traffic – Page 3 – WalkMassachusetts

Group letter to MEEI 8/17/12

By WalkMassachusetts | September 17, 2012

September 17, 2012

Mr. John Fernandez
Chief Executive Officer
Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary
243 Charles Street
Boston, MA 02114

Dear Mr. Fernandez,

We write on behalf of the community and advocacy organizations listed below regarding the proposal of Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (MEEI) to build a 1065-car parking garage beneath the Esplanade, to extend its existing 243 Charles Street building over Charles Street and into the park, and to return to park use the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) land used currently by MEEI for parking.

Our organizations are a diverse group, some with broad interests and constituencies and others more specifically focused. One or more of us:

Advocates for improved multimodal transportation, meeting the needs of walkers, drivers, riders (on bicycles and mass transit), businesses and residents;
Focuses on the Charles River, its cleanliness, its success as a natural habitat, its recreational opportunities and its accessibility;
Focuses on the parklands along the Charles River, preserving and reclaiming parkland, improving the horticultural and physical plant, protecting the parks’ historic features,enabling all manner of recreational activities;
Addresses public policy issues such as privatization of parkland and ensuring public benefit from government action; and
Represents the interests of area residents.

We all respect the excellence of MEEI, support the continuation of its clinical and research activities, and value its importance to the greater Boston area by treating patients from around the world, burnishing Boston’s reputation as the seat of one of the great medical communities in the world, and providing thousands of jobs to area residents. We understand your interest in expanding your facilities and would like to provide input as you develop more detailed plans.

We know that you are developing an understanding of how your project could impact the diverse interests represented by our organizations. We appreciate that you dropped your plan to press for approval of the proposed land transfer during the current legislative session so that these impacts can be evaluated and addressed further. We also appreciate your acknowledgement and commitment that this project will not go forward without community support.

Our organizations are committed to exploring in good faith how our interests and yours can both be satisfied, and it is in that spirit that we have joined together to identify what we see at this time as our major concerns. Because your proposals are at this point very early stage and few, if any, studies have been completed, we can speak now only in the most general terms, but each of us is available to meet with you to discuss our concerns and identify what information and studies would enable us to explore ways to meet your needs and our concerns.

We are not a monolithic group insisting that all of the concerns of all of the participating organizations be met to the complete satisfaction of each. We are intent, though, on ensuring that all the concerns are clearly communicated to MEEI, are taken seriously, that adequate information about the concerns is provided, and that good faith attempts at resolution are made. We have committed to each other that we will operate in a transparent fashion, alerting each other about upcoming meetings with MEEI and government officials, inviting our representatives to attend such meetings as observers, and summarizing the proceedings. We ask that you similarly commit to a transparent, open process.

As we consider your proposals, we have two over-arching needs:

We need to understand your objectives, your needs, why you see these as a solution, and what alternatives have been considered and discarded. For example, the capacity of the parking garage would seem to be the primary driver behind many of the issues that concern us. Why 1065 spaces? What has changed since you submitted your draft IMP in early 2011?
We need a shared understanding of the likely benefits and deficits of your proposals. Some of this will come from studies commissioned by you (such as a traffic study, which we understand is already underway), and some will come from informed judgments made by all of as to likely effects.

With this in hand, we will all be in a better position to look for solutions. Below we outline in broad terms the concerns we have, recognizing that over time some will vanish, others will grow in importance, and new ones may arise.

Transportation. Adding more than700 additional parking spaces will inevitably increase vehicular traffic in a highly congested area. Storrow Drive is already over capacity, and Charles Circle and Leverett Circle consistently resist all attempts to either reduce traffic counts or improve flow.

While we support the goal of making it easier for infirm patients to visit MEEI, we want MEEI to explore different ways of meeting that need without constructing such a large facility. Perhaps special drop-off or parking programs can be targeted specifically at patients and visitors needing special assistance. Perhaps MEEI can reduce employee-parking needs by adopting additional programs that encourage employees to use alternative transportation. Perhaps the involvement of state and city leaders can encourage area institutions, businesses and garage operators to increase MEEI’s access to existing parking facilities or even partner with MEEI to facilitate convenient multimodal transportation in the area.
Charles Circle and Leverett Circle appear to be particularly vulnerable to increased traffic generated by the garage. These impacts must be studied and solutions proposed to ameliorate new impacts and perhaps existing problems.
The potential of the garage to interfere with the proposed Blue Line/Red Line connector should be explored.
There are a variety of suggestions of how to make Storrow Drive work better for the benefit of all concerned (not just car drivers), such as reconfiguring ramps, realigning lanes, installing traffic signals and adopting traffic calming measures. Your proposal could benefit from them, enable them or render them impractical. We should all look at all the options.
Traffic caused by the garage during evenings and weekends, when MEEI usage is presumably reduced, should also be studied. The availability of parking could be a benefit if concert-goers and charity-walkers stop parking illegally on area streets, but it could also exacerbate the situation if the incentive to use other means of transportation is reduced.

Parkland. It seems that the Commonwealth’s parks are always at risk. They are underfunded; what used to be true parkways through and adjacent to parks often morph into highways; open, undeveloped land too often gets converted to non-park uses, sometimes to private uses; and parks don’t vote. The history of Storrow Drive and the Esplanade illustrates all too many of these risks. The MEEI proposal comes to the fore during a hard-fought battle over the privatization of Daly Field, alongside the Longfellow Bridge rehabilitation project, and on top of the a long-term “2020” planning effort led by The Esplanade Association which among other things calls for significant changes in MEEI’s neighborhood.

MEEI currently uses for parking parkland leased from DCR. The Esplanade Association’s Esplanade 2020 Vision calls for the conversion of this parkland back into park uses. MEEI’s plan does the same, but at the expense of the other issues raised by this letter. Clearly this is something we will have to explore.
The 2020 plan proposes to return to park uses land adjacent to the Charles River through a significant realignment of Storrow Drive that is also projected to make Storrow safer. At first blush, MEEI’s plan appeared incompatible with the 2020 plan, but you have indicated that design changes could fix that. We look forward to having that discussion.
The Longfellow Bridge rehabilitation project will affect the Esplanade and area business and residents adversely during construction but positively up its completion. We want MEEI to make every effort to ensure that its project not delay the Longfellow rehabilitation and to manage its own construction as much as possible so as not to make it seem like the Longfellow rehabilitation will never end.
The proposed garage is largely underground, out of sight from the parkland, but we will all have to look closely at how the entrances, exits and ramps would affect access to the Esplanade, safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, and enjoyment by all.

243 Charles Street Expansion. This part of the proposal raises classic “parkland” issues, such as dedication of public land to private purposes, and many of the other issues described above. It also raises the issues typically posed by any development in an urban area such as wind, shadow, massing and design, some of which are especially sensitive because the project is close to residential areas.

Environmental and Construction Impacts. You are no doubt cognizant of the environmental issues that must be studied such as air pollution, stormwater run-off, water quality in the Charles River, and the water table impacts, many of which receive heightened attention because of the proximity of the project to the river. These will, of course, be addressed in reviews under MEPA and the BRA’s Article 80, and we suggest that earlier consideration, in consultation with our organizations, would be beneficial to all concerned.

Public Benefit. Privatization of parkland has become increasingly controversial as governments seek to off-load maintenance expense and find low-cash means of advancing private interests that are compatible with government goals. Some work well. Some don’t. Calculating the public benefit is hardly an exact science but, in the case of the proposed dedication of state parkland to underground parking and to landing the extension of 243 Charles Street primarily to support a private activity, it will be important to be able to answer questions such as the following:

Are measurable economic benefits likely to flow to the state, the city and local businesses and residents?
Will use and enjoyment of adjacent public land be significantly enhanced by the project
How significant are the projected adverse impacts of the project?
How can the $30 million state investment requested by MEEI be justified? Does it come at the expense of other priorities?

These are serious issues that may prove very difficult—even impossible—to solve. For instance, the amount of increased traffic may be insurmountable; the environmental issues may be insoluble; the privatization of parkland may fail on its merits for this project or as an unacceptable precedent for other state parks; and the final financials may not prove attractive. But the fact that these hurdles exist should not discourage any of us from looking for solutions to the challenges MEEI faces now and will in the future.

We will do our part, you will, no doubt, do your part, and we expect the myriad of public players—MassDOT, DCR, EEA, the City of Boston and the BRA—to do their part as well.

We look forward to working with you.

With kind regards,

Margo Newman, Chair of The Esplanade Association
on behalf of the organizations identified below

CC: Richard A. Davey, Secretary, MA Dept. of Transportation
Richard K. Sullivan, Secretary, MA Dept. of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Edward M. Lambert, Jr., Commissioner, Dept. of Conservation and Recreation
Mayor Thomas M. Menino
Peter Meade, Director, Boston Redevelopment Authority
Senator Anthony Petrucelli
Senator Sal DiDomenico Senator William Brownsberger
Representative Marty Walz
Councilor Michael Ross

Cooperating Organizations and Contact Information

Alewife Brook Parkway Bridge Comment Letter

By WalkMassachusetts | October 13, 2009

October 13, 2009

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

RE: Environmental Notification Form (ENF)
Mystic Valley Parkway Bridge No. 2 over Alewife Brook Somerville, MA
MEPA # 14487

Dear Secretary Bowles:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for Mystic Valley Parkway Bridge No. 2 over Alewife Brook in Somerville.

Located on an historic parkway bridge, the project is a reconstruction that will add significant width to the bridge cross-section to widen the bridge sidewalks and better accommodate pedestrians and bicycles, while maintaining access for automobile traffic.

Our understanding of the project is that the DCR plans to retain the curb-to-curb width of the bridge, striping 12’ lanes with 8’4” shoulders that could be converted to bike lanes in the future. An addition of 8 feet to the sidewalks will make both directions 10 feet wide to better accommodate pedestrians and bicycles and connect to the existing and proposed multi-use paths in the adjacent riverbank parks.

While we are very pleased that the sidewalks will be widened, we urge DCR to consider the following possibilities:

With the guidance of DCR, we have learned over time that a parkway is not solely a road,but a park that has a road that passes through it. The Mystic Valley Parkway is a case in point. It is a set of continuous open spaces located within neighborhoods that are densely built. These open spaces are the major parks available to nearby residents. Since roadways are but one element of the parkway, they should not be allowed to determine the character of this remarkable string of urban parks.
It is difficult to imagine traffic moving more rapidly than 30 mph inside a park. That should be the maximum speed. All speed limits in the park and on the parkway roads should be made 30 mph or less to safely accommodate non-motorized traffic.
The parkway and its roads are intended for non-commercial traffic only. We have serious reservations about the need for 12’ lanes for traffic if no trucks are using the bridge. Wide lanes will encourage drivers to move faster through the corridor, to the detriment on non- motorized traffic of all kinds. Since it is not a truck route and will never serve heavy trucks in the future, it seems that narrowing the travel lanes to 11’ or less could be accomplished without inconveniencing traffic. This very simple design feature would produce safety benefits for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles by slowing speeds.

The shoulder of the roadway should be designed for installation of bike lanes, even if not intended immediately. The Mystic River Corridor Parks are destined to become increasingly attractive to bicycle riders for both commuting and recreation. As bike traffic grows, all parts of the Mystic Valley Parkway should be upgraded to accommodate on- road bike lanes that are sufficiently wide for rider safety. The bridge sidewalks should be reserved for pedestrians, in keeping with a long-term goal of separate paths for pedestrians and bicycles through the length of the riverbank parks.
The Mystic Valley Parkway Bridge No. 2 is in line to provide major access to the future Route 16 Green Line station at the Somerville/Medford line. It has been described as one of three key routes people will use to get to the new station. That means that there will be peak hours of all types of traffic on the bridge. It should be designed to accommodate peak hour transit rider traffic on foot and by bicycle.
The nearby rotary at Mystic Valley Parkway and Alewife Brook Parkway is only a few hundred feet from this bridge. This rotary is to be redesigned to bring it up to modern standards in connection with the proposed Green Line extension to Route 16. The rotary is on the walking route to the new Green Line station, a new senior housing facility, Dilboy Stadium and the Mystic River Reservation, and is currently extremely dangerous to cross, as there are NO pedestrian accommodations of any kind. The plans (or at least conceptual changes) for this rotary should be considered when deciding how to reconstruct the bridge so all the elements ultimately work together for the benefit of all the users.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this ENF. We look forward to further development of the project.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Cc:DCR Commissioner Rick Sullivan
DCR Planner Dan Driscoll
MHD Chief Engineer Frank Tramontozzi

Environmental Notification Form (ENF) Alewife Brook Greenway MEPA #14431

By WalkMassachusetts | June 29, 2009

June 29, 2009

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

RE: Environmental Notification Form (ENF) Alewife Brook Greenway
MEPA # 14431

Dear Secretary Bowles:

WalkBoston is pleased to review the Alewife Brook Greenway Environmental Notification Form (ENF). We have found the proposal extremely interesting, as it expands the off-road network of trails and walkways that are so important to metro arearesidents for transportation and recreation. The ENF details improvements that will be made for both pedestrians and bicyclists on a corridor between Alewife Brook MBTA Station and the Mystic Valley Parkway that leads through Cambridge, Somerville and Arlington, and has connections to the Minuteman Pathway, the Linear Park/Community Path route into Somerville, the Mystic River parklands and future paths into Belmont and Watertown.

This is an extremely important piece of the regional trail network. We are happy to endorse its construction and even happier to realize that it may be constructed relatively rapidly as part of the national stimulus construction agenda.

In our review, we noted a few concerns of importance to pedestrians:

1. The proposed network does not provide for fully separated bicycle and pedestrian paths.
In two segments of the proposed improvement (1. Between the Mystic Valley Parkway and Broadway; and 2. between Henderson Street and Massachusetts Avenue) there appears to be a partial separation of bicycle and pedestrian paths. By contrast, there is only a single path between Broadway and Henderson Street and between Massachusetts Avenue and the MBTA Alewife Station. This will result in an effective capacity of two 10’-wide paths in the areas of separated paths and only one 10’-wide path in the other parts of the corridor. We are concerned about the safety of pedestrians in portions of the corridor where the capacity is limited. In those areas, consideration should be given to a wider cross-section on the path to accommodate potential demand.

2. The proposal does not indicate whether there will be signage to can foster safe walking. Pedestrian safety in mixed walking and cycling traffic can be an issue of concern, depending on the volume of traffic that uses the paths. While we would prefer separate facilities that are clearly designated as such, it does not appear to be feasible throughout the entire corridor. We therefore suggest that signing and warnings be provided to make the route safe for all users. This might include, for example:

Lane separation lines for the north and south directions.
Signs warning pedestrians to stay to the right of the path.
Signs advising cyclists to ring a warning bell as they approach pedestrians from behind.
Route signs designating a cyclist trail along the paths that abut Alewife Brooke Parkway.

3. The Boardwalk parallel to Alewife Brook Parkway has the potential for becoming a bottleneck, as it accommodates all path traffic in a narrow corridor. The boardwalk overlooks and is cantilevered over the river in the section extending north of Henderson Street and is one of the most accessible portions of the pathways for nearby residents. It is also close to Dilboy Field, which has occasional special sports events. If the boardwalk accommodates both pedestrians and cyclists and is closely fenced on both sides, it has the potential for becoming heavily used and potentially unsafe for people on foot. Would it be possible to widen the boardwalk to at least 12 feet in this location?

4. Seating and observation areas should be maximized.The path promises to be a very pleasant route. Many people will want to sit occasionally along the route, and children, among others, will be interested in closely examining the stream.

5. For the security of people who are using the path lighting may be appropriate. Lighting of the paths would extend their usefulness to walkers and cyclists in evening hours and in fall and winter.

6. Crosswalks may be needed in several locations. Near the Dilboy Park baseball diamonds, a fence opening and curb ramp have been provided that appear designed to help people cross Alewife Brook Parkway. The addition of a crosswalk in this location would be appropriate. Other crosswalks should be examined to cross Alewife Brook Parkway at Massachusetts Avenue, at Matignon Road, at Powder House Boulevard (two curb ramps), and at Broadway. For continuity of the path network, a Mystic Valley Parkway crosswalk should be considered at the north end of this project.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide comments on the ENF. Please let us know if you have any questions or need further detail.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Cc Dan Driscoll, DCR Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner

Hamilton Canal District Comment Letter

By WalkMassachusetts | June 6, 2008

June 6, 2008

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

RE: Environmental Notification Form (ENF)
Hamilton Canal District, Lowell
MEPA # 14241

Dear Mr. Bowles:

We have reviewed the ENF for the Hamilton Canal District in Lowell, a proposed mixed-use retail, office and residential redevelopment in the historic canal district near downtown. We are pleased that walking and pedestrian facilities are major organizing features of the development. We are commenting because details of this worthy project may need further analysis to serve the needs of pedestrians throughout the city.

WalkBoston is the Commonwealth’s leading advocate for pedestrians and safe walking. We work throughout the state encouraging walking, advocating for pedestrian improvements and working for design improvements. We have extensive experience helping residents and local government with pedestrian issues, safe routes to school, and safer street crossings.

Project description
The proposed Hamilton Canal District is located adjacent to downtown Lowell and is bounded on the south and west by Thorndike/Dutton Street, a major arterial into downtown Lowell with relatively heavy traffic. The north boundary of the site is immediately adjacent to the National Park Service Visitor Information Center on Market Street. The development is separated into three parts by the Middlesex, Pawtucket and Hamilton Canals which spread through the site. Considerable vacant land remains where factories were demolished. The few on-site historic buildings will be retained, rehabilitated or rebuilt as parts of larger structures.

The proposal comprises 11 new buildings on 13 acres with 50,000 SF of ground level retail space, 420,000 SF of office space, 600 new housing units and 1800 new parking spaces. Components are designed to blend with the historic city: frontage is lined with retail outlets and on-street parking and pedestrian amenities are key design elements. Building heights will range from 6 to 15 stories, with the tallest structures adjacent to the open space along the canals. A new trial court building is located south of Jackson Street.

A trolley line now arcs through the National Park sites along Dutton Street at the edge of the site. The trolley will be realigned to pass directly through the site over new bridges and right-ofway. The ultimate goal for the trolley is a further off-site extension to the Gallagher Transportation Center’s buses and commuter trains to Boston.

We believe that there are five issues that need more detailed exploration:
1. Sidewalk widths and surfaces
2. Canal crossings
3. Signage and wayfinding
4. Access to transit
5. Conflicts with vehicular traffic

Issue 1: Sidewalk widths and surfaces
A rule of thumb for a minimum clear sidewalk width is 5.’ A minimum of 8’ clear width is preferable in commercial areas. The proposed “Street Types,” as detailed by diagrams for this project do not always meet this standard.

Sidewalk widths of 7’ to 10’ should be adequate, but these widths are frequently diminished because of lights and signs located on the sidewalk.
On Street Types 1B, 1C, 2B, sidewalks are 6’ wide, but include space for light poles and other streetside elements. As these intrusions into the width of the sidewalk will be centered 20” from the curb line, the remaining clear width of the sidewalk will be 4’ – possibly a little less. This does not allow for wheel chairs or baby carriages to smoothly pass each another or other walkers or for people to walk comfortably side by side.
Street Type 3B permits only a 4’ wide sidewalk on one side. This width is not acceptable for foot traffic, as there are intrusions for railings.
Most of the canalside paths are the responsibility of the National Park Service. The NPS standards for sidewalk widths appear to be somewhat more generous than those designed by the developer and/or the City of Lowell. What happens when the two systems must be integrated, as, for example, where connections between canal paths require walkers to cross the bridges over the Pawtucket and Hamilton Canals?
How will bicycles be accommodated in the project area? It is not clear whether some of the paths are intended to be multi-purpose, and designed or signed for use by cyclists.
Walkway surfaces will be made of scored concrete with broom finish. Care should be taken that walkers are not forced to use cobble- or brick-paved surfaces along any part of their routes through the development. All “tree ways” abutting the sidewalks should be crossed by smooth sidewalks at intersections.

Issue 2: Canal crossings
Six bridges and one trestle over the canals will be rebuilt or rehabilitated; two bridges and the trestle are solely for pedestrian use, and the bridge at the Swamp Locks serves only pedestrians and the trolley. The trestle, with rail removed, will be rehabilitated as part of the canalside pedestrian path network and constructed separately from this project.

The two Hamilton Canal pedestrian bridges appear to connect through the Appleton Mills buildings. Are both bridges part of the pedestrian network? Will walkers have access into and through the buildings?
The reconstructed bridge at the Swamp Locks will offer a spectacular view of the locks and waterfall at the center of the site. Will the bridge (Street Type 1C) have a wide sidewalk where visitors may stand to view the locks and the waterfall? Will the bridge have extra width to accommodate the continuation of 10’ wide canalside paths?
Will the trolley bridge over the Merrimack Canal also be available for pedestrian crossings? If not, how will pedestrian access be controlled?

Issue 3: Signage and wayfinding
Central to the use of a new pedestrian network are wayfinding directions and signage for pedestrian pathways.

The central axis of the development will connect the NPS Visitor Center to the Swamp Locks, a highly desirable destination for visitors to the site. Will there be wayfinding signage or pavement markings along this route to help walkers get to the attraction?
Wayfinding is also essential for the large canalside pedestrian network envisioned for the site. Does the proposed plan include wayfinding on these pedestrian ways, especially in locations where continuation of the path involves turns to cross a bridge?

Issue 4: Access to Transit
We hope that transit will play an important role in connecting visitors and employees to this project and other parts of downtown. Shuttle bus services may be provided through or near the project. Ultimately the trolley will connect downtown Lowell to the Gallagher Transportation Center’s buses and trains.

Will trolley construction be phased into an early stage of development? Can shuttle services be routed through the project for service until the trolley is constructed?
Will pedestrians be able to reach the Gallagher Center on foot?

Issue 5: Conflicts with vehicular traffic
Through movements by vehicles are minimized by an indirect routing via a large “S” curve on a single street connecting Broadway and Revere Street. Several pedestrian issues remain:

Jackson Street at the south edge of the development site now serves the large Jackson- Appleton-Middlesex (JAM) parking garage and is being extended to Thorndike/Dutton Street. Where Jackson intersects Revere Street, monitoring will be necessary to determine if traffic and pedestrian signals are warranted.
The intersection of Jackson Street and Thorndike/Dutton Streets will need to be made safe with traffic signals and countdown pedestrian signals, as it is the replacement for a longplanned pedestrian overpass above Thorndike Street.
The intersection of Broadway and Thorndike/Dutton Streets will become a primary access point to this development, connecting to a new on-site parking garage and other new underground parking. The intersection may warrant countdown pedestrian signals.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document, which offers great promise for pedestrians. Please feel free to contact us for clarification or additional comments.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman Robert Sloane
Executive Director Senior Planner