Tag: sidewalks

Riverwalk Redevelopment Lawrence Comment Letter

Riverwalk Redevelopment Lawrence Comment Letter

By |

April 24, 2009

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

RE: Comments on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for the Proposed Riverwalk Redevelopment in Lawrence.

EOEA #14389

Dear Secretary Bowles:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for the Proposed Riverwalk Redevelopment in Lawrence. We are pleased to see redevelopment where it can bring significant economic benefits, and especially where it affords the opportunities for new or expanded pedestrian facilities. Our understanding is that the project is looking for a Phase I waiver to allow initial demolition and construction of relatively modest buildings. These initial moves set the stage for the larger Phase II.

Riverwalk is located on the banks of the Merrimack River, but is separated from the river by a strip of land owned privately and occupied principally by a very wide municipal easement, consisting of a large sewer pipe, covered by a wide granite slab. This strip of land has long been planned by the City to be a pedestrian walkway along the Merrimack, and its existing design condition lends itself well to this purpose.

We are concerned that the Riverwalk project may be turning its back on the City’s proposed riverfront pedestrian improvements. The project as shown in this document could be substantially improved to ameliorate this situation. We suggest the following improvements:

  1.  One driveway in the project now occupies much of the waterfront side of this property on the north. This driveway appears to be designed primarily for truck access to one existing building (the Cotton Mill) and one proposed structure (the proposed commercial building of 3 stories.) It will be a lost opportunity if the site’s entire river frontage becomes pavement to serve this truck access. Consideration should be given to relocating most of the truck access further into the site interior. While trucks will continue to need access to the redeveloped Cotton Mill, it is on the east side of the site and can be accommodated by a service road connection that leaves options open for further use of the river frontage of the site.
  2. If truck access were removed from most of the river frontage of the site, more benign pedestrian-oriented use could be made of this advantageous waterfront location. Parkland could be added, and if a large commitment of outdoor space can be made, it can provide amenities for employees and visitors to existing and proposed buildings on a scale that is difficult to find in other cities.
  3. If parkland could be provided along the riverfront, the layout of the site might be reconsidered to focus all of the buildings toward the river, its views and its amenities. In practice this would suggest that pedestrian walkways be added between all the site’s buildings and the water’s edge. For example, walkways across the large parking lot might be provided and emphasized with landscaping to provide a major pedestrian connection between the river and the Wood Mill. We understand that sidewalk access from the Cotton Mill to the river already exists on the east side of the site. River access from all proposed new buildings should also be provided through the use of a sidewalk network that connects to all parts of the site and its buildings. In some cases, this may mean that the sidewalks might have a dedicated right-of-way that is not located alongside a new street.
  4. Where roadways are proposed on the site, they should include sidewalks, and most of the proposal indicates that to be the case. However, along the frontage of the Wood Mill (included in Phase II), no sidewalks are provided. As the project moves into more detailed design, truck and pedestrian access will be clarified. At that point, sidewalks should be provided to the principal entrance on the parking lot side of the Wood Mill.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EENF for the Proposed Riverwalk Redevelopment. Please contact us for any clarification or additional comments that you may need.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman                               Robert Sloane
Executive Director                             Senior Planner

The Commons at Prospect Hill FEIR Comment Letter

The Commons at Prospect Hill FEIR Comment Letter

By |

April 10, 2009

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

RE: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
The Commons at Prospect Hill
MEPA # 13952

Dear Secretary Bowles:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FEIR for The Commons at Prospect Hill in Waltham.

This plan is a roll-over from the SDEIR on which we commented in February, 2009. We note, since this is simply the roll-over of that document, changes have not been incorporated in the plan since that time. Thus, our comments on the SDEIR remain the same as when they were written.

We hope that the final design of the project will incorporate a greater measure of concern about the facilities that pedestrians need throughout the project, and that sufficient safety measures will be put into place to assure that pedestrians crossing streets or parking lots will be protected from the flood of autos that will be attracted by the project.

As you may know, we met with the proponent and had the opportunity of presenting our comments directly to the designers. It is entirely possible that we did not present our case understandably or make our suggestion sufficiently attractive to persuade the development team to place a greater emphasis on pedestrian activities throughout the site. However, we would also point out that 21st century standards of development are rapidly evolving toward greater emphasis on pedestrian-friendly and transit-accessible designs in all parts of the country. We find it disappointing that that is not the case with this project.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Please let us know if you would like further clarification of our comments.

Sincerely,
Wendy Landman                                   Robert Sloane
Executive Director                                 Senior Planner

The Commons at Prospect Hill SDEIR Comment Letter

The Commons at Prospect Hill SDEIR Comment Letter

By |

February 18, 2009

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

RE: Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR)
The Commons at Prospect Hill
MEPA # 13952

Dear Secretary Bowles:

Thank you much for the opportunity to comment on the evolving plan represented in the SDEIR for The Commons at Prospect Hill in Waltham.

We are commenting this time to underscore our feeling that opportunities are being lost to create a development that could be a model for the 21st c. We are certain that proponents for The Commons at Prospect Hill could go further toward ensuring that walking (and bicycling and transit use) can be supported by the new development.

Summary of Comments
We note that the SDEIR has incorporated few, if any, adjustments to the proponent’s DEIR plan that reflect the comments raised by WalkBoston about that plan’s pedestrian circulation and safety needs and possible modifications to the physical layout of the project to encourage walking.

The following comments relate to pedestrian safety and circulation throughout the site. We have added suggestions that we think should be considered to make the development more attractive to pedestrians.

1. Pedestrian safety along the rail trail

  •  Access to adjacent buildings. We continue to be concerned that there do not seem to be any places where pedestrians can access new buildings from the trail without crossing driveways or parking lots. A more extensive effort should provide routes that are safe for pedestrians moving within parts of the project. For example, access to Buildings 10 and 11, immediately adjacent to the rail trail, could be included and made attractive.
  • Trail/site driveway crossings. Unprotected pedestrian crossings along the rail trail are not safe for walkers. The crossing of the rail trail at the East Driveway has the potential for being difficult to use and unsafe for each crossing. It seems insufficient to state that safety issues related to crossings will be dealt with at a later date. At the Central Driveway and at the Primary Driveway, crossings will be signalized, but extremely heavy site traffic is anticipated, and pedestrian phases must be built into the signalization of both intersections.

2. Pedestrians in the Main Street corridor

  • The relatively high density of development proposed for the entrance areas near Main Street would suggest that a pedestrian-friendly precinct is especially important in this part of the site. However, the sidewalk along Main Street remains cramped and narrow, with insufficient space to accommodate both walking and bicycling.
  • Snow storage in winter will further complicate pedestrian movement along this frontage. No provision is evident for snow storage along this perimeter.
  • Extending the sidewalk partially u n der Building No. 9 would make it more useful as the major entry to the site that also must accommodate MBTA transit access and the rail-trail as it crosses the site. As the front door of the site, it should be extremely welcoming to all who arrive on foot, by transit and bike.

3. Pedestrians in the Lifestyle Center
The layout of the Lifestyle Center, comprised of Buildings 5,6,7,8 and 9, is unchanged from the DEIR. It remains a problem area that is largely unsupportive of safe and attractive pedestrian activity. About 180 parking spaces are planned to be the focus of the pedestrian-oriented Lifestyle Center area, and they separate all the buildings with double rows of parking and a traffic circle. These concessions to cars are made despite the existence of a very large parking garage, which will abut the parking lots at the heart of the Lifestyle Center – the traffic circle – adjacent to Building 6. To cope with these liabilities, we suggest:

  •  Limiting parking on both sides of Lifestyle Center streets to parallel curb parking rather than diagonal parking, and narrowing the street in the regained space.
  • Reserving a portion of the wide sidewalks on the Lifestyle Center streets solely for pedestrians, with outdoor cafes and other attractions to make it lively.
  • Adding retail spaces on the ground level of the garage to enlarge the variety of business options in the Lifestyle Center and attract more pedestrian/customers.
  • Connecting Building 9 more directly with the Lifestyle Center by providing sidewalks on both sides of the building all the way to Main Street, and by including retail facilities on the ground floor to attract more pedestrians and to make the walk more interesting.
  • Connecting Building 3 more directly to the Lifestyle Center. Presently located immediately behind the parking garage, Building 3 is indirectly connected to the pedestrian network via walkways that wind between Building 6 and the parking garage. Whether Building 3 has retail, office or other occupants, it can be directly connected to the Lifestyle Center.
  • Connecting Building 4 more directly to the Lifestyle Center. It is not far from Building 6 in the present plan, but inexplicably unconnected to the Lifestyle Center.

4. Pedestrians in the big box areas
The scale of the remaining development remains sprawling, with large 1-2 story retail structures surrounded by parking. This layout is not conducive to encouraging pedestrian trips. If buildings are to be so widely separated by parking lots, the proponent should make additional efforts to assure that these very lengthy walkways are pedestrian-friendly. Buildings 1, 2 and 11 are so large and so distant from the Lifestyle Center pedestrian ways that they may never become pedestrian destinations.

  • Redesign sidewalks in the outlying areas to make them more direct. Navigating the sidewalks from the Lifestyle Center to Building 11, for example, requires following a formidable, very indirect route that few will follow.
  • Redesign sidewalks leading to outlying large retail buildings to make them landscaped, green corridors with shelters, lights and wayfinding signs added. • Incorporate green walking corridors alongside partially open, functional drainageways inside the parking lots (also useable for snow storage).

5. Walkways in and connecting to the adjacent parks
The abutting Prospect Hill Park and the 20-acre Berry Farm parcel offer opportunities for recreational walkways linked to the development on this site.

  • Connections between Prospect Hill Park, the Berry Farm and the Wayside Rail Trail should be added, perhaps at the east boundary of this site, where parking lots could be skirted.
  • Hillside Road, an existing roadway through land owned by the city in Prospect Hill Park, will be abandoned and truncated as a result of this project. Hillside Road might become the corridor for a walkway within the park along the east side of the site – readily useable by all site occupants. An extension of Hillside Road further north on the site could be located within the buried power line corridor and could eventually extend to Third Street north of the site.
  • Connecting a Hillside Road walkway with the rail trail would apparently involve using the sidewalk along the East Driveway. As an alternative, the City of Waltham might be interested in a Prospect Park corridor between Hillside Road and a yet-to-be planned trail system within the Berry Farm – ultimately connecting with the rail trail.

6. Intersections and the rail trail
The statewide rail trail through the site involves passage through very high density land uses and traffic. Because of this, considerable effort must be made to assure that children and others walking or riding along the rail trail are safe. Three difficult intersections on the site will be crossed by the trail at Primary Driveway, Central Driveway and East Driveway. Additional intersection crossings will be required within the new interchange to be constructed above Route 95/128. All intersections will be very heavily traveled. An extraordinary amount of effort will be required to assure that pedestrian safety at all of these intersections is made secure and convenient.

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

Sincerely,
Wendy Landman                                 Robert Sloane
Executive Director                               Senior Planner

Plymouth Rock Studios Comment Letter

Plymouth Rock Studios Comment Letter

By |

January 3, 2009

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

Chairman Marc Garrett
Plymouth Planning Board
Plymouth Town Hall
11 Lincoln Street
Plymouth MA, 02360

RE: Comments on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form for Plymouth Rock Studios in Plymouth EOEA # 14345

Dear Mr. Bowles & Mr. Garrett,

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form for Plymouth Rock Studios (PRS) in Plymouth. We applaud the developer for proposing extensive on site pedestrian circulation. PRS has the potential to be an important economic engine for the lower South Shore region.

While the PRS proposal provides a number of pedestrian facilities, some changes to the design could further improve the pedestrian experience.

  1. Greater attention to the needs of pedestrians could be given to the Studio Amenities Zone. This particular area of the site is very auto-oriented, and it would benefit walkers if the buildings were closer together and linked with sidewalks, and all sidewalks should be directly tied into the site’s recreation paths.
  2. The recreation path along the project’s new access drive crosses and re-crosses the roadway. While these crossings are provided via bridges to avoid conflicts, a pathway that stays to the west of the access drive seems to be more straightforward. Although wetland B is close to the roadway, given the available buffer area, the recreation pathway could be designed to hug the west side of the roadway.
  3.  Pedestrian access to the bungalow housing units could be improved by adding a paved path to connect the cul-de-sac to the recreation pathway and the access drive/ring road.
  4.  Pedestrian access near the ten single-family home sites on Long Pond Road could be improved by adding a wooded walking trail.
  5. The applicant should explore making a short off-site trail connection to the west, connecting the PRS Campus to Bump Rock Road.
  6. The applicant should explore making better use of the existing shared use path that is being retained in the Studio Amenities Zone by integrating it and connecting it to the 2 proposed recreation paths as a looped walking or jogging route for use by the residents of PRS.
  7. The existence of a Zone I Aquifer and associated buffer should not prohibit the enhancement of this existing shared use path, perhaps using permeable paving. MassDEP permits passive recreation uses within Zone I, such as walking, jogging or bicycling.
  8. The proposed recreation path will connect to existing hiking trails on the adjacent townowned conservation land. The applicant should be asked to provide additional details on how these pedestrian amenities interconnect and complement each other.
  9. Most of the pedestrian trips made daily on the PRS campus will not be able to take advantage of the full pedestrian network. Assuming a majority of the 4,190 proposed parking spaces experience daily turnover, at least 2,000 pedestrian trips a day will be made between parking lots and structures and the various buildings on the PRS campus. Given the propensity for pedestrian and auto conflicts in the loosely-structured driving situations that parking lots provide, and the large number of foot trips that PRS drivers make in accessing their cars, we believe it is paramount for pedestrian safety that a footpath system be established throughout the parking lots. The provision of sidewalks and designated walkways through the parking areas, signage and directional markings, could be combined with the required parking lot plantings that are designed to reduce the heat island effect.

The PRS proposal includes amenities and offers some attractive mitigation that will enhance the pedestrian experience. We trust that the Secretary’s certificate and local project approvals will condition these improvements to ensure that they are built. We recommend that the following proposed improvements and mitigation be conditioned in project approvals:

a. Proposed traffic calming along the area of Long Pond Road, north of Clark Road. At this time, only a commitment to explore such work exists. Traffic calming along this stretch of Long Pond Road will ultimately be very important for the pedestrian experience, as the measured 85th percentile speeds in this location were well above the speed limit.
b. The proposed modern roundabout at the intersection of Clark Road and Long Pond Road. Although it was not included with the Expanded ENF, (and is proposed by others), its existence is critical to the local roadway system if PRS is to be built. The project proponent should ensure that pedestrians and bicyclists are very carefully considered in the design of the new roundabout and all sidewalks and paths leading to it.
c. Pedestrian crossings where the project’s new access road meets Clark Road. Pedestrians traveling along Clark Road and crossing the project’s signalized multi-lane access drive should be able to walk safely and efficiently. The project’s roadway and turning lanes should be kept to minimal widths where they intersect Clark Road.
d. Sidewalks along all internal roadways. These sidewalks, as proposed on page 6-101 of the Expanded ENF, are an important pedestrian amenity and their installation is essential.
e. Details on the placement and type of bicycle accommodations, including weather protected secure storage locations. The installation of bicycle improvements is essential, and would be in keeping with the proponent’s proposed credits in the LEED Project-Wide Credit Summary, Table 5.2.1 of the Expanded ENF.
f. The recreation path from Clark Road, past the Plymouth South School Complex and through the project will provide a significant amenity as proposed, and could connect 3 through the Crosswind Golf Club to Forges Field Recreational Complex, helping to realize the vision for the “Wishbone Trail” in the Plymouth Open Space Plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the PRS Enhanced Environmental Notification Form. We look forward to seeing the next phase of project design and permitting submissions.

Please feel free to contact us for clarification or additional comments.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman                       Robert Sloane
Executive Director                     Senior Planner

Route 181 Reconstruction Comment Letter

Route 181 Reconstruction Comment Letter

By |

November 18, 2008

Frank A. Tramontozzi, P.E.
Chief Engineer Massachusetts Highway Department
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116

RE: Route 181 Reconstruction and Minor Widening project in Belchertown, MA
Project File No. 604433

Dear Mr. Tramontozzi:

WalkBoston is the Commonwealth’s leading advocate for pedestrians and safe walking. We work throughout the state – encouraging walking, supporting pedestrian improvements and sponsoring walks. We have extensive experience in helping residents and local governments with pedestrian issues, safe routes to schools and safer street crossings and sidewalks.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed reconstruction and minor widening of Route 181 in Belchertown and are pleased to have been notified by MHD about the project. We are commenting because we think there may be ways to further enhance pedestrian safety.

As we have seen in the plans, the project focuses on Route 181 between its intersection with Maple Street (the town center) and the Belchertown-Palmer town line. The reconstructed road will have two 11-foot wide travel lanes and 4-foot wide shoulders. The project will include safety improvement measures such as bicycle accommodation; sidewalk reconstruction; enhanced roadway drainage; improved sight distance in some areas; and installation of guardrail, pavement markings and signage.

We are concerned about pedestrian access in the Route 181 corridor for these reasons:

1. Safe Routes to Schools. WalkBoston is involved with a number of communities across the state in providing walking programs and encouragement, along with planning for physical improvements that could better accommodate children walking to school. In Belchertown, sidewalks connect to both the Center School on Rte 181 north of Maple Street and the Cold Spring School on Rte 181 at Old Springfield Road. Pedestrians going to schools are accommodated along Rte 181 by sidewalks between Maple Street and by a sidewalk between Old Springfield Road to a point about 2000 feet south on Rte 181. These sidewalks should be maintained and, if rebuilt, should be maintained at 4’ or 5’ clear walking width. Poles, signs or other impediments should not be located within the clear walking width.

2. Continuous sidewalk on at least one side of the street. Sidewalks are available on both sides of the street between Maple Street and Old Springfield Road and along only one side of Rte 181 to a point about 2000 feet south of Old Springfield Road. Sidewalks should extend outward for at least 1 mile from schools, assuming there are residences where students might live within that radius. Along Rte 181 south of Old Springfield Road and within 1 mile from the Cold Spring School, there appear to be residences that might warrant extending the sidewalk beyond the 2000’ length.

3. Crosswalks. Along Rte 181, crosswalks are provided at the intersection of Rte 181 and Maple Street and Rte 181 and Old Springfield Road. There is a single intersection with Rte 181 at Fuller Street that does not presently have a crosswalk. Consideration should be given to installation of crosswalks at the Fuller Street intersection, in addition to repainting the crosswalks at the two existing intersections.

4. Detailed design. Sidewalks already in place along Rte 181 should be reconstructed if possible – largely to bring them to a standard width. Care should be taken to assure that any widening of Rte 181 does not narrow sidewalk widths. Where possible, sidewalks should be separated from the roadway by a minimum of 4’ to provide greater safety and comfort for walkers along this relatively high speed road.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. We look forward to working with you and welcome any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Bob Sloane
Senior Project Manager

Cc: MABPAB
MHD Commissioner Luisa Paiewonsky