To: Nick Carter, BPDA Re: Seaport Square Notice of Project Change
Dear Mr. Carter,
Our collective organizations are pleased to provide comments on the Notice of Project Change for the Seaport Square Project. Overall we are very supportive of the public realm improvements proposed in the NPC, specifically:
The expansion of the amount of open space and green space to be constructed on Block F of the Project. We believe the addition of this space will enhance Seaport Common as a community-oriented gathering place, offering more space for both structured and unstructured outdoor activities in the area.
The inclusion of a direct pedestrian connection between the Harbor Way linear park and Fan Pier Green. The Seaport area is in desperate need of more accessible and direct pedestrian connections throughout the neighborhood. This connection will help close one of these gaps.
The proponent’s commitment to replace paint-only bicycle lanes on the Evelyn Moakley Bridge with protected cycling infrastructure. Protected cycling facilities are long overdue and will both promote more cycling in the neighborhood and help calm the often speeding motor vehicles on the bridge.
The significant increase in the volume of residential uses and percentage of on-site affordable housing to be constructed on Blocks L-3 and L-6 of the Project.
The creation of additional Transportation Network Company (TNC) pick- up/drop-off zones along Seaport Boulevard and Northern Avenue.
The neighborhood, and City as a whole, is in desperate need of additional open space and affordable housing. We believe the proponent is making a good faith effort to address these needs in the NPC. Additionally the proposed project changes are aligned with the City’s mode shift, climate and green space goals and we believe will enhance the overall experience of those traveling to and through the neighborhood.
Stacy Thompson Executive Director, LivableStreets
Wendy Landman Senior Policy Advisor, WalkBoston
Becca Wolfson Executive Director, Boston Cyclists Union
But among various neighborhood groups like the Wharf District Council, Walk Boston, The Fort Point Neighborhood Association and six others, consensus on at least one element of the bridge is clear: no cars.
“People danced on the bridge, people had their photographs taken on the bridge…People remembered that bridge,” Anita Johnson, a member of Walk Boston, said to applause at the community meeting.
“I ask you to consider keeping that bridge a pedestrian bridge,” Johnson added. “Those are the uses that make people happy, and that’s important to us.”
Posted November 28, 2018
Event: MassDOT Design Public Hearing – Cypher Street Improvements, 11/13, 6:30pm
We led a walk two years ago in November 2016 from near the Broadway T Station (meeting at Dorchester Ave & W 2nd Street) that walked toward the Fort Point area. The route went by the proposed GE Headquarters site and highlighted gaps in the pedestrian network at Cypher Street that neighbors in the area have been trying to shine a light on. One of our guest speakers on the walk described a project that would include improvements for Cypher Street that was proceeding toward 25% design.
There is now a public hearing scheduled to take place at the Condon School on November 13 at 6:30pm:
“The proposed work includes new sidewalks and pavement, street lighting, traffic signal systems, improved drainage, accessibility ramps and crosswalks, separated bike lanes, new pavement markings, signing and landscaping in accordance with current state and federal standards.”
Corner of Haul Road & Cypher Street
The full announcement from MassDOT can be found below. We encourage you to go and speak up for safe walking!
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts – Department of Transportation Highway Division – Notice of Public Hearing
A Design Public Hearing will be held by MassDOT to discuss the new Cypher Street Improvements, including Richards Street, E Street and Fargo Street in the Seaport District of Boston, MA.
WHERE:
Condon School, 200 D Street, Boston, MA 02127
WHEN:
Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 6:30 PM
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this hearing is to provide the public with the opportunity to become fully acquainted with the proposed improvements to the streets listed above. All views and comments made at the hearing will be reviewed and considered to the maximum extent possible.
PROPOSAL:
The project will include improvements for truck access to Massport’s Conley Terminal, and expand/improve multi-modal transportation connections through the corridor. The proposed work includes new sidewalks and pavement, street lighting, traffic signal systems, improved drainage, accessibility ramps and crosswalks, separated bike lanes, new pavement markings, signing and landscaping in accordance with current state and federal standards.
A secure right-of-way is necessary for this project. Acquisitions in fee and permanent or temporary easements may be required. MassDOT is responsible for acquiring all needed rights in private or public lands. MassDOT’s policy concerning land acquisitions will be discussed at this hearing.
Written views received by MassDOT subsequent to the date of this notice and up to five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing shall be displayed for public inspection and copying at the time and date listed above. Plans will be on display one-half hour before the hearing begins, with an engineer in attendance to answer questions regarding this project. A project handout will be made available on the MassDOT website listed below.
Written statements and other exhibits in place of, or in addition to, oral statements made at the Public Hearing regarding the proposed undertaking are to be submitted to Patricia A. Leavenworth, P.E., Chief Engineer, MassDOT, 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116, Attention: Roadway Project Management, Project File No. 608807. Such submissions will also be accepted at the hearing. Mailed statements and exhibits intended for inclusion in the public hearing transcript must be postmarked within ten (10) business days of this Public Hearing.
Project inquiries may be emailed to dot.feedback.highway@state.ma.us
This location is accessible to people with disabilities. MassDOT provides reasonable accommodations and/or language assistance free of charge upon request (including but not limited to interpreters in American Sign Language and languages other than English, open or closed captioning for videos, assistive listening devices and alternate material formats, such as audio tapes, Braille and large print), as available. For accommodation or language assistance, please contact MassDOT’s Chief Diversity and Civil Rights Officer by phone (857-368-8580), fax (857-368-0602), TTD/TTY (857-368-0603) or by email (MassDOT.CivilRights@dot.state.ma.us).
Requests should be made as soon as possible prior to the meeting, and for more difficult to arrange services including sign-language, CART or language translation or interpretation, requests should be made at least ten (10) business days before the meeting.
In case of inclement weather, hearing cancellation announcements will be posted on the internet at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/ JONATHAN GULLIVER PATRICIA A. LEAVENWORTH, P.E. HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR CHIEF ENGINEER
Seaport Square Expanded NPC Comment Letter 11/1/17
Matthew Beaton, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA 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 Expanded NPC, MEPA 14255
Dear Secretary Beaton and Mr. Uter:
Roughly 13 acres of the Seaport Square project remains to be developed. The remaining parcels primarily sit behind the major frontage of the project on Seaport Boulevard, are sandwiched between off-ramps to the Harbor Tunnel approaches and reach from Summer Street to the water’s edge at Fan Pier. The expanded Notice of Project Change describes a project that is framed around the north-south local streets that flank “Harbor Way,” a new and wide interior pedestrian street that will extend 5-6 blocks between the Harbor and Summer Street.
1. The concept for Harbor Way is very strong. The major and continuous pedestrian street is planned and designed to encourage its use by large numbers of people. Harbor Way is intended to create the focus for a sort of ‘downtown’ for the Seaport District that will serve commuters, visitors and tourists. The success of Harbor Way is critical to attracting and retaining tenants and users of the corridor.
2. Generally, mid-block crossings are provided for pedestrians.
At Congress Street the proposed mid-block pedestrian crossing is protected by signalization, bump-outs to narrow the crossing distance, and a refuge median.
At Autumn Lane, a privately owned minor street designated primarily for service vehicle access, the possibility of a platform or raised crossing has been mentioned.
At Seaport Boulevard the pedestrian crossing is mid-block and will be a fully signalized crossing.
3. At this time a mid-block crossing of Summer Street seems to be missing from the plan and needs to be addressed.
We ask that the proponent work closely with the City and the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (MCCA) to plan for a major mid-block pedestrian crossing at the end of Harbor Way, where it would logically cross Summer Street. We hope that the MCCA will be able to take on some of the responsibility for helping to plan and fund this mid-block crossing, as its main entrance is only a long city block away and the Harbor Way is likely to form a major attraction for the visitors to BCEC events in the future.
The City should be involved, as it is already programming a major reconstruction of the cross-section of Summer Street from the Fort Point Channel up to Boston Wharf Road, a mere half-block away from this proposed crossing. Continuing this improvement to the BCEC should be a major objective for development of the area. The Summer Steps at the terminus of Harbor Way should not be constructed until the mid-block pedestrian crossing is laid out and programmed for construction.
A disappointing aspect of development along Boston Wharf Road is the existence of the very large Park Lot C owned by the U.S. Post Office Department, which abuts Summer Street, where Boston Wharf Road passes under it. This particular site, with difficult roadway access, is unfortunately situated so that improvements in connection with the construction of Harbor Way are unlikely, even though the mid-block crossing that is so essential for the future success of Harbor Way at its terminus with Summer Street. Ownership and physical configuration of the site mean that the proponent, the City and the Convention Center Authority will need to work together to plan and build the mid-block crossing at this location.
4. The anchor for the south end of Harbor Way has been left partially undefined. The proponent has designed the Summer Steps to take advantage of a 24’ grade change between the site and the level of Summer Street. A supplementary elevator is provided, and the steps have a ramp to be used by cyclists. A portion of the steps could also become the seating in a performance facility, aided by electronic connections and lighting to encourage its use. A generous setback between the bottom of the stairs and Congress Street will allow for staged performances. The two sites that flank the steps are loosely defined as office and a possible hotel, and include the possibility of a 650-seat public performance space. Without development of the two sites, the Steps may not be feasible.
5. A strong anchor for the north end of Harbor Way appears somewhat elusive. Harbor Way ends at a pavilion that would mirror District Hall across the park known as Seaport Common. The building will house a stairway and elevator leading to its roof, which will be open to the public. The two lower floors will house the Mass. Fallen Heroes Mourning Room and perhaps a restaurant. Access to the waterfront will continue along the side of the building, leading to a street to the ICA building and the harbor’s edge. Thus the ICA and its waterfront area is the true anchor at the north end of Harbor Way. Access to the large, nearby Fan Pier Public Green (another possible anchor on the north end of Harbor Way) is indirect, and a diagonal trip across the proponent’s Common Park would complete a slightly different connection between Harbor Way and the waterfront. However, this kind of connectivity to the Fan Pier Public Green appears infeasible with the present plan for the Seaport Common pavilion.
6. Preservation of the pedestrian way between Seaport Boulevard and Northern Avenue should be central to planning of the north end of Harbor Way. The proponent has proposed that service and parking access to Parcel G will be via Northern Avenue which WalkBoston believes is an appropriate location. We believe that an alternative location for this access on Harbor Way (as proposed by others) would introduce very unfortunately add parking entrances and loading docks along this quiet and pleasant pedestrian way and transform it’s character. Harbor Way is designed as a special pedestrian space and parking and loading should not occur in the space, especially since reasonably convenient and accessible alternatives are easily available. We concur with the developer’s plan to keep Harbor Way free of these vehicular functions.
7. The streets flanking Harbor Way may pose challenges for successful pedestrian-focused development. The proponent is committed to expanding the Harbor Way walking focus by lining two parallel streets with retail uses designed to appeal to pedestrians. Boston Wharf Road and the East Service road, parallel to Harbor Way, are proposed to be lined with retail and other public attractions. As the Harbor Way development blocks come on line, retail will be a major element to attract walkers into the district. It seems likely that retail will be somewhat slow to locate on either of the parallel streets until Harbor Way is successfully launched, a challenge in today’s low energy retail environment.
The East Service Road in particular may be difficult to develop as a retail spine. It will provide access to and from the Third Harbor Tunnel and I-90 with connections into and through the Seaport District. Bicycle facilities have already been eliminated from the street because they were precluded by the many highway ramp links into the Interstate system. At the same time, pedestrian connections have been expanded with wider sidewalks, leading to an expanded retail area. Given the anticipated vehicular traffic on the street, retail activities seem unlikely in the near term, especially with the competition of the nearby Harbor Way with its robust pedestrian environment.
Pedestrian crossings should be explored at a mid-‐block crossing of the East Service Road at Autumn Way to connect between Harbor Way and the so-called M-block development on the south side of East Service Road.
Boston Wharf Road may attract retail uses, but will need to contend with the fact that this two-way street provides major roadway access to the Seaport District and is likely to become a major access route for vehicles coming to the Harbor Way pedestrian spine. Sidewalks have been widened in anticipation of this evolution of the area.
Special attention may be needed at two locations on Boston Wharf Road. The first is the connection to Seagreen Park – Site Q – a park on the north side of the street, where a mid-block pedestrian crossing is likely to be needed. Second, attention is being given to a through-building connection further south to provide additional connections with Harbor Way, and it would be appropriate to evaluate whether a mid-block crossing is warranted at this location.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the pedestrian environment at Seaport Square. We are happy to answer any questions you have about our comments.
Best regards,
Wendy Landman Bob Sloane Executive Director Senior Planner
Cc Yanni Tsipis, WS Development Jim Fitzgerald, BPDA Fred Peterson, MCCA Pat Sullivan, Seaport TMA
Comments on the Seaport Square NPC, MEPA 14255-3/24/17
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
