Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
November 16, 2012
To:
Steve McLaughlin
Project Manager - Accelerated Bridge Program
MassDOT
Through:
Essek Petrie
HNTB
Project Manager
From:
Nathaniel Curtis
Howard/Stein-Hudson
Public Involvement Specialist
RE:
Design Advisory Group (DAG) Meeting
Meeting Notes of November 1, 2012
Overview & Executive Summary
On November 1, 2012, the Design Advisory Group (DAG) met to continue its role in the Casey Arborway
Project 25% design process. As part of the 25% design process, the DAG is responsible for advising
MassDOT on specific topic areas such as construction management, urban design, traffic, pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, parking, and unresolved project elements from the planning study including the design of
Washington Street west of Forest Hills Station and the design of Shea Circle. The local knowledge provided
by DAG members is able to guide the efforts of the Casey Arborway team and inform the 25% design. Since
April 2012, the DAG has met at least once every month except August. The meeting summarized herein
was originally scheduled to take place on October 29, 2012, but was delayed to the 1 st of November due to
Hurricane Sandy.
The meeting summarized in these minutes was held to continue the DAG discussion that was begun at the
DAG meeting on October 1st, 2012. In addition to continued discussion of the proposed Route 39 bus/taxi
swap, the conversation addressed bicycle accommodations and the open space design process that will be
part of the 75% design process. Major themes of the conversation included the following:
 With regard to the Route 39/taxi swap, of particular interest was the idea that operating from the
upper bus-way, the 39 bus can receive 40 seconds of green light time within a 100-second cycle and
possibly make a right turn on red, as opposed to the 12 seconds of green light time within a 100second cycle the bus would receive at the Arborway/Washington Street bus only U-turn. Upper busway design alternatives were shared with the DAG with a discussion of why MassDOT believes that
the current design (the so-called swap) is the best of all the alternatives considered. Alternative
designs considered by MassDOT included a relocated exit, a reverse flow, and a contra-flow
alternative. The swap proposal nevertheless remains of significant concern to residents of Asticou
Road, particularly with regard to the noise and light impacts caused by the addition of the 39 bus to
the upper bus-way.
 The bicycle accommodations proposed by the design team were discussed by the DAG members; a
major concern for many of the cycling advocates in the room was the need to ensure that the offstreet bicycle paths and on-street bicycle lanes within the project would receive equal snow-clearing
priority with the streets. DAG members specifically requested a commitment from the DCR regarding
snow removal and support by MassDOT for DCR, in the form of equipment and funding, to ensure
that snow plowing and deicing of bicycle infrastructure would be addressed.
o In talking about bicycle accommodations, the double left-turn lane at Shea Square was also
discussed. While comments regarding this change to the design were split relatively evenly,
for and against, it was agreed that any additional time gained in the light cycle by having a
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

double left-turn lane, should be used to process pedestrians and not additional cars into
Franklin Park.
The open space design process, to be more fully presented as part of the 75% design for the Casey
Arborway, was also discussed by the group. DAG members cautioned the design team against
presenting plans that seemed too finalized in the initial open space meeting and noted that the DAG
should have meaningful input when it comes to making decisions about the new green space that
will be created as part of the Casey Arborway project.
As with the meeting on October 1st, the meeting summarized herein became impassioned several times.
DAG members had passionate exchanges regarding the adequacy of the public process associated with the
project and the role of bicycle advocates during the process to date.
Detailed Meeting Minutes
C: Kate Fichter (KF): Welcome, everyone. Thank you for coming out tonight and bearing with the time
change due to Monday’s weather. This meeting is a follow-up to the DAG meeting held on October 1st
when we started, but didn’t finish, the conversation about the Route 39 bus/taxi swap. I’m just going to
go over a few things and then I’ll turn this over to Paul Godfrey from HNTB. Please raise your hands.
We’ll try to get to everyone. Please do sign in. We have an agenda and materials for you. Tonight, as
part of responding to your requests from the previous meeting, we’ll use the screen to zoom in on parts
of the 25% design map of which we have copies on hand. The DAG members should have received
those maps by email and they are also on the website. The Functional Design Report (hereinafter FDR)
is in the Jamaica Plain and Roslindale branch libraries and the State Transportation Library at 10 Park
Plaza. We have had requests to put the FDR on the website, but it is a very large and technically
challenging document to place on the web. We’re still looking into how best to do that, but for those of
you who really want it digitally, we have six CD’s with us tonight that have the FDR on it. If we get
through all six CDs tonight and you still want a CD, please see Nate at the end of the meeting and he’ll
get your information to me in order to send you a CD.
There are a few topics on the agenda tonight about which people have been asking for a while.
Tonight, we really want to get through those topics so while we want your feedback, please keep the
discussion moving. Essek will bring you the microphone. With that, here’s Paul Godfrey.
C: Paul Godfrey (PG): Thank you all for coming. As Kate indicated, tonight is an opportunity for us to revisit
the October 1st discussion. We really have three items to cover tonight. Don will go over the open space
process, what it is, and give you a good understanding of it. We had a lot of good discussion but we
didn’t delve into the details of the Route 39/taxi swap and we want to revisit it and get into the details of
why we as the engineers think that – all things considered –it is the best design. We’ll even go into some
of the designs we considered along the way in getting to the one we are currently proposing. 1 We will
explore the travel times and traffic operations. Our 3 rd item is bicycle design and again we’ll go over
what we’re showing and why we think it’s the best balanced design. We’ve had some good
opportunities to get commentary from you and we have new materials including the detailed schedule
you requested on the website. So, these are our items and we have 2.5 hours. So, please give your
attention to Don Kindsvatter for our open space discussion.
Overview of the Open Space Process
C: Don Kindsvatter (DK): The overall design of the corridor is at 25%, but there are three areas that are
lagging behind a bit and they are: the end of the Southwest Corridor Park, Shea Square at the entrance
to Franklin Park, and the new MBTA head-house. We’re proposing an open space design process as
1
This design places the taxi stand for the Forest Hills Station along the southern edge of the new Casey Arborway
and moves the 39 bus into the upper bus-way on a permanent basis.
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
part of the overall 75% design process which will include the project team, the DAG and the agencies
that will maintain the new open space. That new open space will include the MBTA plaza, that’s just to
the north of the station, the end of the Southwest Corridor Park which is just north of the new line of the
Casey Arborway, and the Shea Square entrance to Franklin Park. We’re also going to add the open
space on the west side of Washington Street west of the station. The design for the open space is a
complex part of this project because the new spaces will be owned by different agencies, but the spaces
need to work together to give the corridor a sense of cohesion. Those agencies are represented tonight
by George Batchelor and Robbin Bergfors from MassDOT, Gretchen Von Grossman from the MBTA, Ruth
Helfeld from DCR, and Margaret Dyson with the City of Boston.
As we get into the 75% design, we’re planning to hold a couple of DAG meetings. One meeting
towards the start of the process and one towards the end will address open space. Prior to the first
meeting, the design team would meet with the agencies to go over the landscape design and program.
These are areas that would be designed to be able to host the things you articulated in the WAG
process: farmers’ markets, a dog park, or public art, but the agencies that will maintain all this need to
be comfortable with the design direction. We’ve got a lot of ideas we’ve developed based on our
conversations with you, but we’d like to test them with the agencies to make sure they are comfortable
with them. We’ll work with the agencies to explore design directions like the ratio of passive to active
space and how much hard-scape versus how much soft.2 At that first DAG meeting of the 75% open
space design process, the project team will present some early concepts to the DAG for consideration.
We’ll share the thinking behind them and how we got there. The plan would be to review the
alternatives and come up with a design direction. The design team would then go back and develop a
preferred alternative for each site. When the agency meetings are done, we’ll develop the 75% design.
So, what do you think about this? Does it sound good?
Q: Karen Doherty (KD): Why is this process skipping 50% design and going right from 25% to 75%,
particularly when certain aspects of the design are lagging behind and other aspects, particularly the
upper bus-way, are unacceptable to the community? I’m Karen Doherty, the wife of Bernie Doherty, I’ve
been part of the CPCAY3 for 13 years and I’m an active member of my community association. No
process I’ve ever been part of in design has skipped from 25% to 75% without a 50% review.
A: PG: The percentages, 25%, 75%, are relevant to a preliminary design concept, that’s 25%, a more
refined concept, that’s 75%, and the final design which is 100% and plans, specifications and estimates
(PS&E) drawings. That’s the standard MassDOT design process. We realize that there’s something of a
leap from 25% to 75% and that’s why we want to give you ample opportunities to be involved. We will
share with you the design as it progresses along the way from 25% to 75%. It’s just the typical process.
What Don is saying is that we’re trying to open this up as much as possible. I hope that helps to answer
your questions.
C: KD: That’s every question but one. As neighbors and stakeholders of Forest Hills, we have been asking
for a meeting with the MBTA and DOT. There are people in my neighborhood and the Washingtonian
Court Condominiums who have requested a meeting which hasn’t come forward. To have to beg for a
meeting is unconscionable. For us to write give, six, seven emails to our elected official to expedite the
meeting is unconscionable and please note that with the redesign of Forest Hills Station on the table,
with Federal money involved, nobody from the MBTA or MassDOT has responded to us. 4
A: PG: To answer your question, we know that on October 1st, we brought you the 39/taxi swap and that
included changes to the upper bus-way. We’re here tonight to continue that dialog. Tonight, we want
2
Soft-scape can be thought of as the planted portion of a park, trees, grass, bushes etc. Hard-scape is the paved
portions of a park such as plazas, pathways and other non-plant features.
3
Community Planning Committee for the Arborway Yard
4
While the Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) contains projects which are receiving Federal funding, the Casey
Arborway project will be paid for entirely with Commonwealth funds.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
to explain to you how we got where we are. There are a lot of things to balance and we want to lay out
for you how we go there. Hopefully that addresses your question.
Q: KD: Who can commit to the meeting we requested?
A: PG: This is it.
C: KD: No it isn’t! I’m talking about a meeting for my neighborhood association. My neighborhood is now
going to have an additional 200-300 left-turning buses adding impacts to it. The people on Hyde Park
Avenue are going to have the lower bus-way redesigned and how have they been involved? 5
A: PG: There will be a 25% design public hearing which is open to everyone. It will be well advertised, as
MassDOT requires, and at that meeting it will be the real and right opportunity for MassDOT to explain
its design to you. Anyone who hasn’t been involved to date can come to that meeting, listen,
understand and comment.
C: Todd Consentino (TC): I’d like to ask that we stick to the agenda. It seems we waste a half an hour every
meeting on this kind of posturing. Ask your DAG member if you have a question.
Q: George Zoulalian (GZ): Is this the part of the meeting when we can discuss the design for the upper busway?
A: PG: Coming right up.
C: Michael Halle (MH): The whole point of this meeting tonight is to see the new plan. Let’s please see it.
A: DK: O.K. To wrap up my part, what I really want to ask is whether it’s all right if, for our open space
design process, we dedicate two DAG meetings and during the first meeting we present some design
alternatives to you, and then take away your feedback and at the second meeting bring you back a
design.
C: David Wean (DW): I’m a little concerned that at the pre-meeting with the agencies, a lot of stuff will be
decided to the extent that DAG members won’t be able to offer input except for some comments around
the edges. I know there has been some unhappiness about things being proposed, and if not becoming
part of the design, then at least becoming a major part of the working process. I’d like to see DAG
members at that agency meeting rather than just responding to alternatives.
A: DK: There will be a need for the agencies and design team to work out some basic parameters, but at
the first open space DAG meeting, we’d give you our thought process.
C: Jessica Mink (JM): And that’s always interesting, but it’s not the most community-responsive way to
approach the process. I’d like to see options.
A: DK: Right, that first open space DAG meeting would be about presenting options.
C: MH: I would suggest that all plans be thought about as preliminary and for the consideration of a Casey
PMAC6 which would address the interagency issues that have everyone so concerned.
Q: GZ: I like your use of color on the map. It’s much clearer. I am worried about the one missing color and
that’s green. The original plans I saw had lots of trees, three and four rows. You still have trees right?
5
The current Casey Arborway design does not include a redesign of the lower bus-way along Hyde Park Avenue.
PMAC stands for Parkland Management Advisory Committee. Here, the writer assumes that the speaker is
suggesting setting up such a body to manage the new green space that will come as part of removing the Casey
Overpass.
6
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: DK: Yes. Definitely; there are still plenty of trees. I left out the green in this map because I wanted to
focus on bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. So, thank you very much. Here’s Paul.
Discussion of the Route 39/Taxi Swap
C: PG: As we heard loud and clear, our attempt tonight with the projector and laptop is to use them to
bring the graphics we developed up close for you. 7 If you don’t understand where we are in the
corridor, stop us and ask. We want this to be clear. We’re now moving into agenda item 2.
On October 1st, we came to you and said that there’s more logic to relocating the 39 bus to the upper
bus-way than keeping it in its previously proposed location along the new Casey Arborway which today
is New Washington Street. Tonight, we want to share with you the detailed thoughts behind that and
the alternatives we developed along the way. On the screen right now is the 25% design plan.
Originally, we’d proposed to keep the 39 bus along the south side of the new Casey Arborway. That’s
roughly where it is today and it’s normal to just assume it would stay there, but as we developed the
design, we challenged ourselves to see if that still made sense. You challenged us as did the MBTA and
BTD. We looked at it knowing we’d need to move the 39 into the upper bus-way temporarily while the
bridge is coming down and as we looked at the location north of the station versus the upper bus-way
we began to see that the upper bus-way gives us great flexibility in transit operations.
Right now, the 39 bus has no layover space. Everyone agrees that we’ll use more public transit in the
future and it behooves us to look now at options to expand the service when it makes sense to do so. In
the upper bus-way we can have layover space and space for all the buses. That was a good thing in our
minds. We spoke with the MBTA about the idea and they were intrigued about consolidating bus
operations from three locations today down to two in the future.8 As Maureen will explain, we looked at
overall traffic operations, [the impact of] buses mingling with traffic, and walking distances to and from
the buses. From our perspective, the upper bus-way is a reasonable walk because for some users it will
be a longer walk, but for others a shorter walk. We thought consolidation of bus operations made
sense. So that was our driving brain impulse as we first started to consider relocation. So we ran with it
a little more to see if it really made sense. Now Maureen is going to give you bus travel times so you
can see how much time it will take for the bus to get through. When she’s done with that, I’ll show you
the alternatives we worked through on our way to what’s in the 25% design and hopefully you will agree
with us that while nothing is ever perfect, it’s the best way to go. Here’s Maureen.
C: Maureen Chlebek (MC): In terms of traffic operations and bus locations, whether it’s on the west side of
the station in the upper bus-way or on the Casey Arborway, it’s comparable. When the 39 is to the
north of the station, we had a phase in the Arborway/Washington Street signal that allowed the 39 to
make a U-turn in Washington Street. That bus phase ran at the same time as the westbound bus-only
left-turn phase. Since we’re keeping that bus-only left-turn phase, removing the 39 from that
intersection doesn’t make a big change.
We also did a bunch of comparisons on time and Todd Blake from MBTA Service Planning helped us with
that. We went out and measured the run time for the 39 bus today and had someone in the field who
timed how long it takes for the 39 to leave Forest Hills today and get through the signal at New
Washington Street/South Street. We also looked at the 38 bus, which uses the upper bus-way and also
has to go north through that same signal for a comparison to how long are the buses waiting at the New
Washington Street/South Street signal. What we found is that in the a.m. peak period, in-bound it was
about 55 seconds of seconds of queue delay, that’s just sitting in the line. Outbound it was about 41
seconds. In the p.m. we had 46 seconds inbound and 70 seconds outbound. I don’t mean to inundate
7
A copy of this plan can be found at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
Consolidating bus operations from 3 locations down to 2 would simplify the dispatching of buses from Forest
Hills Station thereby leading to smoother service.
8
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
you with numbers, but in a range, right now, the New Washington Street/South Street signal delays the
bus by 40-70 seconds. We also looked at upper bus-way buses to compare with the 39. We were able
to use Automated Passenger Counter9 data from the MBTA and we looked at data for 15 weeks over two
seasons and averaged it all. We compared the 38 and 39 for the 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m.
periods, as well as the 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for a midday off-peak look and when you compare
them, again inbound and outbound, in the morning, inbound, the 39 is a little faster than the 38 which
operates from the upper bus-way, but in the p.m. peak and off-peak inbound, the upper bus-way is a
little faster. In the outbound direction, the 39 was faster in each case. So a lot of that just depends on
the delay at the signals whether the bus is trying to turn left or getting a through movement through the
signal.
Q: DW: What’s inbound and what’s outbound?
A: MC: Inbound is leaving Forest Hills to go towards Boston. Outbound is away from Boston towards Forest
Hills.
Q: Lynn McSweeney (LM): Are you just comparing buses 38 and 39?
A: MC: Yes, because we wanted to compare the 39 bus which today uses the bus loop under the bridge to
a bus which operates out of the upper bus-way, but has to go north through the same signals. That’s
the 38 bus.
So, now we have a handle on how things are today, but we have to relate that to what we project for
2035 whether we use the Arborway U-turn for the 39 bus or the upper bus-way location. We compared
the delay for both options and so some of this goes back to all the traffic analysis we did and estimated
delays at these signals. Keep in mind that in 2035, our street network is better organized and therefore
better able to process queues. What we found, again breaking it up into inbound and outbound, we
found that a.m. inbound, the upper bus-way is actually faster, but outbound, if the 39 were on the
Arborway it would be faster. Now, when I say faster, it ranges between 35 and 88 seconds.
So, hold on to that range of 35-88 seconds. What we did next was to see what, in terms of the whole
bus route, represents a big increase and what doesn’t. We looked at 35-88 seconds relative to riding
the 39 bus. We looked at the whole bus route and then an interim location on Huntington Avenue
because we recognize not everyone rides all the way to Back Bay. Again, we looked at the 39 bus for 15
weeks of data over two seasons to see the longest and shortest trip times. In the a.m. peak, the inbound
route is scheduled to run in 42 minutes. The MBTA data showed that the shortest run was 29 minutes,
the longest was 63 and on average it was about 42 minutes. So you’re looking at a difference of
between 35-88 seconds over a 42-minute route. We did the same for the p.m. and off-peak periods
and the pattern is the same. The slide that’s up on the screen right now 10 shows how we charted this
data. Sometimes having the 39 in the upper bus-way makes the service run a little faster, sometimes a
little slower, but the fact is that the portion of the route that’s in Forest Hills is actually a very small piece
of the whole long trip. To our interim location on Huntington Avenue, the average travel time from
Forest Hills is about 23 minutes and the time delta is not something passengers will feel.
There is also a traffic advantage to putting the 39 in the upper bus-way. I want to focus now on the
signals at Washington Street/Arborway and Arborway/South Street. At Arborway/Washington Street, the
light cycle is 100 seconds long. Out of that, we can give the 39 bus 12 seconds of green time for its
turnaround. It could arrive just before, on that green time, or just after. Leaving the upper bus-way we
can give the 39 bus two 20-second green intervals in the 100-second light cycle. That’s a big plus for
the upper bus-way. I’ll now give this back to Paul to go through the design variations.
9
This is a passenger counting device installed on the bus itself.
Available at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
10
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: PG: O.K. so, just you we make sure you heard and understood. During certain times, the bus trip is
shorter and at other times it’s longer with the proposed upper bus-way design and usage in place. We
acknowledge that. We also acknowledge that if we move the 39 bus from its current location, the walk
will get about 300 feet longer for some people. For others, it will be shorter. From our perspective,
there’s nothing in what Maureen just articulated to you to say that this 39/taxi swap is a bad call and in
fact, there are several positive aspects.
Let me start by orienting you to the current upper bus-way.11 Here are the two bus bays with the pick-up
and travel lanes and the exit opposite South Street. We propose to relocate the upper bus-way to the
south and to expand it. This would give us three bus bays and we would relocate the 39 to bay number
3. There would be three lanes per bay giving us one for pick-up/drop-off, one for travel, and one for
layover. Passengers will have to cross lanes to get to bays 1 and 2, but the crossings would be
pedestrian friendly sort of similar to Dudley Station. The nice thing about this design is that buses exiting
from bays 1 and 2 won’t conflict with the 39 bus. That’s a nice touch because it also allows the 39 to
take a right turn on red.
We’ve also heard about the proposed exit for the upper bus-way being across from the
Asticou/Martinwood neighborhood and it certainly is. The current bus-way exit opposite South Street is
approximately 120 feet from the nearest building on Asticou Road. Under the proposed conditions, we
will have more buses operating from the upper bus-way, approximately 18-20 per hour. It will be
slightly more noise. The current MBTA buses in your area operate at around 70 decibels (db). That’s a
little louder than my amplified voice over the microphone I am using now. We expect that with the
additional buses, noise levels will rise by about 3db. That’s the difference of raising your voice slightly.
Don’t think for a moment that I am discounting noise. I used to live in view of Route 128 in Dedham
and I get it. The reality, however, with the proposed plan is that while there will be a little more noise, it
won’t be an appreciable change.
Q: Kevin Wolfson (KW): Can you explain about the distance between the buses and Asticou Road a little
more?
A: PG: Sure. When the buses are currently waiting to pick people up, the closest bus to Asticou Road is the
one that pulls to the northern end of bay #1, that’s the one closest to Washington Street. The distance
from there to Asticou Road is about 120 feet. Under our future proposed conditions, the point at which
the bus goes from idling to accelerating to street speeds will also be approximately 120 feet from Asticou
Road. From our perspective, we see this as similar.
A: MH: When we were on the 39 bus committee, we also heard that 70db figure you quoted, and that’s the
standard operating noise level for the buses. A significant maintenance problem that makes the buses
noisier is a squeaky drive belt at the back of the bus. We got a commitment from the MBTA that those
buses would be pulled from service and repaired. A major advantage of your proposed plan is that
there would be in a sense automatic monitoring of when the drive belts are noise. I think that’s a major
complaint people have and if we could fix it, it would be a significant benefit.
Q: Elizabeth Wylie (EW): I have a question about the signal where the buses exit. Isn’t the signal an
acceleration point? What’s the distance between that and Asticou Road? That’s less than 120 feet.
A: Jonathan Kapust (JK): Actually, the distance from Asticou Road to that signal is 120 feet. That’s the
distance we’ve been talking about.
C: DW: But no, the signal is closer, it seems closer.
A: PG: Again, under current conditions, when the bus accelerates from the northern end of bay # 1, when
the bus accelerates the noise goes up. This signal at the proposed upper bus-way exit is further away
11
All diagrams shown by Paul can be seen at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
from the neighborhood than the existing signal where the buses leave today but the two acceleration
points are both roughly 120 feet away from the closest house in the Asticou/Martinwood neighborhood.
Under proposed conditions there will be more buses, and more accelerations and a slight increase in
noise, but from our perspective, it is a slight increase, it’s not doubling or tripling or some other sizable
increase, but we’re aware of it and we want you to know that we are.
C: KD: I’m still a little confused in regards to the acceleration and the noise. I’d like to see the sound
modeling done in regards to the proposed conditions. I’d like someone to email it to me specifically.
You’re putting this signal in front of our neighborhood and telling us it will be a wash, only a 3db
increase and I’d like to understand that. There are other noise factors beyond the bus. There’s traffic
starting and stopping.
Q: Mary Hickie (MHi): In your new layout, can you show me where the little house is where the telephone
rings and rings?
A: PG: I believe that’s just here at the ends of the bus-way. I can’t speak to the telephone not being
answered, but that is a point to understand about the dispatcher’s station.
Q: GZ: On the new design, isn’t it true that there will be a sound barrier for Asticou Road right by the traffic
light?
A: PG: A discussion we brought up last time was the acknowledgment of noise from the relocated entrance
across from Asticou Road. We shared some initial thoughts on that on October 1 st and we wanted you to
help us evaluate whether the preference is for a screen for headlights or a stronger noise wall which
would have to be a heavier structure. I heard comments on both sides of the aisle on that. If you want
us to do something to reduce the noise and light impacts, it’s in our purview to bring it in. If the
consensus is you just want a headlight screen, we can do that too. I sense that it will most likely be one
or the other of those two.
C: Allen Ihrer (AI): Polly Okunieff and I have been expecting the 39 bus to be moved to this location for a
long time. The MBTA needs the layover space for the 39 bus and they currently park them under the
overpass. I was involved with the sound engineering on the Arborway Yard with Tocci Engineering and
we found out that the noise comes out of the back of the bus. Among buses, the 60-foot articulated
buses are noisier. While the decibel scale is a convenient reference, if you really want to see what’s
happening with noise, you need to break it down by octaves because the lower frequencies spread over
long distances and can go through concrete. 3db is kind of meaningless and you need to look at
octaves because octaves can travel through hundreds and hundreds of feet as opposed to high-level
sound. Basically we’re tripling the number of buses up here and while it looks very efficient and welldesigned, it’s still three times the current number of buses. The buses will come in, pull in, the motor
will stop and blow off. Then they start up again. With the Arborway Yard facility, what we found is that
the buses don’t make much noise at low speeds, but when the noise happens is when they have to jump
into traffic and get up to roadway speeds. That’s where you’ll get noise and those are my observations.
As far as noise mitigation measures, dealing with low frequencies is very hard to do, but there may be
some mitigations you can do. As far as moving where they come out to South Street, when they come
out that exit, the buses will be in an idling mode, but then they accelerate into traffic.
Q: PG: So can I infer from those comments that you are leaning towards some kind of noise barrier?
A: AI: I think those are just some points for you to keep in mind.
Q: Karen Wepsic (KWe): Will this cost the MBTA more to maintain the same level of service? Will they need
more drivers? The drivers sometimes have very short layovers and they need to visit the bathroom. Will
the drivers be able to get to the bathrooms inside Forest Hills? I’d like their personal comfort addressed.
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: Todd Blake (TB): Based on the information Maureen spoke to earlier with regard to travel times, when
you compare existing conditions and the two build alternatives, during the various peak hours, the run
time for the bus gets shorter or longer depending on the alternative you choose, but generally speaking
it’s neutral. Under some instances it costs a little more time, but in others a little less and based on the
information we have received, we don’t see the 39 bus/taxi swap as being problematic. Comparing the
upper bus-way versus Arborway option, in the p.m. peak, the two options are equivalent in the a.m.
peak, the upper bus-way is a little longer, but really as Maureen pointed out it’s a wash and so its cost
neutral.
Q: KWe: And what about the bathrooms?
A: TB: I’ll have to get back to you on that and post the answer.
Q: Jeffrey Ferris (JF): You keep saying it’s neutral, a little more and a little less. Are you comparing just the
Arborway option versus the upper bus-way option or both versus existing? My understanding is that all
times are longer when compared to existing.
A: TB: Some running times are a little longer and some a little shorter. In the a.m. peak the upper bus-way
and Arborway options both run a little longer than existing, but in the p.m. both proposed options are a
little shorter.
C: JF: I don’t understand how either of your proposals can be shorter than the bus leaving immediately at
the intersection of South Street and New Washington Street.
A: TB: As Maureen explained earlier, inbound and outbound there is a difference and outbound is actually
four seconds shorter than today and remember this is with 2035 volumes and not today’s volumes.
Q: JF: She explained it, but it defies my logic to see how anything could be quicker than the bus starting
and finishing right at the South Street/New Washington intersection. Can you explain that again?
A: GZ: I don’t think Jeff was here earlier when Maureen went through it and discussed the light cycles. If
they move the buses to the upper bus-way, the 39 would exit through a signal where the bus can have
two 20-second green lights as opposed to just 12 seconds at the New Washington Street/Washington
Street signal.
C: JF: I’m trying to compare between existing and proposed conditions. I want to understand that change.
He12 said that some travel times are shorter and some travel times are longer. I don’t understand what
we’re discussing. I don’t understand how either proposed can be shorter than the current condition.
A: MC: Jeff, if I can just back up to what I said earlier. When we did field work to understand 39 bus
operations, we measured the queue delay that the 39 is currently experiencing and as you’ll recall when
we talked about problem locations in the corridor, we discovered that New Washington Street/South
Street is a real problem and many of the issues in the corridor radiate out from there. Right now, the 39
experiences between 40 and 70 seconds of queue delay at this intersection. I appreciate that it sounds
obvious, but right now the bus is experiencing a lot of delay.
C: Nina Brown (NB): I’m a DAG member and president of the Arboretum Park Conservancy. At a previous
meeting, there was concern about the appearance of a potential noise/light barrier for the Asticou Road
neighborhood. MassDOT has a yard near Rumney Marsh which is full of the old granite blocks from the
Broadway Bridge in South Boston. MassDOT gave the Arboretum some of those blocks to build
gateposts, but there are many still left over and I think it would be worth looking into to see if any of that
stone could be used here. This might be a good application.
12
“He” appears to refer to Todd Blake of the MBTA Service Planning group.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: LM: I was on the 39 bus committee and I use both the 38 and 39. When you’re comparing the efficiency
of the new designs to the existing one, to me, it’s a little bit apples and oranges because on the 39 bus
committee we talked about the ideal amount of time to shave off the total run through stop
consolidation. There’s no way to measure that ideal time for the 39 because reality interrupts the idea.
You get a traffic jam in Longwood and it drives your ideal times out the window. I assume that’s why
you have the big spread in the outliers for your observed run times. When you compare the 39 today to
your proposed models, you’re assuming that your new street-level highway will be ideal and operate
without traffic jams. There’s no real way to measure this.
A: MC: To clarify the comparisons that I gave, we discussed the variability in the whole route, but the
observations we took really only deal with the bus getting to and then through the intersection of South
Street/New Washington Street. It’s not for the whole route, just the streets in our study area. The
variability is for the whole route. Sometimes it was as low as 22 minutes and other times it was as high
as 63 minutes. The interruptions will happen all along the route outside this corridor, but the differences
I gave at the beginning of this meeting are for the Casey corridor itself.
Q: LM: So what happens when you have a whole bunch of buses going through here with the new at-grade
traffic? Won’t that have consequences? My experience is that traffic doesn’t always run perfectly.
A: MC: Nothing is ever perfect all the time. There are movements that operate at E or F in the peak hour,
but a big difference between the two proposed options is that in the upper bus-way option, the 39 gets a
more efficient through-movement as opposed to a less efficient left-turn as it goes through South
Street/New Washington Street.
C: PG: We could talk about how much time is the right delta and I won’t ever make light of adding time to
a transit route, but I think we’re trying to get this into perspective. The 39 is making a 20-, 30-, 40- up
to 60-minute trip. At our end in the Casey corridor, we’re dealing with deltas of 1-2 minutes. You can
have that kind of delta today if the bus does or doesn’t make a given traffic signal. The difference is
there and we acknowledge it, but the general point you should take away is that we’re confident that it
is a small increment.
A: Pete Stidman (PS): Speaking of time, it’s now 7:20pm and I would note that we a lot of other things we
want to get through. Your graphics are great and there’s a lot of good new information which I
appreciate, but there’s a bicycle map up there and some of us have been waiting patiently to cover it.
C: Representative Russell Holmes (RRH): I would simply say that when it comes to Asticou Road and
light/noise impacts, if there’s a fence to be installed, the neighborhood should be listened to most. I
don’t know if that’s another meeting, but the residents there should have the strongest voice when it
comes to a mitigation measure.
C: PG: So let me offer this: I have three designs that we looked at for the upper bus-way before settling on
the one we have thus far shared with you. There are people who definitely want to have the bicycle
discussion. I am prepared to continue the 39 discussion out in the hallway. We don’t like to bifurcate
the group, but we want Don to be able to run through the bicycle design. I am happy to go out and take
further comments, but before we do that, I want you to understand the rejected designs for the upper
bus-way so you can grasp our reasoning.
So, one option we looked at based on your comments from October 1 st was reversing the entrance and
exit for the bus-way. The design currently on the screen does that. The entry is at the northern end.
Geometrically, this works, but here are the challenges: when the bus comes in, naturally it pulls up as far
as it can to make room for other buses. In this scheme, that puts it further from the station entrance.
For the 39 to come in, we would need a 3-phase signal: one phase for Washington Street traffic, one for
bays 1 and 2, and then one for bay 3 where the 39 would berth. So operationally, the exit from this
configuration is a major negative because the buses have to crisscross each other. Because of how this
impacts operations and pushes loading farther from the station we were concerned enough to not carry
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
it any farther forward. Also, the turning radius into bay 1 is very tight. The bus could do it, but only very
slowly.
C: JK: There is also less layover space.
C: PG: Right and we wanted to maximize the layover space, given the mindset of maximizing future public
transit opportunities. Now, let’s take a look at the relocated bus-way exit concept. Here’s what we can
do. We can modify the design so that bays 1 and 2 take a sharper turn. The signal would be further
south and the headlights from the buses sort of point into the woods. The challenge is greatly reduced
space for operations and the turning movements are exceedingly difficult. That’s a concern. The 39
would work about the same, but primarily due to the loss of loading/unloading space and the tight turn,
we decided against this option as well.
We also got very creative; sometimes even engineers get a little crazy. We looked at having the buses
operate in different directions. The 39 would come in from the south, but buses using bays 1 and 2
would enter from the north. This gets the signal off the northern entrance, but the challenge is here
inside the bus-way where the buses are crisscrossing to go in and out. That adds time and delay and we
lose some layover and loading space and add a hard, tight turn to get into the bus-way. I don’t think
the MBTA would go for this, so much so I didn’t even ask them. This isn’t typical at all and untypical
often means challenging. This has a lot of problems: tight turns, loss of layover, and loss of loading
space.
C: JK: It is also the only alternative where people have to look both ways when crossing the lanes of the
bus-way.
Q: MH: What’s the width of the southern curb-cut?
A: PG: I’m not sure off the top of my head, but it is quite wide. There are some additional walking
distances associated with this contra-flow proposal as well and it has enough negatives that it doesn’t
beat the current proposal.
Going back to our current proposed design for the upper bus-way, it has a multitude of advantages:
good loading/unloading, easy turns, letting people board the 39 without crossing traffic and maintaining
the ability for the 39 to make a right on red; from an engineering perspective, this design makes the
most sense. We still have to address the noise/light impact issue, but again, the greatest opportunity for
having as much space for current and future transit operations is with this plan and that’s why we came
to it.
Q: JM: I have a question. Right now, I think that one thing that reduces noise from the upper bus-way is
the thick concrete wall along the bays. It looks like the new design doesn’t have space for that planter
berm.
A: PG: I think we’ve primarily been focused on the Asticou side of Washington Street, but we could think
about putting something on the bus-way side of the street to mitigate the sound.
C: JM: I’d look at what’s there, see if it has a positive impact and if it does, keep it.
C: Michael Epp (ME): In other projects, I’ve proposed buses crossing paths within a bus-way and the
operations group at the MBTA always rejects it. Your 2nd and 3rd options, I’d bet you $100 that they
wouldn’t even consider it.
Q: GZ: Can you be more specific about the shelters and wind barriers that would be part of this? Is that
part of the 25% design plan? Right now there’s a shelter, but I don’t see one in your plans.
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: PG: Over the upper bus-way, there will be a canopy and in fact multiple canopies because a single
structure we believe may be too heavy for the tunnel box located under the bus-way. In the 75% design
phase, we’ll deal with the canopy structure and what it might look like. We have yet to discuss a
sound/light barrier on the eastern side of Washington Street. I won’t speak for MassDOT beyond saying
that we’ll look into it.
A: Steve McLaughlin (SM): We are looking at the potential for screening in that area.
A: PG: If this design is the one that carries the day, we’ll go into it further.
C: GZ: And don’t minimize the extra 300 feet some people will have to walk to get to the bus.
A: PG: No, I do not.
C: Anne McKinnon (AM): The DOT committed to transit priority and holding harmless the headways and
travel times of bus operations. I don’t think this does it. I also feel we’re being a little cheated because
the comparison should not be the upper bus-way proposal to the existing. The existing is horrible –
you’ve always said that, you’ve pounded that into us. No matter what we do it’s going to be better. So I
think that if you look at the MOE13 - the evaluation criteria used for this – you really should compare this
to the bridge alternative that would have improved the signals and allowed the bus to exit where it is
now. Comparing it to something that we know is not going to exist is really not fair. Obviously, the
existing needs to be addressed and with the end of the current bridge it would be under any alternative.
So, I don’t think it’s a fair comparison and I think you need to go back and redo the MOE for this
because I think you’d find that the bus operations are degraded under the at-grade scheme. The other
thing is that I don’t think this is prioritizing transit. Prioritizing transit would be leaving a third bus-way14
to allow for maximum flexibility in the future. We’re cutting off the opportunity to expand transit with
this scheme. Keeping the 39 where it is allows for flexibility to expand the upper bus-way without
clogging it with the Route 39 bus and I don’t see how this meets the commitment to prioritize transit.
Q: NB: Question: that space south of the upper bus-way, does that land belong to the MBTA?
A: PG: That spot is the opening for the tunnel where the trains pass through. We looked at that as part of
the idea of pushing the bus-way deck south and we can’t do it because of the pressure caused by the
high-speed trains going through Forest Hills.
C: Community Resident (CR): I’d just like to ask that we recognize that the original insult to the community
was prioritizing the cyclists that pass through it over the people who live here and since then we’ve had
the imposition of replacing the bridge and now somehow as a consequence of that it authorizes the
Commonwealth to impose further changes on us. I want that recognized and our strong opposition to it.
A: ME: That is a crazy, crazy statement. If you’d been involved in this process since the beginning you
never, never would have made a statement like that! This has been a great process and I’m sick and
tired of all the lies people spread about it.
C: JF: Michael Epp, I am surprised you would say a thing like that! This has been divisive since from the
start!
A: Essek Petrie (EP): Guys, guys, come on, we need to move on, let’s be civil.
13
The Measures of Evaluation developed by the WAG process and available at
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Documents.aspx
14
Here the writer assumes the speaker refers to the current Route 39 turnaround loop.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: JF: I’m sorry, you people have to hear what he said which is that there is a huge discontent in Jamaica
Plain about this and if you’re not listening, you’re up there with blinders and your ears covered like you
have for the last year
A: GZ: That’s not true at all Jeff, you’re wrong, stop shouting!
C: PG: We need to move along folks, we’re going to take the bus 39 conversation out in the hallway.
C: Peter Furth (PF): I just want to say that of the bus alternatives that have been presented, the upper busway proposal looks like the best one. It’s great how it lets the passengers get on and off. I do want a
bus left-turn looked at, maybe a priority signal which only actuates so that buses going south can get
out. I think that would be an opportunity for helping the buses with very little harm to vehicle traffic.
A: PG: Thank you for that. I’m going to head out into the hall and we’ll discuss Route 39 further. Right
now it’s over to Don to go over bicycle issues. Let’s give everyone a 2-minute break to rearrange
themselves if they want to go out into the hallway.
A: KF: If you want to discuss bicycle issues, please stay seated and if you want to keep discussing the 39
bus, please follow Paul.15
Discussion of Bicycle Accommodations
C: LM: As someone not on the DAG, but as a member of the Jamaica Plain community, I don’t appreciate
Michael whatever his last name is, calling someone speaking on my behalf crazy. I don’t like the use of
such inflammatory language on people representing my community. I’d like to urge people to be nicer.
At one of the public meetings on this process, the cyclists came and insulted my community. They told us
things were changing and we older people would just have to get used to living in an urban
environment.
Q: PS: When? When did that actually happen?
C: LM: I’ve been living in this urban environment for the past 45 years and I don’t want to be excluded, I
really don’t want to see other people called crazy for objecting to something with which we do not
agree.
C: GZ: And I am sick of people shouting and taking over meetings every time they want. The bridge is
over, just move on with it.
A: AM: No! No! That is not right!
C: EP: Thank you, George, thank you Anne. Come on. We’re going on with the next item on the agenda.
C: DK: To date, we’ve only had a limited conversation about bicycle accommodations. We’ve heard your
concerns about the off-street versus on-street, but I want to explain the design and walk through the
corridor section by section. Our basic goal is to try and find a reasonable balance among the modes:
minimize the pavement, maximize the green space, and keep the crosswalks short. The current design
will encourage bicycle use and we expect a lot of users because of the amount of recreational open
space. The current design has primarily off-street pathways which are an extension of the Southwest
Corridor system. We propose pathways on both sides of the corridor, in both directions, paved with
bituminous concrete. Where on-street bicycle lanes are present they will be five feet wide.
15
A summary of the bus conversation continued in the hallway appears as Appendix 3 of these meeting minutes.
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Jonathan, would you please zoom in on Shea Square? Where Morton Street goes off to the east, the
project really starts at Cemetery Road. Our working assumption is that where the project meets roads at
the edges of the project area, we’ll match future conditions as best we can. At some point in the future
we expect there to be protected bicycle lanes on Morton Street that will join into our system. We also
plan to connect with existing bicycle lanes on Circuit Drive. 16
C: PS: On Morton Street, it is supposed to be a cycle track in the future, that’s what’s in the state bicycle
plan.
C: DK: Also in the Shea area, we have an off-street connection running from the west to the east. The offstreet pathways are shown in lighter blue. The darker blue is for on-street bicycle facilities, gold is for
pedestrian pathways and the yellow is transition areas between bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For the
off-street facility, we want to make sure people can connect into Franklin Park and the Cemetery. We do
have some redundancy in that area.
Q: AM: What’s a protected bicycle lane?
A: DK: Protected or buffered bicycle lanes are striped to keep vehicles further away from the bicycles.
C: PS: A protected bicycle lane is a projection based on the width of the street, but that’s not under
discussion tonight.
Q: JF: We have two Morton Streets on the map, but you’re not talking about one of them?
A: DK: Right, east of Cemetery Road is where we would anticipate the cycle track would come in.
Q: AM: So why aren’t you showing a plan to continue the cycle track?
A: JM: It’s a buffered bicycle lane, not a cycle track. There’s enough room to do a buffered bicycle lane on
Morton Street, right now it has un-buffered bicycle lanes because of the wide shoulders, but you can’t do
a cycle track.
C: PS: That’s not what the state bicycle plan said.
A: JM: I know that. I don’t agree with that plan.
A: DK: Whatever you want to call it, our plan is to try and match those planned conditions it. On the south
side of the corridor in this area, the on-street path comes in and meets the driveway up into Forest Hills.
We’d like to talk to them about having a bicycle lane on their driveway wide enough to accommodate
two-way bicycle traffic so it will be easy for people to get back out again. Wherever we have on-street
bicycle lanes in the corridor, we will have bicycle boxes to accommodate left turns.
Q: EW: What’s a bicycle box?
A: DK: It’s an area of pavement that’s been striped to let bicycles get ahead of vehicular traffic at
intersections.
Moving on, as you get toward the intersections there will be places for bicycles and pedestrians to cross.
That’s the yellow areas on the plan. Right now you’re looking at Circuit Drive/Morton Street, but we
would have them at all intersections. To warn cyclists and pedestrians we’d have signs, striping, and
special pavement so you know it’s a special area. Generally speaking, bicycle and pedestrian paths will
16
The plans referred to by Don Kindsvatter can be seen at
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
be separate outside these merging areas. Where we have smaller streets coming in, we would have
raised crosswalks to give pedestrians and cyclists better visibility and priority over cars.
C: Frederick Vetterlein (FV): At the last meeting we discussed the plan for the double westbound left turn
lane at Shea Square. My neighborhood association met and generally people didn’t feel one way or
another about it, they were pretty indecisive. The intersection is very important with regard to pedestrian
crossings. The plan you’re showing tonight looks good, as does the raised crossing. One thing is that
there really isn’t a sidewalk on Cemetery Road. There’s one on the east side, actually, but nothing on
the west side. There’s no connection for pedestrians. It would seem you would want to have those
pedestrian connections through Shea Square.
A: DK: A lot of people aren’t walking on Cemetery Road, they’re on Circuit Drive.
C: FV: People in my neighborhood use it to go to Forest Hills Cemetery. That’s why Olmsted installed the
bridge: so that people could avoid the traffic.
A: DK: Really? I thought his goal was to stop people from seeing hearses.
Q: FV: So would you make the sidewalks on the north side of Morton Street and west side of Cemetery
Road real? That’s also the Williams Street entrance to Franklin Park.
A: DK: We’d have to take a look at it.
C: LO: People from my neighborhood often walk there and we also struggle with the poor infrastructure.
C: MH: One quick comment regarding Cemetery Road. You might want a bicycle box on the lanes heading
into the cemetery and at the merge into Circuit Drive. I’d suggest giving the bicycle lane a marked
buffer so that if a motorist veers out of their lane, they veer into the buffer and not into a bicyclist.
Q: Don Eunson (DE): I recognize this may be old news, but what is the logic of having two left-turn lanes for
eastbound traffic going up Circuit Drive? Within 100 feet you have them merging back into one lane.
A: DK: I’ll answer that briefly now and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you further after the meeting if you
like, but originally we had one left turn lane and the queue in the peak hour was quite long. Having two
left-turn lanes lets us make shorter left turn lanes and cut the queue in half.
C: KW: On the double left-turn lanes, Livable Streets would prefer a single lane. We understand that it
shortens the signal cycle time, but it does create a merge next to the bicycle lane and the goal shouldn’t
be to invite more cars into Franklin Park, which two lanes would do.
A: DK: It’s processing the same number of cars in both configurations.
C: KW: Yes, but it makes the turn more inviting to cars because it’s more efficient. On the south side of
Shea Square, where the bicycle crossing is off-set from the crosswalk, it seems like it would make sense
to make them line up.
A: DK: O.K. good suggestion on the crosswalk and bicycle crossing.
C: LO: I want to agree with Kevin that the double left turn is a horrible idea. I ride my bicycle there all the
time and it’s already dangerous. The drivers are in a hurry and I think it’s something we should take a
second look at; processing more cars into Franklin Park isn’t what we want. We want the drivers slowing
down.
C: PF: I appreciate the overall goal of connecting the corridor’s planned bicycle facilities to those that will
be around it in the future. What there hopefully will and should be on Circuit Drive is not bicycle lanes,
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
but a bicycle path. Bicycles going through Franklin Park should not have to be on a bicycle lane, but on
a path. It would also solve the problem of the merge if you provided a bicycle path at least to the edge
of your project then by the time the bicycle path on Circuit Drive was implemented you could have the
transition between bicycle path and lane happen away from the merge. Regarding the other end, going
further east, again, the plan is for protected bicycle lanes – something better than just simple bicycle
lanes on the street – so I hope your project will provide something commensurate with that. I also dislike
the idea of bicycle boxes on Morton Street. I think the safe way to make the turn is with a two-stage leftturn. A lot of bicycles will want to go left at Shea Square so I’d suggest bringing the crosswalk back by
six feet so the bicycles don’t block the through movement.
C: MH: If the double left turn does wind up in the plan, the commitment should be that the extra time you
can get by shortening the left turn phase should go to serving pedestrians and not to vehicular traffic. I
see advantages to both the single and double left-turn lanes, but I’d agree that processing more traffic
isn’t desirable. I’d like to see Circuit Drive further traffic-calmed through I know that’s not part of your
project. I’d even echo Peter Furth’s comments a little more and say that your curb-cuts should be
designed so that they can handle a jug-handle turn17 and delineating a way for inexperienced cyclists to
know that’s something they can do.
C: AI: Addressing the double left-turn, the reason for it being there comes up in the Q&A document18 about
traffic, and I had asked a question about the 500-foot left turn queue associated with the earlier single
left-turn lane, and the answer had been that to avoid that people might use Morton Street, a residential
street to avoid the left turn, and I thought that would create a lot of havoc. The team came up with the
double left-turn to fix that issue. I’d think that if you were heading to Dorchester and Columbia Road,
you’d appreciate the double left.
C: TC: I want to echo Kevin’s comments about bringing the cycle track near the road. We need to prevent
cyclists from being struck by vehicles going right. The cyclists need to be near the cars so that the drivers
can see them right there. I do want to say that your markings on the plan are excellent.
A: DK: Good suggestion. We would also plan to cross the cyclists in the same phase with the pedestrians.
If we can, I’d like to continue along the corridor towards Washington Street. Along the edge of the
Arborway Yard we have a traditional sidewalk and two-way bicycle path. On the south side of the
corridor, along the new frontage road, we have a buffered bicycle lane. We used to have a two-lane
frontage road and that width was there to accommodate breakdowns and still allow a car to get by.
Under that plan, we had the bicycle path in the median between the frontage road and the Arborway,
but in trying to reduce the amount of pavement in the plan, we pulled the bicycle path out of the median
and turned it into a buffered bicycle lane on the frontage road. We’ll still have enough room for a car to
get around a breakdown.
Q: PS: Is it buffered with a physical barrier?
A: DK: Right now it’s just striping.
Q: MH: What’s the direction of traffic flow on the frontage road?
A: DK: Eastbound only.
Q: KW: Does the road need to be a certain width for snow plowing?
17
In a “jug handle” left turn, vehicles or cyclists move first to the right of the main line of traffic onto a separated
lane or otherwise separated pathway. This pathway then curves back towards the main line of traffic so as to
cross it at right angles. In this way, the left turns are processed as through movements.
18
This document is available at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
Page 16
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: JM: Wouldn’t the snow just go into the median?
A: PS: I think it would wind up plowed into the bicycle lane.
C: MH: It’s probably much easier politically to push it into the bicycle lane.
C: PS: Just to finish the thought, maybe there needs to be a wider buffer to hold the snow. I worry that DCR
won’t coordinate with the City of Boston with regard to snow removal.
C: PF: If I understand snow removal right, your best bet is to have your bicycle facility as part of the street.
We don’t want a snow bank in the buffer area; we want the snow pushed all the way to the side.
A: Vineet Gupta (VG): If you’re plowing the frontage road, you might as well keep it one big surface and
plow it all together. What’s the blank area on the plan between the Casey Arborway and the frontage
road?
A: DK: That’s green space.
C: RRH: The person who plows the road is going to do this in one pass. They’re going to plow it, throw
down some deicer, and move on. The bicycle accommodations need to be set up in a way to get
cleaned in that pass. Otherwise, this is something you’re going to have to call in for special attention
each time it snows.
C: PS: Right, think of the entrance and exit of the path. So if they plow the path first, the truck comes along
up the street and blocks the entrance into the path, coming from the berm into the street.
A: DK: I think that one way we might address this is to prohibit parking during snow emergencies.
C: RRH: Whatever you do, I do not want to set up a situation in which the only way this gets plowed is for
me to make a phone call. You talk about what’s politically acceptable. That’s not acceptable to me.
C: JM: Right now there are effective bicycle lanes, not striped, but basically a wide shoulder, along the
Arborway next to the Arboretum and generally they are well plowed. I think it’s not that hard to do. I’m
not sure who owns the frontage road.
A: VG: It would be DCR.
C: JM: I think then that DCR can plow it. DCR tends to plow all the way to the curb, it’s MassDOT outside
contractors who don’t. When DCR plows the Arborway, they go right to the curb. In fact, MassDOT
contractors have gotten better about plowing. I don’t think you’ll get calls every time, but you probably
will get some at the beginning.
C: TC: While we’re discussing snow plowing, the whole viability of the off-street paths for year round use is
making sure they get plowed. We’d like to see them as a priority 1 plowing location for DCR and we’d
like to see DCR commit to it since they will own the paths once they are done. They could use another
Bombardier snow removal tractor and they’ll need money to run it. We need some guarantees this will
work.
C: KW: I’d like to echo Todd’s point and say that clearing snow from these paths should be a top priority
job with the DCR and assuming it happens, the path should be cleared at the same time as the road.
Regarding where it transitions, at some point DCR would stop and the DPW would take over, it may
make sense for DCR to clear the whole thing.
C: JM: Right now, DCR policy is that bicycle paths are a low priority for snow clearing.
Page 17
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: PS: Medium, they’re medium priority.
C: JM: We’re asking right here, since you’ve kicked us off the streets, that if we don’t have on-street bicycle
lanes, that you commit to the snow removal. You can’t ban bicycles from the street and if you don’t
remove the snow, the current design is impossible to use.
Q: BD: Can we go to the north side of the corridor? When I look at the Arborway Yard, I know there will be
entrances cutting across those bicycle paths. I’d assume there could be heavy traffic crossing those
bicycle paths. I believe there’s the possibility for a total of three driveways. There could be a parking
facility in the Arborway Yard. That effectively cuts the bicycle lane.
A: PS: It wouldn’t be as bad as crossing a regular street, especially if the driver using the driveway is a
professional MBTA bus operator.
Q: BD: But what thought have you given to those driveways? Putting a bicycle path on the north side of the
corridor might be a waste of money.
A: DK: We would treat those driveways as raised crossings.
Q: BD: O.K. all right. On the south side, on the bicycle lane side, I remember there being angled parking
for the courthouse. What happened to that?
A: DK: It was taken out and replaced with parallel parking. 19
C: TC: Point of order, we only have a few minutes left here.
A: BD: I am sick and tired of the bicycle people coming in here and monopolizing the conversation.
C: PS: Come on, this is our first chance to go through this in detail.
C: DK: O.K. I do want to keep moving. At Washington Street/New Washington Street we’re showing a twostage left-turn for bicyclists. This will allow bicycles to make a left-turn at this location by turning them
into north/south traffic at the intersection.
Q: JM: I’m usually coming into this intersection from the south. I know some people think this is unsafe, but
if I’m coming in on Hyde Park Avenue and I want to go to the Southwest Corridor Park, I usually see my
optimum route as getting into the left lane and then crossing the road. So this is a two-way path on
both sides of the road, is that true?
A: DK: Yes, it is.
C: JM: So I could just get on the path here and go up to South Street and cross onto South Street at the next
light, so I would actually have an easier time making this move than I do today. Since a little bit of Hyde
Park Avenue is in the project, I think we need to think about the bicycle accommodations on it. The road
is very bad for bicycles, but it’s also an important corridor for this part of the city and I’ll be working as
hard as I can on it. I’d like to look more at Hyde Park Avenue.
Q: MH: So the bicycle box thing you had at Washington Street/New Washington Street, it’s a weird
geometry, but does it accommodate a diagonal through the intersection? Are people going to do that?
A: JM: No, they won’t do that; they’ll be in the left-hand lane. You don’t want to try and turn across the
traffic.
19
This change, driven in a large part by DAG member objections to angle parking, was first noted at the May 16,
2016 DAG meeting.
Page 18
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: MH: But if the signal is on a pedestrian phase, you could move right across to the Southwest Corridor.
A: JM: But I don’t think we have a separate pedestrian phase at this light. I think this one has concurrent
phasing.
Q: RRH: So what’s your idea, cross diagonally?
C: MH: I think the cyclists would cross from the right hand side of the road to head towards the Southwest
Corridor.
Q: PG: So what’s the opportunity you see here?
A: JM: Make a three-lane wide bicycle box. I think that’s the idea.
Q: PF: Is there a protected left phase here?
A: MC: Yes, I think there is.
C: PF: Then forget the diagonal crossing and get rid of the box.
A: PG: The idea here for the northbound bicycle box on Washington Street/New Washington Street is
letting cyclists go through and left and right at the same time.
C: PF: That little box that you’ve got at Washington Street/New Washington Street is intended for people
who are coming from the Arboretum area and want to turn left and go north on Washington Street.
They can just stay on the cycle track and cross at the cycle track. That’s fine. That gives them a safer
place to wait. That’s just fine and there really isn’t a need for that little box. That way, you take away
the confusion of people feeling the temptation to make a diagonal crossing.
C: DK: O.K. let’s keep going. Let’s take a look at South Street/New Washington Street. This is our most
complex area. In other locations, we have bicycles closest to the curb with the pedestrian pathway
behind it. Now we have sidewalks on the edge for active curbs and the bicycles on the inside. The
connections to the Southwest Corridor Park are on the north side and then on the south side, we have
our connections through the MBTA plaza. That’s going to be a design challenge to make that work
smoothly. Going towards the Arboretum, at South Street, we’ll have an on-street bicycle lane on the
north side where it would meet with a bicycle lane we anticipate will be striped on the Arborway in the
future. Similarly, coming up South Street, there would be an on-street lane that would convert to an offstreet path at the entrance to the Arboretum. Between the Arboretum and South Street, the lane would
be two-way for bicycles. This can all work because the Arboretum wants to get rid of that closed gate
that’s near the end of the bridge today, and where people park illegally, and convert it into more of a
plaza.
Q: LO: How do you have two-way bicycle traffic in one lane? What happens to them at the end of the
lane?
A: DK: Well, it’s only two-way for a short distance. It’s a two-way connection to the Arboretum. If your
destination is Murray Circle, you would use the north side. It would be signed accordingly.
C: PF: In keeping with the idea of connections, the sidewalk along the Arboretum should really be
considered a shared use path. Cyclists already use it today and can keep using it in the future. I hope
and expect there will eventually be a shared use path on the Arborway Hillside and I would ask the
project to consider on your part of the land at least, setting up your bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations so they can connect with that path in the future.
Page 19
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: MH: I want to repeat what I said before about a crosswalk at the western U-turn. You can get the signal
and provide the additional crossing to the Arboretum. This has come up in meetings and I haven’t heard
a reason not to put the crosswalk there. You have the signal there already. It would make sense
because you have two multiuse paths that end there. I’d really like a yes or no on it.
C: PF: There’s really nothing more that I’d add, just that the sidewalk, multi-use pathway going up to the
Arborway Hillside should be included in this project.
A: KF: We have about five more minutes. Bernie, you’re on.
Q: BD: Fine. I don’t need a microphone, you can hear me. My concern, and I want a clarification on it, on
the north side of the corridor, is that an on-street bicycle lane?
A: DK: Yes, it is an on-street bicycle lane.
C: BD: There is an awful lot of fast-moving traffic on the Arborway and after people get through the mess
you’ve made, they are going to want to get moving. I assume you bicyclist non-profit types have “safety
first” as your goal. Safety should be the number one concern and I really can’t believe you’re
advocating to put bicycles on the Arborway.
A: JM: It can fit, there’s more than enough width on the Arborway.
C: PS: If you could back out to show the whole project, we have a few concerns I’d like to express. On
Washington Street, west of the station, where the bus-way comes in, you need to think about visibility for
cyclists. There’s a drop-off parking spot there which may create a visibility issue for cyclists who want to
keep going straight. Similar problems exist at Hyde Park Avenue/Washington Street and we also need
to see a strong plan on how MassDOT will support DCR on the snow removal. DCR had a 30% budget
cut with a 20% staff reduction in 2008 and the Southwest Corridor gets medium snow clearing priority
even through it’s a commuter route. It ought to get a number 1 priority since people are using it to get
to their jobs.
C: GZ: A point of clarification regarding the Arborway Hillside and a crosswalk at the western U-turn.
There’s a very steep grade there and a new wrought iron fence to prevent people from walking the route
that’s been suggested to let people cross over to the Arboretum. I used to live on Saint Rose Street and
it’s very steep. That’s not a good crossing point. I think you need to remember the topography.
C: JM: On the right hand side of the screen, there’s a curved path coming down off the sidewalk towards
the State Laboratory. That’s a nice way to get to the public health buildings. Since you’re looking at that
area, you might want to think about that as a useful bicycle route.
Q: AI: Can we zoom in on the vent and head-house? We see how the head-house is sticking into the
sidewalk and that looks like you’ve pushed it as far north as it can go, and I don’t know if the plan is to
scale, but it looks like it’s four feet into the sidewalk. My question is: are these rocks and hard places?
Is the head-house a limiting factor in not having on-street bicycle lanes because of the alignments? If
you move this down four feet and you have two, 5-foot bicycle lanes, do you wind up with the same
width problem?
A: PG: We have an opportunity to modify the curvature of the roadway a little bit if we need to, depending
on the size, shape, and exact location of the house-house. The size, shape, and exact location are TBD,
but if we have to, we have the ability to modify the curb lines to stay out of the sidewalk. There’s
enough width in the corridor, we can fit it in.
C: AI: So you might have room for on-street bicycle lanes. It seems like we’re going through a bunch of
machinations to accommodate bicycles.
Page 20
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: PG: Having space for the bicycle lanes is not the contributing factor. As Don has I’m sure said, we have
some very specific reasons for why we have what we have.
C: KF: O.K. we’re out of time and I’m going to stop us there. Thank you everyone for participating tonight.
Two things I want to mention. We anticipate in December that we’ll have the MEPA site visit and then in
January, the 25% design public hearing. There are no dates yet, but watch your email for them. We’ll
get the dates out. Have a nice Thanksgiving.
C: AM: Wait a minute! We’re not done!
A: KF: We are done, the meeting is over.
Q: AM: So you’re saying we’re done with this topic! You’ve heard everything and we’re just done?
A: KF: That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying this particular meeting is over.
C: AM: This is a disgrace!
A: KF: Anne, please don’t yell. Talk to me, but please don’t yell at me.
C: AM: Don’t dismiss us! Please don’t dismiss us without telling us how this is going to get resolved.
A: PS: Anne, we’re dismissing ourselves, everyone is leaving.
Q: AM: Is this a normal thing to do when you end a meeting?
A: KF: Anne, calm down, please stop yelling.
C: AM: I’m stunned that you’d just dismiss us like this! I’m sorry, but this is just really frustrating!
A: SM: There is going to be a MEPA site walk and meeting in December. There will be a 25% design public
hearing in January, and after that, there will a 75% design process in which the DAG will be involved.
But this particular meeting is over. Have a good night.20
Next Steps
The next milestone in the public involvement process will be the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act
(MEPA) site walk and public information meeting. This meeting is currently anticipated to take place during
the first week of December, 2012. This meeting will be followed by the 25% design public hearing which is
expected to occur in January, 2013. Once the 25% design public hearing is completed, the 75% design
process will begin. This process will include reconvening the DAG
to assist the project team in further advancing the design. The 75% design process will take a special focus
on the open space in the Casey Arborway Corridor.
20
The DAG will continue to meet throughout the design process to discuss issues associated with the ongoing
work. For additional information on how the 75% design phase will unfold please see pages 3 and 4 of this
document.
Page 21
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
George
Robbin
Todd
Nina
Nathaniel
Heather
Maureen
Todd
Lisa
Bernard
Karen
Jullieanne
Margaret
Michael
Don
Dottie
Jeffrey
Kate
Sarah
Peter
Paul
Michael
Ruth
Mary
Russell
Allen
Don
Anne
Steve
Lynn
Liz
Essek
Peg
Pete
Mark
Frederick
Gretchen
David
Karen
Wendy
Kevin
Elizabeth
George
Batchellor
Bergfors
Blake
Brown
Cabral-Curtis
Carito
Chlebek
Consentino
Dix
Doherty
Doherty
Doherty
Dyson
Epp
Eunson
Farrell
Ferris
Fichter
Freeman
Furth
Godfrey
Halle
Helfeld
Hickie
Holmes
Ihrer
Kindsvatter
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McSweeney
O’Connor
Petrie
Preble
Stidman
Tedrow
Vetterlein
Von Grossman
Wean
Wepsic
Williams
Wolfson
Wylie
Zoulalian
MassDOT
MassDOT
MBTA
DAG
HSH
Community resident
McMahon Associates
DAG
DAG
DAG
Community resident
Mayor’s Office
City of Boston
DAG
[For Bill Reyelt]
DAG
Community resident
MassDOT
DAG
Community resident
HNTB
DAG
DCR
DAG
State Representative
DAG
HNTB
Community resident
MassDOT
Community Resident
DAG
HNTB
Community resident
Community resident
Community resident
DAG
MBTA
DAG
DAG
[For Mark Navin]
DAG
DAG
DAG
Page 22
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Received Emails
Please see the following pages.
Page 23
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Allan Ihrer <aihrer@comcast.net>
Thursday, November 15, 2012 2:35 PM
katherine.fichter@state.ma.us; okunieff@att.net; steve.mclaughlin@state.ma.us;
paul.c.king@state.ma.us; PGODFREY@hntb.com; EPetrie@hntb.com; Nathaniel CabralCurtis; josephine.burr@gmail.com; nbrown@brownrowe.com; tconsentino@gmail.com;
romoniadix@comcast.net; eppm@comcast.net; dottiefarrell@gmail.com;
freemansherwood@hotmail.com; mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu; dmhannon61@gmail.com;
hickiem@gmail.com; sydney@sjdsgn.com; hmk1111@hotmail.com; stk1221
@gmail.com; jessica@masspaths.net; kevinfmoloney@comcast.net;
jpmichael@rcn.com; williamreyelt@hotmail.com; stephen_schneider@harvard.edu;
fsv.jp@comcast.net; david@weanzabin.com; wepsic@hotmail.co;
kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com; ewylie325@comcast.net; gailiemsullivan@gmail.com;
administration@jamaicaplaingazette.com; matt.o'malley@cityofboston.gov;
felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; stephen.murphy@cityofboston.gov;
john.r.connolly@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
mayor@cityofboston.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; sonia.changdiaz@masenate.gov; robert.torres@state.ma.us; russell.holmes@state.ma.us; 'Geopz99';
Bernard.Doherty@parsons.com; mark.navin1@gmail.com; lizcoconnor@gmail.com
RE: Casey Design Advisory Group - Agenda + Materials for Upcoming Meeting
Casey, Arborway and trucks.doc.pdf
Hi Kate,
I would like to add to the questions about truck movements thru the Forest Hills area. Please see the attached pdf
which references answers we have been given in the past.
Thanks,
Allan
Allan Ihrer
116 Williams St., #2
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
617‐595‐5145
aihrer@comcast.net
1
Hi Kate,
The excerpts below are from MassDOT's responses to questions from the DAG. They seem to
indicate the West Bow Tie (turning diameter = 82 ft. max.) will, or won't, accommodate a truck
and trailer (WB-50, turning diameter = 90 ft). They also seem to say that trucks are prohibited
from the [Casey] Arborway and thus won't use the East Bow Tie, but will use the [Casey}
Arborway up to the West Bow Tie - but not beyond.
As others have asked; the Oct. 17 Traffic Meeting notes apparently indicate that southbound
trucks on South St. can't turn left onto the Casey Arborway and will need to use the West Bow
Tie to negotiate a u-turn to get onto the Casey Arborway. There are many contradictions
here. Please explain truck movements on, around, or across the Casey Arborway, and any
laws that need to be addressed.
Thanks,
Allan Ihrer, 11-15-2012
Casey Arborway Traffic Comments and Responses
October 12, 2012
The following comments were submitted by Casey Arborway Design Arborway Group
members and the responses were prepared by MassDOT and the Casey Arborway Design
team. Each comment has been categorized and is repeated below, followed by the response in
italics.
Page 3 excerpts:
Comment: At the West Bow Tie U-turning vehicles pass within the space of the sidewalk
crossing. Is a pedestrian signal needed?
Response: See attached graphic. There are three separate zones depicted in the attached drawing. The
green zone is the connection from the on street bike lane to the off street bikepath. Note that the bike
traffic is stopped while U-turns are moving. The blue area is a “Truck Apron” which is a slightly
raised concrete pavement with a mountable curb. The yellow area behind that is sidewalk, separated by
a 6” curb from the truck apron. The movement is designed for a WB-40 truck (a large sized city truck)
and a city/school bus to complete the movement.
Comment: How will trucks/buses that can’t negotiate the East and West Bow Ties be
handled? What is the largest vehicle accommodated? What routes will they take?
Response: A WB-50 is the largest vehicle that can be handled at the westerly U-turn, which would
exceed the largest expected vehicle. The current design of the east bow tie does not accommodate
trucks/buses as trucks are prohibited on the Arborway and the likelihood of trucks needing to use the
easterly u-turn is very low. The only potential route for trucks to use that u-turn would be from South
Street destined to Washington Street northbound. Those few trucks could utilize Ukraine Way to
complete this maneuver with the truck restriction in place.
Comment: How will trucks that miss the West Bow Tie be addressed as they drive
westbound on the Arborway?
Response: The Arborway will be signed to inform trucks to exit prior to or at the westerly U-turn.
Should a vehicle continue past errantly, they will be subject to enforcement, as under the existing
conditions.
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Doherty, Bernard <Bernard.Doherty@parsons.com>
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 11:54 AM
'Mark Navin'; 'Liz O'Connor'
'Fichter, Katherine (DOT)'; 'paula okunieff'; 'McLaughlin, Steve (DOT)'; 'King, Paul C.
(DOT)'; 'Paul Godfrey'; 'Essek Petrie'; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis;
'josephine.burr@gmail.com'; 'nbrown@brownrowe.com'; 'tconsentino@gmail.com';
'romoniadix@comcast.net'; 'eppm@comcast.net'; 'dottiefarrell@gmail.com';
'francescafordiani@gmail.com'; 'freemansherwood@hotmail.com';
'mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu'; 'dmhannon61@gmail.com'; 'hickiem@gmail.com';
'aihrer@comcast.net'; 'sydney@sjdsgn.com'; 'hmk1111@hotmail.com'; 'stk1221
@gmail.com'; 'jessica@masspaths.net'; 'kevinfmoloney@comcast.net';
'jpmichael@rcn.com'; 'williamreyelt@hotmail.com'; 'stephen_schneider@harvard.edu';
'fsv.jp@comcast.net'; 'david@weanzabin.com'; 'wepsic@hotmail.co';
'kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com'; 'ewylie325@comcast.net'; 'geopz99@aol.com'; 'Gail
Sullivan'; 'administration@jamaicaplaingazette.com'; 'matt.o'malley@cityofboston.gov';
'Felix Arroyo'; 'Councillor Murphy'; 'Councillor Connolly'; 'Ayanna Pressley';
'mayor@cityofboston.gov'; 'Doherty, Jullieanne'; 'sonia.chang-diaz@masenate.gov';
'Torres, Robert (HOU)'; 'Holmes, Russell (HOU)'
RE: Casey Design Advisory Group - Agenda + Materials for Upcoming Meeting
Kate, Gary McNaughton, in answering my question (10/17 notes, Pg. 6) on trucks that use the western bowtie. Quote. “ The current design at New Washington Street/South Street allows trucks onto the Jamaica Way and it’s up to enforcement to stop them. The difference we’re proposing is that left‐turning trucks going southbound on South Street would encounter signs in advance of the intersection telling them that they need to use the western bowtie to turn around. If a truck continues past the bowtie it would be subject to enforcement whether there is an officer there regularly or occasionally. That’s just like all DCR roadway’s today. “ As you are aware and Liz’s question helps demonstrate, the real player’s in this “community process” are not actively engaged in the process. If the DCR, which own and manages the roadway and the State Police, who are responsible for enforcement were more actively engaged with the DAG and the community, then questions and concerns of this nature would have been addressed by now. I trust that you will provide an answer to Liz’s question in a timely fashion. Bernard Doherty Asticou, Martinwood and South Street Neighborhood Association From: Mark Navin [mailto:mark.navin1@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:45 AM To: Liz O'Connor
Cc: Fichter, Katherine (DOT); paula okunieff; McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Paul Godfrey; Essek Petrie;
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; josephine.burr@gmail.com; nbrown@brownrowe.com; tconsentino@gmail.com; romoniadix@comcast.net; Doherty, Bernard; eppm@comcast.net; dottiefarrell@gmail.com; francescafordiani@gmail.com; 2
freemansherwood@hotmail.com; mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu; dmhannon61@gmail.com; hickiem@gmail.com; aihrer@comcast.net; sydney@sjdsgn.com; hmk1111@hotmail.com; stk1221@gmail.com; jessica@masspaths.net; kevinfmoloney@comcast.net; jpmichael@rcn.com; williamreyelt@hotmail.com; stephen_schneider@harvard.edu; fsv.jp@comcast.net; david@weanzabin.com; wepsic@hotmail.co; kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com; ewylie325@comcast.net; geopz99@aol.com; Gail Sullivan; administration@jamaicaplaingazette.com
Subject: Re: Casey Design Advisory Group - Agenda + Materials for Upcoming Meeting
Liz --
This is an interesting question, I'd like to hear the answer to this as well. Kate --
When is our next DAG meeting?
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Liz O'Connor <lizcoconnor@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Kate,
As I continue to try to understand the current 25% design and the future impacts, I notice what appears to be a
fundamental problem.
Trucks are not allowed on the Arborway, which remains a DCR parkway notwithstanding the transfer of control of
the Casey to DOT for certain purposes in 2009.
However, this plan forces commercial traffic onto the Arborway for the western U-Turn.
Some might say that it is just a short bit of the road, but I believe that it is still prohibited -- it is not DOT's call to use
any part of the Arborway for truck traffic, any more than I could get on the T at Forest Hills without paying, because
I'm only going to Green Street.
In turn, I'd hope that the DCR should not approve this use, because of the deterioration of the aesthetic appeal of that
part of the Arborway and because of risk that some have observed some trucks won't be able to make that U Turn
and then they will have to continue on the Arborway. But to be clear, my question is not about whether trucks can
make the U-turn -- it is about the authority to allow commercial traffic onto the Arborway at all.
When does DOT have to apply to DCR for this change in policy on the Arborway? Reflecting on the 2009 law, it
surprises me that that the plan has gotten this far given the need for DCR's engagement.
Thanks for your reply.
Liz O'Connor
West Roxbury Courthouse Neighborhood Association
3
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>
Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:56 AM
Todd Consentino
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Paul Godfrey; Essek Petrie; Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis; Pete Stidman
RE: Casey Arborway DAG Meeting - Materials for Monday Meeting
25% Design - Alignment Plan -11x17.pdf
Todd – I’m working to have this posted to the website, but have attached it here in the meantime. I will send it to the remainder of the DAG as well. See you this evening, 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: Todd Consentino [mailto:tconsentino@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:52 AM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Paul Godfrey; Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; Pete Stidman
Subject: Re: Casey Arborway DAG Meeting - Materials for Monday Meeting
Greetings,
May I have a copy of the Bicycle Infrastructure Options, prior to tonight's DAG meeting, please?
Best,
Todd Consentino
Casey Arborway DAG member for the Boston Cyclists Union
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Todd Consentino <tconsentino@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kate,
Thank you for the agenda. I found it helpful to have the Arborway plans for review, prior to the last
meeting. May I have a copy of the Bicycle Infrastructure Options, prior to the next DAG meeting, please?
4
N
SOUTH
ST.
SOUTHWEST
O
ARBORWAY YARD
CA
SE
YA
RB
OR
WA
ARBORWAY YARD
YE
ARNOLD
ARBORETUM
B
STATE
LABS
EB
LEGEND
ST
RE
FO
PROPOSED SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
.
ST
LS DR.//
T HILLS
ST
S
ORES
FO
F
RIVE
RCUIT D
CIR
WEST ROXBURY
COURTHOUSE
T.
TH S
CEMETERY
SOU
RD.
PROPOSED UPGRADED
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
S
LL
HI
PEDESTRIAN AREA
ORC
SH
ING
TO
RD.
AST
.
MORTON ST
TO
SR
ST
H
WE
ILL
ROAD
D.
YALE TER.
WA
MULTI-USE PATH
.
ICOU
L RD
TRANSITION ZONE
NS
T.
ON-STREET BICYCLE LANE
DHIL
HAR
OFF-STREET BICYCLE PATH
RS
HY
DE
PA
RK
FO
AV
E.
RE
T.
ARNOLD
ARBORETUM
WO
OD
FOREST HILLS
CEMETERY
LA
WN
ST
.
CASEY ARBORWAY PROJECT
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
DRAFT FOR REVIEW
OCTOBER 9, 2012
UK
RA
INE
The drawing shown here is subject to
change and revision as the design
progresses to the 25% submittal stage.
WA
Y
*THIS DRAFT BASE PLAN IS A WORK-IN-PROGRESS OF THE 25% DESIGN BASED ON THE
SELECTED AT GRADE ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT .
60
0
60
120
SCALE 1" = 60'
Best,
Todd Consentino
Casey Arborway DAG member for the Boston Cyclists Union
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us> wrote:
Friends – Please note that the agenda for Monday night’s Design Advisory Group meeting is attached to this message. In addition, the minutes from the October 17 DAG/traffic meeting are posted to the project website: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/24/docs/dag101712/MeetingMinutes.pdf. I will be out of the office tomorrow, but available to answer questions on Monday prior to the meeting. Thank you, Kate Kate Fichter
Manager of Long‐Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116 857.368.8852 ‐ Please Note New Telephone Number! 5
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Francesca Fordiani <francescafordiani@gmail.com>
Tuesday, October 30, 2012 9:11 AM
paula okunieff
Fichter, Katherine (DOT); McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Paul Godfrey;
Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; josephine.burr@gmail.com;
nbrown@brownrowe.com; tconsentino@gmail.com; romoniadix@comcast.net;
Bernard.Doherty@parsons.com; eppm@comcast.net; dottiefarrell@gmail.com;
freemansherwood@hotmail.com; mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu; dmhannon61@gmail.com;
hickiem@gmail.com; aihrer@comcast.net; sydney@sjdsgn.com; hmk1111
@hotmail.com; stk1221@gmail.com; jessica@masspaths.net;
kevinfmoloney@comcast.net; mark.navin1@gmail.com; Liz@strategymatters.org;
jpmichael@rcn.com; williamreyelt@hotmail.com; stephen_schneider@harvard.edu;
fsv.jp@comcast.net; david@weanzabin.com; wepsic@hotmail.co;
kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com; ewylie325@comcast.net; geopz99@aol.com; Benjamin
Day
Re: Casey Design Advisory Group - Agenda + Materials for Upcoming Meeting
Hi all,
Please note that, effective yesterday, I have resigned from the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council, so will no longer be representing the JPNC on the DAG. It's been a pleasure working with you, and I wish you all the
best.
Francesca Fordiani
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:47 PM, paula okunieff <okunieff@att.net> wrote:
Kate, I just had a chance to review the information. I assumed that the syncro models were redone and that we can see the outputs from those models. Did I miss something? are the synchro models on the site or only the T ridership data? I assumed that in the traffic meeting we would discuss some of the details of the new synchro model. Please clarify.
Thanks for your response.
Polly
From: "Fichter, Katherine (DOT)" <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>
To: paula okunieff <okunieff@att.net>
Cc: "McLaughlin, Steve (DOT)" <steve.mclaughlin@state.ma.us>; "King, Paul C. (DOT)"
<paul.c.king@state.ma.us>; Paul Godfrey <PGODFREY@HNTB.com>; Essek Petrie
<EPetrie@HNTB.com>; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis <ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com>;
"josephine.burr@gmail.com" <josephine.burr@gmail.com>; "nbrown@brownrowe.com"
<nbrown@brownrowe.com>; "tconsentino@gmail.com" <tconsentino@gmail.com>;
"romoniadix@comcast.net" <romoniadix@comcast.net>; "Bernard.Doherty@parsons.com"
<Bernard.Doherty@parsons.com>; "eppm@comcast.net" <eppm@comcast.net>;
"dottiefarrell@gmail.com" <dottiefarrell@gmail.com>; "francescafordiani@gmail.com"
<francescafordiani@gmail.com>; "freemansherwood@hotmail.com"
6
<freemansherwood@hotmail.com>; "mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu" <mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu>;
"dmhannon61@gmail.com" <dmhannon61@gmail.com>; "hickiem@gmail.com"
<hickiem@gmail.com>; "aihrer@comcast.net" <aihrer@comcast.net>; "sydney@sjdsgn.com"
<sydney@sjdsgn.com>; "hmk1111@hotmail.com" <hmk1111@hotmail.com>; "stk1221@gmail.com"
<stk1221@gmail.com>; "jessica@masspaths.net" <jessica@masspaths.net>;
"kevinfmoloney@comcast.net" <kevinfmoloney@comcast.net>; "mark.navin1@gmail.com"
<mark.navin1@gmail.com>; "Liz@strategymatters.org" <Liz@strategymatters.org>;
"jpmichael@rcn.com" <jpmichael@rcn.com>; "williamreyelt@hotmail.com"
<williamreyelt@hotmail.com>; "stephen_schneider@harvard.edu"
<stephen_schneider@harvard.edu>; "fsv.jp@comcast.net" <fsv.jp@comcast.net>;
"david@weanzabin.com" <david@weanzabin.com>; "wepsic@hotmail.co" <wepsic@hotmail.co>;
"kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com" <kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com>; "ewylie325@comcast.net"
<ewylie325@comcast.net>; "geopz99@aol.com" <geopz99@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, October 16, 2012 1:57:02 PM
Subject: RE: Casey Design Advisory Group - Agenda + Materials for Upcoming Meeting
Polly –
The new traffic models (and other information related to bus ridership) has now been posted to the website under Traffic Data & Analysis at: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Documents.aspx.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions.
Thank you,
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of Long‐Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
857.368.8852 ‐ Please Note New Telephone Number!
From: paula okunieff [mailto:okunieff@att.net]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 7:45 PM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Paul Godfrey; Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis;
josephine.burr@gmail.com; nbrown@brownrowe.com; tconsentino@gmail.com; romoniadix@comcast.net;
Bernard.Doherty@parsons.com; eppm@comcast.net; dottiefarrell@gmail.com; francescafordiani@gmail.com;
7
freemansherwood@hotmail.com; mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu; dmhannon61@gmail.com; hickiem@gmail.com; aihrer@comcast.net; sydney@sjdsgn.com; hmk1111@hotmail.com; stk1221@gmail.com; jessica@masspaths.net; kevinfmoloney@comcast.net; mark.navin1@gmail.com; Liz@strategymatters.org; okunieff@att.net; jpmichael@rcn.com; williamreyelt@hotmail.com; stephen_schneider@harvard.edu; fsv.jp@comcast.net; david@weanzabin.com; wepsic@hotmail.co; kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com; ewylie325@comcast.net; geopz99@aol.com
Subject: Re: Casey Design Advisory Group - Agenda + Materials for Upcoming Meeting
Kate,
Thank you for these, but we have a myriad of questions related to the new models that you promised us. Will we be
receiving the models prior to the meeting as promised?
thank you,
Paula Okunieff
From: "Fichter, Katherine (DOT)" <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us> To: "Fichter, Katherine (DOT)" <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us> Cc: "McLaughlin, Steve (DOT)" <steve.mclaughlin@state.ma.us>; "King, Paul C. (DOT)" <paul.c.king@state.ma.us>; Paul Godfrey <PGODFREY@HNTB.com>; Essek Petrie <EPetrie@HNTB.com>; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis <ncabralcurtis@hshassoc.com> Sent: Fri, October 12, 2012 5:41:00 PM Subject: Casey Design Advisory Group - Agenda + Materials for Upcoming Meeting
Friends –
Attached, please find an agenda and materials for our upcoming traffic meeting scheduled for Wednesday evening (October 17th). The materials attached consist of a package of traffic questions received by the project team from DAG members, along with our responses. We hope that this packet will provide helpful information in advance of our Wednesday discussion, as well as a starting‐off point for additional questions or areas that people would like to discuss. We have done our best to correctly capture the formatting of the questions as we received them, but had a little bit of difficulty with some of the questions that we received via email. Please note that our meeting is being held in a different room than the one in which we usually meet. This meeting will be held at the Curtis Hall Community Center, 20 South Street. We will be starting the meeting at 6pm, as usual.
8
Best wishes for a good weekend,
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of Long‐Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
857.368.8852 ‐ Please Note New Telephone Number!
9
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Gail Sullivan <gails@studio-g-architects.com>
Thursday, November 01, 2012 1:48 PM
Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Paul Godfrey; Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis
RE: For Tonight's DAG Meeting - Improved 25% Design Graphic
Thanks team!
Gail
Gail Sullivan
617-524-5558
Studio G Architects
building sustainable communities
From: Fichter, Katherine (DOT) [mailto:katherine.fichter@state.ma.us]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:00 AM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Paul Godfrey; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Subject: For Tonight's DAG Meeting - Improved 25% Design Graphic
Friends – In anticipation of this evening’s meeting, I have attached here a version of the 25% design for the Casey project that hopefully addresses some of the visibility issues raised at our last meeting. This graphic will also be posted to the project website. See everyone this evening, 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! 10
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Geopz99 <geopz99@aol.com>
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:19 PM
Bernard.Doherty@parsons.com; mark.navin1@gmail.com; lizcoconnor@gmail.com
katherine.fichter@state.ma.us; okunieff@att.net; steve.mclaughlin@state.ma.us;
paul.c.king@state.ma.us; PGODFREY@hntb.com; EPetrie@hntb.com; Nathaniel CabralCurtis; josephine.burr@gmail.com; nbrown@brownrowe.com; tconsentino@gmail.com;
romoniadix@comcast.net; eppm@comcast.net; dottiefarrell@gmail.com;
francescafordiani@gmail.com; freemansherwood@hotmail.com;
mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu; dmhannon61@gmail.com; hickiem@gmail.com;
aihrer@comcast.net; sydney@sjdsgn.com; hmk1111@hotmail.com; stk1221
@gmail.com; jessica@masspaths.net; kevinfmoloney@comcast.net;
jpmichael@rcn.com; williamreyelt@hotmail.com; stephen_schneider@harvard.edu;
fsv.jp@comcast.net; david@weanzabin.com; wepsic@hotmail.co;
kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com; ewylie325@comcast.net; gailiemsullivan@gmail.com;
administration@jamaicaplaingazette.com; matt.o'malley@cityofboston.gov;
felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; stephen.murphy@cityofboston.gov;
john.r.connolly@cityofboston.gov; ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov;
mayor@cityofboston.gov; Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov; sonia.changdiaz@masenate.gov; robert.torres@state.ma.us; russell.holmes@state.ma.us
Re: Casey Design Advisory Group - Agenda + Materials for Upcoming Meeting
My question is,
Where is that "left turning truck going southbound" coming from? If it can't be on the DCR to begin with, then signs
saying "NO TURNS for Trucks" at Washington St makes all trucks go straight through the intersection and have to turn up
Ukraine way to get to Roszie. It is the northbound Washington Street trucks coming from the commercial area by
Dogwood Cafe that want to use the bowtie or they will have to go all the way to Green Street to reverse direction.
Right? It is like any truck restriction issue throughout Boston. It CAN be done, but do they want to alienate any more
constituencies?
georgeZ
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Doherty, Bernard <Bernard.Doherty@parsons.com>
To: 'Mark Navin' <mark.navin1@gmail.com>; 'Liz O'Connor'
<lizcoconnor@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Fichter, Katherine (DOT)' (DOT)' <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>;
'paula okunieff' <okunieff@att.net>; 'McLaughlin, Steve (DOT)' (DOT)'
<steve.mclaughlin@state.ma.us>; 'King, Paul C. (DOT)' (DOT)'
<paul.c.king@state.ma.us>; 'Paul Godfrey' <PGODFREY@hntb.com>; 'Essek
Petrie' <EPetrie@hntb.com>; 'Nathaniel Cabral‐Curtis'
<ncabral‐curtis@hshassoc.com>; 'josephine.burr@gmail.com'
<josephine.burr@gmail.com>; 'nbrown@brownrowe.com'
<nbrown@brownrowe.com>; 'tconsentino@gmail.com'
<tconsentino@gmail.com>; 'romoniadix@comcast.net'
<romoniadix@comcast.net>; 'eppm@comcast.net' <eppm@comcast.net>;
'dottiefarrell@gmail.com' <dottiefarrell@gmail.com>;
'francescafordiani@gmail.com' <francescafordiani@gmail.com>;
11
'freemansherwood@hotmail.com' <freemansherwood@hotmail.com>; 'mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu' <mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu>; 'dmhannon61@gmail.com' <dmhannon61@gmail.com>; 'hickiem@gmail.com' <hickiem@gmail.com>; 'aihrer@comcast.net' <aihrer@comcast.net>; 'sydney@sjdsgn.com' <sydney@sjdsgn.com>; 'hmk1111@hotmail.com' <hmk1111@hotmail.com>; 'stk1221@gmail.com' <stk1221@gmail.com>; 'jessica@masspaths.net' <jessica@masspaths.net>; 'kevinfmoloney@comcast.net' <kevinfmoloney@comcast.net>; 'jpmichael@rcn.com' <jpmichael@rcn.com>; 'williamreyelt@hotmail.com' <williamreyelt@hotmail.com>; 'stephen_schneider@harvard.edu' <stephen_schneider@harvard.edu>; 'fsv.jp@comcast.net' <fsv.jp@comcast.net>; 'david@weanzabin.com' <david@weanzabin.com>; 'wepsic@hotmail.co' <wepsic@hotmail.co>; 'kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com' <kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com>; 'ewylie325@comcast.net' <ewylie325@comcast.net>; 'geopz99@aol.com' <geopz99@aol.com>; 'Gail Sullivan' <gailiemsullivan@gmail.com>; 'administration@jamaicaplaingazette.com' <administration@jamaicaplaingazette.com>; 'matt.o'malley@cityofboston.gov' <matt.o'malley@cityofboston.gov>; 'Felix Arroyo' <felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov>; 'Councillor Murphy' <stephen.murphy@cityofboston.gov>; 'Councillor Connolly' <john.r.connolly@cityofboston.gov>; 'Ayanna Pressley' <ayanna.pressley@cityofboston.gov>; 'mayor@cityofboston.gov' <mayor@cityofboston.gov>; 'Doherty, Jullieanne' <Jullieanne.Doherty@cityofboston.gov>; 'sonia.chang‐diaz@masenate.gov' <sonia.chang‐diaz@masenate.gov>; 'Torres, Robert (HOU)' (HOU)' <robert.torres@state.ma.us>; 'Holmes, Russell (HOU)' (HOU)' <russell.holmes@state.ma.us> Sent: Tue, Nov 13, 2012 11:53 am Subject: RE: Casey Design Advisory Group ‐ Agenda + Materials for Upcoming Meeting Kate, Gary McNaughton, in answering my question (10/17 notes, Pg. 6) on trucks that use the western bowtie. Quote. “ The current design at New Washington Street/South Street allows trucks onto the Jamaica Way and it’s up to enforcement to stop them. The difference we’re proposing is that left‐turning trucks going southbound on South Street would encounter signs in advance of the intersection telling them that they need to use the western bowtie to turn around. If a truck continues past the bowtie it would be subject to enforcement whether there is an officer there regularly or occasionally. That’s just like all DCR roadway’s today. “ As you are aware and Liz’s question helps demonstrate, the real player’s in this “community process” are not actively engaged in the process. 12
If the DCR, which own and manages the roadway and the State Police, who
are responsible for enforcement were more actively engaged with the DAG
and the community, then questions and concerns of this nature would
have been addressed by now.
I trust that you will provide an answer to Liz’s question in a timely
fashion.
Bernard Doherty
Asticou, Martinwood and South Street Neighborhood Association
From: Mark Navin [mailto:mark.navin1@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:45 AM
To: Liz O'Connor
Cc: Fichter, Katherine (DOT); paula okunieff; McLaughlin, Steve (DOT);
King, Paul C. (DOT); Paul Godfrey; Essek Petrie; Nathaniel
Cabral‐Curtis;josephine.burr@gmail.com; nbrown@brownrowe.com;
tconsentino@gmail.com;romoniadix@comcast.net; Doherty,
Bernard;eppm@comcast.net; dottiefarrell@gmail.com;
francescafordiani@gmail.com;freemansherwood@hotmail.com;
mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu; dmhannon61@gmail.com;hickiem@gmail.com;
aihrer@comcast.net; sydney@sjdsgn.com;hmk1111@hotmail.com;
stk1221@gmail.com; jessica@masspaths.net;kevinfmoloney@comcast.net;
jpmichael@rcn.com;
williamreyelt@hotmail.com;stephen_schneider@harvard.edu;fsv.jp@comcast.ne
t; david@weanzabin.com; wepsic@hotmail.co;kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com;
ewylie325@comcast.net; geopz99@aol.com; Gail
Sullivan;administration@jamaicaplaingazette.com
Subject: Re: Casey Design Advisory Group ‐ Agenda + Materials for
Upcoming Meeting
Liz ‐‐ This is an interesting question, I'd like to hear the answer to this as
well.
Kate ‐‐ When is our next DAG meeting?
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Liz O'Connor <lizcoconnor@gmail.com>
wrote:
13
Hi Kate, As I continue to try to understand the current 25% design and the future impacts, I notice what appears to be a fundamental problem. Trucks are not allowed on the Arborway, which remains a DCR parkway notwithstanding the transfer of control of the Casey to DOT for certain purposes in 2009. However, this plan forces commercial traffic onto the Arborway for the western U‐Turn. Some might say that it is just a short bit of the road, but I believe that it is still prohibited ‐‐ it is not DOT's call to use any part of the Arborway for truck traffic, any more than I could get on the T at Forest Hills without paying, because I'm only going to Green Street. In turn, I'd hope that the DCR should not approve this use, because of the deterioration of the aesthetic appeal of that part of the Arborway and because of risk that some have observed some trucks won't be able to make that U Turn and then they will have to continue on the Arborway. But to be clear, my question is not about whether trucks can make the U‐turn ‐‐ it is about the authority to allow commercial traffic onto the Arborway at all. When does DOT have to apply to DCR for this change in policy on the Arborway? Reflecting on the 2009 law, it surprises me that that the plan has gotten this far given the need for DCR's engagement. Thanks for your reply. Liz O'Connor West Roxbury Courthouse Neighborhood Association 14
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jody Burr <josephine.burr@gmail.com>
Monday, October 29, 2012 10:59 AM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Re: Casey Arborway Meeting Postponed
Hi Nate -
Thanks for the note. I figured tonight's meeting might be postponed. Unfortunately, I am facilitating a parent council meeting at my kids' school on Thursday night so I won't be able to attend the rescheduled meeting. Bummed about this. Our meeting goes from 6-7:30 so the earliest I could get there would be close to 8, which probably isn't worth it, but I might just make an appearance. Stay dry! We are all home today with cancelled work/school - it's like a snow day without the snow. Jody On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis <ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com> wrote: Dear Friends, I hope this note finds all of you well, safe, home and dry.
Due to the weather, the decision has been made to postpone the Casey Arborway DAG meeting originally
scheduled for October 29th (today) to Thursday, November 1st. On the 1st, our time slot will be the usually
6:00-8:30 block and we will be at Curtis Hall located at 20 South Street in Jamaica Plain.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kate Fichter at kate.fichter@state.ma.us. Once again,
please stay safe and dry while we ride out the storm.
Regards & Good Wishes,
-Nate
15
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Liz O'Connor <lizcoconnor@gmail.com>
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:50 AM
Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
paula okunieff; McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Paul Godfrey; Essek
Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; josephine.burr@gmail.com; nbrown@brownrowe.com;
tconsentino@gmail.com; romoniadix@comcast.net; Bernard.Doherty@parsons.com;
eppm@comcast.net; dottiefarrell@gmail.com; francescafordiani@gmail.com;
freemansherwood@hotmail.com; mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu; dmhannon61@gmail.com;
hickiem@gmail.com; aihrer@comcast.net; sydney@sjdsgn.com; hmk1111
@hotmail.com; stk1221@gmail.com; jessica@masspaths.net;
kevinfmoloney@comcast.net; mark.navin1@gmail.com; jpmichael@rcn.com;
williamreyelt@hotmail.com; stephen_schneider@harvard.edu; fsv.jp@comcast.net;
david@weanzabin.com; wepsic@hotmail.co; kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com; ewylie325
@comcast.net; geopz99@aol.com; Gail Sullivan;
administration@jamaicaplaingazette.com
Re: Casey Design Advisory Group - Agenda + Materials for Upcoming Meeting
Hi Kate,
As I continue to try to understand the current 25% design and the future impacts, I notice what appears to be a
fundamental problem.
Trucks are not allowed on the Arborway, which remains a DCR parkway notwithstanding the transfer of control of
the Casey to DOT for certain purposes in 2009.
However, this plan forces commercial traffic onto the Arborway for the western U-Turn.
Some might say that it is just a short bit of the road, but I believe that it is still prohibited -- it is not DOT's call to use
any part of the Arborway for truck traffic, any more than I could get on the T at Forest Hills without paying, because
I'm only going to Green Street.
In turn, I'd hope that the DCR should not approve this use, because of the deterioration of the aesthetic appeal of that
part of the Arborway and because of risk that some have observed some trucks won't be able to make that U Turn
and then they will have to continue on the Arborway. But to be clear, my question is not about whether trucks can
make the U-turn -- it is about the authority to allow commercial traffic onto the Arborway at all.
When does DOT have to apply to DCR for this change in policy on the Arborway? Reflecting on the 2009 law, it
surprises me that that the plan has gotten this far given the need for DCR's engagement.
Thanks for your reply.
Liz O'Connor
West Roxbury Courthouse Neighborhood Association
16
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Navin <mark.navin1@gmail.com>
Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:23 PM
Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Paul Godfrey; Essek Petrie; Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis
Re: Casey Design Advisory Group - Agenda + Materials for Upcoming Meeting
New Gazette article on the Mayor's intention to allow the surface solution to move ahead:
http://jamaicaplaingazette.com/2012/11/09/btd-chief-mayor-wont-oppose-casey-plan-backs-process/
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us> wrote:
Friends – Attached, please find an agenda and materials for our upcoming traffic meeting scheduled for Wednesday evening (October 17 ). The materials attached consist of a package of traffic questions received by the project team from DAG members, along with our responses. We hope that this packet will provide helpful information in advance of our Wednesday discussion, as well as a starting‐off point for additional questions or areas that people would like to discuss. We have done our best to correctly capture the formatting of the questions as we received them, but had a little bit of difficulty with some of the questions that we received via email. Please note that our meeting is being held in a different room than the one in which we usually meet. This meeting will be held at the Curtis Hall Community Center, 20 South Street. We will be starting the meeting at 6pm, as usual. Best wishes for a good weekend, Kate th
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! 17
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Navin <mark.navin1@gmail.com>
Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:45 AM
Liz O'Connor
Fichter, Katherine (DOT); paula okunieff; McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT);
Paul Godfrey; Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; josephine.burr@gmail.com;
nbrown@brownrowe.com; tconsentino@gmail.com; romoniadix@comcast.net;
Bernard.Doherty@parsons.com; eppm@comcast.net; dottiefarrell@gmail.com;
francescafordiani@gmail.com; freemansherwood@hotmail.com;
mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu; dmhannon61@gmail.com; hickiem@gmail.com;
aihrer@comcast.net; sydney@sjdsgn.com; hmk1111@hotmail.com; stk1221
@gmail.com; jessica@masspaths.net; kevinfmoloney@comcast.net;
jpmichael@rcn.com; williamreyelt@hotmail.com; stephen_schneider@harvard.edu;
fsv.jp@comcast.net; david@weanzabin.com; wepsic@hotmail.co;
kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com; ewylie325@comcast.net; geopz99@aol.com; Gail Sullivan;
administration@jamaicaplaingazette.com
Re: Casey Design Advisory Group - Agenda + Materials for Upcoming Meeting
Liz --
This is an interesting question, I'd like to hear the answer to this as well. Kate --
When is our next DAG meeting?
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Liz O'Connor <lizcoconnor@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Kate,
As I continue to try to understand the current 25% design and the future impacts, I notice what appears to be a
fundamental problem.
Trucks are not allowed on the Arborway, which remains a DCR parkway notwithstanding the transfer of control of
the Casey to DOT for certain purposes in 2009.
However, this plan forces commercial traffic onto the Arborway for the western U-Turn.
Some might say that it is just a short bit of the road, but I believe that it is still prohibited -- it is not DOT's call to use
any part of the Arborway for truck traffic, any more than I could get on the T at Forest Hills without paying, because
I'm only going to Green Street.
In turn, I'd hope that the DCR should not approve this use, because of the deterioration of the aesthetic appeal of that
part of the Arborway and because of risk that some have observed some trucks won't be able to make that U Turn
and then they will have to continue on the Arborway. But to be clear, my question is not about whether trucks can
make the U-turn -- it is about the authority to allow commercial traffic onto the Arborway at all.
When does DOT have to apply to DCR for this change in policy on the Arborway? Reflecting on the 2009 law, it
surprises me that that the plan has gotten this far given the need for DCR's engagement.
18
Thanks for your reply.
Liz O'Connor
West Roxbury Courthouse Neighborhood Association
19
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Todd Consentino <tconsentino@gmail.com>
Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:52 AM
Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Paul Godfrey; Essek Petrie; Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis; Pete Stidman
Re: Casey Arborway DAG Meeting - Materials for Monday Meeting
Greetings,
May I have a copy of the Bicycle Infrastructure Options, prior to tonight's DAG meeting, please?
Best,
Todd Consentino
Casey Arborway DAG member for the Boston Cyclists Union
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Todd Consentino <tconsentino@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kate,
Thank you for the agenda. I found it helpful to have the Arborway plans for review, prior to the last
meeting. May I have a copy of the Bicycle Infrastructure Options, prior to the next DAG meeting, please?
Best,
Todd Consentino
Casey Arborway DAG member for the Boston Cyclists Union
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us> wrote:
Friends – Please note that the agenda for Monday night’s Design Advisory Group meeting is attached to this message. In addition, the minutes from the October 17 DAG/traffic meeting are posted to the project website: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/24/docs/dag101712/MeetingMinutes.pdf. I will be out of the office tomorrow, but available to answer questions on Monday prior to the meeting. Thank you, Kate Kate Fichter
Manager of Long‐Range Planning
20
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116 857.368.8852 ‐ Please Note New Telephone Number! 21
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Todd Consentino <tconsentino@gmail.com>
Tuesday, October 30, 2012 9:19 AM
Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Paul Godfrey; Essek Petrie; Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis; Pete Stidman
Re: Casey Arborway DAG Meeting - Materials for Monday Meeting
Hi Kate,
Thank you for the agenda. I found it helpful to have the Arborway plans for review, prior to the last
meeting. May I have a copy of the Bicycle Infrastructure Options, prior to the next DAG meeting, please?
Best,
Todd Consentino
Casey Arborway DAG member for the Boston Cyclists Union
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us> wrote:
Friends – Please note that the agenda for Monday night’s Design Advisory Group meeting is attached to this message. In addition, the minutes from the October 17 DAG/traffic meeting are posted to the project website: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/24/docs/dag101712/MeetingMinutes.pdf. I will be out of the office tomorrow, but available to answer questions on Monday prior to the meeting. Thank you, Kate Kate Fichter
Manager of Long‐Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116 857.368.8852 ‐ Please Note New Telephone Number! 22
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 3: Summary of the Additional 39 Bus Discussion

Community resident Karen Doherty requested a full meeting on the current design open only for residents
of the Asticou/Martinwood neighborhood. She stated that this meeting has been requested of MassDOT,
but has not been granted. She also commented that MassDOT has an obligation to come to this
particular part of the community to explain the design. She also expressed a desire for increased time to
evaluate the alternatives proposed by the design team. She stated that “no livability concerns” had been
discussed during the meeting summarized herein with regard to Asticou Road.

DAG member Bernard Doherty made a similar request for a meeting with “the appropriate agencies”
including the Boston, State, and MBTA police forces; and the MBTA, MassDOT, and DCR to discuss
design and who will be responsible for what once the project is complete. He then asked how
Accelerated Bridge Program funding could be used on what he termed “non-bridge design and
construction” and questioned whether such actions were legal. Project Manager Steve McLaughlin
explained that while ABP funds cannot be used to replace an MBTA bridge, they can be used to address
other infrastructure elements associated with the correction of a structurally deficient bridge. As part of his
answer, Steve gave an overview of the WAG planning process to explain how the project had arrived at its
current stage of development.

Community resident Lynn McSweeney asked about how disabled individuals will cross the bus lanes in the
redesigned upper bus-way. HNTB project manager Paul Godfrey explained that there would be curb-cuts
and crosswalks that were ADA-compliant for the use all transit riders seeking to access buses. A member
of the community who did not identify themselves requested that the design be presented to the Boston
Center for Independent Living.

DAG member Wendy Williams noted her concerns regarding increased traffic on Ukraine Way and taxis
staying in their designated cab stands. Steve McLaughlin responded that the project is addressing the taxi
issue by providing somewhat more cab stand space than is currently needed to allow room for future
growth of taxis as more people opt out of automobile ownership.

DAG member Bernard Doherty asked about the new grocery store under construction Washington Street
south of Ukraine Way and how the traffic it will generate would be handled by the proposed design. The
grocery store was one of the parcels accounted for when the project team developed the 2035 traffic
projections. As such, grocery store traffic is built into the model of future conditions.

DAG member Bernard Doherty also noted that he does not like the room in Curtis Hill in which the past
two DAG sessions have been held.
Page 24