pedestrian access – Page 5 – WalkMassachusetts

Comments on the ENF for The Boston Garden project

By WalkMassachusetts | June 11, 2013

June 11, 2013

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

RE: Comments on the ENF for The Boston Garden project, MEPA #15052

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the ENF for The Boston Garden project. We understand that the building project will be constructed on 2.8 acres of land fronting on Causeway Street and include:

WalkBoston is supportive of this development and considers it a critical location that requires close examination of pedestrian circulation, as it encompasses major pedestrian movements between regionally important city and suburban transit facilities and a major sports facility. In addition to pedestrians already using the site, the proposal will need to accommodate the movements of the new workers, guests and residents brought into the new buildings on the site as the project components are completed.

Our comments focus on pedestrian volumes to the site, circulation inside the grouping of new buildings and along the perimeter of the site, and the potential for improvements to the Charles River walkway behind North Station.

Pedestrian volumes to and from the site
Many residents of the region already pass through this site daily and for special events. The site is the location of commuter rail connections to the northern half of the metropolitan area, two major subway stations and the TD Boston Garden, home of the Bruins and Celtics professional sports teams. These pedestrian volumes need detailing and evaluation. Our review of the data led us to the following numbers:

In the morning, the combined total for arrivals by commuter rail coupled with patrons exiting the Green and Orange line subway station is thus a number that is around 43,000 2 pedestrians using the stations for transportation access or interconnections in and around the site. A similar number may exist for the afternoon use of the site.

These numbers have not been updated and are of course prior to the construction of office, hotel or residence buildings that will bring additional people to the site. In addition, the existence of the 19,600-seat TD Garden arena above the commuter rail station can create circulation difficulties when people attending events overlap with people leaving the city after work. With over 200 events each year at the TD Garden and limited on-site parking for event attendees, there are many opportunities for overlapping movements of large numbers of people moving into and through the site. It may be possible to have over 60,000 people on the site in the afternoon hours prior to a major event.

As preparatory steps for addressing environmental concerns surrounding this project, it will be important to closely examine the volumes of pedestrian traffic that move to and from the site each working day, and on days with special events in the TD Garden. Flows of pedestrian traffic that are deserving of special attention include movements between:

the Green and Orange Line subway stations and the Commuter Rail Station
the Commuter Rail Station and TD Boston Garden
the Green and Orange Line subway stations and TD Boston Garden
Canal St. (used by downtown workers on foot) and the Commuter Rail Station
Canal St. and TD Boston Garden • Canal St. and the Green and Orange Line subway stations

These pedestrian movements deserve to be counted and evaluated for trends that indicate potential future use of transportation facilities at this site. Pedestrians going to or from the new on-site buildings will also be moving between:

the commuter rail station and the new buildings on site
the subway stations and the new buildings on site
Canal St. and the new buildings on site

These potential movements should be projected and evaluated in conjunction with the pedestrian traffic already using the site.

Pedestrian circulation through the buildings on the site
Pedestrians currently move into and out of the TD Garden building by using the east and west entrances on Legends Way and on the O’Neill Building pedestrian way. Plans show the intention of moving much of the pedestrian access between the subway stations and the TD Garden/North Station building below ground level. This will provide protection from weather conditions for walkers and is conceptually a major improvement for all.

The brief current outline of the plan calls for a passageway built under the large office tower to handle all pedestrian movements and connections on the site, located on the first basement level and connecting (in an undefined manner) between the subway stations and the proposed major pedestrian passage, to be called Champions Row. Escalators and elevators will be needed to make the connection fully ADA accessible and to speed the large volumes of pedestrians to their destinations.

It is entirely possible that this connection can be designed to handle the 43,000 users of transportation facilities on-site very well. However, it is equally possible that the volume of pedestrian traffic will be such as to thwart the good intentions of the proponent of this project. There are several possibilities for additional capacity to handle pedestrians in this important location under the office tower:

1. Addition of an escalator- and elevator-served access point leading into the present east entrance to the TD Garden/commuter rail station building (very much like the existing head house, but with a direct, covered connection into the building.)
2. A passageway between the subway station and the TD Garden/commuter rail station building that connects in several potential ways (all underground):
• As a diagonal passageway between the MBTA undercrossing of Causeway Street and the proposed main stem of the project – Champion’s Row. This passageway should be sufficiently wide to handle the considerable traffic using it twice a day.
• A passageway under the office tower could support small commercial/retail establishments that can quickly serve people passing through to make their commutes or to attend a large event.
• A passageway could envisioned as a large food court or produce market serving all pedestrians passing through as well as those who will be working in or nearby after the new structures are built.
• All proposed principal passageways, including Champions Row, should be unobstructed by escalators or elevators that may impede pedestrian movements.

There may be a desire to connect other buildings or uses planned for the site into this major pedestrian facility under the tower of the office building. If so, a major connection across Champions Row leading into the underground pedestrian facility would be needed to provide access for all of these pedestrian connections and services while also providing access for the four levels of retail attractions that are anticipated for the site

. Based solely on its need to serve so many access points for pedestrians on the site, Champions Row could conceivably become a much more significant and grander element of the site. Champions Row has been located to be on a direct axis between Canal Street and the entrance to the commuter rail station/TD Garden building. Like the major axis of an enclosed shopping center, it also provides direct access to the surrounding transportation facilities and the TD Garden. Alternatively, it could become a part of an imposing railroad station with retail facilities surrounding it and even below it (like South Station, perhaps, grand but laid out as a small Grand Central Station). In either event, the space could become a local landmark and meeting place for residents, commuters and event attendees.

Pedestrian access on the perimeter of the site
Because the new facilities back up to the TD Garden, three sides remain to be served by sidewalks – along Causeway Street, Legends Way and the O’Neill Building pedestrian way.

1. Causeway Street
Wide sidewalks are planned in keeping with the city’s Crossroads Project plans for Causeway Street. Street furniture and trees will be added in keeping with this plan. On the site, the façades of the new buildings will be lined up with the O’Neill Building to present a uniform appearance along the streets. A number of small and large retail facilities will have access to and from the sidewalks, and access to the three large buildings planned for the site will also be focused on the Causeway Street sidewalk. The sidewalk will not be interrupted by access ramps into the on-site garage, as these ramps are being located at the edge of the site adjacent to the Central Artery, and will supplement the existing ramps that are located at the rear of the TD Garden Building.

However, the diagrams show a loading platform near the proposed hotel building that will interfere with pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk significantly. This loading platform is a potential hazard for pedestrians on the Causeway Street sidewalk, particularly if service trucks back into the site from the street.

To be fully supportive and attractive to pedestrians, the new buildings could be designed to attract and provide interest for passers-by, using strategies such as:
• Maximize the number of retail outlets facing the sidewalk by using narrow frontages for business facilities
• Introduce sidewalk cafes, restaurants or bars
• Provide canopies along the building frontage to protect walkers
• Avoid intimidating pedestrians by the overwhelming scale of proposed buildings. The proposed façade for the Causeway side of the site is about three blocks long, and has been broadly designed to be a uniform building of four stories topped by towers. The four-story building could be intimidating for pedestrians – it is a very large and long building. Its façade could be articulated to show connections with the streets of the area, as is currently diagrammed for the three large towers planned for the site that line up precisely with Canal Street and Friend Street. The four floors of the building complex that are designed for retail could also reflect these breaks while retaining the alignment with the O’Neill Building, either physically or by using varied building materials.

2. The pedestrian passageway at the O’Neill Bldg.
This walkway should be treated qualitatively as handsomely as the Causeway Street frontage. It has become a major entrance for pedestrians and will continue to provide major access to the commuter rail station and the TD Garden. It could also become more interesting for walkers, if cafes or other retail establishments were added. It has the advantage of the statue of Bobby Orr which is a dramatic addition of great interest to pedestrians using the site. A canopy for the length of the walkway would be of great service to the pedestrians using the walkway for access to the TD Garden/commuter rail building.

3. Legends Way
This street will be of limited use for pedestrians, except to provide access to the east entrance into the TD Garden/commuter rail station building. Access for users of MBTA’s The Ride will be retained. Opportunities for retail uses appear very limited, but should be considered. This is another location where a canopy could be of considerable use to passengers waiting for The Ride.

4. The Riverfront walkway along the Charles
At the rear of the commuter rail station, the tracks serving the terminal narrow down to enter two bascule bridges across the Charles River. At this location, Central Artery plans included a bridge on the North Bank crossing over the tracks, a bridge on the South Bank also over the tracks, and a bridge that would be cantilevered or attached to a bascule bridge. The North Bank Bridge is now completed and in operation. The bascule bridge walkway is in design. The South Bank Bridge remains to be designed and constructed.

As a positive improvement to the environment of this project and as mitigation for some of the anticipated impacts of its construction, the proponent and the MBTA have begun discussions of constructing the South Bank Bridge. This positive development is very exciting, as it would complete the major interconnection of Charles River walkways on both banks, along with connections into the downtown Boston Harborwalk and the Charlestown Navy Yard.

Construction of the South Bank Bridge will involve examination of the potential building methods within a narrowly defined space on both sides of the tracks. On the east side of the tracks a sidewalk follows the boundary of the MBTA trackage at the river’s edge to a dead end at the bascule bridge. This sidewalk may become an approach ramp for the South Bank Bridge. However, there are difficulties in constructing the bridge on the west side of the tracks that are likely to require significant work in examining possibilities. The rewards of designing and constructing this bridge will have regional impact because of its connection to metropolitan-scale pedestrian facilities.

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,

Robert Sloane
Senior Project Manager

Comments on Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project

By WalkMassachusetts | January 8, 2013

January 8, 2013

Gerald Autler

Boston Redevelopment Authority
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201-1007

RE: Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project
Expanded Project Notification Form
Submitted Pursuant to Article 80 of the Boston Zoning Code

Dear Mr. Autler:

WalkBoston has reviewed the EENF for the Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project in Allston. This project is a first step in a major redevelopment of the surroundings of the intersection of North Harvard Street and Western Avenue, and thus will set the stage for many additional improvements in the vicinity. Our comments reflect the aspects of the proposal that most affect pedestrians, as these components are likely to play an important role in the way in which the project functions and relates to its surroundings.

The area is planned to become the principal focus of North Allston
Preliminary plans for this site are generally following the consensus presented in the 2005 North Allston Strategic Framework for planning and in Harvard’s Institutional Master Plan from 2012. Both plans call for intensive retail and other development at the intersection. The site of this proposal is but one of several sites that will comprise the North Allston activities. Considering only the north side of Western Avenue, plans call for 200,000 square feet at the Charlesview site, 45,000 square feet on the site of this proposal, and, on the arena site, 60,000 square feet for the arena and 140,000 square feet for the office/retail structure that encloses the basketball court. This totals 445,000 square feet altogether – a number that suggests a need for intensive analysis of the vehicular and foot traffic that will be utilizing all of the sites, including the one that is currently being analyzed. Any proposal for a center that will include at least 400,000 square feet should provide for carefully-considered pedestrian interconnections between its parts.
The proposed basketball arena/office building
The Institutional Master Plan of the Allston campus recently distributed by Harvard introduces a combination of a 3,000-seat basketball arena and 140,000 square feet of retail/office/residences on land immediately north of the project site. The arena will attract many people to games during the basketball season, and perhaps, depending on uses of the facility, in other months as well. What it means in terms of future pedestrian or vehicular traffic is not at all clear from this EENF. The scale of the arena project warrants consideration of its effects on this site. For example, retail activities on the proposed site might benefit from consideration of additional retail on the street level under the arena to make the retail functions of the intersection more prominent.
The sidewalk in front of the arena
The arena site is nearly a mile from Harvard Square. People coming to the area will be largely on foot (they will be discouraged from driving because of the paucity of nearby parking spaces). Large numbers of people will be attracted to the basketball arena for games and perhaps for other uses that may be scheduled there, but the volume of visitors has not been described in the EPNF. Many people will walk from Harvard Square, the Yard and from residence halls north of the river, and most will arrive via the west side of North Harvard Street. These walkers should be provided with a very wide sidewalk along the full length of North Harvard Street (currently shown as a wide sidewalk in front of the existing building but not along the stadium or this development proposal). We would recommend that it be wider than the standard 10’ – 12’ width for multi-use paths, something on the order of 20’ would be appropriate.
Extending the sidewalk to the south
A wide sidewalk along North Harvard Street should not end at the arena, but should provide access to the intersection of Western Avenue and the North Allston activity center. This wide sidewalk would pass directly along the North Harvard street side of this project, and connect to the 45,000 square feet of retail activities that occupy most of the ground floor of this proposal.
The Charlesview site
This site on the northeast corner of the intersection of North Harvard and Western has been planned for retail activity and some residential or office development. The current plan estimates 200,000 square feet for the building complex. Access between sites will take place at the intersection, where crosswalks should be redesigned to more directly connect the two sites.
The parks at the North Allston Center
Two potential sites for parks touch directly on the intersection. The existing grove of trees in front of the Charlesview development and the triangle occupied by the gas station are potential assets to the retail center and should be further developed as landmarks within this center. Either of the two sites could become intensively used by walkers as outdoor spaces to get fresh air, to sit, to read or have a picnic. Pedestrian access to either or both of the sites should be carefully considered as a part of developing the network of sidewalks and street crossings.
Crosswalk redesign
The layout of the existing crosswalks at the intersection of North Harvard Street and Western Avenue maximizes the crossing distances for walkers because all the crosswalks have been laid out as diagonals. This layout makes pedestrian crossings unnecessarily long and require walkers to stay in the street longer than they would if the crosswalks were perpendicular to the streets they cross. One example on Western Avenue shows that the existing crosswalk is nearly 80 feet long, while a perpendicular crossing would be approximately half that length. As part of the intersection improvements associated with this project, crosswalks should be redesigned for the safety of pedestrians. Removal of the refuge island on the Charlesview corner should also be considered as part of the project’s efforts to improve the North Harvard Street/Western Avenue intersection.
A new pedestrian crosswalk on North Harvard Street
Access to the proposed arena and to the site of this proposal will require pedestrian access across North Harvard Street. This is particularly important for people arriving by northbound transit, currently served by bus stops at the north and south ends of the Charlesview site. The existing pedestrian crosswalk at Western Avenue may need to be supplemented by an additional crosswalk at the intersection of North Harvard Street and Smith Field Drive Extension, which is more than 500 feet from Western Avenue, suggesting that a new crosswalk at that location would be convenient and well used. It is made particularly important because it does not make sense to have a crosswalk at Grove Street, because the distance between Western and Grove is very short.

Uses of land within the site
The relatively small size of the site and the need for specific services results in relatively constrained pedestrian access.

Vehicle uses
Almost one-quarter of the parcel will be devoted to vehicle access and surface parking because of the proposed new streets. Vehicular access to the site is one-way northbound from Western Ave. on Smith Field Drive, and two-way on Grove Street between Smith Field Drive and North Harvard Street. The description of vehicular access needs (particularly on-site loading and unloading requirements) implies that a further extension of Smith Field Drive will be constructed soon – perhaps in conjunction with this project, to allow full site access in- and out-bound from its intersection with North Harvard Street. Three streets are to be devoted to providing access to a 2.74 acre site. This may be excessive, unless they are necessary to serve the proposed arena, either temporarily or permanently
Parking on the site
The proposal calls for 180 below-grade parking spaces and 41 surface private spaces, making a total of 221 spaces on-site. These spaces will serve the 325 residences proposed for the site, and potentially some of the retail uses as well. A question remains of whether the underground parking could be reached from Smith Field Drive rather than Grove Street, which seems destined to be degraded by many autooriented uses.
New on-site street – Grove Street
Grove Street is primarily a service street designed to provide truck access to the buildings, access to the below grade garage, and 23 surface parking space. The EPNF does not discuss whether service for the arena (potentially including loading/unloading access for trucks and access to underground parking) will also be provided on the street. The combination of service uses could compromise the character of the street and the street-facing residential units as well. In terms of pedestrian use, Grove Street was designated as a “pedestrian trail” in the university’s Institutional Master Plan. This suggests continuity between Charlesview and Smith Field via Grove Street, which would need a crosswalk located midway between Western Avenue and the Smith Field Drive Extension. Such a crossing – likely to be unsignalized – could be dangerous for pedestrians and drivers alike.
A bulky arena as a neighbor
Depending on its design, the proposed arena may loom dramatically over the site of the current proposal. The project design fort his site actually calls for residential units along Grove Street, along with an irregularly shaped sidewalk and major vehicular access for loading and parking. While the vehicular portions of the proposal for this side of the site are not affected by the neighboring arena, the residential units may well be. Although the dimensions of the proposed arena are unknown, its height may reach more than half of the proposed dwellings on the proposal’s site. The prospect of a looming building also affects the proposed sidewalk, where vehicular impacts are major, and where proposed street trees or wider sidewalks will do little to mitigate the impacts of a large building.
New on-site street – Smith Field Drive and Smith Field Drive Extension
Smith Field Drive and its extension have been designed as a major service way for both this project and the proposed basketball arena. It may have operating difficulties when the arena is in use. A convergence of vehicles and pedestrians would be expected, and traffic control on either has not been discussed.
Open space
Roughly 3,600 square feet of the site’s land has been designated as street-level open space. The two parcels are located at the two corners of the buildings – one facing N. Harvard Street and the other on Western Avenue – and both serve to enhance the entrances to the residences. Additional open space of about 8,000 square feet is provided on the second level above the retail uses, and will only be accessible to residents of the site.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks surround the buildings on all sides and are of irregular widths to accommodate building entrances, potential sidewalk cafes, retail entrances and the vehicular entrances to the building. The proposal for a wide sidewalk on the west side of North Harvard Street suggests the possibility of an overhanging building or a street-level colonnade.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Bob Sloane
Senior Project Manager

Comments on ENF New Quincy Center Redevelopment

By WalkMassachusetts | September 9, 2011

September 9, 2011

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

RE: Comments on Expanded Environmental Notification Form with Phase 1 Waiver Request, New Quincy Center Redevelopment, Quincy,
MA EOEA No. 14780

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form with Phase 1 Waiver Request for the New Quincy Center Redevelopment. The project comprises 30.8 acres, with a total of 3.4 million square feet of space in more than 15 buildings, containing office, retail, hospitality and entertainment uses, and 1210 residential units. It is planned for construction in four steps over 7-10 years.

The proposal will have very significant impacts on future pedestrian activity in the central area of the city of Quincy. We are concerned that the potential for improving walking for users of the project area has not been examined in an intensive way. The proponent will need to be cognizant of detailed pedestrian needs throughout the development, because the pedestrian aspects of the site will play an extremely important role in the way it meshes with its surroundings and the possible help in alleviating traffic congestion.

Summary of key points:

Analyze pedestrian traffic at levels matching vehicular traffic analysis.
Maximize use of Adams Green project as gateway.
Need to establish plans for interim periods to ensure pedestrian activity.
Consider use of small-scale retail frontage for lively places.
Address pedestrian safety in traffic plans.
Establish sidewalk and amenity standards to ensure quality.
Integrate open space/pedestrian space as integral to the big idea – not yet expressed in the plan

In our comments below, we have outlined some of the ways pedestrian planning could benefit the project and the city.

Planning for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic
Project vehicular traffic is projected to increase by 15,479 trips per day, making a total of 37,256 trips total each day. The project envisions mitigation measures including the widening of 6 streets in the area, restriping for exclusive left-turn lanes, and signal changes at 2 intersections to provide concurrent pedestrian phasing. (other intersections are not cited for measures dealing with potential pedestrian conflicts and safety.) In addition a new bridge over the MBTA tracks is deemed important and has become the focus of a proposed Phase 1 waiver.

Discussion of auto traffic in the report consumes 47 pages of text and 66 figures of traffic analysis, leading to discussions of parking garages, street improvements, traffic lanes, turns, and signals in some detail. Mention is also made of relaxed parking requirements to handle vehicle demands.

In a major information gap, existing and anticipated daily walking trips are not discussed in the report, nor are there suggestions that future planning will include such analysis. It is essential to have some notion of the overall number of walkers to plan adequately for pedestrian connections between building sites. Based on information about numbers of walkers, it would then become possible to think about incremental features that might benefit pedestrians.

Standards for sidewalk widths are not discussed in the report, suggesting that there may be reliance on either state or local standard widths that have not been included or referenced in this report. The widths of the sidewalks should be adequate to address the volumes of traffic that are anticipated, while adding sufficient space for trees, street furniture and signage in a way that does not interfere with pedestrian throughput. We suggest that the proponent use state design standards for sidewalks in central areas that provide a minimum of 12’ for heavily-used sidewalks, and 6’ in all other areas. In areas of heavy foot traffic, the width should be related to anticipated pedestrian volumes. These widths should be clear and continuous in all affected blocks. Street trees, lighting fixtures and other street furniture should not intrude on these minimum clear and continuous widths. Sidewalk paving surfaces should be smooth and easily shoveled during winter snowstorms. Curb cuts for vehicles should be severely limited.

On streets along the sidewalks, retaining a pattern of two lanes of parked traffic is best for pedestrians, because parking on both sides of the street acts as a buffer between moving traffic and pedestrians walking alongside.

Each of the proposed pedestrian corridors follows streets (open space internal to structures does not appear to be available for general foot traffic.) Each street can be classified distinctively, based on a street typology and character as a general guide to function and potential design. Although it is not yet known what pedestrian traffic volumes and issues may arise, each of the streets seems to deserve unique treatment, as far as pedestrian service is concerned.

Temple/Hancock/Granite Streets is a new facility and a major route for vehicular traffic. It appears to be set to act as a pedestrian promenade at the edge of the development. The boulevard’s frontage may become a retail focus serving primarily pedestrian traffic.
Hancock Street between Granite Street and QC Concourse appears to be envisioned to be a local street – not a major vehicular thoroughfare. The street could become a very interesting, relatively quiet and rewarding pedestrian corridor, especially because it is a direct extension of the pedestrian promenade of Adams Green. Sidewalks along Hancock Street can become integral portions of the open space network, with off-sidewalk paved areas to enlarge upon the feeling of openness, creating at the same time places where people could congregate, meet, sit, watch, and enjoy the daily progression of walkers through the district. This may involve widening the sidewalk in some instances to provide inlets or off-sidewalk squares as useful spaces for walkers. Staging of the Hancock Street portions of the project may allow re-use of existing small-scale commercial uses. Retaining Hancock Street as the focus of the new development is exciting and, we think, essential. There are several elements of the design that would be useful to better understand. Only a few of the existing small-scale businesses appear to be dislocated by Step 1 of the proposed development, and not until the arrival of Step 3 will all of the existing commercial along Hancock Street be replaced by new buildings.
Revere Road/QC Concourse will complete a ring-road around downtown and the Quincy Center project. This road will not be expected to facilitate commercial development to a great extent, although a major large retail facility is proposed for the block closest to the bridge over the MBTA tracks.
Ross Way appears to be primarily an access road for parking garages, vehicular deliveries and service access. If so, it will be a difficult area for pedestrians to navigate, especially because it will require numerous curb cuts.
Chestnut and Cottage Streets will both be minor collectors that might become useful locations for small businesses (some existing buildings are to be retained) because the location of the two streets may provide spillover space linked to retail opportunities along Hancock Street.
Hancock Market Square Connector. This new street seems designed to provide access directly into parking structures. It seems unlikely, from the limited information available that this street will attract walkers. However, the market square located at the Hancock Street intersection holds a promise of a retail focus for pedestrians.
Pathway along the MBTA tracks. The project includes paths immediately adjacent to the MBTA tracks that seem unconnected to a larger network. The function of these paths is unclear. Intersection design is important for pedestrian safety. Potential vehicular/pedestrian conflict areas exist in several locations. Already noted are potential conflicts in the Adams Green area, where pedestrian volume from the MBTA stations, the schools and other uses result in walkers crossing busy streets. The entrances to the project on Granite Street where it meets Hancock and Chestnut Streets are likely to have significant areas of conflict. Within the project boundary, all intersections may have significant conflicts and should be analyzed.

Pedestrian-oriented open space
Adams Green, immediately adjacent to the north side of the Quincy Center project, encompasses over 10 acres, a significant addition to the overall open space in the area. Served primarily by walking and transit, the project will include existing open space and the Hancock Cemetery, augmented by open space that re-uses the existing paved area of Hancock Street to form a pedestrian plaza and a major axis of usable open space for walkers. This axis will extend into the Quincy Center project.

The Adams Green project will renew an existing focus for pedestrians in the area, capitalizing on the proximity of Quincy High School, the South Shore YMCA, Quincy College, City Hall, Crane Public Library, the MBTA rail and rapid transit station, Stop and Shop national headquarters, and the U.S. Post Office. This aggregation of uses is unique to Quincy, and forms an exciting base for the success of the proposal. The Green appears to play a very large future role as the principal open space for the entire area and as the gateway to the Quincy Center project.

The Quincy Center plans show little additional open space, though open space is stated as an essential element in the overall design. Instead, the proposal calls for large-scale reliance on sidewalks and their landscaping as open space. However, the design standards for sidewalks and how they will function as open space additions (including both walkways and landscaping strips) are not defined. The principal new open space within the project appears to be a market square on Hancock Street near Revere Road/QC Concourse. Other green space may be located internal to proposed residential or office structures, in places that may not be available to the general public. The acreages of proposed open spaces in the project should be quantified in the report. This could aid in public understanding of the project and help in marketing sites, gaining retail attractions, and bolstering business opportunities.

The text suggests that public gathering places will be added as social focal points, venues for seasonal events, and outdoor marketplaces, each connected to others via the public sidewalks and designed with a clear relationship to the proposed pedestrian network. It would be very useful to know where these open spaces will be located and how they relate to sidewalks, as they are intended to engender pedestrian movements.

Activities needing pedestrian access – Quincy Center
The proposal for this project does not include anchors of activities such as those surrounding Adams Green. In fairness, it may be too early in the process to identify specific uses, but a hint may arise from one of the existing strong points of the existing Hancock Street retail area – its human scale. Building frontages are relatively narrow, uses change every few feet, activities spill out onto the street and it can appear that a great deal of human activity is taking place. Retaining the human scale should be a guideline for future development.

The proposal seems designed to guide the area toward larger scale (large-format) retail activities. Many of the proposed buildings will have first floor retail uses, and the vast spaces envisioned for retail suggest a sort of outdoor shopping mall. The conceptual plans and proposed construction schedule do not seem to construct the retail spaces all in one step. We are concerned that much of the retail space may not be occupied until the project reaches full build-out, leaving vacant space and possibly rather empty sidewalks that are uninteresting and perhaps not comfortable for pedestrians walking alone. Ultimately, the retail market will fill the space; in the meantime (perhaps over many years) pedestrians may have neither a lively nor a safe environment in which to walk. It is important to ensure that existing and new small-scale uses will be accommodated by the phasing of the proposed large-scale uses. An area with many activities to be found within a small area is perfect for pedestrian access for errands, other shopping or services and for strolling. One potential approach might be to encourage restaurants and uses appealing to pedestrians along Hancock Street, much like Moody Street in Waltham, to draw walkers into the district and provide essential services for new development.

Perhaps one of the most pedestrian-friendly approaches could be establishing a permanent focus of retail uses that are small-scale and attractive to pedestrians. This focus might be an appropriate portion of the first stage of development, located in the blocks adjacent to the Adams Green project. The area could then grow along Hancock Street as demand for services expands.

A second approach is the development of an entirely separate focal area around which retail uses might concentrate. One such location is the proposed market square, which appears to be partly included in Step 1 activities. The market square has the advantage of providing an anchor to draw pedestrians through the area between Granite Street and the QC Concourse road.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please feel free to contact us if there are questions.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman Robert Sloane
Executive Director Senior Planner

EENF 1265 Main Street Waltham Comment Letter

By WalkMassachusetts | February 15, 2011

February 15, 2011

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

RE: Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF)
1265 Main Street
Waltham, MA
MEPA # 14681

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

WalkBoston is the Commonwealth’s leading advocate for pedestrians and safe walking. We work throughout the state – encouraging walking, advocating for pedestrian improvements and working for design improvements. We have extensive experience helping residents and local government with pedestrian issues, safe routes to school and safer street crossings.

We have reviewed the EENF for 1265 Main Street, Waltham (formerly The Commons at Prospect Hill), a proposed mixed-use retail and office redevelopment at the site of the former Polaroid buildings.

The project at 1265 Main Street includes approx. 1.28 million sf of mixed office/retail uses in the proposed redevelopment. Phase I of the proposal will use existing buildings formerly occupied by Polaroid along Route 128 to accommodate these uses. Parking for retail and office uses will be shared to provide maximum and successive use of auto storage areas. Phase II of the proposal calls for new buildings scattered around the site.

WalkBoston’s concerns focus on the fact that walking and pedestrians facilities do not appear to be a major component of the project, although the project is frequently called “pedestrian-friendly” in the document. Pedestrian accommodations are listed on p. 92 of the EENF as being primarily along or connected with the residential areas facing Main Street. Plans for the reconstruction of Main Street will surely include sidewalk replacement and widening. Sidewalk connections within the site and between buildings are not discussed, with the exception of the Wayside Trail, which will accommodate pedestrians in addition to cyclists.

WalkBoston is concerned that some opportunities may be lost which could help make walking a part of the project’s benefits. These opportunities are concentrated in six areas:
1. Pedestrian access into the development site
2. Pedestrian connections to transit routes
3. Pedestrian access along the corridor of buildings
4. Pedestrian access along Wayside Trail
5. Pedestrian access into Prospect Park
6. Pedestrian access into Berry Farm

Each of these opportunities is considered below:

1. Pedestrian access into the development site is apparently to be incorporated into three proposed vehicular access routes into the site from Main Street on the south side of the site. The three access routes are Tower Road, the extension of Cutting Lane, and a new roadway that skirts the existing residential community along Hill Road to connect into Main Street at a new location. No access is provided from the north.

2.
• The principal accessways into the western part of the site appear to be along Tower Road on the western edge of the site and the extension of Cutting Lane which goes up the middle of the site. Tower Road connects between all buildings to be reused as part of Phase I. The extension of Cutting Lane connects only to the first two buildings of the former Polaroid site, providing major existing pedestrian access points into the buildings.
• Tower Road is already a major facility for access to the site and is likely to retain its importance as part of Phase I of this development. The proposal calls for two lanes of entering traffic on Tower Road, which suggests it will be carrying a major load of traffic in the future. It connects into the parking areas only indirectly. As such, Tower Road does not appear to be the most appropriate site for major pedestrian access into the site.
• Pedestrian access into the development site is not indicated in the graphics of this proposal. However, the logical location for pedestrian access may be along the proposed new roadway between Main Street and the eastern half of the site. This road is proposed to be located on a new right-of-way that leads to the north part of the site. It provides access to an existing building near the south boundary of Prospect Park which (we assume) will be retained as part of this development. Sidewalks can be created on one or both sides of this new roadway to give access to the existing building if it is to be retained.

3. Pedestrian access to transit from the development site is discussed only vaguely in the EENF. Transit for people working on site and for visitors should be more thoroughly discussed as the project moves forward.
• Transit lines along Main Street will continue to serve this development. At present there is one bus shelter located about one-quarter of the way from Tower Rd/Stow St. to Cutting Lane. Future connections to the transit services along Main Street should be closely connected to the principal pedestrian access within the site. As mentioned above, the future axis could be along the extension of Cutting Lane. If that is the principal on-site sidewalk, it suggests that the bus shelter and stop be relocated to be closer to that axis. Since this portion of Main Street is proposed to be widened and reconstructed, the new bus shelter can become part of that improvement.
•The proponent has expressed a willingness to add a bus route within the site. A new line would be a welcome addition to the access to the site. The proponent should consider where stops will be located on site and whether there should be shelters at those locations.

3. A pedestrian access corridor through the site would be very useful. The proposed development consists of a row of buildings parallel to Route 128/95. This single axis of buildings suggests a prime location for such a corridor.
• The extension of Cutting Lane is on an alignment that appears to be appropriate for pedestrian access to all of the buildings proposed to be activated by Phase I construction. Although there is no continuous roadway for vehicles on the east side of all the buildings, sidewalks and safe pedestrian facilities can readily be provided along this axis. This is particularly appropriate since some of the recommended pedestrian facilities are already in place outside the existing buildings, providing access to existing and proposed parking on the east side of the buildings.
• The pedestrian access corridor would seem to be more efficiently and pleasantly located along the extension of Cutting Lane rather than Tower Road.
• Pedestrian connections will need to be provided across the major parking lot located at the north end of the existing major complex of buildings on the site. This parking lot can be developed with safe pedestrian walkways across it to connect between all buildings on the site.
• The Low Impact Development (LID) for Stormwater Design, calls for underground water storage facilities beneath parking lots. Specifically an underground stone reservoir is planned for the parking lot that is located between buildings. A long-range view of the grouping of buildings might include a building on the site of the parking lot. This in turn would tie the pedestrian portions of the site closer together, and not require pedestrians to walk across a parking lot for access to the buildings. Is it possible to design the underground water storage facility to permit construction of a future building above it?

4. Pedestrian access to the Wayside Trail is welcome. The proponent has generously volunteered to construct a portion of the Wayside Trail along the former railroad right-of-way that passes through this property. The trail is proposed for use by pedestrians as well as bikes. The use of the existing right of way meshes well with state-wide planning effort for this trail.
• On site, all street/trail intersections should be carefully protected. If traffic signals cannot be provided, traffic calming measures should be considered. Signing should be plentiful to warn motorists of the crossings by pedestrians and bikes.
• Additional consideration should be given to the most appropriate location where the trail can safely cross Main Street. If the trail is located within the rail right-of-way, it will reach Main Street in the vicinity of either Cutting Lane or the new access road that skirts the Hill Road residential area. A traffic signal at either location would allow for safe crossings of Main Street. Alternatively, the trail could extend to Stow Street/Tower Road and cross at the signal proposed for that location, although the traffic at the Tower Road/Stow Street/Main Street intersection is expected to be relatively heavy. • If Main Street is to be widened as part of this project, it may be appropriate to incorporate the Wayside Trail as an integral element in the design of Main Street between the Hill Street residential area and Route 128/95. It might become a facility parallel to Main Street but somewhat separated from it. The trail could be on either side of Main Street, depending on the design. It is important to provide a sufficient width to make this portion of the trail spacious for all users – a minimal sidewalk will not suffice.

5. Pedestrian access into Prospect Park is critical. One of the beauties of this site is the extensive background of nearby adjacent public parkland. People working on the site or visiting will be able to see the park and should be provided with options for walking or jogging in it. • Direct access to the parking is cut off by the Low impact Development (LID) for Stormwater Design, which calls for water quality swales to control runoff from nearby steep land. The proposal calls for 2 water storage areas in what appears to be the southeast corner of Prospect Park. These water storage areas are proposed to be bounded by a new site access road, which will ultimately connect to Route 128/95. Pedestrian access through these sites appears to be difficult but not impossible. Perhaps a landscaped walkway could connect between the park and the buildings lined up along Route 128/95. Consideration of this connection would add significantly to the amenities of the site. • Signing on walkways would be appropriate to lead walkers from business areas into the park’s trails and potential jogging routes. Signs could also lead people from major parking areas and from site roadways into the park. • Use of the trails and walkways within the park should be encouraged through signage, promotion among employers on the site, and by sharing maintenance responsibilities between the City and the proponent.

6. The proponent will donate Berry Farm area to the city as part of this project. Pedestrian access into Berry Farm open space could result from this project. This will expand and greatly enhance the availability and accessibility of open space in the area.
• A direct trail or walkway connection between the proposed Wayside Trail and Berry Farm should be considered. There appears to be a physical connection between the main portion of the farm and the former rail right-of-way. This “leg” of Berry Farm should be used to construct an entranceway into the farm. An area directly adjacent has been designated for parking for Berry Farm. This means that people can drive to both the park and the trail and have access from this site.

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

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Westwood Station Comment Letter

By WalkMassachusetts | October 24, 2007

October 24, 2007

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

RE: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Westwood Station,
University Avenue, Westwood, MA
EOEA # 13826

Dear Secretary Bowles:

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the FEIR for Westwood Station. We are commenting because of concern about the pedestrian connections to this site. We are especially interested in commenting on the progress made since the DEIR in incorporating pedestrian facilities and concerns into the proposal.

As the FEIR points out, the existence of superb access to both local and intercity rail service makes the site a great opportunity for a mixed-use transit-dependent community. In this community, pedestrian facilities will be of the utmost importance to create a significant town center for new and existing residents of the region.

The scale of the proposed development is so large that there are challenges to making it safe and convenient for pedestrians. The total development program for Westwood Station is approximately 5 million square feet:
• 1,348,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space located from the MBTA station through the large commercial area south of Rosemont Road. This includes five or six multi-story buildings with ground-floor retail, with smaller scale retail between the larger stores and parking garages on the surrounding streets. The development encompasses more retail square footage than the South Bay Plaza in South Boston, Natick Collection (formerly Natick Mall), North Shore Plaza and Liberty Tree Mall in Danvers, South Shore Plaza in Braintree, or Burlington Mall.
• 1,295,000 square feet of residential uses (1000 housing units)
• 328 hotel rooms
• 1,490,000 square feet of office space
•11,985 parking spaces – 600 for residences, 3676 for offices, 7709 for central commercial

Summary Observations

The site is isolated from its surroundings and principal access will be via car, with a small proportion by train. Access to abutting neighborhoods is not improved by the project.
The real main street of the project is Westwood Station Boulevard because vehicular access to and within the site is principally by car.
The development has three distinct districts each representing different opportunities for pedestrian activity and safety. We have examined several of the indicators of walkability for the project as a whole and for the three areas individually.
– The north end of the project – the area between the MBTA Route 128 Station and Rosemont Road, east of Westwood Station Boulevard – is a mixed use shopping/housing/ hotel/office district that includes virtually all of the proposed housing units, two office structures, two hotels, street-level shops, and most of the usable public open space (the Common, the Promenade and the Meadow.) This is the most pedestrian-friendly district.
– The south end of the project – between Rosemont Road and Harvard Street, east of Westwood Station Boulevard – is a more traditional “big box” mall, with large sites for retail establishments, separated by parking areas and garages. There are a fair number of small street-level retail units along Market Street, the central pedestrian way.
– The west side of the project between Westwood Station Boulevard and the adjacent residential area – is an area of office buildings backed by landscaped buffering space between the development and the adjacent community.
– Both the south and west districts could be improved gradually in keeping with the observed market for mixed-use development and on-site pedestrian needs.
From a large scale transportation perspective, it would be desirable to have the dense office uses near the station, and not west of Westwood Station Boulevard where they are not within easy walking distance of the station. For example, if the garages adjacent to the hotels had office use above them (or parking below grade), the office use would in fact be transit and pedestrian friendly. The currently planned location for significant office use will generate a great deal of traffic for a use that could be served by transit and contribute to the pedestrian life of the Market Street area.
Sidewalks should be provided along all streets. Design standards for all pedestrian facilities should be clearly articulated.
Recreational walking facilities should be expanded and made into a system useable for jogging, strolling and biking.
Walking facilities should be used to increase transit use to reduce vehicular traffic.

Walkability analysis

1. Access to and through the site

Only a small proportion of the daily traffic into the project area is anticipated to be on foot (excluding drivers accessing a building on foot after parking). Most of the walkers will be coming from public transit connections or the MBTA station at the north end of the project. Few walkers are anticipated from abutting neighborhoods.
Westwood Station Boulevard is the real main street of the project. It is the principal connection to local streets and the expressway network, and will carry the lion’s share of vehicular traffic. The large-scale uses in the project – the big box stores and the office buildings – front on the boulevard, while the smaller retail stores front primarily on Market Street. The boulevard design capacity encourages traffic to use it for access throughout the site.
The design emphasis on Westwood Station Boulevard may afford a bypass of the north end of the project with its shops and attractive pedestrian environment. The five street access points from the boulevard into the project encourage drivers to use the boulevard as the major spine of the site, with Market Street being only the first of several access streets.

2. Pedestrian amenities

Throughout the project the proponent has worked toward a pedestrian scale design, with shorter blocks, narrow streets, pedestrian-oriented buildings and street furniture. Because of the design of each district, the results vary in terms of pedestrian safety and the encouragement of walking.
At the north end of the project land uses are integrated in an intentional mix to create a vibrant and interesting area for pedestrians who are residents or visitors. Residents, employees and visitors can walk to transit, local shops, restaurants and nearby offices. Connections are easy to make, because of the relatively short distances (1500 feet or less). More pedestrians might be attracted by a civic use of some kind such as a branch library with meeting rooms.
At the south end of the project, only retail uses are included. There is a significant orientation toward open parking lots facing Westwood Station Boulevard – a traditional big box zone. An attempt has been made to bring pedestrians into the district where it abuts the shopping/housing/hotel/office area by providing a two-sided row of relatively small-scale retail uses along Market Street.
At the southernmost end of the project site, the big box layout is most pronounced, with a grouping of three big box retail outlets arranged around a parking area abutting the intersection of Westwood Station Boulevard and Harvard Street. Market Street connects with this area but turns into a roadway for parking access in front of the big box stores. In general, this will not be a pedestrian-friendly area; people who drive here to shop will likely be strolling through parking areas rather than along the central avenue.
The western portion of the project is a single use office area with large garages and no real provision of pedestrian scale environments.
Traditional pedestrian amenities such as street furniture (e.g., benches, pedestrianoriented street lights, public washrooms, etc.) should be included where possible and not only in areas where pedestrian traffic is expected to congregate. Along all transit routes, the proponent should consider covered waiting areas for passenger pick-up, with shade from hot sun and protection from rain.

3. Pedestrian network connectivity (how well sidewalks and paths are connected, and how directly pedestrians can travel to destinations).

The overall project layout features a grid of streets and sidewalks with frequent cross streets, making access on foot reasonable. The only dead end streets are lead directly to destinations – the train station and the Common. Widths of streets throughout the project are principally 1-lane in each direction, except for Westwood Station Boulevard which has 2-lanes in each direction with additional lanes for turning movements.
The east-west pedestrian connections have been designed to aid in crossing Westwood Station Boulevard. These connections should be well marked and signed and include signals with pedestrian phases.
The Common and the Promenade have been introduced as a connected set of civic spaces. These will serve the best mix of uses in the project: offices, small retail stores, and upper floor residences all within short distances of one another.

4. Design standards for sidewalks, street crossings, paths

The overall project features sidewalks along both sides of the street. However, design standards for both streets and sidewalks reflect a high-volume automobile orientation. On all streets except Westwood Station Boulevard, turning radii are much too expansive given the intent to serve slow-moving traffic. Turning radii that are too large encourage higher speeds, add to pedestrian crossing distances, remove waiting areas of sidewalk and interfere with safe pedestrian crossings.
The project should include universal design features (transportation systems that accommodate special needs, including people using wheelchairs, walkers, strollers and hand carts).
Where possible, sidewalks might be partially covered – perhaps awnings along the fronts of retail spaces – for protection of walkers during inclement weather.
North End – sidewalks appear to be wider here than elsewhere in the project, according to the “Proposed Internal Roadway System” map. This suggests that pedestrian traffic is anticipated to be higher here than elsewhere. Wide sidewalks also allow more space for pedestrian amenities (seats, lighting, etc.) and landscaping.
South End – it would be useful to see the design details for sidewalks in this area. From the “Proposed Internal Roadway System” map, it is unclear if the design includes wide sidewalks and favors pedestrian movement and safety.
West Side – The bicycle-pedestrian path on the west side of Westwood Village Boulevard is set back from the street. On the east side of the boulevard, sidewalks are narrow and directly abut the automobile lanes. A divider between the street edge and the sidewalk would be desirable here, both to encourage walking and to make it safer.

5. Walking Safety

The overall project makes few distinctions between categories of traffic allowed on proposed streets. For example, the proponent should designate truck routes (Westwood Station Boulevard and University Avenue appear to serve the major truck needs). Truck traffic should be discouraged from Market Street and other local thoroughfares – anywhere extensive pedestrian traffic is anticipated.
Proposed intersection traffic controls and their effects on pedestrian movement should be indicated. Signals located on site roadway intersections should include pedestrian phases and countdown signals to indicate how many seconds are left in the walk phase. Traffic controls might be needed for mid-block pedestrian crossings.
Traffic calming would help protect pedestrians. Mention has been made of raised intersections to slow traffic. Speed limit signs should be placed throughout the development, and where possible, should be set for low speeds. Streetscape improvements such as lighting, an extensive tree canopy and on-street parking can also make a street more conducive to walking and lead to slower-moving cars.

6. Recreational walking

While the project includes sidewalks and recreational paths leading into adjacent open space, a network of paths is not created. The proposal for a walking/jogging/biking trail along Westwood Station Boulevard could be part of a larger jogging/strolling trail connected via Harvard Street or Canton Street to University Avenue. This would make a large loop (a mile or more) for residents and on-site employees.
• A trail connection is proposed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation between the Route 128 Railway Station and Royall Street in Canton, which leads to the Blue Hills Reservation. Construction drawings of the trail will be prepared by the 5 proponent, with construction to await final design and construction of the I95/I93/128 interchange. An endowment to operate the trail would be extremely beneficial.
A canoe access site to the Neponset River is near the southern end of Westwood Station. There appears to be limited access to the site on foot. Perhaps there can be an extension of on-site trails into this area.
Paths alone cannot provide the level of exercise provided by outdoor playing facilities. The nearest recreation and sports facilities are nearly a mile away at K-5 Downey School, where there is a baseball diamond, tennis courts and a soccer field. On-site, the principal recreation facilities are paths at the Meadow and a dog-walking reservation. Adding a path network and recreation facilities would be helpful and would encourage walking and physical activity.
Sites west of Westwood Station Boulevard may offer some opportunities for additional recreation – space for a ball diamond, courts for tennis, basketball, public gardens, paths for strolling or nature walks, or a jogging track. This space could serve both the residential community and adjacent office employees.
Additional recreation facilities could be located at the Meadow if they did not interfere with the protective area around the wellhead.
A playground could be added in the Meadow, the Common or the Promenade for shoppers’ children or for families with children living in nearby housing units.

7. Public transit

Pedestrian access between the development and the MBTA station must be encouraged. However, given the size of the project, especially its great north-south length, internal transit will be needed to encourage arriving at the site via longer-distance transit and then walking around portions of the site. For shopping, the large stores at the southern end of the development are almost too distant for significant pedestrian traffic from the residential/retail/office/hotel areas. The farthest stores are more than 3,000 feet from the MBTA station – a 20 minute walk and a distance that may be unattractive for shoppers on foot. The proponent has indicated that it will provide a shuttle bus service, equipment and a maintenance facility. A commitment to operation of shuttle bus services on a permanent basis would be appropriate.
The proponent suggests shuttle bus service with shelters that display real time bus arrival times and support safe and efficient use of non-automobile transportation. This would be a welcome level of transit information.
Bus stops should be provided on all routes, signed to preserve space for the vehicles to pick up passengers at shelters.

8. Sidewalk connections

The proponent has committed to building sidewalks on both sides of all streets to be built or reconstructed. This should include the portions of the existing University Avenue that abut properties to the east that are not included in the proposed development site.
It would be useful to know the proposed dimensions of the sidewalks, and documentation should include proposed cross-sections and landscape and lighting design of all streets, sidewalks and rights-of-way.
Pedestrian facilities are largely self-contained within the project site. There are few nearby residences within walking distance and the design seems to assume that access from nearby neighborhoods will occur only by auto. At a minimum, sidewalks should allow pedestrians to walk into the project along the Blue Hill Drive entrance. Other connections into the abutting neighborhood would be desirable.
Pedestrian access directly to the canopied platform of the MBTA railroad station is essential. Details of the proposed connection and the effects that the reconstruction of Greenlodge Street should be provided.
Preferential parking for carpools, vanpools and Zipcars should be provided in locations convenient for users, who are likely to be carless residents or employees. Signs on sidewalks should indicate where the vehicles are located.

9. Encouraging pedestrians

The proponent should institute an active walking encouragement program. This could include maps of the site that are made available at many locations. It could also include transportation access guides to give concise information for accessing a destination by walking, cycling and public transit, and facilities and services for people with special mobility needs.
One of the real tests of pedestrian-friendly design of a residential proposal could be “Can you live here without a car?” Does the area provide for all resident needs, such as shopping for groceries, access to school, work, and recreation? Does the site provide sufficient access to transportation, whether train, shuttle bus, Zipcar, taxi, sidewalk or path? Are there supportive transportation management aids such as the guaranteed ride home that make movement efficient at all hours?

10. Toward full build out

Phase I of the development is scheduled to include all of the retail uses, half of the residential units, the hotels and one office building.
North end. Build out of this area will be almost complete at the end of Phase I. The exception will be the Meadow residential units that await Phase II. It will be critical that essential retail establishments are present to serve the 500 residential units on-site.
South end. Build out of this area seems more difficult. The big box stores at the southernmost end of the site may be readily built, but the midsection of the area is less well defined. This area, with its small stores fronting Market Street, could be the experimental portion of the development, evolving in accord with feedback from the fully built-out residential/office/hotel community in the north end of the project. If the market holds, it might be possible to incorporate residences above the retail units along Market Street, or office uses that are planned west of Westwood Station Boulevard. This might aid in removing issues caused by siting residential structures that negatively affect the well field at the Meadow.

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

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner