal MBTA bus operations, and allowance must be made for continued bus and subway service connections on-site. The proponent and the MBTA should commit to additional design work to improve the walking environment in this area to accommodate the large number of pedestrians using transit, along with the additional pedestrian volumes that will be generated by this very large project.

4. Hawkins and Bowker Streets – Bowker Street should become a through street with a changed gradient that allows an ADA compliant sidewalk. If Hawkins Street cannot also be made a through street, the stairs that connect its dead-end at Sudbury Street should be re-graded into an ADA compliant sidewalk.

5. North End Access – While the project claims to reconnect long divided Boston neighborhoods, it fails to offer the North End the same pedestrian benefits it does for the West End, Government Center and Bullfinch Triangle. In fact the project design seems to turn its back on the North End. A North End pedestrian connection should be explored in greater detail. The connection should work to interconnect the north-south walkway through the east parcel, North End residents, the two Green and Orange Line MBTA subway stations, and the Greenway.

6. Walk Signals – The existing pedestrian walk signals at the intersection of New Chardon Street and Canal Street will need to be adjusted. The pedestrian service from Canal Street through the newly configured east parcel will siphon existing North Station foot traffic away from adjacent streets. As a result, this pedestrian walk signal and the narrow mid-crossing island may be overwhelmed by the additional foot traffic on Canal Street. All walk signals on New Chardon, Friend, Sudbury and Merrimac Streets should be adjusted to handle the additional pedestrian traffic that the project will create.

7. Narrowing Sudbury and New Chardon Streets – A detailed study of the potential for narrowing both Sudbury and New Chardon Streets is essential. Such a study should include provisions for wider sidewalks, coordinate with improvements being planned for neighboring streets as part of the Crossroads Initiative and potential bike lanes. Further pedestrian crossing improvements should be explored including the elimination (or infill) of the truck turning lanes at the corner of Merrimac Street and New Chardon Street, and at the corner of New Chardon Street and Congress Street.

8. Other pedestrian ways – The document does not address whether the proponent will maintain or improve pedestrian connections that skirt the northwestern edge of the site, from New Chardon Street, up the Brattle Way pedestrian mall and ultimately out towards Cambridge Street. This pedestrian mall/walkway and associated small park area is well used during the day and it should be considered with the project’s design. The short length of Brattle Way could be an excellent candidate for expanded pedestrian use.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ENF for the Government Center Garage Redevelopment. We believe this site provides an opportunity to develop a transit-oriented, mixed-use project that could showcase pedestrian friendly sidewalks and streets. We hope our comments on the ENF/PNF are incorporated into your requirements for the next phase of design and permitting documents.

Please contact us for any clarification or additional comments that would be useful.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman                                    Robert Sloane
Executive Director                                  Senior Planner