Sullivan Square Archives - WalkMassachusetts

Comments on MassDOT Maffa Way + Mystic Ave Bridge Project (File No. 607670)

March 22, 2022

Carrie E. Lavallee, P.E.,
Acting Chief Engineer

Suite 6340, 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116

via e-mail to dot.feedback.highway@state.ma.us

Attention: Major Projects, Project File No. 607670

Dear Ms. Lavallee,

I attended the public meeting for the MassDOT Maffa Way / Mystic Ave Bridge Project in Somerville (near Sullivan Square) earlier this month. There were a few questions from the audience and a discussion about vehicle speed which seemed to show a real disconnect between MassDOT’s Safe Speed Management guidance and the way that this project is being designed.

This project is set to be completed in 2027, and will rebuild the bridges / associated roadways. There are a lot of project elements that will help to make the roads and sidewalks safer for biking and walking and improve access to the MBTA station. However, when I brought up the recently released speed guidance that describes target speeds, it was not very well received by the project team. The default speed in both Somerville and Boston is 25mph. This project is using a design speed of 35mph, after doing a speed study and seeing that the 85% speed on the existing roadway was ~32mph. At least three other attendees also commented that the design speed is way too high.

Good points were made that MassDOT should be designing a road for what is needed, and not repeating the design problems that are out there right now which allow people to drive way too fast, especially at off peak times. MassDOT & all MassDOT consultants should be setting the example for the rest of Massachusetts about how projects can incorporate the recently released Safe Speed Management guidance through setting target speeds for a reconstructed roadway rather than relying exclusively on the 85th percentile of the existing road.

Thank you,

Brendan Kearney
Deputy Director, WalkBoston

One Mystic Avenue PNF Comment Letter

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.

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.
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.
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

Sullivan Square/Rutherford Avenue Design Project Comment Letter

April 11, 2018

Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
c/o Alexandra Kleyman AICP
TIP Manager
Transportation Building
10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150
Boston, MA 02116

Re: Sullivan Square/Rutherford Avenue Design Project (SS/RA Design Project)

Dear MPO Council and Staff,

WalkBoston has been engaged in and following the planning and design of Sullivan Square/ Rutherford Ave. for many years. The redesign of the streets and roadways for this part of Boston should reflect what the people of Charlestown, Somerville and Everett deserve as a hub for walking and transit, and should create opportunities for the redevelopment of what has long been a neglected, dysfunctional and unsafe auto-centric wasteland.

We believe that the decisions about designs for both Sullivan Square and Rutherford Avenue should be made based on a thorough review of all of the options available for the roadways. Special attention should be given to providing a primarily at-grade street system with opportunities for at-grade redevelopment of parcels (that do not require air rights or decks) as this will provide the greatest opportunity to create a sense of place, answer the long-term transportation needs of this dense urban location, provide for safe mobility for all street users and allow for climate resilient designs.

We write to the MPO to request that funding for the project be deferred in the TIP so that there can be sufficient time for review of the alternatives that have been developed by Northeastern Professor Peter Furth at the request of Charlestown residents. The designs that he has developed provide opportunities to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, add landscape improvements and enhance development opportunities.

Thank you for your attention to this significant project.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Comments on Sullivan Square/Rutherford Avenue Design Project 3/31/17

March 31, 2017

Deputy Commissioner James Gillooly
Boston Transportation Department, 7th floor
1 City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201

Re: Sullivan Square/Rutherford Avenue Design Project (SS/RA Design Project)

Dear Deputy Commissioner Gillooly,

WalkBoston has been engaged in and following the planning and design of Sullivan Square/Rutherford Ave. for many years. We have consistently and persistently noted that the redesign of the streets and roadways for this part of Boston should reflect what the people of Charlestown, Somerville and Everett deserve as a hub for walking and transit, and should create opportunities for the redevelopment of what has long been a neglected, dysfunctional and unsafe auto-centric wasteland.

We strongly believe that an at-grade street system with opportunities for at-grade redevelopment of parcels (that do not require air rights or decks) presents the greatest opportunity to create a sense of place, answer the long-term transportation needs of this dense urban location, provide for safe mobility for all street users and allow for climate resilient designs.

Over the last decade transportation planners and engineers across the United States have come to understand that adding roadway capacity in multi-‐modal, dense urban environments simply means that more people will drive their cars and fill up the roads. We’ve learned from years of mistakes that building large roads that look and feel like highways through communities encourages high speed traffic, attracts more vehicular traffic and traffic congestion, cuts off parts of neighborhoods.

The roadway, transit and sidewalk network at the heart of the Boston metro area should meet the multi-‐modal needs appropriate to the land uses and neighborhoods that surround the roadway network. With I-‐93 directly adjacent to Sullivan Square and Rutherford Avenue, this part of the region already houses a regional road system that serves longer distance travelers.

Slowing traffic down on Rutherford Ave and keeping regional traffic off of local roads will better protect Main St, Bunker Hill St and Medford St. the local streets are 1-lane in each direction, with parking on both sides, and a number of traffic lights. It is counter-‐intuitive to think that anyone might navigate off of Rutherford Ave and onto these streets in order to go faster. Waze and other similar tech services will always show drivers the fastest routes – if Rutherford Ave is faster than I-93, Waze will route even more drivers through Charlestown.

The City’s new plan, Imagine Boston 2030 states the case that WalkBoston is making here: Sullivan Square has the potential to be “a walkable job and housing center with access to quality transit,” and goes on to note that this would require that “strategic infrastructure investment, potentially including open space, would be needed to address congestion and flooding vulnerability in Sullivan Square and nearby areas.”

The many comments that the City will receive about the project will provide both detailed technical and moving personal information about the project and its impacts on the Charlestown community. To put the project in a larger context, WalkBoston has reviewed the City’s plans for transportation (GoBoston 2030), resilience (Climate Ready Boston), and long range planning (Imagine Boston 2030). The table below puts the SS/RA in the context of the goals that these plans set for the City. We believe that the goals clearly point to the surface option as the right choice for the project.

If the City carries both options to further levels of refinement, we ask that several technical assessments be included:

1. Estimated number and severity of total traffic crashes for the entire roadway system from the Mystic River to Austin Street for each mode: pedestrians, bicycles, transit users and vehicles. We believe that the crash statistics cited on page 29 of the 2/28/17 slide show do not represent an accurate picture of the impacts of the project designs on all crashes. (see note below)

2. Measure the total land area devoted to roadway surface and “unbuildable” air rights parcels in each alternative.

3. Measure the longest distances that are not traversable by pedestrians between intersections: (1) from the bank of the Mystic River at Alford Street to the first pedestrian crossing, (2) from northern D Street south toward Baldwin Street), (3) north from Austin Street.

4. Estimate the walking travel time from the corner of Main and Bunker Hill Street to Sullivan Square Station.

5. Provide construction and fifty-‐year operation/maintenance cost estimates for each proposal.

6. Describe in detail how vehicles using a Rutherford Ave tunnel will be slowed to 25-‐30 mph when they emerge onto the surface portions of Rutherford Ave.

Let’s not put the design of Sullivan Square/Rutherford Ave on the wrong side of history. We don’t want to build new streets with underpasses that are “relics” before they are built.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best Regards,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc Chris Osgood, Chief of Streets, Transportation and Sanitation
Commissioner Gina Fiandaca, Boston Transportation Department
William Conroy, Project Manager Boston Transportation Department
Tad Read, Boston Planning and Development Agency
Peter Furth, Northeastern University
Amy Branger, Liz Levin, Emma Rothfeld Yashar, WalkBoston Board members and advocates from Charlestown

Note: Peter Furth provided WalkBoston with the following information about the cited crash statistics. “They are using Highway Safety Manual’s general 42% reduction in crash rate when an at-‐grade intersection is converted to a grade-‐separated interchange. It’s obvious, but worth emphasizing: a grade separated interchange is NOT what’s proposed for Sullivan Sq; what’s proposed is a flyunder, akin to a flyover. The HSM has no data on flyover / flyunder conversions. They are making a logical leap by using a reduction that comes from complete grade separation. On the slide they write “*Applies to Underpass Movements Only,” meaning they intend to apply that reduction only to cars who will use the underpass. However, that suggests that a flyunder will leave all the other traffic unaffected. That is not proven (there is no data), and moreover, there are good reasons to expect that crash rate will go *up* for the other traffic. One reason is that the only traffic removed by the flyunder is thru traffic; all the turning traffic, which carries higher crash risk, remains, and furthermore will be concentrated. More importantly, the space required for the flyunder structure forces the at-‐grade intersection to have an unfavorable geometry, with the left turn lanes that flank the underpass separated from each other in a way that results in interlocking left turns, which are less efficient and (probably) less safe. Nobody would ever lay out an intersection that way if they weren’t constrained by the structure of the flyover / flyunder. That change could have an unfavorable safety effect that erases the gains enjoyed by thru cars that get to bypass the intersection.”

Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Wynn Everett Development, MEPA# 15060

August 8, 2014

Secretary Maeve Vallely Bartlett
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
Attn: Anne Canaday
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Wynn Everett Development MEPA# 15060

Dear Secretary Vallely Bartlett:

WalkBoston has reviewed this document, in keeping with what we have done for other projects across the state, looking for potential mplications for pedestrians as a result of the proposal. We offer the following comments.

Access to the site as a pedestrian
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Wynn Everett Development includes changes in the program between the DEIR and the FEIR. Changes that were introduced reduce the square footage devoted to the hotel, retail space, and convention services and enlarge the gaming areas, food/beverage service areas, entertainment/nightclub areas and support areas. Total square footage of the development has risen from 2,619,234 to 3,038,695 square feet. A total of 3,200 slot machines and 160 gaming tables are proposed, along with a 504-room hotel. The number of parking spaces under the complex has been increased and will house 3,700 cars on-site and 800 off-site.

• The use of public transportation is not encouraged by the present plan. Arrivals by vehicle are emphasized. The project is estimated to generate 9,424 vehicle trips on a Friday. Fewer people will arrive by public transportation – estimate at 3,265 public transportation person trips and 1,454 additional trips if water transportation is provided. (it is unclear where the water transportation riders go if water transportation is not provided, and this analysis should be provided if the proponent does not contractually commit to providing water transportation service.)

• Estimates of the use of public transportation conclude that capacity on public transportation is available, suggesting that more use of public transportation could be encouraged. Bus routes that serve the site generally have excess capacity (although estimates are that use will exceed capacity of Routes 104 and 109 outbound at certain times. Given the capacity available, there are no suggestions of making greater use of bus services on Alford Street at the site entrance or of enhancing capacity on Routes 104 and 109. Orange Line riders are also projected to be accommodated by available capacity. Shuttle service to the site from the Orange Line Sullivan Square Station is proposed, and, if adequately promoted, may at some point in the future result in more patrons arriving by public transportation.

• Walk-in traffic is not encouraged by the present plan. Walk-ins to the site include public transportation riders as well as nearby residents or employees. We are concerned that the pedestrian access may be unattractive to walkers. Sidewalks along both sides of the entrance drive are not afforded the lavish landscaping and improvements that surround paths along the water. Walk-in customers are not anticipated from the west side of the tracks, though a potential route is to be provided.

• A portion of the riverside might be used for additional pedestrian access. Immediately adjacent to this property, and also along the Mystic River, are lands owned and occupied in part by public agencies that front on Route 99. The proponent should explore with these agencies the potential for riverside access for pedestrians, in effect extending the Mystic River pathway network closer to Sullivan Square and making the walking routes much more attractive. The riverside route could be an attractive alternative for walkers to reach the proponent’s property away from the heavy traffic on Route 99.

The on-site paths are major links in the East Coast Greenway/Northern Strand/Bike to the Sea rail trail.
Although the proposal does not encourage access by pedestrians, it does include a very good proposal to extend the on-site walkways into the adjacent Gateway Park. Plans are in place for a regional multi-purpose path between downtown Boston and the New Hampshire state line. Called the Borders to Boston Trail, this route is 28 miles long and traverses 8 communities. Everett has constructed a portion of the path that is currently the southern end of the trail. A link across the Mystic River is required to access Boston. One proposal was to construct a pedestrian bridge over the Mystic River between Everett and Somerville. The engineering study done for this connection resulted in a finding that there was no feasible crossing at this location at an acceptable cost.

The alternative to a new and costly bridge is a connection directly through the proponent’s site. The route would connect Gateway Park’s riverside paths through the proponent’s site, where the route would link with bike paths and sidewalks along Alford Street to gain access into Boston. As it becomes a link in a major-north-south bicycle and pedestrian route, it will need careful attention to design details in the path proposed by the proponent. For a multipurpose path of this importance, a clear width of 10’ may be inadequate to accommodate likely numbers of walkers, joggers and cyclists. The route across the site should be investigated to assure that potential users of the site’s waterfront will not be adversely affected by the multi-purpose path. Access at the Alford Street intersection should also be investigated to assure safety for pedestrians and cyclists who may be crossing to get to the site.

Off-site improvements
The proponent has committed to improve several roadways near the site. Alford Street will clearly be in need of improvements because of impacts from this proposal. Alford Street will also need appropriate pedestrian signal equipment (automatic WALK signals during times of day when pedestrians will be present, countdown signals, leading pedestrian indicators, and signal heads at each intersection). Refuge islands at the street centerline should be considered. Crosswalks will need fresh zebra striping, possible curb extensions and potential addition of in-street crosswalk “yield to pedestrian” signs.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman Robert Sloane
Executive Director Senior Planner

—————————————————————————————————

Join our Mailing List to keep up to date on advocacy issues.

Like our work? Support WalkBoston – Donate Now!
Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook