Tag: PNF

One Mystic Avenue PNF Comment Letter

One Mystic Avenue PNF Comment Letter

By |

Raul Duverge
Boston Planning and Development Agency
Re: One Mystic Avenue PNF

Dear Mr. Duverge:

WalkBoston has reviewed the PNF for the One Mystic Avenue Project with respect to its impacts and benefits for people walking and using transit. We would like to echo the concerns raised by a number of others during the public meeting held on May 18th, that the project seems to be getting ahead of the PLAN Charlestown process and that the proponents have put forth a project that would use a great deal of the development capacity envisioned for this part of Charlestown on one small site. We urge the development team to work with the community as the project scale and design are refined to find a better fit with the overall planning context of the site.

From a walking perspective we have several specific concerns. While we are pleased that the project is proposed to be transit oriented and to have a low parking to housing unit ratio, and a high transit and walking mode share, the proposal does not seem to include the attention to walking that would be needed to make it a successful TOD site. Nor does the plan seem to include the attention to walking that will need to be made to attract people from Charlestown and Sullivan Station to use the proposed retail and food uses planned for the site.

  1. The existing walking connection from the development site to Sullivan Station is not comfortable or attractive due to the lack of sidewalks on the south side of Mystic Avenue, and requires a circuitous route with many street crossings due to the fact that there are no marked pedestrian crossings between Beacham Street and Grand Union Boulevard. The walk to the Charlestown neighborhood is even more difficult due to the complexity of traversing Sullivan Square on foot despite recent short-term sidewalk improvements, and the continued existence of Rutherford Avenue/State Route 99 as a below-grade high-speed arterial.
  2. Based on the transportation improvements listed in the PNF (page 4-22) and the proponent’s answer during the public meeting, the project team is not proposing to include off site walking improvements in their transportation mitigation measures.
  3. As indicated during the public meeting, the proponent is anticipating that walking connections to Sullivan Station and to the Charlestown neighborhood would be improved by the Sullivan Square/Rutherford Avenue Boston Transportation Department (BTD) street redesign project. However, with the proponent’s hope to be open for occupancy in 2024-2025, they are well ahead of the BTD project schedule. Without an agreed-upon plan in existence, that project has been pushed out on the Transportation Improvement Plan funding schedule, with the full construction budget not yet programmed through 2025.

We urge the proponent to re-think their off-site walking mitigation measures in order to create the kind of safe, attractive and convenient walking routes that will be needed to fulfill their proposed housing and retail programs and to ensure the potential for a truly transit oriented project. We also urge the proponent to engage in the PLAN Charlestown effort and the Sullivan Square/Rutherford Avenue planning effort to speak up for the high quality pedestrian and bicycle connections to make this site work for walking, biking and transit.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Sincerely,

Stacey Beuttell, Executive Director

Wendy Landman, Senior Policy Advisor

Comments on L Street Power Station Redevelopment South Boston ENF/Expanded PNF

Comments on L Street Power Station Redevelopment South Boston ENF/Expanded PNF

By |

July 7, 2017

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

Brian Golden, Director
Boston Planning and Development Agency
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201

Re: EEA No. 15692, L Street Power Station Redevelopment, South Boston
ENF/Expanded PNF

Dear Secretary Beaton and Director Golden:

WalkBoston is pleased to see the proposal for a mixed use development of the large South Boston waterfront site that will include the re-use of the historically and architecturally interesting L Street Power Station. Putting this portion of the City back into a productive use that invites public access is a positive change for the City and for South Boston.

The overall site design will help to integrate this large parcel into the neighborhood, and create new opportunities for people to walk from East 1st Street to the waterfront and help to link the residential portions of South Boston into the site which was long cut off from the community by fences and other obstructions. The partial extension of the local street network onto the site and between and around new buildings proposed for the site seems appropriate in scale. With sidewalks that are sufficiently wide and landscaped, both community residents and people living on-site will be served by the new connections.

Our comments below are focused on questions that we hope the proponent will respond to in subsequent filings about the project.

1. Waterside Pedestrian and Open Space Environment
We understand that the new dedicated harborside freight corridor that will connect Summer Street to Massport’s Conley Terminal and remove heavy truck traffic from East 1st Street will provide very important, and long-desired improvements to the South Boston neighborhood. But this shift will also present challenges; the new harborside route will place an access barrier and significant truck traffic (with its accompanying noise and air pollution) between the development site’s primary open space and the harbor.
We urge the developer to consider creative ways to mitigate the truck route’s impact on the
open space. This could include grade changes that place the open space higher than the truck route (Figure 3.5b may hint at this); landscaping that both masks and frames views,
soundscapes to mask truck noise, and the addition of viewing platforms that allow open space users to gain unimpeded views of the water. There may also be ways to capitalize on the site’s industrial past and on-going use through interpretive elements. WalkBoston is concerned that without such special treatment the open space will not be very attractive to the public.
If possible, the proponent might also explore with Massport whether it would be possible to
schedule truck traffic so that is interferes less with daytime and weekend use of the open space.

2. Encouragement of walking and walking-transit trips
At the direction of the City, the proponent has used South Boston adjusted trip generation rates to develop trip tables for walking/biking, transit and vehicles. However, the site is at a
significant distance from other land uses that would seem to justify such significant numbers of walking trips, and to suffer from overused bus lines and significant distances to the Red and Silver Lines. Figure 5-1 illustrate the 5 and 10-minute walking zones, neither of which include a great many retail, job and civic land uses.
We urge the proponent to develop mitigation measures to make the development a more
realistically mixed mode project. These could include such things as: subsidies to the MBTA to provide more frequent bus service, or creation or partnering with other South Boston
developments to provide shuttle services to the Silver and/or Red Lines.

3. Bicycle facilities
The proponent mentions that Boston has flagged both East 1st Street and Summer Street for
protected bicycle facilities, however Figure 3.5a shows an on-street bike lane.
We urge the proponent to work with the City, and perhaps provide funding for, separated
bicycle facilities on both East 1st Street and Summer Street. The distance of the site from transit and a mix of retail, job and civic facilities will make bicycling a more likely mode of off-site trips than walking.

We look forward to working with the City and Redgate as the project plans are developed in greater detail.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc Ralph Cox, Greg Bialecki, Megha Vadula, Redgate
Elizabeth Grob, VHB

————————————————————————————————
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

115 Winthrop Square PNF Comment Letter

115 Winthrop Square PNF Comment Letter

By |

January 20, 2017

Casey Hines, Senior Project Manager
Boston Planning and Development Agency
Boston City Hall
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201

Re: 115 Winthrop Square PNF

Dear Ms. Hines:

WalkBoston is Massachusetts’ leading pedestrian advocacy organization. We have reviewed the Project Notification Form for this project and believe that it will provide benefits to the economic strength and vitality of downtown Boston by replacing a dilapidated parking garage that has blighted the Winthrop Square neighborhood for decades. We also believe that there are several issues that require further evaluation and improvement.

1. The Great Hall that has been proposed has the potential to be an exciting gathering place that attracts people from both downtown and Boston’s neighborhoods. We urge that the Great Hall be open to the public 18 hours a day, 52 weeks a year and that it be given programming that goes well beyond a food and shopping court. The ground floor of the building (both as part of the Great Hall and also adjacent to the Great Hall) should have rooms and spaces for talking, working or observing. Programs to encourage use of the space will be essential. The proponent should clarify the plan for activating this space, including the types of programs and the agency or individuals who will be assigned the task of programming and managing the space. We urge the Proponent to provide a description of the mix of uses, the cost to users
(for events that are open to the public), and the anticipated intensity of programming that is to be provided in the Great Hall.

2. Because of its prominent, strategic location, the Great Hall will also be a walking connection between Federal and Devonshire Streets that adds to Downtown’s rich tradition of publicly accessible lanes and alleys. The balance between circulation space and usable public space should be carefully studied and described.

3. Wind studies of the building should identify its impacts on pedestrians using adjacent streets and sidewalks. Wind may also be a factor in the design of the Great Hall, where pedestrians and users of the space should be protected from gusts or periodic and protracted winds around the building.

4. Pedestrian scale lighting should be designed to enhance the usefulness and attractiveness of both interior and exterior portions of the building with attention to creation of a sense of place, traffic safety at street crossings and personal safety.

5. We urge the Proponent to explore building shapes, heights and orientations to reduce or eliminate shadow impacts on the Common and Public Garden.

6. We also urge the City and the Proponent to work with the many organizations and individuals who are deeply concerned that the project will set a precedent that allows shadow impacts on the Common and Public Garden. Prior to approval of the project, the City should describe permanent and binding protections for the Common and the Public Garden from further shadow impacts.

Thank you very much for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc: Senator William Brownsberger
Senator Joseph Boncore
Representative Jay Livingstone
Representative Aaron Michlewitz
Representative Byron Rushing
City Council President Michelle Wu
Elizabeth Vizza, Friends of the Public Garden
Howard Kassler, Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay
Patricia Tully, Beacon Hill Civic Association
Greg Galer, Boston Preservation Alliance
Todd Lee, LightBoston
Kathleen MacNeil, Millennium Partners
Cindy Schlessinger, Epsilon Associates

Comment Letter: ENF and the PNF for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project MEPA: #15502

Comment Letter: ENF and the PNF for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project MEPA: #15502

By |

June 17, 2016

Matthew Beaton, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
ATTN: MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

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

RE:  Comments on the ENF and the PNF for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project MEPA: #15502

Dear Sirs:

WalkBoston reviewed the ENF and PNF for Back Bay/South End Gateway Project.

We are very interested in this project, which is superbly located to be served by public transportation, walking and biking. However, we have concerns about pedestrian access into, through and around the site which we would like to see addressed in the next project submissions. These are:

1. Relocation of the layover site for the Route 39 bus
The proposal states that the layover site for the Route 39 bus will be located “off-site.” Back Bay Station is one end of this bus route, which is one of the busiest in the MBTA system, serving Back Bay, the Fenway and Jamaica Plain. Buses congregate here and wait until schedules require them to return to the main route.This bus route is too important to the MBTA system and its many riders to shift the layover site to another location which could lead to a major change in the frequency of bus service. A layover location must be found nearby.

2. Sidewalks that surround the site
Sidewalks along Stuart and Clarendon Streets have been designed at minimum widths for their functions. The MassDOT Design Guide calls for sidewalks in busy downtown areas of cities to be between 12 and 20 feet in width. These guidelines should be generously incorporated into the planning for this project.  The City’s Complete Streets Guideline Manual suggests that 8 feet is a minimum but prefers a width of ten feet.

This is particularly important for the Dartmouth Street side of the project. Foot traffic on Dartmouth Street is already heavy and likely to increase, due to the new development and to moving the principal entrance to the station to the center of this frontage. The plan calls for a portion of the Dartmouth Street frontage to be as narrow as 8 feet at one point, and 13 feet otherwise. The 8’ foot width, which appears along a planned ADA ramp into the first-floor retail area, is not adequate for this location. Perhaps this width could be expanded by moving the ADA ramp into the retail area of the building or by selectively eliminating portions of the drop-off/taxi lane which extends from the station entrance to Stuart Street. Alternatively, perhaps a thoughtful reduction of the number of trees and their placement might be appropriate to widen the clear width of the walkway.

3. Garage exit on Dartmouth Street
One of the unfortunate consequences of the design for re-use of the Garage East and West portions of this project is the potential use of Dartmouth Street as one of the exits from the on-site garage. This appears to result from redesign of the existing garage which currently has two entrance and exit ramps.

The proposed new parking facility removes two the existing garage access ways – those leading in and out of the garage in drums connecting with Trinity Place. It retains the existing entrance and exit ramps on Clarendon Street. The design calls for no new entrance ramps. However, it calls for a new exit ramp that requires removal of the Turnpike on-ramp. If the Turnpike ramp is retained, the proponent maintains that there is a need for a replacement exit onto Dartmouth Street.

The proposed exit ramp onto Dartmouth Street is deeply consequential for pedestrian traffic. It is difficult to imagine a more inappropriate design than the insertion of a major vehicular exit from the garage onto the Dartmouth Street sidewalk, the primary pedestrian access route to and from Back Bay Station. Certainly there must be a better place to provide a garage exit than this, possibly by retaining one of the drums could be retained for exiting traffic directly onto Trinity Place.

4. The station area concourse
Back Bay Station was designed as a large arched hall, flanked on both sides by hallways leading to ticket and waiting areas. Each platform has its own stairways, escalators and /or elevators connecting the platform to the station concourse. Train platforms are split, with the Worcester/Amtrak Chicago line platforms near the north edge of the station concourse, and the New York/Amtrak Washington platforms near the south edge. Access to the Orange Line platform is directly in the center of the station, under the arched portion of the station structure. On either side, outside the arched hall, two wide concourses connect through the block between Dartmouth and Clarendon Streets.

Within the large arched hall, pedestrian movement is presently blocked for concourse movement by a fence that surrounds the major access stairways and escalators to and from the Orange Line. The proposal calls for a removal of some of this blockage and relocation of the two principal concourse pathways between Dartmouth and Clarendon Streets into the arched hall. The present concourses, outside the arched hall, are then repurposed for retail and other facilities.

The relocation or shrinking of the passenger concourses and repurposing the space occupied by the old ones raises a concern as to whether the new routes are sufficiently wide to handle projected growth in passenger volumes. Although it is uncertain what projections of passenger volumes might show, according to the project proponent, the station already handles 30,000 passengers per day. The MBTA currently maintains there are 36,000 Orange Line passengers here, plus 17,000 commuter rail passengers. Amtrak may constitute an additional 2000 passengers. New projections of traffic should be undertaken to determine likely future volumes of people using the station.

With the knowledge of the likely future traffic of patrons of the Orange Line, the commuter rail lines and Amtrak, the plan must provide good access to and egress from the following locations:

– The Dartmouth Street entrance
– The Orange Line station (two stairways, escalators, one elevator)
– The underpass beneath Dartmouth Street to the Copley Place mall (one stairway)
– The commuter and Amtrak rail lines west toward Worcester and ultimately Chicago (two stairways, one elevator) serving 15 stations and communities
– The commuter and Amtrak rail lines that generally go south and follow the east coast to Providence, New York and Washington D.C. (two stairways, two escalators, one elevator) serving 47 stations and communities
– The proposed new passageway to Stuart Street and into the Garage West office structure
– Ticket machines for passes and Charlie cards for the subway lines.
– Amtrak ticket offices
– Commuter rail ticket offices
– Restrooms for the entire station concourse area
– Food and retail outlets proposed for the concourse level
– Food and retail proposed for the second level
– Food and retail outlets proposed for the third level
– Waiting areas including seating for passengers traveling by rail
– The existing and new parking garages in the Garage West/East areas
– The new residential building in the Station East area at the Clarendon Street end of the project

All but the last two of these movements take place primarily in a compressed space that extends about 100’ from the main entrance on Dartmouth Street into the station. The proposal significantly diminishes this portion of the existing concourse, serving the movements listed above and lowering the space of the waiting area from 9,225 square feet (41 bays each roughly 15 feet square) to 6,075 square feet (27 bays, each roughly 15 feet square. It calls for eliminating the principal existing waiting area and replacing it with a large food service facility. All waiting passengers will be moved to backless benches located in busy pedestrian passageways, including the major entrance to the building. The proposal also calls for diminishing the size of the concourse by narrowing the existing passageways between Dartmouth and Clarendon Street and replacing them with retail space. It calls for new entrances to the proposed second and third levels in the midst of the existing waiting area. The proposal moves the ticketing area away from the waiting area and into new space along the proposed new passageway, where queuing to purchase tickets (now possible in the waiting area) will compete with pedestrian movement. It is hard to imagine that all these activities can be accommodated in the space planned.

A new design should be undertaken to accommodate the growing number of pedestrians and waiting passengers as well as patrons of food and retail outlets who may choose to sit in this busy space. The existing waiting area should not be removed but instead enlarged to accommodate anticipated future use. Ticketing space should be provided close to passenger access areas. Access to and from the second and third levels should be moved away from the waiting area and into the space that is gained by closing the existing concourse passageways. Retail areas adjacent to the passenger waiting area should be scaled back to remove potential blockage of clear and very visible access to and from the stairways leading to transportation facilities below the concourse. Benches for rail passengers should not be relegated to busy portions of the concourse, especially where they might interfere with pedestrian traffic through the concourse.

5. Construction on the rail station platforms
The proposal calls for use of the station platforms for supports for the new high-rise building being built in the Station East portion of the project. These new obstructions narrow the platforms for waiting or alighting passengers and add complexity in an environment where moving to or from access points is already complicated. This true of both the Orange line platform, serving both directions for subway passengers and the southernmost railway platform serving commuter rail passengers to and from the south and southwest, including Providence, New York, Washington and the entire eastern seaboard.

Using the existing rail platforms for construction of these supports will obstruct passenger traffic during construction as well as after completion. Designs should be carefully integrated with existing obstructions such as columns to minimize interference with passenger traffic flow.

We are very concerned about the changes proposed for the station, the bus layover and the sidewalks and interior passageways. We would 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,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Comments on PNF 425 Washington Street, Brighton

Comments on PNF 425 Washington Street, Brighton

By |

February 8, 2016

Lance Campbell
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Boston City Hall
1 City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201

Re: Proposal for 425 Washington Street, Brighton (Parsons Crossing)

Dear Mr. Campbell,

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project Notification Form for 425 Washington Street in Brighton. We are commenting because of concern about pedestrian issues associated with this project.

This proposal is generally positive for pedestrians and for the neighborhood. The site is located in the heart of Brighton Center, the center of a walkable community where Washington Street  houses local shops and major establishments and services. The retail area is well-served by public transportation and Washington Street’s bus routes draw pedestrians to access the transit service. The proposal is designed to improve the appearance of the street where significant numbers of walkers will pass daily.

Notwithstanding this transit served and walkable setting, the project is quite auto-centric. In a densely built inner neighborhood that is already beset by too much traffic, the project seems With a high ratio of vehicle parking spaces to housing units (1.7), the project seems to be designed with cars, rather than walking and transit in mind.  The expectation that every housing unit requires at least one or more parking space is one of the continuing issues with rebuilding Boston’s neighborhoods. This should not be a requirement when a project is well served by both transit and walking facilities, where such a requirement may be outmoded. Moreover, it is an expectation that has been challenged successfully elsewhere in the city and should be challenged here as well, since many of Boston’s residents now forgo the decision to have a car and instead rely on public transit or private vehicle transport services such as Uber or carsharing options such as Zipcar.

We are concerned that the city is exploring guidelines that would affect the changing tastes and needs of its newer residents in regard to use of vehicles, requiring fewer parking spaces. The developers of the project should explore less on-site parking and take advantage of the site to attract walkers within this very vibrant commercial area at the heart of the community. The underground parking portion of the project may become unneeded. Brighton has become a highly desirable inner neighborhood for residents including groups that are likely to be less reliant on cars – workers who choose not to own one, older folks moving back into the city for its advantages, and students who want to live along convenient bus routes that can reliably and efficiently take them to one of our many universities. As we are all well aware, individuals who do not own a vehicle are much more reliant on walking, a great convenience for many and one which definitively awards better health to those moving about on foot in the ordinary activities of everyday living.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner