Tag: Pedestrians

Taunton High School, Parker Middle School, New Pole Elementary Additions and Renovations Comment Letter

Taunton High School, Parker Middle School, New Pole Elementary Additions and Renovations Comment Letter

By |

September 28, 2007

Secretary Ian A. Bowles
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Comments on Taunton High School and Parker Middle School Additions and Renovations/New Pole Elementary School Environmental Notification Form

EOEA # 14099

Dear Mr. Bowles:

We have reviewed the ENF for the proposed project at the site of the existing Taunton High School. The 105-acre site includes the existing High School and Parker Middle School Building. The proposal calls for renovation and additions to the existing buildings and the addition of the new Pole Elementary School. When completed, the High School/Middle School building will have 3200 students and 660 staff and the Pole Elementary School will have 770 students and 87 staff. We are pleased that the city is making investments in this relatively centrally located facility that can be accessed on foot by many students.

We received detailed site plans from the proponent, showing facilities for walking – sidewalks, paths and plazas at the entrance to major facilities. We were impressed that new pedestrian access to the renovated High School/Middle School is a major portion of the renovation plan. In particular there are plazas at the main entrances and sidewalks extending out to the frontage on Williams Street and on Hon. Gordon M. Owen Riverway. Sidewalks surround the new “green” and line the loop road in front of the building. Access from parking lots into the main entrances connect to these walkways.

We do not know from the ENF if pedestrian access off-site is included and hope that the city will make an effort to address off-site issues. The site is about a mile from the center of the city. Its central location suggests that it is accessible by walking for many students. Sidewalks along Williams Street and Owen Riverway already exist and some are being rebuilt as part of this project. Encouraging walkers may require special attention to crosswalks and pedestrian countdown crossing signals, for example, at the intersection of Williams Street and Owen Riverway.

On the site, we suggest that the plans be reviewed to assure that crosswalks are available in all principal pedestrian activity areas. The plans are a bit unclear about pedestrian access to tennis courts, playing fields and the stadium. While we hope that students will be discouraged from driving if they are within walking distance of the school, we also hope that the site improvements will ensure the safety of people who do drive. We note that the major parking area near the school entrance has sidewalks along each edge, and suggest that marked walkways across the parking areas be considered as an added safety feature for students. The principal parking area near the main entrance to the High School has only indirect pedestrian facilities. As a result, many walkers will cross diagonally on the lawn, a situation that could be remedied by installation of a diagonal walkway. We also suggest that sidewalks be provided between the High School/Middle School and other buildings on the site, such as the skating rink.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this ENF.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Osborn Hills

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Osborn Hills

By |

January 22, 2007

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

RE: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Osborne Hills, Salem, MA

EOEA # 13965

Dear Mr. Bowles:

WalkBoston is delighted to have the proponent of Osborne Hills in Salem respond positively to our comments on the ENF for this project. After addressing certain comments satisfactorily in the DEIR, the proponent has modified aspects of the plan to incorporate these suggestions.

We would like to take this opportunity to review our comments and refine the observations in view of the ENF responses from the proponent. We request that the proponent respond to these issues as described below:

 

A.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 1 in the ENF has been satisfactorily answered. The proponent will be constructing sidewalks on both sides of all internal roadways – a commendable and very useful incorporation of physical facilities that will provide significant safety and convenience for pedestrians living in the community. We are very happy that this change was made by the proponent.

B.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 2 in the ENF suggested that on-site trails currently planned to be dead end should loop back into the path network. There are three such locations: Two are in the northeast corner of the site and connect to the site boundary and dead end there. A third loops into and through the grounds around the Water Storage Tank, ending at the site boundary. We continue to think it would improve the project to do so.

C.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 3 in the ENF referred to trail connections between the on-site trails and paths or sidewalks outside the property. No connections are indicated, although we remain hopeful that, at minimum, a pedestrian connection might be feasible at the site boundary where a proposed roadway ends in a cul-de-sac that abuts the end of Barcelona Avenue.

D.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 4 in the ENF has been satisfactorily answered. The proponent will use the irregular site topography to make trails interesting and challenging.

E.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 5 received a response that is discouraging. WalkBoston had hoped that on-site resident children might be able to walk to school – a feature that many suburban communities do not encourage. The response indicated that walking to school could not be accomplished because busing was likely to be available. Furthermore, Marlborough Road would have to be crossed by the children and the adjacent neighborhoods there are no sidewalks. We would hope that, the sidewalks being produced for the proponent’s site may show the way toward a neighborhood sidewalk network that allows children to walk to school.

F.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 6 did not receive a response in the DEIR. It suggested that the proponent try to show all pedestrian connections on the map as “actual” proposals rather than “potential.” The DEIR shows pathways along the west property line and a path connection at the northeast corner of the site as “potential” additions to the network. Both would add significantly to the ultimate network of paths and should be included in the build-out of this plan.

G.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 7 in the ENF has been satisfactorily answered. Small footbridges will be constructed as needed for wetland crossings.

H.   WalkBoston’s comment no. 8 in the ENF has been satisfactorily answered. The utility corridor is not a good alignment for walking paths.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Chestnut Hill Square Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report

Chestnut Hill Square Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report

By |

January 5, 2007

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

Attn: Bill Gage

RE: Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report
Chestnut Hill Square
200 Boylston Street, Newton, MA
EOEA # 12928

 

Dear Mr. Bowles:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Chestnut Hill Square in Newton, MA. The proposal will have significant impacts on future circulation in and near several malls and residential towers on Route 9, an essential regional artery. We conclude that the pedestrian aspects of the proposal may play an extremely important role in alleviating congestion.

We are pleased that the project proponent has made so many substantial efforts to integrate pedestrian facilities into the project. In general, we think it is a promising basis for a more complete pedestrian network on the site – one that draws its neighbors together. In addition, we have several concerns about the project which are described below:

• Assessing the market for walking in the area

• Encouraging nearby residents to walk

• Providing a comprehensive network of pedestrian pathways

o The Florence Street frontage

o The west boundary of the property

o The east boundary of the property

o The Route 9 frontage

o Interior walkways

• Integrating access to public transit

• Assuring construction of pedestrian bridge over Route 9

• Establishing sidewalk construction standards

 

Potential Walkers In The Area

The site of Chestnut Hill Square is one with substantial potential for walk-in customers from nearby residential districts (within a 1000’ radius or 2-3 city blocks). Transportation policy and wise management would suggest that local residents should be encouraged to walk these short distances, rather than being required to drive such short distances because pedestrian infrastructure is lacking. Short very local trips add to the total number of vehicles on-street, exacerbating congestion that could instead be alleviated by pedestrian connections to nearby sites.

Within a 1000-foot radius of the site (less than . mile!), are high-density residential towers, townhouse developments and single-family homes accounting for more than 1,700 units.

Collectively, these units have a population of about 2,600 people (assuming an average occupancy of 1.5 persons/unit). These potential customers are within very convenient walking distance of the proposed retail development, and may readily be interested in walking access if it is encouraged. Assuming .5 trips/day/unit, if only half of these trips were made on foot, it could mean a reduction of more than 850 daily vehicle trips.

 

Attracting Walkers to The Site

For the many nearby residents to walk to the site, a network of pedestrian facilities is essential, as is pointed out in the FEIR. Even with the infrastructure in place, these potential customers will need persuasion to walk to the center – to overcome ingrained driving habits and to be persuaded to try out the new walking routes. Specific walking encouragement could take the form of publicity about the site’s walkability, offers of free delivery services (for people who purchase more than they can comfortably carry), sales of grocery carts, walking clubs based at the grocery store (or other retailers), or the provision of walking maps showing the pedestrian routes. Not only will walking help alleviate congestion, it may be an important marketing tool highlighting the convenience of the site.

 

A Comprehensive Network of Walkways

The FEIR states that sidewalks and pedestrian promenade areas will be provided along all roadways within the site. (p. I-13, Section 6.2.1. and IV-24, Section 5.2.4.2.) Yet the Illustrative Site Plan (Fig. I.1-2) and the Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation Diagram (Fig. II.1-7) show sidewalks only in certain areas: along Boylston Street, along Florence Street, and in front of the entrances to the retail areas on both sides of the central east-west street. In addition a second-level walkway is proposed, (as diagrammed in Figs. I.1-2 and II.1-7) to supplement access from sidewalks at the lower level.

The on-site pedestrian network should include sidewalks along all roadways within the site, and all of the sidewalks should be of adequate widths. The widths may vary, depending ontheir intended uses. Considerable thought has been given to the retail-pedestrian precinct, where sidewalks are wide, reflecting the greatest concentration of outdoor pedestrian traffic on the site. Elsewhere it is unclear what sidewalk standards can or will be met.

Sidewalks are to be constructed so as to be flush with all garage entrances (p. I-13, section 6.2.1). We are pleased that this standard will be followed in the project.

The following sidewalks should be added to the site design:

• West boundary road (abutting the Capitol Grille and the rear parking lot.) A proposed roadway provides access between Route 9, the garages and the loading areas, but does not extend all the way from Boylston Street to Florence Street (a paved area is provided for emergency access only). A missing pedestrian link along the west boundary is a full connection between Florence Street and Route 9. This would be a convenient way for pedestrians to reach Route 9 if there is to be a pedestrian crossing at the at-grade signalized intersection between this site and the Mall at Chestnut Hill.

• Sidewalks on the east side of the site facing Milton’s, Barnes & Noble, and Avalon Bay. A roadway is proposed here, to extend from Route 9 to Florence Street, but part of it is to be used only for emergency access. Only a very short segment of sidewalk along it is diagrammed in Fig. 1.1-2 or Fig. II.1-7, yet a sidewalk here would form a major element of a full pedestrian network. It could serve people walking to the lifestyle food center and other retailers from Florence Street, as well as residents of Avalon Bay and residential areas near Hammond Pond Parkway and Heath Street. A gracious touch would be to provide abutting properties such as Avalon Bay Residences and Milton’s direct pedestrian access to this walkway. The Milton’s building is clearly visible from the site (it forms a visual terminus of the central plaza access to the retail areas), and a fence between properties without pedestrian access seems inappropriate.

• Sidewalks on the north boundary of the site along Route 9. This is potentially the most difficult area for pedestrians. Sidewalks are in place along the Route 9 frontage between Hammond Pond Parkway and Florence Street. But, the heavy traffic on the roadway and the turning movements at numerous curb cuts make the environment unpleasant and threateningly dangerous.

• The entrances and exits for Chestnut Hill Square pose potential conflicts with pedestrians. The one-way inbound west entrance will serve significant traffic volumes into the site. Pedestrians following Route 9 should be able to cross when turning movements into the site are not permitted by the signal.

• The east entrance and exit location is somewhat more difficult, as it is presently proposed to be unsignalized. Eastbound entering and exiting traffic may not be able to see pedestrians on the Route 9 sidewalks.

• The mid-site exit onto Route 9 (abutting David & Co.) is one-way outbound to the highway, incorporating both a truck loading zone and vehicles exiting the site from the west parking garage access points. This exit has pedestrian connections on the west side with the potential for significant conflict with pedestrians. It is not shown to have any signalized intersections.

• There is a proposed new on-site lane parallel to Route 9 for a bus lane/stop for the project (Fig. II.1-7). This lane may have a conflict of uses – a bus lane/bus stop serving the site and an acceleration lane for traffic entering Route 9. Pedestrian access to the bus lane and stop appears to be by way of the mid-site exit described above.

• In summary, the difficulties facing pedestrians on Route 9 sidewalks support the concept of constructing the central plaza as an attractive alternative route for pedestrians.

• Sidewalk along Florence Street. Sidewalks are clearly included along Florence Street. They are interrupted by three driveways into the site, but seem appropriate for the setting. The Florence Street sidewalks connect to residences along the length of Florence Street (Heath Street in Brookline) from Hammond Pond Pkwy to Route 9. The street may become less safe and attractive for pedestrians if it becomes a bypass for Route 9.

Internal Walkways

The retail center of the site is the focus of proposed internal pedestrian ways. The internal walkways at the central plaza look potentially interesting and lively, connecting numerous retail outlets, and both the east and west residences. The buildings are not isolated from the world by vast parking lots, and the central plaza is about 500 feet long – slightly longer than a city block – walkable and easily comprehended by pedestrians. The space is complemented by existing buildings at either end, with the Milton’s store, backed by the Avalon Bay tower to the east, and the Capital Grille, backed by the high-rise Imperial Towers at the west.

This central space cries out for physical connections to the off-site buildings at either end. The proponent has indicated that conversations are underway with abutters to provide pedestrian links. (see p. II-6, section 1.4.3) We hope that this happens in conjunction with careful traffic controls on-site to ensure that the significant amount of site-generated traffic that may pass through the heart of the central plaza does not impede pedestrian travel. All traffic entering the site at the new signalized intersection from an eastbound direction and via the new turn lanes on westbound Route 9 will pass through the retail area eventually –primarily to and from parking areas. Traffic entering the site at the eastbound driveway from Route 9 can avoid passing directly through the pedestrian precinct.

In the DEIR, inhabitants of the Florence Street Residences appeared to have additional access through the interior of the adjacent parking garage into the retail areas via a second floor arcade. This connection is not shown on Fig. 1.1-2, and we hope that it will be provided. If available, this route would also be attractive to off-site residents coming to the retail areas, as a weather-protected walkway.

Integrating Public Transit Access

The addition of a bus stop at the site is very useful. As proposed, MBTA Route 60 would continue its present route to Langley Road, just past the new Chestnut Hill Square/Mall to the Chestnut Hill intersection on Route 9, and use the jughandle and signal as a u-turn location. The new bus stop should be coordinated with the bus stop on the opposite side of Route 9 (in front of the Mall at Chestnut Hill). This would help alleviate the need for transit riders to walk across Route 9 to reach either site.

The proposed shuttle service from the Green Line Station at Chestnut Hill is a valuable addition. This station is more than a mile away, and a shuttle would provide access for both employees and customers if provided on frequent headways. We hope that the proponent will work with area retailers to make the shuttle service a success.

Pedestrian Bridge Over Route 9

Since it was suggested by the proponent, the possible pedestrian bridge over Route 9 between this site and the Mall at Chestnut Hill has engendered great interest. The proposal was made to provide a thorough integration of the two malls on opposite sides of Route 9. It would expand the shopping opportunities available, in much the same way that Copley Plaza and Prudential Center malls are related via the pedestrian connection over Huntington Avenue. The combination of retail opportunities at the two malls would create a significant concentration of shopping to attract both regional and local residents. The bridge would eliminate the difficulties inherent in pedestrian at-grade crossings on Route 9. Even with a signalized intersection, this will not be a pedestrian-friendly location due to the speed and volume of traffic, and the width of the roadway. Getting the bridge built may be difficult. There seems to be little likelihood that public agencies will fund the construction. Therefore, the proponent should pursue the steps outlined and make efforts to ensure that the bridge is constructed.

 

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

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

 

 

Target Distribution Center Westfield Comment Letter

Target Distribution Center Westfield Comment Letter

By |

November 7, 2005

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

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

Dear Secretary Pritchard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Ann Hershfang                                                   Wendy Landman
Advocacy Committee Chair                             Executive Director

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

Lowe’s of Hadley Comment Letter

Lowe’s of Hadley Comment Letter

By |

The Lowe’s of Hadley project is a proposal to add a significant retail facility situated on Route 9 in a suburban setting that is typical of those found throughout the state. We have reviewed the proposal and commented on it because of the importance of its planning concepts to pedestrians and to all of us who live and work in Massachusetts.

Read the full letter here:
WalkBoston-CommentENF-Lowes-Hadley