Summer Street Archives - WalkMassachusetts

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

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

Comments on the Seaport Square NPC, MEPA 14255-3/24/17

March 24, 2017

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

Comment Letter: General Electric Headquarters Project EA 15547

September 30, 2016

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

Re: General Electric Headquarters Project EA 15547

Dear Mr. Beaton,

WalkBoston has reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form for this project and we
offer our comments below.

We are excited that GE is locating its headquarters in Boston, and is proposing a project that has such an urban plan where the great majority of trips to the site will be by people walking – about 70% if both walking and transit/walking trips are included. Ensuring that walking connections to the site are convenient, accessible and attractive will be critical to welcoming the public and GE staff to the headquarters.

We think there are several aspects of the site that are exciting for pedestrian access, and where great attention to the details of the walking environment will provide important access benefits.

1. The Fort Point Channel setting – The public realm improvements associated with the project are substantial and will take advantage of the waterside site for its many users.

• The project will include a major building entrance facing a widened 18-foot Harborwalk. On the water’s edge overlooks are provided to heighten contact with the Channel and its water views. A seating zone along the Harborwalk is provided as an extension of the central plaza between Brick Buildings and the New Building. We hope that GE will include site programming that takes advantage of the waterfront portion of the site.

• A path network connects the site with the Harborwalk, including accessible paths. It is likely that many pedestrians will use the stairway from Summer Street to the Harborwalk as this is the most direct route between the site and South Station. The route should be well marked with pedestrian wayfinding signs.

• We recommend adding shade trees along the Harborwalk, and amenity that is mentioned quite often in walkers’ comments.

2. Site entrance on Necco Street – Compared with the Harborwalk entrance, the Necco Street entrance design seems less well developed in the EENF. However, this will be the principal entrance to the site for residents arriving from the Fort Point and Seaport Districts, South Boston, and for people driving to the site. Also, Necco Street will of necessity be the route for people with disabilities because the Harborwalk access is via a stairway from Summer Street and the site.
• The Necco Street entrance should be designed to be as important and attractive as the Harborwalk entrance. The sidewalk is shown as widened to 12’, but is narrowed to carve out a lengthy vehicle drop-off lane along much of the site’s frontage. The sidewalk also accommodates the loading zone and garage entries, and bicycle storage on the sidewalk is also suggested. In combination, this mix of service uses would diminish the quality and functionality of the Necco Street sidewalk. We request that the proponent re-examine the sidewalk design to provide a gracious and welcoming entrance along Necco Street.

• Necco Street should be designed as a tree-lined street. In the 100 Acres Plan (2007) that includes this site, Necco Street is proposed to provide walking access to the proposed parkland that extends from the Fort Point Channel to the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. The street is privately owned, suggesting the possibility for joint action with neighboring properties to improve it. The street right-of-way is nearly 60’ wide which could readily incorporate a design that accommodates two 10-foot travel lanes, two 7-foot parking lanes, and a wide tree-lined sidewalk along the site that also includes
benches and additional landscaping.
• The sidewalk at the main entrance to the buildings should have additional width to accommodate the many potential users. A compelling and elegant front door might be incorporated into the plans for reconfiguring the Brick Buildings.
• A Necco Street crosswalk should be provided at Necco Court to accommodate safe crossing from the large Necco Street Parking Garage across the street.

3. Off-site approaches to the Necco Street site entrance – The existing walking route from Summer Street (and thus South Station) to the boundary of the site is difficult for persons with disabilities to travel. The proponent should take the lead in ensuring that walking improvements are made to this route. This may require significant coordination with the City and with neighboring landowners, but will result in improved access for all users of the neighborhood.

• There is no curb ramp provided from Dorchester Avenue onto the Summer Street Bridge (south/GE side of the bridge). A curb ramp should be provided.

• Accessible access to GE from Summer Street will need to be provided via Melcher Street. However, the sidewalk along the south side of Melcher Street appears appears to have an excessive cross slope that is hazardous for persons with disabilities, and difficult for anyone pushing a stroller or pulling a suitcase. This cross slope will need to be fixed.

• Between Melcher Street and Necco Court on the west side of Necco Street, the sidewalk appears to be 8’ wide, but curb ramps are not provided where driveways cross the street. The sidewalk should be rebuilt to meet ADA requirements and provide a gracious walking route between GE and South Station.

4. Winter weather conditions and general maintenance –

• Management and operations planning should ensure good snow clearance between the site and South Station along the Harborwalk and the sidewalks of Necco and Melcher Streets. The proponent should work with adjacent property owners and business associations to assure good access to its site under winter weather conditions.
• The proponent should explore a greater degree of enclosure and a weather-resistant design for the GE Plaza walkway, a portion of which will be covered by a translucent canopy suspended between Brick Buildings and New Building. The current plan appears to work primarily in warm months, and multi-season use will add interest and vitality to the site.

5. Off-site issues – We urge the proponent to work with the city and the neighboring property owners to bring all nearby pedestrian facilities up to date.

• For example, the sidewalk at the bend of Necco Street (just south of the proponent’s site) needs to be completed, and there are uneven and heaved bricks in the Necco Street sidewalk from the bend to A Street. In addition several areas of the A Street sidewalk toward the Broadway Red Line station are not ADA compliant, because they are too narrow or have missing or insufficient curb ramps.

• The proponent should work with the City to ensure that traffic signal timing works well for pedestrians at intersections near the site.

We appreciate your consideration of our comments and your responses to them, and we look forward to working with GE, the City and other Fort Point community members on this exciting project.

Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with questions you may have.

Sincerely,
Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc Peter Cavanaugh, GE Ecosystem Transformation Leader