Casey Arborway Project Meeting Notes Attendees: Date MassDOT: Steve McLaughlin, Paul King HNTB: Don Kindsvatter, Essek Petrie Boston Cyclists Union: Pete Stidman McMahon Associates: Maureen Chlebek Livable Streets: Kevin Wolfson Northeastern University: Peter Furth MassBike: David Watson DCR: Ruth Helfeld City of Boston: Alice Brown, Vineet Gupta, Rachel Szakmary Toole Design: Michelle Danila BRA: Tad Read City of Cambridge: Jeff Rosenblum WalkBoston: Wendy Landman August 16, 2012 Project Number 57617-DS-003 Distribution List Notes Taken: Essek Petrie, Maureen Chlebek Summary of Discussion: Presented current design for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Discussed most desirable way to enhance connections through the corridor for all users. Discussion focused on safety for all, in particular at the intersections. Discussion Topics: One-way v. two-way bike paths (cycle tracks): Pete Stidman argued strongly for having a one-way bike path system mimicking the vehicular travel patterns. This idea was considered not appropriate for this area as there are major bicycle desire lines that would result in cyclists using the one-way system against the flow (in particular from the SWCP to Franklin Park). Pete is concerned that certain cyclists, commuters in particular, will be opposed to the removal of the on-street bike lanes and the inclusion of a two-way bike path system because they feel their travel time would be slowed considerably due to increased conflicts with other cyclists. It is possible that a wider shoulder or sharrow/priority shared lane system would alleviate this concern. These options will be researched further by the design team. It was also suggested that a bike travel time model be run to determine the length (in time) the cyclist trip would be through the corridor. Right turns at intersections: There are multiple occurrences of vehicular/bicycle conflict due to right-turning vehicles in the project area. Peter Furth recommended providing right-turn lanes at all intersections and allowing for “protected” through movements for cyclists/pedestrians. This means that bikes and peds traveling through an intersection would share some of the signal time with the through traveling vehicular traffic as the right-turning vehicular traffic was in a red condition. The current design only allows for this configuration at one intersection. The design team needs to further analyze options for efficiently handling this concern. Page 1 of 2 Vineet Gupta brought up the idea of installing bike signal lights at these intersections and the City of Boston agreed to manage the process involved in getting bike lights approved for the project. Pete Stidman suggested that all bike lanes be adjacent to the roadway no less than 150’ from the intersection allowing for better awareness between cyclist and motorist. Michelle Danila noted that a problem with this design is how to then treat cyclists at the intersection, as motorists or pedestrians (what signal would they follow?). The primary reason for bringing the path next to the roadway is sight lines and others agreed that sight lines should not be an issue in this corridor. The possibility of analyzing engineered calculations of sight lines and angles was brought up as a potential remedy if it is believed there is a concern at a particular location. Another concern is the conflict between bikes/peds in crosswalk and vehicles turning right through an intersection. One solution brought up was for raised crosswalks, preferably between 3-4” in height and raised at a steep angle. It was recommended that all unsignalized crosswalks have these raised crosswalks in particular. Intersection Treatments In addition to the raised crosswalk treatment, it was also suggested that the bike paths be pulled back away from intersections (particularly unsignalized) enough for one car to be between the path and the road parallel to the path to facilitate decision-making for the driver pulling out onto the Arborway. Intersection design for interaction between pedestrian and bicyclists is of major concern as there are multiple high volume locations. It was determined that another meeting may be necessary later in the design process to fully vet the options at each of these locations. Due to the complicated nature of these intersections it will be necessary to explain to all users that certain “sacrifices” will need to be made by all to allow for a design that achieves a little something for everybody. Jeff Rosenblum suggested a sensitivity analysis similar to what the DOT completed for the BU Bridge to help with that discussion. The idea is that the design team would present the public with the criteria it used to make the decisions and recognize the trade-offs necessary. Miscellaneous: Wendy Landman recommended that the design team recognize the newly created visual connectivity between South Street and Hyde Park Ave as part of the urban design process. As part of the urban design process, it was requested that DCR allow for on-street (shortterm) parking along the Arborway in the section that is now New Washington Street. It was recommended that a bicycle connection be provided throughout the MBTA plaza that connects the north-south route (paralleling South Street) with the east-west route. The current design where these two routes meet at the corner is not sufficiently close to the desire line. Next Steps: MassDOT will coordinate with DCR on snow removal on bike paths and sidewalks BTD and MassDOT to discuss the experimenting with bike signals McMahon to provide bike counts around Forest Hills Station McMahon to look at bicycle route travel time on and off street Design team to further examine right turns and vehicle/bicycle conflicts HNTB to look into raised crosswalks at unsignalized intersections Page 2 of 2