transit – Page 7 – WalkMassachusetts

EENF 1265 Main Street Waltham Comment Letter

By WalkMassachusetts | February 15, 2011

February 15, 2011

Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF)
1265 Main Street
Waltham, MA
MEPA # 14681

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

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.

We have reviewed the EENF for 1265 Main Street, Waltham (formerly The Commons at Prospect Hill), a proposed mixed-use retail and office redevelopment at the site of the former Polaroid buildings.

The project at 1265 Main Street includes approx. 1.28 million sf of mixed office/retail uses in the proposed redevelopment. Phase I of the proposal will use existing buildings formerly occupied by Polaroid along Route 128 to accommodate these uses. Parking for retail and office uses will be shared to provide maximum and successive use of auto storage areas. Phase II of the proposal calls for new buildings scattered around the site.

WalkBoston’s concerns focus on the fact that walking and pedestrians facilities do not appear to be a major component of the project, although the project is frequently called “pedestrian-friendly” in the document. Pedestrian accommodations are listed on p. 92 of the EENF as being primarily along or connected with the residential areas facing Main Street. Plans for the reconstruction of Main Street will surely include sidewalk replacement and widening. Sidewalk connections within the site and between buildings are not discussed, with the exception of the Wayside Trail, which will accommodate pedestrians in addition to cyclists.

WalkBoston is concerned that some opportunities may be lost which could help make walking a part of the project’s benefits. These opportunities are concentrated in six areas:
1. Pedestrian access into the development site
2. Pedestrian connections to transit routes
3. Pedestrian access along the corridor of buildings
4. Pedestrian access along Wayside Trail
5. Pedestrian access into Prospect Park
6. Pedestrian access into Berry Farm

Each of these opportunities is considered below:

1. Pedestrian access into the development site is apparently to be incorporated into three proposed vehicular access routes into the site from Main Street on the south side of the site. The three access routes are Tower Road, the extension of Cutting Lane, and a new roadway that skirts the existing residential community along Hill Road to connect into Main Street at a new location. No access is provided from the north.

2.
• The principal accessways into the western part of the site appear to be along Tower Road on the western edge of the site and the extension of Cutting Lane which goes up the middle of the site. Tower Road connects between all buildings to be reused as part of Phase I. The extension of Cutting Lane connects only to the first two buildings of the former Polaroid site, providing major existing pedestrian access points into the buildings.
• Tower Road is already a major facility for access to the site and is likely to retain its importance as part of Phase I of this development. The proposal calls for two lanes of entering traffic on Tower Road, which suggests it will be carrying a major load of traffic in the future. It connects into the parking areas only indirectly. As such, Tower Road does not appear to be the most appropriate site for major pedestrian access into the site.
• Pedestrian access into the development site is not indicated in the graphics of this proposal. However, the logical location for pedestrian access may be along the proposed new roadway between Main Street and the eastern half of the site. This road is proposed to be located on a new right-of-way that leads to the north part of the site. It provides access to an existing building near the south boundary of Prospect Park which (we assume) will be retained as part of this development. Sidewalks can be created on one or both sides of this new roadway to give access to the existing building if it is to be retained.

3. Pedestrian access to transit from the development site is discussed only vaguely in the EENF. Transit for people working on site and for visitors should be more thoroughly discussed as the project moves forward.
• Transit lines along Main Street will continue to serve this development. At present there is one bus shelter located about one-quarter of the way from Tower Rd/Stow St. to Cutting Lane. Future connections to the transit services along Main Street should be closely connected to the principal pedestrian access within the site. As mentioned above, the future axis could be along the extension of Cutting Lane. If that is the principal on-site sidewalk, it suggests that the bus shelter and stop be relocated to be closer to that axis. Since this portion of Main Street is proposed to be widened and reconstructed, the new bus shelter can become part of that improvement.
•The proponent has expressed a willingness to add a bus route within the site. A new line would be a welcome addition to the access to the site. The proponent should consider where stops will be located on site and whether there should be shelters at those locations.

3. A pedestrian access corridor through the site would be very useful. The proposed development consists of a row of buildings parallel to Route 128/95. This single axis of buildings suggests a prime location for such a corridor.
• The extension of Cutting Lane is on an alignment that appears to be appropriate for pedestrian access to all of the buildings proposed to be activated by Phase I construction. Although there is no continuous roadway for vehicles on the east side of all the buildings, sidewalks and safe pedestrian facilities can readily be provided along this axis. This is particularly appropriate since some of the recommended pedestrian facilities are already in place outside the existing buildings, providing access to existing and proposed parking on the east side of the buildings.
• The pedestrian access corridor would seem to be more efficiently and pleasantly located along the extension of Cutting Lane rather than Tower Road.
• Pedestrian connections will need to be provided across the major parking lot located at the north end of the existing major complex of buildings on the site. This parking lot can be developed with safe pedestrian walkways across it to connect between all buildings on the site.
• The Low Impact Development (LID) for Stormwater Design, calls for underground water storage facilities beneath parking lots. Specifically an underground stone reservoir is planned for the parking lot that is located between buildings. A long-range view of the grouping of buildings might include a building on the site of the parking lot. This in turn would tie the pedestrian portions of the site closer together, and not require pedestrians to walk across a parking lot for access to the buildings. Is it possible to design the underground water storage facility to permit construction of a future building above it?

4. Pedestrian access to the Wayside Trail is welcome. The proponent has generously volunteered to construct a portion of the Wayside Trail along the former railroad right-of-way that passes through this property. The trail is proposed for use by pedestrians as well as bikes. The use of the existing right of way meshes well with state-wide planning effort for this trail.
• On site, all street/trail intersections should be carefully protected. If traffic signals cannot be provided, traffic calming measures should be considered. Signing should be plentiful to warn motorists of the crossings by pedestrians and bikes.
• Additional consideration should be given to the most appropriate location where the trail can safely cross Main Street. If the trail is located within the rail right-of-way, it will reach Main Street in the vicinity of either Cutting Lane or the new access road that skirts the Hill Road residential area. A traffic signal at either location would allow for safe crossings of Main Street. Alternatively, the trail could extend to Stow Street/Tower Road and cross at the signal proposed for that location, although the traffic at the Tower Road/Stow Street/Main Street intersection is expected to be relatively heavy. • If Main Street is to be widened as part of this project, it may be appropriate to incorporate the Wayside Trail as an integral element in the design of Main Street between the Hill Street residential area and Route 128/95. It might become a facility parallel to Main Street but somewhat separated from it. The trail could be on either side of Main Street, depending on the design. It is important to provide a sufficient width to make this portion of the trail spacious for all users – a minimal sidewalk will not suffice.

5. Pedestrian access into Prospect Park is critical. One of the beauties of this site is the extensive background of nearby adjacent public parkland. People working on the site or visiting will be able to see the park and should be provided with options for walking or jogging in it. • Direct access to the parking is cut off by the Low impact Development (LID) for Stormwater Design, which calls for water quality swales to control runoff from nearby steep land. The proposal calls for 2 water storage areas in what appears to be the southeast corner of Prospect Park. These water storage areas are proposed to be bounded by a new site access road, which will ultimately connect to Route 128/95. Pedestrian access through these sites appears to be difficult but not impossible. Perhaps a landscaped walkway could connect between the park and the buildings lined up along Route 128/95. Consideration of this connection would add significantly to the amenities of the site. • Signing on walkways would be appropriate to lead walkers from business areas into the park’s trails and potential jogging routes. Signs could also lead people from major parking areas and from site roadways into the park. • Use of the trails and walkways within the park should be encouraged through signage, promotion among employers on the site, and by sharing maintenance responsibilities between the City and the proponent.

6. The proponent will donate Berry Farm area to the city as part of this project. Pedestrian access into Berry Farm open space could result from this project. This will expand and greatly enhance the availability and accessibility of open space in the area.
• A direct trail or walkway connection between the proposed Wayside Trail and Berry Farm should be considered. There appears to be a physical connection between the main portion of the farm and the former rail right-of-way. This “leg” of Berry Farm should be used to construct an entranceway into the farm. An area directly adjacent has been designated for parking for Berry Farm. This means that people can drive to both the park and the trail and have access from this site.

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

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Walking to Transit Research Report

By WalkMassachusetts | January 1, 2011

Using a real-life setting, WalkBoston’s project focused on developing and testing techniques to broaden the scope and range of public participation in transportation planning is a large neighborhood in Boston. The team explored methods of seeking out and talking with people who are seldom involved in the formal planning processes. The goal was to explore public participation techniques designed to elicit their opinions on the plans being developed by public agencies.

Read the full report here:
WalkBoston-WalkingToTransit-PublicParticipationTechniques2011

Queset Commons Comment Letter

By WalkMassachusetts | May 22, 2009

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for the Queset Commons Chapter 40R Smart Growth Development in Easton, a proposed mixed-use retail, office and residential development within a Smart Growth Overlay District.

Our conviction is that developments of the size and character of Queset Commons should follow a number of general guidelines in building a mix and relationship of uses that will encourage residents and visitors to walk more and drive less.

Read the full letter here:
WalkBoston-CommentDEIR-QuesetCommons-Easton

Concord Avenue Reconstruction Comment Letter

By WalkMassachusetts | March 5, 2009

March 5, 2009

Cambridge Department of Public Works 147 Hampshire Street,
Cambridge, MA 02139

Attn: Rebecca Fuentes, Community Relations Manager

Dear Ms. Fuentes:

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 are very pleased to support the application by the City of Cambridge for Public Works Economic Development (PWED) funding for the Concord Avenue Reconstruction project, from Fresh Pond Parkway to Blanchard Road. The proposed improvements will make the corridor safer and more attractive for walkers, thus encouraging local trips on foot, and longer trips via transit.

We believe the balance of improvements for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles is an appropriate mix for this important urban corridor.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

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