Tag: parking

Galvin Middle School Walkability Assessment

Galvin Middle School Walkability Assessment

By |

WalkBoston conducted a walkability assessment at Galvin Middle School and the southern end of the downtown business district in Wakefield, MA. After a brief discussion on pedestrian safety issues near the school and the walk assessment process, the group carried out an on-the-street audit of the pedestrian facilities in the area. The group focused on the routes students used to walk between the school grounds, downtown, and popular pick-up and drop-off locations.

Read the full report here:
WalkBoston-GalvinMiddleSchoolWalkabilityAssessment-Wakefield

Queset Commons Comment Letter

Queset Commons Comment Letter

By |

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the Queset Commons Chapter 40R Smart Growth Development in Easton, a proposed mixed-use retail, office and residential development within a Smart Growth Overlay District.

Our conviction is that developments of the size and character of Queset Commons should follow a number of general guidelines in building a mix and relationship of uses that will encourage residents and visitors to walk more and drive less.

Read the full letter here:
WalkBoston-CommentDEIR-QuesetCommons-Easton

The Commons at Prospect Hill FEIR Comment Letter

The Commons at Prospect Hill FEIR Comment Letter

By |

April 10, 2009

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

RE: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
The Commons at Prospect Hill
MEPA # 13952

Dear Secretary Bowles:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FEIR for The Commons at Prospect Hill in Waltham.

This plan is a roll-over from the SDEIR on which we commented in February, 2009. We note, since this is simply the roll-over of that document, changes have not been incorporated in the plan since that time. Thus, our comments on the SDEIR remain the same as when they were written.

We hope that the final design of the project will incorporate a greater measure of concern about the facilities that pedestrians need throughout the project, and that sufficient safety measures will be put into place to assure that pedestrians crossing streets or parking lots will be protected from the flood of autos that will be attracted by the project.

As you may know, we met with the proponent and had the opportunity of presenting our comments directly to the designers. It is entirely possible that we did not present our case understandably or make our suggestion sufficiently attractive to persuade the development team to place a greater emphasis on pedestrian activities throughout the site. However, we would also point out that 21st century standards of development are rapidly evolving toward greater emphasis on pedestrian-friendly and transit-accessible designs in all parts of the country. We find it disappointing that that is not the case with this project.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Please let us know if you would like further clarification of our comments.

Sincerely,
Wendy Landman                                   Robert Sloane
Executive Director                                 Senior Planner

The Commons at Prospect Hill SDEIR Comment Letter

The Commons at Prospect Hill SDEIR Comment Letter

By |

February 18, 2009

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

RE: Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR)
The Commons at Prospect Hill
MEPA # 13952

Dear Secretary Bowles:

Thank you much for the opportunity to comment on the evolving plan represented in the SDEIR for The Commons at Prospect Hill in Waltham.

We are commenting this time to underscore our feeling that opportunities are being lost to create a development that could be a model for the 21st c. We are certain that proponents for The Commons at Prospect Hill could go further toward ensuring that walking (and bicycling and transit use) can be supported by the new development.

Summary of Comments
We note that the SDEIR has incorporated few, if any, adjustments to the proponent’s DEIR plan that reflect the comments raised by WalkBoston about that plan’s pedestrian circulation and safety needs and possible modifications to the physical layout of the project to encourage walking.

The following comments relate to pedestrian safety and circulation throughout the site. We have added suggestions that we think should be considered to make the development more attractive to pedestrians.

1. Pedestrian safety along the rail trail

  •  Access to adjacent buildings. We continue to be concerned that there do not seem to be any places where pedestrians can access new buildings from the trail without crossing driveways or parking lots. A more extensive effort should provide routes that are safe for pedestrians moving within parts of the project. For example, access to Buildings 10 and 11, immediately adjacent to the rail trail, could be included and made attractive.
  • Trail/site driveway crossings. Unprotected pedestrian crossings along the rail trail are not safe for walkers. The crossing of the rail trail at the East Driveway has the potential for being difficult to use and unsafe for each crossing. It seems insufficient to state that safety issues related to crossings will be dealt with at a later date. At the Central Driveway and at the Primary Driveway, crossings will be signalized, but extremely heavy site traffic is anticipated, and pedestrian phases must be built into the signalization of both intersections.

2. Pedestrians in the Main Street corridor

  • The relatively high density of development proposed for the entrance areas near Main Street would suggest that a pedestrian-friendly precinct is especially important in this part of the site. However, the sidewalk along Main Street remains cramped and narrow, with insufficient space to accommodate both walking and bicycling.
  • Snow storage in winter will further complicate pedestrian movement along this frontage. No provision is evident for snow storage along this perimeter.
  • Extending the sidewalk partially u n der Building No. 9 would make it more useful as the major entry to the site that also must accommodate MBTA transit access and the rail-trail as it crosses the site. As the front door of the site, it should be extremely welcoming to all who arrive on foot, by transit and bike.

3. Pedestrians in the Lifestyle Center
The layout of the Lifestyle Center, comprised of Buildings 5,6,7,8 and 9, is unchanged from the DEIR. It remains a problem area that is largely unsupportive of safe and attractive pedestrian activity. About 180 parking spaces are planned to be the focus of the pedestrian-oriented Lifestyle Center area, and they separate all the buildings with double rows of parking and a traffic circle. These concessions to cars are made despite the existence of a very large parking garage, which will abut the parking lots at the heart of the Lifestyle Center – the traffic circle – adjacent to Building 6. To cope with these liabilities, we suggest:

  •  Limiting parking on both sides of Lifestyle Center streets to parallel curb parking rather than diagonal parking, and narrowing the street in the regained space.
  • Reserving a portion of the wide sidewalks on the Lifestyle Center streets solely for pedestrians, with outdoor cafes and other attractions to make it lively.
  • Adding retail spaces on the ground level of the garage to enlarge the variety of business options in the Lifestyle Center and attract more pedestrian/customers.
  • Connecting Building 9 more directly with the Lifestyle Center by providing sidewalks on both sides of the building all the way to Main Street, and by including retail facilities on the ground floor to attract more pedestrians and to make the walk more interesting.
  • Connecting Building 3 more directly to the Lifestyle Center. Presently located immediately behind the parking garage, Building 3 is indirectly connected to the pedestrian network via walkways that wind between Building 6 and the parking garage. Whether Building 3 has retail, office or other occupants, it can be directly connected to the Lifestyle Center.
  • Connecting Building 4 more directly to the Lifestyle Center. It is not far from Building 6 in the present plan, but inexplicably unconnected to the Lifestyle Center.

4. Pedestrians in the big box areas
The scale of the remaining development remains sprawling, with large 1-2 story retail structures surrounded by parking. This layout is not conducive to encouraging pedestrian trips. If buildings are to be so widely separated by parking lots, the proponent should make additional efforts to assure that these very lengthy walkways are pedestrian-friendly. Buildings 1, 2 and 11 are so large and so distant from the Lifestyle Center pedestrian ways that they may never become pedestrian destinations.

  • Redesign sidewalks in the outlying areas to make them more direct. Navigating the sidewalks from the Lifestyle Center to Building 11, for example, requires following a formidable, very indirect route that few will follow.
  • Redesign sidewalks leading to outlying large retail buildings to make them landscaped, green corridors with shelters, lights and wayfinding signs added. • Incorporate green walking corridors alongside partially open, functional drainageways inside the parking lots (also useable for snow storage).

5. Walkways in and connecting to the adjacent parks
The abutting Prospect Hill Park and the 20-acre Berry Farm parcel offer opportunities for recreational walkways linked to the development on this site.

  • Connections between Prospect Hill Park, the Berry Farm and the Wayside Rail Trail should be added, perhaps at the east boundary of this site, where parking lots could be skirted.
  • Hillside Road, an existing roadway through land owned by the city in Prospect Hill Park, will be abandoned and truncated as a result of this project. Hillside Road might become the corridor for a walkway within the park along the east side of the site – readily useable by all site occupants. An extension of Hillside Road further north on the site could be located within the buried power line corridor and could eventually extend to Third Street north of the site.
  • Connecting a Hillside Road walkway with the rail trail would apparently involve using the sidewalk along the East Driveway. As an alternative, the City of Waltham might be interested in a Prospect Park corridor between Hillside Road and a yet-to-be planned trail system within the Berry Farm – ultimately connecting with the rail trail.

6. Intersections and the rail trail
The statewide rail trail through the site involves passage through very high density land uses and traffic. Because of this, considerable effort must be made to assure that children and others walking or riding along the rail trail are safe. Three difficult intersections on the site will be crossed by the trail at Primary Driveway, Central Driveway and East Driveway. Additional intersection crossings will be required within the new interchange to be constructed above Route 95/128. All intersections will be very heavily traveled. An extraordinary amount of effort will be required to assure that pedestrian safety at all of these intersections is made secure and convenient.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Please feel free to contact us for clarification or additional comments.

Sincerely,
Wendy Landman                                 Robert Sloane
Executive Director                               Senior Planner

Target Distribution Center Westfield Comment Letter

Target Distribution Center Westfield Comment Letter

By |

November 7, 2005

Secretary Steven Pritchard
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Target Distribution Center Westfield, MA Final Environmental Impact Report EOEA No. 13361

Dear Secretary Pritchard:

WalkBoston advocates for pedestrian safety, improved facilities, and programs to encourage walking throughout Greater Boston, and takes an active role in promoting pedestrian interests statewide. We offer our comments on the proposed Target Distribution Center in Westfield, MA that is projected to have approximately 860 employees and to generate 6,460 vehicle trips/day. The project site is located on Route 202 and just off Routes 10/202 approximately 4 miles from the city’s center.

Providing access for all modes is now a requirement in state law for new and reconstructed state roads and is being fully incorporated in the new MassHighway Design Manual to be published in January 2006. Access by foot and by bicycle is fundamental to the state’s smart growth policies and programs. We are also concerned Westfield may not address the needs of pedestrians, even when these needs could logically be part of the transportation mitigation of local commercial development.

In examining this FEIR, WalkBoston finds that pedestrian access and its relationship to transit and transportation demand management is given little consideration by the proponent, despite MEPA’s clear guidelines in the February 14, 2005 Certificate on the proponent’s DEIR. The Certificate reads as follows:

Transit: The FEIR should update its inventory of public transit bus services in the project area. The proponent should work with local officials to identify bus connections and potential shuttle bus services from activity nodes and residential areas to the project site.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: The DEIR described where sidewalks currently exist in the area. The FEIR should identify the proposed pedestrian (sidewalk) and bicycle facility improvements included with this project. Unless the proponent can obtain a letter from the City of Westfield or MHD stating that a sidewalk is unnecessary, I recommend a sidewalk along the site frontage on North Road (Route 202) and Falcon Drive. 2

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies: The FEIR should examine the full range of potential TDM strategies.

Comments offered by the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) also express the need to address bus service and pedestrian facilities:

EOT – The site design should include transit amenities including a bus turnout and bus shelters to further encourage transit usage. The site design should identify sidewalk and/or pedestrian access between the building and the PVTA drop-off area. Bicycle and pedestrian routes in the vicinity of the site should be identified as well. And bicycle lockers and shower facilities should be provided to encourage pedestrians and bicyclists.

PVPC – The DEIR acknowledges the potential for public transit service serving the proposed development using the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) Blue 23 bus route. While the proponent has committed to work with the PVTA to develop transit service for the site, no information was provided in the DEIR on how pedestrians would access the proposed new on site bus shelter. Consequently we’d urge that the FEIR provide additional information addressing the actual location of the proposed bus stop as well as depict and explain and show how pedestrian access will be provided from the Target development to this new bus stop.

The FEIR does not respond adequately to these requests. No details are provided on proposed pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements for the project, either in the plan or in the text. It says only: “The appropriate and safe pedestrian amenities on site, including necessary parking lot crosswalks, lighted pedestrian travel ways, and the like are being considered for the final design of the site.” (from Section 2.8.2, p. 2-48; repeated in Response EOT .08, Appendix B, p. 8-4 and Response PVPC.03, Appendix B, p. 8-9). This is not a sufficient commitment to pedestrian access.

WalkBoston believes that policy direction is needed to determine how pedestrian access should be addressed by this (and other) project(s). The absence of existing pedestrian facilities is not an indication that they are not needed. WalkBoston suggests clear and careful consideration to determine an appropriate approach. Among the possible choices are the following:

a. Over time, perhaps with state EOEA or MHD assistance, the city will provide sidewalks on at least one side of all major roads that provide access to employment.

b. Over time, working with local municipalities and EOEA, MHD will provide sidewalks on at least one side of major state highways near urban and suburban employers.

c. The city or MHD will request all major employers to construct sidewalks from their building’s employee entrances to the sidewalks that parallel major local roads or state highways. The city, MHD or the employer will then construct bus stops and sidewalks to connect to employer-constructed on-site sidewalks.

d. In the vicinity of new development, the city or MHD will require project proponents to construct sidewalks along roadways connecting to transit and schools.

e. The city or MHD will leave most, if not all, of the decisions regarding sidewalks along state highways or local roads near new development to project proponents.

WalkBoston believes that MHD and the City of Westfield should provide clear policy direction to the project proponent about their responsibilities for pedestrian access. At that point, a variety of options exist for pedestrian accommodation. EOEA, in its DEIR Certificate, has taken a position that sidewalks should be provided along North Road (Route 202) and Falcon Drive, unless the City or MHD waives the requirement. The certificate also calls for public transit bus services to the project site, and for the identification of nearby bus stop locations and their relationship to sidewalks providing access to the employee entrance to the site. Since many of the vehicular improvements to be provided as mitigation measures for the project are off-site, it is reasonable to also require off-site pedestrian mitigation measures. Among the options for pedestrian access are the following:

1. A sidewalk along North Road (Route 202) – From the FEIR, it appears that the proponent has designed an auto access road that parallels North Road (Route 202) through most of the site. A sidewalk could be constructed along this road. To avoid security problems, the sidewalk could be located outside the perimeter fencing and adjacent to North Road (Route 202). This sidewalk would provide the first step toward EOEA’s ultimate goal of providing a sidewalk along the full length of North Road (Route 202) in the city.

2. A sidewalk along Falcon Drive – From the FEIR, it appears that the proponent owns very little property along Falcon Drive. However, placing a sidewalk within its property could become part of EOEA’s long-range vision for sidewalks along the full length of Falcon Drive.

3. A sidewalk from the site to North Road (Route 202) – From the FEIR, a pedestrian sidewalk to North Road (Route 202) seems possible along the side of the building adjacent to employee parking, presumably connecting to the employee entrance to the distribution center building. Figure 1-3 FEIR Proposed Conditions Plan (p. 1-6) and Figure 1-5 FEIR Operations Plan (p. 1-10) show auto access directly from North Road (Route 202) This access gate is approximately 2000 feet from the intersection of North and Southampton Roads. It is labeled “emergency vehicle access and gate.” This access gate could also serve pedestrians.

4. A sidewalk from the site to a bus stop – Bus travel to the site should be encouraged through clear routes and signage and direct, well-marked paths for pedestrians between transit stops and the pedestrian entrance to the proponent’s building. The FEIR notes that the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority Blue 23 weekday and Saturday bus routes pass the site on North Road (Route 202) and also on Southampton Road (Routes 10 and 202). Yet the FEIR contains no indication that workers may arrive by transit or estimates of transit’s potential for serving employees coming to or leaving the site. Nor does the FEIR specify where transit stops and sidewalks might be best located to serve employees, or even from which direction or gate the riders would come.

The bus rider’s pedestrian access from Southampton Road is particularly daunting. If bus-riding employees must access the site from a bus stop on Southampton Road and walk via Southampton Road/Falcon Drive to the Target Warehouse employee entrance, they must walk over 4,000 feet. In addition, without sidewalks, walking along these routes is potentially dangerous. This would deter even the most dogged bus-rider/pedestrian.

By contrast, a bus stop near the North Road emergency access/gate that is connected via sidewalk to the employee entrance to the distribution center could be less than 400 away from the entrance. With this option, bus stops for riders coming from either direction could be established on the two sides of North Road, with a walkway from the bus stops through the North Road emergency vehicle access/gate and up to the employee entrance. For security purposes, access for people on foot through the North Road emergency vehicle access/gate could be provided by electronic gate control mechanisms. Analysis of this possibility has not been included in the FEIR and should be provided during the next steps of the environmental permitting process. In addition to a bus stop and appropriate sidewalks, a protected pedestrian crossing of North Road should be reviewed. Such review should include the examination of a pedestrian-activated signal.

5. Improvements along Southampton Road (Routes 10/202) – Local comments mentioned the need for sidewalks for school and day care students attending classes in three buildings located along Southampton Road. It seems appropriate to provide new sidewalks along those portions of Southampton Road that are to be improved as part of the project’s mitigation program.

In the long run, sidewalks will need to be constructed wherever there are students who could walk to their schools from homes or bus stops. Indeed, the state is now involved in an extensive Safe Routes to Schools program that will lead to a greater demand for new or improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities for children to use in going on foot or by bike to their school buildings. They should be included in this project.

Finally, WalkBoston suggests that draft commitments for the Section 61 findings (Section 7.0 of the FEIR) should contain pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FEIR for the Target Distribution Center in Westfield. We hope that our concerns about pedestrians can be addressed as you examine the proposal and as it moves toward implementation.

Sincerely,

Ann Hershfang                                                   Wendy Landman
Advocacy Committee Chair                             Executive Director

Cc Astrid Glynn, Office of Commonwealth Development Tom Cahir, Executive Office of Transportation Tim Brennan, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission