multi-use path Archives - WalkMassachusetts

Comment Letter Re: Worcester Kelley Square Improvement Project

By WalkMassachusetts | April 13, 2019

April 13, 2019

To: MassDOT Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Suite 6340
Boston, MA 02116 kelleysqproj.worcester@dot.state.ma.us

Re: Worcester Kelley Square Improvement Project

To the Project Team,

On behalf of the LivableStreets Alliance Advocacy Committee and WalkBoston, we would like to provide you with some feedback regarding the Worcester Kelley Square Improvement Project, particularly in response to the design presented at the February 27, 2019 Public Meeting.

Overall, we think the project is moving in a very positive direction. In particular, we are very supportive of the hybrid roundabout, which uses less pavement than traditional signalized intersections and also creates a calmer, safer environment for all roadway users. We are also pleased about the attention that is being paid to placemaking and transforming Kelley Square into a place for people rather than just a place mainly for cars. However, we have some significant concerns about pedestrian safety and bicycle facilities in key portions of the project.

Please consider the following suggestions:

1. The roundabout and Madison St should be one lane in each direction rather than two.

We recognize that for traffic capacity reasons and to better accommodate large trucks, MassDOT has chosen to make the roundabout and Madison St two lanes in each direction. However, this has significant downsides:

Pedestrians face a double threat risk at every unsignalized crossing of more than one lane. While we agree that signals are not desirable at these locations, the double threat of a vehicle in one lane yielding to a pedestrian who is crossing while a vehicle in the second lane fails to yield is very real. In Boston, there have been multiple pedestrian fatalities on roads with this type of design in recent years. As such, the Boston Transportation Department is working to redesign these roadways with a single lane in each direction instead. It would be negligent for MassDOT to build more of these types of roads given the threat they pose to pedestrians.

A two-lane roundabout design is confusing for drivers, and will draw their attention away from pedestrians who may be crossing. With the current design, drivers must choose the correct lane prior to entering the roundabout. Given the multiple exits from the roundabout, it would not be surprising to see drivers choosing incorrectly, especially for those who are unfamiliar with the area. These drivers may then illegally change lanes within the roundabout. Furthermore, drivers who are entering the roundabout from either Harding St entrance or from Green St who wish to travel further around it will need to cross one or more lanes of roundabout traffic in order to do so. This is a very challenging maneuver to make, especially when traffic is heavy. All of these complex movements that a two-lane roundabout requires will draw drivers attention away from pedestrians (or bicyclists) who are crossing at various locations around the roundabout.

Providing two lanes in each direction on Madison St means that there is not room for appropriate bicycle facilities there. The proposed shared use paths along either side are an inappropriate facility for an urban street like Madison St, and room is needed to provide bicycle facilities that are separate from the sidewalk. (We will discuss this further below.)

Therefore, we would strongly urge MassDOT to consider a single lane roundabout and a single through lane in each direction on Madison St. This may have some negative impact on traffic capacity during peak times, however we think the safety benefits are well worth that tradeoff. Furthermore, we are confident that large trucks can be accommodated with a single lane roundabout by using mountable truck aprons in the center of the roundabout and at intersection corners, as well as recessed stop lines where needed. Both of these elements are recommended by the MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide.

2. Physically separated bike lanes should be provided around the roundabout, on Madison St, and on Vernon St

Around the roundabout, the current design proposes shared use paths. While shared use paths may be appropriate in some contexts, we feel strongly that this is not one of them. We recognize that it is often recommended practice to design for shared use around a roundabout, however, this may not work as well in urban areas with high pedestrian activity. We therefore ask that you provide physically separated bike lanes around the roundabout. This type of design was considered for Inman Square in Cambridge.

Here is an illustration of the Inman Square, Cambridge proposal. Note the mountable truck aprons in the center of the roundabout:

On Madison St, the current design proposes shared use paths in place of traditional sidewalks. As with the roundabout, we feel very strongly that this is not an appropriate context for shared use paths. Madison St is an urban street with buildings at the street edge, and especially once the nearby ballpark opens, will have significant pedestrian activity. Having pedestrians and bicycles share the same space in this type of environment is not desirable and will result in much conflict. We therefore recommend that protected bike lanes that are separate from the sidewalk be provided along Madison St. (A design similar to the contraflow protected bike lane on Harding St may be appropriate. Please refer to the MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide for best practices.)

Lastly, the lack of any kind of bicycle facility on Vernon St is a big problem, in our opinion. The current proposal contains a single through lane in each direction that is to be shared by bicycles and motor vehicles. This is not an acceptable design. There are a limited number of streets for which people bicycling can cross I-290, and it is essential that they all be safe and inviting for them to do so. Rather than providing a 4 lane cross section, we recommend a 3 lane cross section along with separated bike lanes.

Therefore, around the roundabout, and on Madison St and Vernon St, we urge MassDOT to use physically separated bike lanes for bicycle accommodation. The separated bike lanes should be designed with proper intersection treatments to keep bicycles, pedestrians, and motor vehicles separate. (Again, please refer to the MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Guide.) This is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate the excellent guidance that MassDOT has created for physically separated bike lanes, and for the City of Worcester to be at the cutting edge of safe and accessible streets for people of all ages and abilities.

Some examples from the guide:
Roundabout with separated bike lanes and mountable truck apron

Protected intersection of two major streets with mountable truck apron and recessed stop line

Protected intersection with side street and raised crossing

3. Use small curb radii and provide two curb ramps at all corners rather than a single apex ramp

There are some intersections that are part of this project that have large curb radii or where there only a single apex ramp is provided on certain corners (for example two of the corners at Millbury St and Endicott St.) This is not good for people in wheelchairs, as it points them into the street an an angle rather than in the desired direction of travel. We ask that you adjust the curbs at these corners to provide two ramps, one for each crossing.

Thank you for considering our comments as this project moves forward. Please feel free to contact me at any time if you have further questions or comments on our ideas.

Sincerely,

Charlie Denison
Board Member, LivableStreets Alliance

Wendy Landman
Executive Director, WalkBoston

Comment Letter on Paul Dudley White Construction Period Maintenance (02/7/19)

By WalkMassachusetts | February 7, 2019

February 7, 2019

Stephanie Pollack                                             Leo Roy
Secretary of Transportation Commissioner
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Conservation & Recreation
Transportation Building                                   251 Causeway Street
10 Park Plaza 9^th Floor
Boston, MA 02116                                            Boston, MA 02114

Dear Secretary Pollack and Commissioner Roy:

We, the undersigned organizations, applaud MassDOT’s decision to rebuild the interchange of I-90 in Allston by reconstructing the Turnpike in a way that will result in wider riverside parkland and, we anticipate, restored riverbank. In addition to its environmental benefits, this will enhance facilities for the walkers, cyclists, and runners who flock to the area for recreation and commuting. We write to respond to the announcement that construction of the I-90 Intermodal Project will require an extended closure of the Paul Dudley White (PDW) path.

We urge you to develop a plan to retain the path during the construction period. We acknowledge that the project design next steps involve extensive mitigation, that stakeholders will continue to actively participate in stakeholder discussions, and that there is an immediate need to flag concerns regarding the PDW path.

The construction of the I-90 Project cannot and should not require closure of the Paul Dudley White (PDW) path for 8-10 years. The number of people who use the path and rely upon it as a commuter route is simply too large (and growing) to result in PDW users’ diversion to Cambridge. The proposed detour routes through Cambridge are difficult to maneuver and involve unsafe situations where path users will be forced to cross dangerous intersections and cyclists will be directed toward narrow sidewalks causing hazardous conditions for pedestrians sharing the walkway.

Our understanding is that closure of the PDW is an anticipated result of construction in the Throat area. We also understand that other parts of the project site, which are not as confined, offer places where the PDW path can be integrated safely with the highway construction. The law requires that MassDOT implement “all possible planning to minimize harm to the . . . recreation area” during and after construction. To comply, MassDOT and DCR must mitigate construction impacts in the Throat area allowing the PDW path to remain open for as much of the construction period as practicable, preferably on land or, if there is no other option, on a temporary structure in the Charles River.

In the past short temporary boardwalks have been built in the Charles River — for example, to bypass the Bowker interchange reconstruction. Temporary boardwalks have been used safely and effectively in the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore park in Indiana, Jones Beach State Park in Wantagh, New York, and at beaches in the Cape Cod National Seashore and in Duxbury and Sandwich, Massachusetts.

We urge you to incorporate plans to ensure access to the PDW path on the Boston side of the Charles River as you proceed with the difficult design work in the I-90 Throat area. The provision of atemporary Boston-side walking and biking path during construction is a necessary and legally required project element to mitigate any interruption in access to the permanent PDW path and prevent the safety problems that a Cambridge detour would bring to pedestrians and cyclists. Given the potentially lengthy roadway disruptions, alternative modes of transportation on the PDW will be critical to the Project’s success. We further request that the PDW path construction phase plans be added to the agenda for an upcoming Allston Multimodal Project Task Force meeting.

Thank you very much for your consideration and we look forward to your response.

Wendy Landman, Bob Sloane, WalkBoston
Margaret Van Deusen, Pallavi Mande, Charles River Watershed Association
Laura Jasinski, Harry Mattison, Charles River Conservancy
Staci Rubin, Conservation Law Foundation
Michael Nichols, The Esplanade Association
Galen Mook, Executive Director, MassBike
Becca Wolfson, Boston Cyclists Union
Stacy Thompson, Livable Streets

CC:
City of Boston, Mayor Marty Walsh, Chief of Streets Chris Osgood
City of Cambridge, Mayor Marc McGovern, Transportation Program Manager Bill Deignan
Town of Brookline, Transportation Board Chair Chris Dempsey
FHWA, Division Administrator Jeff McEwen, Assistant Division Administrator Ken Miller
Senator Joseph Boncore
Senator William Brownsberger
Senator Sal DiDomenico
Representative Michael Moran
Representative Kevin Honan
Representative Jay Livingstone
Representative Tommy Vitolo

Comments on ENF for Caesars Resort at Suffolk Downs

By WalkMassachusetts | March 23, 2013

March 26, 2013

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

RE: Comments on ENF for Caesars Resort at Suffolk Downs – EEA #15006

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the ENF for Caesars Resort at Suffolk Downs. We find agreement with the general design, as it seems directed toward providing safe facilities for pedestrians. A number of design details should be more closely investigated as part of the DEIR. Our comments about those details follow.

Underlying Assumptions
Many of the patrons and staff of the casino complex and racetrack will arrive on foot from transit stations or parking lots. Thus walking should be a significant element of the project design, coordinated with vehicular routes to minimize potential conflicts. Walking, transit and bike use should be maximize d in keeping with the Commonwealth’s goal of tripling the share of walking, biking and transit use. Access to and from the two MBTA stations and the Route 1A bus lines, and access between distant parking locations and the casinos and the racetrack are the primary routes to be addressed. Walking access between the site and adjacent residential areas should also be addressed.

Good information about the projected volumes of pedestrians (and bicycles) should inform the design and size of facilities.
For example, the ENF states that most employees will come to the site via public transportation. While not explicitly stated, we would anticipate that nearly all would walk from the MBTA stations into the site (unless shuttle service is provided). Because the Suffolk Downs Station is considerably closer to the proposed buildings than Beachmont Station, it will likely attract more users. The walkway from the station into the site should be designed to accommodate the anticipated volume of walkers (and bicyclists if they will use the same route) and the projected volumes should be included in the DEIR.

Overall Design Issues to be addressed
• The design of walkways and walk routes should be attractive, include high quality landscaping, and feel inviting both day and night, winter and summer. Designs should include:
– A network of short distance walkways to encourage people to walk on site.
– Lighting for safety, using designs that do not spill into residential areas or obscure the night sky
– Safety and security especially given late night operations for employees and patrons, where there are fairly long walks such as the one to the Suffolk Downs MBTA station
– Benches
– Smooth surfaces on all walkways
– Year round maintenance including snow shoveling
– Shade while walking to the casinos and hotels
– In New England, inclement weather is inevitable, suggesting the possibility of providing shelters or coverings along walkways, or alternative means of reaching destinations, such as a shuttle bus service
– Wayfinding for pedestrians – Signage should be employed as fully as possible to help pedestrians find their routes within this very large site. Signs would also encourage the use of MBTA bus routes and subway facilities, and should be used to designate access points in the event an on-site bus shuttle service is provided. Other off-site locations of interest should be included, such as the Belle Isle Marsh Reservation, Revere Beach and potentially the Target/Super Stop and Shop complex , the racetrack’s horse barns and other sites that might improve the experience of nearby residents as well as patrons of the casinos, the racetrack, and the hotels.
– Parking lots should be designed attractively, with trees and with defined walking paths that are separated from moving vehicle areas within the lots

• Multi-use path design.
The paths on the site that are walking/biking multi-use paths should provide appropriate widths to allow for safe shared use. MassDOT standards (Mass Highway Department Project Development and Design Guide, 2006), call for multi-use paths to be 10—14 feet wide to accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles, and for wider facilities if substantial volumes of foot and bike traffic are anticipated.

Tomasello Way/Rte 1A intersection and Tomasello Way Design
• Bus service
Bus service along Rte 1A is already substantial. Routes along the roadway connect Salem Center, Marblehead and Peabody Square to Haymarket and Downtown Crossing – 6 bus routes in total. Well-designed and highly-visible bus stops, along with weather-protecting shelters, should be included in the revamping of the intersection of the Tomasello Way/Rte 1A intersection.
• Signals and crosswalks
In keeping with the intersection’s importance as the front door of the proposed development, the intersection will need to be fully signalized for safety for all users, including pedestrians who will be crossing Rte 1A to and from the new bus stops and shelters. In the re-signalization of the intersection, pedestrian count-down signals should be employed.
• Access between the intersection and the on-site facilities
The proposal includes a major pedestrian way leading from the intersection of Tomasello Way and Rte 1A into the main entrance to the casinos, the racetrack and the hotels. It appears to be useful and attractive, but it must be made safe for walkers and is worthy of significant improvements to make it safe. According to the preliminary drawings, the walkway will be located in the median strip of the rebuilt south portion of Tomasello Way. This is a formal design that could be handsome, but it results in a strip of walkway in the median that could be difficult for walkers to access, because it requires them to cross roadways on both ends of the walkway – near Rte 1A and at the casino/racetrack entrances, as well as at intermediate locations in between – five crosswalks in all. A better solution might be to have the pedestrian way located on the south side of Tomasello Way, with more direct access across the street at a point where the walkway is closest to the casino. This would reduce potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts along the full length of this stretch of Tomasello Way.
• Amenities along Tomasello Way
Pedestrians walking via Tomasello Way have a relatively long walk between Rte 1A and the site (roughly equivalent to 3-4 city blocks). The preliminary drawings show lines of trees that will be very appropriate to make a pleasant walk. Seating along the way would also make the route more attractive and allow people to rest as they make their way to the casinos or the racetrack.
• A sidewalk connecting Tomasello Way and Waldemar Avenue in Orient Heights
A wholly new but short on-site sidewalk connecting Tomasello Way and Waldemar Avenue would allow Orients Heights residents to reach the bus stops at the intersection of Rte 1A and Tomasello Way, and to be able to walk to the casinos or the racetrack.
• A roadway connecting Tomasello Way to Waldemar Avenue in Orient Heights
Consideration of a sidewalk connecting Tomasello Way and Waldemar Avenue should include examination of a future road connection as well. A new, relatively short street to link Tomasello Way to Waldemar Avenue could reduce problems at the intersection of Waldemar Avenue and Route 1A near the Tomasello Way entrance to the site because it would allow Orient Heights access to be diverted to the Tomasello Way entrance to the site. The connection could include options for improving the safety of nearby residents:
– Waldemar Avenue could become a dead-end street before reaching Rte 1A; or
– It could be made one-way inbound toward the residences; or
– It might be connected to Vallar Road if gradients are favorable.

The continuation of Tomasello Way to the Suffolk Downs MBTA station
A driveway currently exists along the proponent’s property line between the Rte 1A entrance to the site and the small turnaround space in front of Suffolk Downs T station. The west half of this route has been covered above. However, the future of the east half of the driveway is unclear, even though it could be used for vehicular and pedestrian traffic as part of the larger plan. An explanation should be provided as to:
– Whether this driveway will become an access roadway providing service both to the south entrance to the casino, and to the Suffolk Downs MBTA Station.
– Whether this driveway will be extended to connect into the local roadways of Orient Heights, such as Waldemar Avenue, Walley Street and Bonito Square. This connection could relatively easily reach Bennington Street as well, and could become a major route for vehicles entering or leaving the site.
– Whether an improvement is planned for the pedestrian component of the service plaza at the MBTA Station.
– What the pedestrian connections along this roadway will become, as it provides a major walkway between the MBTA station and the casinos and hotels. This connection might also be used to enhance direct access from neighborhood walkways into the station.

Pedestrian access from off-site locations
• Pedestrian access between Orient Heights and a potential Route 1A bus stop at Boardman Avenue.
A partial interchange is proposed for the intersection of Boardman Avenue (Route 145) and Route 1A. The proposal calls for a northbound overpass above Rte 1A to pass over the turning between Rte 1A and Boardman Avenue. The overpass design and focus of turning traffic at the intersection suggests some difficult crossings for pedestrians from Orient Heights. Bus stop access for pedestrians should be explored as part of the proposed partial interchange. It may be possible to link Boardman Street access to the bus stop at Tomasello Way.
• Pedestrian access between Orient Heights and the Target/Super Stop and Shop complex
The ENF notes that walkers from Orient Heights need to cross the Suffolk Downs site to get to the shopping complex located near the intersection of Tomasello Way and Furlong Drive, which are important businesses for Orient Heights residents to use. Data support-ing this suggestion would be useful. The multi-use path along Tomasello Way will improve this walk. From a pedestrian point-of-view, the suggested location of the walkway on the east side of Tomasello Way results in pedestrians from Orient Heights crossing at least 6 streets on route to the shopping complex, unless they follow the alternative walking route that hugs the buildings. The proponent should examine whether the walkway could be moved to the west side of Tomasello Way to reduce the number of crossings. Pedestrians walking along Tomasello Way should also be protected from walking through either of the two roundabouts at the approach to the hotels and casinos. Roundabouts are not very safe for pedestrian because of the potential conflicts with turning vehicles.
• Pedestrian access between Crescent Heights and the Target/Super Stop and Shop complex
Residents of the Crescent Heights neighborhood at the north edge of the site could also reach the shopping area via the Tomasello Way walkway.
• Racetrack walkway to the Target/Super Stop and Shop complex
The plan includes a walkway between the racetrack and the Target/Super Stop and Shop via the edge of the northern parking lots. The intersection of this walkway and Tomasello Way should be moved slightly to align with the front entrance to the shopping complex. The volume of foot traffic at this intersection may be low, but further exploration may suggest the need for a traffic signal with WALK signals.

Potential shuttle bus service
Shuttle buses should be considered to help people get around and to provide options during inclement weather. Options for shuttle bus stops include main entrances to the casino and race track, the Suffolk Downs and Beachmont MBTA stations, bus stops on Route 1A at Tomasello Way, the bus stop on Winthrop Avenue, and for access to the more remote parking areas. Facilities to support shuttle bus service may include the addition of a turnaround area in front of Suffolk Downs MBTA Station and a u-turn on Tomasello Way just short of Route 1A. Shuttles may also be useful to serve future night transit service on the Blue Line and elsewhere.

Local Community Benefits – pedestrian improvements at other locations
The ENF includes suggestions that certain improvements outlined by the Lower North Shore Traffic Study of 2000 could be included as part of the mitigation for the construction of this facility. Although no detail has been supplied on these locations, they appear to include intersections at Route 16 at Winthrop Avenue/Harris Street, the vicinity of the Beachmont MBTA Station in Revere, in the vicinity of Route 16/Route 1A/Bell Circle in Revere, and, in East Boston, at Bennington & Saratoga Streets at Orient Heights MBTA station and Boardman St. in East Boston. Many of these improvements have been requested by the affected communities and will need to be detailed in further submittals to show potential impacts on pedestrians.

We appreciate your consideration of our comments and your responses to them. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director