Tag: parkway

MassDCR Birmingham Parkway Comment Letter

MassDCR Birmingham Parkway Comment Letter

April 7, 2021

Jeff Parenti
Deputy Chief Engineer, Division of Planning and Engineering
Department of Conservation and Recreation

Re: DCR Birmingham Parkway

Dear Jeff:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments at this early stage of project development. We are very excited to see DCR’s approach that improves safety for people walking and biking, that repurposes significant areas of pavement into enlarged parklands, and that is designed to slow and tame traffic.

We have several overall observations about the designs, as well as more detailed comments organized into three areas as they were presented during the March 25th public meeting.

Overall comments

  • As we have commented during several DCR design processes, we believe that multilane, relatively high speed traffic roundabouts are less safe for people walking than signalized intersections. We are especially wary of multilane roundabouts where pedestrians can face a double threat when crossing the approaches and exits. People with low or no vision are particularly disadvantaged at these uncontrolled crossings. In this location, less than a mile from the Perkins School for the Blind, this is a specially cogent issue.  We urge DCR to refrain from considering multilane roundabouts.  Tight, traffic calming mini-roundabouts (see MassDOT Guidelines for the Planning and Design of Roundabouts page 11) on VERY low volume, low speed neighborhood streets where sharp turning angles are maintained (primary vehicle movement is not essentially a straight-through path) may be safe.
  • We urge DCR to provide separate walking and bicycling paths wherever there is the space to do so. The speeds of walkers and bicyclists are quite different, and as the number of cycling commuters increases, the conflicts between these two modes are becoming more and more pronounced. In particular, the Birmingham Parkway project area presents ample space for separate paths. This project area includes the Dr. Paul Dudley White Bike Path which is a heavily used bike commuter route so separation is even more important.

The “Eye”

Alternative 1A is our preferred approach in this area because it:

  • Simplifies, rationalizes and signalizes the intersections (and does not use a multilane roundabout).
  • Returns significant usable square footage to the parkland along the river.
  • If better access to the recreation area at the old pool site is deemed to be important for its future use, Alternative 1D could be a reasonable approach.

We suggest considering several design details as the project advances:

  • Add pedestrian safety refuge islands where the crossing distances are long.
  • Tighten up turning radii wherever possible, particularly on those approaches where trucks and buses are not permitted to travel.
  • Ensure that the signal timing is set to allow fully adequate crossings times for walkers of all ages.

Parkway

Alternative 2B is our preferred approach in this area because it:

  • Maximizes the amount of land returned to park and active transportation use.
  • Re-uses the existing pavement in an efficient manner.
  • Will help to calm traffic by having two-way traffic.

We suggest considering several design details as the project advances.

  • Reduce the pavement and lane width of the roadway to help calm traffic.
  • As noted above, provide separate walking and biking paths.

Secondary Intersections

The approach described at the meeting of calming traffic, providing signalized intersections that will provide WALK phases for pedestrians, and reducing the amount of paving all seem appropriate. We look forward to seeing the design concepts as they are developed later in the project.

We look forward to seeing the next iteration of the project concept.

Best regards,

Stacey Beuttell, Executive Director
Wendy Landman, Senior Policy Advisor

Comment Letter: Improving parkways in Emerald Necklace

Comment Letter: Improving parkways in Emerald Necklace

March 2, 2015

Department of Conservation and Recreation
Office of Public Outreach
251 Causeway Street, Suite 600
Boston, MA 02114

Re: Improving parkways in the Emerald Necklace

Dear Commissioner Murray:

WalkBoston thanks you for launching the public process to improve safety and connections for people walking, bicycling and driving the section of the Emerald Necklace parkways between Jamaica Pond and the future Casey Arborway (under construction). As well as creating new, separated paths for pedestrians and cyclists, proposed improvements include replacing Murray and Kelley Circles with new, safer “roundabouts.”

We understand that your office was initially responding to concerns of the bicycling community. However, your staff and consultants, Toole Design Group, quickly saw that the challenges facing cyclists and pedestrians in this area cannot be fixed without also solving the existing problems of confusing and dangerous vehicle circulation and chronic speeding. So, the scope and objectives were expanded to all users.

WalkBoston is happy to support this comprehensive package of improvements. The safety of people who are walking or bicycling is absolutely dependent on changing the traffic circles. We feel that the proposed plan would both provide good vehicle access and accomplish the following benefits for walkers:
Improve connections between Jamaica Pond and the Arnold Arboretum for all park visitors, whether on foot or on bike
Improve safety and reduce the number of accidents, injuries and deaths Improve quality of life for local residents
Make the movements through the roundabouts clear and understandable and prevent speeding

All of us are aware that the Arborway is unsafe. Between 2008 and 2012 alone there were 135 crashes on the Arborway, with more than 20 injuries. Murray Circle is especially dangerous because of high vehicle speeds and lack of clarity for drivers. Cars frequently jockey for openings and exits. No one wants to walk or bicycle across the roads that feed into Murray Circle!

Proposals
The process that DCR used to develop a set of “starter ideas” included both a public meeting and several meetings with local elected officials and pedestrian and bicycle advocates. The ideas presented by Toole Design at a public meeting on February 5 are impressive and promising.

  • Separate pedestrian sidewalks and bike paths would be provided in the area
  • The “circles” would be rebuilt as smaller, modern roundabouts that
    o    clarify vehicular movements
    o    make it difficult to exceed the “design speed” of 15‐20 mph
    o    provide multiple safe crosswalks (for people traveling in all directions)
  • Provide raised crosswalks to improve pedestrian visibility and slow traffic
  • Preserve the historic roads between today’s traffic circles including the allées of oak trees
  • Reduce the number of traffic signals that interrupt vehicle flow (reduced from 5 to 1)

What is strikingly innovative about the current “starter ideas” is the concept of replacing the enormous Murray Circle two smaller roundabouts, side by side, to sort and channel traffic clearly and efficiently – while providing multiple crossings for bikes and pedestrians.

In addition the plan provides local residents on both sides of the Arborway with multiple ways to access their homes, while using the outer roadways for local access only, making them safer for all users.

Naturally, a lot of details need to be worked out in the next phase of design (e.g. How will blind persons navigate the roundabouts? How will snow removal be handled?), but the big ideas are solid. Your agency’s intention is to make this area more livable for residents and park visitors alike while continuing to accommodate vehicles.

Sincerely,
Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Alewife Brook Parkway Bridge Comment Letter

Alewife Brook Parkway Bridge Comment Letter

October 13, 2009

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

RE: Environmental Notification Form (ENF)
Mystic Valley Parkway Bridge No. 2 over Alewife Brook Somerville, MA
MEPA # 14487

Dear Secretary Bowles:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for Mystic Valley Parkway Bridge No. 2 over Alewife Brook in Somerville.

Located on an historic parkway bridge, the project is a reconstruction that will add significant width to the bridge cross-section to widen the bridge sidewalks and better accommodate pedestrians and bicycles, while maintaining access for automobile traffic.

Our understanding of the project is that the DCR plans to retain the curb-to-curb width of the bridge, striping 12’ lanes with 8’4” shoulders that could be converted to bike lanes in the future. An addition of 8 feet to the sidewalks will make both directions 10 feet wide to better accommodate pedestrians and bicycles and connect to the existing and proposed multi-use paths in the adjacent riverbank parks.

While we are very pleased that the sidewalks will be widened, we urge DCR to consider the following possibilities:

  1. With the guidance of DCR, we have learned over time that a parkway is not solely a road,but a park that has a road that passes through it. The Mystic Valley Parkway is a case in point. It is a set of continuous open spaces located within neighborhoods that are densely built. These open spaces are the major parks available to nearby residents. Since roadways are but one element of the parkway, they should not be allowed to determine the character of this remarkable string of urban parks.
  2. It is difficult to imagine traffic moving more rapidly than 30 mph inside a park. That should be the maximum speed. All speed limits in the park and on the parkway roads should be made 30 mph or less to safely accommodate non-motorized traffic.
  3. The parkway and its roads are intended for non-commercial traffic only. We have serious reservations about the need for 12’ lanes for traffic if no trucks are using the bridge. Wide lanes will encourage drivers to move faster through the corridor, to the detriment on non- motorized traffic of all kinds. Since it is not a truck route and will never serve heavy trucks in the future, it seems that narrowing the travel lanes to 11’ or less could be accomplished without inconveniencing traffic. This very simple design feature would produce safety benefits for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles by slowing speeds.
  1. The shoulder of the roadway should be designed for installation of bike lanes, even if not intended immediately. The Mystic River Corridor Parks are destined to become increasingly attractive to bicycle riders for both commuting and recreation. As bike traffic grows, all parts of the Mystic Valley Parkway should be upgraded to accommodate on- road bike lanes that are sufficiently wide for rider safety. The bridge sidewalks should be reserved for pedestrians, in keeping with a long-term goal of separate paths for pedestrians and bicycles through the length of the riverbank parks.
  2. The Mystic Valley Parkway Bridge No. 2 is in line to provide major access to the future Route 16 Green Line station at the Somerville/Medford line. It has been described as one of three key routes people will use to get to the new station. That means that there will be peak hours of all types of traffic on the bridge. It should be designed to accommodate peak hour transit rider traffic on foot and by bicycle.
  3. The nearby rotary at Mystic Valley Parkway and Alewife Brook Parkway is only a few hundred feet from this bridge. This rotary is to be redesigned to bring it up to modern standards in connection with the proposed Green Line extension to Route 16. The rotary is on the walking route to the new Green Line station, a new senior housing facility, Dilboy Stadium and the Mystic River Reservation, and is currently extremely dangerous to cross, as there are NO pedestrian accommodations of any kind. The plans (or at least conceptual changes) for this rotary should be considered when deciding how to reconstruct the bridge so all the elements ultimately work together for the benefit of all the users.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this ENF. We look forward to further development of the project.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Cc:DCR Commissioner Rick Sullivan
DCR Planner Dan Driscoll
MHD Chief Engineer Frank Tramontozzi