Tag: pedestrian safety

Chelsea Complete Streets Support Letter

Chelsea Complete Streets Support Letter

December 4, 2017

Chelsea City Council
500 Broadway
Chelsea, MA 02150

RE: WalkBoston support for Chelsea Complete Streets Resolution and Policy

Dear Councilors:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Chelsea’s Complete Streets Resolution and Policy. As a statewide pedestrian advocacy organization working to make Massachusetts more walkable, WalkBoston enthusiastically supports this policy and encourages the Subcommittee and then the full City Council to pass it.

WalkBoston is deeply committed to safer streets in Chelsea, where we have had the privilege of working for several years now. In the past year we have conducted walk assessments in the Sector 4 and Park Square neighborhoods, working collaboratively with city departments, local residents, community organizations, and state agencies to recommend pedestrian safety improvements. (Copies of these walk assessment reports are included with this letter.) Such Complete Streets concepts are already informing the City’s Re-imagining Broadway initiative, and formalizing the policy order will ensure that this great progress continues.

The needs and opportunities around Complete Streets in Chelsea are great. The City was ranked as the top pedestrian crash cluster in the entire state for 2005-2014, highlighting the urgent need for safety improvements. The Re-imagining Broadway initiative, the forthcoming Silver Line Gateway, and ongoing urban revitalization efforts all present opportunities to create safe walking, biking and transit connections. More Complete Streets that accommodate all road users will bring substantial health, safety and economic benefits to Chelsea residents. The City Council has already taken a great step towards increased safety by reducing the default speed limit in Chelsea to 25 miles per hour, and adopting a Complete Streets framework will ensure that roadway designs help accomplish this objective.

To date 142 cities and towns all over Massachusetts have adopted Complete Streets policies, including dense urban municipalities near Chelsea like Cambridge, Somerville and Everett. These communities are pursuing innovative measures like protected bike lanes, painted curb extensions, and dedicated bus lanes to enhance mobility and connectivity for their residents.
WalkBoston encourages the City of Chelsea to follow suit, and we look forward to our continued work here to help advance Complete Streets that work for everyone.

Sincerely,

Adi Nochur
Project Manager

Automated Enforcement?

Automated Enforcement?

By Charlie Ticotsky/Policy Director, T4MA 

Our streets are experiencing a rise of serious injuries and fatalities. As the Boston Globe recently reported, all traffic deaths in 2017 are up 46% over the same period of 2013. This unacceptable trend affects people walking, biking, and driving. Drivers who are distracted by texting and apps are a major cause of crashes.

An Act to reduce traffic fatalities (Senate Bill 1905 / House Bill 2877) is intended to make our roads safer in the face of troubling trends. Drafted with broad input, it has 85 cosponsors led by Senator Will Brownsberger and Representatives Jon Hecht and David Rogers.

Recognizing that cities and towns need tools to enforce traffic rules, the legislation allows use of automated road safety cameras to enforce speeding, red-light, and school bus stop sign violations. While Massachusetts does not currently enable this, 29 states have some form of camera enforcement and it is common in other countries.

Research shows automated cameras are effective. In Montgomery County, Maryland, streets with speed cameras experienced a 39% reduction in fatal and serious injuries. A University of North Carolina Highway Research Center study found installation of red-light cameras can contribute to a slight rise in rear-end crashes, but almost always leads to significant reductions in typically more severe side-impact crashes. The National Transportation Safety Board has endorsed automated enforcement as an effective way to reduce speed and crashes.

With the right regulations, automated enforcement can be a highly effective safety tool, and one that doesn’t increase traffic stops—a concern by many in a time of increased racial profiling, and immigration issues. The language In this bill is designed to ensure the best system of enforcement:

  • Location of cameras would be based on safety benefits, not targeting any population or neighborhood. Cameras would be at high-crash locations where other interventions such as road redesign are not feasible.
  • It would not be a money grab. The best cameras act as deterrents and not to trick people into fines—few violations are a sign of success. The bill directs the majority of revenues into road improvements, not general funds. Cameras would be well-marked. Revenue-sharing with private camera installation or operating companies would be prohibited, avoiding inappropriate incentives.
  • Photographs would be of rear license plates, no faces or identifying information, and only if a violation has occurred. Photos would be permanently deleted after ruling. Fines, assessed to the owner of the vehicle, would not exceed $50, won’t increase with additional violations, nor add to insurance points. Law enforcement would need a court-approved warrant to access photos for purposes beyond traffic enforcement.
  • There would be state oversight, an appeals process, and common-sense emergency exemptions.

This article was featured in WalkBoston’s October 2017 newsletter.

————————————————————————————————
Join WalkBoston’s Mailing List to keep up to date on advocacy issues.
Like our work? Support WalkBoston – Donate Now!
Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook

Comments on 24 Ericsson Street Development (Neponset Wharf)

Comments on 24 Ericsson Street Development (Neponset Wharf)

September 29, 2017

Tim Czerwienski
Boston Planning and Development Agency
One City Hall, Ninth Floor
Boston, MA 02201

RE: WalkBoston comments on 24 Ericsson Street development (Neponset Wharf)

Dear Tim:

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Neponset Wharf development at 24 Ericsson Street in the Port Norfolk neighborhood of Dorchester, Boston. This project has the potential to advance walkable community goals by promoting active outdoor uses and enhancing pedestrian access to the waterfront. At the same time the project site remains highly inaccessible without a motor vehicle, which raises broader concerns about pedestrian safety and connectivity. Significant Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and mitigation measures would be necessary to address these issues.

The project proponent’s goals of creating two acres of new landscaped outdoor space on the site, including 28,000 square feet of continuous publicly accessible Harborwalk, will significantly enhance the local public realm, while also promoting active living and outdoor recreation. We are intrigued by the proponent’s consideration of a bicycle and pedestrian bridge to connect the project site with Tenean Beach. While such a bridge would certainly improve public access to the Harborwalk, we have also heard resident concerns about the bridge’s potential impacts on the local ecology and its potential to put excess demand on the availability of parking for Tenean Beach if users of the new development use the public parking lot park at the Beach.

Relatedly, the proponent has stated their intention to “provide pedestrian and bicycle transportation infrastructure that is consistent with Boston Transportation Department’s Complete Streets guidelines.” Creating streets, sidewalks and paths that accommodate road users of all abilities and travel modes is critical to developing more livable and walkable communities, so WalkBoston is pleased to see a commitment to these issues reflected in the project’s Environmental Notification Form. However actually implementing these concepts in a heavily car-dependent neighborhood and project site means that significant challenges must be addressed.

High proportion and number of motor vehicle trips: Given poor transit access and limited street connectivity to the Port Norfolk neighborhood and the proposed Neponset Wharf site, the proponent estimates that only five percent of trips generated by the project will be bicycle and walking trips. The remaining 95 percent of project-generated trips will be in motor vehicles, for a total of 1,440 new vehicular trips on an average weekday. To accommodate this traffic, the proponent has proposed 185 parking spaces on the project site. We are concerned that the number of trips and the number of parking spaces do not seem to be aligned, as these figures would suggest nearly eight trips per day per parking space. This suggests a need to more fully explore appropriate transportation options for the development of this site.

In addition, the increased volume of motor vehicles this project would generate in Port Norfolk will increase risks to people walking and biking on the neighborhood’s narrow streets and sidewalks. The project proponent has stated their intention to develop a TDM plan for the project in the forthcoming Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). This plan should include a full accounting of how proposed TDM measures would reduce the overall number of motor vehicle trips and increase the overall percentage of trips using walking, biking and transit modes.

Neighborhood access and pedestrian safety: Redfield Street, Tenean Street/Conley Street, and Woodworth Street/Walnut Street are the primary routes for motor vehicles to enter and exit the Port Norfolk neighborhood. The proposed project will significantly increase the number of motor vehicles traveling these streets, so the proponent should explore ways to implement traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures along these streets as mitigation. Given that much of this increased traffic will come from Neponset Circle/Morrissey Boulevard, the intersections of Redfield, Walnut, Conley and Tenean Streets at these locations should also be assessed for safety improvements in coordination with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).

Site access and pedestrian safety: The project site abuts Ericsson Street, with a one-way entry to the site to be aligned with Port Norfolk Street and a one-way exit from the site to be aligned with Lawley Street. The proposed project will significantly increase the number of motor vehicles traveling these streets as well, so the proponent should also explore ways to implement traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures along these streets as further mitigation.

The proponent should also clarify how pedestrians will safely enter and exit the project site at Port Norfolk and Lawley Streets. The current site access/egress points at these locations lack sidewalks and are relatively narrow for motor vehicles even in the absence of sidewalks. These access/egress points also abut existing buildings, so while the proponent “envision[s] multiple accessible sidewalks along the entry points into the site,” it is unclear where the space for safe pedestrian accommodations will actually come from. Increasing the number of motor vehicles traveling through this area will pose additional safety risks to pedestrians, so the proponent should explore plans for mitigation here as well.

Thank you for considering these issues and please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Comments on MassDOT Snow and Ice Control Program 2017 EEA# 11202

Comments on MassDOT Snow and Ice Control Program 2017 EEA# 11202

August 9, 2017

Secretary Matthew Beaton
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, MEPA Office
Attn: Alex Strysky
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Comments on MassDOT Snow and Ice Control Program 2017 Environmental Status and Planning Report EEA# 11202

Dear Secretary Beaton:

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Snow and Ice Control Program of MassDOT. We are commenting because pedestrian issues are not addressed in the Report. We provided similar comments in 2006, to the then Mass Highway Department.

While MassDOT has made significant strides to incorporate the needs of pedestrians into many of their project designs and safety programs, we are disappointed that the important accessibility, safety and mobility issues that un-­‐shoveled sidewalks, crosswalks and safety islands pose for pedestrians has still not been addressed in this document.

The Report covers many of the steps that the MassDOT will take to deal with the impacts of its application of chemicals on roadways. It discusses in detail the impacts that these materials have on pavement and the relative degree of effectiveness that the materials exhibit when removing snow and ice. It describes procedures that snow plow operators (whether state employees or service-­‐providers hired by the state) must follow, along with ways that the state will oversee the operations associated with snow plowing. In several of these discussions MassDOT comes tantalizingly close to describing potential impacts on pedestrian movement, yet there is no explicit acknowledgement that pedestrians have a stake in the way the state removes ice and snow from roadways and to the relationship between roadway and sidewalk snow and ice clearance. The only mention of pedestrians in the document is where MassDOT indicates that DCR has retained responsibility for sidewalks adjacent to a number of roadways where MassDOT has assumed responsibility for the vehicular travel way and that the MBTA has a plan for its facilities.

The impact of roadway snow and ice clearance on pedestrians
Pedestrians are clearly affected by the removal of snow from roadways and sidewalks and the effects of inadequate clearance that results in unsafe conditions for walking. After a snowfall in Massachusetts, it is possible to view city or town streets where the roadways are well plowed, but the sidewalks are impassable. Common public services such as postal deliveries or meals on wheels can be disrupted. Commuters and school children find their routes blocked. Un-­‐cleared sidewalks parallel to snow mounds can force pedestrians onto the street where pedestrian-­‐ automobile crashes are far more likely to occur. Even where sidewalks are cleared, pedestrian access at intersections is frequently blocked by roadway-­‐related snow mounds that impede safe walking through the intersection and un-­‐cleared snow mounds can prevent pedestrians and drivers from seeing each other clearly at intersection approaches.

The simple activity of walking is dramatically altered by the presence of snow. Snow mounds present a physical challenge to pedestrians, and walkers who are trying to cross mounds of snow to get to a safe walking route may have their attention diverted away from oncoming traffic. Intersections clogged with snow or snowmelt can challenge pedestrians trying to cross, again causing temporary diversion of attention from oncoming traffic. Drivers may not be able to see pedestrians forced onto roadways.

Sidewalks are found along many state roads throughout the Commonwealth, and some roads that were originally constructed without sidewalks now have them as a result of the continuing urbanization and suburbanization of the state. Adding sidewalks is now required for state roads as they are rebuilt and they are thus a standard element of the MassDOT roadway network.

The importance of providing safe pedestrian access in all seasons cannot be taken lightly. It is a matter of public safety, adequate transportation, social justice (many of our citizens who are pedestrian and transit-­‐dependent are lower income or elderly), and economic well being (we discourage elders and the disabled from staying in Massachusetts if they feel isolated and home-­‐ bound by wintry conditions).

The lack of sidewalk guidance does not seem to conform to the MHD Project Development and Design Guide, 2006 edition, which states:

“MassHighway, in its role as steward of our roadways, must consider a broad range of factors in maintaining (emphasis added) or improving this system, including:
• Safety for all users
• Functionality – the need for access and mobility
• Accessibility for people with disabilities…
• Input and participation from local constituents …”

The manual quotes state law:

“Chapter 87 of the Acts of 1996 requires MassHighway to ‘make all reasonable provisions for the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic…’”

(Section 1.2.1, p. 1-­‐3) The manual continues with this Guiding Principle:

“Multimodal consideration – to ensure that the safety and mobility of all users of the transportation system (pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers) are considered equally through all phases of a project so that even the most vulnerable (e.g., children and the elderly) can feel and be safe within the public right of way….”

Section 1.2 Guiding Principles of the Guidebook, detailed in Section 1.2.1, p. 1-­‐3. Citing MassDOT’s 2017 policies as reflected on the current website,

“MassDOT is updating the Massachusetts Pedestrian Transportation Plan to improve conditions for walking throughout the Commonwealth.”

One of the core goals noted is to

“Identify policies and model practices to improve maintenance, year-­‐round usability and state of good repair of existing and planned pedestrian infrastructure.”

We urge MEPA to require MassDOT to explicitly incorporate policies and practices related to sidewalk, curb ramp and crossing island snow clearance in its Snow and Ice Control Program. The Program should address the issues noted below (much of the text is copied largely verbatim from WalkBoston’s 2006 comment letter).

Safety for both drivers and pedestrians
The state has determined that highway safety and vehicle mobility are high priority reasons for snow and ice removal. Clearing only the road is insufficient as a method for providing safety. Pedestrians crossing roadways or walking within the roadway constitute significant dangers for both drivers and themselves. The extent to which pedestrians use roadway pavements for walking is greatly expanded when sidewalks are left un-­‐cleared or when roadside snow mounds force people to clamber over them to cross streets. Many miles of MHD (now MassDOT in each instance below) roadways are paralleled by sidewalks and are thus critical components of the pedestrian (and transit) transportation networks.

Development of a protocol for determining who will be responsible for sidewalk snow clearance on MassDOT roadways
Sidewalk clearance responsibilities may well fall to several different parties including MassDOT, local municipalities, other state or local agencies, or private abutters. In order to “ensure the safety and mobility of all users of the transportation system,” this responsibility must be assigned, managed and enforced throughout the state. As the owner and operator of this transportation network, MHD should assume the job of leading the effort to determine how and by whom the sidewalks will be cleared.

The right of way as a basis for snow and ice removal
Municipalities throughout Massachusetts remove snow and ice from local roadways and establish methods for removing snow and ice from sidewalks. Yet the state does not take on the same responsibility for its roadways. Thus, local jurisdictions must provide for snow and ice removal from sidewalks along state roadways without substantial state assistance. Without coordination between the state and the municipalities, several issues emerge:

  1.  Intersections. The maintenance of a safe pedestrian passageway is critical at street crossings. The crossings are often blocked by snow plowing procedures that simply pile up snow evenly along the road, covering sidewalks, handicapped ramps and street corners, and forcing pedestrians to walk in the roadways. The responsibilities of the state and its agents in clearing intersections – including pedestrian access through the intersection – should be spelled out. Attention to this issue can help municipalities cope with comprehensive snow removal for sidewalks.
  2. Roadway use by walkers. When the state or its agents clear roadways of snow, safe pedestrian passage must be maintained. If the roadway is temporarily used as a substitute sidewalk because sidewalks have not been cleared pedestrian and vehicular safety is compromised. Snow removal frequently results in substantial mounds of snow paralleling the state highway that, in many cases, block the sidewalks and driveways connected to the roadway. Snow mounding as a method of disposal may exacerbate the problem of clearing sidewalks because of the sheer volume of the snow plowed onto the sidewalks.
  3. Planning. Streets can be designed to make plowing easier. Sidewalks might be placed at a distance from the roadway that is sufficient to accommodate snow plowed from the street. Snow fences could be located to control snow buildup on pedestrian facilities and help reduce 4 removal costs. The state should establish guidelines for improved design. Pedestrian safety islands should be designed to remain snow-­‐free after plowing operations.
  4. Research. The Report contains documentation of lane-­‐miles plowed under state responsibility. Perhaps research is necessary to document pedestrian miles on sidewalks along state highways and to show how state snow plowing policies affect pedestrians and how those policies need to be amended or supplemented. In addition to providing a plan for ensuring the clearance of sidewalks, It would be useful to know what financial and technical assistance the state might provide for communities and pedestrians during snowy conditions along state roads through a variety of funding sources such as CMAQ, safety funds or hazard elimination funds.

Coordination of local and state efforts
The method by which state and local coordination takes place is described briefly in the 2006 GEIR. This issue has not been addressed in the 2017 report, but remains an important issue for pedestrian safety.

  1. Division of responsibilities. As noted above, MassDOT should determine sidewalk snow-­‐ clearing responsibilities and how state, local and private entities will divide the work. A detailed plan for coordination is essential to determine precisely how the responsibilities will be divided, especially at locations where different responsibilities will abut or overlap. For example, at intersections where there are sidewalk connections into intersections, pedestrian crossings through intersections, and sidewalks along the roadways and across driveways. It is important for MassDOT to include information about pedestrian issues for inclusion in the plow route schedule each fall and for information to be disseminated by the MassDOT Districts.
  2. Sidewalk snow removal procedures. Written procedures can help clarify how snow is to be removed from sidewalks along state roads by agents other than the MassDOT. The state, municipalities or other state agencies can establish priority sidewalks that must be maintained for walkers right from the start of a snow emergency. One model has been prepared by the DCR, which works with the MassDOT to clear certain of its roadways. The state clears curb-­‐to-­‐ curb, and the DCR clears the sidewalks according to a predetermined priority rating assigned to each sidewalk. Some communities (e.g. Concord) clear snow from sidewalks along state roads according to a plan that has been developed in conjunction with the school department to facilitate safe access to schools. Priorities may need to be established for sidewalks leading to schools, transit, hospitals and clinics, business concentrations, and public services such as police and fire stations, as well as based on the density of pedestrian use.
  3. Bartering. A bartering process was described in the 2006 GEIR (Section 2.5.3, p. 29) as an informal method of coordinating operations, with the state taking on some municipal responsibilities. This method of coordination could be used to establish procedures for local communities. Coordination might be embedded in written agreements between the state and the cities and towns that define responsibilities for the details of snow removal. This process is no longer included in the Guide and we are curious how it has been replaced.
  4. Communication with the public. The public should be informed of policy decisions concerning snow removal on sidewalks, streets and at intersections, so that individuals can plan routes to work or school or for other purposes. One method is to place information delineating responsibilities on-­‐line so that can be widely distributed. A good example of delineating agency responsibilities for snow removal is laid out in the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s website at: http://eoeea.maps.arcgis.com/apps/SimpleViewer/index.html?appid=4a64ec9cf8ac4bb5a5bc 97e5e443e798 By laying out snow removal intentions, it may be possible to avert tragedies involving pedestrians walking in roadways.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Report. Please feel free to contact us for clarification or additional comments. We would be very pleased to work with MHD on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc:   Stephanie Pollack, MassDOT Secretary
Sam Salfity Director of SICP Operations
Jonathan Gulliver, Acting Highway Commissioner
Kate Fichter, MassDOT Assistant Secretary for Policy Coordination
Jackie DeWolfe, MassDOT Director of Sustainable Mobility
Pete Sutton, MassDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Coordinator

Comments on the Seaport Square NPC, MEPA 14255-3/24/17

Comments on the Seaport Square NPC, MEPA 14255-3/24/17

March 24, 2017

Matthew Beaton, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office Analyst: Alex Strysky
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

Gary Uter
Boston Planning and Development Agency
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201

Re: Comments on the Seaport Square NPC, MEPA 14255

Dear Mr. Beaton and Mr. Uter:

WalkBoston is pleased to submit comments on the revised Seaport Square project in the South Boston Seaport District.

We applaud the developer’s broad and thoughtful approach to creating a walkable and pedestrian focused sense of place. In particular, the new walking connection to Summer Street; the extensive, interesting and continuous connection to the harbor via Harbor Way; and the fact that the development is at the same grade with the rest of the Seaport District provide great opportunities to help transform the district into a lively part of the City.

Our comments are focused on several detailed design and management issues that we believe should be further considered as the project moves toward final development and implementation.

  1. We are very pleased that the proponent is providing an additional entrance to the Courthouse Silver Line station. This will provide weather-­protected access to transit and provide very convenient transit access for people walking in the area. We urge the developer to ensure that safe crosswalks are provided to the Silver Line station on Northern Avenue and on the nearby intersecting streets -­ Marina Park Drive and Boston Wharf Road -­ two cross streets that are not precisely aligned with one another. The crosswalks should serve desire lines for walkers going to or from the station.
  2. Several of the key pedestrian crosswalks that will serve the project require further attention to pedestrian safety.
  • The lane widths shown on Figures 1-­35 and 1-­36 show that Congress Street and East Service Road will have overly wide 12’ and 15’ travel lanes. The un-­‐signalized pedestrian crosswalk on Congress Street is 70’ wide and we believe that substantial safety measures are needed to make this a safe place for pedestrians, in particular because many of the vehicles using this street will be coming from or heading toward I-­90, a situation that causes drivers to think that they are in a higher speed situation. Among the measures that should be considered are: addition of a traffic signal, narrowing the lanes and the crossing distance, and addition of a raised crossing.
  • The diagrams of other streets show 10.5 – 11’ foot lanes. We urge the proponent to work with the City to shrink all lanes to 10’ or 10.5,’ which the City’s Complete Streets Guidelines suggest as a reasonable width for an urban street.
  • At the edge of the project, a crossing of Summer Street to connect Seaport Square with the BCEC is absolutely essential. This crosswalk must be fully protected by a traffic signal. We believe that a gracious and safe pedestrian crossing of Summer Street will be important to the financial success of Seaport Square in addition to fulfilling the needs for a walker-­‐centric design.
  • No signals are provided for five pedestrian crossings of Northern Avenue. While this may be viewed as a slow-­‐moving street, great care should be taken with the design to ensure that all the crossings are safe for pedestrians, with minimal crossing distances and street designs and parking management that ensure that pedestrians waiting to cross can be seen by approaching motorists.
  • It is noteworthy that signalized crossings are added along Seaport Boulevard at pedestrian crossings between Farnsworth Street and the Harbor Shore Drive pedestrian way, between Thompson Street and Fan Pier Boulevard, and at the important pedestrian crossing where the Summer Street–to-­‐harbor pedestrian way intersects the Seaport Boulevard and also leads to the new entrance to Courthouse Station on the Silver Line.
  1. The shadow conditions in the project area suggest that the proponent will need to make special provisions to make the pedestrian zones comfortable during colder parts of the year. The developer might look to some of the work highlighted by WinterCities (http://wintercities.com/home/about/) for ideas on this topic.
  2. The proposed design for Seaport Boulevard as shown in Figure 1-­6 does not yet accomplish the goals for a truly walkable urban district. Except for a partially widened median strip, the roadway appears to have few distinctions from the existing conditions. Among the measures that should be considered for Seaport Boulevard are:
  • Narrow lanes and frequent raised crossings to slow traffic
  • Pedestrian scale lighting
  • Activated ground floor uses to give a sense of place for people walking along the street •  Pedestrian wayfinding
  • We also urge the proponent to consider whether a widened median is a desirable design feature to be continued throughout the project area. The landscaping with rocks, grasses and sculptures might truly make the boulevard distinctive. Landscaping features could also be added on the sidewalks, making the walking experience more pleasant.

All of the design features noted above could help shift the street from its existing character as an auto-­centric roadway to one that is attractive and safe for pedestrians.

  1. The proponent should consider walking conditions and amenities on the edges of the project as well as the center – people will be walking everywhere and the NPC is focused very heavily on the central Harbor Way. We urge that the many other streets be carefully planned as well.
  2. Because the project is so large and will create a significant portion of the Seaport District’s character, it seems to have the potential to provide a pedestrian and land use environment that can serve a diverse and multi-­‐generational population. We urge the developer to pay attention to the mix of uses, shops and restaurants and their pricing so that they are attractive to all members of the greater Boston community.
  3. Bicycle accommodations shown in the NPC do not seem to represent Boston’s current thinking about the need to provide low stress bicycle facilities. While this is not WalkBoston’s area of expertise, we believe that it is very important for the Seaport District to accommodate bicycles as well as possible.
  • For example, Figure 3-­13, Transportation Circulation Plan, shows bicycle lanes on Northern Avenue, Seaport Boulevard and Boston Wharf Road, without indicating connections to the City’s planned bicycle routes on Congress Street, Summer Street, the Northern Avenue Bridge, the Evelyn Moakley Bridge, and Seaport Boulevard east of East Service Road. Potential north-­‐south connections between these main routes are ignored. Possible bicycle lanes on Sleeper Street, Fan Pier Boulevard, Marina Park Drive or other connecting streets are not indicated.
  • Bicycle lanes on Seaport Boulevard are shown in ways the City is no longer supporting. Figure 1-­6 shows bicycle lanes adjacent to moving traffic, while the City is now working to provide protected bicycle lanes (between parked cars and the sidewalk) on arterials.
  • The crosswalk on Summer Street will also be used by cyclists on the Summer Street cycle tracks. Cyclists will be interested in crossing the street as they access the proposed development – particularly the critical and focal pedestrian path between Summer Street and the harbor. Special provision for cyclists should be included to preserve the safety of pedestrians throughout this potentially densely used walkway.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the project, and would be pleased to answer any questions that our comments raise.

 

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

 

Cc Yanni Tsipis, WS Development
Jonathan Greeley, BPDA
Vineet Gupta, Boston Transportation Department
Patrick Sullivan, Seaport TMA