DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING
FEBRUARY 27, 2013
AT
BOSTON ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL
JAMAICA PLAIN, MASSACHUSETTS
6:00 PM
FOR THE PROPOSED
CASEY ARBORWAY PROJECT
Project No. 605511
Accelerated Bridge Program
IN THE CITY OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HIGHWAY DIVISION
FRANCIS A. DEPAOLA, P.E.
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
THOMAS F. BRODERICK, P.E.
CHIEF ENGINEER
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION – HIGHWAY DIVISION
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
Project File No. 605511
A Design Public Hearing will be held by MassDOT to discuss the proposed Casey Arborway project in Jamaica
Plain, MA.
WHERE:
Boston English High School Auditorium
144 McBride Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
WHEN:
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 @ 6:00 p.m.
PURPOSE: The pur pose of t his he aring i s t o pr ovide t he public w ith t he oppor tunity t o be come f ully
acquainted with t he proposed C asey A rborway p roject. A ll vi ews and comments made at t he h earing
will be reviewed and considered to the maximum extent possible.
PROPOSAL: The proposed project consists of removal of the Monsignor William J. Casey Overpass in the
Jamaica Plain neighborhood of Boston and the construction of new at-grade roadways in its place. The project
also includes geometric and signal improvements at a number of substandard area intersections (i.e., South
Street/Arborway, Washington Street Hyde Park Avenue, and Shea Circle), modifications to the upper busway at
Forest Hills Station, various operational and infrastructure improvements associated with multi-modal transit at
Forest Hills Station, expanded pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, and creation of additional open space.
A secure right-of-way is necessary for this project. Acquisitions in fee and permanent or temporary easements
may be required. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is responsible for acquiring all needed rights in private
or public lands. MassDOT’s policy concerning land acquisitions will be discussed at this hearing.
Written views received by MassDOT subsequent to the date of this notice and up t o five (5) days prior to the
date of the hearing shall be displayed for public inspection and copying at the time and date listed above. Plans
will be on di splay one-half hour before the hearing begins, with an engineer in attendance to answer questions
regarding this project. A project handout will be made available on the MassDOT website listed below.
Written statements and other exhibits in place of, or in addition to, oral statements made at the Public Hearing
regarding t he p roposed unde rtaking a re t o be s ubmitted t o T homas F . B roderick, P.E., Chief E ngineer,
MassDOT, 10 P ark Plaza, Boston, MA 02116, A ttention.: Paul King, Accelerated Bridge Program Project File
No. 605511. Such submissions will also be accepted at the hearing. Mailed statements and exhibits intended for
inclusion i n t he publ ic hearing t ranscript m ust be pos tmarked w ithin t en ( 10) bus iness da ys of t his P ublic
Hearing. Project inquiries may be emailed to dot.feedback.highway@state.ma.us
This location is accessible to people with disabilities. MassDOT provides reasonable accommodations and/or
language assistance free of charge upon request (including but not limited to interpreters in American Sign
Language and languages other than English, open or closed captioning for videos, assistive listening devices
and alternate material formats, such as audio tapes, Braille and large print), as available. For accommodation
or language assistance, please contact MassDOT’s Chief Diversity and Civil Rights Officer by phone (857-3688580), fax (857-368-0602), TTD/TTY (857-368-0603) or by email (MassDOT.CivilRights@dot.state.ma.us).
Requests should be made as soon as possible prior to the meeting, and for more difficult to arrange services
including sign-language, CART or language translation or interpretation, requests should be made at least ten
(10) business days before the meeting.
In case o f i nclement weather, h earing cancellation an nouncements will b e p osted o n t he i nternet at
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Highway/
FRANCIS A. DEPAOLA, P.E.
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
THOMAS F. BRODERICK, P.E.
CHIEF ENGINEER
Deval L. Patrick, Governor
TImothy P. Murray, Lt. Governor
Richard A. Davey, Secretary & CEO
Frank DePaola, Administrator
•
~!'~lJ1.q~~!2Q[
~~ighWay
Division
Dear Concerned Citizen:
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) is co~nmitted
to building and maintaining a transportation infrastructure that is both safe
and efficient for all who use our roadways, bridges, bicycle facilities and
pedestrian paths, while maintaining the integrity of the environment.
As part of the design process for this project, we are conducting this public
hearing to explain the proposed improvements, listen to your comments and
answer any questions you may have. At the conclusion of the hearing,
MassDOT will review all of your comments and, where feasible, incorporate
them into the design of the project.
We recognize that road and bridge construction can create inconveniences
for the public. MassDOT places a great deal of emphasis on minimizing the
temporary disruptive effects of construction.
MassDOT encourages input from local communities and values your
opinions. Please be assured that we will undertake no project without
addressing the concerns of the community.
Sincerely,
Frank DePaola
Administrator, Highway Division
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 617-973-7000, TOO: 617-973-7306
www.mass.gov/massdot
WHAT IS A PUBLIC HEARING?
WHY A PUBLIC HEARING?
To provide an assured method whereby the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can furnish to the public
information concerning the State’s highway construction proposals, and to afford every interested resident of
the area an opportunity to be heard on any proposed project. At the same time, the hearings afford the
Commonwealth an additional opportunity to receive information from local sources which would be of value to
the State in making its final decisions to what design should be advanced for development.
WHY NOT A VOTE ON HIGHWAY PLANS?
The hearings are not intended to be a popular referendum for the purpose of determining the nature of a
proposed improvement by a majority of those present. They do not relieve the duly constituted officials of a
State highway department of the necessity for making decisions in State highway matters for which they are
charged with full responsibility.
WHAT DOES A PUBLIC HEARING ACCOMPLISH?
It is designed to ensure the opportunity for, or the availability of, a forum to provide factual information
which is pertinent to the determination of the final alternative considered by the state to best serve the public
interest, and on which improvement projects are proposed to be undertaken.
It is important that the people of the area express their views in regard to the proposal being presented,
so that views can be properly recorded in the minutes of the meeting. These minutes will be carefully studied
and taken into consideration in the determination of the final design.
Project Location
TO SAFEGUARD THE PROPERTY OWNER
If your property, or a portion of it, must be acquired by the State for highway purposes in the interest of all
people of the Commonwealth, your rights are fully protected under the law. Briefly, here are some of the
answers to questions you might ask.
1. WHO CONTACTS ME?
Representatives of the Right of Way Bureau of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation’s Highway
Division. They will explain the impacts and your rights as protected under Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 79.
2. WHAT IS A FAIR PRICE FOR MY PROPERTY?
Every offer is made to ensure that an equitable value is awarded to you for the property, or to appraise the
“damage” to the property as a result of the acquisition. MassDOT appraisers, independent appraisers,
MassDOT “Review Appraisers” and a Real Estate Appraisal Review Board may all contribute in
arriving at an award of damages. The State also pays a proportionate part of the real estate tax for the
current year for fee takings, and interest from the date the property is acquired to the payment date, on
all impacts.
3. MUST I ACCEPT THE DEPARTMENT’S OFFER?
No. If, after the figure established as market value has been offered to the owner, the owner feels he or she
is not being offered a fair price, he or she has the right, within three years, to appeal to the courts.
Pending a court decision, he or she can be paid on a “pro-tanto” basis (or “for the time being”) that in no
way prejudices the court appeal.
4. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO MY HOUSE?
The owner will have the opportunity to buy back his or her house, provided he or she has a location to
which it can be moved, and the proper permits for its removal. If the owner does not wish to repurchase,
the house will be advertised for bids. The highest bidder, who must also have a location and permits for
removal, will be awarded the house. Otherwise, the structure will be slated for demolition.
5. WHAT HAPPENS IF I MUST RELOCATE?
In addition to the market value of the property, the Department pays certain relocation benefits for both
owners and tenants of acquired residences and businesses who meet eligibility requirements. Assistance
in relocation is also provided. Department brochures are available for details on these benefits.
CASEY ARBORWAY PROJECT, BOSTON, PROJECT FILE NO. 605511
Project Location
The proposed project is located along the Monsignor William J. Casey Highway (Route 203) in Boston,
Massachusetts, also known as the Arborway (see USGS Locus Map). The project limits extend along the
Arborway between the Arnold Arboretum's Forest Hills Gate on the west and Shea Circle at the entrance to
Franklin Park on the east and include the Casey Overpass (Bridge No. B-16-367) over Washington Street and
South Street. The Overpass also is adjacent to the MBTA Forest Hills Station and the West Roxbury District
Court House. The project area also includes the intersections of the Arborway with South Street, New
Washington Street, Washington Street/Hyde Park Avenue, and Shea Circle.
Project Purpose
The purpose of the project is to remove the Monsignor William J. Casey Overpass (Casey Overpass) in the
Boston neighborhood of Jamaica Plain and replace the Casey Overpass with a new at-grade landscaped
parkway. The Casey Overpass has been determined to be structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, and has
reached the end if it’s useful life. The project will provide geometric and traffic signal improvements at the
intersections within the project area. The project will address needed bicycle, pedestrian and transit
improvements along the east-west corridor of the Arborway and Washington Street south of the Arborway. The
project will also increase the public/open space at the terminus of the Southwest Corridor Park and redesign the
plaza north of the Forest hills MBTA Station. The removal of the Casey Overpass and the construction of the
new at-grade landscaped parkway in its place will reconnect the various components of the Emerald Necklace.
Existing Conditions
The existing Casey Overpass viaduct BRIDGE NO. B-16-367 is structurally deficient due to the deterioration of
the main load-carrying components and has a load capacity that is well below statutory requirements. The
Casey Overpass was originally designed to carry three lanes of traffic in each direction and is currently
functioning with one lane in each direction carrying approximately 24,000 vehicles a day. The 1,650 foot-long
viaduct is structurally deficient due to numerous superstructure and substructure problems resulting from
deterioration and design flaws. In addition, the project area also includes the intersections of the Arborway with
South Street, Washington Street/Hyde Park Avenue, and Shea Circle. Each of these intersections have
functional and geometric issues that cause conflicts between vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit. Shea
Circle in particular has a number of safety issues that make crossing as a pedestrian or bicyclist difficult. The
crash incident rate at Shea Circle is nearly double the statewide average and the highest of the intersections in
the project area.
The Arborway, Arnold Arboretum, and Franklin Park are components of Boston’s renowned Emerald Necklace
park system designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and are contributing properties in the State and National
Register-listed Olmsted Park System Historic District. The elevated Casey Overpass, constructed in 1951,
replaced a portion of the original at-grade Arborway and disrupted the continuous designed landscape of the
Emerald Necklace.
Proposed Work
The proposed Casey Arborway is an at-grade, landscaped parkway comprised of three (3) – 11 foot wide lanes
in each direction, each with two (2) foot outside shoulders and one (1) foot inside shoulders separated by a
landscaped median that varies in width from 12 feet to 30 feet. On each side of the proposed Arborway, a 12
foot wide, two-way, off-street bike path is proposed along with an 8 foot wide sidewalk.
There are two main north/south direction streets that intersect with Casey Arborway, Washington Street and
South Street. Washington Street/ South Street is comprised of two (2) travel lanes in each direction, with 11
foot inside lanes and 12 foot outside lanes. Washington Street/ Hyde Park Ave. is comprised of two (2) travel
lanes in each direction, with 11 foot inside and outside lanes. On-street parking, sidewalks and off-street bike
paths are proposed on Washington Street.
The existing upper busway at the Forest Hills MBTA station will be relocated approximately 100 feet south
from its current location. The busway will be lengthened and widened to provide additional layover space and
bus berths to improve MBTA operations. In addition, the Route 39 bus will be relocated to the upper busway
and given a dedicated bay. The Route 39 bay will be located on a new structure above the lower MBTA
parking lot.
The Southwest Corridor Park, Forest Hills MBTA Station and Franklin Park will each have improved frontages
with the Arborway. The Orange line headhouse and ventilation stack, and commuter rail ventilation grate will
be relocated to accommodate the at-grade landscaped parkway. Additional park space will be added to enhance
the open space along the Arborway corridor.
Shea Circle, which experienced the highest number of crashes of any intersection within the Study Area over
the most recent three-year period, will be reconfigured from a traffic circle to a traditional signalized
intersection. This will improve safety for all modes of travel, with significant safety and mobility
improvements for bicycles and pedestrians. The proposed intersection shifts the open space from the
inaccessible center island to each intersection corner creating a more prominent entrance for Franklin Park.
Drainage
Generally, the existing stormwater drainage outfalls within the project limits will be retained. Additional
stormwater drainage outfalls will be added along the at-grade parkway between the Arnold Arboretum and Shea
Circle. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are proposed to improve stormwater quality in accordance with
DEP Stormwater Management Standards and MassDOT Impaired Waterbodies Program. MassDOT will look to
incorporate Low Impact Development facilities to manage stormwater where applicable.
Traffic Management
Staged construction is a major design requirement for the bridge demolition project. Temporary roadways and
access must be constructed, relocation of the existing Route 39 busway, and relocation of the existing Orange
Line headhouse and ventilation grates must be completed before the bridge can be completely demolished. The
project is to be constructed in seven (7) major stages: two (2) pre-stages with minimal effects on existing traffic
patterns, and five (5) stages with temporary roadway and lane shifts. The Casey Overpass and New
Washington Street traffic will be shifted to a temporary roadway that will be constructed immediately north of
the Casey Overpass, adjacent to Arborway Yard. Temporary lane shifts and travel restrictions will take place
on South Street and Washington Street. The upper busway at the Forest Hills MBTA Station will be relocated
to the parking lot immediately south of the existing busway while the old bus canopy is removed and the new
upper busway is constructed. The Route 39 bus stop under the Casey Overpass will remain at its current
location until the removal of the center spans of the bridge in stage 3. The Route 39 terminus will be relocated
to the new upper busway permanently at this stage. Construction is expected to begin in March of 2014 with
completion in September of 2016.
Utilities
The existing utilities, located under and around the existing Overpass, will be provided accommodation in the
proposed at -grade design. The existing utilities within the project area will be maintained throughout
construction.
Environmental
Due to the urban nature of the project area, this project poses no significant potential impact to the natural
environment. The Stony Brook is culverted in this area and daylights south of the project area in the Arnold
Arboretum. There are no wetland resources, floodplains, or threatened or endangered species in the project area.
The intent of the project is to improve the natural environment by reconnecting the various components of the
Emerald Necklace at-grade and enhancing the open space and parkland that abut the project area. The project
proposes to alter 27 acres of land, but the breakdown of uses will result in less overall impervious area than
exists today.
Permitting Summary
The project required the filing of an Environmental Notification Form under the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA) because it involves the construction of a parkway that will result in the cutting of five or
more living public shade trees fourteen inches or more in diameter at breast height. The project will result in the
removal of approximately 90 trees and the planting of approximately 190 trees, a net overall increase of 100
trees. A MEPA certificate stating that the project does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report was issued in January of 2013.
The project does not involve direct or indirect (buffer zone) impacts to resource areas regulated under the
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act; therefore it does not require the filing of a Request for Determination
of Applicability (RDA) or Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Boston Conservation Commission.
MassDOT’s Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) staff will continue to consult with the Massachusetts Historical
Commission (MHC) and the Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC) as plans for the project progress, in
compliance with M.G.L. Chapter 9, Section 26-27c as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988 (950 CMR
71.00).
Right of Way
The proposed bridge demolition and at-grade construction is not anticipated to require the acquisition of
permanent easements. Layout alterations will be required north and south of the existing bridge with partial
takings. The project may require temporary easements for construction. MassDOT will be responsible for
acquiring all necessary rights on affected property.
Project Cost
At this time the estimated cost of construction is approximately $53,960,000.
Project Schedule
The design plans displayed at this Public Hearing are at the Preliminary stage of completion. Comments made
at these hearings will be incorporated into the final design to the maximum extent feasible.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HIGHWAY DIVISION
ACCELERATED BRIDGE PROGRAM PROJECT
Boston, MA
Casey Arborway Project
Project File No. 605511
This sheet is provided for your comments. Your input is solicited and appreciated. Please return
your sheet, with comments, to a staff member at the meeting, or mail to:
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer
MassDOT – Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116-3973
Attn: Accelerated Bridge Program
The final date for receipt of written statements and exhibits for inclusion into the official hearing
transcript will be ten (10) days after the Public Hearing.
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Name:
_________________________________ Title:_______________________________
Organization: __________________________________________________________________
Address:______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Please Fold and Tape
________________________
Please Place
Appropriate
Postage Here
________________________
________________________
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Chief Engineer
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973
RE: Public Hearing
CASEY ARBORWAY PROJECT
BOSTON
Project File No. 605511
Accelerated Bridge Program
From:
To:
Subject: 25 Percent Design Comment
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:37:34 PM
King, Paul C. (DOT)
Dear Paul,
I know this is coming in under the wire, but it's still March 13th for another hour and
a half so here is my comment on the 25% design for the Casey Arborway.
First, let me repeat my enthusiastic support for the at-grade solution particularly
Shea Square which will create new, usable green space. The idea of preserving
Shea Circle as something "unique" or "historic" is by no means worth the hassle of
using this outdated 1950's piece of engineering. I go through multiple rotaries on my way to work each day and I don't particularly care for any of them. Second, I hope the DOT will now give up on trying to placate the bridge supporters.
Continuing the dialog with them at this point is like trying to argue with people who
don't buy into the moon landings. You either believe the science and admit the
world is round, or in our case that the traffic works, or you don't. I have heard from
several friends around Jamaica Plain that they feel intimidated by the shouting,
whooping, clapping Bridging Forest Hills set and as such have been avoiding making themselves heard in support of the project at meetings, so please know that there
are people in our neighborhood who aren't speaking because they feel there might
be consequences in so doing.
Last, please spend the remaining portion of the design period concentrating on open
space along the Casey Corridor. Properly designed green space will help to frame
the road and integrate it with the neighborhood making a good design into
something really great. Think about green storm water management and how it
could be built into the landscape. This has been a creative job since day one so
keep it up when it comes to the landscape. I'd like to also put in a plug for naming the new circulation road in front of the courthouse after 19th century feminist
Margaret Fuller. I understand that the new at-grade boulevard will continue to bear
Msgr. Casey's name, but the access road in front of the courthouse offers us an
opportunity to honor the pioneering Fuller who lived in a home which stood roughly
where the Arborway Gardens do today.
Thank you for running a professional, open, transparent and inclusive project in a
neighborhood as difficult as Jamaica Plain. Good luck with the job. I am excited to
see the final design done and the bridge coming down at last.
Best,
-Kate
Kate Hutchinson
74 Woodlawn St.
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 From:
To: dot.feedback.highway@state.ma.gov; King, Paul C. (DOT)
Cc: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov;
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov;
Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Comments on Casey 25% design
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:21:56 PM
Attachments: Casey Arborway letter_JParsons_3-14.docx
Dear Mr. Broderick, Mr. King and MassDOT,
Please accept the attached comments regarding the at-grade 25% design of the
Casey Arborway. As a close neighbor to the project, I am hopeful and supportive of
this much-needed change to the neighborhood, as long as there is close
consideration of all users, especially pedestrians and cyclists, and those
who wish to access our parks.
Thank you very much,
Jessica Parsons
61 Hampstead Rd
March 14, 2013
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973
Project No. 605511
Dear Mr. Broderick,
I am writing as a neighbor to the Casey Overpass—I live at 61 Hampstead Rd in JP. I am
fully in support of the process to design the at-grade replacement to the overpass for
many reasons, including the fact that I believe:
1. The intersection that I navigate every day with my children at Arborway and
South Street is dangerous to pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike.
2. The overpass is a huge, ugly barrier to our neighborhood- the at-grade design will
offer so many connections and better access to parks and the T station.
3. The overpass is dark and Forest Hills station feels unsafe at night due to adequate
light and activity.
4. The overpass is a huge barrier preventing access to the parks (SW Corridor and
Arnold Arboretum) for the families that live right here.
Because I was unable to make the meeting to discuss the 25% design, I wanted to submit
these comments/questions:
1. We need a traffic box at the intersection of South St and Arborway. This would
allow residents to turn in and out of our road. This would also prevent back ups
from occurring on South Street. Lastly, it would allow for more visibility for cars
turning.
2. We need a safe pedestrian crossing at the Arboretum entrance at the new
signalized intersection. A sidewalk is needed on the north side of Arborway
Westbound. This is the only section of the Jamaicaway / Arborway that does not
have sidewalks on both sides. The fence along Arborway Road just adds to the
freeway affect. The woods on the north side need to feel publicly accessible and
connected to the Arboretum.
3. The entrance to the Forest Hills T station north of Arborway is critical.
4. We would like a more friendly connection on Washington Street between our
neighborhood and the new shopping area developing on Washington. Right now
the walk is unpleasant and this project should improve it with wider sidewalks
and landscaping rather than widening the paved area as proposed.
5. As pedestrians with young children, we wait a long time at all the intersections
here. This contributes to cars running red lights frequently and pedestrians
crossing when it is unsafe! Please insure that the signals of all intersections
minimize how long pedestrians and cyclist are required to wait.
6. The pedestrian and bike paths at the intersections and along Washington St: How
would left turns are made by bicycles at these intersections as bikes are unlikely
to use the u-turn?
7. Will pedestrian and bike areas be separated? This would be nice.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Sincerely,
Jessica Parsons
61 Hampstead Rd.
Jamaica Plain, MA
From: DOT Feedback HighwayTo: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW:
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:19:10 PM
From: Joanna Kao [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:28 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject:
Dear City Official:
I strongly oppose the plan to tear down the overpass and not replace it. At present,
traffic during rush hour is already oppressive; without the overpass, the 25,000 vehicles per day that would pass overhead will now add to the congestion at ground
level. The system functions poorly as it is, but mistakes in planning could make it
worse.
We do not have the public resources to make such errors. Planners need to get it
right the first time. (Actually, we’re asking for continuity of the present system, with
vetting of the design to improve it .)
The Forest Hills station is a major transportation hub serving thousands of
commuters a day, with convergence of rail, subway, and bus lines, a gateway to
notable Boston parks. Although it was built 26 years ago, it is not an area in which
the city can take pride: rather, it reflects urban decay and neglect. Not coincidentally, it serves many working class families, including those of color, but
few tourists. Boston needs to dedicate the vision and resources to this area that it
has to other such comparable stations such as those at Porter or Harvard Square,
Back Bay, or North Station.
Smoothly flowing traffic would knit this area to the rest of the city and lower the
stress level of commuters and users.
Thank you. Joanna Kao
24 Wachusett St.
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 13 March, 2013 From: DOT Feedback HighwayTo: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW:
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:40:46 AM
From: Heidi Weston [
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:08 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway; info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov;
russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov;
william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov
Subject:
"This design is bad. We need a Bridge!"
From: DOT Feedback HighwayTo: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW:
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:16:46 AM
FYI
From: Mark Lembo [
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 7:52 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject:
JP needs a Bridge!! not cab stands, less bus service, or more traffic on the ground.
sincerely
Mark Lembo
From: DOT Feedback HighwayTo: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW:
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:22:48 PM
From: Rick Yoder [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:39 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; Thomas.McGee@masenate.gov;
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; Russell.Holmes@mahouse.gov; Jeffrey.Sanchez@mahouse.gov;
Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov; William.Straus@mahouse.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov;
David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen Murphy
Subject:
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Chief Engineer
Mass Dot, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116 -3973 RE:Project No. 605511 Dear Mr. Broderick,
Please reverse the design decision at Forest Hills and do build a new low profile bridge to replace the
Casey Overpass. Route 203 is an important link for east –west travel for many people living in
Mattapan, Southern Dorchester, Milton, Roslindale, and Hyde Park. Without a new bridge, the Forest Hills’ intersection will become a bottleneck to traffic on this highway, Washington Street and Hyde
Park Ave. Commuters trying to escape this will clog adjacent residential side streets. The backup will
become a daily aggravation and time delay to tens of thousands of drivers.
Drivers will not give up their cars and take rapid public transit because none exists for this route. Bus
service is slow, piece meal and sporadic. These communities will simply become functionally more
isolated from the rest of Boston.
Please reconsider the Casey Overpass decision.
Thank you, Rick Yoder and Lisa Beatman 180 Mt. Hope Street, Roslindale, MA 02131 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: 605511-we need a bridge!
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:26:45 PM
From: Hope Haff [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:43 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov;
russell.holmes@ma.house.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov
Subject: 605511-we need a bridge!
The Casey overpass is certainly ugly, as a monument -but to conclude that appearance is ALL that counts is very irrational. It is a bridge, built to
relieve traffic jams at a major Boston crossroads. Twice a week I must drive
through Mattapan to fetch my young grandchildren from school. I can't arrive
late!
Waiting at 3 additional stoplights in a tangle of afterschool traffic once the
bridge is gone will mean more gas burned, more exhaust, and especially ten
minutes more time to pick up the kids, plus the certainty of unpredictable
delay that an enormous traffic tangle like the one planned will bring.
But the MAIN users of the current bridge are driving into Boston from
Milton/Mattapan, and don't even KNOW about this planned complication and
delay in their daily commute. Maybe the thought is that since a lot of
minority commuters will be affected, they don't need to be consulted, not
having the voting clout of the bicyclists and walkers, who live in JP and don't
need to pass through there to go to work. I grew up in Chicago, cut off from
the lake beach by the 6 lanes of Lake Shore Drive, and only the presence of a
couple of underpasses made it possible to get to the lake beach at all.
I bike a lot, when I'm not transporting small children. What happened to the
bike lanes in the plan? How will cars drop off family members at the Forrest
Hills station? Double -parked cars will increase the nightmare. Where is the
berth for the 39 bus, which will circle through there every 10 to 16 minutes ?
PLEASE reconsider and build a modern, smaller-scale bridge to avoid this
nightmare.
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Att"n: Paul King, Casey Arborway Project: Support for At-Grade Solution
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:47:18 AM
From: Claire Barker [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:18 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Att'n: Paul King, Casey Arborway Project: Support for At-Grade Solution
DearMr.KingandotherDOTprofessionals:
Ihavegreatconfidenceintheat-gradesolutiondevelopedthroughyourlongcommunityinputanddecision­
makingprocess,whichinvolvedmanycitizensandprovidedopportunityforinputfromallsides.Theat­
gradesolutionisagoodone,includingforusbikers,andourcommunityneedstomoveforwardtofinaldesignandconstruction.
Iamsorrytoseetherhetoricofthebridgeproponentsescalateintoattacksonpublicservantsandthemanycitizensworkingtogettoa
goodsolution.
Sincerely,
ClaireBarker32OrchardStreetJamaicaPlainMA
CC: SoniaChang,LizMalia,MattO’Malley
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Attn: Paul King, Project #605511. Casey Overpass
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:46:07 AM
From: Robertson, Meg (MCB) [m
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:07 AM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Attn: Paul King, Project #605511. Casey Overpass
DearSir,AsyoudeveloptheplansfortheCaseyOverpassreplacement,
pleaselookathowtheplansintegratepedestrianroutestothesubwaystationandaroundtheneighborhoods.Pedestrianstreetcrossi
ngsshouldnotbewide.Roundedcurbsencouragevehiclestomakerightturnsonredasa‘rollingstop’ratherthanatrue‘stop’andnot
tolookapedestriansontherightbutonlytrafficcomingfromtheleft.AllpedestrianwalksignalsneedtoincludeAccessiblePedestri
anSignals,aswellaslookingatthedesignofanynewintersectionstoincludeplacementofcurbcutsnotdirectingindividualswhoha
vevisionlossintothemainintersectionratherthandirectlyacrosstotheoppositecorner.
Locationofthepedestrianpushbuttonspolesisveryimportantinrelationshiptothecrosswalkandtheabilitytofindthepolepushthe
buttonandre-aligntocrossthestreetcorrectly.
Pleaselookattheproposedtrafficflowcyclesinlookingathowpedestrianscancrossstreetswhilethereismovingparalleltraffican
dnotjusttohaveonlyonepedestriancrossingduringa‘holdalltraffic’walkcycle.Whilethismaybeanoptionitshouldnotbetheonly
choiceforpedestriancrossings.
Thankyou.
Meg Robertson MA COMS
Director
Orientation & Mobility Department
Certified Orientation & Mobility Specialist
Massachusetts Commission for the Blind
600 Washington St.
Boston MA 02111
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Attn: Paul King, Project #605511
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:45:47 AM
From: Baughman, Allyson L
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:20 AM
To: DOT Feedback
Cc: hborcherding@walkboston.org
Subject: Attn: Paul King, Project #605511
DearMr.Broderick,
Iwanttoexpressmystrongsupportfortheat­
gradeoptionthathasbeenchosenfortheCaseyoverpassproject.IliveinJamaicaPlainveryclosetothisarea,andtheat­
gradeoptionistherightchoiceforthepeoplelivingandtravelinginthisarea.Itisthebestplanforlivability,safetyandequality.
Regards,
AllysonBaughman
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: bridge --copy of letter to dot
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:12:52 PM
From: Jil Clark [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:01 AM
To: ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: bridge -- copy of letter to dot
Dear DOT,
As a thirty year resident of Jamaica Plain, I must speak up: I strongly opposed the at-gradeplan.
Those of us who live here are going to be adversely effected in myriad ways.
Jamaica Plain's Emerald necklace deserves a lovely bridge.
I urge you not to waste my tax dollars on the at-grade plan.
Jil Clark
Jamaica Plain
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Bridge issues
Date: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:43:18 AM
Importance: High FYI
From: Lorry Sorgman [mailto:l
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:09 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Bridge issues
I
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Bridge needed at Forest Hills
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:19:51 AM
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:39 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; felix.arroyo; matthew.omalley
Subject: Re: Bridge needed at Forest Hills
My contact information, which I failed to provide in the previous email, is as follows:
elizabeth miller
91 Parkton Road #3 Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 (617) 821-2476
millerelizabethann@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:37 AM, elizabeth ann <
Hello-.
I am writing, as a decade-long resident of Jamaica Plain, to express my concern about the
at-grade Casey Overpass replacement. This decision will dramatically ensnarl traffic and
diminish public safety in a variety of ways: by increasing the street-level flow, by removing
the car pick-up cut-out and causing more cars to stop with their hazards on in the street, by removing the mid-block pedestrian crossing area and thereby encouraging more walkers to
cross at will, and by making an unsafe situation for bikers, who then have to choose
between a variety of bad options.
I just wanted to write to express my concern.
Thank you. elizabeth
> wrote:
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Bridging Forest Hills
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:24:30 PM
From: Paula & Gunars [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:54 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Bridging Forest Hills
To: Thomas F. Broderick, PE
Mass DOT, Highway Division10 Park PlazaBoston, MA 02116-3973Project No. 605511
Attn: Thomas F. Broderick,
I am writing again to plead the case for a bridge solution at the Casey
Overpass site.
It is difficult if not impossible for me to understand how there could be any
benefit to
an at grade solution. The original designers were wise to understand that the
addition
of six lanes of traffic in an already complex vehicular and pedestrian intersection
is begging
for a perpetual nightmare. A bridge works now! A bridge will work in the future!
Please consider the legitimate concerns of myself and countless other people.
People and cars in the same place at the same time is not a good mix.
Sincerely,
Gunars Viksnins48 Brookley Road,
Jamaica Plain, MA. 02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Bridging Forest Hills
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:32:03 AM
From: Paula & Gunars [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:54 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Bridging Forest Hills
To: Thomas F. Broderick, PE
Mass DOT, Highway Division10 Park PlazaBoston, MA 02116-3973Project No. 605511
Attn: Thomas F. Broderick,
I am writing again to plead the case for a bridge solution at the Casey
Overpass site.
It is difficult if not impossible for me to understand how there could be any
benefit to
an at grade solution. The original designers were wise to understand that the
addition
of six lanes of traffic in an already complex vehicular and pedestrian intersection
is begging
for a perpetual nightmare. A bridge works now! A bridge will work in the future!
Please consider the legitimate concerns of myself and countless other people.
People and cars in the same place at the same time is not a good mix.
Sincerely,
Gunars Viksnins48 Brookley Road,
Jamaica Plain, MA. 02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Bridging Forest Hills, a better design needed
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:11:12 AM
From: Judith Glaven
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:18 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway; info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov;
Russell.Holmes@mahouse.gov; Thomas.McGee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov;
Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofbposton.gov
Subject: Bridging Forest Hills, a better design needed
I am writing to express my disappointment and dismay at the current plan for putting a sixlaneroad at grade through
Forest Hills. I am opposed to this design and see many problems andflaws with the plan.
Problems with the current plan include but are not limited to:
--Pedestrian crossings are too long because there are too many lanes.
--Does not seem this plan will be safer than a bridge, but rather much less safer.
--Why were promised bike lanes removed? Put bike lanes back-This is not a forwardthinking plan or design to
eliminate bike lanes, as bikers in our community are on the rise,
and we want to encourage that.
--Eliminating the mid-block crossing from the Southwest Corridor to the station will forceanyone not headed directly
to the Orange Line platform out of their way just to cross thestreet.
--Shea Circle is a historic resource and should be improved, not destroyed and replacedwith a giant intersection.
--Eliminating the Rte. 39 bus berth will degrade service.
--Eliminating drop-off spaces at a transit hub is stupid and dangerous. People will continueto stop on New Washington
Street.
A well designed bridge that meets the transportation needs but also addresses the needs andconcerns of the community
is needed.
I note the recent Bay Bridge Bay Lights project, a transportation, community and artsproject that is being celebrated
and was thebrain child of a Boston local, Ben Davis (see Boston Globe article Saturday March 9). Weshould take a
cue from him and his projectwhere design and communication focus on community need and well being.
I am requesting that we send MassDOT back to the drawing board for a better solution,
ideally a bridge and designthat will suit the neighborhood and community.
Sincerely,
Judy Glaven
28 Cheshire St
Jamaica Plain, MA
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Bridging Forest Hills
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:13:48 PM
From: Marvin%20Kabakoff [m
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:37 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; info@bridgingforesthills.com;
Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov;
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Bridging Forest Hills
We need to replace the Casey overpass with a new bridge, smaller, more beautifyl,
but a new bridge to carry the 24,000 cars over our neighborhood, rather than putting
them onto a six-lane expressway that no one believes will have no effect on traffic
flow. None of the folks who came up with this plan live in the area, none have tried
to drive north or south during rush hour, none have been stuck behind buses coming in or out of the entrance across from Asticou and South Streets. None have sat
waiting to turn on Ukraine St., which will be much more crowded if there is no overpass. No plans have been made for school buses, except for someone at the
last meeting saying that they could also be placed on Washington across from
Asticou. Sure, just add one more obstacle to traffic flow and don't give a whit about
the people who actually live in the neighborhood and have to traverse it daily. In addition, you are destroying the beautiful Shea Circle, which slows traffic down, to
turn it into a normal intersection, which you imply will have fewer accidents, as if
there are no accidents at such intersection. Will DOT move next to destroy the
beautiful rotaries on West Roxbury Parkway, beautiful greenery and flowering trees
to ease the commute.
Six lanes of traffic will be harder for pedestrians to cross, and so you will create a
larger barrier between Forest Hills and the rest of JP without any thought of people
living in the Forest Hills neighborhood or points further south like Roslindale and
Hyde Park.
I strongly urge you to reconsider your plan and replace the overpass with a new
bridge. Olmstead would turn over in his grave to hear you cite him as a reason to
put an expressway in the middle of the Emerald Necklace and say it is fulfilling his
plan.
Marvin H. Kabakoff, Ph.D.
98 Bourne St.
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casaey Overpass
Date: Monday, March 18, 2013 1:47:59 PM
>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 3:51 PM
.
>From: Anne Paulsen [
>To: DOT Feedback
>Subject: Casaey Overpass
>
>
> To Thomas Broderick, chief engineer
>
> Attn: Paul King project #605511
>
> I am writing to support the removal of the Casey Overpass and the
>subsequent return of cars to to surface streets. I knew the area before the
>building of the overpass and I and many others have often rued the day the
>structure was built. The surrounding area was impacted greatly and not for the
>better. The speed of traffic increased dramatically not only on the overpass but
>also along the approaches making the roadway outside the Arboretum less
>accommodating to slower moving vehicles and dangerous for people getting
>out of their cars. The ground level, of course grew dingy and much less inviting
>to pedestrians. I am sure with proper signalization and enforcement, the traffic
>patterns on the surface will accommodate vehicles that wish to move through
>the area. As a legislator, I served on the Transportation Committee for many
>years. I know that the efforts of DOT to make walking and biking safer have
>been effective when accompanied by good streetscape design. I hope that the
>DOT continues to make progress and return Forest Hills to a welcoming area for
>everyone. Thank you for all your good work. Anne Paulsen
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casery Arborway 25% Design Comments, ATTN: Thomas F. Broderick & Paul King
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:47:11 AM
Attachments: LSA Casey Arborway 25% Design Letter.pdf
From: Kevin Wolfson [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:03 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Cc: Fichter, Katherine (DOT); Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Casery Arborway 25% Design Comments, ATTN: Thomas F. Broderick & Paul King
Dear Mr. Broderick,
Please find the attached letter in support of the chosen at-grade alternative for the Casey
Arborway project. Thank you for your continued work on this project.
Best,
Kevin Wolfson
13 March, 2013
Dear Mr. Broderick,
I am writing on behalf of LivableStreets Alliance to express our continued support for the atgrade alternative for the Casey Arborway project. We have participated on the Working
Advisory Group (WAG) and Design Advisory Group (DAG) since the project first started in
2011. In that time we have spent countless hours studying and discussing the alternatives
with our members, board, and advocacy committee, and of course with many members of the
Forest Hills community. We feel strongly that the at-grade alternative is the right decision for
the neighborhood and for the city, and we are deeply grateful to MassDOT for having the
foresight to select it one year ago. Replacing the outdated overpass with an at-grade network
of streets is forward-looking, better for people using all modes of travel, better for local
businesses, and the best way to respect and highlight the beautiful parks that surround Forest
Hills. We know this because every city that has removed urban overpasses recently is better
for it.
We also know that there has been a good deal of vocal opposition to the at-grade alternative
recently. From what we've seen, opponents are using every argument they can, including
many that the WAG and DAG came to agreement on long ago such as what to do with Shea
Circle, with the intent of stopping the project and starting from scratch. Doing so would be a
waste of MassDOT's time and money, and a great disrespect to the thousands of people who
have volunteered their valuable time in the last two years to participate the project and speak
in support of the at-grade alternative. We know that many of these supporters have lost some
energy making the same arguments with the same people for so long. We hope you
understand that such quiet does not mean that you no longer have broad community support.
You do.
Please continue to develop the at-grade design. It is not perfect, and we will continue to
participate and suggest refinements, but it is clearly the right direction. We must move
forward and focus our attention on the at-grade alternative to make sure it is as good as
possible for everyone.
Thank you,
Kevin Wolfson
LivableStreets Advocacy Committee Member, Casey DAG and WAG member
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey -Project 605511, att"n: Paul King Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:22:08 PM
From: SARAH FREEMAN [mailto:freemansherwood@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:00 PM
To: Rep. Russell Holmes; Rep. Liz Malia; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
edward.coppinger@mahouse.gov; linda.dorcenaforry@mahouse.gov; martin.walsh@mahouse.gov;
angelo.scaccia@mahouse.gov; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; david.mcnulty@cityofboston.gov;
Jullieanne Doherty (Mayor's Office); Ayanna Pressley; Felix Arroyo; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov;
Councillor Murphy; Councillor Connolly; City Councilor Rob Consalvo; DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Matthew Demarrais
Subject: FW: Casey - Project 605511, att'n: Paul King Dear Mr. Broderick/MassDOT, and JP & neighboring elected officials,
I was asked to forward the comment below in support of Casey at-grade replacement planning. It is
from a JP resident, Matthew Demarrais, who had Jury Duty today.
Thank you, Sarah Freeman
Arborway Coalition Rep. on the Casey WAG & DAG
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:34:54 -0700 From: mdemarrais@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Casey
To: freemansherwood@hotmail.com
Hi Sarah--
Im at Jury duty. Could you forward my letter to all the apprpraite addresses? Thx.
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Matthew DeMarrais and I live at 232 Wachusett St in Jamaica Plain just south
of Forest Hills , off of Hyde Park Ave. I am writing in support of the current plans to tear
down the Casey Overpass and replace it with the at-grade roadway.
I commute by bike, train and bus through this area every twice day. I have attended several
meeting about the design plans and I feel that the at-grade solution works best for our
neighborhood. Please take this as a vote to continue with the process and make full use of
the money available to fund the tearing down and replacement of the overpass.
Sincerely,
Matthew DeMarrais
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey -25 %
Date: Thursday, March 07, 2013 10:45:35 AM
FYI
.
>From: Elena Saporta [
>Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:08 PM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: Casey - 25 %
>
>Dear Mr. Broderick
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: CASEY OVERPASS
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:46:27 AM
From: Dowlaw
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:15 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: CASEY OVERPASS
The Casey overpass should be removed ASAP.
Charles Dow
dowlaw@aol.com
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway #605511, attn: Paul King Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:03:01 PM
From: Julie Crockford [
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 10:40 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Arborway #605511, attn: Paul King Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer MassDOT
Dear Mr. Broderick:
I write today to support MASS DOT in its work to redesign the Casey to serve all modes of
transportation users. The 25% design of the proposed new Casey Arborway reconnects our
parks and our neighborhoods. The conversion of the Shea Circle to Shea Square will make
it safe for pedesstrians and those on bikes or in wheel chairs to cross safely, something
impossible in the current configuration.
Many thanks for the continuing public process.
Julie Crockford
62 Union Avenue
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway #605511, attn: Paul King
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:16:02 PM
.
>From: Helene Atwan [
>Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:28 AM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: Casey Arborway #605511, attn: Paul King
>
>Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer MassDOT
>
>Dear Mr. Broderick:
>
>I write today to support MASS DOT in its work to redesign the Casey to
>serve all modes of transportation users. The 25% design of the
>proposed new Casey Arborway reconnects our parks and our
>neighborhoods. The conversion of the Shea Circle to Shea Square will
>make it safe for pedesstrians and those on bikes or in wheel chairs to
>cross safely, something impossible in the current configuration.
>
>Many thanks for the continuing public process.
>
> -­
>Helene Atwan
>56 Wenham St., #2
>Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
>
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway 25% Comments Proj. #605511
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:47:06 AM
From: Beth Worell [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:32 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Cc: Beth Worell
Subject: Casey Arborway 25% Comments Proj. #605511
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Chief Engineer
MassDOT Highway Division
Project #605511
RE: Casey Arborway 25% Preliminary Design Comments
I attended the recent Casey Arborway 25% preliminary design meeting and am a strong supporter of the selected
at-grade design to replace the out-dated and crumbling Casey Overpass. While I understand that it was a public
meeting and all must be given their time to speak, I was dismayed at all the time wasted by speakers focusing on
their desire for a replacement bridge. I do not want to see this great project derailed by a vocal and persistant
minority. The proposal is a forward -thinking, 21st century design that does not give favorable treatment to the
automobile over other modes of transportation, modes that are increasing in popularity and more environmentally
friendly -pedestrians, bikes, and public transit at the Forest Hills Station. The Casey Arborway, a tree-lined urban
boulevard, will restore a blighted and missing link in Olmsted's Emerald Necklace, where I have lived on the
Arborway just northwest of the project site for over 20 years.
The crossing on the Arborway across to the Arboretum is 7 -8 lanes wide and is a very quick and doable crossing
(6 lanes of traffic plus 2 parking lanes). I believe that any concerns about pedestrian crossings at the new at-grade
Casey Arborway are unfounded, which anyone can see for themselves by walking across the Arborway to the
Arboretum.
The arguments by the pro -bridge folks are misleading and misguided. Traffic crosses over the bridge at high
speeds, contributing to reckless driving along the Arnold Arboretum on what is supposed to be a 30-mile -per-hour
parkway, not a speedway. During peak travel times, traffic simply gets backed up at Murray Circle, near my
house, and continues backed up all the way along the parkways. They would need to bridge from Forest Hills to
Longwood to accomplish the ideal commute. The proposed Casey Arborway will moderate the traffic flow,
promote traffic calming, and provide an exceptional amount of new parkland around the Forest Hills station. I am
excited by this plan and do not want to see anything derail the progress. This has been a long and inclusive public
process that has resulted in a great plan. The new Casey Arborway will help move Boston forward and many,
many of us in Jamaica Plain and surrounding communities can't wait to see it happen!
Thank you,
Beth Worell
164 Arborway
Jamaica Plain, MA
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway 25% Design Phase, Attention: Paul King, Project File No. 605511
Date: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:59:09 PM
Fyi
From: Phoenix Boulay [m
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:39 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: vineet.gupta@cityofbost
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway 25% Design Public hearing
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:24:21 PM
Attachments: Letter to Thomas Broderick.3.8.2013.pdf
From: Nina Brown [mailto:nbrown@brownrowe.com]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 6:05 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Arborway 25% Design Public hearing
Dear Chief Engineer Broderick,
I have attached a letter for inclusion in the official hearing transcript.
Best regards,
Nina Brown
President
Arboretum Park Conservancy
www.arboretumparkconservancy.org
nbrown@brownrowe.com
Brown, Richardson, & Rowe, Inc.
Landscape Architects and Planners
3 Post Office Square , 3rd Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02109 USA
t. 617.542.8552 f. 617.542.8517
www.brownrowe.com
This e -mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to which
they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e -mail to the
intended
recipient, be advised that you have received this e -mail in error and that any use , dissemination, forwarding, printing
or copying this
e-mail is strictly prohibited.
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY DIVISION
ACCELERATED BRIDGE PROGRAM PROJECT Boston, MA
Casey Arborway Project
Project File No. 605511
This sheet is provided for your comments. Your input is solicited and appreciated. Please return your sheet,
with comments, to a staff member at the meeting, or mail to:
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer
MassDOT – Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116-3973
Attn: Accelerated Bridge Program
The final date for receipt of written statements and exhibits for inclusion into the official hearing transcript
will be ten (10) days after the Public Hearing.
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY.
I support the design shown in the Casey Overpass 25% Submission for the following reasons:
1. Because the right-of-way here is so wide, both existing and future traffic can be managed at
grade without a bridge. This large space is a wonderful opportunity to re - establish the historic
parkway designed by Frederick Law Olmsted in a way that satisfies future traffic demands. It expands
and enhances a significant section of the Emerald Necklace park system. The reclaimed space that is
freed up by removing the bridge will be used for bike paths, pedestrian walkways and parks. The
Forest Hills neighborhood will be enhanced with twice as many new shade trees, expanded green
spaces, plus extensive pedestrian and bicycle improvements such as two separate off road
pedestrian and bike paths in each direction. In addition, important safety improvements will be made
by converting Shea Circle to Shea Square and the Forest Hills T Station.
2. The conversion of Shea Circle to Shea Square will be a great improvements In the nineteenth
and early twentieth, the Shea Circle rotary did not exist. The Arborway in its original layout connected
the Arboretum directly to Franklin Park. This historic parkway is classified as a Connecting Parkway
in DCR’s Historic Parkway Preservation Treatment Guidelines in Chapter 1, page 6. It is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places as of 1971. The Arborway’s period of significance was between
1879-1921.
The definition of a connecting parkway in DCR’s Historic Parkway Preservation Treatment
Guidelines in Chapter 1, page 6 states:
“Connecting Parkways
Connecting Parkways link communities to public parks and reservations, and link parks and
reservations to each other. Traveling through varied settings of dense urban neighborhoods
and nearby suburban areas, these parkways are the most physically complex in the system.”
The existing Shea Circle Rotary was built in the mid twentieth century after the period of significance
and presents hazards for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. The 25% Shea Square design adds
parkland to Franklin Park and dramatically improves connections between Franklin Park and the
Arboretum for pedestrians and bicyclists and satisfies the original intent of the Arborway as a
Connecting Parkway. The 25% design satisfies the transportation objectives of the Olmsted plan.
Please see the enlargement of the Olmsted Plan on the following page for clarification.
3. The vehicles will move at about the same efficiency at street level as they do now with the implementation
of the 25% design submission. The Forest Hills neighborhood, and park visitors (to the Arboretum, Southwest
Corridor and Franklin Park), will get great benefit with an at-grade alternative constructed in less time and with
less disruption than a bridge.
4. The proposed tree–lined parkway, unlike the underside of an overpass, will re-connect the Emerald
Necklace parks, create a "sense of place" without the shadow and bulk of a bridge and help the revitalization of
the Forest Hills neighborhood. The reclaimed green space will accommodate public spaces, bike paths,
pedestrian walkways, parks, intersections safe for pedestrians with short crosswalks and good access between
the Southwest Corridor Park and Forest Hills Station.
Cornelia W. (Nina)
Brown
3 Post Office
Square, Boston, MA
02109 President, Arboretum Park Conservancy
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway 25% Design
Date: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:13:29 PM
FYI
From: Liam Sullivan [
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:57 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: matthew.omalley@cityofb
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway at-grade plan
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:08:56 PM
>Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:20 PM
.
>From: Marjorie Greville [
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: Casey Arborway at-grade plan
>
>I would like to support the proposed redesign to take down the Casey Overpass
>and replace with at-grade roadway that reconnects the neighborhood with the
>Arborway and Franklin Park. I think this was the original design - and supports a
>future with the community benefitting from access to the Boston Parks
>Emerald Necklace system.
>Marjorie Greville
>61 Mt Vernon St.
>Boston
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway design feedback
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:54:00 AM
From: Lee Toma @ BikeMilton [
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:27 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Arborway design feedback
Mr.ThomasBroderick,P.E.
MassDOT-HighwayDivision
DearMr.Broderick,
AsabicyclistandchairmanoftheMiltonBicycleAdvisoryCommittee,IbikeanddrivethroughtheForestHillsareaoccasionally,a
ndmanyofmyneighborstraveltheroutemorefrequently.
AtthepublicmeetingonFebruary27th,Ispentmostofthetimereviewingthedetaildrawingsfortheproject,andI'dliketothankyoua
ndyourteamforyoureffortstoaccommodateallmodesoftransportationinthearea.Yourdesignisfarmorepeople­
friendlythantheonethatexiststoday.
Afterreviewingthedrawings,Ihaveafewsuggestionsorrequests.Pleaseseetheattachedimagesforclarification.
AttheintersectionofHydeParkAvenueandthebusterminalentrance,immediatelysouthoftheCaseyArborway,Isuggestadding
bikedetectorsinbothnorthboundlanes,aswellasabikebox.Yourproposeddesignsuggeststhatcyclistsshouldremainintherightl
ane,butifcyclistsneedtogettothelefttomaketheupcomingleftturnontotheSoutheastCorridorBikeway,therewillalreadybecars
intheleftlaneblockingaccess.Also,pleaseaddlanemarkerssobicyclistsinthebikeboxesdonotstrayintoopposingtrafficlanes.
AttheintersectionofWashingtonStreetandUkraineWay,cyclistsaresupposedtousethesharedpathastheyheadsouthbound.Ho
wever,
thoseofusheadedfromJPtoHydeParkwillwanttoavoidthepedestriantrafficontheshared­
usepathandwillbeinthelefttravellane,
whichdoesn'thaveabicycledetectorascurrentlydesigned.Woulditbepossibletoaddabicycledetectorintheleftlane?Bothlanes?
AttheintersectionofMortonStreet,CaseyArborwayandCircuitDrive,cycliststravelingeastboundonthesouthernsideoftheArb
orway,
thenturningleftontoCircuitDrive,willhavetobacktrackashortdistanceontoMortonStreettotriggerthebicycledetector,andther
ewilloftenbecarsinthatlocationaccordingtotheexistingdesign.Pleaseconsideraddingabikeboxatthesouthsideoftheintersecti
on,oraddbicycledetectorsfurtherforwardintheintersection.
Andlastly,ageneralpoint.ThroughouttheSouthwestCorridorarea,pedestriansandbicyclistsoftenusethewrongpaths,whichput
speopleatsomeriskofcollisions.Iseethatyourplansincludesignagetodiscouragethisissue,butiftheremightbeotherdesignelem
entsthatencouragepedestriansandcycliststousethecorrectpaths,Ibelievethiswouldhelpimprovetrafficflowandsafety.
Iamsomewhatconcernedthatthebridge­
lessdesignwillincreasesurfacetraffic,whichmayincreaserisklevelsforbicyclistsandpedestrians,
butIunderstandthatdecisionhasalreadybeenmade.I'mhopefulthattheimprovedtrafficflowpathsandCompleteStreetsdesignel
ementswillcounteracttheaddedtraffic.
Thankyouverymuchforyourtimeandconsideration,andforyoureffortstoaccommodatealltransportationmodesinthearea.
Bestregards,
LeeTomaChairman,TheMiltonBicycleAdvisoryCommittee
Cc:
NicoleFreedman,BostonBikesPeteStidman,BostonCyclistsUnion
From: "Lee Toma @ BikeMilton" <lee.toma@bikemilton.org>
Subject: Casey Arborway design feedbackDate: March 14, 2013 4:23 PM 3/14/13To:
dot.feedback.highway@dot.state.ma.us (TYPO)
Cc: Nicole Freedman <nicole.freedman.bra@cityofboston.gov>, Pete Stidman<pete@bostoncyclistsunion.org>
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway design is flawed
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:04:42 AM
>From: Hank [
.
>Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:11 PM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: Casey Arborway design is flawed
>
>Please reconsider the bridge alternative as the design process is flawed!
>I am a bicyclist and bike lanes were removed! I ride the 39 bus and the berth is
>gone. Adding six stoplights will
>most likely add to congestion and air pollution. I drive a car and often use the
>bridge despite its poor condition as it is more efficient than the surface roads.
>
>Please revisit the bridge option at Forest Hills,
>
>Thank you , >
>Haskell Werlin
>
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: casey arborway overpass
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:46:57 AM
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:59 PM
From: Patricia Maher [
To: DOT FeedbackSubject: casey arborway overpass
Dear Mr Broderick,
I support the at-grade option that has been chosen, and the process you have used to get there. It'sthe right choice for
the neighborhood, the future of this vibrant city, and the parks.
I look forward to moving past the discussion of "if" and moving into putting all the energy into how tomake that option
the best it can be."
Looking forward to a greener and healthier community!
Patricia Maher
-
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway Project File No. 605511 Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:15:24 PM
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 9:14 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Arborway Project File No. 605511
Bridge Program -Casey Arborway Project
Project File No. 605511
I am not in favor of the MassDot road surface design for Forest Hills, as it does not contain a new
bridge / overpass.
The current bridge transports commuters and residents in the most efficient manner.....24/7.
One need only live in close proximity to the bridge as I do, to know of the value of it. I am a direct
abutter.
The volume of traffic on a six-lane highway, with the upkeep, air and noise pollution, danger
to pedestrians and the huge added congestion to Forest Hills -I am not in agreement with
this solution whatsoever.
Emergency vehicles e.g. fire, police, ambulance, should not be sitting in traffic passing from one
side of the Arborway out to Dorchester and beyond. Likewise, buses, cabs, commuters and local
drivers do not deserve that either. How is any of this safer for residents and commuters than a
bridge / overpass?
The Shea Circle Rotary should be improved, not destroyed (historic green space) and not replaced
with an intersection & stop lights. How is this preserving the Olmstead vision ?
We need a new bridge and should be shown plans to evaluate. So far, only the surface plans have
been
highlighted and considered.
A new bridge, not thousands of cars passing through Forest Hills in what is already an over -traveled
area is what we need in Jamaica Plain.
Stephanie J. Hammonds
7 Bremen Terrace off Orchard Hill Road
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
Resident at this address since 1977
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway Project -SHEA SQUARE, Project #605511
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:14:57 PM
From: SARAH FREEMAN [mailto:freemansherwood@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:57 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: RE: Casey Arborway Project -SHEA SQUARE, Project #605511
Dear Mr. Broderick,
In the comment below, information (in italics) is added to a comment submitted yesterday.
Thank you,
Sarah
From: dot.feedback.highway@state.ma.us
To: freemansherwood@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:58:58 -0500 Subject: RE: Casey Arborway Project -SHEA SQUARE
Thank you for your email. It has been forwarded to the project manager for his records.
Best regards,
MassDOT, Highway Division
From: freemansherwood@hotmail.com [mailto:freemansherwood@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 6:58 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Arborway Project -SHEA SQUARE
Dear Mr. Broderick,
In previous comments on the Casey Arborway Project 25% design, our primary
focus has been to support of the ongoing development of the at-grade street
network/parkway, along with a few questions and concerns. Another element of the
project is the creation of Shea Square to replace Shea Circle. We support this
change for a number of reasons:
* Public safety for all users
The rotary is a high-accident area for motorists; for pedestrians and bicyclists,
there is never a safe time to cross because motor vehicle traffic is moving at all
times. If motor traffic comes to a complete stop, pedestrians and bicyclists, the
more vulnerable road users, have a safe opportunity to cross.
* Reduction in total pavement
There is excess pavement in the rotary. If/when it becomes a square, the
pavement and green space can be more organized and consolidated.
* Improved entry to Franklin Park as a result of additional green space in
accessible locations
The historic entry to Franklin Park via the linear Emerald Necklace park system has
been altered in many ways. But Franklin Park is the cornerstone of the Emerald
Necklace - the largest park in the system. The entry to the park from the direction
of Arnold Arboretum, Jamaica Pond and beyond is very significant. Let's make it
the best that it can be. It is part of the Olmsted Park System, and as such, it
is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
* Consistent with recommendations in the Arborway Master Plan (Rizzo 2004,
with Pressley Associates Inc. & Alta Planning + Design)
During the Arborway Master Plan (Rizzo 2004), the Preferred
Alternative recommended changing Shea Circle to a signalized intersection
because "it offers the following advantages over the existing rotary and over the
modern roundabout.
* The signalized intersection creates a more recognizable gateway for Franklin
Park, and is more like the original Olmsted design for this location than the current
rotary or the modern roundabout option.
* The signalized intersection provides better pedestrian and bicycle access because
the crossings are signal-protected. This is especially important because this is a
major connection between public transportation at Forest Hills and the Franklin
Park, as well as the Shattuck Hospital."
Regarding the historic Landscape:
" Rebuilding Shea Circlre as a signalized intersection eliminates a significant
amount of pavement and replaces it with green space. Some of this green space is
lost Olmsted landscape, while other space was not park space in the original
Olmsted design. In particular, the preferred Alternative restores a large amount of
Olmsted green space on either side of the Circuit Drive entry to Franklin Park. The
enhanced green space enables planting new avenue trees along the edges of the
roadways, in keeping with the historic character."
We regret the loss of mature trees, but trees are a renewable resource, and public
safety is a priority.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment,
Sarah Freeman
Arborway Coalition Representative on the Casey WAG 7 DAG
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Droid
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway Project -SHEA SQUARE
Date: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:58:39 PM
From: freemansherwood@hotmail.com [mailto:freemansherwood@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 6:58 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Case
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: CASEY ARBORWAY PROJECT # 60511
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:47:47 AM
From: mark Tedrow
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:55 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Cc: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Subject: CASEY ARBORWAY PROJECT # 60511
TO: Thomas f. Broderick PE Chief Engineer March 12, 2013
MassDOT Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116-3973
ATTEN: CASEY ARBORWAY PROJECT # 60511
Dear Mr. Broderick,
Isupport the plan for a new surface street layout. The surface plan will simplify
connections and help reconnect the Arboretum, Forest Hills and Franklin Park. For the first
time in over 115 years, there will not be a bridge obstructing views between Forest Hills and
the Arnold Arboretum. Finally, the project can be landscaped in ways to restore its role as a
connecting segment of the Emerald Necklace!
Traffic modeling has shown that the surface streets can handle the traffic.
As evidenced by recent automobile and cyclist counts traffic volumes have been declining
while transit, cycling, and walking have increased. The proposed design, based on projected
2035 traffic volumes, is the wrong thing to do. It would create intersections that are grossly
out of scale with the surrounding roadways. I urge you to consider building the project to
projected 2016 traffic volumes as shown in plans that were presented to the Design
Advisory Group (DAG) in June.
The proposed cycle tracks, multi-use paths, and sidewalks will help to make cycling and
walking safer and encourage more people from 8 to 80 to both ride and walk. The DCR and
MBTA will need to increase snow removal to ensure safe cycling and walking throughout
the winter months and MBTA bus drivers will need more and improved training to drive
safely with cyclists. Sidewalks or multi-use paths need to occur on both sides of every
roadway within the project limits – notably the Arborway northbound and Morton St.
The re-designed intersections will make the area roadways and destinations far less
confusing than they are today and will minimizing traffic delays. The new crosswalks will
accommodate more people while making crossings safer. The project designers need to
keep the roadways as narrow as possible, to help reduce traffic speeds, and keep the
crossings as short as possible to make crossing safer.
Changing Shea Circle into a standard intersection (aka Shea Square) is crucial for safe
pedestrian and cyclist connections from Franklin Park to Forest Hills . It will also
significantly improve safety for motorists over the present situation.
The proposed headhouse in the Southwest Corridor Park will benefit subway users by not
having to cross the Arborway to get to the Orange Line platform.
The proposed expanded upper busway will help to expand transit use by increasing capacity,
simplifying transit connections and MBTA operations and improving traffic flow on the
Casey Arborway
Sincerely,
Mark Tedrow
Mark Tedrow
169 Sycamore ST
Roslindale, MA 02131
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway Project Feedback
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:20:42 PM
From: Bob Dizon [
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:26 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Arborway Project Feedback
Att: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer MassDOT, Att'n: Paul King
Project File No. 605511
Dear Mr. Broderick,
Just writing to voice my strong support for the current at-grade design for
the Casey Arborway Project including the Shea Square option at this 25%
design stage. I didn't think I'd have to proclaim support specifically for the
at-grade option at this point, since like many others I'm under the
impression that it's been decided, but I'll go ahead and reiterate that
support.
There continues to be some vocal disbelief in the at-grade option, but
that doesn't mean it isn't the right choice. We don't hire people with the
requirement that their designs always satisfy our intuition. We hire skilled
people to design optimal solutions based on a careful consideration of our
values and priorities. As a former member of the working advisory group
to this project, I believe that's what this process has been about.
Of course, having traffic operate as predicted is vital in making the whole
solution work well. So I'm trusting that your team remains sufficiently
confident in the proposal to move forward. I'm sure the community is
unanimous on their desire for a design that handles movements of all
modes as advertised.
I would stress that the design team continue to emphasize the pedestrian
and bike experience in the design. Crosswalks easily seen by drivers,
responsive pushbuttons at crosswalks, and countdowns at those
crosswalks provide a degree of predictability that will encourage
compliance with those signals. I also do believe that the reduced cycle
times made possible by the removal of left turns in those two key
intersections will play a huge role in improving the pedestrian crossing
experience.
Thank you,
Roberto Dizon
62 Seaverns Ave.
Jamaica Plain
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway Project File No. 605511
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:01:19 PM
From: Leah Becker [
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 8:41 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Arborway Project File No. 605511
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Highway Division
Boston, MA
Casey Arborway Project
Project File No. 605511
To: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E. Chief Engineer
MassDOT - Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116-3973
Attn: Accelerated Bridge Program
I am a JP resident for 18 years and I support rebuilding a new sleek,
state-of-the-art bridge with a single lane in each direction and sidewalks
for scenic viewing to replace Casey Overpass because:
1. 203 traffic will easily bypass Jamaica Plain on a bridge and not add to
local traffic congestion.
2. A bridge means less pavement, keeping with Olmstead’s original intent.
3. Fewer cars on surface makes area safer for pedestrians and cyclists.
4. Route 203 from the north is already a hill so a bridge is a natural
extension of the hill.
5. Currently route 203 provides easy access with good traffic flow to
American Legion Hwy and other commuter routes out of the city. Putting
3 new intersections on 203 would seriously impede that commuter flow of
traffic and cause traffic snarls instead.
6. Motorists trying to get through 3 intersections of traffic signals would be
very likely to increase their speed creating a much more dangerous
environment for everyone.
7. A 6 lane highway with big intersections is NOT esthetically pleasing
and is NOT a good design next to Arnold Arboretum and the village
atmosphere of Jamaica Plain.
Name: Leah Becker Title: Ms.
Address: 267 Chestnut Ave, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
From: DOT FeedbackTo: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway project-good progress!
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:46:22 AM
From: roselyn frank [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:28 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Cc: hborcherding@walkboston.org
Subject: Casey Arborway project- good progress!
Mr. Broderick,
I am very supportive of the progress taking place on this project. It is good to see that thevision is moving towards
reality. The at-grade option is the right choice that will benefit all!
Sincerely,
Roselyn Frank
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway Project No. 605511 Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:38:37 PM
From: Linda Kowalcky
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:06 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
liz.malia@mahouse.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Casey Arborway Project No. 605511 March 12, 2013 Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973 Project No. 605511 Dear Mr. Broderick,
I'm writing to express my strong support for MassDOT's proposed Casey Arborway project.
The decision to replace the overpass with an at-grade roadway will transform the Forest Hills neighborhood for the better. Having lived near the overpass for the past 14 years, I am
delighted to see the blight that is the Casey Overpass replaced by an urban roadway.
MassDOT has made good progress with the 25% design, but the neighborhood is still
waiting for an opportunity for input on the new green space. Likewise, the concerns over
snow removal of the bike lanes are very important. The increased capacity of alternative
transit options such as bicycles was a critical element of MassDOT's argument that the at-
grade system would work well. Finally, I encourage you to adopt the "opening year" design
variation to minimize the number of traffic lanes. There's no need for 6 lanes for many
years and the shorter crossings are important to many residents.
The Casey Arborway project will benefit the city and the Commonwealth.
Experience elsewhere shows that an at-grade system will work well for traffic and, unlike a
new bridge, support opportunities for new housing and businesses adjacent to a major transit hub. I hope that MassDOT will continue its steady progress so that the project can begin on
schedule.
Regards,
Linda Kowalcky
71 Weld Hill Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway project
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:47:00 AM
From: Fred Langa [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:30 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Casey Arborway project
Dear Mr Broderick,
I want to reiterate my support for the at-grade option that has been chosen, and the process
you have used to get there. It's the right choice for the neighborhood, the future of this
vibrant city, the parks and for transportation options.
I look forward to moving past the discussion of "if" and move into putting all the energy
into how to make that option the best it can be.
Fred Langa
From: Broderick, Thomas (DOT)
To: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway Project, Project File No. 605511
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:36:17 PM
Attachments: MassBike Casey comments 031313.pdf
Here is another one for you.
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Chief Engineer
MassDOT – Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Suite 6340
Boston, MA 02116
Tel. #857-368-8999
thomas.f.broderick@state.ma.us
From: David Watson [m
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:35 PM
To: Broderick, Thomas (DOT)
Subject: Casey Arborway Project, Project File No. 605511
I have attached MassBike's comments in support of the Casey Arborway project. A copy is
also in the mail.
David Watson
Executive Director
MassBike
171 Milk Street, Suite 33
Boston, MA 02109
The Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition promotes a bicycle-friendly environment, and
encourages bicycling for fun, fitness, and transportation.
Visit us at MassBike.org. Not a member? Click here to join.
ThomasF. Broderick, P.E.,ChiefEngineer
CaseyArborway Project, ProjectFile No. 605511 March 13,2Ot3 Compact,theGreenDOT theMassDOT
policy, ProjectDevelopmentand Design Guide,theBoston CompleteStreets and the first-in-the-nation Mode Shift Goals to triple the share
Guidelines, statewide
of bicycling, andtransit.
walking,
Havingparticipatedinpublic processes throughout Ican
formanyprojects theCommonwealth,
say that thepublicengagement undertaken and most
process for this projectisthe most extensive
inclusiveI have The WAG comprised of more than three dozen groups,
seen. representatives
representing TheWAGmet numerous times, and all meetings wereopen to
awiderangeof interests.
thepublic.Regularpublicinformationmeetingswere held to update the public,and to give people the
opportunityto askquestionsandmakecomments.Both the WAGand the publicwerefullparticipants
intheprocessthat led to the selectionoftheat-gradedesign.While I didnotpersonallyparticipatein
Advisory myunderstandingthe follow-on Design Group(DAG), isthatit has continued muchthe same as
the WAG, witha similar composition working
and collaborative environment.
I urge youto allow this projectto proceedto the nextstageof design asquicklyaspossible.
Thankyouforthe opportunity to comment onthisimportantproject.
Verytrulyyours,
,ibre//,(^fu
David Watson
ExecutiveDirector
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway project
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:47:28 AM
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:24 AM
On Behalf Of Nina Garfinkle
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Casey Arborway project
Dear Mr Broderick,
I want to reiterate my support for the at-grade option that has been chosen, and the process
you have used to get there. It's the right choice for the neighborhood, the future of this
vibrant city, the parks and for transportation options.
I look forward to moving past the discussion of "if" and move into putting all the energy
into how to make that option the best it can be.
Thank you,
-Nina
Nina Garfinkle | Garfinkle Design |
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway, File No. 605511
Date: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:13:16 AM
From: freemansherwood@hotmail.com [mailto:freemansherwood@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 12:18 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Fw: Ca
-From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway, Project File No. 605511
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:22:10 PM
Attachments: Casey Letter 25% response.pdf
From: Mary Hickie [m
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:17 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: liz.malia@mahouse.gov; robert.torres@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
olufunmike.ibrahim@mahouse.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; nika.elugardo@masenate.gov;
Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; jullieanne.doherty@cityofboston.gov;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; ture.turnbull@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
john.r.connolly@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
stephen.murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Casey Arborway, Project File No. 605511
Please find attached our comments on the above project.
Thank you.
Mary Hickie, RA, LEED AP
Project Manager
Emerald Necklace Conservancy
125 The Fenway
Boston, MA 02115
Celebrating 15 Years of Connecting People
and Parks and Conserving the Emerald Necklace
Julie Crockford
President
Board of Directors
Angela Menino
Honorary Director
Benjamin Taylor
Chair
Kathryn Cochrane Murphy
Vice Chair and Clerk
Otile McManus
Vice Chair
Leo Swift
Treasurer
Lee Albright
Peter Barber
Anne Connolly
John R. Cook, Jr.
Lynn A. Dale
Michael Dukakis
Sarah Freeman
Carol Gladstone
Roger Harris
Janice Henderson
Chair, Park Overseers
James Hunnewell, Jr., AIA
Matthew Kiefer
Beth Krudys
Monroe “Bud” Moseley
Jane Roy
Greg Selkoe
Wendy Shattuck
Linda Edmonds Turner
Elizabeth Vizza
Marjorie Bakken
Emeritus
Park Overseers
Arborway Coalition
Arnold Arboretum
Boston Committee of the
Garden Clubs of America
Boston Nature Center
of Mass Audubon
Boston Society of
Landscape Architects
Emerald Necklace
Greenway Project
The Fenway Alliance
Fenway Civic Association
Fenway CDC
Forest Hills Educ. Trust
Franklin Park Coalition
Franklin Park Zoo/
Zoo New England
Friends of Jamaica Pond
Friends of Leverett Pond
Friends of the Muddy River
Friends of Pinebank
Garden Club Federation
of Massachusetts
Isabella Stewart Gardner
Museum
Jamaica Hills Association
Jamaica Pond Association
MASCO
Museum of Fine Arts Boston
March 13, 2013
Mr. Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Suite 3170
Boston, Mass. 02116
Attn: Paul King
To: dot.feedback.highway@state.ma.us
Re: Casey Arborway, Project File No.605511
Dear Mr. Broderick
On behalf of the Emerald Necklace Conservancy, I am writing to submit our
comments on the 25% Casey Arborway Design following the Public Meeting on
February 27th.
The Emerald Necklace Conservancy is strongly in favor of the at-grade solution
approved by Secretary Davey last year. Having been informed by our
participation in both the WAG and DAG meetings to date, we believe the
process for Casey has been challenging but fair and we remain convinced that
this is the appropriate solution for a very complex project.
We also want to express our agreement with the decision to replace Shea Circle
with a traditional, 4-way intersection as a component of the project. We know
that a rotary was not part of Olmsted’s original design and believe that rotaries
do not allow for safe or easy passage for modes of transportation other than
automobiles; we consider a regulated, 4-way intersection a great improvement
over the circle. While we sympathize with those who mourn the loss of several
mature trees we anticipate the addition of many more new trees throughout the
project, including at the additional green space that will be opened up by the
new intersection.
We look forward to our ongoing participation as the at-grade design is refined
and will continue to advocate for increased access for all throughout the project
area.
Sincerely,
Julie Crockford,
President
Cc:, liz.malia@mahouse.gov, robert.torres@mahouse.gov,
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov, olufunmike.ibrahim@mahouse.gov,
russell.holmes@mahouse.gov, nika.elugardo@masenate.gov, .
diaz@masenate.gov, jullieanne.doherty@cityofboston.gov,
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov, ture.turnbull@cityofboston.gov,
felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov, john.r.connolly@cityofboston.gov,
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov, stephen.murphy@cityofboston.gov
125 The Fenway | Boston, Massachusetts 02115 | Tel: 617-522-2700 | Fax: 617-522-2770
www.emeraldnecklace.org
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Arborway
Date: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:36:12 PM
FYI
From:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:12 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Ar
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Bridge Project No. 605511 Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:07:23 AM
From: Plum Kennard [
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:13 PM
To: DOT Feedback HighwayCc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov;
russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.govSubject: Casey Bridge Project No. 605511
Greetings,
I lived on Wachusett Street, not even one -half mile from Forest Hills Station, for 25 years.
I'm appalled and horrified that the city of Boston is planning on tearing down the CaseyBridge and bringing all that traffic down to street level.
The Forest Hills Station area is not the prettiest section of Boston, but has made great stridessince I first moved there
in 1982.
Routing all the traffic now accommodated by the Casey Bridge through that area will utterlydestroy it.
It will be come a dangerous, filthy, wasteland.
Sincerely,
Plum Kennard
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey bridge
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:04:47 AM
From:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:14 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov
Subject: Casey bridge
Hello, I am writing to give one last push for the bridge and to voice my thoughts about the
plan to build a 6 lane road. When I first thought of this I thought it would be nice to not
have a bridge but then thought about the reality of 6 lanes and that it would in reality be a
nightmare. Too much would be destroyed (Shea Circle ) and the intersection at Washington
and the Arborway just can not handle that much traffic. As it is there is traffic backed up at
the bridge and it would be worse with just a road-worse for cars,pedestrians, bicycles. It
would also cause a lot of pollution as there would be cars idling far too much. Yes, it would be fine if there were open space but that is not what should really happen. All we need is a
bridge that is less intrusive and well built.
I keep wanting to ask why MMassDOT is so against the idea of a bridge and so set on this
plan which the majority of Jamaica Plain clearly does not want.
We live here and know what will work so I am hoping that will be respected.
Thank you for your time,
Kate Kenner
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Comment Thomas Broderick Project File 605511 Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:36:47 PM
Attachments: Bike Union Casey 25 Letter.pdf
From: Pete Stidman [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:40 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Comment Thomas Broderick Project File 605511 March, 12, 2013 Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Acting Chief Engineer,
MassDOT,
10 Park Plaza,
Boston, MA 02116 ATTN: (Paul King, Project File No. 605511)
Dear Mr. Broderick,
The Bike Union’s first letter to you regarding the Casey Arborway project, then known as the
Casey Overpass replacement project was sent in November 2011. Back then and in subsequent
letters, we and hundreds of other Jamaica Plain and area residents were writing to encourage you to decide to rebuild the Casey At-Grade. Neither our position, nor the position of others we
regularly communicate with, has changed. The more people have learned, the more they have
supported the At-Grade solution. And so it seems with people from the other side of the debate.
Indeed, their refusal to accept any traffic study is reminiscent of those who would yet deny that climate change exists.
Yet it has been very disturbing to watch as that small group of “bridge supporters” has proceeded
to scour the surrounding neighborhoods for others who do not live in JP and would rather have a
highway bridge over our neighborhood than delay their rush hour drive for even a moment.
It is instructive to note that a feature that was once agreed upon by a very clear majority of WAG
members—changing Shea Circle to Shea Square—has now become a target of the at-grade
denialists, many of them those same WAG members. They now say they want to preserve the
circle—even when just months ago many of them whole heartily agreed a square would be safer
for pedestrians and cyclists. Our members have reported to us that they are exasperated and dismayed by such behavior, and
that they are tired of being called to meeting after meeting to witness a forced rehash the same
old debate.
It seems clear that continually rehashing the bridge debate has been a serious detriment to
civic engagement on the current design, as many people have been intimidated by bridge
supporters’ confrontational tactics and time -consuming speeches.
Here are some illustrative quotes from one of our members:
“Last time I commented on the Patch (long, log ago) about the Casey project, one
woman took it upon herself to attack me personally… But what makes me not want
to live here is this attitude and presumption that they are in the majority and that the
process has been "unfair". I am sick of it. This is why I don't attend the meetings, it
is too upsetting. All I can do is write letters at this point.” We respect the right of all to speak and for the provision of a time and space for all of their
concerns, but we ask that something be done to also create a space in which the current
design is discussed without interruptions regarding past designs that have been discarded,
so that meaningful civic engagement on this project can continue in a civil manner. Many
people in Jamaica Plain and Roslindale would like to move forward, but we have heard from
scores of people who are not attending the public process due to the bullying and overzealous
language heard therein.
In addition, we would like to reiterate some requests regarding the 25 percent design under
consideration:
Please maintain in the plan Shea Square (not Shea Circle) for increased bicycle
safety. (Roundabouts above two lanes of car traffic have proven without fail to be moredangerous to bikes than
traditional intersections.)
Please add to the DCR’s snow removal capacity with the addition of a tracked snow
plow to its vehicle fleet. Tracked snow plows work faster, and can increase efficiency without extra hires. If this is not
possible we demand the return of bike lanes to the
Arborway for winter bike traffic which is quite heavy in Jamaica Plain.
Please consider adding public bike maintenance station and historic plaque or public artpiece highlighting the history
of bicycling in Boston—in particular pedal inventor PierreLallement who resided in nearby Fort Hill in his later years.
Please create increased visibility between bikes and cars on NB Washington St. and theadjacent cycletrack on the
approach to the Arborway from the south by removing anykiss & ride or taxi stand at that location.
Please add a cycletrack or shared use path alongside the Arborway past South Street toward
Murray Circle on the north side of the street.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Pete Stidman
Executive Director
Boston Cyclists Union
__o
_ `\ <, _
....................... ( • ) / ( • )
Join the Bike Union Thurs., April 25 for
our Spring Kickoff fundraiser.
Free food, free beer, we will tell you something awesome in 15 minutes and
then get you on the dance floor.
6:30 to 9:30pm
Villa Victoria Center for the Arts
85 W. Newton St .
South End, Boston , 02118
Tickets: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/5714040850
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/610591072300661/
Pete Stidman
Executive Director
Boston Cyclists Union
PO Box 301394
Sign up for the Union Rider Newsletter!!!
or check out our website at bostoncyclistsunion.org!
Jamaica Plain, MA, 02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey design, Project No. 605511 -against at-grade plan
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:28:27 PM
.
>From: Conrad Pilson
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:31 AM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov;
>russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
>liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
>thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov;
>David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
>Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
>matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
>Subject: Casey design, Project No. 605511 - against at-grade plan
>
>March 13, 2013
>
>Mr. Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
>MassDOT, Highway Division
>10 Park Plaza
>Boston, MA 02116-3973
>
>also cc'd: Deval Patrick, Governor
>
>RE: Project No. 605511 - Casey design
>
>Mr. Broderick,
>
>As a resident of Forest Hills, Jamaica Plain, I write to announce my
>displeasure at the way the state has conducted the WAG and DAG phases
>of this project. Further, I am against the at-grade plan and would
>like the bridge to be replaced. To me it appears that many
>improvements could be made to the area without completely rerouting
>the area, taking away the 39 bus bay, and inserting many lanes of
>traffic. Some of the bike lanes were removed from the plan.
>
>Please answer the question: how can pedestrians safely cross even
>more lanes of traffic ?
>
>How can the elderly and disabled walk further to get to and from the
>trains from the 39 bus?
>
>How come an air quality study was decided against? How can it be
>determined it is not necessary if a study is not even done?
>
>Adding lights will mire traffic for all modes of transport.
>
>Please stop this terrible at-grade business and avoid setting back the
>area for years to come.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Conrad Pilson
>73 Weld HIll Street
>Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
>
>
>
>
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey design, Project No. 605511 -at-grade plan extremely misguided
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:29:01 PM
.
m>From: Kate Pilson [
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:20 AM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov;
>russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
>liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
>thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov;
>David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
>Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
>matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
>Subject: Casey design, Project No. 605511 - at-grade plan extremely misguided
>
>March 13, 2013
>
> Mr. Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
> MassDOT, Highway Division
> 10 Park Plaza
> Boston, MA 02116-3973
>
>also cc'd: Deval Patrick, Governor
>
>RE: Project No. 605511 - Casey design
>
>Mr. Broderick,
>
>As a resident of Forest Hills, Jamaica Plain, for 19 years, and
>someone who enjoys walking, biking, using public buses and trains, and
>driving, I once again must comment on the terrible design foisted upon
>the people of the Commonwealth and more specifically, the
>neighborhoods of Jamaica Plain, Roslindale, Mattapan, Roxbury, Hyde
>Park, West Roxbury, Dorchester, Quincy, Brookline and beyond. To
>replace the overpass bridge by inserting 6 lanes of traffic will do
>little to enhance the connection of the Arboretum to Southwest
>Corridor Park and Franklin Park. Adding a little 1.5 acre of park is
>not an adequate tradeoff to looking at mired traffic resulting from
>this terrible plan. In addition, a certain proportion of the 34,000
>displaced motorists who would ordinarily use the bridge on a daily
>basis will snake through other neighborhoods of Jamaica Plain and
>surrounding communities, making for horrendous bottlenecks elsewhere.
>
>In another ridiculous (I'm sorry, but this does make me quite angry)
>move, the state DOT did not take the opportunity to seek environmental
>impacts of such a change on the area. When the state changed the fuel
>of the many MBTA buses in the neighborhood from diesel to gas, it was
>lauded as an achievement in reduction of asthma-causing pollutants.
>Somehow, putting many thousands of cars at grade on a daily basis,
>cars that will sit in traffic longer, will not increase air pollution?
>
>Mr. Menino (who regrettably, totally sidestepped this important
>project which will impact the lives of thousands who travel through
>the area) even stated that this would result in "another Big Dig."
>
>The state did nothing to engage the business community of Forest Hills
> - I personally walked around to most of them personally during the WAG
>phase, and 90% had no idea the bridge was even coming down. The Globe
>did not cover the story very often. The Jamaica Plain (JP) Gazette
>did, but nonreaders of the JP Gazette (and there are many!) would
>obviously have no idea of the WAG or DAG deliberations. The state did
>apparently engage the assistance of a biking group and several others,
>staffed organizations which could organize and do PR in an effective
>manner, while regular citizens and actual residents of the Forest
>Hills and JP area were caught flatfooted.
>In addition the traffic studies performed were questionable. The
>graphics on the DOT website demonstrating one early design plan were
>laughable (1 walker, 2 cars?) Throughout the WAG process information
>and drawings were changed without notification to the WAG participants
>and public beforehand, sneaking in an extra lane here, taking out a
>bike lane there. To this resident it feels like this neighborhood is
>being shortchanged. One muses whether the process would have been
>conducted differently in the Back Bay or Beacon Hill neighborhoods.
>
>Can the Commonwealth of Massachusetts really weather another public
>relations disaster, while destroying air quality in this neighborhood?
>
>Kate Pilson
>73 Weld HIll Street
>Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 >
>
>
>
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey design, Project No. 605511 Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:25:45 PM
From: Marjorie Charney
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:02 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
liz.malia@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov;
Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Casey design, Project No. 605511 ThomasF.Broderick,P.E.
ChiefEngineer
MassDOT,HighwayDivision
10ParkPlaza
Boston,MA02116-3973
Mr.Broderick,
Iwritetoexpressmydismayovertheproposedat-gradesolutiontotheCaseyOverpass.This at­
gradesolutionisbeingfoisteduponresidentsoftheareaasifitwereasweepingreferendum
butwedon’twantit.Thetrueimpactofbringing25,000carsmoreadaythoughanalreadycongestedandthoroughlytraffic­
beleagueredJPCommunitywillbedevastating.
Herearethethingsthatshouldbeconsidered:
Bringing25,000morecarsadaydownontothesurfacetositineast­
westtrafficwoulddefinitelyhavetocreateatonmoreairpollutionthanabridgealternative.
A.Thealreadyexistingnorth­
southtrafficonWashington/South/CentreStreetsandHydeParkAve/WashingtonStreetswillsitlongerintheirtrafficqueues.,ad
dingtopollution.
B.Noiseandairpollutioniscertaintoincreasebeyondtoleranceintheresidential(Asticou)
andpublicparkareasonthenorthsideoftheForestHillsTStationthanksto:
1.Therepositioningoftheadditionalbusroutetotheupperlevel.
2.Theexpansionoftheupperlevelbusdepot,and
3.TherepositioningofthebusexittoaspotfurtherdownonSouthStreet.
C.A6­
7laneroadwaywithnonormalleftturnsisnotacceptable.Itcreatesanunnecessaryvehiclesafetyhazardandanairpollutionhazard.
D.Suchahugetrafficencroachmentwillbeevenmoredangerousforbicyclistsandpedestrians.
E.Roadrageissuretoincrease,addingtomoreviolence.
I ride my bicycle, drive my car or my motorcycle, or walk through the current area every day on my
way to work and always find the worst possible congestion at peak travel times. I cannot for the life
of me see how adding the current peak east west traffic flow to the fray is going to make things
better! If anything, we will all be sitting in bigger traffic jams. Just yesterday morning it took me 25 minutes to get from 69 Bourne Street to the Forest Hills T station at 8:15 AM. Today I will be riding
my bicycle through already dangerous streets that will only be more congested with impatient car
drivers trying to fill every square inch of roadway. Why add to this chaos and make it an even
longer commute ? Please, give us our day in court! Please put this back on the drawing board!
Please don’t do this for the political and monetary reasons at the expense of turning our historic wonderful place to live into a dangerous gridlock!
Thank you for your consideration.
Marjorie Charney
69 Bourne Street
Jamaica Plain , MA 02130 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey needs an at-grade solution!
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:22:27 PM
From: Monica Briggs [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:06 PM
To: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov;
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; DOT Feedback Highway; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.govCc: Sara FreemanSubject: Casey needs an at-
grade solution!
To Whom it May Concern,
I support an at grade solution to the decaying Casey bridge for many reasons. I have been anavid biker in the city for
over 25 years and have never owned a car.
I support non-car centric solutions (bridges) to transportation in this city, with the hope thatpeople will choose other
forms of transport.
I lived in the North End in Boston for 16 years and saw how the Big Dig improved life inthe North End by removing
the blight of that ugly overpass that cut the city in two.
This is a teriffic opportunity to emphasize the connections to the park and improve access tothe MBTA, which people
need to use more in their intercity travels.
Changes:
Please replace the much needed bike lanes were promised to help avoid pedestrian conflicts.
Why were they removed?
Please replace the Rte. 39 bus berth.
I look forward to the amended design, and to being rid of the ugly bridge.
Monica
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass - 25% Design Period
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:23:41 PM
Attachments: MAPC_Casey Overpass.PDF
From: Bourassa, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:21 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Fichter, Katherine (DOT); Kurpiel, Sarah
Subject: Casey Overpass - 25% Design Period
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Chief Engineer, MassDOT
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
RE: Project No. 605511
Dear Mr. Broderick,
During this 25 percent design comment period, MAPC would like to reiterate its strong
support for the Casey Arborway project. The proposed project will provide a more efficient
transportation system, and create a vibrant new space that encourages more people to
leave their cars at home and travel by MBTA, bicycle, and on foot. The project is consistent
with MassDOT’s GreenDOT policy directive, as well as MAPC’s regional plan, MetroFuture,
and we look forward to the project advancing to future design stages.
I have attached MAPC’s MEPA comment letter for your reference, which details our broad
support for the project.
Thank you,
Eric Bourassa
Director of Transportation Division
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
60 Temple Place
Boston, MA 02111
January 8, 2013
Richard K. Sullivan, Jr., Secretary
Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs
Attention: MEPA Office
Holly Johnson, MEPA #14978
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
RE: Casey Overpass Project State Route 203 Corridor Reconstruction, MEPA#14978
Dear Secretary Sullivan:
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) regularly reviews proposals deemed to have regional impacts. The
Council
reviews proposed projects for consistency with MetroFuture, the regional policy plan for the Boston metropolitan area,
the
Commonwealth’s Sustainable Development Principles, the GreenDOT initiative, as well as impacts on the
environment.
The Casey Overpass is the elevated section of State Route 203 (the Arborway) that traverses over Washington and
South
Streets in the Jamaica Plain area of Boston. The area around the overpass serves many neighborhoods and traveling
constituencies, including walkers, bicyclists, MBTA riders, and motorists. Adjacent to the MBTA Forest Hills Station
and the
West Roxbury District Court House, the overpass is an important connection to Boston institutions that include
Franklin Park,
Forest Hills Cemetery, Shattuck Hospital, and the Arnold Arboretum.
Constructed in 1951, the Casey Overpass is structurally deficient due to deterioration and design flaws. Originally
designed to
carry three lanes of traffic in each direction, the overpass is currently functioning with one lane in each direction and
carries
approximately 24,000 vehicles a day. After considerable public input and agency coordination, MassDOT is planning
to
remove the Casey Overpass and replace it with a new, multimodal at-grade landscaped roadway.
The proposed multimodal at-grade design will provide a more efficient transportation system including enhancements
to
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities. Sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and multi-use paths will be designed to
accommodate
pedestrians and bicyclists. An enhanced roadway network and signalization will better accommodate vehicles and
MBTA
buses. This project will both provide new connections and restore previously broken at-grade connections. With the
removal
of the Casey Overpass, the accessibility of the area will significantly improve for all modes of transportation.
By removing the Casey Overpass and replacing it with a more functional multimodal at-grade street network, the
project area
will blend with the adjacent neighborhoods and remove a visual barrier. Citing my recently published letter to the
Boston
Globe, “Massachusetts must embrace a new program for growth in our cities. We must move beyond the highway
overpasses
of the ’50s and create vibrant new spaces that encourage more people to leave their cars at home and travel by MBTA,
bicycle,
and on foot. We will generate more jobs, more homes, and better health if we don’t let fear of change rule the day.”
(Demolishing Old Spans Can Spur New Growth, 8/26/12). In summary, this project both balances and improves local
and
regional mobility needs with opportunities for a more livable urban environment.
Included as an attachment to this letter are MAPC’s comments on the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) which
focus on
roadway vehicular capacity and project monitoring. MAPC recommends these comments be incorporated as MassDOT
advances its 25% design plans to final design.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project.
Sincerely,
Marc D. Draisen
Executive Director
cc: Thomas Tinlin, BTD
Michael G. Trepanier, MassDOT
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Comments onCasey Overpass Project ENF, MEPA #14978
Regional Planning Consistency
MetroFutureThe Casey Overpass Project is consistent with the goals and implementation strategies of MetroFuture.
Specifically, this project provides the opportunity to implement the MetroFuture goal of “Transportation Choices”,
which is defined as “providing an efficient transportation system [that] will offer more choices and make it easier toget around.”
GreenDOTThe Casey Overpass Project is consistent with MassDOT’s GreenDOT Policy Directive which has the
primarygoals of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; promoting the healthy transportation options of walking,
bicycling, and public transit; as well as supporting smart growth development. The GreenDOT Policy Directive
specifically proposes to triple the number of walking, bicycling and public transit trips in the Commonwealth. The
new at-grade, multimodal infrastructure will help to encourage more trips via non-automotive modes.
Long-Range Transportation PlanThe Casey Overpass Project is included in “Paths to a Sustainable Region”, the
current Long-Range TransportationPlan of the Boston Region MPO as a funded project under the Accelerated Bridge
Program.
Overpass ProjectsReplacing the Casey Overpass with a multimodal at-grade street network will not only benefit the
Jamaica Plain area,
but it will also set a precedent for advancing the removal of other existing overpasses in the Boston metropolitan
areasuch as the Bowker Overpass, Rutherford Avenue, the McCarthy Overpass, and the McGrath Highway.
Nationwide, there are over one hundred examples of overpass removal or downsizing projects. Examples include the
Central Freeway in San Francisco; Fort Washington Way in Cincinnati; the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle; and the
Harbor Drive in Portland, Oregon. Transportation researchers have generally found not only that the affected areas
have
improved and prospered, but also that the relocation of traffic onto surface roadways and increase in public transit usagehave worked effectively when well planned and managed.1
Roadway CapacityThe multimodal at-grade design proposes to relocate and accommodate traffic currently on the
Casey Overpass onto a
new at-grade Casey Arborway. MAPC strongly recommends that the cross section width be minimized for
vehicularlanes to the extent feasible. An aging population, fuel prices, increasing urbanization, improved travel
options, andincreased health and environmental concerns are all contributing factors to an overall regional decline in
traffic
volumes. While vehicular travel will not disappear, an increasing number of people would prefer to drive less and
relymore on walking, bicycling, and public transit, provided these options are convenient and affordable.2
Mode Shift GoalMassDOT recently established a visionary statewide mode shift goal of tripling the share of travel in
Massachusetts bybicycling, transit and walking. The statewide mode shift goal is consistent with the Global Warming
Solutions Act
(GWSA). Implementing the multimodal at-grade design will contribute to the Commonwealth’s attaining both its
modeshift and GHG emission reduction goals. MAPC believes that it will be difficult for the Commonwealth to
achieve
these goals unless more of our new projects are transit-oriented and we find a way to encourage people to use their
carsless frequently.
Monitoring ProgramMAPC recommends that MassDOT develop a nd commit to conducting a transportation monitoring
program followingproject completion. Performance measures should be clearly defined for public transit, walking, and
bicycling as well
as roadway efficiency and parking. This information will be critical to determining whether the project has
beeneffective in meeting its anticipated outcomes. The results from a monitoring program will provide guidance for
project
refinements as well as serve as a gauge for other proposed overpass removal projects in the Boston metropolitan area.
1 Crumbling Gardiner Offers Toronto an Opportunity, Spacing Toronto, Ken Greenberg, December 13, 2012. 2 The Future Isn’t What it Used to Be, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, December 2012. Richard K. Sullivan, Jr., Secretary, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs January 8, 2013 RE: Casey Overpass Project, ENF, MEPA #14978 P. 2 of 3 Project Components
MAPC is pleased that MassDOT has incorporated the following components as part of this project:
Open Space and the Emerald Necklace
The removal of the Casey Overpass will have a net benefit to open space resources by providing an increase in open
space and reconnecting significant open space areas that are currently cut off by the Casey Overpass.
The Arborway, Arnold Arboretum, and Franklin Park are all components of Boston’s renowned Emerald Necklace
park system designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and are contributing properties in the State and National-listed
Olmsted Park System Historic District. When the Casey Overpass was constructed, it disrupted the continuity of
the designed landscape of the Emerald Necklace. The multimodal at-grade design includes significant landscaping
improvements (e.g., a net increase of approximately 100 trees) that will restore and reconnect various components
of the Emerald Necklace to open space areas in a manner that is compatible with Olmsted’s original design. The
proposed landscaping and reconnections will enhance the Historic District as well as surrounding neighborhoods.
Shea Circle
The project proposes to reconfigure Shea Circle at the easterly end of the Casey Overpass into a standard fully-
signalized intersection that will be known as Shea Square. Reconfiguring Shea Circle into a standard fully-
signalized intersection will improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and reduce the number of road ways
converging at the intersection. The open space that currently exists in the center of Shea Circle will be
redistributed to the periphery of the roadway, recommitted as park space, and located adjacent to other accessible
park spaces. In addition to being compatible with Olmsted’s original plan, the open sp ace and intersection redesign
will better accommodate and provide safer access for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as reduce the high accident
rate at this location.
Impervious Area
The multimodal at-grade design will decrease the amount of impervious area by 1.3 acres, an environmental benefit
that contributes to improved drainage and stormwater management.
Parking
The ENF mentions that there are currently 160 parking spaces in the project area. Of these spaces, 150 are within the
courthouse off-street parking lot sited directly beneath the Casey Overpass which will be removed as part of the
project.
The multimodal at-grade design is proposing to add 60 on-street parking spaces along the new Arborway Service Road
in addition to 55 on-street spaces that are in front of the courthouse.
In addition to providing a curbside management plan that includes pick-up and drop-off locations, MassDOT should
clearly delineate its on-street and off-street parking program for the project area. This parking program should address
where employees and patrons of the courthouse will be directed to park, to what extent on-street parking spaces would be allocated for general public use, and whether there will be metered parking.
Project Refinements and Recommendations
MAPC looks forward to seeing either the refinement or inclusion of the following Forest Hills Station-related project
components in future design plans:
-The Upper Busway design and the accommodation of the 39 bus route.
-The new section of platform that will be constructed above the existing employee parking on the adjacent
MBTA lot to increase capacity and will allow for future expansion of bus operations, if desired.
-The relocation of taxis off of Washington Street onto the new Arborway Service Road directly in front of the
main entrance to the station.
-The consideration of allocating additional designated bicycle parking spaces and space for a future Hubway
station.
-The consideration of allocating additional designated spaces for car-sharing.
-The consideration of allocating electric vehicle charging stations and parking for electric vehicles.
Richard K. Sullivan, Jr., Secretary, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs January 8, 2013 RE: Casey Overpass Project, ENF, MEPA #14978 P. 3 of 3 Please be advised that the Massachusetts Secretary of State considers e -mail to be a public record, and therefore
subject to the
Massachusetts Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66 § 10. From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: casey overpass
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:38:17 PM
Attachments: bridging forest hills .docx
ATT00002..htm From: Shari Repasz [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:41 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov
Subject: casey overpass
March 12, 2013 To Whom It May Concern:
As a resident next to the Casey overpass I am highly concerned for the
environmental impact an at-grade solution will cause. Hampstead Rd. has been my home
for over 18 years. One of the most special elements JP has to offer is the green space and
vision of Mr. Olmstead. Daily I observe back-up on rt. 203 during rush hours combined
with a dreadful maze of rude rushed drivers stealing through yellow and red lights blocking traffic intersections below. The amount of cars (and temperament of drivers) headed
through this intersection (with the bridge) is daunting. One of my many concerns is the exhaust that will linger due to the slowed pace of
traffic if the bridge is taken out. Of course there is also noise pollution and mood- pollution.
Mood pollution is the amount of frustration commuters will have by following through with
an imperfect design.
Thank you for your time,
Shari Repasz Schwendener
24 Hampstead Rd.
JP 02130 March 12, 2013 To Whom It May Concern:
As a resident next to the Casey overpass I am highly concerned for the
environmental impact an at-grade solution will cause. Hampstead Rd. has been my home
for over 18 years. One of the most special elements JP has to offer is the green space and
vision of Mr. Olmstead. Daily I observe back-up on rt. 203 during rush hours combined
with a dreadful maze of rude rushed drivers stealing through yellow and red lights blocking traffic intersections below. The amount of cars (and temperament of drivers) headed
through this intersection (with the bridge) is daunting. One of my many concerns is the exhaust that will linger due to the slowed pace of
traffic if the bridge is taken out. Of course there is also noise pollution and mood- pollution.
Mood pollution is the amount of frustration commuters will have by following through with
an imperfect design.
Thank you for your time,
Shari Repasz Schwendener
24 Hampstead Rd.
JP 02130 From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass 25% design feedback
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:45:47 AM
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:40 AM
From: Kristine Keeney [m
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Casey Overpass 25% design feedback
Hello,
Ihonestlycan’tbelievethatthereisstillquestioningofthedecisionandprocessfortheCaseyOverpassproject.Iwouldliketosayaga
inbecauseapparentlythisisnotresolvedyet,thatIfullysupporttheat­
gradeoptionandtheprocessMassDOThasgonethroughtogettothis25%design.
ComingfromsomeonewholivesinRoxburyanddoesurbanplanningandtransportationdemandmanagementformyprofession,t
hisisthebestoptionforthefutureofourneighborhoods.
Thankyou,
KristineKeeney
Kristine Keeney
Technical Research Assistant
Ashton Associates Inc.
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass 25% design feedback
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:55:12 PM
From: Kerry L. Spindler [
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:06 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Overpass 25% design feedback
Hello, I am a homeowner on Woodlawn Street in Jamaica Plain, which is very near theCasey Overpass. I am writing
to submit comments with respect to the 25% design over theCaseyOverpass area.
I am in support of the bridge coming down, and would like to see increased green andcommunity space around the
current overpass area and the area where the #39 bus currentlyturns around. With an eye to the success of the Rose Kennedy Greenway, I would like tosee perennial gardens, improved walking and biking paths, public art (including a
artistcreated fountain for neighborhood children to visit during the summer months), and spaceand infrastructure for a
farmer's market and food trucks.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kerry L. Spindler
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass 25% design, Project File No. 605511 Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:16:02 PM
From: sam sherwood [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:13 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Overpass 25% design, Project File No. 605511 DearMr.Broderick,
IwishtoexpressmystrongsupportfortheCaseyat-gradedesignwhichwillreplacetheout­
modedMonsignorCaseyOverpass.However,Iamdismayedby:
1.theslowprogress(ithastaken2yearstogetto25%design)
2.thelevelofattentionbeingpaidtocommentaryfromindividualsunwillingand/or
unabletoacceptthedecisiontomoveforwardwiththeat-gradedesign.
Ilookforwardtoanoutcomewecanallbeproudof,something whichbenefitsallusers,
bothnowandinthefuture.
Thankyou,
SamSherwood22ArborwayJamaicaPlain,MA02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass and Shea Rotary
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:02:19 PM
.
>From: betsey brooks [
>Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 12:43 PM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Cc:
>info@bridgingforesthills.com.John.R.Connolly@cityofboston.gov.Sonia.Chang.
>Diaz@masenate.gov.Russell.Holmes@mahouse.gov.Jeffrey.Sanchez@mahouse.
>gov.LizMalia@mahouse.gov.Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov.Ayanna.Pres
>sley@cityofboston.gov.Stephen.Murphy@ci
>Subject: Casey Overpass and Shea Rotary
>
>Why isn't anyone listening to the constituents in this town concerning the
>Casey Project in Forest Hills, Jamaica Plain?
>
>Where is the logic to this plan?
>
>Listen up! Please.
>
> The at grade proposed plan will produce more congestion and more toxic
>pollution. It is inevitable. It does not take an MIT graduate to get this. With
>twice (or more) as many cars joining with the already trucks and buses ( next
>fall at the old Agassi school alone, on South and Childs streets there will be 3
>schools in that one building...producing more traffic down South St. to Forest
>Hills then ever before) traveling through Forest Hills this plan will cause more
>pollution (exhaust, noise), not less!!
>
>This proposed highway is not necessary. And yes it is going to be a highway. It
>will not be inviting to move into the Forest Hills area. It will invite more noise
>and congestion.
>
>The logical improvement is a smaller bridge and smarter at grade street
>improvement with landscape and smart street design. Bring back this
>neighborhood. Do not destroy it.
>
>The Shea rotary is absolutely fine the way it is! The rotary keeps traffic moving
>in and out. Merge and yield. It is historic and with better landscape design will
>provide the Olmstead appeal. Save the taxpayers money.
>For your information Olmstead did NOT like straight lines. This big unnecessary
>waste of money will destroy more of the history and beauty of this area.
>
>Betsey Brooks
>Jamaica Plain
>
>
>
>
>
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey overpass at grade
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:40:16 PM
.
>From: lauren ockene [
>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:26 PM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: Casey overpass at grade
>
>To WHom it May Concern;
>
>I have been satisfied with the community process for the Casey Overpass. I feel
>that at grade is the best solution.
>
>We have too much reliance on cars and if the bridge will make things slightly
>faster that will only encourage more people to drive. We need to fortify bike
>access, T access, and pedestrian safety.
>
>My own big concern with the plan is the loss of trees. The presentation I heard
>was for a "net gaine" of trees, but they are saplings replacing century old trees,
>not an equal exchange. Moreover most of the city's planted trees are dead
>within seven years. That needs to be part of the calculation. Large trees have
>enormous value for quality of life, public health, and our urban finances.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Lauren Ockene
>
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey overpass comments
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:26:44 PM
From: Liz Anker [m
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:09 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Casey overpass comments
DearDeptofTransportation,
WeneedanewoverpassinJamaicaPlain.ThecurrentplandoesnotaddressthemanycommuterswhopassthroughForestHillsonth
eirwaytoDorchester,theCape,SouthShore,etc.Havingtheat-gradeplaniswrong:
Weneedtomovepedestrianssafely—toomanylanestocrossisunsafe.
Wherehavethebikelanesgone?
Whyisthisplanbetterthanlettingthethrough-trafficbypassuswithouthavingtostopandclogthestreets.
ItravelthroughForestHillstogotovariousworkplaceseveryday.Itisamessnow.Withmorecars,itcannotbebetter.
Weneedanoverpassandawiselookathowthiswonderfultransithubcanservethemanyspokesofthewheelwithoutbecomingmor
ejammedatallhoursoftheday.
Thankyou,
ElizabethAnker104BourneStreetJamaicaPlain,02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass in Forest Hills J.P.
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:19:50 PM
From: Jeff Ferrannini
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:04 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Casey Overpass in Forest Hills J.P.
Dear Elected Officials,
I am writing to bring to your attention the future liklihood for traffic
snarls, motorist and bicycle collisions, and a poor design in the making for the Casey Overpass converting from a bridge to a road which cuts
directly though the Forest Hills Station area. Should anyone of you not
be familiar with this area I would urge you to go there around 7-8 AM
or 3-4 PM when the "cut through" traffic is most heavy and see how
much of a "bottle neck" it appears at present. You only have to
multiply that experience by two to three (with adding the new traffic
from loss of the bridge) and you have a ready made recipe for
disaster.
I've lived in J.P. for 5 1/2 years and owned property in J.P. in the
South Street area for 30 years. I live in Roslindale so I drive through
the Forest Hills area all the time. It is a confusing traffic snarl as it
now stands and not handling the current traffic all that well. The
Casey Bridge was never well built the first time and has had several
redo that do not seem to have improved it much. What I believe it
requires is a complete redesign, or an architect who knows how to strip
it down to essential parta nd build it back up so that it will be beautiful
and useful and a pleasure to drive over, like the bridge that takes you to Alewife MBTA station which overlooks the shopping area where
WholeFoods in Cambridge is. That is a beautiful and graceful bridge.
The Forest Hills bridge is a connecting link, linking J.P. to
Dorchester/Mattapan/Roxbury and of course the Expressway, Rt 3.
Years from now the only question on people's lips if this bridge is
removed will be, "What in heavens name have they done ? ". "What were
they thinking? ". There is still time to step back from the edge of
creating a huge albatross of government inefficiency to something of
beauty and utility. THis bridge could be the jewel in the crown to
help re-create, re-envision the Forest Hills area, breathe new life to
that part of J.P. starting to come back.
My hope is that you can find a way to take a deep breath and look at
this project with fresh eyes and see it as a momentous occaision to
serve the people of J.P. with a bridge that will accomodate, pedestrian
traffic/bicycles, as well as automobiles/trucks. I urge you to put the
power the people entrusted you with to good use and see the
possibilites to do something that will echo with the word legacy and
stand as a testament for people sitting down to design something of
use, is beautiful to behold and serves the needs of the public
well. You can do this.
Jeff Ferrannini
37 Mendelssohn St
Roslindale, MA 02131
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: casey overpass project #605511
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:40:04 PM
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:32 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: casey overpass project #605511
Please reconsider the plans for the Casey overpass. My neighbors and
myself, living in the areas
that will become cut-thru areas when the bridge comes down are very
concerned.
The traffic that can now pass under the bridge will back up into Jamaica
Plain and towards
Roslindale and Hyde Park when they must wait for the traffic that now
passes over them.
The relocated taxis will continue their long standing tradition of double
parking, and if they are moved
onto 203 will block that major road.
The left turn lane is too small for the traffic needing to turn left and make it's
"pork chop" u-turn.
The designers admitted in the last public meeting to not having spent any
time in the area during rush hour.
Neither has their traffic simulation computer!
Thankyou.
Peg Preble
79 Eastland rd
Jamaica Plain, Ma
No trees were destroyed in the creation and delivery of this message.
However a large number of electrons were significantly inconvenienced
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass Project 605511
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:40:20 PM
From: Alice Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:01 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; William.Straus@mahouse.gov;
Thomas.McGee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; Russell.Holmes@mahouse.gov;
Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov; Jeffrey.Sanchez@mahouse.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov;
Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Casey Overpass Project 605511
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973
Re: Casey Overpass Project No. 605511
I am writing to you to express my deep concern regarding the replacement of the Jamaica
Plain Casey Overpass with a multi-lane surface road.
I moved to Boston a few years ago, and purchased a condo on Custer Street, a few blocks
north of Forest Hills . Jamaica Plain is a remarkable place, filled with charming side streets,
and natural beauty. The decisions we make in the near future will affect our neighborhood
for decades to come. We must take the time now to carefully evaluate our options, and
make sure we have the best data on which to base our conclusions. I am deeply worried that
we will commit a large amount of money to the surface road project, which will cause
irreparable damage to our neighborhood. Such damage will surely be too expensive to
repair in our lifetimes.
Several times a day, especially at rush hour, there are traffic jams surrounding Forest Hills
Station. Considering the amount of traffic currently crossing the Overpass, I find it hard to
accept the conclusion that elimination of the Overpass will not cause horrendous gridlock on
the surface streets. The excess traffic will likely spill over into the small residential side
streets, causing increased pollution, noise, and safety issues for the neighborhood.
Since I do not have a car, I depend on the 39 Bus and Orange Line for transportation. I
have attended several meetings of the 39 Bus initiative, which was undertaken by the city to
make the bus route more efficient. It is a very real possibility that the 39 Bus will be caught
in the Forest Hills gridlock at the start of the route, if the Casey Overpass is not replaced.
This would undo all the efforts to improve transit time.
I am also very concerned that access to Forest Hills Station will be much more hazardous for
pedestrians, who will need to navigate additional lanes of traffic, and a greatly increased
volume of automobiles. I was also disappointed to hear that the bike lanes were to be
eliminated. JP is a neighborhood that is very friendly to bikes and pedestrians. It therefore
seems so reasonable to have dedicated bike lanes, underneath a beautiful new bridge.
Olmsted’s vision has been mentioned regarding the surface road. However, he would have
envisioned horse drawn carriages, not cars. He also designed beautiful bridges. Thus, the
bridge solution would be within his vision, while a multi-lane expressway would not.
It would be very helpful for me, and for my neighbors in JP who share my concerns, to have
written responses to the following questions:
1. Considering the traffic congestion at Forest Hills , why do you think a surface road
could accommodate the additional traffic that currently crosses the bridge? Have
there been independent reviews of this issue?
2. Wouldn’t the additional surface traffic have a significant, negative impact on the
surrounding side streets?
3. Why were bridge designs not seriously considered?
4. Why were bike lanes eliminated?
Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion regarding this important issue. I look
forward to sharing your responses with my neighbors.
Alice Alexander
Alice Alexander, PhD
29 Custer Street, #4
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass Project
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:08:11 AM
From: Mo Moulton [
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:04 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Overpass Project
To the Department,
I'm writing in support of replacing the Casey Overpass as safely and expeditiously as
possible. I live on St. Rose Street and commute using the Forest Hills T stop daily. The
overpass is in bad condition and the crosswalks are frequently dangerous because the
intersection is so tangled and complex.
I realize the Casey Overpass has been a divisive issue. While I can see merits to both sides
(bridge or at-grade), I think the worst outcome would be a prolonged process that leaves the
Overpass as it is for any longer than necessary.
Thank you for accepting public feedback on this issue.
Sincerely,
Mo Moulton
70 Saint Rose Street #1
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass Project
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:08:05 AM
From: Theadora Fisher [
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:08 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Re: Casey Overpass Project
To the Department of Transportation, regarding the Casey Overpass project:
I'm writing in support of replacing the Casey Overpass as safely and expeditiously as
possible. I live on St. Rose Street and commute to work in Quincy either via New
Washington Street or via the T, using the Forest Hills T stop. The overpass is in truly
terrible condition and the crosswalks are frequently dangerous because the intersection is
so tangled and complex. This area is a nightmare for both cars and pedestrians.
I realize the Casey Overpass has been a divisive issue. While I can see merits to both
sides (bridge or at-grade), I think the worst outcome would be a prolonged process that
leaves the Overpass as it is for any longer than necessary. I am very excited for the day
when the new project is complete and the intersection is safe and well-kept.
Thank you for accepting public feedback on this issue.
Sincerely,
Theadora Fisher
70 Saint Rose Street #1
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass Project
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:18:36 PM
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:24 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Overpass Project
Hi,
I am writing to register my opposition to the current at grade plan to replace the
Casey Overpass in the Forest Hills section of Jamaica Plain. I commute through
Forest Hills and already get quite delayed due to traffic, badly timed lights and
people blocking intersections. I cannot imagine driving through that area without a
bridge to keep through traffic away from that busy intersection. Please reconsider
the plan and rebuild the bridge. Thank you. Nancy Frane
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: casey overpass replacement
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:26:40 PM
From: Winning, Katelyn
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:27 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: casey overpass replacement
I have lived in Jamaica Plain my entire life and have worked right by Shea Circle for over a decade;
while I agree the current situation needs help, I cannot get behind the at-grade idea. I have read the
studies but do not believe the supposed outcome. I support looking into a replacement bridge and I
hope that idea will not be cast aside again.
Thanks for your time.
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey overpass should come down
Date: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:32:08 PM
FYI
From: clairevickie [
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:43 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey overpass sh
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:46:11 AM
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:49 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Casey Overpass
Dear Mr Broderick,
I'm writing to voice my support for the at-grade option to replace the Casey overpass,
chosen through a two-year public process with ample opportunity for all ideas and
viewpoints to be taken into consideration. It's the right choice for the neighborhood and the
surrounding area, the parks, and the transportation options it makes available to residents —
as well as folks like me who travel through the area a lot.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the vision for a surface street become a reality.
Sincerely,
Scott Englander
26 Elm St.
Brookline MA 02445
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:22:56 PM
.
>From: Paul Roche [
>Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:48 PM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: Casey Overpass
>
>
>As I sit in grid lock at Forest Hills trying to get home to Roslindale I can't believe
>that anyone in there right mind would even think of taking the Casey Overpass
>down you people are not hearing the people who live here
>Sent from my iPhone
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:21:19 PM
From: William Allan
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:39 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Michael Verseckes
Subject: Casey Overpass
To whom it may concern:
I am perplexed but not surprised by the Commonwealth's review processes
that continue to ignore common sense and return with an answer that not
replacing the overpass will not be harmful environmentally.
I drive through Forest Hills multiple times weekly (and sometimes daily).
A good trip is 3 to 4 minutes; at rush hour a good trip is 6 minutes; 10 or
more are not uncommon. Dumping 25,000 more cars on surface streets
can not and will not alleviate this problem: exacerbate, yes! Wasted gas,
wasted time, more pollution should count for something!
Bill Allan
224 Florence St, #12
Roslindale MA 02131
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable
man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable
man." George.Bernard Shaw
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:19:53 PM
From: Katya Podsiadlo [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:29 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Overpass
I feel that the Casey Overpass should be rebuilt -Do not get rid of the overpass! I am
moving to the 'south side' of Forest Hills neighborhood (currently live on the north side of
the bridge in JP) and do not wish for increased traffic at-grade as part of the plan to
eliminate a bridge. Please keep a bridge!!! Traffic is already at a stand still during rush
hour!
from a one -car family and an avid bicyclist with two kids who hopes to continue bicycling
with her kids around JP and to their BPS,
Katya Podsiadlo
33 Peter Parley Rd
JP, MA
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:19:33 PM
From: Andrew Korson
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:36 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com
Subject: Casey Overpass
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing with regard to the MasDOT proposal for the forest hills train station and Casey
overpass to complain about the proposal put forth by MasDOT and ask that an automobile
bridge of some type remain where the Casey overpass is currently.
I would appreciate a written response to the issues and questions below.
As a resident of Jamaica Plain residing south of the forest hills train station, I have to face
traffic congestion and delays every day when I drive into Boston for work. I am concerned
that routing traffic from arbor way through the Forrest hills T stop will negatively affect my
morning and evening commute. What information can you provide about the predicted
effect of removing the Casey overpass will have on traffic into and out of downtown
Boston?
1) Bike lanes were promised in an earlier proposal to help avoid pedestrian conflicts. Why
were they removed? I think these are essential to lowering the carbon footprint of the city
and lowering traffic congestion. I suggest that the lanes be put back into the proposal.
2) Eliminating the mid-block crossing from the Southwest Corridor to the station will force
anyone not headed directly to the Orange Line platform out of their way just to cross the
street. What steps will be taken to ensure safe and effective pedestrian traffic ?
3) There is rampant disregard for traffic laws and many double parked cars delay traffic. I
am concerned that the removal of drop off lanes will worsen the problem. How will you
route school buses to allow safe and efficient drop off and pickup? How will you allow
citizens to drop off people to take the T and discourage double parking?
Thank you for your time,
Andrew Korson
29 Wachusett St
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:21:25 AM
From: J B [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:44 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Overpass
As longtime residents of Forest Hills we object to any solution that does not include a
bridge to replace the Casey Overpass. We do not want any proposal that imposes more
traffic on Forest Hills . We demand that the state replace the bridge with a bridge, not a
highway through our neighborhood.
Jonathan Baker
23 Martinwood Rd
Jamaica Plain
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:06:14 AM
From: On Behalf Of Robert Tuck
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 8:22 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Overpass
To whom it may concern,
I'm a Forest Hills/Tower Street resident and I'm very unhappy with the at-grade option.
I firmly believe we need a new bridge built or my neighborhood will be traumatizedpermanently.
Bring back the bridge option!
Thanks,
Rob Tuck39 Tower Street
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:21:26 PM
>Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 1:38 PM
.
>From: Mike Pavone [
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: Casey Overpass
>
>Dear Sir , > It is painfully clear that the DOT has proceeded with this project with
>positively no respect , concern , input , or good faith for the surrounding
>neighborhood or the motorists that >use either the bridge or use the Washington St./Hyde Park Ave routes for their
>daily commute as I do . I live in Roslindale and use either road to get to my
>business in Jamaica Plain
>and I pass through Forest Hills usually between 6:45 and 7:00 AM and it takes
>approx. between 5 to 10 minutes , depending on how late I get there and
>traffic amount . I lived on the Arborway growing up and I know how much
>traffic flows over the bridge to go into Boston and on the afternoon rush hours
>leaving Boston , so to remove the bridge and make it an at grade surface is
>totally ludicrous . Obviously any supposed study of the traffic flows between
>the morning and afternoon must have been done with a broken abacus . To say
>, with any
>intelligence , that the amount of traffic that goes over that bridge will still flow
>as smoothly on a surface road , with signaling , and crossing two major
>roadways , already on the surface , >is the type of digressive thinking and reasoning that this state is known for . >Even I can see that there are back door deals being done here and the residents
>of the surrounding
>neighborhoods and commuters aren't being heard never mind LISTENED to , >there is a difference between the two words meanings . Which bureaucracy is
>the winner in this inept >decision ? It's definitely not the people that are going to pay for it !
>
>
>
> Michael Pavone
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:02:36 PM
From: Sheridan Haines
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 11:39 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Overpass
To: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.,
Chief Engineer MassDOT
From: Sheridan L. Haines
62 Union Ave.
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
I want to thank you and DOT for your considered process to determine the best solution for
the Casey Overpass. I want to commend you for the decision to bring the overpass down
and reconfigure the intersections to make them more user friendly to people on foot and
bikes and for making it possible for the Arboretum, Forrest Hills Cemetary and Franklin
Park to be reconnected an d easily accessed through public transportation. This is a design
that will help bring the City into the 21st Century.
Thank you.
.
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:09:49 AM
FYI
From: Lawrence Fabian
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 7:12 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:13:31 AM
Fyi
On Behalf Of Manuela
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:49 AM
To: DOT Feedback High
From:
Mariani
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:45:59 AM
.
>From: Evan Hines [
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:26 AM
>To: DOT Feedback
>Subject: Casey Overpass
>
>I support the at grade option.
>
>Evan Hines
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:11:36 AM
FYI
.
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:48 AM
>To: DOT Feedback Highw
>From: On Behalf
>Of Patrick Barron
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:45:56 AM
.
>From: DALE MITCHELL
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:40 AM
>To: DOT Feedback
>Subject: Casey Overpass
>
>I am a lapsed member of the community group you convened to advise on the
>proper approach to the overpass. I dropped out before opinions were solicited
>and votes counted. Please know that I am in FULL & TOTAL support of replacing
>the bridge with a surface road. It will be a significant improvement for that area
>and for all of JP.
>
>Dale Mitchell 38 Paul Gore St JP 02130
>
>The information transmitted in this email is intended only for the person or
>entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
>material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of or taking of
>any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than
>the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please
>contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:29:04 PM
From: George Kordan [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:05 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: re: Casey Overpass
ToWhomitconcerns,
IsupportanewbridgeatForestHills.
Ihavebeentomultiplepublicquestionandanswermeetings,andhavenothadmyquestionsansweredtodate.Pleasereplywithansw
ertomyquestion.
Asmallbridgewouldallowroadstobebuiltthatallowforlessdistance/pavementtotravelwhilecrossingintersections.Howarewid
er/longerstreetintersectionssaferthanshorterstreetintersectionsforpedestriansandbicyclist?
GeorgeKordan139PoplarSt.
Roslindale
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:26:27 PM
From: Suzanne Wolk
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 6:03 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov;
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Casey Overpass
TotheMassDOT:
Iamwriting(again)toregistermySTRONGOBJECTIONtotheat-gradeplantoreplacetheCaseyoverpassatForestHills.Anat ­
gradeplanwillbeadisasterintermsoftrafficcongestion,air(andnoise)pollution,pedestrianandbikersafety,tosaytheleast.Thepe
destriancrossingtimerequiredforsomanylaneswillbesolongthatwecananticipatetrafficjamsalldaylong.Andatrushhouritwill
besimplyimpossible!
Thedesignisbad!Weneedabridge,notanat-gradenightmare!
Iwouldliketoknowspecifically,howwillthisschemebesaferthanwithabridge? Also,
bikelaneswerepromisedtohelpavoidpedestrianconflicts.Whyweretheyremoved?
Assomeonewhodrives,walks,andbicyclesthroughthatintersectiononadailybasis,IdeeplyresentthewayDOThastriedtoramthi
sflawedplandownourthroatswithoutadequatepublicinput.
Pleaserespondinwritingtothesequestions.
Sincerely,
SuzanneWolk34BradeenSt.
Roslindale,MA02131
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:40:12 PM
From: Adele Gignoux
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:31 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Overpass
JusttoregistermyoppositiontothecurrentplanfortheelminationoftheCaseyOverpass.Itishardtounderstandwhyahorribleinters
ectionfortrafficcongestionisn'tgoingtoresult.Won'titbelesssafe?
AndSheaCircleshouldbekept.IunderstandthatitispartoftheoriginalplansfortheEmeraldNecklace.Doesitreallyhavetobeturne
dintoamassiveintersection?
AdèleGignoux37GoldsmithStreet,#2JamaicaPlain,MA02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:24:52 PM
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:01 PM
.
>From: Andrew List [
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: Casey Overpass
>
>Dear Mass Dot,
>I am writing this email in support of building a new bridge at Forest Hills. I have
>lived on Asticou Road across from the Forest Hills Station and next to the casey
>Overpass for the past 20 years. I believe in our community and have worked
>hard to help preserve it for our children and our neighborhood. All though it is
>not beautiful, the Casey Overpass serves an important role in quickly moving
>cars through our neighborhood down to the Southeast Expressway. The at
>grade solution to not build another bridge is to me flawed in a number of ways.
>By allowing 26,000 plus cars to pass through a neighborhood that is already
>traffic ridden makes no sense to me. All of those cars sitti ng at a series of traffic
>lights will create a huge pollution and noise problem as well as add gridlock to
>an already very overcrowded area. For those of us who live near by it will
>destroy our quality of life and what ever peaceful atmosphere there is left at
>Forest Hills. The crosswalk will be extremely long and difficult to maneuver and
>creating safe bike lanes seems impossible next to such an onslaught of traffic.
>
>As part of the at grade solution Bus 39 will be moved with the other busses
>creating a huge bus yard directly across from our street. The plan to allow them
>to exit in front of Asticou Road, my house and that of my neighbors is
>completely unfair and in my mind unnecessary. How would you like to have the
>noise and smell of hundreds of busses exiting and shining their lights in front of
>your house and community. If you do have to move the busses together I don't
>see why can't they exit further down Washington Street across from the
>Arboretum's land where they will not have a negative impact on the
>community.
>
>I hope that you will take into consideration how the at grade solution will
>destroy the quality of life for those who live here and will find a better solution
>by building a smaller more streamline bridge that will allow the tremendous
>about of traffic to pass smoothly through our community and also to move the
>bus yard and exit further down the street so they will not be in the center of a
>vital residential area.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Andrew List
>11 Asticou Rd.
>Jamaica Plain MA 02130
>
>
>
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:23:40 PM
From: matt luczkow
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:26 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey Overpass
DearDOT
Iamwritingtosupportanyplanstore -build theCaseyOverpass.
AsaForestHillsresidentsince1995,itseemscleartomethatanatgradeoptionisthewrongdecision.Ihavereviewedmuchofthedata
presentedandhavealsoattendedseveralpublicmeetingsaboutthebridge.
Pleasere-evaluatetheprocessanddo not
moveaheadwiththeatgradeoption.Theresimplyisnotenoughcapacityforallofthecars,pedestriansandbicyclistswiththeatgrad
eoption.Anewbridge(orrebuiltbridge),iswithoutquestion,thebetterchoice!
Sincerely,
MattLuczkow285WachusettStreetJamaicaPlain,Ma.
02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:18:35 PM
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:00 PM
.
>From: Nina Aronoff [
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: Casey Overpass
>
.
> I am a tax-paying, homeowner in the Bourne neighborhood and I strongly
>oppose any plan to remove the bridge without replacing it. The at-grade
>solution would to be devastating for the immediate Forest Hills environment
>and the adjoining neighborhoods. It seems embarrassingly clear that the state
>is moving ahead with a process and plan that is based on cheap options and
>money and not intelligence and the relevant studies and statistics, a plan that >while it has a number of supporters, is significantly opposed by a much larger
>proportion of the population most affected by the changes to the Casey
>overpass. From attending community meetings, it is obvious that there are a
>large number of people feeling that the process has been flawed, ramrodded
>through, and unjust. People who have invested money, family life, and
>community engagement are feeling disrespected and unheard.
>.
>respecting way that would solve the existing issues without creating an
>enormous number of "unintended" consequences that will be detrimental to
>the Forest Hills neighborhoods, as well as all the neighboring communities who
>use the overpass now (and who are grossly uninformed about what may be
>about to happen).
> I have invested in my neighborhood, Jamaica Plain overall, and the city in
>general for many years. I feel terrible about the way I and my neighbors have
>b een and are being treated. The costs of the at-grade solution are far greater
>than the money the city and state think they are going to "save." I am
>disappointed and feel my engagement in Boston and my neighborhood is being
>"paid back" in a desultory and shameful way if the at-grade solution goes
>forward.
>
>Nina Aronoff
>100 Bourne Street
>Jamaica Plain, Ma. 02130 >
From: Broderick, Thomas (DOT)
To: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass, MassDOT project file #605511 Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:01:33 PM
Attachments: casey-MassDOT.doc
Here you go.
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Chief Engineer
MassDOT – Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Suite 6340
Boston, MA 02116
Tel. #857-368-8999
thomas.f.broderick@state.ma.us
-----Original Message----­
From: John S. Allen [
To: Broderick, Thomas (DOT)
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; thomas.stanley@mahouse.gov;
mike.barrett@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Casey Overpass, MassDOT project file #605511
Dear Mr. Broderick:
My comments on the Casey Overpass project are attached as a Microsoft Word document. I thank you
for the opportunity to comment.
John S. Allen
7 University Park
Waltham, MA 02453-1523 USA
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:52 PM
Allen, re: MassDOT project file #505511 page 2
The proposed accommodation does not conform to the Massachusetts Project Development and Design
Guide. With off-street bicycle accommodation, what remains is a landscaping plan, a park plan, not a
suitable plan to accommodate efficient bicycle travel, evolution of vehicle types and traffic volumes, or
access to a major transportation hub. Essentially, bicyclists are being treated as if they were
pedestrians.
Furthermore, pedestrian crossing distances, and the volume of traffic which pedestrians must cross,
would be greatly reduced with the narrower surface streets if there is an overpass.
The safety claim is specious and is contrary to research. None is cited. How are potential conflict
points between bicyclists and pedestrians to be removed when the paths will be used by pedestrians as
well as bicyclists? At the many intersections, bicyclists are expected to continue across crosswalks,
from concealment behind crowds of pedestrians waiting on the corner, only to pop out in front of
turning motor vehicles. I see absolutely nothing in the design which would mitigate these intersection
conflicts. Bicycling in crosswalks adjacent to intersections is hazardous and bicycling from right to left
across entering traffic is the most dangerous intersection maneuver known, as confirmed by numerous
research works – a compendium of them is here:
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/sidecrash.htm. Current American and European
practice brings bikeways out to the street at intersections, avoiding many of the conflicts.
The many traffic signals would result in significant delays and promote a low level of compliance,
particularly by bicyclists and pedestrians elevating the risk.
Bicycle access in the proposed design would fail in cold weather. Paths meandering through parkland
cannot be kept clear of ice in winter. For this to be so, they would have to be sloped or crowned, and
provided with storm sewers, like roads – promptly plowed and salted. If this doesn’t happen, they can
be unusable for weeks. Salt on roadways is held between curbs and carried away by storm drains. Salt
on paths in parkland degrades plantings.
For these reasons, and many others, the ENF was insufficient. An Environmental Impact Report is
needed, and the entire project needs review to bring an overpass into serious consideration.
Very truly yours,
Cc:
info@bridgingforesthills.com,
Sonia.Chang-Diaz@masenate.gov,
William.Straus@mahouse.gov,
Thomas.McGee@masenate.gov,
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov,
Thomas.Stanley@mahouse.gov
Mike.Barrett@masenate.gov
Russell.Holmes@mahouse.gov
Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov
Jeffrey.Sanchez@mahouse.gov
David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov
felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov,
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov
Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: casey overpass.
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:25:26 PM
.
>From: Margaret Connors [
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:22 AM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: casey overpass.
>
>Please consider a smaller bridge design to mitigate congestion, accidents and as
>a compromise.
>
>Margaret Connors
>Forest Hills
>
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Overpass
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:47:58 AM
From: Esther Kohn
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:02 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Casey Overpass
To: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E. Chief Engineer MassDOT, Att'n: Paul King, File
No. 605511 I am a resident of Martinwood Road and would like to express my opinion about the Casey
Overpass project. I am in favor of an at-grade solution. I am looking forward to having the
bridge removed and I believe this will be a signficant improvement to the neighborhood,
knitting us more closely to the rest of Jamaica Plain, and encouraging pedestrian and bicycle
access.
I do, however, have several concerns. Specifically, I am deeply worried about the
coordination of lights as this has been a horrible problem in our neighborhood. I hope this
will be closely attended to in the design solution. I am also concerned that the "bow -ties"
will back up and cause severe traffic congestion.
I am dismayed about the re-design of the bus turn-around on upper deck a t Forest HIlls Station. Hundreds of buses will be exiting from the station right across from the end of
Asticou Road which will deeply impact our neighborhood. We have asked about
alternatives and these requests have not been addressed. I hope a solution can be find that takes into consideration the quality of life for our neighborhood.
Thank you, Esther
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Project (Project No. 605511 )
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:07:23 AM
.
>From: David Rosen [
>Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:36 PM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov;
>russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
>liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
>thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov;
>David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
>Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go;
>matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
>Subject: Casey Project (Project No. 605511 )
>
>Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
>MassDOT, Highway Division
>10 Park Plaza
>Boston, MA 02116-3973 >
>Re: Project No. 605511 >
>Dear Mr. Broderick:
>
>I use have probably used the Casey Overpass many hundreds of times since I
>moved to Jamaica Plain in 1978. I have never thought it attractive, but I have
>found it necessary to get conveniently from Jamaica Plain to Dorchester and
>beyond. I do, of course, agree that the Casey Overpass must be removed, but I
>do not think on-street traffic will be a better solution. I believe this solution will
>be problematic to the environment, terribly congested and unpleasant for
>neighbors, in its present form useless to pedestrians and bikers, and overall a
>much poorer solution than building a new,well-designed overpass.
>
>I urge you, and our elected and appointed officials to reject the present plan
>and to move ahead with a plan for a new, better overpass.
>
>Thank you.
>
>David J. Rosen
>7 Newsome Park
>Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
>
>
>
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Project at Forest Hills
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:09:59 AM
From: Mary Duffy [
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:53 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Casey Project at Forest Hills
Dear Mr. Broderick,
I am a longtime resident of Jamaica Plain. I bought my house here in 1997. I have workedas a housecleaner since I
moved here. I routinely cross the JP -Roslindale line to go cleanhouses in Roslindale. I am always surprised at how
much traffic flows through the area atForest Hills .
In the simplest way, I ask you to consider: How is it going to be better for people andpedestrians of Jamaica Plain and
Roslindale, who are using public transportation (T -station)
if the bridge is removed? This is a place that if you go one block on either side, is a singlelane street. Please don't bring
all the chaos and confusion of the Jamaica Way down into thestreets of our cool small town. We like to walk, we like
to let our kids walk. We like to ridebicycles. We are trying to show other cities how it can be done. Mission Hill
school justopened up in the old Agassiz building. Those kids are walking to the T station. Now theywill have to cross
a giant highway if they want to go to Forest hills, or just into Roslindale.
We have a cool city 5 miles from Boston and we are progressive in the way that we aremore and more turning to
pedestrianism and bicycling. We are reducing our footprint. Youbridge removal project will bully our people from the
streets and make way for more cars, asif they are the priority. Consider that we would like a peaceful, less-motorized
version ofyour project and please figure out how to give us that.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Mary Duffy98 Sheridan Street,
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Project concerns
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:07:02 AM
From: Shelley Irvin-Kent [
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:35 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Casey Project concerns
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a homeowner and taxpayer living at 11 Wachusett Street in Jamaica Plain. I have lived here with my wife since 2010 and plan on staying for several decades. I am very concerned
about the additional congestion this will cause to the area. It already takes me much longer
than it should to get on the JWay heading west to work and off (heading east) home from
work. Eliminating the bridge as a bypass will force many thousands of commuters to the at-
grade level, adding a ridiculous amount of congestion. It's already going to be several years
of construction that will require me to build additional time into my commute each way, but
after that, it's ridiculous to be stuck with a solution that will not decrease the congestion! We
need to make this better, not worse.
Thank you, Shelley Irvin -Kent
11 Wachusett St. #1 Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey project
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:16:18 PM
From: Modest, Geoffrey A.,M.D. [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:47 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: 'info@bridgingforesthills.com' ; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; 'jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov';
'liz.malia@mahouse.gov'; 'felix.arroyo@cityofboston.govcasey'; Julie Kaufmann; 'Zach Modest'
Subject: Casey project
I live near the forest hills train station and think that the level-surface approach (getting rid of the
bridge) is totally unacceptable for several reasons:
1. it will create an effective highway between most of JP (JP center) and the train station. Very
difficult for handicapped individuals to get through 6 lanes of traffic (unless there are additional lights,
which will make point #2 even worse)
2. there is no way that traffic flow will not be affected. Either there is preferential flow along rte 203 with minimal delay --leading to huge problems going from 203 and taking a left onto either washington
st or hyde park ave, no way for pedestrians to cross, and huge difficulty traveling along either
washington st or hyde park ave and cutting across the new 203. right now, at any time within a 2 hour period in the morning (7 -9am) or a 3 hour period at night (3 or 4 til 6 or 7pm), hyde park ave is
really slow and difficult to traverse by forest hills station. It would only get much worse if the new 203 is there without traffic lights. If 203 has traffic lights, the flow along 203 will be drastically affected as
well as the cross streets.
3. the main communities which travel along 203 (from the east: dorchester, roxbury, mattapan, milton;
from the west: jamaica plain, brookline, etc) have not been involved in the process, and they are the
ones who will be largely affected by the new level 203. those of us on the roslindale side of forest
hills station will probably be most affected in trying to cross the 6 lanes of traffic to get into jamaica
plain center or down washington st.
So, i would strongly support reconsideration of this (what i think) foreseeable and predictable disaster.
Thanks.
Geoffrey Modest
37 Bournedale Rd
Jamaica Plain 02130
The information in this e -mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e -mail was sent to you in error and the e -mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e -mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e -mail.
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey project
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:26:43 PM
From: julie kaufmann [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:24 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway; info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov
Subject: Fwd: Casey project
Hello,
I live in the bourne area of Forest Hills and for years commuted to work via the station area.
I do not believe for one minute that using surface roads will handle the traffic that passes
through from the outlying suburbs..It defies logic and common sense.
As I understand it the surface road concept is not pedestrian friendly either with its 6 lanes
of traffic. so does not serve that purpose either.
One way traffic design around the station? AND
Put up an attractive bridge with arches.
Julie Kaufmann
37 Bournedale Rd
Jamaica Plain 02130
The information in this e -mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e -mail was sent to you in error and the e -mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e -mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e -mail.
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey Project/ 605511
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:47:34 AM
From: Mark Chase
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:05 AM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Casey Project/ 605511
Dear Mr Broderick;
I wish to express my support for the at-grade option of the Casey repair/ replacement.
Thanks very much!
Mark Chase
13 Belmont Street
Somerville, MA
02143
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey -The "At Grade Plan Works!" Project #605511
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:48:01 AM
Importance: High
From: michael epp [mailto:eppm@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:25 PM
To: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne
Doherty; DOT Feedback
Cc: David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov;
Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Fwd: Casey -The "At Grade Plan Works!" Project #605511
Importance: High
Dear elected officials,
I am a member of the Casey Overpass DAG and WAG Committee and I strongly supportthe "At Grade" solution as
shown in the 25% Design presentation at the Boston LatinSchool.
I am a Jamaica Plain resident since 1980 and a practicing Architect for 40 years.
During my time in Boston I have done projects working with the MBTA, MDC and theCity Of Boston including the-
South Station Bus Terminal, Charles/MGH Red Line Stationand the seven proposed Green Line Extension stations
from Lechmere to Tufts University.
I have dedicated much of my life to making transportation better in Boston.
The MBTA, DCR and the City of Boston have been part of the Casey design process fromthe beginning and they all agree that the "At Grade"solution is the best option and that itworks!
Traffic Engineers and Traffic departments are very conservative folks. For them all to agreeon a plan is rare indeed-but
they do. Additionally, the 25% document has been reviewed bytwo outside peer review consultants that also agree that this is the best plan.
The prime consultant-HNTB is a nationally renown engineering firm-The designer of thesignature Zakim Bridge, has
done a great job of producing a plan based on fact and logic. The public process has not been perfect, but the result makes up for the stumbles byMassDOT as they have learned the
ropes of a public process in Jamaica Plain.
You will hear a lot of guff from the pro-bridge folks. The truth is they never were openminded enough to even
consider a grade level solution from the first public meeting.
I respect many of these individuals and their right to their opinions, but it pains me to saythat they has been a
disruptive element in the process, often adding a sense of hostility andanger to the public forum. Intimidation does not
have a place in democracy.
I urge your support of the "At Grade" 25% plan and for your continued participation in thisprocess to improve this
design to make it the best that it can be for all people in JamaicaPlain.
Sincerely.
Michael Epp. AIA
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casey/Arborway Project (MassDOT #605511)
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:01:36 PM
From: Lawlor, Matthew J.
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 1:01 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey/Arborway Project (MassDOT #605511)
To: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer MassDOT
Attention: Paul King Please accept this email as a statement of my full support, as a Roslindale resident who lives
less than 2 miles from the project site, for the recently released 25% design for the at-grade
solution (including Shea Square) for the Casey/Arborway Project. Thank you. Sincerely,
Matt Lawlor
15 Basto Terrace
Roslindale, MA 02131
Matthew J. Lawlor
Robinson & Cole LLP
One Boston Place
25th Floor
Boston , MA 02108-4404
This transmittal may be a confidential attorney-clientcommunication or
may otherwise be privileged or confidential. If it is notclear that you arethe intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you havereceived
this transmittal in error; any review, dissemination,
distribution, orcopying of this transmittal is strictly prohibited. If yoususpect that youhave received this communication
in error, please notify usimmediatelyby telephone at 1-860-275-8200, or e -mail at it@rc.com, andimmediately delete
this message and all its attachments.
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Casy Arborway Project
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:40:29 PM
From: Judy Leonardo [m
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:42 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway; info@bridgingforesthills.com
Cc: chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov;
jullieanne.doherty@cityofboston.gov; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov
Subject: Casy Arborway Project
Casey Arborway Project
Project File No. 605511
This is in response to MassDot regarding the meeting held on Feb. 27, 2013 concerning The
Casey Overpass.
I AM OPPOSED TO THE PLAN OF ELIMINATING THE CASEY OVERPASS AND
REPLACING IT WITH AN AT-GRADE SCHEME OF SIX LANES!!!
I live directly behind the Casey Overpass, behind the West Roxbury Court House at the
Washingtonian Court Condos for the past 20 years. Taking down the bridge, and NOT
REPLACING IT IS A DISASTER!! MORE LANES MEANS MORE TRAFFIC, MORE
NOISE, MORE CONGESTION, AND SMOG. I LIVE HERE, YOU DON"T. THIS WILL,
AND I REPEAT, WILL IMPACT MY NEIGHBORHOOD, WILL CAUSE CHAOS AND
INTERFERE WITH THE QUALITY OF LIFE.
With six lanes, and multiple stop lights, will only cause backups, and gridlocks. The stop
lights along New Washington Street and South Street are not in sync now, which is a huge
problem.
MassDot never, never, submitted a good plan to replace the overpass with another. I have a
print out of a very poor design which was from Oct. 1, 2012. MassDot has ignored requests
for coming up with a design for a new overpass.
MassDot is irresponsible, and it seems, that its intent from the beginning of this project, was
to a nd only to take down the overpass, and replace it with six lanes at-grade... in a
residential area, never once listening to the people. SHAME ON YOU, MASSDOT.
Here are a few other concerns.
1. Where are all the cars, that are parked underneath the Overpass, for the West Roxbury
Court
House going to go? ? ? MassDot did not include a good solution to that problem.
There is NO ROOM BEHIND THE COURT HOUSE ON MORTON STREET THAT
WILL
ACCOMMODATE THE CARS NOW. Many of my neighbors park there who LIVE
ON
MORTON STREET.
2. Pedestrian crossings are too long because there are too many lanes.
3. How will this scheme be safer than with a bridge?
4. Eliminating the Rte 39 bus berth and moving it will degrade service
and be hard for people with disabilities.
5. Eliminating drop-off spaces at a transit hub is stupid and dangerous.
6. Explain how putting 10 cab stands on the new parkway fits into Olmsted’s vision
I am very discourage with the entire project, and with MassDot, for not listening to the
people and for not submitting an alternative plan with a new bridge.
I AM SAYING NO TO MASSDOT. I am hoping that Mayor Menino, Governor Patrick,
and elected city officials will review this very serious situation, and listen to the people in
community and have MassDot come up with a better plan.
Sincerely,
J. Leonardo
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: change plans for Casey replacement
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:20:14 PM
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:05 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: change plans for Casey replacement
To Whom It May Concern,
As a Jamaica Plain resident who uses Forest Hills station every day, I am writing to
urge you to adjust your plans. I am most concerned about the destruction of Shea
Circle, which is an important part of the Emerald Necklace, but I am also completely
opposed to the creation of a 6-lane highway at Forest Hills. Please do not create
another Melnea Cass highway in my neighborhood!
Yours sincerely,
Owen Shows
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Comment on Casey Overpass / please enter into -#605511 Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:45:42 AM
From:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:04 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Comment on Casey Overpass / please enter into - #605511 3/14/2013RE: Casey Overpass ProjectAttn: Paul King, Project #605511.
I think this should be taken down as planned to improve Jamaica Plain and the environment.
Thank you,
Thomas W. Lincoln
27 Gleason Street
Medford, MA 02155 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Comment on Casey overpass intersection
Date: Monday, February 25, 2013 8:33:31 AM
Fyi
From: Cynthia Snow
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:33 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Comment on Casey overpa
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Comment on Casey Overpass, Project #605511 Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:46:54 AM
From: Jason Brown [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:13 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Comment on Casey Overpass, Project #605511 Thomas F. Broderick,P.E. Chief Engineer, MassDOT
Attn: Paul King, Project #605511. Dear Mr Broderick,
I want to reiterate my support for the at-grade option that has been chosen, and the process you have
used to get there. It's the right choice for the neighborhood, the future of this vibrant city, the parks
and for transportation options.
I look forward to moving past the at-grade discussion and move into how to make that option the best
we can.
Jason Brown
VFW Parkway
West Roxbury MA
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Comment on HIghway Project No. 605511. Casey Overpass (Boston) Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 1:55:09 PM
>From:
.
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:35 PM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: Comment on HIghway Project No. 605511. Casey Overpass (Boston) >
>Casey Overpass 25% Design Comment (Project No. 605511):
>
>The current design is 'fatally' flawed, and in all respects could be improved if
>the overpass were replaced by a new bridge:
>
> --Despite the recent MEPA ruling, current plan will result in a significant injury
>to public health because of...
> 1. increase in air pollution -induced heart-lung disease to nearby residents,
>and...
> 2. decrease in public safety: there will certainly be more auto accidents, more
>injured pedestrians and cyclists in comparison to replacing the Casey overpass
>with a new bridge. There was never comparative analysis of how the two >options measure up in this regard.
>
> --Increasing 39 Bus run-time will degrade T service (this is one of T's busiest
>routes!)
> --No on-street bike lanes = bad design
> --Eliminating straight-line crossing of New Washington St at SW Corridor path =
>bad design
> --Too many lanes = bad design
> --No drop-off spaces on New Wash. St = bad design
> --Shea Circle should be re-designed as roundabout with calmed traffic and safe
>access for pedestrians and cyclists while preserving the large central green
>space; the current plan to destroy this historic treasure = bad design
>
>All of these problems could be mitigated or eliminated by replacing the Casey
>with a new bridge.
>
>Sincerely,
>Tom Jacobson
>56 Robeson St
>Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
>
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Comment on Project No. 605511 -Casey overpass
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:36:45 PM
From: Detlev A Koepke [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:36 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Comment on Project No. 605511 - Casey overpass
To: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., MassDOT, Highway Division
Re: Project No. 605511
Dear Mr. Broderick,
I am a resident of the Forest Hills neighborhood and I wish to express my strong opposition
to the at-grade highway proposed for the replacement of the Casey overpass. Even with the
existing bridge, the traffic situation in the Forest Hills area is already at near gridlock levels a
good part of the day, especially during rush hours, but without a bridge the traffic will easily
extend all the way to Murray Circle and well beyond Shea Circle and will back up in both
directions of Washington St., for hours every day. Putting 26,000 cars a day onto one surface
road in the midst of residential areas and a heavily trafficked mass-transit terminus is not
intelligent traffic engineering. In addition, this 6-lane highway will be a difficult barrier for
pedestrians to cross in either direction and will pose a particular hardship for senior citizens,
children and their mothers and the handicapped. It will also make it very difficult for people
to get to the Arboretum. The closest analogy is Columbus Road where I hardly ever see
pedestrians cross.
The only solution that makes any sense is to design a lighter, smaller bridge to carry
commuter traffic across the area and to leave the surface road for local traffic, just as the
original Casey bridge design intended. With modular design modern bridges are much more
esthetic and functional than the clunky massive bridges of the 1950's. I urge you to return to
that option just as the original report recommended.
The proposed highway will do nothing but to divide the Forest Hills area from the rest of
Jamaica Plain by an ugly, noisy and difficult-to-cross barrier and is reminiscent of the
Highway Department's plan to ram the 95 extension through the community in the 1960's. The
majority of my neighbors and much of the community opposes this project and we will
continue to organize against it just as people organized against the Southwest Corridor
Highway in the 70's.
Sincerely yours,
Detlev Koepke
35 Asticou Rd.
Jamaica Plain
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Comment re: Project #605511
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:46:58 AM
From: Alex Epstein [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:25 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Comment re: Project #605511
Attn: Thomas F. Broderick,P.E.
I am writing this brief message in support of the At-Grade Option for the Casey
Arborway project. I visit friends in the JP and Forest Hills neighborhoods and have
followed the project over the last few years. Tearing down the blight of this obsolete
and underutilized 1950s overpass is the right thing to do for the neighborhood and
for the city. Teardown and conversion to city street is a livability-enhancing,
taxpayer money-saving model followed in many de -elevation projects across North
America.
Please de -elevate Casey now, provide quality transit and bike service along the
replacement corridor, and make the next de -elevation project McGrath
Highway/Route 28 in Somerville--as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Alex Epstein
278 Beacon Street
Somerville, MA
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Comments on Casey Overpass -25% Design
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:10:18 AM
From: dwean2@gmail.com [mailto:dwean2@gmail.com] On Behalf Of David Wean
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:37 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov;
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov;
Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov; mike.rush@masenate.gov; edward.coppinger@mahouse.gov
Subject: Comments on Casey Overpass - 25% Design
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116 -3973
Project No. 605511
Below are my comments about the 25% design of the current plan for the Casey Overpass
I've been on the Design Advisory Group since the spring of 2012, attending every DAG meeting, and
have spent significant time reviewing the materials. These comments reflect what I've learned.
The current design, while perhaps well -intentioned, has turned into a series of conflicting adaptations.
To add 24,000 more cars to the surface, there's not enough time in the light cycles to allow left
turns from Route 203. The solution was to add U -turns and additional traffic lights so people
can eventually make the desired movements. Here's how people will make the movement
currently described as "making a left from Route 203 onto Hyde Park Avenue": try to pass
through the light you wanted to turn at, try to pass through a second light, wait at a third light to
make your U turn at the "bow tie", go back through light #2, and then make a right at the light
you wanted to turn at originally. (I don't see how that will be good for area businesses, another
supposed benefit of this plan.) .
turns, but it will involve making left turns from the right lane or even from the shoulder beyond
the right lane, blocking all lanes of traffic in the process.
To accommodate commuter bike traffic, the original design had bike lanes, and to
accommodate recreational bike traffic, there were "cycle tracks" (that look a lot like sidewalks to
most people who are walking in the area). To appease certain pedestrian advocates who felt
that the roadway would be too wide, the bike lanes were removed, leaving the commuter and
utility cyclists to ride in newly narrowed travel lanes or contend with the pedestrians on the
sidewalk-by-any -other-name.
Because bike paths are often not well maintained in snow or icy conditions, there's advocacy
for (but not the promise of) additional snow equipment for the DCR to maintain them. This is
even though bike lanes on the street would be plowed and salted along with the rest of the
roadway.
The models that predict that the design will accommodate the traffic do not take into account
very typical driver behavior such as stopping in the travel lane to drop off a passenger, double
parking, while waiting to pick someone up, or getting stuck in the middle of an intersection
when the light changes ("blocking the box"). The tolerances in the signal timing will be so tight
that even one instance of these behaviors will cause a major ripple effect. No accommodation
has been made for this, as far as I can see.
Because of the number of motor vehicles that need to be pushed through on each light cycle,
the direct route between the Southwest Corridor park and Forest Hills station will be eliminated
(the current mid-block crossing). I think that the designers are afraid to admit it, but the natural
way to enforce this would be with a fence, which negates the idea of connecting the parks in a
human-friendly manner. The need to cross 203 is partly mitigated by the new Orange Line
head house on the north side, but that is not of benefit to people trying to access the
commuter rail or any of the bus lines, including the heavily used 39.
Creating roadways that are wider than they currently are means that the pedestrian crossings
are longer than they need to be, reducing safety. The designers cannot commit to exclusive
pedestrian signal cycles because there is just not enough time in the cycle to get those extra
cars through. This is at a major transit hub, where we want to be encouraging foot traffic.
Instead, there are longer waits to get across, and when more dangerous crossings when the
signal turns. To keep the roadway clear for the 24,000 additional cars, the 39 Bus is being shifted into the
upper bus way. This bus will need to work its way through more traffic before it can start its
route. The aforementioned gridlock will make this even worse than the minute or so delay that is antic ipated in the current design.
The relocated upper bus way is placed immediately opposite Asticou street . To mitigate the
additional noise and headlight glare, the natural accommodation will be to wall in that neighborhood.
Because of the lack of left turns, heavy truck and bus traffic will be channeled onto the already congested
stretch of Washington / Hyde Park between Ukraine Way and Route 203. (Throughtruck
traffic on Washington Street from Roslindale to Jamaica Plain / Roxbury will need to cut
over at Ukraine. As will the off -duty buses that leave the upper busway to get to the bus
yard).
I think that the proponents of removing the bridge secretly believe that if we make the area
less attractive for regional traffic, it will simply go away. While it's probably true that some of
the people driving to work from Mattapan to the medical area may find the new configuration
so annoying that they'll take another route, they will end up somewhere, making someone
else's streets a little more dangerous and unpleasant. And if the "disappearing traffic" theory is
correct, we will end up with a really ugly stretch of 6 -lane highwa. (Hey, if you really want to
design the traffic away, why not build something that is actually people -friendly and innovative,
like the recently redesigned center of the town of Poynton in theUK).
A properly designed replacement bridge would make most of the kludges described above
unnecessary. Much shorter, narrower and lower than the existing bridge, it could be elegantly
designed, helping those 24,000 cars who want to be somewhere else to actually get there. The at-
grade advocates often invoke Olmsted. We should remember that one of the most important
principles of his designs was to keep fast traffic away from pedestrians and other slower moving
travelers. A well -designed bridge would do just that. I've committed to continue working on the DAG to help improve the design of whatever is eventually
built. But over the months it's be come more and more obvious that the current design is not the
correct one, and that a bridge could far better serve ALL constituencies.
Regards,
David Wean
19 Congreve St . Roslindale 02131 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Comments on Casey Overpass Replacement project
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:25:49 PM
From: Martha Merson [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:23 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov
Subject: Comments on Casey Overpass Replacement project
Dear Project Managers, I have lived in Jamaica Plain for 20 years. I regularly drive
and bike through the Forest Hills area. I have a number of concerns about the new
design. The 6-lane roads I can think of are treated like highways and have little
appeal for bikers and walkers. Columbus Ave is a good example. The median on Comm Ave in Back Bay is much wider than the 12' you are proposing. Designers around the country and internationally have see the benefits of traffic
circles. I think we are missing an opportunity to re-design Shea circle. Re-designing
this as a traditional intersection has little aesthetic appeal. Keeping circle, but
designing narrower lanes feeding in and offering better signs would help safety.
Nothing in the design that I've seen speaks to efforts to decrease traffic through the
area. Building to accommodate existing traffic is a missed opportunity to revisit who
is traveling through to what destinations, what public transit needs are not being
addressed (e.g., park and ride lots on the south, east, or west sides of the Forest Hills Station, direct, express service to the hospital area).
The design seems to privilege East-West travelers. Without an overpass, north
south travelers are going to encounter more traffic at intersections and along other
roads through JP as drivers seek short-cuts. The lack of attention to consequences
from the re-design is troubling at best.
For the $54 million dollar price tag, I think we can do better.
I concur with many issues my neighbors have raised:
· Pedestrian crossings are too long because there are too many lanes.
· Bike lanes were promised to help avoid pedestrian conflicts. Why were they removed ? Put bikelanes back.
· Eliminating the mid-block crossing from the Southwest Corridor to the station will force anyone notheaded directly
to the Orange Line platform out of their way just to cross the street.
·Shea Circle is a historic resource and should be improved, not destroyed and replaced with a giantintersection.
· Eliminating the Rte. 39 bus berth will degrade service.
· Eliminating drop -off spaces at a transit hub puts bikers at additional risk as people make up their
own drop -off areas and will continue to stop on New Washington Street. Sincerely, MarthaMerson, Jamaica Plain
Resident
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Comments on Project No. 605511: Casey Arborway Replacement
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:20:00 PM
.
>From: Jessica Mink [mailto:jessica@masspaths.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:51 PM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Cc: russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov;
>ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
>Sonia.Chang -diaz@masenate.gov
>Subject: Comments on Project No. 605511: Casey Arborway Replacement
>
>To whom it may concern:
>
>While automobile, truck, bike, and pedestrian traffic could be
>simplified if the Casey Overpass were to be replaced with a new,
>sturdier, better-looking one, the 6-lane highway with minimal turns
>created by the Casey Arborway surface replacement introduces many
>new problems which I think have been ignored by highway planners
>in the 25% design.
>
>As a person who will have to bike across that 6-lane highway twice
>a day to get to and from work, I feel that simply adding cycle tracks
>to Washington St. and the Arborway are not a complete solution; it
>will require a lot of work to make the intersections work for bicyclists
>and pedestrians even halfway as well as the currently existing links
>between Boston south of Forest Hills Station and Jamaica Plain and
>downtown Boston at South St., the Southwest Corridor on-demand walk
>light, and Washington St, which have to cross only four lanes of
>not-very-busy traffic. We will in the future have only two crossings
>of 6-7 lanes of much busier traffic. The new approaches mix not just
>bicyclists and pedestrian crossing between the northern part of Jamaica
>Plain and Forest Hills, but cyclists riding along the Arborway because
>bicycle accommodation on the roadway with either bike lanes (which
>existed in earlier designs) or wide outer lanes (which have been
>ignored because they will make pedestrians and cyclists take longer
>to cross the Arborway) has been eliminated from the 25% design plans.
>
>Bike accommodation *on* the Arborway must be added.
>
>There are a lot of circulation problems dealing with north-south
>traffic on South and Washington Streets and Hyde Park Ave. which will
>negatively affect bicycle and bus travel through this area, as well
>as street traffic in the neighborhoods *south* of the Arborway (which
>were mostly excluded from the Working Advisory Group which narrowed
>down the possibilities in the first place). There are also major
>equity issues because the lower terminal buses, which serve minority
> communities in Roslindale, Hyde Park, Mattapan, and Dorchester will
>be heavily impacted by the new traffic patterns. All through Washington
>St. freight traffic will be forced to use Ukraine Way and Hyde Park
>Ave., which already backs up at peak hours of the day. I usually
>bike to work after the morning peak, but when I had to be in Jamaica
>Plain a few weeks ago, there were two lanes of traffic backed up on
>Hyde Park Ave. from Forest Hills south past the Blakemore St. Bridge
>in Roslindale, nearly a mile south, a nd past my street. These backups
>delay buses headed into the lower terminal, greatly affecting the
>community which depends on them.
>
>Because of the impact on Hyde Park Avenue and Ukraine Way, those streets
>*must* be included in planning the way that Washington and South Streets
>have been, with a careful study of ways to improve traffic flow to the
>Forest Hills Station lower busway in the light of likely backups caused
>by changes to the light cycle at the Arborway.
>
>Sincerely,
>Jessica Mink
>77 Neponset Ave.
>Roslindale, MA 02131
>jessica@masspaths.net
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: comments re: Casey overpass
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:45:45 AM
From: Jamie Simpson [
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:03 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Cc: hborcherding@walkboston.org
Subject: comments re: Casey overpass
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E. Chief Engineer, MassDOT
Attn: Paul King, Project #605511
Dear Mr. Broderick,
Today I read the following email regarding the Casey Overpass project.
While I have not yet seen the project plans, I fully support a "complete
streets" approach to any renovation project of public ways that gives
equally strong and safe access for pedestrians and cyclists. Anything that
makes biking and walking safer, while increasing accessibility for all, gets
my vote. "Restricting" or "taming" motor vehicle traffic is a great way to
make public ways safer for all, including drivers themselves, who become
more obliged to pay more attention behind the wheel. If the current design
and process for the Casey Overpass indeed incorporates this approach,
as Ms. Borcherding of WalkBoston claims, than it has my full support.
Sincerely,
James C. Simpson
Boston, MA
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Concerns about changes to Casey Overpass in Jamaica Plain
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:24:32 PM
From: Nicole Bourgoin
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:03 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; John.R.Connolly@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Concerns about changes to Casey Overpass in Jamaica Plain
Hello,
I am writing as a long-time JP resident with concerns about the plan for an at-grade
replacement of the Casey Overpass. I, along with many other JP residents, am very
displeased with the at-grade plan. Eliminating the mid -block crossing from the Southwest Corridor to the
station will force anyone not headed directly to the Orange Line platform out of their way just to cross the street,
or will increase the amount of pedestrians jaywalking. This will be incredibly dangerous on such a busy road.
Additionally, I'm concerned with the large number of trees that we will lose due to the planned revisions.
Thank you for your time.
Nicole Bourgoin
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: concerns about proposed Forest Hills changes.
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:16:34 PM
.
>From: Susan Virostek
>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:31 PM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: concerns about proposed Forest Hills changes.
>
>To the Department of Transportation charged with review of proposed changes
>in Forest Hills:
>
>I hope that the current neighborhood design can be preserved as much as
>possible for historic and community values. It seems to me that creating a
>multi-lane highway serves little but to disrupt and that the proposed changes
>are damaging. A bridge would be a better solution.
>
>Thank you for taking the time to review citizens's viewpoints. A community is
>like a giant organism, and radical surgery is not usually the best option.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Susan Virostek
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: concerns about the Casey Overpass project
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:14:53 PM
From: tara ikenouye [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:13 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: concerns about the Casey Overpass project
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to strongly support a revision to the current plan for the Casey Overpass
bridge. I live in the neighborhood adjacent to the Forest Hills T stop and the Casey
Overpass. With a bridge I am able to walk and bike under the overpass during rush hour.
The overpass keeps what is largely through traffic up and out of our neighborhood. I am
very concerned that an at-grade intersection would not only be a traffic nightmare but would cut off the neighborhood. I can't imagine trying to safely cross six-lanes of traffic. The
current design also does not show bike lanes as was promised at the outset. I also do not
think that eliminating drop-off spaces neat the T station is going to prevent people from
stopping for drop-offs -it will only make it more dangerous for bikers, pedestrians and
motorist. I encourage you to visit this area during the morning and evening commute.
People currently stop and block lanes for drop-off and pick-up. I am asking MassDOT to please consider designs that include a bridge. A new bridge will
preserve the neighborhood connections, maintain a walkable intersection and meet the needs
of the commuting traffic. It is possible to improve this area and have an appealing, long-
lasting bridge that fits with Olmstead's vision and meets the needs of the neighborhood and
commuters.
Eliminating the bridge is a bad decision.
Sincerely,
Tara Ikenouye
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: File No. 605511. Fw: Casey Arborway: 25% Design Comments from the Arborway Coalition
Date: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:14:29 AM
Importance: High From: freemansherwood@hotmail.com [mailto:freemansherwood@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 12:28 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: File N
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Forest Hills Casey Overpass Comments
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:17:10 PM
From: Gravely, Brittany [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:40 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; Russell.Holmes@mahouse.gov;
Jeffrey.Sanchez@mahouse.gov; Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov; William.Straus@mahouse.gov;
Thomas.McGee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov;
David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov;
felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Forest Hills Casey Overpass Comments
DearMr.Broderick,
IhavebeenaresidentofForestHillsforseveralyearsandaresidentofJamaicaPlainforabout15.Iwalk,
.
gradeoption.Frommybikeandpedestrianperspective,inparticular,asIworkmywayaroundthediceyintersections,
Iseealltheadditionalcarsspeedingalongtheoverpass. Ifeellikeitisbetterforthemtobeaboveme.Abetter­
designedoverpasswouldbeterrificonmanylevels:visually,safety-wise,space-wise,
andtraffic­
wise.Integratingadditionalgreenspaceandimprovedbusdockingintothisscenariowouldbeamazingforthistroublesomezone.
NomatterhowmanywaysIlookatit,Icannotseetheat­
gradesolutionanimprovement.AndIdonotbelieveeitheroftheseoptionswerenecessarilyinOlmstead's"vision;"ifthatwerethec
ase,wecouldeliminatethecarsaltogether.Therealissueisaflowing,efficient,
ecologicalandbeautifuluseofthisspecialpartoftownthatattractspeopleforitsquietersideandaccesstotheparksinadditiontoitsus
easapublictransportationhub.
Theirareserious,conflictingissueswiththecurrentat­
gradeplanwhichmakeitlesssafe,lessfluidandalessdynamicarea.Pleasereconsiderthebridgeoptionandembracetheopportunit
yforaunique,smartsolutiontothemanyproblemsathand.
Thankyouforlistening.
Sincerely,
BrittanyGravely97WachusettSt.#2
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Forest Hills/Casey Overpass Project
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:44:50 AM
From: POND RUNNER
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:00 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Cc: Sam Sherwood; Sarah Freeman; Piney Kesting-Handly; Wendy Landman; Julie Crockford
Subject: Forest Hills/Casey Overpass Project
DearSirs:
Asalong-timeJamaicaPlainresident,Istronglysupportandcommend yourdecisionto
dismantletheCaseyOverpassandreplaceitwithanattractive,functional,atgradeconfigurationofroads,greenspacesandpublictr
ansitaccesspoints.
Unfortunately,afewprofessionalagitatorshavedecidedtodedicate alloftheirtimeandenergytoreversing
thatdecision.AsI'msureyourecognize, althoughtheirvoiceisshrilland
loud,theyrepresentadistinctlyminoritypointofviewinour JamaicaPlaincommunity.
ThemajorityofJamaicaPlainresidentsagreethatremovingtheghastlyhulkthatistheCaseyOverpass,andreconfiguringthesurfa
ceroadstorationalizetrafficflowswhileenhancingpedestrian,bicyclist,masstransituser,andrecreationalaccess,willbeawonde
rfulimprovementtotheForestHillsareaandtosurroundingneighborhoods.
Iwishtherewasawaytoputthebridge/nobridgedebatebehindusandfocusourattention
ontheactualurbanroadwaydesignandtrafficmanagementchoicesthatliebeforeus.
Regardingthosechoices,IhopeyouwillconsiderafewobservationsIofferasadailypedestrian,bicyclistandmasstransituserofthe
Arborway/ForestHillsinterchange.
1.Thereneedtobephysicalbarriers(highgranitecurbs,stoneandmetalvehicleexclusionposts,parkbenches,stoutsteel
fences,etc.)physicallypreventingmotorvehicles,
includingespeciallytransitpoliceprivatecarsandservicevehicles,
fromdrivingandparkingindedicatedcourtyardsandgreenspacesaroundtheForestHillsStation. To
seewhathappensifvehiclesarenotphysicallyexcluded,justtakealookat themess
transitpoliceandservicevehicleshavemadeofthebrickpedestriancourtyardonthenorth (Arborway)sideofthestation.
2. To be preserved and protected, green spaces should be large and continuous,
not narrow and fragmented or sandwiched between lanes of asphalt. Look at the condition
of the relatively broad "green" medians on either side of the Arborway between Murry and
Kelly Circles: They are a mess! Cars, ambulances and trucks constantly drive over them.
Public works and park maintenance trucks dump road salt, sand and debris on them.
Passing cars throw beer bottles and trash on them. Speeding cars and trucks regularly hit
the trees, traffic light control boxes, street lamp poles and anything else that stands or sits
on the Arborway medians. They are too narrow to afford pedestrians, pets, recreational
users, or historic trees any meaningful protection from the ravages of speeding, honking,
exhaust belching commuter traffic. Separation strips between lanes of motor vehicle traffic
should not be considered "green space" because they cannot be maintained or protected.
3. There needs to be a kiss and ride drop off point for cars to drop off mass transit users
at the Forest Hills MBTA station without impeding the natural flow of traffic. These kissand­
ride curb-side points should be protected by overhead roofs from snow and rain, and
should be physically protected from use as a parking area for idle city buses or as a
dumping area for snow and ice removed from nearby motor vehicle lanes, as the kiss-and ride
point on the north side of the Station is currently used.
4. The existing bike cage at Forest Hills Station is a very valuable improvement and should
be preserved. There should be a way for bicycle users to access the cage without crossing
heavily used pedestrian pathways. Bike racks outside the cage should be protected from
direct rain and snow fall by placement under the eaves and roof overhangs of Forest Hills
Station, rather than directly under the drip line, where they are now located.
5. Bench seats on the commuter rail and MBTA light rail platforms should not be placed
directly under air vents which allow rain, snow and the elements to pass through. Rain
snow and ice passing through air vents directly overhead has made several of the curent
platform bench seats unusable.
Thank you very much for soliciting and considering the views of Jamaica Plain residents and
daily users of the Forest Hills station in your redesign of the Forest Hills/Arborway
interchange.
Sincerely,
Kevin Handly
26 Arborway
Jamaica Plain 02130
Help Me Run Boston for WalkBoston --Go To:
http://www.crowdrise.com/teamwalkboston/fundraiser/PondRunner
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Forest Hills/Casey Overpass Project
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:44:59 AM
From: piney kesting
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:07 PM
To: DOT Feedback; sarah freeman; Kevin Handly
Subject: Fwd: Forest Hills/Casey Overpass Project
Subject: Forest Hills/Casey Overpass Project
Dear Sirs:
As a long-time Jamaica Plain resident, I strongly support and commend your
decision to dismantle the Casey Overpass and replace it with an attractive,
functional, at grade configuration of roads, green spaces and public transit
access points.
Unfortunately, a few professional agitators have decided to dedicate all of their
time and energy to reversing that decision. As I'm sure you recognize, although
their voice is shrill and loud, they represent a distinctly minoritypoint of view
in our Jamaica Plain community.
The majority of Jamaica Plain residents agree that removing the ghastly hulk
that is the Casey Overpass, and reconfiguring the surface roads to rationalize
traffic flows while enhancing pedestrian, bicyclist, mass transit user, and
recreational access, will be a wonderful improvement to the Forest Hills area
and to surrounding neighborhoods.
I wish there was a way to put the bridge/no bridge debate behind us and focus
our attention on the actual urban roadway design and traffic management
choices that lie before us.
Sincerely,
Piney Kesting
26 Arborway
Jamaica Plain, Ma. 02130
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: I support the at grade solution for the Casey Arborway Project #605511
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:48:03 AM
From: Susan Vitolo [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:03 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: I support the at grade solution for the Casey Arborway Project #605511 Greetings,
I support the at grade solution for the Casery Arborway Project.
Best,
Susan Vitolo
37 Annafran St
Boston, MA 02131 Sent from my iPad
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: I support the at grade solution for the Casey Arborway Project #605511 Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:38:05 PM
From: Todd Consentino [mailto:tconsentino@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:22 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: I support the at grade solution for the Casey Arborway Project #605511 Dear sirs,
I am a member of DAG for the Casey Arborway Project. I have been involved in this
project since the beginning of the public process. It has been a rewarding experience. I am
pleased with the decision to go with the at grade solution. Please, know there are many,
many more in our community happy with the at grade plan, too. Having spoken to many of
them, I know they no longer write letters of support because they rationalize that the
decision to go with the at grade plan has been made. I'm looking forward to the 75% design
phase.
Best,
Todd Consentino
37 Annafran St
Boston, MA 02131 Casey DAG rep for the Boston Cyclists Union From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: I support the at grade solution for the Casey Arborway Project #605511 Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:48:08 AM
From: Todd Consentino [mailto:tconsentino@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:22 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: I support the at grade solution for the Casey Arborway Project #605511 Dear sirs,
I am a member of DAG for the Casey Arborway Project. I have been involved in this
project since the beginning of the public process. It has been a rewarding experience. I am
pleased with the decision to go with the at grade solution. Please, know there are many,
many more in our community happy with the at grade plan, too. Having spoken to many of
them, I know they no longer write letters of support because they rationalize that the
decision to go with the at grade plan has been made. I'm looking forward to the 75% design
phase.
Best,
Todd Consentino
37 Annafran St
Boston, MA 02131
Casey DAG rep for the Boston Cyclists Union
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: In support of At Grade
Date: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:08:01 PM
FYI
.
>From: Brink, Katrina M [m
>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:53 AM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: In support of At Grade
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Jamaica Plain Casey Overpass Project
Date: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:15:23 PM
From: judy teitelman [
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:07 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Jamaica Plain Casey Overpass
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Letter of Support: Casey Arborway Project
Date: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:38:33 PM
From: John Stewart [
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:54 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Letter of Support: Casey Arbor
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: ltr of support for REbuilding Casey Overpass
Date: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:11:34 AM
From: Rosemary Schantz [
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 4:59 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthil
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: MassDOT Casey Overpass Project (Project No. 605511)
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:38:44 PM
From: Nerys Powell [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:56 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; David McNulty; Ayanna Pressley; Rob Consalvo; Felix Arroyo;
Matthew O'Malley; Stephen Murphy; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; Russell.Holmes@mahouse.gov;
Jeffrey.Sanchez@mahouse.gov; Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov; William.Straus@mahouse.gov;
Thomas.McGee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov
Subject: MassDOT Casey Overpass Project (Project No. 605511)
Dear Mr. Broderick,
I would like to register my dismay at the current misguided plan to replace the Casey
Overpass at Forest Hills with a six-lane roadworks. Are you nuts? How are 24,000 more cars, per day, at street level a good idea? I am a cyclist who every day does
her best to share the road with automobiles and I'd much rather share that road,
especially the busy ones at Forest Hills with fewer cars, not more of them. By the
way, where did the bike lanes go in your shut-em-up-and-push-it-through project? I
await your written response at the address below.
Your design is flawed in so many ways. How is this supposed to be safer and better
for the local community? I lived on Hyde Park Ave. for seven years and I always
dreaded coming into Forest Hills in my car from JP because of the congestion and
there was no way to get around it. I can't even imagine what circle of hell it will be if
all of those cars that used to go overhead on the bridge are all fighting for space on the ground. Yours is a stupid, misguided plan. Your plan calls for the elimination of
the 39 bus berth? You've made no allowance for drop-off spaces at a major transit hub? What are you and your engineers thinking? Do you honestly think that this will
stop people from stopping ? Ha!
Forest Hills needs a svelte new bridge; not a behemoth, at grade roadway
nightmare.
Yours truly,
Nerys Powell
23 Lambert Ave., Apt. 2 Boston, MA 02119 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: My continued support of the "at grade" option
Date: Friday, March 01, 2013 4:18:34 PM
FYI
From: virginia marcotte
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:01 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: My continued
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: New Casey Overpass is Preferred for Jamaica Plain
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:22:37 PM
From: Louise Barrett
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:46 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; Russell.Holmes@masenate.gov;
Liz.Malia@masenate.gov; Jeffrey.Sanchez@masenate.gov; William.Straus@masenate.gov;
David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.presley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov;
felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; stephen.murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Fwd: New Casey Overpass is Preferred for Jamaica Plain
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Louise Barrett < ledbar@comcast.net>
Date: March 10, 2013 3:18:44 PM EDTTo: "dot.feedback.highway@state.ma.us"
<dot.feedback.highway@state.ma.us>
Cc: "info@bridgingforesthills.com" <info@bridgingforesthills.com>,
"Sonia.Chang-Diaz@masenate.gov" <Sonia.Chang-Diaz@masenate.gov>,
"Russell.Holmes@masenate.gov" <Russell.Holmes@masenate.gov>,
"Liz.Malia@masenate.gov" <Liz.Malia@masenate.gov>,
"Jeffrey.Sanchez@masenate.gov" <Jeffrey.Sanchez@masenate.gov>,
"William.Straus@masenate.gov" <William.Straus@masenate.gov>,
"Thomas.McGee@masenate.gov." <Thomas.McGee@masenate.gov.>,
"David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov" <David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov>,
"ayanna.presley@cityofboston.gov" <ayanna.presley@cityofboston.gov>,
"Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov" <Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov>,
"felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov" <felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov>,
"matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov" <matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov>,
"stephen.murphy@cityofboston.gov" <stephen.murphy@cityofboston.gov>
Subject: New Casey Overpass is Preferred for Jamaica Plain
Shortly after World War II it was determined that the best way to relieve the
increasingly heavy traffic congestion at Forest Hills was to build an overpass
over the busy intersections where both Washington and South Streets crossed
the Arborway. It was also decided that the Arborway roadway from Kelly
Circle at Centre Street to Shea Circle at Morton Street should be widened to
accommodate existing and projected vehicular traffic on Rte 203. The new
overpass was built high enough to clear the elevated railway on Washington
Street and the New Haven Railroad mainline embankment. The end result of
these improvements was that East/West traffic now flowed smoothly through
the Forest Hills terminal area on the Casey Overpass we know today. It still
does.
The planners of the overpass/roadway combination were essentially correct in
their predictions and vehicular traffic did, indeed, continue to increase. In fact
the overpass eventually saw significantly more traffic than it was originally
designed to carry.
Fast forward to today; we are now talking about replacing the overpass with two
at-grade crossings, essentially going back to where we started when the
overpass was conceived to solve traffic problem at those same intersections. An
overpass was necessary then, and it's necessary now. The number of vehicles
using the overpass today has probably lessened somewhat from the peak years,
but at over 24,000 vehicles per day it must be handling well over the volume
that existed back when the need for an overpass was deemed necessary. The
number of vehicles passing the other way through Forest Hills at both
intersections must be significantly higher today than at the time the overpass
was proposed. Today, driving, walking or biking through either intersection
during rush hour, even with the East/West regional traffic moving overhead, is a
challenge at best and dangerous at worst. Putting that East/West traffic on the
ground and mixing it into the stew of cars, trucks, buses, pedestrians and
bicycles will only aggravate and reinforce the current chaotic, unsafe
conditions.
The obvious answer is to construct a new overpass with redesigned intersections
-a handsome overpass that meets the primary needs of pedestrians and
bicyclists as well as motor vehicles, one that will allow and encourage
reconnection of the Forest Hills neighborhoods to the Jamaica Plain business
district, something traffic-snarled intersections and multi-laned barrier
roadways can never do. The new overpass does not need to be as high, wide or
long as the original, and it can be made very attractive with decorative designs,
textured surfaces, landscaping, colorful plantings, safe and attractive lighting for
walk ways and bike paths, and other creative touches. In short, the overpass can
be designed to reflect the spirit and beauty of the Emerald Necklace. I'm sure
Frederick Law Olmstead would approve -he did, after all, include decorative
bridges in many of his landscape creations. It may be the more expensive
option, but it is an investment that will pay quality-of-life dividends in the
future.
Edward Barrett
On the Roslindale/Jamaica Plain line
Sent from my iPad
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Opposition to at-grade solution: Casey Overpass in JP (Project No. 605511)
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:23:29 PM
From: Mel Larsen [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:53 AMTo: DOT Feedback HighwaySubject: Opposition to at-grade solution: Casey
Overpass in JP (Project No. 605511)
Hello,
I have been a resident of Jamaica Plain for 6 years. I'm writing to strongly oppose the at-grade
solution of the Casey Overpass in JP (Project No. 605511)
My largest concern is that not only will having an at-grade solution not reduce traffic in the area
(having a robust schedule of bus lines would, though!) it will make the situation for the large number
of pedestrians in the area much worse.
A bridge would serve this area much better.
Mel Larsen
91 Parkton Rd #3 Jamaica Plain
:
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Plans for Forest Hillls
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:22:09 PM
From: Shaw, Barbara [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:36 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov;
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Plans for Forest Hillls
Hi. I'm writing in regard to the transportation plans through and around Forest Hills in
Jamaica Plain.
I commute on the Orange Line from Forest Hills to State Street roughly four days a week. I
also walk, bike or drive through FH 4 or 5 times a week as a local resident with errands,
friends and appointments in the area. So do the other members of my family and most of my
neighbors. We also frequently patronize the restaurants and shops in Forest Hills. (I also
vote at every opportunity!) I'm very concerned about the impact on all these modes of
transportation as well as the atmosphere and other pleasures of Forest Hills if the Casey
Overpass is not replaced with another bridge to carry the current overpass traffic through the
area.
I regularly use the overpass now and see heavy during rush hour and generally steady use at
most other times of day. If all those cars are displaced from the overpass onto the surface
roads it will be hugely disruptive, gumming up the current regular uses (and users) of the
surface streets. Also it seems unlikely to be very safe. Widening the surface roads to the 5 or 6 lanes in the plan makes things much worse for pedestrians -a very large group who
notably includes the many regular commuters and other users of the Forest Hills Train and
Bus Station as well as the people who shop and eat in the area. Recall that FH already has
traffic bottlenecks with the major thoroughfares routed below the overpass. Add to that the
irritation of the 24,000 additional drivers who will be waiting through the 8 (or so) traffic
lights to get through FH and this is just Bad getting Worse.
It doesn't look like there is any true accommodation of bike riders. My husband often
commutes to work on his bike, so this is a particular issue of concern for our family. Where
Are The Bike Lanes, for Pete's sake? ? ? I'd heard these would be part of the new plan but
what is in it is not sufficient or even much of an improvement on the current bike
accommodations. Also there is a Hubway bike station at Forest Hills and the SW Corridor
Bike Path which ends at FH. There are a lot of bikers that are not accommodated in the
current plan.
The pictures of the proposed plantings strike me as unrealistic -all those trees won't grow to
that nice big size given the limited root zone space above the MBTA tunnels and between
all the expanded sections of pavement.
A lot of the comments in favor of the "no-bridge plan" assume or suggest that a new bridge
will be as big and ugly as the Casey Overpass, but this is not at all likely to be the case.
With current construction techniques the replacement bridge would very probably be
slimmer, shorter and, if appropriate, higher or lower than the Casey Overpass. In other
words, it needn't be anywhere near the visual blight or sunlight/sky-view blocker that the
Casey Overpass is. We could have a good looking bridge here, if you just give it a chance.
Why not just build a new and better bridge and avoid all the congestion, danger, frustration
and ugliness? ? ?
The only justification for getting rid of the bridge is getting rid of the cars that use it, and
that surely is not happening.
Barbara Shaw - National Park Service - Northeast Region GIS
--Pedestrian crossings are too long because there are too many lanes.
--How will this scheme be safer than with a bridge ?
--Bike lanes were promised to help avoid pedestrian conflicts. Why were they removed ? Put bike
lanes back.
--Eliminating the mid-block crossing from the Southwest Corridor to the station will force anyone not
headed directly to the Orange Line platform out of their way just to cross the street.
--Shea Circle is a historic resource and should be improved, not destroyed and replaced with a giant intersection.
--Eliminating the Rte. 39 bus berth will degrade service.
--Eliminating drop -off spaces at a transit hub is stupid and dangerous. People will continue to stop on New Washington Street.
--Explain how putting 10 cab stands on the new parkway fits into Olmsted’s vision.
...and anything else about this plan that you don’t like. --Or just keep it brief 1 or 2 sentences is all you need. "This design is bad. We need a Bridge!"
Numbers of comments may be more important than your eloquence.
From: DOT Feedback HighwayTo: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: PLEASE REBUILD THE BRIDGE!!!!!
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:06:24 AM
From: Steffani B
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 8:09 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: PLEASE REBUILD THE BRIDGE!!!!!
The new design is bad. We need a Bridge!! As a JP resident who drives south often,
I cannot imagine the pass-over bridge being replaced with lights. It's INSANE! Thatis the busiest intersection in JP!!
Questions we all are perplexed about:
--Pedestrian crossings are too long because there are too many lanes.
--How will this scheme be safer than with a bridge?
--Bike lanes were promised to help avoid pedestrian conflicts. Why were theyremoved? Put bike lanes back!
--Eliminating the mid-block crossing from the Southwest Corridor to the station willforce anyone not headed directly
to the Orange Line platform out of their way just tocross the street.
--Shea Circle is a historic resource and should be improved, not destroyed andreplaced with a giant intersection.
--Eliminating the Rte. 39 bus berth will degrade service.
--Eliminating drop-off spaces at a transit hub is stupid and dangerous. People willcontinue to stop on New Washington
Street.
Sincerely,
Stephanie B
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Please rebuild
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:18:08 PM
From: Sarah Goodman [m
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 8:19 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Please rebuild
Hi folks,
First I want to thank you for all you do at a very vulnerable time for cities and especiallycity services.
I live at 199 SOUth St. #4, JP as close to the Casey Overpassas a person can be. I own this little piece of my 6-unit
building, andI cherish my neighbors and neighborhood.
The overpass is an eyesore, admittedly, but it is and provides for open space, in a crowdedurban area that needs it. I
was at first afraid to be a pedestrian here and make my waythrough "no man's land. But now I love my walk to and
around and under the overpassbecause it provides me incredible spaceyou just don't find elsewhere in the city. I always
see the moon, and wide sky and views ofthe city that fill me with peace. Moreover, the pedestrian crossing is easy and
the drivers onthe side roads and intersections seem polite and willing to stop for commuting pedestrians,
perhaps becuase they are on side roads.
Please consider and/or reconsider rebuilding a bridge here so we residents, pedestrians,
homeowners, and T commuters can continue to enjoy our neighborhood without a flood ofrushed, jammed, car traffic
running through.
I am impressed that Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineeris willing to hear our concerns.
I sincerely hope that he sees the value in the bridge plan that has been put forward. I amunhappy with the current at-
grade plan and just wanted toadd my voice to the voice of so many of my neighbors.
Looking forward to many happy years inthe heart of Forest Hills,
Sarah Goodman199 South St. #4JP , MA 02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Please stop the Casey Project
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:21:29 PM
From: Jude G [
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:31 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov;
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov; info@bridgingforesthills.com
Subject: Please stop the Casey Project
To whom it may concern:
I am a Roslindale resident who uses Forest Hills Station every work day. On a daily basis, I
see pedestrians and cyclists who are almost hit by cars as well as car acidents and near
collisions with buses and other traffic. Eliminating the bridge is a guarantee that the
situation will become worse and will lead to injury, property damage, and perhaps fatalities.
I would like to register my strong opposition to this project. While there are many serious
issues with this plan, I would like to know, specifically, how on earth a pedestrian crossing
over so many lanes of traffic, during rush hours, can possibly be safe? Frankly, this is
foolish and does not serve pedestrians, motorists, or cyclists as well as a well designed
bridge. I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Jude Goldman
Jude Goldman, Executive Director, The Lenny Zakim Fund
41 Brown Avenue
Roslindale, MA 02131 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project # 605511/ The Casey Overpass in Jamaica Plain
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:28:38 PM
I didn’t respond to this one as it looks like more of a questionnaire…
Thanks,
Emily
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:23 AM
To: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; LizMalia@mahouse.gov; William.Strauss@mahouse.gov;
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.giv; DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Bridging Forest Hills; David.Mcnulty@cityofboston.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov;
felixarroyo@cityofboston.gov; stephenmurphy@cityofboston.gov; imoveenergy@yahoo.com;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Project # 605511/ The Casey Overpass in Jamaica Plain
Dear Mr. Broderick,
I am writing to protest against Project #605511. I feel that Jamaica Plain will not benefit
from having more highways added to it. With this in mind, please answer the below listed
questions in writing:
1) Exactly how will the At-Grade plan be safer than with a bridge?
2) I know that MASS DOT promised Bike Lanes to help avoid pedestrian conflicts. Why
were they removed? Was it so that pedestrians can tentatively be hit by both cars and
bicyclists? Please put the bike lanes back.
3) Why are the U-Turns located right next to the Pedestrian Walkways at the Arnold
Arboretum and why have you decided to allow big trucks to turn around in such a beautiful
area that is well traveled by walkers? This idea is an accident waiting to happen!
It looks to me as if MASS DOT has no intention of trying to work with the JP community
because if it did, it would explain in writing, why taking down the Casey Overpass and
putting up another bridge is not a more viable option for MY community. I believe that this
plan is bad and that all of the side streets will be clogged with cars trying to avoid/get to
their destinations. The pedestrian crossings will be too long as well because there are too
many lanes planned for the Forest Hills area as well.
Please get back to me in writing as to WHY your plan to take down the Casey Overpass and
put in a set of highways with five traffic lights and no right hand turns will be safer and
more visually pleasing than a new bridge? ?
Thank you, ~Maryfaith Goessling 20 Atwood Square
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project #605511 Casey Arborway
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:47:41 AM
From: Carice Reddien
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:21 AM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Project #605511 Casey Arborway
Attn Paul King,
Dear Sir,
I just wanted to write to support the Casey Arborway at-grade option that was recently
presented at 25% design. I understand that there are some people who are afraid to change
the status quo, but I trust the department's numbers, and believe that the traffic flow will
function just fine with the at-grade option.
As a bicyclist, I also strongly feel that the at grade option, with the associated cycletracks
.
stong and brave who are happy to ride in heavy traffic.
I encourage you to stay the course with the at-grade option which I think is a good solution
born of a robust process.
Thanks for your good work on the project.
Regards,
Carice Reddien
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project #605511
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:15:30 PM
From: Carol Bell [
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 10:21 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Project #605511
Dear Thomas F Broderick:
I am writing regarding the need for a new bridge at Forest Hills in Jamaica Plain. I comefrom Hyde Park to Jamaica
Plain 5 days per week for work. Sometimes I drive andsometimes I take the bus and the traffic congestion at Forest
Hills during 'rush hour',
(7:30am to about 9am) is always thick, and that is with the bridge. I can not imagine howdifficult that thoroughfare
will be with out moving some of the traffic up and out of the way,
as the bridge does now. Planning to increase the congestion seems a cruel joke to those ofus who travel though that
part of town as we move from home to work.
The '203 overpass' seems to run rather smoothly, with all of those folks who are comingfrom Dorchester and the south
shore as they head to the Medical areal What other routewould you propose for them... down Washington St and
through Egleston Sq.
The Bridge may need to come down, but it must be replaced!
Thanks for your attention to this important community matter.
Sincerely,
Carol L Bell, Hyde Park, Ma
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project #605511, Casey Overpass: Public Comment
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:01:59 PM
From: Claritywork [m
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 12:58 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Project #605511, Casey Overpass: Public Comment
To:Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973 Re: Project #605511 Dear Thomas Broderick,
I am writing to state on record that I oppose the removal versus rebuilding of the Casey
Overpass in Jamaica Plain. Rather than restate my reasons, I am forwarding a letter that I
sent to Secretary Richard Sullivan on January 6, 2013 (during the MEPA #14978 Comment
Period) wherein I expressed my concerns, thoughts, and position. They remain unchanged
as of today, March 9, 2013:
Dear Secretary Sullivan,
I am writing you regarding the Casey overpass at Forest Hills. I live five minutes from this
intersection, and have for 19 years. I wish to express my vehement opposition to
permanently removing versus replacing this bridge, and to request that you require an
Environmental Impact Report be done so the alternatives for Forest Hills can be adequately
evaluated.
I understand that:
1. The public process involving by MassDOT’s Working Advisory Group was skewed away
from reviewing the legitimate transportation benefits of a bridge in favor of opinions of
single-interest bike and park advocacy groups.
2. MassDOT misled the public with biased and erroneous renderings and plans. MassDOT
Secretary Davey admitted in an interview with the Jamaica Plain Gazette that the process
cost the agency the community’s trust and said, “We’re going to double down in improving
that trust and openness.”
3. The Measures of Evaluation (MOE) used by MassDOT to compare the bridge and atgrade alternatives were incorrect, misleading, and subjective. The MOEs and the scoring
done exclusively by MassDOT were apparently useless. For example, the goal of increasing
space for community gatherings was evaluated by estimating off-peak vehicle speeds on a
bridge and at-grade. MOEs cannot be used to fairly compare the alternatives.
4. Impacts to local air quality were not evaluated despite repeated requests. The City of
Boston requires a more comprehensive air quality analysis for development projects than
MassDOT did for this project, which will increase vehicle miles traveled, travel time, and
not improve intersection operations much. More traffic signals will lead to vehicle delays
and idling.
5. The project is not consistent with transportation, park, and land use plans for the area.
Studies done by the City of Boston for Forest Hills and the Arborway identify the need to
keep regional traffic away from local traffic in Forest Hills. City transportation policies
include keeping regional traffic off neighborhood streets. MassDOT’s plan at Forest Hills
puts all traffic—local shoppers and workers headed to Dorchester, Rte. 3, and more—on the
surface streets—over 36,000 vehicles per day.
6. Safety in the alternatives was not evaluated. “Improve safety for all modes and users” was
identified as a fatal flaw criterion, so important that alternatives not addressing safety would
be dropped. However, MassDOT never compared the safety of six travel lanes in the atgrade plan against the bridge plan.
7. We weren’t shown a bridge alternative with two-thirds less traffic on the ground than the
selected scheme, one that worked better for autos, buses, bikes, and pedestrians. It seems
MassDOT never intended to develop a bridge alternative that acknowledged the value of a
bridge and the better multi-modal level of service a bridge would provide. Rather, it made
sure both alternatives would result in about the same minimal acceptable level of service.
8. MassDOT claims that, “Traffic works the same in both alternatives,” but this focuses too
narrowly on automobile traffic and ignores impacts to buses, bikes, and walkers. This claim
seems dubious; we deserve a chance to have MassDOT explain in detail how it cannot make
conditions for all traffic better by removing 25,000 vehicles per day from the local streets.
Certainly the WAG process and the alternatives study were not adequate to evaluate
comparable alternatives. An Environmental Impact Report is needed before committing to
the proposed scheme.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Deputat
296 Wachusett Street
Jamaica Plain, MA
From: DOT FeedbackTo: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project #605511.
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:46:03 AM
From: Peter Munkenbeck
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:34 AM
To: DOT Feedback
Cc: hborcherding@walkboston.org
Subject: Project #605511. Removing the Casey overpass is necessary as it will otherwise fall down.
On balance, the decision NOT to replace it, but to improve the ground plane is a wise
choice that I want to endorse. Please hold your course and invest the money in a better
ground level solution.
Thank you. Peter Munkenbeck
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project #605511 Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:45:48 AM
From: Ken Dymond
March 14, 2013 9:42 AM
To: DOT Feedback
Cc: hborcherding@walkboston.org
Subject: Project #605511 re: Project #605511 Dear Mr Broderick,
I want to reiterate my support for the at-grade option that has been chosen, and the process you have
used to get there. It's the right choice for the neighborhood, the future of this vibrant city, the parks
and for transportation options.
I look forward to moving past the discussion of "if" and move into putting all the energy into how to
make that option the best it can be
KenDymond20ManataugTrailMarblehead,MA01945-1310
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project 605511 -- Casey Overpass
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:19:11 PM
Attachments: 512957.pdf
From: Gerard O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:44 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Project 605511 -- Casey Overpass
Please see the attached comment letter. Thank you. Jerry O'Connor
22 Yale Terrace
Jamaica Plain
GERARD P. O'CONNOR
22 YALE TERRACE
JAMAICA PLAIN, MA 02130
March 13, 2013
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973
Re: Project No. 605511 – Casey Overpass
This is to comment on the recent public meeting and presentation concerning the Casey
Overpass replacement 25% design.
Although many questions remain concerning this project, in this letter I will emphasize
the one I believe is the most critical: I do not believe that the DOT has established that it
has enough room to build this project to be safe and effective.
As one example, for over a year I have been requesting specific information about the
width of the western U-turn. I have expressed the concerns that (a) the U-turn is too
small for some trucks and (b) the proposed bike path is unsafe, in that it must share road
space with the truck turning apron, a design I believe to be inherently unsafe despite
attempts to control traffic through signals.
If the western U-turn doesn’t work, then the entire project will fail. We must establish
once and for all whether it will work as designed.
The record provided by the project team on these points has been inconsistent and
unclear. For example, I raised the question about the width of the western U-turn at the
November 21, 2102 public meeting. I asked, is the project team absolutely, positively
sure that the western U-turn is wide enough to accommodate all trucks ? I got a one-word
answer: “Yes.” Please see http://jamaicaplain.patch.com/articles/video-simulation-no-bridge
through-forest-hills-9713dc91#video-8518854, at the 2:40 mark, for the record of this question
and answer.
I was surprised, therefore, to learn for the first time, right before the most recent public
meeting, that DOT has determined that the U-turn, as I had feared, is not, in fact, wide
enough for all trucks, and has been re-designed as per a February 5, 2013 “Technical
Memorandum” circulated by the DOT project team.
This is exactly the opposite of the “absolutely, positively sure” answer I got on
November 21, 2012, and makes me nervous.
This leads to two immediate concerns. First, to all appearances, the materials on the
project website and the materials presented at the public meeting are identical to the old
materials in their depiction of the western U-turn. It’s impossible to tell from viewing the
plans what, if anything, has changed. The February 5 "Technical Memorandum"
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
March 13, 2013
Page 2 of 3
concludes by stating that "the design team has determined that the western median U-turn
should be designed to accommodate a WB-63 design vehicle (emphasis added). This
leaves open the question: Can it be, and has it been, so designed, consistent with traffic
and safety requirements for all modes?
Also, I was able to speak before the public meeting with a member of the project team.
After an extended conversation with this individual, I was able to confirm that he was the
person who both wrote the February 5 “Technical Memorandum” and performed the redesign
work on the western U-turn. Unfortunately, in our conversation he was unable to
remember when he had done the redesign work, other than that is was after the date of the
February 5 memo, the actual final date of which he was also unable to confirm, except to
say that it may not have been February 5. He was also unable to relate the precise
dimensions or new turning radius of the western U-turn on the drawings, or explain with
precision where the bicycles will go.
In summary, it appears that the DOT project team has recognized that, as some observers
have continually suggested, the size of the western U-turn is a serious and potentially
fatal flaw in the design. However, I cannot find on the website or in the materials or in
conversations with the project team representatives any specifics about what has changed,
what trade-offs were made, and where that leaves us with respect to effectiveness and
safety of that part of the project.
I am grateful that the DOT has apparently addressed this issue after the past year of
comments and requests. I ask that that specific current information on this part of the
project, with measurements and revised explanations and what is included and what has
been removed (with particular reference to bicycle traffic) be made available as soon as
possible, and certainly before the project proceeds past the 25% design phase. At this
tiem, it’s not even clear to me, based on my review of the plans and my conversations
before the public meeting with the project team representatives, that the drawings shown
to the public at the meeting truly represent the current design in this critical respect.
Clearing this up for certain, now, and removing all of the doubt and uncertainty
surrounding the discussion of this aspect of the project, would do a lot to build
confidence in the project.
Two other points that I would like the project team to consider:
- Traffic in the Forest Hills area is much different during the morning and evening
commuting hours than it is during the rest of the day. As of now, the solution proposed
has been designed, as it of course must be, to accommodate the heaviest rush hour traffic.
People traveling to Hyde Park Ave. and South Street to dine in local restaurants or visit
businesses during mid-day, in the evening and on weekends will be greatly
inconvenienced by the byzantine traffic patterns required by the proposed design. Yet
these patterns are probably not even needed for as much as 18 hours per day, during offpeak times. Please consider, before proceeding, the feasibility of designing this project to
allow different, non-rush hours traffic patterns in which cars can make traditional left
turns into these local business districts.
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
March 13, 2013
Page 3 of 3
- At the public meeting, I asked if a project team member could commit to
advocating for us to get several Hubway stations in Jamaica Plain, starting this summer,
as part of the overall mitigation for this project. I believe that this will be enormously
helpful, in that each Hubway ride will remove a car from the area, it will visibly promote
cycling in the area in a manner consistent with the goal of increasing non-automotive
transportation, and it will get motorists used to sharing the road with cyclists as they will
be doing when the project is complete. I did not get a response from the project team at
the meeting. Can some please get back to me on this question?
Thank you for this opportunity to comment and for your work on this project. I look
forward to its successful completion. Sincerely,
Gerard P. O'Connor
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project 605511 Date: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:58:42 PM
From: Nia-Sue Mitchum [
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 8:28 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Project 605511 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project 605511 Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:20:05 PM
Attachments: Casey Overpass-route 39.docx
From: dpultinasboston@aol.com [mailto:dpultinasboston@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:29 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Project 605511 81 Lawn Street March 13, 2013 Roxbury, MA 02120 Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116-3973 re: Project No. 605511 Dear DOT:
I am concerned about the Casey Overpass Project having adverse impacts on transit
service.
There is no question there should be improvements for the layout of the Forest Hills
Route 39 bus stop. HOWEVER moving the 39 berth to the upper busway where the
Roslindale and West Roxbury routes board is problematic for potential conflicts for space
and the bottlenecks for exiting the busway.
There is no evidence that BTD is currently utilizing bus signal priority at major
intersections so unlikely to be used at New Washington and South Street and very likely
that the future gridlock will cause delays for the 39 bus service, one of the Key Bus
Routes in the MBTA system.
The buses going to and from the Arborway Yard will have a longer circuitous route,
adding air pollution to the Forest Hills area.
Sincerely,
Alison Pultinas
cc: CC Matt O’Malley
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: PROJECT 605511/ACCELERATED BRIDGE PROGRAM
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:25:27 PM
Attachments: Casey Overpass ltr 12-8-2011.pdf
Casey Overpass MEPA ltr 01-08-13.doc
From: Elizabeth Charney [m
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:54 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov;
Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; jullieanne.doherty@cityofboston.gov; mayor@cityofboston.gov;
thomas.tinlin@cityofboston.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; david.mcnulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
stephen.murphy@cityofboston.gov; Thomas.Broderick@state.ma.us;
holly.s.johnson@massmail.state.ma.us; Turley, Marie
Subject: PROJECT 605511/ACCELERATED BRIDGE PROGRAM
12 March 2013
Mr. Thomas Broderick
MassDOT, Highway Division
REF: Casey Overpass Project No. 605511
How many ways to tell you that the at-grade “solution” to replace of the Casey Overpass
instead of a bridge will NOT work? The future results:
1) Traffic jams/gridlock
2) Emergency Vehicle delays for ambulance, fire and police
3) Destroying Shea Circle was NEVER part of the plan – it was a last minute
announcement at the “last planning” meeting in 2012
4) Eliminating the Rte. 39 bus berth will degrade service
The planning process was “a sham” in that in the early WAG meetings:
1) WAG representatives felt “DOT will do what they want to do” reported to me
and at the Feb 27th Meeting at English High School.
2) The 2008 Transportation/Consultant study was ignored “if the Casey Overpass
cannot be repaired, it must be replaced”* and was not shared with the WAG
Committee.
3) Rep Liz Malia and Boston City Councilor Matt O’Malley requested,
reasonably and wisely, that the planning process be extended at least 3 months,
their request ignored.
4) Vehicular traffic patterns were not studied appropriate, commuters from the
South (Dedham, Hyde Park, West Roxbury, Roslindale) and the West (Brookline,
Newton, etc.) were not surveyed
5) Environmental study(s) were not conducted
Future Development projects have been ignored, their impact not taken into consideration:
Forest Hills Initiative, Burnett/Washington St Development, and the Arborway Yard. These
3 major projects should convince DOT that a replacement bridge or *a TUNNEL (DOT and
consultants have not thought outside the box).
The at-grade decision places Forest Hills in jeopardy of becoming a mini “Central Artery
Disaster”, proportionate in size to expenses wasted and millions of dollars will be required
to undo the damage in future years. If the Commonwealth of MA had not built the
Fitzgerald Expressway in the 1950s, cutting through the neighborhoods, and planned better,
they might have thought “tunnel” … after all, Boston already had the Callahan, Sumner and
Blue line tunnels. Imagine what a lot more foresight would have saved Boston, its residents,
the Commonwealth’s taxpayers and commuters: demolished buildings, displaced residents
only to have traffic jams beyond belief, another 30 years of frustration only to spend 16 years, $14.5 billion dollars – a huge, financial mistake. You have a chance to learn from
history, so please don’t repeat this mistake.
PLEASE, you must put the Planning Process back on the table. We have $73m to do this
right. I fear this is misuse of funds since the money earmarked to replace the bridge and
appears to be rerouted instead of dedicated to Project 605511 as allocated.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth A. Charney
15 Meehan Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130-3609 12 March 2013 Elizabeth A. Charney
15 Meehan St, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130-3609 8 Jan. 2013 Mr. Richard K. Sullivan, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs
Commonwealth of MA
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02114 Dear Secretary Sullivan:
MEPA# 14978 Casey Overpass
I have participated in many meeting(s) for the Casey Overpass and submitted various
proposals and comments to both the WAG and the on-line Casey Overpass website. At
all times, I verified that the bridge should be replaced and that an at-grade solution was
short-sighted: we would suffer major traffic jams/gridlock; exhaust would cause
irreparable damage to the environment and people; that as important as crosswalks are to
the Shea Circle, modifications can easily be made to the rotary.
I am thrilled there is a movement to rebuild the Casey Overpass. Rep. Liz Malia had
requested that the public hearing process be expanded. The “Working Group” was not
equally representative of thousands of commuters (who travel from the Cape, up Route
24, from Dedham, West Roxbury, Roslindale, Brookline, etc.) and/or residents with
knowledge of JP history. No communication was sent to the State workers and/or many
other commuters to survey their opinions, experience and give their input. Some WAG
committee members noted “they (DOT staff and the transportation consultants ) are going
to do what they want.”
I totally agree that the public process was not complete. Previous study(s) were not made
public: one 1998 study emphatically stressed that the Casey Overpass must be replaced.
There were not enough bridge alternatives presented and impacts to local air quality were
not evaluated in spite of repeated requests. Safety in the at-grade alternatives was also
not evaluated (e.g., pedestrian crosswalks, lights @ traffic intersections, etc.). The
biggest joke was that none of the traffic projections were “true to the time of day” – we
saw fancy presentations of very little traffic travelling through the Forest Hills area that
was not truly representative of the traffic flow for morning and evening rush hours and
times when school buses are on the streets. The issue of how emergency vehicles will
travel through the future gridlock has not been evaluated.
In addition, there was not a true cooperation and communication among the MBTA
(Arborway Garage), Forest Hills Initiative (BRA), Burnett St Development (BRA &
Community Committee) to accurately evaluate the impact of all these developments, the
Charney to Sec. Sullivan, page 2
effect on the traffic, resident and commercial parking and the multitude of variances these
scenarios bring to the Forest Hills, Stonybrook, Burnett St, Green St and other Jamaica
Plain neighborhoods.
I work at 1010 Massachusetts Avenue and travel this area by car 7 days a week,
frequently at different times. I submitted to the Casey Overpass Working Group and
presented at Meetings factual information about traffic flow, air quality and the myriad of
issues that will be impacted by an at-grade solution. My comments were dismissed
summarily as if they had no merit.
I support the re-evaluation of the replacement of the Casey Overpass with a bridge
structure: the Federal Funds have been provided for bridge repair and/or replacement.
The Comm of MA owes the community and taxpayers the decency to use the federal
funds as appropriated.
The WAG process and the alternatives study were not adequate to evaluate comparable
alternatives. An Environmental Impact Report is needed before we commit to this
scheme. The Comm of MA would misuse our government’s funding while creating a
disaster which would cost more money in the future to repair.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth A. Charney
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project No. 605511 *** Replace the Casey Bridge: Do Not Remove It *** Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:31:51 PM
From:
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:35 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov;
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov;
Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Project No. 605511 ••• Replace the Casey Bridge: Do Not Remove It •••
To:
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Chief Engineer
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA
02116-3973 RE:Project No. 605511 Dear Mr. Broderick,
There is presently a plan to fully remove the Casey Bridge-Overpass,
and to replace it with an "at-grade" alternative. For this to be
even a consideration is short-sighted - but to have reached the
stage where this state is honestly considering implementing
such a drastic change? This fact is of great concern for quality
of life - the life of every person who lives nearby, as well as
every person who drives through the area, and not necessarily
on the bridge itself. The effectiveness of this bridge
carries over into a very large area, and cannot be seen
as simply "a bridge".
A plan to replace this bridge will quickly deaden the
quality of life in not only the surrounding neighborhoods
(which will be more overrun than they are even now with
.
driving on cellphone, already in far too much of a hurry, seeking a path
away from the terrible traffic mess), but its impact on traffic will also
carry second and third-tier problems into other areas,
causing delays that never before existed.
There are many people who see these (and other) problems arising
from the removal of this bridge. The bridge has become a truly
critical piece of the overall flow of traffic - and it should be
upgraded, not removed.
Thank you. Richard Waddell
Jamaica Plain, MA
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project No. 605511 -Casey Aborway project
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:28:36 PM
.
>From: Carolyn Lewenberg [
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:03 AM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Cc: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
>jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov;
>william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov;
>Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
>ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov;
>felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov;
>Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov; info@bridgingforesthills.com
>Subject: Project No. 605511 - Casey Aborway project
>
>Dear Department of Transportation,
>
>This letter is in regard to the proposed design for the Casey bridge
>project. I am a concerned nearby resident who favors pedestrian and
>bike friendly urban planning. >
>I am concerned that in the proposed design, pedestrian crossings are
>too long because there are too many lanes. This will affect the
>elderly especially. Eliminating the mid -block crossing from the
>Southwest Corridor to the station will force anyone not headed
>directly to the Orange Line platform out of their way just to cross
>the street.
>
>Bike lanes were promised to help avoid pedestrian conflicts. Why were
.
>this is a great opportunity to do so.
>
>I take the 39 bus regularly and am concerned that eliminating the Rte.
>39 bus berth will degrade service. Also, eliminating drop-off spaces
>at a transit hub seems dangerous. It seems likely that people will
>still continue to stop on New Washington Street.
>
>Lastly, Shea Circle is a historic resource and should be improved, not
>destroyed and replaced with a giant intersection.
>
>Underlying all of this is the question: how will this scheme be safer
>than with a bridge?
>
>Thank you for considering this email.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Carolyn Lewenberg
>112 School St. #2 >Roxbury, MA 02119 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project No. 605511 (Casey Arborway Project)
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:36:52 PM
From: Anne Cra ne [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:32 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov
Subject: Project No. 605511 (Casey Arborway Project)
Mr. Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, Ma
Dear Mr. Broderick:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to replacing the Casey Bridge at Forest Hills
with an at-grade six-lane road.
As a long-time resident of the Forest Hills neighborhood, a pedestrian, cyclist and driver, I
support the building of a new bridge with a modern design that will continue to carry
regional traffic quickly through the area without further clogging the local streets. I am
particularly concerned about the degradation of the air quality in my neighborhood as
thousands of cars idle at intersections or seek alternate routes to avoid delays. I am also
concerned about safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists. Hundreds of high school students
and local residents move through Forest Hills daily, and a six-lane road carrying commuter
traffic would pose a major safety hazard for pedestrians and cyclists. Unfortunately, I cannot attend the Public Comment Period at tomorrow's DOT Board
Meeting, but I do want to express my deep concern that the impact of an at-grade scheme
needs to be examined further. I urge you to consider seriously replacing the Casey with a
newly designed bridge.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Anne L. Crane
91 Jamaica St.
Jamaica Plain
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project No. 605511 Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:06:38 AM
From: Elizabeth Ginga
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:55 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Project No. 605511 March 8, 2013 To Whom it May Concern,
I am deeply concerned about the proposed plan for the elimination of the bridge at
the Casey overpass. Everything about this new plan seems aimed at turning a
residential neighborhood into a virtual highway. Nothing about dropping all the pass-
through cars down onto the roadways seems reasonable to me.
I am 100% opposed to the current plan and the manner in which it was decided. I
live within one mile of the overpass and often pass through on my way to other parts
of the city. (From JP to Roslindale and Hyde Park).
Regarding the plan itself, there are many flaws.
1.Pedestrian crossings are too long because there are too many lanes.
2.How will this scheme be safer than with a bridge?
3.Bike lanes were promised to help avoid pedestrian conflicts. Why were they
removed? Put bike lanes back.
4.Eliminating the mid-block crossing from the Southwest Corridor to the station
will force anyone not headed directly to the Orange Line platform out of their
way just to cross the street.
5.Shea Circle is a historic resource and should be improved, not destroyed and
replaced with a giant intersection.
6.Eliminating the Rte. 39 bus berth will degrade service.
7.Eliminating drop-off spaces at a transit hub is stupid and dangerous. People
will continue to stop on New Washington Street.
I hope time and great care will be taken to review these issues and offer the
residents of this neighborhood the answers we deserve.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Ginga
20 Bardwell St.
JP MA 02130 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project No. 605511 Casey Overpass Replacement
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:24:46 PM
From: James Hinsman [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:33 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov;
felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov;
info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Project No. 605511 Casey Overpass Replacement
Dear Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.,
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973 Project No. 605511 My name is James Hinsman, and I live at 31 Barlow Street in Jamaica Plain, which is in the immediate
neighborhood around Forest Hills Station. My family and I will be directly affected by the decision
regarding the Casey Overpass.
We have lived at this address for 15 years. I have been a business owner in Jamaica Plain. I personally
commute by bicycle and the T to the South End for work.
1. In my opinion, there is no way to add 25,000 idling cars a day to the Forest Hills area and not
degrade the neighborhood. The modeling presented by MassDOT was overly simplistic and severely
underestimates the wait times of the traffic. This regional traffic should be kept off the local streets,
unhindered by extra stops.
2. The at-grade option is not consistent with the nature of the Emerald Necklace. Creating an asphalt
wasteland dominated by automobiles will be a ugly scar on the Greenway. A far better option would be
a graceful, multi-modal bridge that would architecturally enhance the area. No pictures of beautiful
bridges were presented as alternatives. Has no one been to Acadia National Park and seen the
gorgeous stone bridges on the trails?
Has no one seen Bow Bridge in Central Park in New York?
There are many beautiful possibilities.
Graceful pedestrian bridge across
3. Human nature being what it is, the modeling presented by MassDOT will fail if the at-grade project
is completed. U-turns, double parking, the blocking of intersections by rude drivers, teenagers
purposely walking slowly across intersections, snow obstructing lanes, school buses stopping traffic all
these things will create havoc and lessen the safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. The road rage that
already exists for drivers during the morning and evening commutes will be exacerbated. Drivers will
begin driving around the at-grade intersections through the small streets in the nearby neighborhoods.
Small streets will be seen as quicker, and drivers will race down them, causing safety issues. Already,
drivers avoid the intersection of Walk Hill Street and Hyde Park Avenue and race down Wachusett
Street to Weld Hill Street, which is directly near my house.
The decision to remove the Casey Overpass and not replace it is a disastrous one for Forest Hills and
should be reversed.
Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely,
James Hinsman
31 Barlow Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project No. 605511 is flawed -Jamaica Plain needs a new bridge!
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:22:30 PM
From: Kim Everett [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:53 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov;
Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Project No. 605511 is flawed - Jamaica Plain needs a new bridge!
ThomasF.Broderick,P.E.
MassDOT,HighwayDivision10ParkPlazaBoston,MA02116-3973ProjectNo.605511
Dear Mr. Broderick,
I am writing as a longtime resident of Jamaica Plain with deep concerns about the current
plan to remove the Casey Overpass bridge and not replace it (ProjectNo.605511.) I am
concerned because this is clearly going to have a large and negative impact on the Jamaica
Plain Community which I deeply love and care about. I have been to many of the public hearings and talked with many people who have been part
of the DAG and WAG committees. The process and well as the at-grade design are flawed.
1. The public process involving MassDOT’s Working Advisory Group was skewed away
from reviewing the legitimate transportation benefits of a bridge in favor of opinions
of single-interest bike and park advocacy groups.
2. Also it seems as if MassDOT misled the public with biased and erroneous renderings
and plans. MassDOT Secretary Davey admitted in an interview with the Jamaica Plain
Gazette that the process cost the agency the community’s trust and said, “We’re going
to double down in improving that trust and openness.”
3. The Measures of Evaluation (MOE) used by MassDOT to compare the bridge and at­
grade alternatives were incorrect, misleading, and subjective. The MOEs and the
scoring done exclusively by MassDOT were useless. For example, the goal of
increasing space for community gatherings was evaluated by estimating off-peak
vehicle speeds on a bridge and at-grade. This is absurd! The MOEs cannot be used to
fairly compare the alternatives.
4. Impacts to local air quality have still not been evaluated despite repeated requests.
The City of Boston requires a more comprehensive air quality analysis for
development projects than MassDOT did for this project, which will increase vehicle
miles traveled, travel time, and not improve intersection operations much. More traffic
signals will lead to vehicle delays and idling.
5. The project is not consistent with transportation, park, and land use plans for the area.
Studies done by the City of Boston for Forest Hills and the Arborway identify the
need to keep regional traffic away from local traffic in Forest Hills . City
transportation policies include keeping regional traffic off neighborhood streets.
MassDOT’s plan at Forest Hills puts all traffic—local shoppers and workers headed
to Dorchester, Rte. 3, and more—on the surface streets—over 36,000 vehicles per
day.
6. Safety in the alternatives was not evaluated. “Improve safety for all modes and users”
was identified as a fatal flaw criterion, so important that alternatives not addressing
safety would be dropped. However, MassDOT never compared the safety of multi
travel lanes in the at-grade plan against the bridge plan.
So why weren’t we shown a bridge alternative with two-thirds less traffic on the ground
than the selected scheme, one that worked better for autos, buses, bikes, and pedestrians? It
seems as if MassDOT never intended to develop a bridge alternative that acknowledged the
value of a bridge and the better multi-modal level of service a bridge would provide.
MassDOT claims that, “Traffic works the same in both alternatives,” but this focuses too
narrowly on automobile traffic and ignores impacts to buses, bikes, and walkers and it is
simply and clearly NOT ACCURATE. Can you please explain to me in detail how it cannot
make conditions for all traffic better by removing 25,000 vehicles per day from the local
streets by building a new bridge?
At the 25% hearing, one speaker asked for a show of hands of how many people were in
favor of replacing the present bridge with a new bridge, and at least 85% of the community
members at the meeting raised their hands in favor of a new bridge.
It is not too late to reverse the mistakes that have occurred in this process!! MassDOT can
honestly look at the facts and do what is right for the community of Jamaica Plain, by
acknowledging the major flaws in the at-grade plan and honestly bringing forward a new
bridge plan. WE NEED A BRIDGE!!!
Thank you for taking this matter seriously and I have full faith that MassDOT will ensure
that the flaws in the process are corrected and the true wishes of the Jamaican Plain
community heard.
Sincerely,
Kim Everett
8 Myrtle Street
Jamaica Plain
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project No. 605511
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:27:04 PM
.
>From: Angela Hockman [m
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:58 PM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: Project No. 605511
>
>I want to voice my opinion on Project No. 605511, the at-grade Forest Hills
>plan. I have lived in the Forest Hills neighborhood for 15 years. Over the years
>the traffic around Forest Hills has become worse and worse. The number of
>cars that an at-grade plan would add to the road is a nightmare. It takes me 20
>minutes to drive the 1/2 mile from my house to past Forest Hills. It is already
>unacceptable. Please reconsider this terrible thoughtless plan.
>
>Very Concerned Resident,
>
>Angela Hockman
>
>_______________
>Angela Hockman
>Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project No. 605511
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:22:35 PM
Attachments: Casey 25% design letter 130412.pdf
From: ewylie325@comcast.net [mailto:ewylie325@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:50 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Fichter, Katherine (DOT); Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: RE: Project No. 605511
Please find attached my letter with comments regarding RE: Project No. 605511 Casey .
Elizabeth Wylie LEED AP BD+C
ewylie325@comcast.net | 617.784.8062
ELIZABETHWYLIELEEDAPBD+C
27 Asticou Road • Boston, Massachusetts 02130
617.784.8062 • ewylie325@comcast.net
March 12, 2013
Thomas F. Broderick, P. E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973
Via email: dot.feedback.highway@state.ma.us
RE: Project No. 605511
Dear Mr. Broderick:
I am writing to express my disagreement with MassDOT’s design for the Casey Arborway. I speak as a member
of the W AG and the DAG and as someone who has given many volunteer hours to the planning effort. I am also a
community member (active in supporting area conservation and economic development efforts) as well as an art
historian, sustainability advocate, and preservationist. I also speak as a resident of Forest Hills.
The 25% design has innumerable flaws. The design contortions needed to handle the sheer volume of traffic that
will be on the ground once the Casey Overpass is eliminated is astounding. Bringing regional East-West traffic on
the ground to mingle with the existing swirl of a major transportation terminus—that’s a huge volume of cars,
buses, school buses, taxis, kiss-and-rides, private carriers, bikes, and pedestrians—is fundamentally wrong.
Throughout the planning process Olmsted has been evoked as an inspiration. Well, Olmsted would be appalled at
the notion that a 19th century drawing would be pulled out of the drawer and overlaid on 21st century conditions.
As one landscape architect said to me when he learned the at-grade scheme is six lanes of pavement, “Olmsted
would go under, but there are tracks and the Stony Brook below, so he would go over and design an attractive
bridge.” This statement was made by someone who, after learning the details, regretted sending in a form letter in
support of “restoring Olmsted’s vision” at the behest of the Boston Society of Landscape Architects. This is like so
many of the early support letters, drummed up by single issue advocacy groups with paid staff and
communications infrastructure, whose numbers packed the W AG, outweighing local residents, business leaders,
and affected stakeholders. Still, does MassDOT make design decisions based on numbers of letters sent in? I
would suggest that is poor planning. Designs should be evaluated on merit.
How will the at-grade scheme be safer than with a bridge? W e don’t know because the bridge option was not
adequately evaluated. The Split Bridge option was dismissed by MassDOT with little explanation. This was not on
the agenda, but announced at the end of one of the WAG meetings allowing no discussion by those present.
MassDOT’s Environmental Notification Form for the project states that the bridge was dismissed because it was
“more expensive and creates additional issues such as a more complex ramp system and requires more space.”
However this option would provide the greatest benefit allowing cyclists and pedestrians to use the bridge (the
views are beautiful and the light and air is needed in an increasingly dense neighborhood as transit oriented
development continues apace). The bridge would produce the narrowest intersection at South Street. Crossing
six lanes of highway is not an enhancement to the area and creates the very same barrier that is the overly large
existing Casey. A smaller shorter bridge leaves more room on the ground for greenway connections and places
for people, not cars.
It seems the scope of the project has grown in attempts to make the at-grade scheme work (moving the
headhouse, expanding the upper bus way, destroying Shea circle, et al). A lot of money is being spent NOT to
build a bridge. Cost estimates for the at-grade have risen and when all is said and done will likely reach close to
the cost of a bridge. This kind of planning and design represents short-term thinking at its worse and is
detrimental to quality of life our neighborhood.
The trend of dismantling urban highways has also been evoked as an inspiration and has been used by groups
such as Livable Streets (again with paid staff and communications infrastructure) to gather support for the atgrade alternative. Examples were shown in the WAG of economic development and neighborhood revitalization
Elizabeth Wylie
Page 1
that are not analogous; this was unethical on the part of the design team. The Embarcadero in San Francisco is a
successful example and has turned out beautifully. The conditions there, an edge condition with a robust street
network, has nothing to do with the conditions at Forest Hills, a transportation hub, surrounded by residential
neighborhoods constrained by parks and cemeteries. It has been said about the Embarcadero, “After this freeway
was closed, traffic was snarled temporarily, but drivers adjusted in a short time by using alternative routes and
public transportation.”
i Well, other than Mass Ave. there is no alternate to Route 203 for the regional East-West
traffic (24,000 drivers) travelling from Dorchester, Mattapan, Milton, Quincy and the South Shore to Longwood
Medical, one of the area’s largest employers. Any alternate routes drivers will find will inevitably cut through
residential neighborhoods.
Further bad design contortions to make the at-grade scheme work include:
o Destruction of the 1926 Shea Circle. A contributing element to the Morton Street Historic District, the circle is
a visual coda to Morton Street. Its park-like setting is home to 50-75 year old oak and maple trees. This
Historic District was just named to the National Register in 2004. How can regard of the Circle have changed
in eight years? Sure, the Circle can be made safer but MassDot’s contention in the ENF that it is being
‘reconfigured’ is both false and disingenuous. Apparently the Massachusetts Historic Commission thinks so
as they have asked for better options.
o Bow-ties. No left turns will be a nightmare for those of us who live here and use the street network to get
home. Local businesses will also suffer. Folks will head elsewhere if its takes too many lights to get to the
businesses on Hyde Park Avenue. Yet the plan relies on this ‘innovation’ (and precision signaling from Boston
Transportation) to work in the traffic models.
o Arboretum Gate. U-turns forced by the bow-ties are not physically possible at the Gate without cu tting into the
historic fabric. That will have serious impacts on the visitor experience of this Olmsted-designed landscape,
home to a rare and important living-collection, and a public park for hundreds of thousands of visitors
annually, many of whom arrive at Forest Hills Station and enter at this impacted gate. I would not want to be
pushing strollers or herding children in this area as trucks and buses swing around that turn.
o Expanding the Upper bus way. Moving the 39 bus and expanding the Upper bus way and moving the exit
directly across from Asticou Road will result in serious quality of life impacts for my neighborhood including
noise and light pollution as well as air quality issues.
o Enforcement. The design relies too much on enforcement; the models do not account for human behavior.
Folks are going to continue to cross from the Southwest corridor to the station mid-block. That means a fence
will have to be put up, just like on Route 9, and any Olmstedian aesthetic (questionable anyway in the design)
will be lost. Trucks and others are going to go ahead and make left turns. Cars are going to cut through
neighborhoods, just like water, looking for an out. Cabs and kiss-and-rides will continue to exceed their
‘designated spaces.’ I know from experience in my neighborhood that posting signs and having ‘designated’
areas does not work; our street is blocked and W ashington street flows are mucked up by kiss-and-rides
(although there is designated space for this on the east side of the station),and cabs constantly exceed the
designated limit and block Washington Street. Bringing regional traffic into an already congested area around
a transportation hub is bad design.
Additionally, the manner in which the process was carried out bolsters my belief that the agency never intended to
replace the defunct Casey with a smaller scale, more attractive bridge. Instead money would seem to be the
driver to go with lower first costs and eliminate ongoing bridge maintenance costs. This is at the expense of public
trust, quality of life and all under the guise of it being Olmsted’s vision. A travesty! Any number of the following
issues would be cause for pause, but in total MassDOT’s planning and design process was a complete failure.
o Dysfunctional and skewed public process
o Biased renderings and plans
o Misleading and subjective evaluation of alternatives
o False appropriation of Olmsted’s ‘vision’
o No evaluation of local air quality impacts
o Not consistent with regional plans
o No comparison of levels of safety
o No acknowledgement of value of a bridge
o Traffic not seen as a differentiator
MassDOT did not make an effort to make conditions for ALL modes of transportation better with a bridge wherein
24,000 east/west regional vehicles per day would be kept off local streets. This is despite the recommendations of
two prior reports strongly urging keeping regional traffic off the ground. Each study predicted gridlock with an atgrade design if the Casey were to come down. (Arborway Masterplan, 2004 and Structural Condition Investigation
Elizabeth Wylie
Page 2
and Traffic Study – Casey Overpass, 2008).
“7.4 Traffic Requirements : Analysis of future conditions with and without planned development shows that traffic
volumes would overwhelm any at-grade intersection configuration, resulting in poor levels of service, excessive
delays, and probable gridlock. The Arborway should remain in a grade-separated configuration.”ii
How can conditions have changed so much that an at-grade design is now okay only four years later? The
condition that has changed is MassDOT has financial woes and reduction of maintenance line items across the
boards is seen as a panacea. W hile ridding the agency of highway bridge maintenance might be good design in
some places (e.g. McGrath in Somerville) here at Forest Hills it will have serious impacts that we in the
community have a problem with and suggest that MassDot go back to the drawing boards and rethink spending a
lot of money in order to NOT build a bridge.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth W ylie
cc: Katherine.Fichter@state.ma.us
Sonia.Chang-Diaz@masenate.gov,
Russell.Holmes@mahouse.gov
Jeffrey.Sanchez@mahouse.gov
Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov
William.Straus@mahouse.gov,
Thomas.McGee@masenate.gov,
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov,
David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov
Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov
felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go,
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov
Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
i http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysEmbarcadero.html
ii http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/24/docs/structural_traffic_092608.pdf
Elizabeth Wylie
Page 3 From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project No. 605511 Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:24:11 PM
From: Tom Menihan [ ]
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 9:14 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Project No. 605511 Dear Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973 Dear Mr. Broderick,
I am writing to comment on the recent MassDOT 25% Design Hearing for the Casey
Overpass (Project No. 605511). I have a number of concerns and a few questions which I
hope you can answer:
1. Bike lanes were promised to help avoid pedestrian conflicts. Why were they removed?
2. The width of the roadways makes pedestrian crossings just too long to be safe.
3. Eliminating the mid-block crossing from the Southwest Corridor to the station will force
anyone not headed directly to the Orange Line platform out of their way just to cross the
street.
4. Elimination of the Rte. 39 bus berth and the drop-off spaces seem to degrade services
rather than upgrade them.
All of the above concerns beg the question: Just how will this at-grade scheme be safer than
a bridge solution which eliminates a majority of the traffic from the grade? It feels like yo
are putting cost ahead of safety and sanity. As a resident of the Forest Hills area, I think you
are making a huge mistake with this at-grade approach. A bridge is the best solution for all
the people who will use this area, Mr Broderick.
I look forward to hearing from you on these issues.
Sincerely,
Tom Menihan
53 Boynton Street
Boston, MA 02130 ........................................
Tom Menihan & Ginny ONeil
Menihan Designs / Two Boats Gallery
53 Boynton Street, Boston, MA 02130 ......................................
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project No. 605511 Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:23:14 PM
From: ginny [
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:18 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Project No. 605511 Dear Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973 Dear Mr. Broderick,
I am writing to comment on the recent MassDOT 25% Design Hearing for the Casey
Overpass (Project No. 605511). I have a number of concerns and a few questions which I
hope you can answer:
1. Bike lanes were promised to help avoid pedestrian conflicts. Why were they removed?
2. The width of the roadways makes pedestrian crossings just too long to be safe.
3. Eliminating the mid-block crossing from the Southwest Corridor to the station will force
anyone not headed directly to the Orange Line platform out of their way just to cross the
street.
4. Elimination of the Rte. 39 bus berth and the drop-off spaces seem to degrade services
rather than upgrade them.
All of the above concerns beg the question: Just how will this at-grade scheme be safer than
a bridge solution which eliminates a majority of the traffic from the grade? It feels like yo
are putting cost ahead of safety and sanity. As a resident of the Forest Hills area, I think you
are making a huge mistake with this at-grade approach. A bridge is the best solution for all
the people who will use this area, Mr Broderick.
I look forward to hearing from you on these issues.
Sincerely,
Ginny ONeil
53 Boynton Street
Boston, MA 02130 ........................................
Ginny ONeil and Tom Menihan
Two Boats Gallery / Menihan Designs
53 Boynton Street, Boston, MA 02130 ........................................
From: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Cc: Trepanier, Michael (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project No. 605511 Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:38:37 PM
Paul – FYI, in case this message didn’t make it through the DOT Feedback system.
-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: NANCY HANIFIN [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:49 AM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: dot.feedback.highway@state.mass.us
Subject: Fwd: Project No. 605511 This is a forwarded message since the email address below
(dot.feedback.highway@state.mass.us) returned a "permanent failure" message to me. I will
try again however.
Begin forwarded message:
From: NANCY HANIFIN <nancyneehanifin@gmail.com>
Date: March 9, 2013 7:42:59 PM EST
To: dot.feedback.highway@state.mass.us
Cc: Sonia.Chang-Diaz@masenate.gov
Subject: Project No. 605511
I am writing to express my outrage over the whole Casey overpass project. I have
attended meetings, read the Accelerated Bride Program law, seen the designs. Not once
during the process has a viable attractive BRIDGE replacement been proposed! This is an
act for the repair and replacement of bridges! Not a license to tear them down to short
change the public and the people who live in the proximity of the bridge or who have to use
the bridge. With each at-grade vs. bridge proposal, beautiful tree-lined roads (with NO
traffic and mature trees) were shown to the public for the at-grade solution, with no mention
of all the trees they want to cut down at Shea Circle. Whereas, the same hulking monstrosity
was shown for the artist's depiction of the bridge replacement. Additionally, how can you
justify skipping an environmental study when 27000 vehicles will now be idling on the
streets of JP as they wait their turns to pass through 5-6 additional traffic lights?
I am a 20+ year resident of Jamaica Plain; I bike everywhere-to work downtown, to
shop (I own a trailer). I am not a car lover. This project however has been a sham process.
Not one of my friends in Milton or Dorchester even knows that this bridge is coming down.
It is a state project-all peoples that use the bridge deserved to be notified. They were NOT.
With the exception of Liz Malia, not one elected official has taken a stand over this
issue. Cowards. You have a responsibility to engage in the process on the behalf of your
constituents who elected you. Not special interest groups from Somerville, or Cambridge. It
is time for you to act.
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Project No. 605511: Casey Overpass
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:25:26 PM
Attachments: SchimekcommentsonCaseyOverpass.docx
From: Paul Schimek [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:25 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Project No. 605511: Casey Overpass
Attached please find my comments on the Casey Overpass.
Thanks,
Paul Schimek
Re: Project No. 605511: Casey Overpass
I would like to make the following suggestions with regard to the Casey Overpass Project:
Intersections
The current proposed intersections are very wide, difficult to cross, and will encourage speeding
during off peak periods (most of the time). Instead, they should be replaced with modern
roundabouts conforming to NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts: An Informational Guide.
(onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_672.pdf). In order to provide more space for
queueing the South St/Arborway intersection should be moved west and the Washington
St/Arborway intersection should be a moved east. Relocating the intersections away from the
straight north-south path of travel will help reduce approach speeds. In addition, the oversized,
unsafe Shea Circle (Morton / Circuit Drive) rotary should also be converted into a modern
roundabout, which will free up more land than the proposed signalized intersection and also
improve safety compared to the current proposal.
Real Estate Development
The plan should accommodate real estate development on some of the existing and
reclaimed areas, not just limiting this prime urban land to “open space.” These areas are right
next to a high-capacity urban rail system. There is no better location for transit-oriented
development, with limited or no new car parking added. The plan should allow for this
possibility specifically in the following locations:
* the area west of the station, south of the Arborway, and north of South Street. This parcel is
adjacent to an underused parking lot for the State Lab that could be shared.
* the area on the northwest corner of the station site, closest to the bike cage, which will be a
prime corner site and which will attract many pedestrians going to the train station. It only
needs access for deliveries. This could be used for a transit commuter-oriented business.
* portions of the area to be reclaimed from what is now New Washington Street, particularly the
corner sites near Washington Street and South Street, which would have vehicular access via St
Marks St (for the South Street corner) and via Washington Street (for that side). These could be
used for two or three stories of housing with commercial uses on the ground floor.
Lower Busway Entrance
The traffic signal for the private parking lot and busway entrance is too close to the proposed
Casey Arborway intersection. This could be solved by relocating the main intersection to the
west and converting it into a roundabout, as proposed. Otherwise, some other solution is
necessary to prevent interference from the two signals and to assure easy northbound bus
access.
Hyde Park Avenue / Washington Street
The roadway to the east of the station from Ukraine Way to the proposed Casey Arborway needs
to be included in the overall plan because it is key to how bus, bicycle, pedestrian, and motor
vehicle traffic circulates. The existing design is dysfunctional for all. Improving signal timing
(and removing exclusive pedestrian phases) should be considered, along with adding left turn
bays for entering the MBTA parking lot and the Lower Busway (via removing on-street parking
for 100 ft at each approach).
Bicycle Accommodation on the Roadway
Bicycle accommodation on all roadways in the project area is mandatory. Bicycle paths off the
roadway are not a substitute for accommodation. At a minimum, this means maintaining the
existing shared lane markings on Washington Street (west side) to Ukraine Way and on all
roadways in the project area where there are not bike lanes or shoulders, including the Casey
Arborway.
Bicycle Paths
The proposed two-way bike path is not needed on the station side of the Arborway and of
Washington Street (west). Providing it will create conflicts with pedestrians and will interfere
with potential real estate development. Bicyclists can cross at the intersection to reach the
station (and then walk to parking) or then cross South St/Washington St to reach the path on the Arboretum side. The bike path adjacent to Frontage Road is not needed because the
path on the other side of the Arborway can be used to reach Franklin Park, and Frontage Road
can be used by bicyclists. Also, the intersection of the proposed path with Frontage Road creates
a hazard from vehicles turning from or on to the adjacent Arborway (particularly for bicyclists
traveling in the “wrong” direction on the two-way path).
Thanks for addressing these issues. Yours sincerely,
Paul Schimek, Ph.D.
50 Saint Rose Street
Jamaica Plain, Mass. 02130 From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: public comment
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:45:06 AM
From: Cameron Bain [
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:28 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Cc: nborcherding@walkboston.org
Subject: public comment
DearMr.BroderickIstronglysupportyouratgradeoptionandyourprocesstoaddressneighborhoods
andparksaswellastransportationIhopethispubliccommentperiodwillsatisfyconcernsandallowyoutoputyourenergy
intoprovidingtheplanbestforthecommunity,parksandtransportationSincerelyCameronBain
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Public Hearing, Casey Arborway Project Boston, Project File No. 605511, Accelerated Bridge Program
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:09:20 AM
From:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:56 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov; thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov;
Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Public Hearing, Casey Arborway Project Boston , Project File No. 605511, Accelerated Bridge
Program
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116 -3973 Project No. 605511 Re: Public Hearing, Casey Arborway Project Boston
Project File No. 605511, Accelerated Bridge Program
Dear Mr. Broderick:
I’m a long -time resident Jamaica Plain (25+ years) and I spoke at the February 27 Design Public
Hearing regarding my concerns about the six-lane street -level roadway that MassDOT proposes in
substitution to replace the present Casey Overpass at Forest Hills in Jamaica Plain.
A few years ago, I participated in the 39 Bus citizens’ advisory group. That group was not consulted
about the radical changes now planned to the Forest Hills transportation hub by MassDOT’s Design
Advisory Group.
I do not understand why you are going through with a design that will make pedestrian crossing to the
Forest Hills transit station longer and less safe, especially for anyone who is disabled, as I am. Isn’t
the Accelerated Bridge Program supposed to take in to account access for people with disabilities?
How are six lanes of traffic an improvement to my access to buses, the subway, or the commuter
rail?
In addition, any plan should improve the speed of bus commuting. Your proposed plan will in fact do
the opposite, by lengthening the route of the 39 bus and by putting more traffic stops and actual traffic
in the path of all the buses that use the Forest Hills bus terminals, thereby impeding the commute of
bus-riders. Won’t this obstacle course that complicates access to both pedestrians and buses have
the unintended effect of driving more commuters to drive personal vehicles instead of using public
transportation?
Gridlock seems the likeliest outcome of this very bad plan for Jamaica Plain’s traffic hub that serves
many other neighborhoods as well. By proposing a street scene that will resemble Melnea Cass
Boulevard more than anything else, you will be ripping the Forest Hills neighborhood from the rest of
Jamaica Plain. This won’t be good for its local businesses or homeowners. And why has there been
virtually no input from outlying suburban commuters, who only have access to Route 203? They will
not be bicycling to work en masse , especially in the winter, despite the “happy talk” the Boston
Cyclists Union keeps drumming. Your design seems to ignore common sense as well as actual
residents who use the roads, buses and subway.
At the meeting I attended, an overwhelming majority of my neighbors – over 2/3rds as I counted –
raised their hands to show support for a redesigned bridge to replace the Casey. I, too, strongly
support this over the “at -grade” design your agency is trying to promote.
Please listen to the citizens of Boston. We are trying to tell you something: We want a better designed
replacement bridge, NOT a Melnea Cass-type highway through our neighborhood. Our
public monies should be used to improve access to transportation, not complicate it.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I await your answer to the questions raised above.
Lynn McSweeney
17 Ballard Street, #1
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Regarding Forest Hills Project No. 605511
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:23:46 PM
.
>From: Erik James
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:04 PM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov;
>russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov;
>liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
>thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov;
>David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
>Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.go;
>matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
>Subject: Regarding Forest Hills Project No. 605511
>
>Greetings. I am writing this letter because the state Department of
>Transportation, and some elected officials, are not acknowledging the
>number of their constituents who are OPPOSED to the present plan to
>redesign the Forest Hills traffic flow.
>
>The area around Forest Hills is a beautiful extension of Frederick Law
>Olmsted's "Emerald Necklace" - a shared treasure that makes Boston a
>better and more liveable city. Now it seems the state is planning to
>remove the overpass and replace it with a six-lane, street-level
>highway that will force commuters and locals together into one giant
>traffic jam, with poor options for bicyclists, pedestrians, and T
>riders.
>
>Please, do not make my Jamaica Plain resemble the horrible daily
>traffic conditions of the Route 9 suburbs I hate having to drive
>through. PLEASE LISTEN AND DO NOT MAKE A POOR CHOICE THAT THE REST OF
>US WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH FOREVER!
>
>I am adding my voice to those of my neighbors in Roslindale and
>Jamaica Plain who cannot understand how anyone would think that
>permanently getting rid of the overpass will in any way help local
>traffic, urban sprawl, or pollution in our neighborhood. Please do not
>force thousands of daily long-distance commuters through our local
>streets. City traffic is bad enough, it is something that affects our
>quality of life more than almost anything else. Please make things
>BETTER by giving us a better bridge.
>
>Thank You,
>
>Erik James
>20 Lodge Hill Rd
>Hyde Park, MA 02136
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Replace the Casey Overpass
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:10:44 PM
From: Karen Schneiderman [
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:44 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesthills.com; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov;
Jeffrey.Sanchez@mahouse.gov; Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov; william.Strauss@mahouse.gov;
Thomas.McGee@masenate.gov; jullieanne.doherty@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Replace the Casey Overpass
ToWhomItMayConcern:
IwriteasbotharepresentativeoftheBostonCenterforIndependentLiving,anorganizationservingpeoplewithdisabilitiesinBost
onproperincludingJamaicaPlain,Roxbury,Dorchester,
Roslindale,WestRoxburyand20otherpartsofthecity,aswellasanindividualwholivesinJamaicaPlain.
Mystrongfeelingthatthedecisionaboutremovingtheoverpassandreplacingitwithahighwaymakesabsolutelynosense.Itisdang
erousforpedestriansincludingthosewithmobilityimpairments,otherpedestrians,bikeriders,andalmosteveryonewhodoesnotd
rive.Asforcarusers,theywillbeblockedingridlockinJamaicaPlain,butalsobeyondasthetrafficbacksupintothecityandout,parti
cularlyduringrushhour.
Istronglyurgeyoutoreconsidertheplanandtakeanotherlookatthesafetyofallofthecitizensinthecitybeforeembarkingonthisdan
gerousplan.
Cordially,
KarenSchneiderman,DirectorofAdvocacyBostonCenterforIndependentLiving
60TemplePlace5thfloorBostonMA02111
Karen Schneiderman
SeniorAdvocacySpecialistBostonCenterforIndependentLivingInc.
TemplePlace,5thFloorBoston,MA02111-1324
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Replacing the Current DOT Plan for the Casey Overpass
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:28:32 PM
Attachments: Comment.Project Number 605511.pdf
> -----Original Message----­
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:18 AM
>To: DOT Feedback Highway
>Subject: Replacing the Current DOT Plan for the Casey Overpass
>
>To: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
> MassDOT, Highway Division
> 10 Park Plaza
> Boston, MA 02116-3973
>
>Re: Project Number: 605511
>
>
>The attached letter regarding the Casey Overpass in Jamaica Plain
>requests the
>Massachusetts Department of Transportation to reconsider its decision
>not to
>replace the bridge.
>
>Thank you for your consideration.
>
>John Spears, Architect
>Greater Boston Design Associates
>and
>a Jamaica Plain homeowner for 40 years
>
>
>15 Myrtle Street, Jamaica Plain
>
>
>From:
>
March 13, 2013
To: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973
Re: Project Number: 605511
Replacing the Current DOT Plan for the Casey Overpass
A private group led by a former deputy transportation secretary, Ned Corcoran, has proposed a private“Lexus Lane”
for Route 3 between Braintree and Norwell, paid for by tolls from well-off commuterswilling to spend a lot to avoid
the daily traffic jams. Corcoran’s construction estimate for this 9-mile toll
lane is 350 million dollars -- including access and off-ramps, 12 bridges to build or core through, andspans over 5
cloverleaf intersections – a cost of 39 million dollars per mile. *
In contrast, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation estimate to replace Jamaica Plain’s CaseyOverpass with a
smaller two-lane bridge is 73 million dollars for its quarter mile span. That estimate
translates to 292 million dollars per mile: 7.5 times the linear cost of the proposed Lexus Lane.
Cost was a significant determinant in the decision not to replace the overpass. A current deputy secretaryof
transportation needs to task engineers and architects to create an overpass replacement for 30-40million dollars. An
elegant light-weight bridge could save millions of dollars by utilizing many of thefoundation cores of the current
overpass. Traffic flows and bus routes under this new bridge could bemade much less problematic than what the
current DOT plans have become.
Jamaica Plain does not need a Melnea Cass Boulevard cutting through Forest Hills and across its northsouth arterial streets. It will not work, just as the actual Melnea Cass Boulevard does not work, a fourlane cross-town arterial and rush-hour clog that the Department of Transportation wants to spend tens ofmillions of
more tax dollars to dramatically enlarge.
As we all know, bridges can be beautiful, place-making features. Let’s build one.
John Spears, ArchitectGreater Boston Design Associatesand
a Jamaica Plain homeowner for 40 years
* http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/south/2013/01/06/south-shore-leaders-respond-with.
cautious-interest-route-widening-proposal/qvR24U3k1ip199MuyD9aSO/story.html
15 Myrtle Street, Jamaica Plain (Boston), MA 02130
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Several Problems with Casey Overpass Removal
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:12:33 PM
From: Diane Simpson [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:25 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
thomas.mcgee@masenate.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; David.McNulty@cityofboston.gov;
ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov; Rob.Consalvo@cityofboston.gov; felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov;
matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; Stephen.Murphy@cityofboston.gov
Subject: Several Problems with Casey Overpass Removal
Good morning,
I'd like to ask each of you to think about where else in Boston a major roadway comes
up right against a major MBTA station. What are some of the characteristics of those
stations? For me, Sullivan Square and Ruggles Station come to mind. Sullivan Square
has an overpass to keep the car traffic away from the station. Ruggles does not. As a
result, it takes FOREVER for the buses to get out of Ruggles Station. This is the same
traffic pattern you're thinking of imposing at Forest Hills , and you're telling us it isn't going to make any difference.
In addition, I would like to know: Why were the bike lanes removed? I thought Mayor Menino wanted to make Boston
a leader in bike transportation. Why is there such a disconnect between the state and
the city?
Can you really be serious about removing the mid-block crossing from the
Southwest Corridor to Forest Hills Station? Supposedly you know all about "desire
lines." People will cross where they want to cross unless you put an eight-foot fence
around the road.
Putting the 39 bus berth in with the other buses is going to make a ridiculously-long
bus trip even more ridiculous.
Eliminating drop-off spaces at a transit hub is an extremely bad idea. Re-read my
previous comment about "desire lines." Unless you have a police officer on duty at all
times, people will continue to stop. This will make a bad place for bicyclists even
worse.
I work for Harvest Co-op. Although my opinions are strictly my own, I am concerned
that the place we chose for our new store is quickly turning into a disaster area, not the
bike-friendly area we thought it was going to be when we chose it. A LOT of co -op
shoppers ride bikes. What is going to happen when we get into an area that has no
drop-off zones for cars, no bike lanes, and a gazillion taxi cabs? Taxis are the WORST
for interacting with bikes.
Another point: President Obama has just initiated a "fix-it first" policy. How is tearing
down a roadway congruent with that policy?
And one more point: Have you given any thought at all to how the new buildings
coming online at Forest Hills are going to contribute to even more gridlock?
Seriously, it looks to me like someone wrote a grant proposal that got accepted, and
then you tried to create a road that fit the grant instead of fitting the area.
I hope you will take my concerns seriously and stop this disaster in its tracks.
Sincerely yours,
--Diane(:^[
===============
DIANE SIMPSON
BOARD ADMINISTRATOR-HARVEST CO-OP MARKET
SECRETARY -TREASURER
BROOKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
PARISH SECRETARY, ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST
From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Support for at-grade option -Casey overpass
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:46:58 AM
From: Cleo Stoughton [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:43 PM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Support for at-grade option - Casey overpass
Dear Mr. Broderick,
I'm emailing to express my support for the at-grade option for the Casey overpass. I would love to see a safe, walkable and bikeable intersection in its place. I do hope that, through the
design process, a solution can be found that takes the needs of all forms of transportation
into account.
Sincerely,
Cleo Stoughton
50 Evergreen St. #24 JP, MA 02130 From: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Cc: Paul Godfrey
Subject: FW: support for the at-grade solution for casey arborway
Date: Monday, March 04, 2013 11:03:03 AM
Paul – I assume that this is supposed to be an official comment on the 25% design. Is it
possible to log it in with the other comments that go directly to Tom B.?
Thank you!
Kate
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: support of Casey Overpass/Bridging Forest Hills
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:51:01 PM
Attachments: Prescott -Casey Overpass 3-7-13.pdf
From: Elizabeth Charney
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:08 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: Bridging Forest Hills; Sonia.Chang-diaz@masenate.gov; william.straus@mahouse.gov;
russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; Torres, Robert (HOU);
jeffrey.sanches@mahouse.gov; david.mcnulty@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; stephen.murphy@cityofboston.gov;
julieanne.doherty@cityofboston.gov
Subject: support of Casey Overpass/Bridging Forest Hills
Arthur & Terry Prescott, 35 Rossmore Rd , Jamaica Plain , MA do not have a
computer. They mailed the feedback form back to DOT, and asked me to email
copy(s) to you so you know how much they support the bridge REPLACEMENT.
Thank you. Elizabeth Charney
15 Meehan St
Jamaica Plain , MA 02130 From: DOT FeedbackTo: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: tear down that horrible Casey Overpass (#605511)
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:47:37 AM
From: Jennifer Bruni [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:56 AM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: tear down that horrible Casey Overpass (#605511)
Dear Mr Broderick and Mr King I strongly urge you to continue with the surface option, which was selected through a 2 year
public process. Not sure why we're suddenly going backwards! the surface option provides
enormous benefits for the neighborhood and surrounding areas.
Save the surface option, please.
thank you Jennifer
Jennifer Bruni
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: The Forest Hills intersection
Date: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:11:53 AM
From:
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 8:54 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Cc: info@bridgingforesth
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: the horrible Casey design
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:38:14 PM
From: Flea Productions [
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:09 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: the horrible Casey design
ToWhomItMayConcern,
(thoseofyouwhomakethedecisions),
ThereislittletorecommendtheatgradeCaseydesign.
Pleasetakeitbacktothedrawingboards
Ibelievethatan“atgrade”solutionwillcausemorecongestionandlongertraveltimes.
Ibelievethatthehealthofthecommunitywillbenegativelyimpactedasvehiclessitattrafficlights,ratherthanpassingoverviaanew
bridge.
Iseenoreasontodisplacethecurrentrotarywithasetoflightsthatmustaccommodateasix-wayintersectionthatcurrentlyworks.
JakeHartJamaicaPlain
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Thomas Broderick
Date: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:23:01 PM
Hi Paul,
This person has questions about the proposed design. Can you help?
Thanks!
From: colette freedman [
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 2:28 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Thomas Broderick
Dear Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston , MA 02116-3973 Dear Mr. Broderick,
I am writing to comment on the recent MassDOT 25% Design Hearing for the Casey
Overpass (Project No. 605511). I have several concerns and a few questions which I hope
you can answer:
1. Bike lanes were promised to help avoid pedestrian conflicts. Why were they removed? I
have done the AIDS ride twice, raising quite a bit money for research and bike lanes not
only help limit our carbon footprint, they also are a great means of exercise.
2. The width of the roadways makes pedestrian crossings just too long to be safe. My
grandmother takes a long time to cross the road and it is nearly impossible for her to safely
cross.
3. Eliminating the mid-block crossing from the Southwest Corridor to the station will force
anyone not headed directly to the Orange Line platform out of their way just to cross the
street.
4. Elimination of the Rte. 39 bus berth and the drop-off spaces seem to degrade services
rather than upgrade them. Many of my friends only take public transport and this is a big
concern.
All of the above concerns beg the question: Just how will this at-grade scheme be safer
than a bridge solution which eliminates a majority of the traffic from the grade? It feels
like yo are putting cost ahead of safety and sanity. As a Boston resident who works in JP, I
think you are making a huge mistake with this at-grade approach. A bridge is the best
solution for all the people who will use this area, Mr Broderick.
I look forward to hearing from you on these issues.
Sincerely,
Colette Freedman-Everett, Jamaica Plains
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer MassDOT, Att"n: Paul King Project File No. 605511 Date: Monday, March 18, 2013 1:47:11 PM
From: Alison Yoos [
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 4:04 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Att: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer MassDOT, Att'n: Paul King Project File No.
605511
Dear Mr. Broderick,
Want you to know how strongly I support the at grade solution to the Casey Overpass issue and squaring the Shea Circle interchange!
Sincerely,
Alison Yoos
Jamaica Plain Resident From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer MassDOT, Att"n: Paul King Project File No. 605511 Date: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:47:25 PM
From: Sara Muspratt [m
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 7:53 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Att: Thomas F. Broderick, P.
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer MassDOT, Att"n: Paul King Date: Monday, March 18, 2013 1:47:17 PM
From: Kelly Washburn [m
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 4:08 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Att: Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer MassDOT, Att'n: Paul King Dear Mr. Broderick,
I am a JP resident and I want you to know how strongly I support the at grade solution tothe Casey Overpass issue and
squaring the Shea Circle interchange! It is time for this issueto move forward and have us all work together.
Sincerely,
Kelly Washburn
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: We must have a gorgeous new bridge within the Emerald Necklace
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:13:11 PM
From: Jil Clark [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:51 AM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: We must have a gorgeous new bridge within the Emerald Necklace
Dear DOT,
As a thirty year resident of Jamaica Plain, I must speak up: I strongly opposed the at-gradeplan.
Those of us who live here are going to be adversely effected in myriad ways.
Jamaica Plain's Emerald necklace deserves a lovely bridge.
I urge you not to waste my tax dollars on the at-grade plan.
Jil Clark
Jamaica Plain
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Wm. Casey Bridge project
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:14:17 PM
From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:49 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Wm. Casey Bridge project
March 10, 2013 re. Project No. 605511 Hello Thomas F, Broderick,
I'm a resident of Jamaica Plain and I have used the Casey bridge almost daily for the past 20 years. I
attended a community meeting in which Mass DOT presented various traffic and landscaping designs for the Forest Hills area once the current bridge is removed.
None of these designs struck me as well thought -out - especially regarding traffic patterns and
regarding the preservation of the area's original aesthetic design.
Please retain Shea Circle . It's a beautiful entrance to the Forest Hills basin and a thoughtful entry to
the Franklin Park/Forest Hills Cemetery landscape. I'm certain that a design solution can be found to
calm traffic and provide easier pedestrian access.
Please build a bridge to separate the opposing traffic on Morton Street from Hyde Park
Avenue/Washington Street and Washington Street/South Street. To put these traffic streams in direct
contact with each other is inviting a lousy pedestrian and bicycling environment, difficult design
problems and an even more automobile -intensive area of our town. This is a unique area of the city - and certainly a uniquely historical area of the country. It's worth
some serious, competent effort and it's worth a budget that will more than earn itself with higher
property values and increased business activity in an attractive setting.
Thank you for your time,
Michael Shea
2 Perkins Square, No.3
Jamaica Plain, MA
02130-1708 From: DOT Feedback
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: FW: Yes to at-grade option
Date: Friday, March 15, 2013 8:45:46 AM
From: Gretchen Ashton [
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:49 AM
To: DOT Feedback
Subject: Yes to at-grade option
"Dear Mr. Broderick,
I have continuously supported the process and at-grade option for the Casey Overpass project. I want
to reiterate my support for the at-grade option that has been chosen, a nd the process you used to get
there. It's the right choice for the neighborhood, the future of this vibrant city, the parks and for
including all transportation options. It is long past the discussion point and should be moved to action.
We should be putting all energies into how to make that option the best it can be. The neighborhood
has so much to gain from the at-grade option. Let’s move forward.
Sincerely,
Gretchen M. Ashton
From: DOT Feedback Highway
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: RE: Casey project
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:39:53 PM
another inquiry regarding Casey…I did not respond as it was more of a question…
Thank you,
Emily
From: brett hinds [
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:35 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: Casey project
To whom it may concern,
I have been reading about the Casey Overpass project and I I have some questions that I
would like to have answered:
1. Can you explain how the proposed project is better and safer than a bridge? It seems to
me this project will increase congestion and idling cars will increase pollution in a
residential area near two of Boston's finest green spaces -The Arnold Arboretum and
Franklin Park.
2. Why have the bike lanes been removed? This is very unfortunate as many people
commute by bicycle on these roadways and use these roads to access Franklin Park and the
Arboretum.
Sincerely,
Brett Hinds
I
l
March 3, 2013
Gunars Viksnins 48 Brookley Road #I Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Thomas F. Broderick, P.E. Chief Engineer MassDOT, Highway Division I 0 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116-3973 RE: Project No. 605511
Dear Mr. Broderick:
II '
I am writing to express my concern and disappointment with the intention of the
DOT to replace the Casey Overpass with an at grade roadway. The existing overpass
channels traffic through a very complex intersection without interfering with vehicular
and pedestrian traffic at grade. Clearly the original builders understood the benefit of not
intersecting major traffic and pedestrian conduits.
My wife and I live within walking distance of Forest Hills Station and walk under
. the overpass regularly. We carmot imagine crossing six lanes of traffic in this location as
anything but a nightmare. Then there is the vehicular crossing which at twice the present
volume would probably create spectacular backups.
Clearly I am not a civil, structural or traffic engineer and have expressed my concerns and fears as I see them. I am looking forward to more information that would be reassuring. S~c~~
Gunars Viksnins
Cc: Sonia Chang-Diaz
William Straus
Thomas McGee
Juliearme Doherty
Liz Malia
Jeffrey Sanchez
Russell Holmes
David McNulty
· Ayanna Pressley Felix Arroyo Matthew O'Malley Stephen Murphy II
I
I
I
Bridging Forest Hills
I
c/o 20 Rambler Road
Jamaica Plain
Massachusett s 02130-3428
Tel.: 617.522.3988
e-mail: kevinfmoloney @comcast.net
I
I
I
March 6, 2013
I
I
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.,
Chief Engineer,
Mass DOT
10 Park Plaza
Boston, Massachusett s 02116
I
I
I
Re: ABP File No. 605511 and the enclosed report, Why MassDOT
is Wrong About the Casey Overpass Project and How it has Misled the Politicians and the Public I
Dear Mr. Broderick:
We, the undersigned, are members of a coalition of more
than 600 local citizens* who have come together under the
Bridging Forest Hills umbrella to advocate for the best result
for replacing the Casey Overpass. At the 25% hearing on
February 27, 2013, at English High School, speakers in favor of
a bridge plan (32) far outnumbered those who spoke in favor of
the Mass DOT at-grade plan ( 18) . 1
We have prepared the enclosed report, Why MassDOT is Wrong
About the Casey Overpass Project and How it has Misled the
Politicians and the Public, to help you to understand why
MassDOT's plan to replace the Casey Overpass with a six-seven
lane highway at-street level is based uponinadequ ate data, a
preconceived no-bridge agenda and that, as a consequence, the
plan is seriously flawed.
The defects in the MassDOT plan, which are set forth in
detail in the enclosed report, include:
1. Dysfunctiona l and skewed public process;
2. Biased renderings and plans;
3. Misleading and subjective evaluation of alternatives ;
1
Six speakers did not express a preference.
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
March 6, 2013
Page 2
4. False appropriation of Olmsted's •vision";
5. No evaluation of air quality impacts upon Forest
Hills;
6. Not consistent with prior regional plans;
7. No comparison of at-grade and bridge levels of safety;
8. No acknowledgement of the value of a bridge; and,
9. Traffic not seen by MassDOT as a differentiator.
A full and honest evaluation of alternatives for the Casey
Overpass project is needed before MassDOT commits to this or any
scheme to replace the Casey Overpass.
I
I
I
I
I
MassDOT has failed and refused to present to the public a
credible explanation of why a new, narrower, smaller and shorter
bridge would not make conditions for all modes of transportation
better by keeping 24,000 east-west regional vehicle trips per
day off our l.ocal streets.
The Mass DOT public •process" and its
alternatives study did not adequately evaluate enough
alternatives.
With MassDOT's plan for an at-grade replacement for the
Casey Overpass, the vehicles, which used the overpass to drive
over Hyde Park Avenue, South Street and Washington Street, will
be slowed down needlessly by four additional traffic signalized
intersections. Local and north-south regional traffic will be
slowed needlessly, becoming entangled with the street-level
regional east-west traffic.
The META's Route 39 bus, one of the busiest in the city,
will have a longer run time since MassDOT plans to eliminate its
current berth and move it to an enlarged bus bay at the south
end of the Forest Hills station despite the fact that the MBTA' s
two-year planning study placed a top priority on shortening the
39 bus run time.
MassDOT's at-grade plan eliminates bike lanes even though
the American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) guidelines state that off-street paths do not
preclude the need for good on-street bike accommodation.
The
removal of the bike lanes acknowledges the
facts that the proposed roadway is uncomfortably wide for
pedestrians.
Every mode of transportation is worse with the at-grade
Thomas F. Broderick , P.E. March 6, 2013 Page 3 plan.
I
I
I' This would not be the case with a bridge plan.
Please review the enclosed report and do everything within
your power to prevent MassDOT from inflicting its flawed plan
for six-seven street level lanes of asphalt as the replaceme nt
for the Casey Overpass,
Sincerely ,
Is/
Is/
Is/
Is/
Is/
Is/
/s/
Bernard Doherty * **
Elizabeth Wylie * ** Karen Schneiderm an * Kevin Moloney * ** Jeffrey Ferris * Heather Carito David Hannon * ** * Member of the Casey Overpass MassDOT Working Advisory Group
(WAG)
**Member of the Casey Overpass MassDOT DesignA,d yisory Group
(DAG)
69 Unity St.
Quincy MA 02169-1140
7Mar2013
I
,j
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer
MassDOT Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston MA 02116-3973
I
Attn: Accelerated Bridge Program
Project File No. 605511
I
Dear Mr. Broderick:
!
A few thoughts about your proposal to raze the Casey Overpass and replace it with an at-grade intersection.
Since I am a resident of Quincy, I have a somewhat different viewpoint from that of local residents. I only use
the overpass a few times a year.
No comment about the concept of razing the overpass or not, other than it seems the issue has already been
decided.
This is an intersection of two arterial roads. Since there are a lot of people who are from outside the
neighborhood of the intersection who use both, and since with the newproposer.l design there would be some
non-intuitive turns, it should be of concern that everyone using the intersection know exactly where they are
going before they get there.
This likely involves two tiers of signage: The fust one in order of appearance (farthest away from the
intersection) for example the westbound on Morton Street, should say something general like, WASHINGTON
ST NORTH TO BOSTON RIGHT LANE. WASHINGTON ST SOUTH TO ROSLINDALE SQ, DEDHAM
AND ROUTE 1 LEFT LANE.
Since there would be a complicated left turn involving passing Washington St., then doing aU-turn and then a
right turn, there should be a second sign, closer to the intersection, displaying a diagram showing where to go.
I stress this early in the design stage because one car or truck taking a wrong turn or having a bewildered driver
could gnm up the entire roadway. This signage should be planned well in advance, and should not be
considered a last-minute 'enhancement.'
As a public transportation user, I thank you for providing an easy left turn exit from Morton St. for buses going
to Forest Hills Station, rather than potentially having to spend five minutes going around and around the
intersection.
Qne last point: Even though there are no plans to restore the Arborway streetcar, I suggest you do nothing to
prevent its restoration. In other words, leave provisions for the streetcars, rather than making plans that would
make the restoration more difficult.
Sincerely,
I
I
L_ A 1,~
B~Steinberg
(617) 773-7495
bmsteinberg@earthlink.net
I
I
I
I
I
Anne McKinnon 51 Sedgwick St. Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Thomas Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT
!0 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
Project 605511
Dear Thomas Bmderick:
Many in Jamaica Plain who have worked with state agencies on planning and design projects in
the past have seen cooperative and collabomtive relationships with the public. The Casey
Arborway project is quite the opposite. This reatly stands out as an example of how NOT to treat
people who take the time to go to meetings and participate. Clearly, this project is not consistent
with MassDOT's mission stateme1it.
The 25% design public hearing was disappointing in that the presentation and the handout
provided virtually no additional design details since the last twc:> public m<:'etings. It's impossible
to comment on the adequacy of bike and pedestrian accommodation if dimensions are not given.
Therefore, my questions and comments on the design are based in part on a useful graphic in the
1obby provided by the Bridging Forest Hills group (who also provided snacks for the 3 1/2 hour
dinnertime meeting since MassDOT couldn't be bothered).
1. The current design is a failure because it does not include a bridge and contorts many, many
elements to "make it work."
2. Why was this hearing held before the City of Boston's comments were addressed and before
the Mass. Historical Commission consultation pmcess on Shea Circie was completed? Do you
think we don't care what those two important bodies think?
3. The current design removes bike lanes despite bike lanes being a "basic requirement guiding
all designs." MassHighway Design Guide Book calls for bike lanes or curb lanes to be a
minimum of 14 feet to 15 feet. What is proposed here violates that guideline and will create a
hazardous situation for bikes. Widening the curb lane to comply with your own Guid<:' Book .
and AASHTO will add a measly 2 feet on each side but your design team refuses to do this.
Why'?
4. The current design that destroys historic Shea Circle is an abomination. Throughout the
planning process and documented in MassDOT's "Planning and Concept Design Study," the
public was told the Shea Circle alternatives are "interchangeable." MassDOT never added any
caveats about Shea Square providing greater safety or better bike and pedestrian
accommodation than Shea Circle. Now, however. MassDOT claims Shea Square is better itt
terms of safety and ped/bike accommodation. Maybe compared to existing, but that is NOT
the proper comparison. A modem roundabout would preserve the Circle and improve safety.
I
l
I
McKinnon, p. 2
I
5. Eliminating the mid-block crossing from the Southwest Corridor to the station will force
I
anyone not headed directly to the Orange Line platform out of their way just to get across the
~M.
I
.
6. If this is a "multimodal" project, why it it getting rid of the Rte. 39 bus berth thereby limiting
the ability to expand the upper busway?.
7. Failing to provide drop-off/pick-up spaces at a transit hub is stupid and dangerous. People will
continue to stop on New Washington Street to let people out and pick then up and will be
endangered.
8. Please explain how putting to cab stands on the new parkwtty fits into Ol111sted's vision.
I look forward to your responses.
II
I
I
.)
TOTAL P.03 I,_ Boston Cyclists Union
P.O. Box 301394
jamaica Plain, MA 02130 ...
617-620.1989 March, 12, 2013
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Acting Chief Engineer, MassDOT, 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116 ATTN: (Paul King, Project FOe No. 605511) Dear Mr. Broderick, The Bike Union's first letter to you regarding the Casey Arborway project, then known as the Casey Overpass replacement project was sent in November 2011. Back then and in subsequent letters, we and hundreds of other Jamaica Plain and area residents were writing to encourage you to decide to rebuild the Casey At-Grade. Neither our position, nor the position ofothers we regularly communicate with, has changed. The more people have learned, the more they have supported the At-Grade solution. And so it seems with people from the other side of the debate. Indeed, their refusal to accept any traffic study is reminiscent of those who would yet deny that climate change exists. Yet it has been very disturbing to watch as that small group of "bridge supporters" has proceeded to scour the surrounding neighborhoods for others who do not live in JP and would rather have a highway bridge over our neighborhood than delay their rush hour drive for even a moment It is instructive to note that a feature that was once agreed upon by a very clear majority of WAG members-changing Shea Circle to Shea Square-has now become a target of the at­
grade denialists, many ofthem those same WAG members. They now say they want to preserve the circle-even when just months ago many ofthem whole heartily agreed a square would be safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Our members have reported to us that they are exasperated and dismayed by such behavior, and that they are tired of being called to meeting after meeting to witness a forced rehash the same old debate. It seems clear that conUnually rehashing the bridge debate bas been a serious
detriment to civic engagement on the current design, as many people have been
lnUmldated by bridge supporters' confrontaUonal tactics and Ume-consumlng
speeches.
Here are some illustrative quotes from one of our members:
"Last time I commented on the Patch (long, log ago) about the Casey project, one woman
took it upon herself to attack me personally ... But what makes me not want to live here is
this attitude and presumption that they eye in the majority and that the process has been
"unfair". I am sick of it. This is why I dontt attend the meetings, i~is too upsetting. All I can do
­
is write letters at this point."
Boston Cycllsts Union
P.O. Box 301394
jamaica Plain, MA 01130
617-610-1989
•'
We respect the right of all to speak and for the provision of a time and space for all of their
concerns, but we ask that something be done to also create a space In which the
current design Is discussed without Interruptions regarding past designs that have
been discarded, so that meaningful civic engagement on this proJect can continue In a
dvll manner. Many people in Jamaica Plain and Roslindale would like to move forward, but
we have heard from scores of people who are not attending the public process due to the
bullying and overzealous language heard therein.
In addition, we would like to reiterate some requests regarding the 25 percent design
under consideration:
Please maintain In the plan Shea Square (not Shea Circle) for Increased bicycle safety.
(Roundabouts above two lanes of car traffic have proven without fail to be more
dangerous to bikes than traditional intersections.)
Please add to the OCR's snow removal capacity with the addition of a tracked snow
plow to Its vehicle fleet. Tracked snow plows work faster, and can increase efficiency
without extra hires.lfthls Is not possible we demand the return ofbike lanes to the
Arborway for winter bike tramc which Is quite heavy In Jamaica Plain.
Please consider adding public bike maintenance station and historic plaque or public art
piece highlighting the history of bicycling in Boston-in particular pedal inventor Pierre
Lallement who resided in nearby Fort Hill in his later years.
Please create increased visibility between bikes and cars on NB Washington St and the
adjacent cycletrack on the approach to the Arborway from the south by removing any
kiss & ride or taxi stand at that location.
Please add a cycletrack or shared use path alongside the Arborway past South Street toward
Murray Circle on the north side ofthe street
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Pete Stidman
Executive Director
Boston Cyclists Union
617-620-1989
Mr. Thomas Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT- Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116-3973
March 14, 2013
Attn: Accelerated Bridge Program
Dear Mr. Broderick,
As a bicyclist and chairman of the Milton Bicycle Advisory Committee, I bike and drive through the Forest Hills
area occasionally, and many of my neighbors travel the route more frequently.
At the public meeting on February 27th, I spent most of the time reviewing the detail drawings for the project,
and I'd like to thank you and your team for your efforts to accommodate all modes of transportation in the area.
Your design is far more people-friendly than the one that exists today.
After reviewing the drawings, I have a few suggestions or requests. Please see the attached images for
clarification.
At the intersection of Hyde Park Avenue and the bus terminal entrance, immediately south of the Casey
Arborway, I suggest adding bike detectors in both northbound lanes, as well as a bike box. Your proposed
design suggests that cyclists should remain in the right lane, but if cyclists need to get to the left to make the
upcoming left turn onto the Southeast Corridor Bikeway, there will already be cars in the left lane Blocking
access. Also, please add lane markers so bicyclists in the bike boxes do not stray into opposing traffic lanes.
At the intersection of Washington Street and Ukraine Way, cyclists are supposed to use the shared path as they
head southbound. However, those of us headed from JP to Hyde Park will want to avoid the pedestrian traffic on
the shared-use path and will be in the left travel lane, which doesn't have a bicycle detector as currently
designed. Would it be possible to add a bicycle detector in the left lane? Both lanes?
At the intersection of Morton Street, Casey Arborway and Circuit Drive, cyclists traveling eastbound on the
southern side of the Arborway, then turning left onto Circuit Drive, will have to backtrack a short distance onto
Morton Street to trigger the bicycle detector, and there will often be cars in that location according to the existing
design. Please consider adding a bike box at the south side of the intersection, or add bicycle detectors further
forward in the intersection.
And lastly, a general point. Throughout the Southwest Corridor area, pedestrians and bicyclists often use the
wrong paths, which puts people at some risk of collisions. I see that your plans include signage to discourage
this issue, but if there might be other design elements that encourage pedestrians and cyclists to use the correct
paths, I believe this would help improve traffic flow and safety.
I am somewhat concerned that the bridge-less design will increase surface traffic, which may increase risk levels
for bicyclists and pedestrians, but I understand that decision has already been made. I'm hopeful that the
improved traffic flow paths and Complete Streets design elements will counteract the added traffic.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration, and for your efforts to accommodate all transportation
modes in the area.
Best regards,
LeeToma
Chairman, The Milton Bicycle Advisory Committee
Cc:
Nicole Freedman, Boston Bikes
Pete Stidman, Boston Cyclists Union
www.bikemilton.org
JohnS. Allen
March 12, 2013
7 University Park
Waltham, MA 02453-1523
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Chief Engineer
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973
RE:Project No. 605511
jsallen@bikexprt.com
(781) 891-9307 voice/fax
•
•
•
•
Technical writing, translation
Mechanical design, acoustics
Consultant on bicycling
Effective Cycling instructor
Dear Mr. Broderick:
I write as a bicycling advocate of over 30 years' standing, including recent service as a board member
of the League of American Bicyclists, and current service on the Bicycle Technical Committee ofthe
National committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The opinions I express are my own.
There are many issues with this project which I'm sure that other commenters will address. I'm going
to address mostly traffic-related issues, but let me first address parkland issues. On pages 5-6 of the
MEPA Final Project Report, MEPA #14978, I read:
Honor Olmsted' s Emerald Necklace vision for this area to the best extent possible.
Olmsted' s plan is from 1892, in a pre-automotive era. Is Olmsted' s Emerald Necklace vision honored by placing 24,000 motor vehicles per day at ground level, with the attendant noise, street-level air pollution, traffic delays, and space requirements? The existing Casey Overpass defeats Olmsted' s plan,
but a S.!nsitively designed replacement structure would allow conditions at ground level much more like thoo.Je envisioned by Olmsted. Essentially, what is being proposed is another Jamaicaw ay­ Olmsted' s park with a 6-lane highway through the middle of it. Is that Olmsted' s vision? Also, the proposed bridge alternative shown in a MEPA document isn't, really. It does not eliminate enough intersection crossings to avoid the delays and congestion which, despite its deficits, the Casey currently does. On page 5 of the Final Project Report, I read: ... include on-street bike lanes in all surface street designs and off-street bicycle paths along the entire corridor. Retaiu full access for MBTA station by all modes. But on page 8 of the ENF, I read:
Off-street Bicycle Accommodation. The conceptual at-grade alternative included on-street
bicycle lanes throughout the length of the Arborway corridor. However, in an effort to balance
the need of all users, on street bicycle lanes were removed from the majority ofthe project area
points
10 reduce pedestrian crossing distance at key intersections, reduce potential conflict
t
Off-stree
width.
tional
cross-sec
t
pavemen
between bicyclists and pedestrians, and reduce the
.
Arborway
Casey
0icycle paths will be provided on both the northern and southern sides of the
Both paths will be bi-directional and will create critical linkages between the Arnold
Arboretum, the Forest Hills MBTA Station, the Southwest Corridor Park, Forest Hills
Cemetery and Franklin Park for bicyclists.
Removal of the bike lanes from the plan developed by the Working Advisory Group is shocking and distressing. •
page2
Allen, re: MassDOT project file #505511
The proposed accommodation does not conform to the Massachusetts Project Development and Design
Guide. With off-street bicycle accommodation, what remains is a landscaping plan, a park plan, not a
suitable plan to accommodate efficient bicycle travel, evolution of vehicle types and traffic volumes, or
access to a major transportation hub. Essentially, bicyclists are being treated as if they were
pedestrians.
Furthetmore, pedestrian crossing distances, and the volume of traffic which pedestrians must cross,
would be greatly reduced with the narrower surface streets if there is an overpass.
The safety claim is specious and is contrary to research. None is cited. How are potential conflict
points between bicyclists and pedestrians to be removed when the paths will be used by pedestrians as
well as bicyclists? At the many intersections, bicyclists are expected to continue across crosswalks,
from concealment behind crowds of pedestrians waiting on the comer, only to pop out in front of
turning. motor vehicles. I see absolutely nothing in the design which would mitigate these intersection
conflicts. Bicycling in crosswalks adjacent to intersections is hazardous and bicycling from right to left
across entering traffic is the most dangerous intersection maneuver known, as confirmed by numerous
research works- a compendium of them is here:
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facillsidepath/sidecrash.htm. Current American and European
practice brings bikeways out to the street at intersections, avoiding many of the conflicts.
The many traffic signals would result in significant delays and promote a low level of compliance,
particularly by bicyclists and pedestrians elevating the risk.
Bicycle access in the proposed design would fail in cold weather. Paths meandering through parkland
cannot be kept clear of ice in winter. For this to be so, they would have to be sloped or crowned, and
provided with storm sewers, like roads- promptly plowed and salted. If this doesn't happen, they can
be unusable for weeks. Salt on roadways is held between curbs and carried away by storm drains. Salt
on paths in parkland degrades plantings.
For these reasons, and many others, the ENF was insufficient. An Environmental Impact Report is
needed, and the entire project needs review to bring an overpass into serious consideration.
Very truly yours,
Cc:
Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov
Jeffrey.Sanchez@mahouse.gov
David.McNulty@cityotboston.gov
ayanna.pressley@cityotboston.gov
felix.arroyo@cityotboston.gov,
matthew.omalley@cityotboston.gov
Stephen.Murphy@cityotboston.gov
info@bridgingforesthills.com,
Sonia.Chang-Diaz@masenate.gov,
William.Straus@mahouse.gov,
Thomas. McGee@masenate.gov,
Jull ieanne. Dohertv@c itvotboston. gov,
Thomas.Stanley @mahouse.gov
Mike.Barrett@masenate.gov
Russell.!lolmes@ mahouse.gov
Ji/3 .
12
b
·-'
Massachusetts
Bicycle Coalition
171 Milk Street, Suite 33
Boston, MA 02109
617-542-BIKE (2453)
617-542-6755 fax
MassBike.org
March 13, 2013
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer
MassDOT- Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116-3973
Attn: Accelerated Bridge Program
RE: Casey Arborway Project, Project File No. 605511
Dear Chief Engineer Broderick:
I am writing on behalf of the Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition (MassBike). MassBike's mission is
to promote and bicycle-friendly environment and to encourage bicycling for fun, fitness, and
transportation. MassBike supports the proposed at-grade design for the Casey Arborway project, and
the process which led to the decision to select the at-grade design.
I am also a member of the Massachusetts Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and I served as
a member of the Working Advisory Group (WAG) for this project.
The proposed at-grade design for the Casey Arborway will yield significant environmental,
health, and transportation benefits for the community. It will reconnect the Emerald Necklace, increase
available parkland, and better connect the surrounding neighborhoods to the parkland to take
advantage of natural and recreational opportunities. It will reconnect neighborhoods effectively split for
decades by the overpass, bringing economic and community benefits. It will dramatically improve access
to public transportation with better, safer connections to Forest Hills Station for pedestrians and
bicyclists, while also improving MBTA bus operations. It will create bicycle connections both through the
corridor and to the surrounding street network where none exist today for those bicyclists who are
unwilling or unable to mix with motor vehicle traffic. The off-road, separated bicycle facilities will
encourage less-confident cyclists, particularly families, to ride bicycles for transportation and recreation
by making bicycling safer and more convenient in this busy area.
While there are details of bicycle operations in the proposed design that are not yet settled
(intersection treatments in particular), and I look forward to seeing details as the design progresses, I am
confident that the at-grade design will serve the vast majority of bicyclists better than a bridge. I am,
however, disappointed that on-road bicycle lanes have been eliminated from the design. I understand
and agree with the need to minimize the width of the roadway to the extent possible, but there is
clearly a constituency of faster-moving, more-confident bicyclists who would prefer to have dedicated
space on the road rather than using the off-road paths favored by less-confident bicyclists. I request that
MassDOT continue to explore this issue as the design progresses, and restore the on-road bike lanes if
possible.
Looking at this project in the context of the broader policy framework in Boston and Massachusetts also favors the at-grade design. It is fully consistent with the Healthy Transportation Better Bicycling for Massachusetts
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer
Casey Arborway Project, Project File No. 605511
March 13, 2013
Compact, the GreenDOT policy, the MassDOT Project Development and Design Guide, the Boston
Complete Streets Guidelines, and the first-in-the-nat ion statewide Mode Shift Goals to triple the share
of bicycling, walking, and transit.
Having participated in public processes for many projects throughout the Commonwealth, I can
say that the public engagement process undertaken for this project is the most extensive and most
inclusive I have seen. The WAG comprised representatives of more than three dozen groups,
representing a wide range of interests. The WAG met numerous times, and all meetings were open to
the public. Regular public information meetings were held to update the public, and to give people the
opportunity to ask questions and make comments. Both the WAG and the public were full participants
in the process that led to the selection of the at-grade design. While I did not personally participate in
the follow-on Design Advisory Group (DAG), my understanding is that it has continued much the same as
the WAG, with a similar composition and collaborative working environment.
I urge you to allow this project to proceed to the next stage of design as quickly as possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project.
Very truly yours,
~/ftUlro
David Watson
Executive Director
J
J 7r , U I
.J
''
' 'J J
( .
Wednesday, March 13,2013
Trinity Peacock-Broyles
8 Hall Street, #3
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Chief Engineer
MassDOT - Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973
Attention: Accelerated Bridge Program, Project File No. 605511
Dear Mr. Broderick,
I support the proposed Casey Arborway project in Jamaica Plain for a better Jamaica Plain/Forest
Hills. As an avid cyclist, I think it's key to remove the crumbling Casey Overpass and replace it
with reconfigured street-level roads, reconnecting the neighborhoods long separated by the
overpass; better connect the neighborhoods and the Southwest Corridor to Forest Hills station
and the Emerald Necklace; provide dedicated bicycle facilities that will increase safety and
encourage more people to bike in this area and improve bus operations.
I strongly support this project as currently proposed because it would create a more livable,
economically viable, bikeable and walkable neighborhood.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
~c~:;;~;s~
.!.JI ~ "
1c:·.. \·:'
V
Q:
....
0 If)
'
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116-3973
March 10, 2013
re. Project No. 605511
Hello Thomas F, Broderick,
I'm a resident of Jamaica Plain and I have used the Casey bridge almost daily for the past 20
years. I attended a community meeting in which Mass DOT presented various traffic and
landscaping designs for the Forest Hills area once the current bridge is removed.
None of these designs struck me as well thought-out - especially regarding traffic patterns and
regarding the preservation of the area's original aesthetic design.
·
Please retain Shea Circle. It's a beautiful entrance to the Forest Hills basin and a thoughtful entl)
to the Franklin Park/Forest Hills Cemetery landscape. I'm certain that a design solution can be
found to calm traffic and provide easier pedestrian access.
Please build a bridge to separate the opposing traffic on Morton Street from Hyde Park Avenue/
Washington Street and Washington StreeUSouth Street. To put these traffic streams in direct
contact with each other is inviting a lousy pedestrian and bicycling environment, difficult design
problems and an even more automobile-intensive area of our town.
This is a unique area of the city - and certainly a uniquely historical area of the country. It's worth
some serious, competent effort and it's worth a budget that will more than earn itself with higher
property values and increased business activity in an attractive setting.
Thank you for your time,
Michael Shea
2 Perkins Square, No.3
Jamaica Plain, MA
02130-1708
'!
I
I
I
'I'
I
I
I
I
~.
WHY MASSDOT IS WRONG
ABOUT THE CASEY OVERPASS PROJECT AND HOW IT HAS MISLED THE
PO~ITICIANS AND THE PUBLIC
I
I
By Bridging Forest Hills
February 22, 2013
I_ -·················································· .I
I
1
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Why MassDOT's Casey Overpass planning and Design Study is flawed
1. Dysfunctional and skewed public process
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Biased renderings and plans
Misleading and subjective evaluation of alternatives
False appropriation of Olmsted's 'vision'
No evaluation of air quality impacts to Forest Hills
Not consistent with prior regional plans
No comparison of at-grade and bridge levels of safety
8. No acknowledgement of value of a bridge
9. Traffic not seen as a differentia tor
Specific issues with MassDOT's plans
I
1. General Project Informatio n errors
I
•
•
•
•
•
Understates area's importance as transit hub and home to future Arborway Yard
Selectively references the Emerald Necklace National Register Nomination
Measures of Evaluation were not objective
Conceptual Alternatives not thoroughly examined
Shea Circle will be destroyed NOT reconfigured, and an historic resource lost
2. Land
•
•
•
Forest Hills Transportation Action Plan
Paths to Sustainable Region
Arborway Master Plan
•
3. Transport ation
4. Air Quality
5.
Historic/A rcheologi cal Resources
Conclusion
I
I
I
MassDOT's CASEY OVERPASS PLANNING AND
CONCEPT DESIGN STUDY WAS SERIOUSLY FLAWED
1. Dysfunctional and Skewed Public Process
II The Working Advisory Group ("WAG") set up by MassDOT was a process that MassDOT survived and moved on
from. MassDOT never intended it to be a collaborative effort between the agency and the members.
Sherry Arnstein's classic analysis, the "Ladder of Citizen Participation," captures what MassDOT did here. The
WAG was stuck on the Manipulation rung, occasionally climbing to the Consultation rung on the Tokenism level.
8
Citizen Coma!
7
Delegated Power ·
6
Partnership
5
Placation
4
Consultation
3
Informing
2
Therapy
I
Manipulation
Degrees
of citizen
power
}
}
Degrees of
tokenism
} N onparticipation
(Source. Amstem, 1969)
I
WAG meetings were painful. Held in a room at the State Lab building that was too small to accommodate all
attendees comfortably, the meetings were long, boring, hot and, frustrating. Lacking relevant handouts from
MassDOT, WAG members frantically scribbled information to try to keep up. What was the result? Less than
one-half of the members showed up.
·I
I
"Homework" assignments for WAG me!llbers were "busy work" and many required an advanced degree to
complete._ These assignments were so obtuse that, on average, less than one-half ofthe attendees did them.
Result: waste of valuable time. And MassDOT wasted paper on these "assignments" but refused to print
technical data for WAG members.
In addition to the specific areas of concern about the process detailed below, there were numerous other issues
with the WAG process, any one of which casts great doubt on Mass DOT's constant refrain that the WAG process
was "robust and involving":
• Elected public officials at the state and local level were excluded from the WAG member appointment
process
• Two Forest Hills area business people were appointees to the WAG but both declined at the outset and
were not replaced with other local business people, yet the MassDOT website still refers to these people
as participants in the WAG.
-- - ------
-------­
-------;--~-------~-.
l
I
•
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The first WAG me eti
ng s we re sp en t creati
ng "Measures of Evalu
th e group reasonably
ation" ("MOEs"). Th
to do since th e me mb
is was difficult for
er s had no experienc
Overpass re pl ac em en
e planning somethin
t project.
g like th e Casey
•
DOT did not permit W
AG m em be rs to rev
iew or am en d meeti
ng agendas
• There we re gene
rally no handouts at
or prior to WAG meeti
ngs with key informa
tion on th em
• Given th e crowd
ed se t up of th e meeti
ng room, Power Point
unreadable.
pr es en tat io ns with ke
y information we
re
•
Misleading renderings
we re ne ve r changed
no r we re th ey remov
ed from th e MassDO
T website
• Too much tim e wa
s sp en t with MassDOT
talking at WAG meeti
half ho ur pr es en tat io
ngs ab ou t peripheral
n on traffic impacts
ma tte rs, an d only a
ne ar th e en d
• Questions no t ad
dr es se d at on e meeti
ng typically were no
t an sw er ed subseque
ntly
• Not an iterative
process of re fin em en
ts on ce th e tw o alter
natives we re cr ea ted
• The "split bridge"
op tio n was dr op pe d
with no discussion
WAG MEETINGS W
ERE POORLY RUN
WAG meetings we re
scheduled fo r di nn er
time, 6: 00 p. m . to 8:
frequently un til 9: 00
30 p. m. ; of ten we nt
p.m. an d did no t allow
much longer th an ad
tim e fo r discussion am
planned, overloaded
vertised,
on g th e me mb er s.
with to o ma ny topics
Agendas we re poorly
.
No
tim ef ra me s we re no
things at virtually ev
te d on th e agendas fo
ery meeting to run be
r ea ch item allowing
hind schedule.
Not on e WAG agenda
included "discussion"
at th e end of th e me
floor an d raise questio
eting, a tim e for WAG
ns an d give suggestio
me mb er s to have th
ns. This is sta nd ar d
drove me mb er s away
e
pr
ocedure. Result: Po
; not allowing a discu
orl
y run meetings th at
ssi
on
pe
way of th e group gellin
riod for WAG me mb
er s was antidemocra
g as a cohesive co mm
tic an d go t in th e
itt ee .
NO HANDOUTS TO
HELP VOLUNTEERS
UNDERSTAND ISSUE
S
Despite re pe at ed re
quests, no ha nd ou ts
of technical informa
process. No ot he r M
tion we re provided
assDOT technical stu
until ov er halfway th
dy or project in Jama
provide ha nd ou ts. WA
ro ug h th e
ica Plain th at relied
G m em be rs we re to
on volunteers has ref
ld to ge t th e material
at th ei r own ex pe ns
used to
of f th e we bs ite an d
e. MassDOT claimed
print 11" x 17" color
th at th at was MassDO
no t call for eliminatin
plans
T
GreenDOT policy [N
g ha nd ou ts to sa ve pa
ote: GreenDOT polic
per]. Result: WAG me
do wn on a sh ee t of
y
does
mb er s frantically tri
pa pe r at me eti ng s an
ed to write everything
d had no printed ma
meetings. Occasiona
terials to sh ow th e gr
l handouts provided
ou ps th ey .re pr es en t
at public meetings we
Final Public Meeting
af ter
re of ten po or quality11 /2 1/ 11 " fo r a go od
-see att ac he d "Hando
example.
ut at
TIME NOT USED W
ELL
Despite th e "hurry-u
p" de ma nd s im po se
d by MassDOT, WAG
(and public) me eti ng
s dwelled on
goals, principles
I.I
i
I
I
I
I
an d peripheral ele me nts
such as Shea Circle, an d
MOEs. Of the 12 WAG
on review-after-review
meetings, more tha n on
of study goals an d how
e-t hir d dwelled
to ev alu ate the alternati
ves tha t had no t been de
ve
loped.
For a stu dy wh os e critic
al issue is traffic an d ho
w to ac co mm od ate clo
by MassDOT for 2035, alt
se to the 39,000 vehicle
ernatives we re no t de ve
trips pe r pro jec ted
lop ed until th e sixth WA
traffic analysis of the alt
G meeting. Four meeting
ernatives was pre sen ted
s lat er the
. In the intervening tim
MassDOT refers to as "pl
e, meetings we re de vo ted
acemaking," MOEs an d
to
wh at
Ma
ssDOT sta ff an d consulta
meeting on traffic impa
nts talking ab ou t wh at the
cts would cover. No Ma
single
ssDOT stu dy or project
discussion ab ou t traffic
in Jamaica Plain has ever
or transit op era tio ns to
lim
ite
d
a single meeting with no
revision. Is no t the point
opportunity for input an
of getting input an d ide
d su bs eq ue nt
as to make a be tte r pla
n?
Result: By the tim e the
traffic impacts we re pre
sen ted to the WAG, on
op po rtu nit y for meaning
October 25, 2011, the re
ful input on traffic. Ma
wa s no
ssD
OT pre sen ted an d conc
MassDOT's John Romano
luded. Its meeting notes
be rat ed Rep. Russell Ho
show tha t
lmes for asking for more
traffic numbers. ("...Our
da ta to help him begin
tea m of experts says it
to
tru st th e
works an d you have to
is tha t only pa rt of on e
decide if you believe the
WAG meeting was sp en
m.
..")
The tru th
t on the regional traffic
was sp en t on the traffic
modeling results an d on
impacts of the alternati
ly on e meeting
ves. This is no t an accep
pro ce ed ed .
table way for MassDOT
to have
REQUESTS FOR INFORM
ATION IGNORED
Requests for backup ma
terials, co mp let e an d use
ful me eti ng no tes , ha nd
Malia's office req ue ste
ou ts, etc. we re ignored._
d backup files for th e pe
Representative
destrian an d bicycle analy
Records Request follow
sis
in early February 2012.
ed by an ap pe al to th e Se
A Public
cretary of Sta te' s office
pro du ce d so me of the req
du e to MassDOT inaction
ue ste d materials in Jun
fin
ally
e
20
12
.
wi tho ut including 201 co
The Nov. 21 ,20 11 , meeti
mm en ts sen t in to MassD
ng "transcript" was po ste
OT
d
via
"tr an scr ipt " was still mi
e-mail an d co mm en t sh
ssing at lea st a dozen co
ee ts. The "am en de d" me
mm
eti
en t sh ee ts se nt to MassD
ng
requests, no explanatio
OT's Thomas Broderick.
n as to wh ere the y are
Despite
has be en given. At least
meetings we re ignored.
five requests for ha nd ou
Requests to correct inc
ts at the
orrect meeting no tes fro
ou t refused.
m the March 2012 meeti
ng we re flat
LITTLE OR NO FOLLOW
UP ON QUESTIONS
Questions we re ask ed at
WAG an d public meeting
s an d MassDOT told pa
answers (e.g.. , wh at are
rticipants the y would ge
the discrete co sts of up
t the m the
pe
r Washington Str ee t im
disclosed for six weeks
provements?). Response
an d the n we re buried in
s we re no t
the
17
7-page (now 620-page)
on an d on.
public meeting "transcr
ipt." And
Result: The supposedly
"exhaustive public proces
s" with dysfunctional me
insufficient tim e to rea
etings, unresponsive pe
ch the MassDOT's origin
rsonnel, an d
ally sta ted goal of cons
window dressing an d co
en
su
s.
This process was little mo
nfuses eff ort ("we had
re tha n
12
me
eti
ng
s") with results (in-depth
tradeoffs an d ag ree me
nt on a course of action
understanding of issues
).
an d
SKEWED AND BIASED
REPRESENTATIONS
The public pro ce ss involv
ing the WAG wa s skew
ed away from reviewing
a bridge in favor of opini
the legitimate tra ns po rta
ons of single-interest bik
tio n ben<ifits of
e an d park advocacy gro
tru e picture of th e publi
ups. The facts no ted be
c involvement process
low
pr es en t the
en ga ge d in by the me mb
MassDOT's direction.
ers of the WAG an d co nd
uc ted at
I
I
I
[
'
I
On page 4 of MassDOT's Environmental Notification Form ("ENF"), MassDOT stated that it"... undertook a
robust public involvement process: a 37-member Working Advisory Group (WAG) was established and convened
in thirteen WAG meetings; eight general public meetings and seven open houses were also held."
Not only are these meeting_ numbers incorrect (see MassDOT Casey WAG Composition and Attendance Analysis
below), but also the description, "robust public involvement," misrepresents what actually occurred. MassDOT's
running of the WAG process was a failure.
DOT claims in its Environmental Notification Form ("ENF") at p. 4, that "The purpose ofthe Casey Overpass
Planning <~nd Concept Design Study was to work with the community to explore a series of designs and
recommend a final alternative to be advanced into the design stage." (Emphasis added.). However, MassDOT did
not work with all segments of "the community" and did not respond to the concerns of many of the
stakeholders.
I
The membership of the WAG was weighted toward single-interest groups at the expense of community
representation. This resulted in inordinate amounts oftime being dedicated to their single-interest viewpoints.
The true stakeholders, residents in the close by neighborhoods, Forest Hills businesses, bridge users from
outlying communities, the handicapped, school children, municipal services (Fire, police and EMT's) and transit
dependent commuters, were given little or no time for the discussion or inclusion of their issues. The close by
neighborhoods and those farther away communities that depend on the Casey Overpass to avoid the north­
south traffic at the South Street-Washington Street and the Hyde Park Avenue intersections on their way to
work or home were denied equal treatment of their concerns and issues.
While bike lanes, pedestrian paths, open spaces, landscaping and sight lines should be elements in the selection
process, they do not outrank the creation of a viable transportation system through Forest Hills. In the WAG
process, however, the single interests won out. The time consumed by MassDOT's presentations on these other
issues precluded the WAG members from engaging in a meaningful selection process for an at-grade versus a
bridge option.
MassDOT was more concerned with meeting an unrealistic schedule rather than dealing responsively with the
interests of all stakeholders. Less than an hour was devoted to the important issue of traffic and its impact on
the movement of cars, buses and trucks and this information was presented only at the erid of the WAG
process.
DOT Casey WAG Composition and Attendance Analysis
by Bridging Forest Hills
Neighborhoods
Jamaica Plain
WAG Representativefs)
Meetin~
Jamaica Pond Assn.
None
Bourne/Walk Hill neighborhood
Weld Hill neighborhood
South St neighborhood
W Roxbury Court House Nbhd. Ass'n
None
None
None
Uz O'Connor
Asticou/Martinwood/South St. Nbhd. Ass'n
Eliz. Wylie & David Hannon
Stony Brook Association
Allan lhrer & Fred Vetterlein
Washingtonian Court Condominium
Kathy Kottaridis
Forest Hills Neighbors
Eric Gordon
Arborway Gardens
Wendy Williams
Attended
0
0
0
0
6
10,9
9,8
1
3
8
Roslindale
lower South Street Neighborhood Assn.
Josephine Burr
longfellow Area Neighborhood Assn
None
Ridge Street Neighborhood Association
None
Rowe Street Neighborhood Association
Cathy Slade
4
0
0
5
~
condominium association
not a recognized nbhd. assn.
condominium association
.I
I
i
I
.!
I
I
I
I
I
l
H yd e Park
no id en tif ia
Mattapan bl e gr ou ps on
th e W AG No ne
West Seldon St
. an d Vicin
ity Nbhd. Ass'n
Woodhaven/C
olbert/Regis
Nbhd. Ass'n
Dorchester/M
attapan Nbhd
. Ass'n
W ilm or e/
In te re st G ro
0
Barbara Crichlo
w
lisa Dix.
No rfo lk Nb
hd . Ass'n
Wesley William
s
South Street
Business Com
munity
JP Business &
Professional A
ssociation
Washington
St Bu
M ic ha el Re
alon
Fa ul kn er Ho
No ne
No ne
ery
s- O
munity G
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
No ne
sp ita l
s- O th er Com
0
0
0
0
Declined ap po
in tm en
Declined ap
t to WAG
po in tm en t to
WAG
Kathleen Coffe
y
pen Space~ Si
kes an d
BNAN (B os to
n Na tu ra l Ar
ea
s
Ne
tw or k) Ar bo re tu m
Park Conser
vancy
Ar bo rw ay Co
al iti on Em er al d Ne
cklace Co ns
er va nc y
Franklin Pa rk
Co al iti on
M as sB lke Bo st on Cycli
sts Un io n/ JP
Bikes
liv ab le St re
et s
W al kB os to n
Interest G ro up
s
No ne
re tu m
lo ng wo od M
ed ica l an d Ac
ad em ic Area
Sh at tu ck Ho
sp ita l
Sh at tu ck Sh
el te r City of Bo st
on E13 Po lic
e
Ci ty of Bo st
on Fire De pa
rtm en t
Area E Polic
e Ad vis or y Bo
ar d
Bo st on Polic
e lP Tr af fic
an d Parking
Interest Group
Co m m itt ee
s -Schools
Ci ty of Bo st
on Pu bl ic Sc
ho ol s
English Hi gh
School
Ar ea Ch ar te
r Schools
Interest G ro up
1
iskind
None
St at e la b
Forest Hills ce
met
Andy St;hell
g South St Roslindale bu
sinesses alon
g Hyde Park
Interest G ro
Ave up s- Affected
Employers
West Roxbur
y Court
Ar no ld Ar bo
6
2
2
Charles Fiore
siness Group
fo re st Hill Bu
siness Roslindale busin
esses
3
M ar y Bu rk es
up s- Busines
ses Pedestrians roups
Pu bl ic Ho us
in g -S ou th
St, Be ec h St
an d Ar ch da
Tr an sit Ad vo
le
ca te s CPCAY- Co
m m un ity Pl
an ni ng Co m
m . fo r Ar bo
So ut hw es t
rw ay Yards
Co rri do r PM
AC
Fr ie nd s of He
al y Fi el d Ne
ig hb or ho od
Ar bo rw ay Co
As so cia tio n
m m itt ee Bo st on Ce nt
er fo r In de pe
nd en t liv in g
J.P. Ne ig hb
or ho od Coun
cil
JP Ce nt e/ So
ut h M ai n St
re et s
Et ho s Care
No ne None
No ne
No ne
No ne
No ne
No ne
To m Do ug he
rty
M ich ae l Ha
lle
first meeting
only
em er ge nc y
re sp on se pr
ov id er
em er ge nc y
re sp on se pr
ov id er
em er ge nc y
re sp on se pr
ov id er
em er ge nc y
re sp on se pr
ov id er
No ne
No ne No ne
0
0
0
Ge ni e Beal
Nina Br ow n
Sarah Fr ee m
6
6
an
M ar yH ic ki e
Suzanne M on
Da vid W at so
n
Bob Di zo n
11
8
11 k 7
s
Kevin W ol fs
on
Do n Eunson
10 7
no ne no ne
Be rn ar d Do
0
0
he rty
Je ffr ey Ferri
s
Bob M as on
Kevin F. M ol
on ey
Karen Sc hn
ei de rm an
Em ily W he el
wr ig ht
M ik eE pp
Dale M itc he
ll 8
10 5
11 1
s
8
1
Does no t re
pr es en t th e
Ar bo re tu m
I
I
30
25
20
.I
15
10
5
0
111111
WAG attendance
This chart shows that maximum attend ance at WAG meeti
ngs averag ed 19, less than one-h alf of the appoi nted
WAG memb ers.
I
MassDOT repea tedly has assert ed that it engag ed a 37-me
mber advisory group . tn fact, 37 peopl e were not
engag ed in the process; some appoi ntees declined to serve,
yet their names remain on the WAG memb er on the
MassDOT websi te to this day and some never attend ed
a single meeting.
This sad record shows that that MassDOT's WAG proce
ss has been a failure. A new process with involvement
of
the local and regional stakeh olders must take place.
2- BIASED AND ERRONEOUS RENDERINGS AND PLAN
S
MassDOT misled the public and the electe d public officia
ls with biased and errone ous renderings and plans.
Through flawed and misleading renderings prese nted by
MassDOT to the WAG, to the public, and throug h the
local newsp aper, MassDOT exhibited an overwhelming
bias for an at-gra de plan and to that end, manip ulated its
planning proce ss to gener ate suppo rt for it.
MassDOT Secre tary Davey admit ted in an interview with
the Jamaica Plain Gazet te that throug h its "planning
process," MassDOT lost the trust of the community. The
report published by the Gazette_(July 20, 2012), of an
interview of Secre tary Davey, was headlined "We'll fix the
'trust issue"." According to the Gazette, Secre tary
Davey had told the paper that, "We have to contin ue to
work hard to earn the community's trust, so they don't
expec t the worst from MassDOT. We're going to doubl
e down in improving that trust and openn ess."
In addition to its false claim of a "robust public involvement
process,"" MassDOT assert ed that in the WAG process,
MassDOT "incorporated full disclosure and documentation
ofthe process on the project web site to maximize public
participation in the planning process. "This is misleading and
incorrect. In addition to the flawed make-up and
functioning ofthe WAG (see #1, above) and the subjectively
interpreted and flawed Methods of Evaluation ("MOEs")
(see #3 below), MassDOT exhibited an overwhelming bias
for an at-grade plan.
That MassDOT manipulated the WAG and the "public partici
pation in the planning process" to gathe r suppo rt for its
preferred at-grade plan, is proved by an examination ofthe
renderings of the at-grade and bridge alternatives that
MassDOT presen ted to the WAG, the public and the Jamaic
a Plain Gazette. They are compelling evidence of the
deceptive steps MassDOTtook to achieve its goal.
,j
I
II
I
I
I
I
Set out below are examples of the consistent failure and refusal of MassDO
T to present renderings that were
fair and accurate representations of what they were purporte d to be especial
ly when presented as a means to
compare MassDOT's preferred at-grade plan with the briqge alternative.
(All renderings shown below were
included in MassDOT's Appendix A to its ENF)
VIEW #3: ILLEGITIMATE COMPARISON
At the WAG meeting on August 312011 , and later at the "open house"
and public meeting on September 13,
2011, MassDOT presented the followin g comparison.
View 3 is an illegitimate comparison rendering because:
• The two lane street of the bridge alternat ive for west bound cars (at
the left in the above bridge
rendering to the right) is shown as wider than the three at-grade lanes
for west bound cars in the
at-grade rendering above at the left, which, in fact, are necessary element
s ofthe at-grade plan;
• The car heading west (at the left side of the above at-grade renderin
g) is shown behind and east of
the blue cross-walk that is shown; and the car appears considerably smaller
than the car shown
heading west and positioned where no cross-walk is shown in the bridge
rendering;
• There are three cross walks shown in blue in the at-grade renderin
g and only one and a half and
narrowe r cross-walks are shown in white in the bridge rendering;
•
More of the leafy trees and green grass are shown on the left side of the
at-grade rendering than
are shown on the left side ofthe bridge rendering; and,
• Most significantly, the rendering of the bridge plan stresses through the use ofthe dark brown and
black colors a close similarit y to the much larger size, scope and length
of existing Casey Overpass,
which is not the case of the narrowe r and shorter and less high bridge
actually proposed, while the
at-grade renderin g does not even begin to suggest the reality of the six
lanes on the ground that
will be necessary under the at-grade plan to accommodate the 24,000
east-west and the 12-14,000
north-so ught vehicle trips per day.
II
I'
II
I
I
VIEW #2: ILLEGITIMATE COMPARISON
Also at the August 31, 2011, WAG meeting and at the September 13, 2011, "open house" and public meeting,
MassDOT presented the following comparison:
I
I
I
I
'I
View No.2 is an illegitimate comparison rendering because: •
The actual three lanes of the at-grade plan (on the left above) are shown to be of the same width as
the two lanes of the bridge plan;
• The width of the three lanes for the westbound at grade plan are minimized; and,
• Most significantly, the rendering ofthe bridge plan stresses through the use of the dark brown and
black colors a close similarity to the much larger size, scope and length of existing Casey Overpass,
which is not the case of the actual bridge plan, while the at-grade rendering does not even begin to
suggest the reality of the six lanes on the ground that will be necessary under the at-grade plan to
accommodate the 24,000 east-west and the 12-14,000 north-south vehicle trips per day.
CORRIDOR PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE CONNECTIONS: SHOWN ONLY FOR AT-GRADE
At the public meeting on September 13, 2011, MassDOT presented further biased renderings. In particular,
MassDOT presented a rendering entitled, "Corridor Pedestrian and Bike Connections-At Grade," shown below,
which included at the top left corner a copy of an 1892 Olmstead drawing and at the bottom a photo of a green
and leafy walkway. No rendering entitled "Corridor Pedestrian and Bike Connections-Bridge Alternative" was
presented.
.-j
-!
1
l
I
i
1
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
!
I
I
I
1
EXAMPLE COM
PONENTS: SHO
WN ONLY
FOR AT-GRADE
Moreover, th e re
nderings pr es en
te d at this Se pt em
message boxes w
be r 13, 2011, publ
ith no te s of spec
ic meeting for th
ial fe at ur es such
Components." No
e at-grade plan in
as sh ow n below
rendering en tit le
cluded
in
th e rendering en
d "Bridge Exampl
titled, "At-Grade
e-Components" w
Ex
ample
as pr es en te d.
I
1
1
I
il
I
Franklin
Park
VIEW #5: STRO
NG BIAS
I''
I
II
'
I
At the public meeting on Novemb
er 21, 2011, MassDOT, pres ente d to
the public onc e again the abo ve refe
to View 2 and View 3 and pres ente
rred
d the following additional renderin
gs, each of which shows the stro ng
MassDOT in favor of an at-grade plan
bias
of
.
i
I
I
I
The size, sco pe and brea dth of the
six at-g rade traffic lanes are de-emph
asized and the pro pos ed bridge (to
only one lane eac h way) is mad e to
carry
app ear as large as, if not larger than
the existing Casey Overpass. Moreov
the one point perspective view wou
er,
ld lead the viewer to conclude that
the new bridge (actually only one lane
eac h way) would be as wide as the
six lanes of asp halt of the at-grade
plan. Note also the larger size of the
car in the foreground of the bridge
red
rendering and the smaller size of the
red car in the at-g rade rendering.
I
I
i
VIE W #6: ILLEGITIMATE COMP
ARISON
In View No. 6, below, also was pre
sen ted by MassDOT at the public mee
ting on November 21, 2011, is an
additional illegitimate comparison
of the at-g rade and the bridge alte
rnat
ives bec aus e the width and sco pe
the six lanes of the at-g rade plan are
of
de-emphasized and mad e to look no
wider than the four on the ground
lanes of the bridge plan, to which
is add ed a bridge of the size, sco pe
and bulk of the existing Casey overpas
s.
BIASED IMA GES INFLUENCED
PUBLIC OP INIO N
Most importantly, for impact upon
the com mun ity at-large, the Jamaica
Plain Gazette, as sho wn below,
published, on Dec emb er 2, 2011 ("Ill
ustration Courtesy of MassDOT") a
copy of MassDOT's View No. 5 in its
abo ve-t he-f old fron t pag e stor y abo
ut the MassDOT's plans:
'
.,·I'
.
I
Il
DECEMBER 2, 2.'0 I I
---·---- -----··· ·-------·-· --·- -..-·-- ··-- -­
.JAMAICAPlAINGAZmt.cOM
I
.
Ulu$tratlon Courtesy
/1/u:;trilttOns ofwlwl tho :wrf<Jco sucm oprion (riglltJ .mrJ
bridgo oprion miol!r /ookliko on New Washingt on Stroot. MassDOT
I
Ove rpa ss rep lace men t cho ice to be ma de
I
Was not this rendering intend ed by MassOOTto cause Gazett
e readers to rally to the peaceful bucolic scene at
the left rather than to the looming dark grey and black bulk of
a Casey-sized duplication of the existing overpass
that is presen ted at the right?
Ii
I
3. MISLEADING AND SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF ALTER
NATIVES
I
·,
The Measu res of Evaluation (MOEs) used by MassDOT to compa
re the bridge and at-gra de alternatives were
incorrect, misleading, and subjective. The MOEs and the scoring
done exclusively by MassDOT were useless. For
example, the goal of increasing space for community gatherings
was evalua ted by estima ting off-peak vehicle
speeds on a bridge and.at 'grade . This is absurd! The MOEs canno
t be used to fairly compa re the alternatives and
appea r to have been developed to justifY selection ofthe at-grad
e alternative.
The foflo~n~is establishes that they were not develo ped
to provide an opport unity to objectively
compa re a numbe r'of feasible at-gra de and bridge alternatives.
Instead, the MOEs distort information for the
purpos e of raising the sco're of the at-gra de schem e over that
of the bridge schem e.
The MOEs as develo ped by MassDOT are inherently subjective
and theref ore can be re-sco red at will for any
desire d outcom e. Here they are re-sco red by Bridging Forest
Hills.
DOT
DOT
Bridgi ng
Fores t Hills
Mobil ity
7
-4
Mobil ity
3
9
Livability
13
10
Livability
0
7
Total
20
6
Total
3
16
I
I
·I
4. FALSE APPROPRIATION OF OLMSTED'S 'VISION'
WHAT WOULD OLMSTED DO?
We in the community love Olmsted's design presence in our neighborhood. Yet, to suggest, as MassDOT has
done, that Olmsted would find it appropriate to overlay a 191h century parkway design over a 21" century transit
hub is wrong. It so clearly flies in the face of all design principles that one can only conclude that evoking
Olmsted was done to manipulate public sentiment.
The Emerald Necklace was disrupted at Forest Hills for a reason. Shea Circle in 1926 and Casey Overpass in 1951
were both designed to accommodate the realities of massive volumes of multi-mode travelers in and around
Forest Hills Station. These conditions post-date Olmsted who would NEVER design a six lane surface road mixing
together transportation modes. He, of course, would separate the modes as he did notably along Boston's
Emerald Necklace and in New York's Central Park.
II
'
Perhaps most importantly, Olmsted and Vaux's plan for the park created ways for pedestrians
and carriages to enjoy the park without disturbing each other. The design's transverse roads,
considered revolutionary, allowed vehicular traffic to cut through the park without substantively
detracting from the park experience. After the Greensward Plan was adopted, Olmsted was
appointed Chief Architect of Central Park.
http:ljwww.nycgovp arks.org/about/histo rv/olmsted-parks
The indirect course of the park-way, following the river bank, would prevent its being much
used for purposes of heavy transportation. It would thus, without offensive exclusiveness or
special police regulation, by left free to be used as
a pleasure route.
Frederick law Olmsted, "Suggestions for the Improvement of the Muddy River", City Document No. 12, 1881, pp
13-16.http://www.m uddyrivermmoc.org/ htmi/Necklacelinks/history.html
"Pleasure route" and "heavy transportation, according to Olmstead himself, do not go together.
Olmsted's vision was to make places that people can enjoy without the intrusion of heavy transportation. A
greenway connection under a smaller lower overpass can knit together the Emerald Necklace beautifully.
We suggest that Olmsted would take 21" century Forest Hills vehicular transportation below grade but since
that is not possible due to AMTRAK train infrastructure and the culverted Stony Brook, he would take the traffic
over on an aesthetically designed bridge. Fewer cars and less asphalt on the ground leave more room for
greenway connections and safer movement for All modes.
HISTORIC SHEA CIRCLE WILL BE DESTROYED
Shea Circle is a historic resource that is valued by the community, preservationists, conservationists, and
historians. It contributes to the Morton Street Historic District in ways that would be permanently undone by
MassDOT's plan to plow a six-lane highway through Forest Hills rather than replace the Casey Overpass with a
well-designed smaller, shorter bridge that can carry the 24,000 cars over and through Forest Hills while the
surface roads retain the historic connections to surrounding greenspace. What MassDOT asserted in the ENF as
a "reconfigur[ation]" of Shea Circle will be a complete obliteration of it, with nothing remaining of the
contributing historic elements that were cause for National Register nomination just XX years ago.
--~---
·····-~.~-.------------
------
-~~
. ....
,·--····---~--
5. NO EVALUATION OF LOCAL
MICROSCALE AIR QUALITY IMP
ACTS
I
!
Impacts to local air quality wer e not
evaluated despite rep eate d reques
ts. The City of Boston requires a mo
comprehensive air quality analysi
re
s for development projects tha n
Mas
sDO
T did for this project tha t will incr
vehicle miles traveled, travel time,
ease
and not improve intersection ope
rations much. More traffic signals
to vehicle delays and idling.
will lead
Although the project will not exc
eed regional air quality thresholds,
the impact of adding two to thre e
more traffic tha n existing to surface
tim es
stre ets and four additional traffic
signals has not been analyzed. Des
rep eate d requests, MassDOT did
pite
not quantify local air quality impacts
.
6. NOT CONSISTENT WITH REG
IONAL PLANS
I
I
oa rs Casey project at-g rad e plan
is not consistent with oth er transpo
rtation, park, and land use plans
area. Studies don e by the City of
for the
Boston for Forest Hills and the Arb
orway emphasize the need to kee
traffic away from local traffic in For
p
regional
est Hills. City tran spo rtat ion policies
Include keeping regional traffic off
neighborhood stre ets. Ma sso ors
plan at Forest Hills puts all traf ficloc al shoppers and workers hea ded
from Dorchester, Route 3, and mo
to and
re- on the surface str eet s- in the
aggregate, over 36,000 vehicle trip
day.
s per
6. NO COMPARISON OF LEVELS
OF
SAFETY
"Improve safety for all modes and
users" was identified as a "fatal flaw
" criterion, so important tha t alte
not addressing safe ty would be dro
rnatives
ppe d. However, MassDOTnever
com
par ed the levels of safety of six trav
lanes ofa t-gr ade traffic intersecting
el
with the north-south traffic with
the levels of safety pre sen ted by
plan tha t would carry the eas t-w
a bridge
est traffic away from the city stre
ets.
8. NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF
THE VALUE OF A BRIDGE
WAG mem ber s and the public wer
e never shown a bridge alternative
with two-thirds less traffic on the
tha n the sele cted at-g rad e scheme
ground
, one tha t worked bet ter for cars
,
bus
es, bikes and pedestrians. MassDO
nev er developed the bes t possibl
T
e bridge alternative and nev er ack
nowledged the value of a bridge
bet ter multi-modal level of service
and the
tha t it would provide. Rather, Mas
sDOT mad e sure both alternative
result in abo ut the sam e minimal
s would
acceptable level of service.
It is such a dubious claim tha t we
deserve to have MassDOT explain
in detail, if it can, how it can not
conditions bet ter by removing 24,0
make
00 vehicle trips per day from the
local stre ets.
Many bridges are built to provide
access over a barrier like wat er, a
freeway, or a rail line. Others are
sep ara te local and regional traffic
built to
such as along Memorial and Sto rrow
Drives whe re the y facilitate safe
efficient mo vem ent of traffic. This
and
is the situation at Forest Hills whe
re many roads converge:
• Washington Stre et from nor
th and sou th
• South Stre et from the north
and sou th
• Hyde Park Avenue. from the
squth
• The Arborway from the wes t
• Morton Stre et from the eas t
• Circuit Drive from the nor the
ast
I
I
'. i
I
I
I
I
II
I
•
Walk Hill Street from the south east just a few blocks away.
Forest Hills is surrounded on three of four sides by fabulo
us open green spaces: the Arnold Arboretum to the
west, Forest Hills Cemetery to the east, Franklin Park to the
northeast, and the Southwest Corridor Park to the
north. The remaining adjace nt areas are primarily mode
rately dense urban neighborhoods. There is only one
alternative route less than a mile away, and that is the conge
sted Centre Street to the Jamaicaway CENTRE
STREET ISN'T PARALLEL. All other alternative routes are
a mile away or more.
Forest Hills is a transp ortatio n hub. Every mode of transp
ortati on funnels through this node AMTRAK trains,
cars, delivery trucks of all sizes, bicycles, walkers, runners,
MBTA buses, school buses, taxicabs and more. It is a
vital public transp ortati on cente r serving the Orange Line,
MBTA comm uter rail, and nume rous buses including
the very busy Route 39 bus that replaced the forme r Arbor
way Green Line. There is a lot going on at Forest Hills
with D.Q nearby alternative routes.
I
The MassDOT engineers completely ignored the fact that
the value in bridges is that they alleviate congestion,
and they improve safety and traffic flow. This is especially
germa ne to the Forest Hills area, a busy, vibrant and
vital transp ortati on hub. Instead, the public was told the
two final alternatives were designed to meet a
minimum accep table LOS with the minimum amou nt of pavem
ent. MassDOT made no effort to create the best
possible bridge alternative.
I
7. TRAFFIC NOT SEEN AS A DIFFERENTIATOR
I
·t
I
·j
DOT claims that, ''Traffic works the same in both alternatives
," but this focuses too narrowly on automobile
traffic and ignores impacts to buses, bikes and walkers.
At the December 13, 2012, MEPA hearing MassDOT stated
that ''Traffic is not a tlifferentiator'' betwe en the at­
grade and bridge alternatives and that its decision was made
on all the other "amenities." This is the exact
opposite of what should have happened.
All of the "amenities" can be provided with or witho ut a
bridge. Traffic should be the differentiator, and a
bridge design could be create d that does this. MassDOT
has already has shown the bridge to be a better result
becau se the six to seven-lane at-grade road witho ut bike
lanes or normal left turns is already inferior to the
lower volume three- lane surface plan with a bridge. Small
er roads with less traffic are inherentlysafer for all
users, especially the pedestrians and cyclists.
DOT did not look carefully at how to furthe r improve level
of service with the bridge concept. For example,
consider the width of the west intersection with South Street
. With the existing bridge, the Arborway on/of f
ramps are separ ated 80' by the bridge. This width compl
icates the traffic signal timing, requiring many phases
within one cycle. The proposed bridge conce pt shows differ
ent placements of the new east and west
abutm ents. The east abutm ent is much furthe r back from
the intersection allowing for the east-w est travel
lanes to be closer togeth er, improving function of the Wash
ington Stree t/ Arborway intersection. The east
abutm ent is placed very close to the South Stree t intersection
, keeping the width of the intersection very wide.
Addressing this would be one of many ways that LOS could
be improved over what was shown. A return the
drawing board is neede d to look at how a new bridge can
improve traffic flow and safety for all.
A better planning process would have been more iterati
ve with continued evaluations and discussions with,
rather than prese ntatio ns to, the WAG memb ers to refine
and improve the designs.
A more credible alternatives analysis would have thorou
ghly comp ared and evalu ated more than one plan for
each conce pt. But Mass Dors Octob er 2010 Scope of Servic
es for its consultant, McMahon, specifies that "This
'1
I
I
'
I
I
I
II I
II I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I l
evaluation will include ... four alternative build conditions (including a two-lane overpass and three alternatives
without an overpass). It is clear that MassDOT had no intention of developing a bridge alternative that was
better than an at-grade plan.
The WAG was presented with a split-bridge concept, which was explained to the group as primarily to improve
bike and pedestrian access onto the bridge. However it would also create the narrowest Arborway/South Street
intersection with the east-west travel lanes adjacent to each other. The smaller that intersection can be made,
the better Level of Service can be created and safer crossing for pedestrians.
Below is shown the scale of a six lane highway (Route One Saugus). It is completely inappropriate for a
residential neighborhood surrounding a major transportation hub. Note the barrier down the median.
MassDOT's renderings show 25 year growth trees in the median; after frustrated pedestrians start crossing mid­
block those trees will give way to an ugly barrier like this o·ne or the one on Route 9.
I
I
I
SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH MASSDOT'S MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS
IN THE ENF
1. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION ERRORS
UNDERSTATES AREA'S IMPORTANCE AS TRANSIT HUB AND HOME TO FUTURE ARBORWAY YARD
I
I
I
II I
I
The Project Description fails to mention the planned Arborway Yard development. This adjacent 17 acre parcel
houses 118 buses and also is planned to include some mixed-use retail/housing development. The Project
Description downplays the MBTA transit hub with subways, buses and commuter rail and a major bus terminus
and the additional circulation of school buses, taxis, private carriers, and kiss-and-ride commuter transport.
MISREPRESENTATION OF THE PUBLIC PROCESS
The ENF (page 4) states that MassDOT "undertook a robust public involvement process: a 37-member Working
Advisory Group (WAG) was established and convened in thirteen WAG meetings; eight general public meetings
and seven open houses were also held".
The words "robust" and "involvement' are subjective (see Issues with the Casey Overpass Planning and Concept
Design Study; Dysfunctional and skewed public process). The facts about these events are as follows:
•
•
•
•
twelve NOT thirteen WAG meetings
five general public meetings NOT eight
The "five open houses" were not additional events. They took place in the half hour
before the 6:30 public meetings at a time when people were hard pressed to leave work
or make arrangements for their children in time to attend.
Typically, material on display at optional MassDOT "open houses" is covered in the
public meetings. In the Casey project experience, many times "open house" material
was NOT presented during the full public meeting and NOT posted to the MassDOT
website. Apparently, this material was unimportant filler that was not worth presenting
to the great majority of the people who arrived at or after 6:30pm.
SELECTIVE EDITING OF REFERENCES TO THE EMERALD NECKLACE NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION
MassDOT states in the ENF, at p. 4, that, "According to the National Register nomination the overpass
"obliterated the short portion of the [Arborway) from the east end of the [Arnold) Arboretum to Franklin Park."
MassDOT showed its bias by not including the fact that the National Register Nomination document had cited
not only the Casey Overpass but equally the "new road patterns" as the cause.
MEASURES OF EVALUATION WERE NOT OBJECTIVE
The ENF implies the WAG participated in the final MOE scoring. This is not the case. Scoring was done by
MassDOT and the WAG was never given an opportunity to review the final scoring in November 2011. While the
ENF (at page 5) states that the WAG developed the MOEs, the MOEs are so complex, dense, and non-intuitive
that the WAG actually participated little in writing the specific language that was spun to create the desired
outcome for MassDOT.
!
I
.I
The ENF (at page 5) states that the MOEs provided an "objective basis for comparing alternatives." The points
and backup that follow demonstrate that not only were these MOEs severely flawed, subjective, and in many
cases immeasurable, but they also show a bias against a bridge alternative.
I
•
.I
FOUR MOEs RELIED ON UNSUPPORTABLE AND SUBJECTIVE MEASURES/EVALUATION AND
SHOULD BE ELIMINATED FROM THE ANALYSIS:
• Three goals [5.02a, 5.02b, and 5.02c] dealt with "enhancing value of commercial and residential
buildings through improved visual or aesthetic changes." This requires an economic development
expert or qualified real estate analyst to evaluate. Neither was used on this project. This goal instead
was measured using an urban design analysis of open or blocked views, distance from roads, and visual
analysis. The result is gibberish.
II
•
I
I
I
•
One goal was to "promote modal connections that reduce use of personal vehicles" [3.02]. It was
measured by the square feet of bus waiting area and drew a completely unsupportable and subjective
connection between square feet of bus waiting area and transit ridership.
THE REST OFTHE MOEs ARE SUBJECTIVE.
DOT modified and contorted how the MOEs were measured to ensure a favorable score for the at-grade
scheme. The subjective nature of the MOEs and the way they were scored by MassDOT begs re-scoring. Examples of the subjectivity of the MOEs are:
II I
•
Goal2, "Improve access, modal, and intermodallocal and regional corridor connections to promote
transportation choices" with an objective of improving bike and pedestrian access an overall
connectivity was measured by the number of lanes crossed north-south. But Mass DOT's scoring
modified the measure to "number of lanes crossed between refuge areas" even though the crossing the
street would be done in one cycle making the presence of the median refuge irrelevant,
•
Goal3, "Remove barriers for neighborhood connections and integrate transit into economic centers and
residential areas" with an objective of supporting access to future development was measured by
MassDOT by how an alternative would strengthen neighborhood sightline connections north-south.
This is a mish-mash of jargon and does not measure the objective or the goal.
,I I
• Goal 6, "improve visibility connectivity, and access to open spaces," was measured by MassDOT by how
an alternative creates a central focal point that identifies the area. Measure is not related to the goal.
•
MOBILITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES NOT SCORED OR INADEQUATELY EVALUATED
• MOE 1.01, "Minimize local street impacts of cut-through traffic," focused solely on regional east-west
movements and evaluated only one potential cut-through route. The fact that the at-grade alternative
would increase travel time by should rank the at-grade lower than the bridge alternative.
• 1.02a and 1.03a, "Projected Pedestrian LOS," were not scored because "Current methodology for
analyzing pedestrian movements is ineffective in differentiating among the alternatives. Exploring new
criteria that will capture crossing times and pedestrian travel distances." Bridging Forest Hills applied
criteria typically used by WalkBoston and other pedestrian advocacy groups that state that narrower
roads with lower traffic volumes are superior for pedestrians. MOE 1.02a was not scored and MOE
1.03a was scored incorrectly by MassDOT.
I
.'
I
II
I
•
•
ERRORS
•
MOE 5.01a: "Increase space for community gatherings or activit
y and create a sense of place" did not
score the bridge alternative higher even though it would create
75% percen t new open space than the
at-grade scheme. [The 5.6 acres new acres create d in the bridge
schem e is 75% more than the 3.2 new
acres create d in the at-grad e scheme.]
•
MOE 2.02b erroneously states that the "current median is not
sufficiently wide enough to provide
pedestrian refuge" and scores the at-grade schem e higher than
existing because of the presen ce of the
median. However, the existing median is six feet wide, the minim
um suggested by the Boston Complete
Streets guidelines. The at-grade schem e would require pedest
rians to cross three to four Janes before
reaching median.
i
II
!
I
I
MOE 1.03c, "Projected Bicycle [Levels of Service]" states that the
bicycle experience would be the same
under each alterna tive becaus e of the presence of east-w est bike
lanes. It ignores the influence of two­
thirds more traffic degrading the experience for cyclists. The Highw
ay Capacity Manual 2010 Chapt er 5
on "Quality and Level-of-Service Concepts" states on page 5-13
that higher vehicle volumes act to
decrea se a bicyclist's perceived comfort and traffic exposure.
Smaller roads with fewer cars improve the
quality of service for cyclists. This MOE was scored incorrectly
by MassDOT.
• CORRECTIONS FOR Mass[)OT BIAS
• MOE 1.02b, "Type and quality of off-street bike path N-S"
first mentions on-str eet bike Janes, than states
the at-grad e is the only alternative that provides a bike path on
upper Washington Street . The bridge
schem e could have included a bike path here, too, but MassDOT
did not include it with the result that
the at-grad e schem e was scored higher.
• MOE 1.04b, "Improve roadway and intersection operat ions
for vehicles" was measu red by "Simplify
netwo rk- numbe r ofturn s betwe en specific destinations [sic]."
However, the MOE was cleverly
modified over time to include "Minimal turn restrictions with
altern ate route provided within project
limits," a key change to preven t the at-grade from scoring -1.
• MOE 2.03a, "Improve bus operations" states that overall travel
time improvements will offset the
increased distance the Route 39 bus will travel, yet ignores the
1.5-minute delay vehicles will experience
in Forest Hills with the at-grad e scheme.
• MOE 5.01d, "Increase space for community gatherings or
activities and create sense of place (e.g., parks,
farmer s/artis ts markets, outdoo r public gathering space, or similar
ly uses)" bizarrely was measu red by
"off-peak vehicle speeds " which measured off-peak speeds on
the bridge. There are no parks or
farmer s/artis ts marke ts on the bridge, so this measu re is wrong
.
• MOE 6.02b, "Evaluation of Emerald Necklace Connections"
was measu red by how alternatives create d
"an opport unity for a centra l focus point that identifies the area
and provides guidance to local
destinations (Emerald Necklace, business areas)." This nonsen
se jargon focused on the New
Washington Street block betwe en South Street and Hyde Park
Avenue, and the ability "to see across and
along the corridor to significant featur es such as existing storefr
onts, propos ed develo pment , the MBTA
station and park entran ces." Hyde Park Avenue is at least 15
feet lower than New Washington Street.
The bridge is not blocking the views of storefronts, the trees and
the grade are.