Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study
advertisement
Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study Study Advisory Group Meeting Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:00 PM Mezzanine Conference Room, Boston Public Library – Copley Square Boston, Massachusetts Attendance Study Advisory Group Members and Public who signed in: Rebecca Albrecht Randall Albright Conrad Armstrong Diane Arenella Shaina Aubourg Resident Resident Resident Resident Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services Fred Basch Resident Lynn Basch Resident Pam Beale Kenmore Association Benton Berman Resident Melissa Berman Resident Deborah Branting Resident Rebecca Brooks Resident Majid Buyuk Resident Sandra Buyuk Resident Don Carlson Resident Paul Christner Massachusetts Port Authority Bill Clendaniez Resident Kevin Cranston Resident Alexandra Crivon Resident Paula Daher Resident Matthew Danish Resident Katrina Ellison Resident Jeffrey Ferris Resident Michael Feldgarden Resident Hef Fisher Friends of the Charlesgate Jim Fitzgerald Boston Redevelopment Authority MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning Sarah Freeman Arborway Coalition & Emerald Necklace Conservancy Pauline Gauthier Resident Rock Gnatovich Resident George Greenidge Councilor Ross’ Office Winnie Hagan Resident Hubert Holley Resident Selena Jakupovic Resident H. Parker James Friends of the Charlesgate Christopher Johnson Resident Jay Johnson Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay (NABB) Judith Julkenson Resident Elliott Laffer NABB Linda Lenoir NABB George Lewis Resident Rodolfo Machado Machado & Silvetti Associates Meg Mainzer-Cohen Back Bay Business Association Barbara Mandel Resident John Mandel Resident Hugh Mattison Resident Anne McKinnon Resident Edie McMammon Resident Sven Meier Resident George Meszoly Resident Myron Miller NABB Meredith Mooney Boston University Ryan Moore Resident -1- July 31, 2012 Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study Study Advisory Group Meeting – June 2012 Dave Newman Massachusetts Academic and Scientific Community Organization (MASCO) Herb Nolan Esplanade Association Frank Odette Resident Richard Olivo NABB Robert Oppenheim Resident Anthony Pangaro Esplanade 2020 Dean Papademetriou Resident Marc Paraison Resident Diane Patry Resident Gina Petruzziello Resident Richard Pien Boston Ward 5 Committee Sue Prindl NABB Margaret Pokorny NABB Dianne Quandt Resident Dennis Quandy Resident Carice Reddien Livable Streets Alliance Dale Robbins Resident Karen Robinsa Fred Salvucci Charles Smith Abby Spegman Bill Stantow Daniel Sullivan Christina Sykes Jeff Sykes Ian Sylvetsky Bill Tobin Ailis Tweed-Kent Alex Valentina Dave VaderWoude P. T. Vineburgh Richard Voos Rep. Marty Walz Steve Wolf Tom Yardley Judith Yogman Friends of the Charlesgate MIT Friends of the Charlesgate Boston Courant Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Rep. Walz’s Office Resident Resident State Representative Resident MASCO Resident Massachusetts Department of Transportation Staff: Stephanie Boundy Office of Legislative Affairs Ned Codd Office of Transportation Planning Paul Nelson Office of Transportation Planning Victoria Sheehan Highway Division Meeting Summary Ned Codd opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and introducing the MassDOT staff to the audience. Following these brief introductions he introduced Paul Nelson, the project manager for the Back Bay Transportation Study. Paul briefly walked the audience through the agenda for the meeting which included: 1. Review of the study progress to date, 2. Results of the travel demand modeling for each of the Massachusetts Turnpike ramp alternatives, 3. Discussion of the planned Bowker Overpass repairs, 4. Discussion of travel demand modeling of potential alternatives for the Bowker Overpass, and 5. Next steps. Study Progress to Date Paul pointed out that this meeting was the third study advisory group meeting. As part of the first two meetings, the advisory group had approved the goals and objectives for the study and screened the MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning -2- July 31, 2012 Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study Study Advisory Group Meeting – June 2012 seven ramp alternatives originally developed down to the four alternatives that met basic physical feasible screening criteria. He reviewed the four alternatives with the group. Alternative 1: New I-90 westbound off-ramp to Berkeley Street with closure of the existing I-90 westbound on-ramp from Arlington Street Alternative 2: New I-90 westbound off-ramp to Trinity Place with closure of the existing I-90 westbound on-ramps from Clarendon Street and Arlington Street Alternative 3: New I-90 westbound off-ramp to Brookline Avenue Alternative 4: New I-90 eastbound on-ramp from the Bowker Overpass northbound Comments & Questions Alex Valentina asked about the study goals and whether they were vetted by the study advisory group. Paul Nelson responded that they had been presented at the first advisory group meeting. Ned Codd said that the study had been initiated at the request of the neighborhood with interest in improvements in the area and that MassDOT was committed to try to achieve these goals. He pointed out that all the proposed alternatives come with impacts that can be broad and significant, so it is important to establish a level of consensus with the advisory group. Alex asked why the Allston turnaround has not solved the traffic issues. Ned responded that the U-Turn had been designed to address the traffic issues but has not attracted the necessary volume of traffic, so other changes are examined through this study. Representative Marty Walz added that the study’s genesis had come from the community. She stated that there is a lot of traffic on Storrow Drive and the Turnpike, so that the community needs to consider transportation changes as a component of what we can do to enhance the neighborhood’s quality of life. She added that the advisory group and the public need to weigh the benefits and detriments, and see what makes sense for the neighborhood to help maintain it as an economic engine while preserving the community diversity. A member of the audience asked what had been the initial purpose of the first SAG. Rep. Walz said that the impetus had been for better access to and from the Turnpike, but that interest from the community had expanded to also consider Storrow Drive and the Bowker Overpass. Another member of the audience pointed out that air quality was a huge issue and that any standing traffic would only worsen air quality. How would these alternatives impact air quality? Paul Nelson said that as part of the study, MassDOT would review the travel demand model results as well as the future levels of service that result from these alternatives, which would help quantify the air quality impacts. The audience member added that the turnaround at Allston was poorly signed, and that people do not know how to use it. Paul added that he would raise the signage issue up with the Highway Division. A member of the audience asked when the alternatives would be constructed. Paul Nelson responded that it would be many years as no funding has been identified. Ned Codd added that the costs would MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning -3- July 31, 2012 Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study Study Advisory Group Meeting – June 2012 be an issue that factors into the analysis, but that we first need a plan that works and has community support before funding could be pursued. Another audience member suggested that Northeastern University and Boston University be included on the Advisory Group. Paul Nelson responded that representatives from Boston University had been invited to this meeting and that he would get in contact with representatives from Northeastern University. Travel Demand Modeling of the Turnpike Alternatives Paul described to the advisory group that MassDOT had worked with the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) to model the expected shift in 2035 traffic volumes due to each of the four Turnpike ramp alternatives using their Eastern Massachusetts Travel Demand Model. He then walked the advisory group through a series of slides showing the alignment for each ramp alternative and the expected change in traffic volumes for each alternative during the morning and afternoon peak period (6:00 to 9:00 AM and 3:00 to 6:00 PM respectively). Comments & Questions A member of the audience asked where the added traffic on the Turnpike from the east was coming from. Paul Nelson responded that the largest origin of these vehicles would be Logan Airport, but that there would also be vehicles coming from the South Boston waterfront neighborhood and from the communities along Route 1A and I-93 north of Boston. Don Carlson stated that another alternative should be added that did not build any ramps. He pointed out that with the limited financial resources available in the Commonwealth we should spend the money on other priorities. He stated that he did not see any residential support for these changes. Of the four build alternatives he pointed out that he liked Alternative 4 (the eastbound Bowker Overpass on-ramp) the best. Paul Nelson responded that the study does include a “no-build” alternative, which would entail no changes to the existing configuration of the Turnpike. The four alternatives presented only represent the “build” alternatives, in which future changes are proposed. A member of the audience asked if alternatives 3 and 4 (the Brookline Street off-ramp and the Bowker Overpass on-ramp, respectively) could be combined. Paul Nelson responded said that it might be possible but that the first step in the analysis is understanding potential benefits and impacts of each alternative considered separately. In addition, combining the two alternatives could have even greater impacts on the neighborhood, in particular considering the space requirements of those two alternatives. MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning -4- July 31, 2012 Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study Study Advisory Group Meeting – June 2012 Jeffrey Ferris pointed out that the modeling for each alternative shows a counterintuitive reduction in vehicles along the Turnpike westbound of each new ramp. He asked why this would happen. Ned Codd responded that congestion on the Turnpike in the vicinity of the new ramps may discourage vehicles from using the Turnpike and push them onto alternate routes, which would thus reduce the volume as shown. A member of the audience asked why there was no reduction in traffic on the Turnpike coming from the east. The audience member also asked why there were no changes to the traffic levels on Storrow Drive. Paul Nelson responded that in most of the alternatives the overall traffic levels stayed the same on the majority of the roadways. Evaluation of traffic on Storrow Drive showed that some traffic did divert off of the roadway but that other vehicles replaced the diverted traffic, keeping the overall volumes even. Ned Codd added that MassDOT had expected the addition of the new ramps to change the traffic volumes on Storrow Drive but that model suggests that demand for travel on Storrow Drive is very high. Matthew Danish asked why the study looked so far into the future and pointed out that level of service does not take into consideration pedestrians and their needs for a walkable environment. He also pointed out that Storrow Drive will soon need rehabilitation which could cost up to $300 million. He suggested that the Commonwealth could save that money by replacing Storrow Drive with an at-grade roadway, an option that would have the added benefit of diverting cars elsewhere and reducing traffic. Paul Nelson replied that the study would consider any impacts on pedestrian and bicycle travel, as well as opportunities for improving walking and bicycling access. A member of the audience stated that something would need to be done directly about the traffic on Storrow Drive and the Bowker Overpass instead of indirectly through the new Turnpike ramps. Ned Codd responded that although the travel demand modeling shows that the new Turnpike connections do not reduce traffic on Storrow Drive, the study would also review potential changes to the Bowker Overpass and its connections to Storrow Drive. However, this is not a study of the full Storrow Drive corridor. Meg Mainzer-Cohen asked if the Trinity Place (Alternative 2) ramp would impact the Stuart Street intersection. Paul Nelson stated that Alternative 2 would divert traffic into that intersection. He added that the intersection currently operates at an acceptable level of service and that as part of the study’s next steps MassDOT would evaluate the future level of service. A member of the audience asked how Newbury Street would be impacted by the new ramp to Brookline Avenue (Alternative 3). Paul Nelson responded that the Turnpike in that alternative Newbury Street would be narrowed and street parking would be eliminated. Another member of the MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning -5- July 31, 2012 Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study Study Advisory Group Meeting – June 2012 audience asked why the ramp was so long. Paul Nelson responded that current ramp length is provided both so that vehicles can safely slow down and to provide space for vehicles to queue without impacting the I-90 mainline lanes. The audience member requested that MassDOT review the design to see if it could be shortened. Paul stated that this would be reviewed in the context of safe highway design and engineering standards. A member of the audience asked how traffic on the Brookline Avenue would be impacted by Red Sox games at Fenway Park. Paul Nelson responded that a traffic management plan would need to be developed for game days to ensure pedestrian access along Brookline Avenue and limit delays along I-90. After reviewing Alternative 4, a member of the audience asked why the eastbound traffic was reduced on the Turnpike in the morning between the Allston/Brighton toll booth and the Bowker Overpass. Paul Nelson responded that the new traffic entering on the new ramp would create added congestion on the Turnpike east of the Bowker Overpass, which would cause congestion and push existing eastbound traffic to divert to other roadways. A member of the audience asked if Alternative 4 would impact Parcel 15. Paul Nelson responded that the design of each alternative will be refined through the next steps of the study to address any impacts on the Turnpike air rights parcels. Discussion of the planned repairs to the Bowker Overpass Paul then provided a brief overview of the Bowker Overpass. The Bowker Overpass is the hub of a complex system of roadways and ramps that connects Storrow Drive with upper Boylston Street and Park Drive, located near the boundary between the Back Bay and Kenmore neighborhoods of Boston. The Bowker Overpass itself is an elevated roadway viaduct located within the study area for the Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study that roughly parallels the course of the Muddy River and spans over Beacon Street, Commonwealth Avenue, the Massachusetts Turnpike Extension and the Boston Mainline railroad. The viaduct links to a system of surface streets, ramps and bridges that connects from the Emerald Necklace parkway system in the south to local roads and Storrow Drive north of the Turnpike. In 2009, ownership and care of the Bowker Overpass and the other structures in its vicinity were transferred from the Department of Conservation and Recreation to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Upon transfer of the structures and an evaluation of their condition, it was determined that many were at risk of becoming structurally deficient without extensive rehabilitation or repair. MassDOT is in the process of developing two separate projects to address the identified structural deficiencies. The first project would retrofit the pin and hanger assemblies on the Bowker Overpass viaduct and the ramps that connect it to Storrow Drive; the project would also make other interim repairs, such as deck patching, joint repair, replacement of bridge railing, and parapet concrete repairs. The project is currently under design and it is expected to begin in the spring of 2013. The second project, which would address issues with the Storrow Drive eastbound mainline bridge in the MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning -6- July 31, 2012 Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study Study Advisory Group Meeting – June 2012 vicinity of the Bowker Overpass, is not as urgent. Because of the ongoing study process, work on this latter project’s design has been temporarily suspended. Comments & Questions Ian Sylvetsky asked what was next for the Bowker Overpass. He disliked strongly how the outreach to residents has been handled so far and wants to know the schedule of construction. Rep. Marty Walz said that the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) had worked closely with the public and promised not to do work at night but that MassDOT has not honored that agreement. She stressed that the nighttime work is a serious issue that needs to be resolved. Hef Fisher expressed concern for the damage to the park as part of MassDOT’s past construction projects and requested that they be avoided in the future. Victoria Sheehan responded that the planned repair project only addresses the needed emergency repairs. The project is in the early phases of design and the duration has not been determined. She stated that MassDOT will conduct public hearing to discuss the project. Paul Nelson added that he will ensure that notice is sent to all of the advisory group members and anyone else who had provided their e-mail address. Victoria added that the emergency repairs would be good for approximately 10 years in order to allow for the planning and design to be completed for more longterm improvements. A member of the audience asked how much it would cost to take the Bowker Overpass down and added that they wanted more constraints on the construction schedule. Paul Nelson responded that there was no estimate on the cost to remove the Bowker Overpass, but that a full rehabilitation of the Bowker Overpass would cost between $34-40 million. Discussion of modeling potential alternatives for the Bowker Overpass Next, Paul Nelson stated that given the great public interest in removing the Bowker Overpass and the proximity of the structure to the study area, MassDOT has decided to utilize the CTPS travel demand model to estimate changes in travel patterns for four conceptual alternatives for the Bowker Overpass roadways. He pointed out that the modeling would still be helpful for the public discussion on the Bowker Overpass by quantifying the potential traffic impacts. Paul showed the following four preliminary concepts to demonstrate the types of alternatives that could be modeled, pending further review and feedback from the community and other stakeholders. Concept 1: The Bowker Overpass is removed and all vehicle movements are accommodated on the Charlesgate roadways. Concept 2: The Bowker Overpass is lowered to an at-grade roadway and the Charlesgate roadways are downgraded to local roads. Concept 3: A new interchange is constructed between the Turnpike and Boylston Street, with local traffic connecting to Storrow Drive on the existing Charlesgate roadways. MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning -7- July 31, 2012 Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study Study Advisory Group Meeting – June 2012 Concept 4: A new interchange is constructed between the Turnpike and Boylston Street with local traffic connecting to Storrow Drive via a new interchange with Massachusetts Avenue. Paul stressed that these four concepts are preliminary, and intended for discussion purposes. None of the designs has yet been evaluated for engineering feasibility, and all would likely have major impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhoods that could impact their feasibility. Comments & Questions Elliott Laffer stated that the advisory group needs to understand the seriousness of the high volumes of traffic on the Bowker Overpass. If the new ramps on the Turnpike will not reduce traffic, then we needed to find the best compromise to the most problems. He thanked MassDOT for looking into this issue. A member of the audience stated he felt there was a strong need to preserve the connections of the Emerald Necklace, and that doing so was contrary to keeping the Bowker Overpass. Sarah Freeman stated that she does not want the overpass, and wants to preserve the park connection, but she sees the need to mitigate the offloaded traffic if the Bowker Overpass comes down. She requested that MassDOT provide better visualizations of the alternatives that are not birdseye views. Fred Salvucci said the advisory group needed to take a leap of faith on taking down overpasses. He suggested that when we do the emergency repairs, we shut down the road for a brief period of time and see what happens with the traffic. He also suggested we look to other before/after overpass take downs in San Francisco and other places. He also spoke on taking advantage of the CSX purchase and utilizing rail, implementing three-car Green Line trains, building the Red Line-Blue Line connector, and tightening up the parking freeze in the downtown area. Sue Prindl asked the study advisory group to think about how we could ease traffic and still take down the Bowker Overpass. A member of the audience stated that the Bowker Overpass helps offset traffic from Storrow Drive and that taking the Bowker Overpass down would divert so much traffic onto the surface streets it would harm the neighborhood. He also stated that he does not like the idea of widening the Charlesgate roadways either, and would rather keep the Bowker Overpass. Conrad Armstrong agreed with keeping the Bowker Overpass to reduce traffic on surface streets, a point that was echoed by a number of attendees. MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning -8- July 31, 2012 Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study Study Advisory Group Meeting – June 2012 Tom Yardley said he was concerned about taking down the Bowker Overpass and requested that the advisory group take into account all the nearby development that depended on these roadway connections. He added that the group needs to focus on strategies to encourage other modes of transportation, especially pedestrian and bicycle improvements to alleviate traffic. A member of the audience suggested it might be better to keep the Bowker Overpass and just improve the existing green space underneath. Another audience member suggested that the group look to Europe and South America for examples of creating a mixed use space with businesses under the overpasses. Hef Fisher replied that he did not think that was a good idea because building under the overpass would create even more of a physical divide and isolate the neighborhood and that it also is not a commercial zone. Dennis Quandy asked if we could put in a tunnel. Paul Nelson responded that there are considerable challenges with trying to do a tunnel in this location, given the elevations of the existing roadways that need to be connected; the presence of the Turnpike, a major interstate highway that would need to be tunneled below; the presence of the Muddy River, an important protected natural resource; the presence of other underground infrastructure; the unknown condition of the soils; and the extreme costs and construction impacts of building tunnels. Mark Ibuna asked if with the integration of the MBTA with MassDOT we would be able to take a look at the potential mode shift with these transportation changes. Paul Nelson responded that transit improvements would be included in the discussion and that the traffic modeling could support the discussion through a link analysis to get origin-destination data. Rep. Marty Walz added that MASCO and the Longwood Medical Area had done origin-destination studies through employee surveys that supply a great source of data. Paul agreed and said that they could also the MASCO survey results with the recently completed statewide travel survey. Herb Nolan stated that he had worked on the Charles River Basin Master Plan, and that there had been lots of studies looking at the Emerald Necklace connections. He said that regardless of what happens with the Bowker, there need to be better connections between the Fens and the River. Richard Voos agreed and said that he wanted a plan to connect the Charles River with the Emerald Necklace that incorporates all modes of transportation. Jeffrey Ferris stated that he was involved with the Casey Overpass and he wants to see better alternatives to offload traffic demand from the Bowker Overpass and that he has doubts about the MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning -9- July 31, 2012 Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study Study Advisory Group Meeting – June 2012 ability of a travel demand model to predict true driver behavior. He stated that other examples of successful overpass takedowns had preexisting alternative routes for traffic, and that Bowker Overpass needs an alternative route first. If there is not one, then we should keep it up and maintain the park below. Taking down the roads can be its own kind of barrier so we should make the space better for pedestrians and bicyclists too. Christina Sykes stated that MassDOT should be sure to look for traffic impacts on Brookline Avenue in the alternatives for the Bowker Overpass. Paul Nelson replied that the travel demand model results will allow us to examine traffic impacts on adjacent roadways, including Brookline Avenue. Anthony Pangaro stated that the changes to the Bowker Overpass and the MassDOT-planned rebuilding of the eastbound Storrow Drive viaduct over the Muddy River would impact any restoration of the Esplanade parklands as they are shown in the Esplanade Association’s 2020 proposals to pull the westbound lanes of Storrow Drive 75 feet away from the Charles River’s edge, and any future planning efforts should include those plans. He stated that MassDOT and the advisory group should think ahead to the proper new location of all highway elements so that they enhance the parks, and not just rebuild roadways as they are located today. He added that is important not to jump ahead to do immediate and expensive roadway reconstruction work and thereby preclude long term solutions that significantly improve the parkland. John Shields asked if the study could look at adding signalized intersections along Storrow Drive. Jeffrey Ferris added his support for looking more at changes to Storrow Drive. Ned Codd responded that Storrow Drive is not a MassDOT roadway; it belongs to the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The study will be looking at the Bowker Overpass and connections to Storrow Drive, but it does not encompass the Storrow Drive corridor as a whole. Next Steps Paul Nelson then described the study’s next steps. For the Turnpike ramp alternatives, MassDOT will work with CTPS to determine the future levels of service to quantify their impacts. MassDOT will also work to refine the design for each alternative and develop cost estimates. For the Bowker Overpass concepts, MassDOT will finalize four concepts based on the feedback from the advisory group. Once they are finalized MassDOT will then work with CTPS to determine the likely change in traffic patterns using the Eastern Massachusetts Travel Demand Model. MassDOT will then review the traffic impacts resulting from these alternatives, and will also focus on the alternatives’ impacts and opportunities relative to pedestrian and bicycle access, as well as natural resource issues. MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning -10- July 31, 2012 Back Bay Ramps Transportation Study Study Advisory Group Meeting – June 2012 Comments & Questions Anne McKinnon asked what the timeline for the next steps would be. Paul Nelson responded that the modeling of the Bowker Overpass alternatives would begin in July and that the timeline for the remaining was still being finalized but would be posted to the project website soon. Steve Wolf asked if the presentation would be available. Paul Nelson responded that the presentation would be posted to the study website and that he would email the location to the email list. Steve requested that the study include a report on the trends in traffic volumes in future presentations and also incorporate the concept of “complete streets” in its alternatives. Paul agreed that both should be included. Myron Miller stated that all of the alternatives required comprehensive coordination and that the alternatives should be considered in conjunction with each other. He encouraged everyone to recognize that they could work together if the advisory group is creative with the design. John Shields added that the advisory group needed to look to the future and think long-term, especially regarding the reclamation of the parkland and the river’s park edge. Mark Ibuna suggested that MassDOT incorporate the impact of the Yawkey Way station improvements into the alternatives evaluation. An audience member also suggested that the analysis be coordinated with the Park Drive reconstruction project. Pam Beale of the Kenmore Association asked how they could give more feedback, and suggested that MassDOT put together a smaller working group with the residents and other stakeholders so they could get more work done together at the table. Paul Nelson responded that people should contact him via email at paul.nelson@state.ma.us if they have additional feedback. Paul thanked everyone for attending the advisory group meeting. The meeting ended at 8:30 PM. MassDOT Office of Transportation Planning -11- July 31, 2012
