Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
January 8, 2013
To:
Steve McLaughlin
Project Manager - Accelerated Bridge Program
MassDOT
Through:
Essek Petrie
HNTB
Project Manager
From:
Nathaniel Curtis
Howard/Stein-Hudson
Public Involvement Specialist
RE:
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Scoping Session1
Meeting Notes of December 13, 2012
Overview & Executive Summary
On December 13, 2012, the MassDOT team for the Casey Arborway project, under the direction of the
Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) participated in the MEPA Scoping Session for
the project. The meeting was held in the auditorium of Boston English High School in Jamaica Plain and was
preceded by a site walk which guided interested members of the public through the project area. While this
meeting can be seen as part of the overall public outreach process associated with the Casey Arborway project,
unlike the public information meetings held before and to be held after it, the MEPA Scoping Session was held
under the auspices of EOEEA in accordance with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) process. The
MEPA process is triggered with regard to the Casey Arborway project because the job’s 25% design plans include
the removal of more than five public shade trees of 14 inches or greater in diameter. This is the only MEPA
threshold exceeded by the project. While this set of meeting minutes was generated by the MassDOT project team
and is made available to provide a record of the proceedings, comments made at the meeting are not considered
part of the official MEPA record. To be in the official MEPA record, comments must be submitted in writing to the
EOEEA by January 8th, 2013.
As has occurred at many of the large public meetings associated with the project, discussion was centered
between those in favor of MassDOT’s selected at-grade design and those who continue to prefer that the Casey
Overpass be replaced with a new bridge. For those seeking a new bridge, the common themes included:
 Complaints of an opaque public process
 A belief that air quality modeling for the project has been inadequate
 Disbelief that the traffic modeling done for the project accurately depicts future traffic conditions
 A request that MEPA scope the project for an Environmental Impact Report and direct MassDOT to
replace the Casey Overpass with a new viaduct.
For those in support of the at-grade solution, comments focused on:
 A strong, transparent public process
 The belief that traffic and air quality modeling have been accurate and thorough
 Feelings that that the proposed design will improve bicycle, pedestrian, traffic, and environmental
conditions while tightening the connections between key elements of the Emerald Necklace
 The belief that removal of the overpass will improve Forest Hills and bring more people to the area.
1
Meeting attendance is listed in Appendix 1. Comments received from the public immediately prior to, at, and
after the meeting are listed in Appendix 2, however, it should be noted that for comments to be officially logged
as part of the MEPA process, they must be sent in writing to Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Executive Office of
Energy and Environmental Affairs, Attn: MEPA Office, 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900, Boston MA 02114
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Detailed Meeting Minutes
Opening Remarks
C: Holly Johnson (HJ): Good evening. I’m Holly Johnson, a MEPA analyst with the Executive Office of Energy
and Environmental Affairs. I am here tonight representing Secretary Richard K. Sullivan. I want to thank all of
you for coming out tonight and listening to our presentation; I know it’s a busy time of year. I want to remind
all of you that this meeting is not a public hearing. It’s not being recorded and comments given are not
considered to be testimony. If you want to formally participate in the MEPA (Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act) process, you need to send your comment to us in writing. There are directions for how to do that
on your handouts and in the presentation. Please remember to sign in and if you’d like to speak during the
Q&A session, take a number. Those numbers will help us to facilitate the Q&A process. When we get to the
Q&A process, I’ll ask that local elected leaders speak first. I’d like to recognize Representatives Russell
Holmes and Liz Malia, Ture Turnbull from Councilor O’Malley’s office, Heather Perez from Councilor Arroyo’s
office, and Jullieanne Doherty from the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services.
MEPA stands for Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. It requires state agencies to study the environmental
consequences of their actions. It directs them to avoid, minimize, and mitigate damages to the environment
by studying alternatives to their project and the impacts of those alternatives. I would emphasize that MEPA is
not a permitting process. We require study and the development of mitigation, but we are more of an
environmental disclosure process that helps to inform the state. MEPA has a series of thresholds which is how
we understand the potential level of damage to the environment. There are thresholds for land, waste water,
energy use, wetlands, historical, archaeological, and transportation resources. MassDOT projects usually
surpass land, wetlands, or transportation thresholds. For this project, MEPA applies because the job is funded
and permitted by state agencies. MEPA has a broad jurisdiction, but understand that there are thresholds, like
energy, that this project doesn’t touch. For this project, DOT had to file an Environmental Notification Form
(ENF) because it triggered a threshold with the proposed removal of more than 5 public shade trees with a
diameter of greater than 14 inches. That’s their one threshold for this project. That’s it.
In terms of schedule, the ENF was filed on November 15th. It was in the bimonthly environmental monitor on
November 21st. DOT requested an extended comment period for this ENF. Normally our deadlines are quite
short: an ENF gets a 20 day comment period and then we have 10 days to issue a certificate. The Secretary
of Energy and Environmental Affairs can choose to require an Environmental Impact Review (EIR). Our
thresholds come in ENF and EIR levels. EIR’s are usually for the largest of projects and this project is not of a
size to make an EIR mandatory. With this project, at the close of the comment period, the Secretary will
decide whether the job should be scoped for an EIR or whether no further review is required.
Before I hand this over to DOT, I have just a little more background. I know there has been a long process
before tonight with the Working Advisory Group (WAG) and the Design Advisory Group (DAG) and lots of
community discussion through public information meetings. I know audience views are passionate and
differing. I will ask that you be patient and understanding with each other and the process. Thank you all for
being kind and respectful during the site walk. Please keep it up. I’d ask that you be respectful of the
presenters and commenters. Please wait to be acknowledged, we will call out numbers. Please focus your
questions and comments on the environmental impact of the project. You can use your 3 minutes to talk
about whatever you like, but if it’s not topical, it doesn’t help me assess impacts. Of course you don’t need to
take the whole 3 minutes and you don’t have to speak, you can always write in your comment as well. If you
don’t stop by the end of 3 minutes, I’ll remind you of it because if you run over, you’re curtailing other
people’s chance to speak. Remember: I cannot hear you when you yell. Please stay on topic and respectful.
If you can’t do those things, you’ll be asked to leave. So, here’s DOT to present the project and afterward
we’ll have Q&A. Thank you all once again. We appreciate your time and please don’t forget to submit your
comment in writing.
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Presentation of the Project
C: Mike Trepanier (MT): I’m Mike Trepanier, I’m an environmental planner with DOT. I’d like to take a moment
and introduce our design team members: Paul Godfrey, the HNTB project manager, Essek Petrie HNTB’s
primary planner, Steve McLaughlin and Paul King, the project managers for DOT and Mark Gravalese from
MassDOT District 6 who is reviewing the technical highway design.
Tonight, our presentation will give you a chronology of the project up to the 25% design and the ENF. The
presentation is going to take about 45 minutes. We’ve tried to shorten it as best we can and we want to leave
time for Q&A, but understand this has been a long planning process followed by 6 months of design and we
need to cover that for anyone not involved since day 1. For those of you who have been in since day 1,
please bear with us, this presentation is intended for the person who hasn’t seen it all before. 2
To begin with, here is the project area, highlighted in yellow. The area contains the existing overpass which
carries the Arborway from the Arnold Arboretum to Shea Circle. Included within the project area are the
MBTA Forest Hills Station and the plaza just to the north of it, Washington Street to the north and west of the
train station, New Washington Street and a short segment of Hyde Park Avenue. The Arborway, Arboretum,
and Franklin Park are all parts of the Olmsted Emerald Necklace and they are considered contributing
elements to the Emerald Necklace Historical District which is a larger area than our project. The project we’re
presenting tonight was not conceived by MassDOT on its own. It’s a collaborative effort between DOT, the
Department of Conservation & Recreation, and the City of Boston. MassDOT inherited the overpass in 2009
as part of the Transportation Reform Act of that year. Prior to that, it belonged to DCR. The MBTA operates
all of the public transit at Forest Hills Station and the City of Boston owns the local streets and operates the
signals in the study area.
Before we get started with a complex discussion of the design, we want to tell you the story of how we got
here. When DOT discovered that the Casey Overpass was structurally deficient and could not be repaired, we
initiated a 9-month planning study to look at the opportunities this project offered to the neighborhood.
During the early part of the planning study we found that we really had an opportunity to better accommodate
all of the transportation modes and users that go through Forest Hills. We saw an opportunity to improve
local and regional connections and to rationalize the complex, confusing network of at-grade streets under
the bridge. The next slide3 shows the corridor with and without the overpass and it’s an important visual
because it really drives home just how much space is under the bridge. So, the project presented us with a
unique opportunity in a dense urban environment and a chance to unlock the potential of Forest Hills. Many
believe the overpass is a visual barrier that divides Forest Hills from the rest of Jamaica Plain, but in a more
practical sense it’s an obstruction that prevents the creation an efficient roadway network in the area below it.
Finally, this slide shows Olmsted’s original 1892 plan for this area. We have in this project a unique
opportunity to improve the connections between major parts of the Emerald Necklace in the spirit of this
design.
Even with all of these opportunities, given the context, there are challenges. Within a setting like this, with the
confusing streets and the overpass above them, we recognized the need to balance mobility and livability.
Any proposal for the corridor would need to improve access and circulation and keep traffic flowing while
improving the connections between valued open spaces. Also, we need to maintain MBTA service both during
and after construction. The overpass serves a regional east-west flow of traffic and then there are local
concerns as well: getting pedestrians across intersections, going from Forest Hills to the train station, getting
from the Arboretum to Franklin Park. It’s about balancing mobility and livability. There are also some
infrastructure challenges associated with the MBTA facility. They are as follows: the Orange Line ventilation
stack, the commuter rail ventilation grate, the route 39 bus loop, and the Orange Line exit stairs. The
surrounding surface roadway network reacts to all these elements. One of the big challenges as we started
2
The presentation given by Mike Trepanier can be seen at
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
3
Available at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
planning for this project was to try and see this corridor without them and think of a blank slate. At this point,
I’d like to ask Essek Petrie from HNTB to come up and discuss the Working Advisory Group process.
C: Essek Petrie (EP): Good evening; I’m Essek Petrie with HNTB and I’ve been involved with the job since it started
so I’ve had a unique opportunity to watch this whole process evolve. I want to start by acknowledging the
work the WAG put into this project. They worked tirelessly. We had numerous meetings of the WAG and
public information meetings which the WAG members attended. They helped us develop the guiding
principles and measures of evaluation (MOE) 4 and really challenged us. In addition to rolling up their sleeves
at working sessions, we had them do 6 homework assignments including a photo journal and a 100 question
survey. We sent them home with a blank map of the area and told them to sketch their ideal connections for
all modes and their top 3 desire lines. That homework assignment evolved into this map which I’m showing
now. The yellow circles you can see on the same map represent another WAG assignment. We broke the
WAG up into small groups and asked them to identify the three major areas of concern in the corridor and
what we got was Shea Circle, New Washington Street and Washington Street west of the station near Asticou
Road. Once we got an understanding of desire lines and areas of concern from the WAG that gave us some
guidelines for design which we developed into guiding principles. We used those principles as a screen to
perform a fatal flaw analysis on our earliest designs. If it didn’t meet one or more of the principles it was
dropped from further consideration. The guiding principles also laid the groundwork for the MOE which were
discussed and refined through the WAG and public information meetings. In the MOE, we continued our
effort to balance livability and mobility. From the MOE, we developed 6 broad goals for our designs. We
further defined the goals by developing objectives which we used to help analyze the design concepts.
Once we learned what people were looking for from the designs and developed the goals and objectives, we
approached the WAG with a series of “what-ifs.” One of those was a new bridge. We recognized that with
the elevated Orange Line and commuter rail viaduct gone we could have a shorter, smaller bridge and really,
DOT could have just stopped there, but the agency recognized that this project presented a unique
opportunity to go beyond the status quo. So, we looked at two possible at-grade – e.g. roadway at ground
level – options which we used as the outer edges for a possible design without a bridge. One went back to
the original Olmsted concept which maximized green space. We also had a concept which maximized
pavement. We called that one the “Eisenhower.” Starting from those bookends, we went through over 25
possible design concepts and ran them through fatal flaw screening to whittle down the list. We also looked
at multiple options for the various areas of concern identified by the WAG. That process brought us to four
broad concepts: 2 bridge and 2 at-grade:
 One bridge concept was the split bridge. This was two bridges with one for each direction of traffic.
The idea was to let light down to the street level, letting us look into new green space and pedestrian
areas.
 We also had the single bridge concept which would have been a smaller version of today’s Casey
Overpass.
 Our first at-grade alternative was the wide median concept which was sort of a cross between
Commonwealth Avenue and VFW Parkway. There would have been a linear park down the center.
One of the challenges with this approach was the issue of maintaining north/south pedestrian
connections.
 This challenge led us to our second at-grade alternative, the narrow median concept, improved the
north/south pedestrian connections, and some green space in the center of the roadway.
Shea Circle was one of the major areas of concern identified by the WAG as being unfriendly to bicycles and
pedestrians and it is also the worst location in the corridor in terms of crashes so we wanted do something
with it. We came up with 3 concepts for Shea Circle, all of which would work with either a bridge or at-grade
concept. They were:
 The improved Shea Circle would have really kept the rotary as it is today with some changes to the
striping to try to improve pedestrian and bicycle connections.
4
Available at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Documents.aspx and
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.


The “egg-about” which was named by one of our WAG members would have been an elongated
version of the rotary. It would have maintained some of the rotary feel while improving bicycle and
pedestrian connections. This concept was particularly well matched with the wide-median at-grade
option because the central path in the median could have continued into the elongated center island
of the egg-about. One major disadvantage of this approach was that it would have made the rotary
semi-signalized which could have been confusing for both auto traffic and pedestrians.
Shea Square turned Shea Circle into a traditional 4-way, signalized intersection. Of all the Shea
concepts, this one is the safest when it comes to bicycle, pedestrian, and automobile interactions.
As the planning process moved into the fall of 2011, the decision was made with input from the WAG and the
public, to carry forward with Shea Square, the single bridge option, and a “medium median” at-grade
concept which balanced the best points of the wide and narrow median concepts in terms of pedestrian and
vehicle connections. We had thought going into the process that traffic could be the deciding factor between
the bridge and at-grade solutions, but in comparing them, we discovered that with a correctly redesigned
street network we could handle the traffic and that it wasn’t significantly different between the two options.
C: MT: At the end of the planning process, and this brings us up to early 2012, MassDOT selected the at-grade,
medium-median option with Shea Square to take into 25% design. This decision was not made in a vacuum
and it was not made solely by people at DOT. It was qualitatively evaluated against the MOEs developed by
the WAG and the public and all of the concepts were developed with the WAG and shared in open public
information meetings. Removing the overpass and replacing it with an at-grade boulevard takes away a
visual barrier and reconnects neighborhoods and green spaces while restoring some of Olmsted’s vision for
the corridor. The at-grade alternative reduces impervious surface 5 by 1.3 acres. Environmentally that’s a big
differentiator in favor of the at-grade solution. I want to underscore what Essek said which is that traffic is not
a significant differentiator between the bridge and at-grade solutions. DOT also recognized that the at-grade
option improves pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit operations, that it scores better when better when
evaluated using the MOE, and that the at-grade solution is cheaper by about $25 million in up-front
construction costs and even more during the lifecycle of the roadway. I should note that while both roads and
bridges require ongoing maintenance over their lifespan, bridges require more, and that DOT generally
builds bridges to last 75 years. So, a new bridge would have represented 75 years of higher maintenance
costs with another replacement at the end. So, in summary, the existing Casey Overpass is deteriorating and
structurally deficient. There’s no alternative to it coming down. The at-grade solution is progressive and
forward-looking. It will improve the local roadway network and keep regional traffic moving. I now want to
ask Paul Godfrey to come up and discuss the 25% design process.
C: Paul Godfrey (PG): Thank you Michael, good evening all. Once the decision was made to go with the atgrade solution, the design team started the 25% design plans for it. A lot of what you saw during the
planning process may have looked very refined, but from our perspective it had very little detail. The 25%
design process began about 6 months ago. The 25% design begins to lock down where the infrastructure will
be horizontally and vertically, where the curbs are, where the signals will be, the locations of bicycle paths and
sidewalks. We also have 25% right-of-way (ROW) plans to ensure that we’re staying within the state ROW.
Those are the basic elements of the 25% design package. Each one of you should have gotten one of the
11x17 sheets at the sign-in table or seen the big boards out in the lobby 6 and this is a copy of the overall 25%
design plan colored to show the roadway, bicycle paths, open space, the relocated public transit facilities, and
signals. This is a summary version of the roughly 250 sheets that went to MassDOT on October 9 th.
I now want to highlight the major elements of the design. I’ll start at the west end of the project. The new
Casey Arborway runs east/west with Washington Street and Hyde Park Avenue running north/south. The
project begins at the western bowtie. One of the things you will notice in this design is that at our major
intersections, we do not accommodate east/west left turns. Looking back at what the WAG told us about their
5
Impervious surface is a surface through which water cannot pass. Pavement is considered an impervious
surface. Pervious surfaces, like grass or ground cover foliage, can absorb water and help to reduce storm water
runoff.
6
A copy of this handout is available at: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Documents.aspx
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
desires for traffic operations we found an opportunity to smooth traffic flow, improve safety and shrink the
overall footprint of the intersections. So, starting at the western end of the project, we have what we call the
western bowtie. This is where traffic that is traveling westbound and wants to go to Washington Street west of
the station or Hyde Park Avenue would turn at the bowtie, which is a signalized U-turn intersection, and then
continue eastbound until it could turn right onto Washington Street or Hyde Park Avenue.
Moving eastward through the corridor we have our two major intersections: Arborway/South Street and
Arborway/Washington Street/Hyde Park Avenue.
Another major element is the opportunity to relocate the existing MBTA 39 bus loop into the upper bus-way.
What that does is let us pull the taxi stand away from Asticou Road. Another big element of the project is the
head-house – e.g. subway station – that lets people exit from the Orange Line. We propose to relocate that to
the north and allow people to use it as an entrance, thereby taking away the incentive to cross New
Washington Street midblock. We have strong pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout the corridor.
Still moving east, we get to the eastern bowtie. This is where eastbound traffic that wants to make lefts onto
South Street or Washington Street would use the signalized U-turn of the bowtie to reverse direction and go
back to access South Street or Washington Street and westbound right turns. Continuing down the Arborway,
we come to Shea Square, a traditional, 4-way signalized intersection with bicycle and pedestrian crossings
over all four legs and a large addition of new, usable green space around the edges.
I want to go back a moment and talk about the opportunity to relocate the MBTA 39 bus in greater detail.
Relocating the bus includes a reconstruction of the upper bus-way, but it allows us to consolidate the number
of locations where transit buses are located. The proposed 25% design includes an expanded upper bus-way
which would accommodate all buses currently operating from that bus-way plus the 39 bus. The design
expands the upper bus-way from 2 bays up to 3 and we can add space for loading/unloading and bus
layover. The consensus in the DAG and from the MBTA is that we can expect more transit use in the future so
being able to have more buses in this facility is an advantage. The existing signal at South Street/Washington
Street would remain, but it would be an enhanced, more efficient 3-way intersection. There would be another
signal for buses to exit the upper bus-way and to give pedestrians an option to cross Washington Street. That,
in a nutshell, is the 25% design as it exists today.
The graphic I’m showing now is fairly busy, but the intent is to show you that demolition/construction would
happen in a few stages. The overpass needs to come down, but before it can come down, we need to find a
way to accommodate traffic while that happens. We anticipate construction to begin in spring 2014 and the
first thing we’d do is construct this temporary roadway north of the Arborway and begin work on the upper
bus-way since the 39 bus needs to be relocated for the demolition. In summer of 2014, we’d begin
demolishing the bridge and we would begin at either end where the abutments are located. Between the
middle of 2014 and mid-2015, the bridge would come down with the last stage being the demolition of the
segment between Hyde Park Avenue and Washington Street. By September 30, 2016, we will be done.
So, just a little bit more here: we are busy. All of our folks on the project are busy. The 25% design was
submitted in October and we’ve had a sequence of DAG meetings prior to that. Tonight is the MEPA scoping
meeting. We anticipate doing the 25% design hearing at the end of January or first thing in February. That
will be an excellent opportunity to give us questions and comments about the design itself and that’s a
required part of the MassDOT process. The design team expects to submit 75% design with another hearing
in April with the 100% design and Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) drawings submitted in August
with advertisement of the job at the end of September. During construction you can expect numerous
meetings to give people information and to give them an opportunity to comment on how things are going.
In 75% design, there are other elements to discuss and refine. These include determining what goes into the
new open/green space which we will work on with the DAG, signalization details which we’ll work on with the
Boston Transportation Department (BTD), pick-up/drop-off accommodations, and the idea of off-peak design
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
variations.7 We will see if those can be done safely. We will also address the upper bus-way. We have a
basic concept of it now, but the new canopy and what it will look like will need to be addressed. We will also
look at further refinements to Shea Square and Morton Street. So, we’re well on our way, but we have more
to do.
C: MT: Now that we’ve been through the design’s history and what it looks like, we can fully evaluate
environmental impacts. We don’t expect any natural resource impacts. There are no major environmental
elements in this corridor. The Charles or Mystic Rivers or their buffer areas are not present, nor are we near
streams, waterfront, or rare species. This is a pretty built-up corridor without major environmental elements.
The two major environmental aspects of the job are associated with public shade trees and open space. This
graphic shows where the larger shade trees are being removed: that’s along Morton Street where it comes
into Shea Circle and east of Shea Circle in the traffic island. We’re removing a total of 9 trees that have a
diameter greater than 14 inches (the MEPA trigger for the Casey Arborway project, as explained on Page 2).
We’ll also be removing 90 smaller trees, but we will get space to plant 190 new trees for a net gain of 100
new trees. Those numbers are approximate. Landscaping and open space are still up for some refinement,
but the numbers will be in that range. We will off-set the removal of the large trees with an increase in open
space.
The reallocation of Shea Circle into Shea Square: today, the center island of Shea Circle is nicely landscaped,
but it is inaccessible. Under the proposed plan, the center island will become the new Shea Square
intersection and the open space will be moved to the edges of the intersection to help buffer the
neighborhood and senior housing facility from the roadway and give people new green space to enjoy. With
Shea Circle there is a cultural/historic resource impact and this can be a little obscure if you’re not an
architect. The way the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) records and categorizes historic
properties is twofold: there are items that are individually historically significant and then go into the State
Historic Registry. Then there are districts which within their own boundaries have significance because of a
collection of contributing elements, houses or features which add to the significance of the area. The simplest
example is a whole group of houses which reflect a given time period or style. Shea Circle is a contributing
element in the Morton Street Historic District. We have initiated consultation with MHC and the Boston
Landmarks Commission to minimize and mitigate the potential adverse effects that the reconfiguration of
Shea Circle will have. We see the removal of the overpass as a significant enhancement to the Olmsted Park
System district. It reconnects components of the Emerald Necklace, takes the Circle back towards Olmsted’s
original design which was a 4-way intersection, and enhances the Swedish Congregational Church and
courthouse by removing an obstruction to viewing the front elevation of those two buildings.
Finally, and as Holly said at the beginning, the intent of the MEPA process is to provide an opportunity to
disclose impacts and ensure that the proposed design adequately avoids or mitigates environmental impacts.
Let me give you a quick overview of our required permits. Tonight is the MEPA scoping meeting; the MEPA
process runs a few more weeks. We’ll continue our consultation and coordination with MHC and Boston
Landmarks to complete our Chapter 254 historic process. NEPA and Section 106 (both federal environmental
review processes) do not apply here, because MassDOT is not using any federal funds to complete the Casey
Arborway project. We are not near water so there’s no interaction with the Conservation Commission, no
Chapter 91 implications (state regulation of access to the waterfront), and no regulation by the federal rivers
and water act. Tonight’s meeting is one of the most significant environmental reviews associated with this
project which is why we want to get to Q&A and give you plenty of time.
C: HJ: I’ve seen a few more people coming in while we were talking, so let me go over just a few things quickly.
I’m Holly Johnson, I’m the MEPA analyst for this project and I am here representing Secretary Sullivan.
There’s information on how to comment on your meeting handouts. You can write, email, or fax your
comments. There is no need to do all 3. Comments are due on January 8 th by 5PM. For the Q&A session we
have a 3 minute time limit on comments. Kate Fichter from DOT is our time keeper and she will signal when
7
Off-peak variations are changes in the way a roadway operates between the peak periods, such as the morning
rush-hour, and off-peak periods, such as the middle of the afternoon. A common example of an off-peak
variation in Boston is parking meters which are only legal parking in the hours outside 7-9AM and 4-6PM.
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
you have 30 seconds left. I’ll ask you to respect the time limit and I won’t be shy from asking you to wrap it
up. We want to make sure everyone gets a chance to comment. I’ll ask that any elected official who wants to
speak go first but respect the 3 minute rule. The numbers you received are the order in which we’ll take
comments. When you comment tonight and write your comments in, please focus on environmental issues
because that will help me assess the merits of the ENF.
Question and Answer Session8
Q: Jeffrey Ferris (JF): Is there a time limit on this meeting?
A: HJ: I understand we have this meeting room until 9PM. If we run over and are asked to leave by building
staff, we will leave, but if not we’ll keep going. Either way, 9PM is the goal.
Q: Allen Ihrer (AI): It9 says that what we say here tonight isn’t recorded by MEPA, so what’s the point of speaking?
A: HJ: It’s to help you to prepare your own written comment on the ENF and to give me a flavor of community
sentiment. It’s different from the 25% design hearing, but those are MEPA’s regulations.
C: AI: At other MEPA hearings I’ve been to, the comments, I guess they were focused on the MEPA filing, but I
suspect there will comments all over the place tonight.
A: HJ: Well, you can use your 3 minutes on whatever you want, but I’d hope that you would try to stay on topic
and use your time in a way that helps to inform me with regard to the environmental aspects of the job.
Q: Name Not given (NNG): Tonight, do we have an opportunity to comment on whether we prefer the option
shown or whether we would prefer something else like the bridge or something else? I’m confused, I’m not
sure about that.
A: HJ: The MEPA review process is an environmental process. DOT has selected an option and presented it to
our office for environmental review. As I said, you may choose to use your 3 minutes to discuss your
preference. If you want to express your displeasure with the at-grade solution and at MassDOT, that’s fine,
but it doesn’t help the environmental review.
C: Dottie Farrell (DF): I live at 345 Pond Street. I have thought that the DOT process has been fair and
thoughtful. They worked mindfully with both the WAG and the DAG. I’m so happy we’re going back to
Olmsted’s wonderful vision. Another bridge would be a costly dinosaur. This is about the future which is
safety, accessibility and a nice parkway.
C: Michael Halle (MH): I live at 83 Wyman Street. I’ve served on the WAG and the DAG and I’m also on the
complete streets advisory committee for Boston. We’re quite fortunate that this process was brought about for
a public safety reason and the discovery of deterioration of the bridge through the assessment brought on by
bridge collapse in Minnesota. With funding through the Accelerated Bridge Program, we’re looking at a
design that’s much better than the current conditions for safety and the environment. We can get rid of a
structure that requires a lot of maintenance and chemical treatment in the form of salt since bridges freeze
faster than surface roadways. We can work together to come up with a plan that represents a good
compromise and really will be a great improvement to current conditions. We’re lucky we can do this and I
hope the public process keeps making this job better.
C: Michael Epp (ME): I live at 7 Greenough Avenue, I’ve been a Jamaica Plain resident since 1980, and I
represent Center/South Main Streets. I support the at-grade design. The Casey Overpass should never have
been built. I can’t imagine anyone putting this 1950’s viaduct in an Olmsted landscape, it’s like doodling a
8
9
Herein, “Q” stands for question, “A” for answer, and “C” for comment.
Here it is assumed Mr. Ihrer means the meeting handout.
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
mustache on a Picasso. The Casey process has been excellent and represents agreement among DOT,
MBTA, DCR, BTD, HNTB and an outside peer reviewer. They all agree this plan will work. This design will
solve many problems with Forest Hills. It will boost property values. I look forward to seeing the sun.
C: Kate Hutchinson (KH): I live at 74 Woodlawn Street which is very close to the bridge. I walk and cycle under it
and since October, when I got my driver’s license, I drive under it to go to work every day. That’s both
exciting and scary. I’m looking forward to the at-grade solution which will make my commute easier. It will
make the traffic flow better. I use lanes like the bow-ties on VFW Parkway all the time and they do work, but
what I’m really looking forward to is the open space and new trees. There’s a lot of pollution out there, some
of it from my antique Volvo which definitely makes some fumes, and improved traffic flow will make that
better. The at-grade solution will be a better environment with less concrete.
C: Rebecca Kushner (RK): I live off South Street and I support a bridge. I don’t think the review process
adequately looked at the environmental issues due to the anti-bridge bias that it wouldn’t be as pretty with a
bridge. They say the traffic is the same between the two options, but pardon me, duh. How can it be better
without a bridge? There will be more traffic lights with cars stopped polluting the air. If they say the traffic is
the same, it’s because they didn’t look at it enough. The anti-bridge bias can be seen in the comments about
impervious surface. You should tell us the difference between impervious surface between the all of the
options, not just today and the new at-grade. We all know the bridge will cost more; I hope that’s not the
reason you did a whole year of work. The project’s graphics have been very disingenuous. This is going to
be like Roxbury Crossing on Columbus Avenue where there’s a bicycle path and it’s still yucky. I don’t want to
live next to that. I don’t see any mention of future traffic which we know will increase unless something big
changes. Olmsted’s design was built for carriages and not cars speeding down the Arborway. All of the
pretty stuff you’ve shown can still be done with a bridge.
C: David Watson (DW): I am the executive director of MassBike and a member of the WAG. I am also a
member of the Commonwealth’s pedestrian and bicycle board. The mission of MassBike is to encourage
cycling and get more people out on their bicycles. We support the at-grade solution. We think it will get less
confident cyclists to try bicycling in the area and the environment for bicycles in the proposed design will help
achieve the goals of reconnecting the Emerald Necklace, improving access to transit and getting people to
choose their bicycles for transportation. The at-grade solution will bring added safety and convenience for
cyclists. I realize that there are aspects of the design which from a cycling operations perspective are not yet
settled and I look forward to seeing more detail, but from what I can see, the at-grade solution will be better
for the majority of cyclists.
C: Sarah Freeman (SF): I live at 22 Arborway which is right on the other side of Murray Circle and before I start
my prepared comments, I want to tell you why the travel times aren’t different between the two solutions. All
the time people gain speeding over the Casey Overpass, they lose again at Murray Circle; it’s just moving the
problem. The Arborway Coalition strongly supports the at-grade design. The Arborway is the historic
connection between Jamaica Pond, the Arboretum and Franklin Park. It doesn’t feel like one road today
because of the overpass. For 15 years, the Arborway Coalition has been making improvements to the
parkway: repairing historic stone walls, planting trees, advocating for safe access for all users, and working to
address gaps in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. By far, the most transformational change we’ve ever
contemplated is the removal of the overpass. There will be local and regional traffic, but it can be managed
at-grade. All the data indicates that an elevated highway is not needed. It’s not intuitive, but if you take the
time and look at the data, you’ll see it works. The City, MassDOT, DCR and the MBTA – all of who have
more experience than I –say it works well. The overpass causes safety problems. All the trees on the inbound
side of the roadway are damaged because of speed and aggressive driving. There’s a publication by William
Julius Wilson who wrote an article in 2011 about being poor and black in America. I’m proud that Jamaica
Plain is diverse. I want to quote from the article if I can.
A: HJ: I’m sorry, but your 3 minutes are up.
C: Richard O’Connell (RO): I live on Hampstead Road. I live in a house my grandfather bought in 1947. I want
to thank everyone for their hard work. The at-grade solution seems altogether brilliant. Sorry, Jeff.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Mary Hickie (MH): I live at 20 Martinwood Road. I’ve sat on the WAG and the DAG representing the Emerald
Necklace Conservancy which is in favor of the at-grade solution. A statistic I learned from Essek is the 1.3
acres of new pervious ground in the at-grade solution which is great news to us. At the Emerald Necklace
Conservancy, we like trees and landscaping. As a neighbor on Martinwood Road, this will impact how I live,
the value of my house, my trips in and out of my street, and I think this is a great opportunity. I have one
question: I guess nowhere are you having to look at air pollution if it’s not under this review. Can you
comment on that?10
A: HJ: We have a broad scope jurisdiction at MEPA and you can include issues of air quality in your written
question, but there is no specific air quality permit. I would note that regional modeling that addressed air
quality among other things was done as part of this project.
C: Bob Dizon (BD): I live on Seaverns Avenue in central Jamaica Plain. Some of you might remember me from
the WAG process and throughout that process, I tried to keep an open mind and focus on getting to the best
solution. At the end of that process, I liked the at-grade solution and I still like it. Thanks to the project team
for providing a good and honest effort. This is a crossroads and we should expect compromise among the
transportation modes, but I think the tradeoffs will be small compared with the benefits. The at-grade solution
represents a chance to have a Forest Hills not dominated by cars. I’d like to see fewer lanes, but I cross roads
of similar width to the proposed solution and people are getting to the other side without being scared. When
I see this design, I am not scared. One of the goals we established in the WAG process was bringing more
people to this area and this design does that.
C: Beth Worrell (BW): I have lived at 164 Arborway for over 20 years; that’s just north of the Casey Overpass
and that happens to be a big, beautiful stretch of 6 lane Arborway. It’s a great place to live, but one of the
big problems with it is the west/northbound traffic from the Casey Overpass. The overpass makes people
think they are on a highway and when they’re up on my stretch of roadway they are reckless and aggressive
on what’s supposed to be a 30 mile per hour parkway. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the at-grade
proposal. It will calm traffic on the parkway. The new street network will replace a vestige of 1950’s ideas
which focused on cars and highways with a 21st century livable street for all users and a restored Arborway
connecting Arnold Arboretum, Franklin Park and Forest Hills Cemetery. I can’t wait for it.
C: Karen Wepsic (KW): I am a DAG member and on the MBTA rider oversight committee. I am concerned about
the 39 bus relocation. There’s currently an inspector posted to the 39 in its turnaround and I’m not sure if
there will be a dedicated inspector if the 39 is moved to the upper bus-way. The trolley used to come to
Forest Hills. The 39 is in traffic all the way to Back Bay Station. We loved the trolleys even though the MBTA
didn’t treat them all that well. The other thing, it was never mentioned, but be aware of the Stony Brook
culvert which is under the project. Don’t drive a pile into it.
A: MT: We are aware of the culvert. We tend not to mention it with regard to the environmental process because
once a stream is placed in a culvert as the Stony Brook is, it ceases to be a wetland.
C: Tom Jacobson (TJ): I live on Robeson Street right next to Franklin Park. The current DOT proposal requires a
fully detailed EIR. It is sure to significantly increase congestion and air pollution. Today, 20,000 cars pass
through Forest Hills at 30 miles per hour. Under the proposed plan, these cars will be in stop and go traffic
for at best a bit longer and at worst 6-10 times longer. There will be more air pollution from that alone and
then the trucks, MBTA and school buses with routes that intersect the Arborway and which will experience
more delay. DOT can say the increase is negligible, but that’s wrongheaded and if you are serious about
doing your job, you must force them to file an EIR and come back with a plan to replace the current overpass
with a smaller one. We should be able to compare the air pollution between a new bridge and the at-grade
plan.
10
Issues of air quality were modeled during the WAG process by the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS).
This information was presented by CTPS during the October 25, 2011 DAG meeting which can be seen at
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: JF: Jeff Ferris, I own Ferris Wheels on South Street. Fluff: there’s been a lot of fluff. Most of what we have
been presented with as reasons for the at-grade solution would be there with a bridge. Bicycle and
pedestrian enhancements would be there with a bridge. The at-grade solution is supposed to improve transit
operations, there’s a lot of concern about that. The idea that overpass is a visual barrier is subjective. The atgrade solution replaces a visual barrier with a real barrier. Restoring the Emerald Necklace would happen
with either plan. As to reducing impervious area, you’ve11 been doing a lot of word-smithing. At the end of
the WAG process, impervious area never came up, you stated it was because there would be more open
space, but there will be more space with a bridge because of smaller streets. Cost: at the outset of the WAG
process, John Romano said that the ABP funding made cost not an issue, but apparently cost is an issue and
so that was another lie to the WAG. The MOEs made no sense, they were a joke. If you let the WAG do the
scoring with those MOEs, they might well have come up with a different score. You keep saying traffic isn’t a
differentiator. I say, if your engineers can’t make traffic work better with the bridge, then you need better
engineers. Now, you looked at one bridge plan and two at-grade plans and there was a lot of averaging
going on in there, you kept saying something were better and some worse. This needs an EIR.
A: Kate Fichter (KF): You’re down to 30 seconds.
C: JF: O.K. 30 seconds. The alternatives were not properly evaluated. There were other bridge designs that
could have been looked at. For people to take away that you can’t make the bridge better is absurd. Smaller
streets, fewer lanes, safer for everyone; the other stuff is fluff.
C: Kevin Moloney (KM): I live on Rambler Road. I was born in Jamaica Plain and I have used the Casey
Overpass since I first rode a bicycle. I was a member of the WAG and the DAG and that experience has left
me used and abused. We heard a lot about the wonderful transparent planning process. It wasn’t. The
MOEs were busy work. It was completely illogical to expect people who aren’t engineers and architects to
evaluate the work of engineers and architects. The WAG was not representative. There were too many
special interest groups and no representatives of Roslindale, Brookline, Hyde Park, Dorchester, West Roxbury
and the communities of the South Shore who use the Casey Overpass to go to the medical area. On the
WAG, we were presented with misleading, unfair drawings of the bridge and at-grade alternatives, skewed to
lead to the at-grade solution. We were assured in the spring of 2011 that there was $75 million to replace
the Casey Overpass, for the at-grade solution or a bridge. All of a sudden the word came down that cost was
an issue. Secretary Davey said there was an issue with trust on this project. That’s an admission that the
whole process was flawed. Jack Kennedy, when he first became president, listened to all the experts who told
him the Bay of Pigs would work out just fine.
C: Bill Reyelt (BR): I own a house on Kenton Road and speaking as the representative of WalkBoston on the DAG,
I want to reaffirm our support for the at-grade solution. As a pedestrian advocacy group, we are a special
interest group, but because we represent anyone who walks, we think we represent many people. What we
want in Forest Hills is an area that draws foot traffic. What we have now and a new bridge doesn’t and
wouldn’t do that. I have yet to find an overpass that draws pedestrians and makes them feel comfortable.
Nobody, but a very few people, have been looking at what makes a great pedestrian environment more than
William Holling White and he would be for the at-grade solution. At-grade is the way to go. We do have
concerns. This does need to be context sensitive because it’s not other parts of the Arborway. We do love
green, but this is an urban area and this should be an urban boulevard. We support the residents of the area
and as a member of the Stony Brook neighborhood, we support concerns about construction period cutthrough traffic. The City of Boston has begun responding to those concerns and we would like to see more
done to address that issue.
C: Alice Alexander (AA): I live on Custer Street a few blocks north of the project area. I came to Jamaica Plain a
few years ago to continue my work as a research scientist. I don’t own a car, I depend on transit and I am an
inveterate walker. In moving here I’ve discovered what a wonderful, enchanting walking neighborhood this
is. I’m very much looking forward to living here for decades to come. I came to this process late and I’ve
11
Here the “you” is assume to refer to MassDOT and its project team.
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
only been to a few meetings. I’m very concerned about the idea of all of the traffic from the bridge being
diverted to a multi-lane surface road and I’m still looking into it. Hearing all the objections, I’m realizing
there are serious questions. I keep looking at other 6 lane highways and I’m concerned about congestion on
side streets, pollution and I want to remind people that there are beautiful bridges. Did you seriously look into
bridge design? Have you looked at any real world examples where viaducts were removed? There must be
something comparable to this elsewhere.
A: EP: During the WAG process we did an inventory of bridge styles and looked at comparable viaduct removals
from around the country and I believe even some international examples. We did go through that in the
WAG process. That’s all on the project website. All of the WAG and DAG meetings are on the project
website, the address of which is on your handout.
C: James Michelle (JM): I live in Hyde Park on the banks of the Neponset River. I have numerous connections in
Jamaica Plain and I have for 20 years. My wife works in Jamaica Plain, our kids did the JP Soccer program
and we’ve been traveling north/south through the corridor for some time now. It makes no sense to me that if
you remove the overpass congestion will get better. I don’t see how that’s possible. I am new to this. I
haven’t put much time into it. People I know and respect are for the at-grade solution, but I can’t reconcile it
yet. It doesn’t work for me and I really worry there will be more traffic on Forest Hills Street and Morton
Street.
C: Todd Consentino (TC): I am the DAG representative of the Boston Cyclists’ Union. I live on Annafran Street. I
commute through this corridor every day and I traverse it with my children on the weekends. We support the
at-grade solution. I am looking forward to better connections between the Southwest Corridor, Franklin Park
and the Arnold Arboretum. The proposed plan will mean more people on bicycles and fewer people in cars
which will mean fewer emissions. That’s good.
Q: Stephanie Wolflink (SW): I live at 28 Asticou Road which is right near the Overpass. I have two questions in
the name of clarity and transparency: do any of you live in this community and where will the extra money
from the at-grade solution go?
A: Steve McLaughlin (SM): Any unspent funds will go to other bridges in the Commonwealth. It could be
anywhere: Rehoboth or Methuen. There are other bridges in real need of funding and work. And no, I do
not reside in Jamaica Plain.
C: Bernard Doherty (BDo): I am Bernard Doherty, the chair of the Asticou/Martinwood Neighborhood
Association. I’ve lived in Jamaica Plain all my 66 years and I have been the chair of my neighborhood
association for 30 years. I’ve been in many confrontations with the state beginning with the stopping of I-95.
I have nothing against these people, 12 but they don’t live here and they are just doing a job. This whole
process has been a bag job since the outset. I asked the funding question during the WAG and the DAG
process. I asked about the $3.2 billion in the Accelerated Bridge Program and they said “don’t worry about it,
you’ll have sufficient funding.” That was a lie. When you sit back and look at this process that DOT engaged
in, you can see they went in with their mind made up. The Emerald Necklace Conservancy has been against
the Casey Overpass for 10 years. They want Olmsted. Well, he’s dead and he’s going to stay dead. I think
if Olmsted were here today and you told him you were removing the bridge he’d say “I can’t believe it” I
can’t believe that the bicycle and walking organizations think crossing 7 lanes is inherently safer than crossing
3. They want to put a new bus terminal right at the end of our street and there’s been no studies done
associated with it. There’s not a politician that doesn’t know about the Asticou/Martinwood neighborhood
and we want the bus situation fixed.
C: Anne McKinnon (AM): My name is Anne McKinnon, I live on Sedgwick Street. I am going to make some
written comments. I’m going to address some of what I think are erroneous, false and misleading statements
that are completely unsupported. The first thing is that you haven’t identified what the length of this roadway
is, it’s got to be half a mile so it has to trigger a threshold in terms of being more than half a mile. There isn’t
12
Here, Mr. Doherty gestured to the MassDOT and MEPA personnel sitting at the front of the auditorium.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
time to go page by page in this document, 13 but the bottom line is that there are many unsupported
statements that go back to the WAG process as to why the alternatives were screened and eliminated the way
they were. On page 6 of the ENF, the meeting notes describe the elimination of the split bridge as having
occurred because there was no support for it, yet the ENF goes into detail about complex ramps and so
forth.14 There was no documentation about the reasons for dropping the split bridge. Page eight of the ENF,
I’m talking about here, air quality analysis. It was asked for ad nauseum, the City of Boston requires it for
major development projects, but why isn’t it being done for this major project?15 Shea Circle, page 10, it says
that there’s been consultation with MHC, my understanding is that the consultation began with the filing of the
ENF. This has been a comedy since day one talking about Shea Circle. On page 14, the consistency section,
it talks about consistency with the Forest Hills Transportation Action Plan and there are some completely
erroneous statements in there about improvements being proposed here being consistent with the
Transportation Action Plan. The improvements being proposed in the Transportation Action Plan are
crosswalks and stop signs, the improvements don’t match up. A key statement omitted from the ENF about
the Transportation Actions Plan is that is says that the Casey Overpass is a critical regional connection that
helps to keep traffic off local streets so in fact the at-grade solution is not consistent with the transportation
action plan. Missing is also consistency with the Arborway Master Plan and the Forest Hills Initiative which
John Dalzell from the BRA did so well. Finally, on the issue of the MOEs and their use in making a decision:
the presentation given today is DOT’s third version of how they made their decision and none of them match.
Removing a barrier, you’re replacing a barrier. Reducing of impervious surface is not an MOE. Increase of
100 trees is not an MOE. Bicycle and pedestrian connections: five MOE’s said there was absolutely no
difference.16
A: KF: Anne, I’m sorry, you’re out of time.
C: AM: I’ve tried to get through everything, read the ENF.
A: HJ: I thank you for your comment.
Q: George Condon (GC): I’m from Coffey Street in Roslindale and the surrounding communities were not
involved in any of this. The point of the bridge is to stop people from cutting through our community on their
way to somewhere else. Will the pollution be different between the at-grade and bridge solutions?
A: HJ: That’s not really my field of expertise, that’s more of a DEP question. If you put that question in your
written comment, I will speak with my DEP colleagues and ask them. At MEPA, we regularly use sister
agencies to help us figure things out.
Q: GC: Do you just take their decision or do you actually evaluate it?
A: HJ: We look at their comments and we review them.
Q: NNG: I’m passionate about my neighborhood and I walk, bicycle, drive, and do it all. My one question is
about what kind of outreach was made to the businesses in Forest Hills businesses about this project.
A: EP: Members of the South Street Business Association were involved in the WAG and DAG processes. We’ve
dealt with several other business associations as well.
13
Here, it is assumed that the phrase “this document” refers to the ENF filed by MassDOT.
One of the major issues leading to the eventual dropping of the split bridge from further consideration was that
it was not in alignment with the generally expressed preference by both the WAG and public for the narrowest
possible replacement bridge if one was selected. This was discussed in the September 28, 2011 WAG meeting
minutes available at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/24/docs/minutes_092811.pdf.
15
The air quality work done for this project by the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) is available on the
project website at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/24/docs/AirQualityRpt20111221.pdf
16
The speaker followed up this statement with an email to MassDOT regarding how her comments were
transcribed. This email appears in Appendix 2.
14
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: NNG: I’ve spoken to people in the subway station in the businesses along Hyde Park Avenue and only 2
people knew. That’s a huge failure. If people don’t read the JP Gazette they don’t know about this. There’s
no way for people to come and learn about this; they’re not going to stumble randomly on your website. Lots
of people don’t know the bridge is coming down. Please, please do the air quality study. It shouldn’t be
optional. We as citizens should demand this. Just noting the bus issue, the new plan for the 39, I think will
make longer trips for people with handicaps and elderly who use the buses. I want to thank the WAG and
DAG, but the public outreach has been dire and dismal.
A: HJ: O.K. thanks very much. My understanding is that we’re going to get removed at 9:00 o’clock so I want to
make sure that we get through these questions. I’m going to start asking people to come down in batches so
we can move through the comments quicker. If what you wanted to say has already been said, you can
simply say “I agree with what so-and-so has said,” and please try to keep it topical. I don’t want to restrict
what people can say, but it’s most helpful to me if you concentrate on the environmental aspects of the
project.
C: Rick Yoder (RY): Rick Yoder from Roslindale. I want to speak for the bridge alternative. I do want to
acknowledge how hard everyone has worked. Most of the people who use the overpass were not involved in
the decision-making process. Most of my Jamaica Plain friends don’t use the overpass so of course it’s
irrelevant to them. For us residents of Hyde Park, Roslindale, Mattapan, we use it every day. I come down
American Legion Highway and go over the bridge checking out the beautiful view of the city on the way.
Trying to speak to the environmental aspect, this will be a disaster. I’ll look for alternate routes around the
traffic including Forest Hills Street and Lamartine Street etc. You’ll see traffic all over the place with air and
noise pollution. Another environmental impact is going to be accidents when you put all of these cars,
bicycles and buses in conflict. It translates to more accidents and property damage. Liz Malia asked about
the size of the proposed bridge and it would be about ½ the height, length and width, you’d get a new bridge
that’s about 15% the size of what we have now. That’s a minor impact compared to the at-grade solution.
C: Mark Tedrow (MT): I live on Sycamore Street in Roslindale. The at-grade design promotes walking, cycling
and transit use and will reduce automobile use in our area. I support it.
C: Kevin Wolfson (KWo): I represent Livable Streets on the DAG. We support the at-grade solution. I don’t live
here, but I commute through every day. Sarah Freeman mentioned that the overpass simply moves a
problem. The overpass is a short stretch of highway with stop lights at either end. That mismatch causes a
problem. We should also remember that bridges need significant maintenance and every time there’s
maintenance there’s delay and pollution and noise caused by the heavy equipment. That’s also worth
considering.
C: Anne Stillman (AS): My husband and I have lived on the Arborway since 1996. I drive down the Arborway
onto South Street and head towards Franklin Park almost daily. I have good friends on the DAG and I’ve
listened to them. I’ve been to the website, attended meetings, and I support the at-grade solution. I’m an
older citizen and still driving and while I’m well protected in my car, it’s hard for me to see in the dark parts of
the intersections covered by the bridge. I worry about a bicyclist turning in front of me some day. With the
research done, I support the at-grade solution.
C: Jessica Parsons (JP): I live on Hampstead Road. I’ve got two younger children and I can’t imagine a worse
intersection by bicycle or car. Moving between the Southwest Corridor Park, the MBTA and the Arborway feels
unsafe because of the darkness under the bridge. I’m so surprised people are opposed to the at-grade
solution. My family frequents the Arboretum, we can see it, but we have to go all the way to the Honeywell
Entrance. As a parent and a neighbor, I look forward to the at-grade solution. As a former San Francisco
resident, I was there when the Octavia freeway ramp came down to the at-grade level. Cars now exit
smoothly and efficiently and bicycles and pedestrians are safe. There’s a new park and the congestion is
minimal. It feels like part of a neighborhood. I look forward to the new connections of the at-grade solution.
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Martine Baker (MB): I live on Martinwood Road and I cross through Forest Hills regularly and I’m wondering
how many cars will stop every time there’s a red light and how much pollution that will mean. Children will
be crossing the road and they are right at the level of the car tailpipes. I don’t understand why all of you
bicycle people want to be behind all these cars. And there’s also a lot of noise and pollution from the buses
and you want to bring more buses to Asticou Road. Please come and live here before you decide to destroy
the bridge.
C: Arthur Malikof (AM): I live in the Woodbourne neighborhood. I feel a part of Jamaica Plain, but I think I’ll
never get there again after this. A 7 lane throughway with 24,000 cars a day will be impossible. It takes me
long enough as it is now sitting in traffic to get up Washington Street. It takes long enough now, getting down
South Street in the evening. And putting a bus station on 17 Washington Street and South Street: will there be
an extra lane to turn into the station? If you sit at that intersection now at 5 or 6 o’clock in the evening trying
get through to the south, it’s bad enough today. Add the 39 bus and you’ll never get through.
C: George Zoulalian (GZ): I am a member of the Arborway Committee which is a group that wants to improve
and protect transit and quality of life in this neighborhood. We want to state that the committee supports the
at-grade solution and wants to move forward with it. This is a good plan. The decision is made. It does us
no good to go back to the old “bridge/no-bridge” discussion. We believe that the at-grade solution will
improve congestion and the committee supports the plan thus far. We are concerned about the relocation of
the 39 and we wonder about an analysis of running time and whether it will slow down the bus. 18 We’re also
concerned relocation might impact future restoration of the green line at some point.
A: Gary McNaughton (GM): We did cover this issue in some detail at a previous DAG meeting. With regard to
running time we assessed the two build proposals and there’s no appreciable difference in travel times. We
worked extensively with the MBTA and we don’t expect impacts to ridership.
C: NNG: I live over in Mattapan and I never knew anything about this except what Mr. Ferris told me. The traffic
now on Harvard Street and Morton Street is terrible now that the bridge is down to one lane. The bridge
needs to come back. Right now we’re stuck in traffic all day long. I know my way around this neighborhood,
so if this happens, look for me driving down your street trying to get out.
C: Heather Carrito (HC): I live on Asticou Road and I keep hearing from people who walk, drive, or cycle
through the area. This is my neighborhood and I already live with a terrible level of noise. I spent a year
unemployed and I don’t have air conditioning. That means I open the windows and with the buses, cabs and
the telephone at the bus-way that rings and rings without being answered the noise is already unbearable. I
can’t imagine it with an added bus lane and I can’t imagine your proposal making anything better. I’ve been
going to DAG meetings and public meetings and all I can picture is Columbus Avenue where all I do is sit in
traffic at lights. I used to work in Fort Hill as a nanny and on Columbus Avenue all you can do is get to the
median strip. There’s no crossing in one movement. I also want to comment that my assessment just went
down by $60,000. I got insulation and a brand new roof, but the assessment went down. I’m thinking of
moving.
C: Larry Fabian (LF): I live over in Dorchester, in Uphams Corner so I’m kind of an outsider. Like many people
in Dorchester, we use the Casey Overpass to go to Jamaica Pond. We hope that people in Jamaica Plain go
to Franklin Park Zoo or the Kennedy Library. The bridge isn’t a barrier, it’s a link. You’re going to add 5, 10
minutes of travel time. Do some honest calculations. You don’t hit a single light now, tell me your 4 new
lights won’t take more time. Our time has value. You need to look at the CO 2 generated.
C: Robin Maxfield (RM): I live on Center Street and I own a real estate company and this isn’t good for real estate
values. A 6-lane highway isn’t bucolic.
17
Here it is assume Mr. Malikof means the addition of the 39 bus to the upper bus-way at Forest Hills Station.
This topic was discussed at length during the October 17, 2012 DAG meeting which is available here:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/24/docs/dag101712/MeetingMinutes.pdf
18
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: HJ: Real estate isn’t addressed by MEPA; please keep your comments topical to the environment.
C: RM: Green space isn’t a median. A mother with toddlers won’t picnic in the median in a million years.
People who like the at-grade solution: look at those 6 lanes. An overpass is ugly, but a bridge is not. You
could make this smaller and prettier and contribute to the value of your homes and our experience
environmentally.
C: AI: Hello, my name is Allen Ihrer and I’ve been involved with projects in this area for quite a number of years.
12 years with the bus yard and with the Forest Hills Improvement initiative and I’m here tonight representing
the Stony Brook Neighborhood Association and in the last year we’ve had 3 big crashes that were bad
enough the wreck had to be taken away on a flatbed truck, so we’re a cut-through neighborhood with big
traffic impacts. So as far as open and fair process, boom! One day the on-street bicycle lanes were there
and next day they’re gone. Was there any process involved? No! Was there any process backing up the
MOEs where we reviewed them and reached an agreement that the ratings were good? No! When the
drawings were requested to be made equal, where 1 lane of the bridge proposal was the same width as 3
lanes of the at-grade proposal, when we asked that that be corrected, was it corrected? No! So, were we
ever told that Hyde Park Avenue along the sort of restaurant row would be the new industrial way for Forest
Hills? No! We had to pry it out of MassDOT. A year ago we had a traffic meeting with red, yellow, and
green circles for Level of Service and everything was in the A-to-C range. We had 15 minutes to ask
questions. We asked to see the modeling and it took a whole year to get it. In October we got a meeting to
look at traffic modeling and at that meeting, I raised questions and was told my questions were based on data
that was 5-6 months old. That’s just outrageous. Anyone around here who says it will be better, I say you
don’t have the information you need. I can’t tell if it will work better and neither can you. You just don’t have
the information!
C: Jerry O’Connor (JO): I live at 22 Yale Terrace. I’ll be more complete in my written comments, but I want to
echo what the bridge people have said. I think the at-grade solution is well intentioned, but ill-conceived.
The problem is that corridor isn’t big enough to put the at-grade solution into it. I want to focus on the
western bow-tie which isn’t great at 25% design and I fear will only get worse. The bicycle path entering from
the east is crossed by large trucks. In this city we’ve had 5 fatalities with cyclists and trucks this year and so
the idea of trucks and cyclists sharing space is unacceptable. If this is your design, it’s unsafe from a cycling
and environmental perspective. The number of ways for people to get in trouble on this roadway is just too
high; the design is dangerous. So, when you review the comments, review them in the spirit that this is a
great idea, but the space isn’t big enough to put this solution in it. I’m very surprised the big advocacy groups
think this is O.K. because for cyclists, it’s all wrong. I’ll submit an exhibit with my MEPA comment.
C: Malcolm Galen (MG): I live on Martinwood Road. I am a professional driver with over 1,000,000 miles
driven. You are trying to pour 10 pounds of flour into a 5 pound sack and I can’t see how people think this
will work. I live right across from Asticou Road and I want to know about the bus stop and why cars are
making lefts onto Asticou Road to avoid the light. Why can’t you fix that problem today? As far as moving
the 39, that’s ridiculous. It should stay where it is. I don’t think the bus stop should be moved and there
should be a bridge.
C: Jon Truslow (JT): I have one comment of my own and then a letter to read. My own comment is that I feel
that the MEPA process must require an air quality study. It’s hard for me to believe that a bridge alternative is
equal to the at-grade solution in terms of air quality. The letter is from Karen Schneiderman. It is as follows:
As the head of the advocacy department at the Boston Center for Independent Living, an agency
that provides services and support for people with disabilities and Jamaica Plain resident, I have a
strongly held belief that the Casey Overpass needs to be replaced, not with a 6-lane highway, but
another bridge. My reasoning encompasses 2 issues: the first is that I consider safety the moral
responsibility of the government when possible. If the state can help people to be safe, it must.
Pedestrians including wheelchair users such as myself and others with disabilities, many seniors,
many pedestrians and bikers will all be in danger if they have to cross such a massive highway. It
would be awful for this plan to be put in place and realize that it does not work after the first person
Page 16
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
has been hurt. My second issue is traffic. The area of Forest Hills is heavily congested, but with the
highway weaving through the neighborhood to bring cars to other parts of the city will bring more
gridlock one of the obvious problems of so many cars in a small city. I say this as a car owner so
I’m not suggesting drivers have no rights. I do think that they have a right not to spend half an hour
in an overcrowded highway with no alternative route to get where they are going, particularly at
rush hour. Thank you for your attention to this letter. We are supported by our agency as well as
myself and other people with disabilities who live in Jamaica Plain and other surrounding
neighborhoods.
C: NNG: I am probably the only person here who isn’t passionate about this project. I do hate the overpass, it is
pretty ugly. What I want to know is why you spent so much money repairing the overpass if you were going to
tear it down.19
A: HJ: Respectfully, given the time, that’s not really relevant to the environmental process.
C: NNG: I live on Bourne Street in Jamaica Plain. I have a big problem with air quality on this project. I support
a bridge and I am most concerned about with the bridge not being replaced that there will be no turns into
our neighborhood and that we’ll have to go down to the U-turns. It looks like the turnaround will be 2 lanes
and a lot of people will be using them. There will be people waiting to go down into Forest Hills and the Uturn lanes will be blocked. It will be a nightmare. It’s a tight turn and there will be a long line of cars. I think
having the bridge there and letting local traffic make left turns just makes sense.
A: HJ: Respectfully, given the time, that’s not really relevant to the environmental process.
C: Gunars Viksnins (GV): I am a retired person in good health and I enjoy walking. Not having a car, enjoyment
of walking is doubled for me. I’ll refrain about the near misses I’ve had with cars on South Street and
Washington Street. I’m trying to imagine crossing this to the Arboretum or to my favorite place to get a 6pack of Bass Ale. The idea that the traffic can be handled is not unreasonable, but I can’t imagine it for
pedestrians without a footbridge. I can’t see facing 6 lanes of traffic for my 6-pack of beer.
C: Pete Stidman (PS): I want to express my annoyance about what was said earlier with regard to viaduct removal
and property values. All of the research shows just the opposite. When overpasses come down, values go
up. I live at 92 Moreland Street in Roxbury and I am part of the Boston Cyclists’ Union. We did a lot of
outreach to our constituency on this project. We just did a phone bank and there’s overwhelming support in
the bicycle community for the at-grade solution. We had 2 people out of 800 telephone conversations say
that they want a bridge. Cyclists want the at-grade solution. You’re improving safety, creating pleasant
connections and making a nice place to be. We’re discussing a future cycle track to Dorchester and Mattapan
as part of another project and that’s going to bring new customers to the businesses in Forest Hills. I did a
walk around of the businesses on Hyde Park Avenue during the planning phase and I talked to them. They all
support the at-grade solution because they know having the bridge there makes Forest Hills less pleasant.
C: Sarah Buerman (SB): I live on Weld Hill Street and I’m relieved that so many of my concerns about not
replacing the bridge have been so well expressed. As someone who lives on Weld Hill Street and has to get
out onto Hyde Park Avenue, I don’t understand how this will make my life better. I’d like clarified the issue of
industrial traffic on Hyde Park Avenue. I have other concerns. One is accountability for the promised parts of
the job. The bicycle lanes have been changed. Will citizens be tasked to spend all their time in the future to
ensure that your promises are met? And is that appropriate for those of us with day jobs? I’m also
concerned about the promised trees. Will they be mature trees and what varieties?
19
Repair work on the Casey Overpass in the past several years has been performed to allow the bridge to remain
safely open to traffic while a solution to replace the structure is developed. A concise explanation of this can be
seen the minutes of the May 21, 2012 community briefing minutes:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/24/docs/Community_Briefing_5-21-2012_Final.pdf
Page 17
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: HJ: Those are elements of the 75% design process, not relevant to the MEPA process. It’s not something we
address.
Q: SB: So is the number of trees relevant to MEPA in relation to clean air?
A: HJ: It’s really not something we tend to address.
C: Tony Telesco (TT): I’m a Roxbury resident, a cyclist and a consumer. I’d love to come to the Dogwood more
often, but I don’t because I don’t want to get killed. There are lots of improvements that can be made to
Forest Hills and at-grade is the way to make them. I’m sorry for all the heckling the design team has had to
endure. I’m a civil engineer so I understand. Air pollution, where does it come from? It comes from cars.
What’s the best way to reduce the number of cars? Make bicycling, walking and transit more attractive. The
at-grade solution reduces run-off through increased permeable surface. It includes 100 net new trees. There
are no endangered species. That’s it. This is a MEPA review and based on those issues, there is no problem
with this solution. Bridge versus at-grade is decided, it’s in the past. We’re here, in the present for an
environmental review.
C: Judith Sullivan (JS): I bought my home on Morton Street in August and I knew something would happen. My
concern is about the construction period. Please make sure that we have access during construction. I have
an 18 year-old daughter and she needs to be able to walk around safely.
C: Karen Doherty (KD): I am Karen Doherty. Good evening. I will speak directly to MEPA concerns. I live on
Asticou Road. There has been inadequate sound modeling for the alternatives presented for the changes to
the upper bus-way. I sat on the Community Planning Committee for the Arborway Yard (CPCAY) for sound
modeling and I know that to protect my neighborhood from the noise of the buses, a 25-40 foot wall would
be required. We do not deserve the shabby treatment we have received at the hands of the MBTA and
MassDOT. I am concerned about the public safety issues which have not been addressed by MEPA or by the
state. The provisions for fire trucks and ambulances are inadequate in the option they are presenting. I am
proposing that MEPA take a very hard look at the light modeling which hasn’t been done for the upper busway and wasn’t presented at their earlier meetings.20 You could have a 50-foot wall along the edge of my
neighborhood. My neighbors who have invested time, money and their lives in improving the entire
community by participating in the community planning process for the Arborway Yard have been totally
disrespected. We do not know what fuels will be used in buses between now and the future and there’s no
way you can account for it. There’s an economic injustice associated with the MEPA requirements that isn’t
being taken into consideration. I also cycle and I wouldn’t dream of trying to take my bicycle down that street
with 250 more buses bearing down on me. When the station was built we had a neighbor hit a bus and they
ended up in a nursing home. That happened in one of the new, state-of-the-art crosswalks that had just been
designed by the MBTA. Pick-up/drop-off traffic is not being adequately taken into consideration with regard
to moving the Route 39 bus and Washington Street west of the station. I will be sending in 4-5 pages of
written comments on behalf of the Asticou/Martinwood Neighborhood Association.
A: HJ: I’m sorry, I have to ask you to stop there your time is up.
C: KD: You can ask me to stop, but I don’t have to.
A: HJ: Please, I am asking you to be respectful of other people who are waiting their turn to speak.
C: Anne Preen (AP): I’ve lived on Jamaica Street for 37 years. I want to speak in favor of a new, smaller bridge
for all the reasons said tonight. I taught high school for many years and anyone who has been around high
school students know that they don’t pay attention to traffic rules. Signals be damned. If you go through
20
The impact of bus headlights on the Asticou/Martinwood neighborhood was presented at the October 12, 2012
DAG meeting. MassDOT and its project team recognize that additional work on this issue needs to be done
during the 75% design phase.
Page 18
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Roxbury Crossing you can see this. On VFW Parkway, they had to put up a big, ugly fence. If you put this up,
you will have Boston English students cutting right through the middle of traffic.
C: David Wean (DW): This has been a very interesting experience for me. I think the traffic models need to be
looked at a lot more carefully in terms of emissions. It feels like the models have been goosed to make them
work just right. You need to stress test them to see what happens when somebody, for example, blocks the
box, something of which there has historically been little enforcement. You need to generate a model with
pick-up/drop-off traffic, double parking, and people walking against the signals.
C: Jessica Mink (JM): I live on Neponset Avenue which is south of Walk Hill Street. I was surprised when the
bridge closed for repairs and my street suddenly turned into a cut-through route. People would come up
American Legion Highway and Blue Hill Avenue to avoid Forest Hills. My area will be impacted during
construction. I think the area of impact will be larger during construction and I want the traffic study extended
south to Roslindale Square. There will be problems during and after construction. The City has just rolled
over on this. You should take your traffic study to Cummins Highway at least.
C: Martha Rawlins (MR): I live in Hyde Park and I am a board member of my neighborhood association. I think
the impacts of this project stretch well beyond the immediate project area. I take the overpass to Brookline
and I can’t imagine not having it. If you take it away, I know the shortcuts and I will use them. You will
impact lots of other neighborhoods because nobody wants to be in traffic. My question is, at this point, is
there any way to stop this plan? I have to believe there is some way to make it stop.
A: MT: No there is not. Secretary Davey made a decision about the alternative and we’re moving forward with
the design.
C: HJ: Everyone, we’re being asked to leave the building. We have to respect the folks who work here.
Comments are due by the close of business on January 8 th. I’ll happily speak to anyone who wants to talk to
me outside. Good night.
Next Steps
The next milestone in the public involvement process will be the 25% design public hearing. This hearing is
tentatively scheduled for February 6, 2013. The meeting is anticipated to take place at Boston English High
School and will begin at 5:30 p.m. to allow additional time for comments and questions by members of the
community.
Page 19
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Rebecca
Aldrecht
Resident
Alice
Alexander
Resident
D.
August
Resident
Michael
Babcock
Resident
Martin
Baker
Resident
Laura
Barr
Resident
Lisa
Beatman
Resident
Todd
Blake
MBTA
B.
Brooks
Resident
Sarah
Buerman
Resident
Terry
Burke
Linda
Burnetti
Pastor – 1st Church of Jamaica Plain
Unitarian Universalist
Resident
Red
Burrows
Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council
Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis
Howard/Stein-Hudson
Heather
Carito
Resident
Edward
Castillo
Resident
Maryanne
Charney
Resident
Julian
Cohen
Resident
Nikki
Cohen
Resident
Jamie
Cohen
Resident
Chuck
Collins
Resident
Anne
Crane
Resident
Julie
Crockford
Emerald Necklace Conservancy
Frank
Cullen
Resident
Seth
Davis
Resident
Bob
Dizon
JP Bikes
Jullieanne
Doherty
Office of Mayor Menino
Bernard
Doherty
DAG
Karen
Doherty
Resident
Patrick
Doyle
Resident
Sara
Driscoll
Resident
Brittany
Dunn
Resident
Michael
Epp
DAG
Kim
Everett
Resident
Lawrence
Fabian
Resident
Dorothy
Farrell
DAG
Alison
Felix
Resident
Jeffrey
Ferris
Resident
Kate
Fichter
MassDOT
Christopher
Fiorentino
Resident
Gianalda
Fontana
Resident
Francesca
Fordiani
Resident
Page 20
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Nancy
Frane
Resident
Sarah
Freeman
DAG
Malcolm
Gale
Resident
Faith
Girdler
Resident
Paul
Godfrey
HNTB
Mark
Gravalles
MassDOT
Lauren
Greene
Resident
H.R.
Half
Resident
Michael
Halle
DAG
Melissa
Hamel
Resident
Kevin
Handly
Resident
John
Hanifin
Resident
Mary
Hannon
Resident
David
Hannon
DAG
Karen
Harris
Resident
Jill
Havens
Resident
Mary
Hickie
DAG
Russell
Holmes
State Representative
Claire
Humphrey
Resident
Kate
Hutchinson
Resident
Allan
Ihrer
DAG
Tom
Jacobson
Resident
Gregory
Jean
Resident
Holly
Johnson
MEPA
Rebcca
K.
Resident
Marvin
Kabakoff
Resident
George
Karden
Resident
Brian
Karlsson
Resident
Jim
Kilgore
Resident
Paul
King
MassDOT
Dennis
Klein
Resident
Linda
Kowalcky
Resident
Sarah
Kurpiel
DAG
Ray
Larrabee
Resident
George
Leone
Resident
Duke
Leong
ASMA
Andrew
List
Resident
John
Lohan
Resident
John
Lovett
Resident
Emily
Lowenberg
Resident
Matthew
Luczkow
Resident
Katherine
Mainzer
Resident
P.
Makaris
Resident
Liz
Malia
State Representative
Virginia
Marcotte
Resident
George
Marsh
Resident
Page 21
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
John
Matthews
Resident
Robin
Maxfield
Resident
Anne
McKinnon
Resident
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Lynn
McSweeney
Resident
James
Mierer
Resident
Jessica
Mink
DAG
Alice
Molari
MBTA
Jennifer
Molina
Resident
Kevin
Moloney
DAG
Nancy
Nee
Resident
Dana
Neuve
Resident
Jack
Newirth
Resident
Richard
O’Connell
Resident
Jerry
O’Connor
Resident
Rebeca
Oleveira
JP Gazette
Joe
Orfant
DCR
Jessica
Parsons
Resident
Jessie
Partridge
Resident
Heather
Perez
Office of Councilor Arroyo
Essek
Petrie
HNTB
Kate
Pilson
Resident
Joe
Pryse
Resident
John
Ranco
Resident
Josh
Reiman
Resident
Bill
Reyelt
DAG
Bill
Richard
Resident
Martha
Rollins
Resident
Shari
Schwanender
Resident
Sam
Sherwood
Resident
Diane
Simpson
Resident
Mary
Smoyer
Resident
David
Smoyer
Resident
Pete
Stidman
Boston Cyclists’ Union
Jim
Stillman
Resident
Judith
Sullivan
Resident
Rachel
Szakmary
BTD
Mark
Tedrow
DAG
Tony
Telesco
Resident
Carol
Thompson
Resident
Lee
Toma
Bike Milton
Robert
Torres
Office of Representative Malia
Mike
Trepanier
MassDOT
Jon
Truslow
Resident
Ture
Turnbull
Office of Councilor O’Malley
Page 22
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Gunars
Viksnins
Resident
Ralph
Walton
Resident
David
Watson
MassBike
David
Wean
DAG
Karen
Wepsic
DAG
Haskell
Werkin
Resident
Fred
Wolflink
Resident
Stephanie
Wolflink
Resident
Kevin
Wolfson
DAG
Beth
Worrell
Resident
Rick
Yoder
Resident
George
Zoulalian
DAG
Page 23
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Comments Received
See following page
Page 24
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
King, Paul C (DOT) <paul.c.king@state.ma.us>
Friday, February 08, 2013 10:15 AM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Fw: Casey
Nate, As requested
From:
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:39 PM To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT) Subject: Casey Kate: I am very disappointed by and frustrated with the meeting notes from the MEPA session on December 13,
2012. For some reason MassDOT feels compelled to try to always be right by adding ridiculous footnotes to public
comments that are not even accurate. My comments to the MEPA analyst are skewed by the addition of inaccurate and
irrelevant footnotes. I have never seen footnotes used like this, seemingly to discredit my statements and make me look
wrong. People read these notes, including the press, assuming that they have been thoroughly reviewed and are
accurate. The additions to my comments are wrong and I would like the footnotes removed.
FN 14: My comment was that meeting notes [during the alternatives study] said the reasons the split bridge was dropped
was for lack of support. The ENF said it was dropped for technical reasons. The footnote directs readers to the 9/28/11
WAG notes claiming the reason "was discussed" in the Sept. 28 WAG. It was not discussed. The decision to drop the
split bridge was announced and no reason given (see page 17: "So the big decision about a split bridge or single bridge,
that's been made? Yes."
FN 15: My comment was about local air quality analysis, not the regional AQ analysis. The footnote makes me look like I
overlooked the regional analysis when the typist missed my point.
Further, there are about 10 names misspelled. The typist should not be so lazy that he doesn't bother to look at the signin sheet to check the spelling.
Please correct these important notes. Thank you
Anne McKinnon
1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>
Friday, November 30, 2012 3:33 PM
kevin moloney
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; King, Paul C (DOT); 'Essek Petrie';
'Paul Godfrey'
RE: Please send me the ENF on CD
Kevin – We will take care of your request immediately. Thank you, Kate Kate Fichter
Manager of Long‐Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
857.368.8852 ‐ Please Note New Telephone Number!
From: kevin moloney [mailto:kevinfmoloney@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:27 PM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); 'Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis'; King, Paul C. (DOT); 'Essek Petrie'; 'Paul Godfrey'
Subject: Please send me the ENF on CD
Please send me the ENF on CD
Thank you
Kevin F. Moloney
20 Rambler Road
Jamaica Plain
Massachusetts 02130-3428
Tel.: 617.522.3988
e-mail: kevinfmoloney@comcast.net
From: Fichter, Katherine (DOT) [mailto:katherine.fichter@state.ma.us]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:13 PM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
1
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; King, Paul C (DOT); Essek Petrie; Paul Godfrey
Subject: Casey ENF - Now Available in Public Libraries
Friends – Please note that copies of the full Environmental Notification Form for the Casey project are now available in the Roslindale and Jamaica Plain (Sedgwick Street) branches of the Boston Public Library. The Segwick Street branch is closed today due to repair work, but is scheduled to reopen on Monday. CD copies of the Environmental Notification Form are also available directly from MassDOT – please let me know if you would like a copy. We will also have CD copies for distribution at the public meeting. Information about the public meeting is posted to the homepage of http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Home.aspx. Have a good weekend, Kate Kate Fichter
Manager of Long‐Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116 857.368.8852 ‐ Please Note New Telephone Number! 2
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>
Friday, November 30, 2012 11:44 AM
kevin moloney
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); 'Paul Godfrey'; 'Essek Petrie'; Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis
Casey Arborway Project -- Some questions
Kevin – Thank you for your message. I’ve provided responses to your questions below: 1. MassDOT filed the ENF with MEPA on November 15, 2012. 2. DAG members were notified at the last DAG meeting (November 1st) that submission of the ENF was imminent. Notice was published in local newspapers when the ENF was filed, and an email with sent to DAG members once the MEPA site visit/public meeting was scheduled. 3. The narrative of the ENF is posted to the MEPA website at: http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2012/112112em/nps/enf/14978.pdf. The full document is also available in the public library branches in Roslindale and Jamaica Plain (briefly closed for repairs). It is also available on CD by request to MassDOT. It is not yet available on the MassDOT website because the document is not fully compliant with ADA standards. If we are able to make it compliant, we will post it online. 4. We will gladly send copies to anyone who would like one, DAG members or not. We will also have copies available on CD at the public meeting on the 13th of December. 5. MassDOT sent an early coordination letter to the Massachusetts Historical Commission on June 28, 2012. The MHC was also included in the ENF distribution to public agencies, as required by MEPA regulations. I hope to see you on the 13th, Kate Kate Fichter
Manager of Long‐Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
857.368.8852 ‐ Please Note New Telephone Number!
From: kevin moloney [mailto:kevinfmoloney@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:23 AM To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT) Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); 'Paul Godfrey'; 'Essek Petrie'; 'Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis'
Subject: RE: Casey Arborway Project -- Some questions Kate:
(1) On what date was the ENF filed?
(2) Why were DAG members not notified at the time?
3
(3) Why is the ENF not posted?
(4) Why have DAG members not been sent copies of the ENF via USPS or via e-mail?
(5) Has DOT made a filing with Mass Historical? If so, when and what was filed? If not, why
not and when does DOT plan in filing?
Kevin F. Moloney
20 Rambler Road
Jamaica Plain
Massachusetts 02130-3428
Tel.: 617.522.3988
e-mail: kevinfmoloney@comcast.net
From: Fichter, Katherine (DOT) [mailto:katherine.fichter@state.ma.us]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 3:30 PM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Paul Godfrey; Essek Petrie (EPetrie@HNTB.com); Nathaniel CabralCurtis
Subject: Casey Arborway Project - MEPA Site Visit + Public Meeting
Dear Friends – MassDOT has filed an Environmental Notification Form for the Casey Arborway project with the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act Office. As part of the MEPA process, a site visit and public meeting will be held on: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3pm – MEPA Site Visit Meet at the north entrance of the Forest Hills MBTA Station 6pm‐9pm – MEPA Public Meeting Boston English High School ‐ Auditorium 144 McBride Street, Jamaica Plain Copies of the Environmental Notification Form are available upon request from Michael Trepanier of MassDOT at michael.trepanier@state.ma.us. Copies of the Environmental Notification Form will also be available on CD at the Public Meeting. To request language assistance, American Sign Language interpreters, assistive listening devices, handouts in alternate formats, or information on the meeting, please contact Kate Fichter at katherine.fichter@state.ma.us no later than Monday, December 3rd. Thank you, Kate Fichter Kate Fichter
Manager of Long‐Range Planning
4
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116 857.368.8852 ‐ Please Note New Telephone Number! 5
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
kevin moloney <kevinfmoloney@comcast.net>
Friday, November 30, 2012 2:27 PM
'Fichter, Katherine (DOT)'
'McLaughlin, Steve (DOT)'; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; 'King, Paul C (DOT)'; 'Essek Petrie';
'Paul Godfrey'
Please send me the ENF on CD
Please send me the ENF on CD
Thank you
Kevin F. Moloney
20 Rambler Road
Jamaica Plain
Massachusetts 02130-3428
Tel.: 617.522.3988
e-mail: kevinfmoloney@comcast.net
From: Fichter, Katherine (DOT) [mailto:katherine.fichter@state.ma.us]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:13 PM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; King, Paul C (DOT); Essek Petrie; Paul Godfrey
Subject: Casey ENF - Now Available in Public Libraries
Friends – Please note that copies of the full Environmental Notification Form for the Casey project are now available in the Roslindale and Jamaica Plain (Sedgwick Street) branches of the Boston Public Library. The Segwick Street branch is closed today due to repair work, but is scheduled to reopen on Monday. CD copies of the Environmental Notification Form are also available directly from MassDOT – please let me know if you would like a copy. We will also have CD copies for distribution at the public meeting. Information about the public meeting is posted to the homepage of http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Home.aspx. Have a good weekend, Kate Kate Fichter
Manager of Long‐Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116 6
857.368.8852 ‐ Please Note New Telephone Number! 7
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
kevin moloney <kevinfmoloney@comcast.net>
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:23 AM
'Fichter, Katherine (DOT)'
'McLaughlin, Steve (DOT)'; 'King, Paul C. (DOT)'; 'Paul Godfrey'; 'Essek Petrie'; Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis
RE: Casey Arborway Project -- Some questions
Kate:
(1) On what date was the ENF filed?
(2) Why were DAG members not notified at the time?
(3) Why is the ENF not posted?
(4) Why have DAG members not been sent copies of the ENF via USPS or via e-mail?
(5) Has DOT made a filing with Mass Historical? If so, when and what was filed? If not, why
not and when does DOT plan in filing?
Kevin F. Moloney
20 Rambler Road
Jamaica Plain
Massachusetts 02130-3428
Tel.: 617.522.3988
e-mail: kevinfmoloney@comcast.net
From: Fichter, Katherine (DOT) [mailto:katherine.fichter@state.ma.us]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 3:30 PM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Paul Godfrey; Essek Petrie (EPetrie@HNTB.com); Nathaniel CabralCurtis
Subject: Casey Arborway Project - MEPA Site Visit + Public Meeting
Dear Friends – MassDOT has filed an Environmental Notification Form for the Casey Arborway project with the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act Office. As part of the MEPA process, a site visit and public meeting will be held on: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3pm – MEPA Site Visit Meet at the north entrance of the Forest Hills MBTA Station 8
6pm‐9pm – MEPA Public Meeting Boston English High School ‐ Auditorium 144 McBride Street, Jamaica Plain Copies of the Environmental Notification Form are available upon request from Michael Trepanier of MassDOT at michael.trepanier@state.ma.us. Copies of the Environmental Notification Form will also be available on CD at the Public Meeting. To request language assistance, American Sign Language interpreters, assistive listening devices, handouts in alternate formats, or information on the meeting, please contact Kate Fichter at katherine.fichter@state.ma.us no later than Monday, December 3rd. Thank you, Kate Fichter Kate Fichter
Manager of Long‐Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116 857.368.8852 ‐ Please Note New Telephone Number! 9
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:12 AM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; Fichter, Katherine (DOT); King, Paul C (DOT); McLaughlin, Steve
(DOT)
FW: Casey Overpass Bridge replacement.
Categories:
Red Category
FYI From: Mike Smith Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 1:32 PM To: russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; Sonia.Changdiaz@masenate.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov; Romano, John (DOT) Subject: Casey Overpass Bridge replacement. Dear elected officials,
I am writing to you in support of the Casey Overpass bridge replacement and NOT an "at grade". I commute of
this bridge everyday and can't imagine having all that traffic on the ground! It is already a complete nightmare
trying to drive on the streets (New Washington, Washington, Hyde Park Ave) during during rush hour. I also
live in that neighborhood on Orchardhill Road and I don't want all those cars sitting at stoplights polluting the
air. I am in strong favor of rebuilding the bridge, please reconsider.
Best,
Mike Smith
77A Orchardhill Road
JP, MA 02130
10