Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
October 12, 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 October 1, 2012
Overview & Executive Summary
On October 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.
A meeting to specifically address remaining DAG questions regarding the traffic analysis prepared for the
Casey project will be held on October 17th. This meeting will focus on questions generated by DAG
members. DAG members are encouraged to submit their questions to Kate Fichter at
katherine.fichter@state.ma.us for discussion at this meeting. DAG members are requested to submit their
questions by October 10th to allow enough time to prepare an adequate response.
The meeting described herein addressed several proposed changes to the current project design based on
suggestions from DAG members and conversations between the project team, MassDOT, the City of Boston,
and agency partners, such as DCR and MBTA, during the end of the summer. Issued discussed by the DAG
at this meeting were:
 A proposal to permanently move the lay-over area for the MBTA Route 39 bus into the upper busway at Forest Hills Station and also to move the taxi stands from Hyde Park Avenue and Washington
Street to the south side of the new Casey Arborway. This proposal has been referred to as the
‘39/taxi swap.’ The goal of this proposal is to move taxis away from the Asticou/Martinwood
Neighborhood and improve bus operations in the area of Forest Hills Station.
 A proposal to add an additional eastbound left-turn lane at Shea Square leading from the Casey
Arborway to Circuit Drive in an effort to reduce the queue length at this location and redistributing
the saved time in the light cycle to other phases of the signal such as the one dedicated to pedestrian
crossings.
Given the time limits of the meeting, the DAG members were able to more thoroughly discuss the 39/taxi
swap than they were the additional left-turn issue. The conversation regarding the 39/taxi swap was
intense, and at some points became heated. The number of DAG members who spoke in favor of the swap
and those who spoke against appeared to be evenly divided. DAG members who favor the 39/taxi swap
generally stated that they felt it would improve bus operations and that moving taxis away from the
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Asticou/Martinwood Neighborhood made sense in light of comments received during the WAG and DAG
processes. DAG members who spoke against the swap indicated their belief that it would not improve bus
service and that the additional buses in the upper bus-way would unfairly burden the residents of Asticou
Road with additional noise and light impacts from bus operations. Some DAG members questioned the
decision-making process used to develop the concept of the proposed swap. Other DAG members defended
the decision-making process saying that it was in alignment with the DAG and earlier WAG’s constituted
advisory role. The one element which was broadly agreed on by all DAG members was the idea that the
Asticou/Martinwood Neighborhood will need some kind of buffer from Forest Hills Station and that residents
of the area should have a significant voice in the design of any buffer.
The conversation regarding Shea Square was less intense. Several members of the group came out strongly
in favor of the double left-turn lane, arguing that it would improve safety and traffic operations especially for
residents of the Stony Brook Neighborhood and the Shattuck Hospital. Also noted as positive was the large
new green space that would be added to Franklin Park and the area at the base of Yale Terrace under the
Shea Square plan, though this added green space is not dependent on the addition of the double left turn
lane. Concerns were voiced by several DAG members about the double-left proposal, particularly with
regard to bicycle safety and the idea that Shea Square would be less pedestrian-friendly with the additional
lane. One DAG member also suggested that the conversation regarding whether to change Shea Circle to a
square or the “egg-about” had been unduly rushed and expressed regret at the idea of losing the large trees
which currently define the Circle’s center island. The group generally agreed that whatever happens to Shea
Circle, the area needs to be green, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, and send a clear message to drivers
exiting the high-speed section of Morton Street that they are entering a more complex section of the Route
203 corridor and need to decrease their speed.
Detailed Meeting Minutes
C: Kate Fichter (KF): Welcome everyone to the DAG. I hope everyone’s summer ended well. We are
certainly glad to be back. I’m your facilitator, Kate Fichter, and as usual we have a lot to cover. A quick
reminder of the ground rules: please don’t interrupt. Raise your hand. Also, keep the side conversations
down; it makes it hard for Nate to take the minutes. We will call on DAG members first, but try to make
some time for guests to speak as well. We’re glad you’re here, but this is a DAG meeting and so DAG
comments will come first. Please do introduce yourself for the meeting minutes.
Coming up on October 17th we will have an in-depth traffic meeting. I have questions in hand already
from Allen and Sarah, but if you want to ask a question, I ask that you get it in by October 10th to give
the team enough time to prepare a good response. Also we have some new materials posted to the
website and more will be put up after tonight so do take a look at that. Many of our partner agencies
are in attendance tonight: MBTA, BTD, DCR, and the City of Boston. We know you have asked them to
be present and they are. With that, here’s Paul Godfrey from the Casey design team.
Review of Schedule
C: Paul Godfrey (PG): Good evening all and welcome back. It’s hard to believe that it’s already October 1st,
but we have been busy having a lot of internal discussions and answering questions that you’ve put to
us. We thought it would be appropriate tonight to start off by reviewing the schedule: where we are
today and will be tomorrow, next month, and 12 months from now. Today is October 1 st and we’re
having a DAG session to discuss the overall design. As Kate indicated, we have the traffic meeting
coming up on the 17th. The consultant team is prepared to submit the 25% design plans to MassDOT on
the 9th. I will caveat that by saying that if we find out something huge tonight or on the 17 th, the team is
prepared to make changes as needed and appropriate. Projects evolve along the way, that’s absolutely
typical. We get excited when things get on paper, but there will be continue opportunities to discuss,
weigh in, and make changes. When the DOT gets the 25% design, they will review about 250 sheets of
plans. When they receive that, they will also get a Functional Design Report (FDR) which includes
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
narratives, graphs, and figures regarding traffic and it details how what we are proposing is an
improvement over today. That has a lot of juicy information in it and its over one hundred pages long.
We will then get comments from MassDOT on the 25% design plans and sometime in between
Thanksgiving and Christmas, we will have a 25% design public hearing to let the broader public weigh
in.
Beginning then, if not sooner, we will begin to work on the 75% design, using the 25% design as a basis.
Again, as intended, we’ll have multiple DAG meetings and Don will tell you about the open space
planning process which we’ll address over several sessions along with other topics. 75% design is a
fairly lengthy process because there is a lot of detail filled in between 25% and 75%. At 25%, when we
submit the urban design elements, we have a sense of where the trees and signs will go, but the signs
are just basic warning and regulatory signs. At 75% we have wayfinding signs and a sense of what trees
to use and there is a fair amount of time involved in developing all of that. There will be points along
the way for DAG input on the 75% design. In that phase, we’ll also do more work on the station, headhouse and bus canopy. We haven’t done much on those yet since we’ve been nailing down the broad
outlines of the project design.
We want to wrap up the 75% design process in April, 2013. MassDOT will likely end that process with
another public hearing. After that we will really nail down design details like the colors of bricks and
pavers, really dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s. That phase will end with 100% design and Plans,
Specifications and Estimates (PSE) drawings which are used in construction. That wraps up around
September of 2013, which is the timeframe that MassDOT needs to put the Casey project out for
construction in spring 2014. That in a nutshell is our design schedule. Between today and this time next
year, we have approximately eight DAG meetings. So, this is where we are. 25% is still a less detailed
phase with opportunities for change. We wanted to be up front with you about where we are. So, are
there any questions?
C: KF: Before we take questions, if anyone is uncomfortable, we have more seats down in front.
Q: Michael Reiskind (MR): O.K. so the blue squares on the chart are the eight DAG meetings and what are
the orange ones?
A: PG: The orange blocks identify when the Request for Proposal (RFP) would go out and when Notice to
Proceed (NTP) would be granted for construction to begin.
C: MR: Could I ask for, and I believe I have asked for, community meetings related to construction. We
need to meet with the contractors before they get started and after they start I’d ask for every two weeks
at least until we get comfortable with them. I’m asking those be shown as well since those meetings will
important to making sure the community doesn’t get any nasty surprises.
A: Steve McLaughlin (SM): We have committed to the kind of community meetings during construction that
you just mentioned. That schedule is already on the website.
A: PG: I think instead of putting this chart which I’m showing you tonight up on the website, we’ll blend it
with the one Steve mentioned and put up a single document which shows both this schedule and the
community meetings.
C: Bernard Doherty (BD): I just want to say thank you, Michael, that’s good. We should bring forward and
present the construction impacts to the community so they can have a real understanding of what they
will be. Demolition, hours of operation, where you will stage, parking and laydown, all of these things
need to be discussed with the people who will live it day in and day out. Demolishing bridge abutments
is a very noisy process; it’s something else. This bridge is full of lead paint and it will have to be taken
down correctly to ensure it doesn’t get all over the community. The impact on the price of housing stock
will be significant. It seems to me that we’re being asked to shoulder a significant burden and we’re not
getting a fair shake in return.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Discussion of the Route 39 Bus/Taxi Swap
C: PG: The primary focus of tonight’s discussion is design modifications we’re bringing to you for your
consideration. These have been developed based on your comments and comments from our agency
and city partners. This is typical and normal. The three things we’ll discuss tonight include the 39 bus
and taxi swap, an additional eastbound left-turn at Shea Square, and a four-lane profile for Washington
Street west of the Forest Hills Station. All of these concepts have come from you in one form or another.
We learn and hear things along the way and we’re trying to balance the competing requests as we
develop the design. Don Kindsvatter (HNTB) and Maureen Chlebek (McMahon Associates) will be
jumping in to help me out.
I want you to turn first to figure 2A1 which shows the proposed Route 39/taxi swap. Last time we talked
about keeping the Route 39 bus where it is today which is up on New Washington Street, but we also
discussed moving it into the upper bus-way during construction. Along the way and through multiple
discussions, we’ve revisited the issue and we’re now suggesting moving the 39 to the upper bus-way
permanently. There are reasons for doing this from the MBTA perspective: it consolidates bus operations
into fewer areas around the station – two as opposed to three – and that’s helpful because it eases the
load on bus dispatchers and lets them have a unified view of how their buses are running. From a
travelers’ perspective, it’s easier to get to the train station. Dan Webber is here from the MBTA and I’d
like to give him a chance to discuss this further.
C: Dan Webber (DW): We have looked at this before. The current location of the 39 bus isn’t the best
possible spot. We think that the queue-jump U-turn which has been discussed with the DAG in previous
meetings of the group could be difficult on our drivers, especially in bad weather. We think the upper
bus-way would be easier on our drivers and allow us to reduce the number of inspectors running the
buses at Forest Hills. Also, many riders connect from the 39 to other buses and we think this give us a
better way to accommodate that transfer. Lastly, from the perspective of MBTA Operations, they believe
this will be easier with a 60-foot articulated bus than the queue jump U-turn.
C: Community Resident (CR): During previous planning for the Route 39 bus, we’ve been told that
eliminating certain stops or consolidating them together will help the bus run faster. This proposal
sounds like it will cause the bus to take longer because the bus has to go further to get to its berth and
go through more signals. The 39 is supposed to have a faster turnaround time than other buses and I’m
really concerned about this. It will lose time having to compete with other buses.
A: DW: The 39 bus only has its own berth because of the old E Line trolley. Running time is always a
legitimate concern. I think you’re mentioning the Key Bus Routes project, which is a Stimulus-funded
project. The goal of that work is to consolidate bus stops to decrease running times and get better ADA
compliance at the remaining stops. This proposal actually improves running times. In the a.m. peak you
save eight seconds and that’s just on average. The PM peak is approximately 20 seconds longer.2
Q: CR: I’m just concerned about shoe-horning an additional bus into the upper bus-way. That doesn’t
seem compliant with the ADA. What will the running time be like compared with today?
A: PG: Your concern is logical because you can see there’s an increased distance, but we did review
running time. Let me ask Maureen to talk about that further.
C: Maureen Chlebek (MC): We estimated the travel times for the build conditions, that’s when the bridge is
down and the Casey Arborway is built. Just to orient you on Figure 2A, here’s Washington Street west of
the station and here’s the Casey Arborway, which is where New Washington Street is today. Originally
we brought the bus into the Arborway and turned it around using a queue jump U-turn in the Arborway.
1
Available at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
This is a comparison in the run times for the two possible future build conditions: the queue-jump U-Turn and
Route 39 Bus/Taxi swap. Both scenarios have been modeled with projected 2035 traffic volumes.
2
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
We’re now proposing to move the 39 bus into the upper bus-way. Our comparison is between the two
future build conditions.
A: PG: In terms of the comparison with today, I’ll have to get back to you, but I can tell you that bringing
the 39 into the upper bus-way gives you a time savings compared with the previously proposed queue
jump U-turn.
C: George Zoulalian (GZ): I represent the Arborway Committee, a long-time local advocacy group. We met
over this proposal and the board asked me to present why we’re against it. I have submitted that for
inclusion in the meeting minutes.3 The 39 bus is supposed to have an arrival or departure every three
minutes; that’s much faster than other buses. This isn’t just about the speed of the bus. The new
proposal seems like once the passengers are dropped off, they’ll have a longer walk into the station.
The queue jump U-turn is important because that’s what allows people to access the new multi-million
dollar head-house. What’s the point of the head-house if you stick the high-volume bus over by Ukraine
Way? It seems like this is sacrificing the bus service to make east/west traffic run better. It goes against
our basic principles, adopted by DOT for this process, of making [public] transit better or at least not
making it worse. The original proposal added up to better transit. This might be better traffic, but it’s
not better transit.
Q: David Wean (DWe): I’m curious to know how many traffic lights the bus goes through today, under the
original proposed conditions and with this new plan. I think it’s about three.
A: MC: There is a traffic light here at the intersection of New Washington Street/South Street and here at
the intersection of New Washington Street/Arborway off-ramp.
C: DW: Currently when the 39 bus starts, it hits one traffic light 4 and heads inbound and under the original
proposed plan, when it’s already picked up its passengers and is heading back in [towards downtown
Boston], there’s a light at the U-turn and then another at the Casey Arborway/South Street intersection.
That’s two traffic lights. It looks like this plan has three, though I bet they can be coordinated.
A: PG: That’s correct, under the new proposed conditions there would be three signals.
Q: Liz O’Connor (LO): I want to be clear about the problem you are trying to solve here. It sounds like
staffing for the MBTA. What are you addressing?
A: PG: We saw several distinct advantages to this proposal. MBTA operation is one. Consolidation of bus
loading/unloading for passengers is another. The third is the opportunity to, by swapping the position of
the 39 and taxis, pull the taxis away from the Asticou/Martinwood neighborhood since there have been
so many complaints about the taxis from the representatives of that area. To George’s point, this does
improve traffic operations. As Maureen has told us, the bus saves about eight seconds as compared to
the original proposed condition in the a.m. peak. In the p.m. peak, its estimated to be about 20 seconds
longer. The list of benefits was long enough that we felt we should share it with you.
A: MC: When we looked at the MBTA rider survey data for Bus Route 39, we saw that the riders of the bus
are connecting to other buses or to trains. They’re not connecting to taxis. The taxis serve the commuter
rail so what this does is to move the 39 passengers closer to the other buses they’re trying to access.
Q: Paula Okunief (PO): I have three questions: (1) How will you protect pedestrians moving through the
enlarged upper bus-way? (2) Will there be a signal to help the 39 bus make its left turn into the upper
bus-way? (3) When you have a group of 39’s bunching together, what’s the queue-length and what will
3
This letter appears as Appendix 3 of these meeting minutes.
Exiting the 39 bus turnaround and going onto Washington Street west of the station prior to going inbound on
South Street.
4
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
that do to the cars and did you run Synchro models on this to figure out the effective headways and
traffic impacts?
A: MC: Yes we did do a Synchro analysis. These are signalized intersections (Washington Street/Upper
Busway Exit), but this one is (Washington Street/Upper Busway Entrance) is unsignalized.
C: PO: When you have three Route 39 buses coming in a bunch, you’ll have a big line of buses get cut off
by queued up cars.
A: MC: Well, they come at six-minute headways [in the peak] so you wouldn’t see a line of three of them all
at once. The operations group has looked at this and they say that it’s workable.
C: Jeffrey Ferris (JF): We’ve looked at the operations every day and we know the buses bunch up.
A: KF: Jeff, excuse me, let her finish.
C: JF: Kate, Kate, I’m tired of hearing all these lies and misperceptions! You give us all misinformation, the
buses bunch up. We know this!
A: KF: Jeff, I’m telling you, you need to raise your hand.
C: JF: Maureen just said that the buses come every six minutes.
A: KF: Jeff, Jeff, please stop. You’re not following the ground rules. You need to raise your hand.
C: JF: I’m tired of hearing lies.
A: KF: That’s fine. Thank you. Remember everyone, we need you all to raise your hands otherwise this
doesn’t work.
Q: PO: So how will you protect pedestrians in the bus-way because with this proposal they have to cross
multiple aisles in the bus-way?
A: PG: It would be no different from Dudley Square or other multiple-lane bus-ways in the MBTA system.
Pedestrians would make their way along designated walking areas.
Q: PO: So there will be walkways for pedestrians?
A: PG: Yes, the lanes of the bus-way would be separated by islands connected by crosswalks. This would
actually be quite similar to Dudley in terms of layout.
C: Mary Hickie (MH): I live on Martinwood Road and I take the 39 bus every day. In the last iteration I
didn’t like the queue-jump U-turn and I am actually quite pleased to see this. I like the bus
consolidation. I also see another advantage for my neighborhood: it appears that the turn-out of the
bus-way moves further west a little bit so it’s not right across from Asticou Road.
A: PG: The direction is actually south, but you are correct otherwise.
A: Don Kindsvatter (DK): It’s still fairly close; it’s across from the old, dead-end part of Asticou Road.
C: MH: That seems like an advantage to Asticou Road and so I have to say that to me this seems like a
better working plan. The extra signal is a consideration at rush hour and the number of buses clumping
together could be an issue, but if you can address those issues, this is better.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Jessica Mink (JM): I want to bring up the bicycle issue. I do think this is better for the 39 bus even
though I also think it will be slower. I like not having the queue jump U-turn, but I am now sort of
worried about the off-road path going across the bus-way where there will now be more buses exiting. I
hope that the buses won’t sit half-way out into traffic because that will force cyclists into the road. That
needs to be taught carefully to the drivers.
Q: Sarah Kurpiel (SK): There were a few issues brought up by George about the head-house and the
distance to the station. It looks as though the distance to the station from the 39 operation on the
Arborway and the 39 operating from the upper bus-way is about the same. Is that right?
A: DK: Yes, it is about the same.
C: SK: Then about the future head-house. That’s on the north side of the Arborway so people getting off
the 39 would already be on the south side closer to the station. They wouldn’t need to access the headhouse.
Q: GZ: Wait, I thought you said the head-houses with elevators would be on both sides of the Arborway.
A: DK: No, it’s always been on the north side.
Q: GZ: I’m sorry; I thought that’s what you said.
A: PG: I’m sorry if you got that impression, but the head-house is definitely on the north side of the
Arborway.
C: BD: Let me take of my DAG hat and speak as the head of the Asticou/Martinwood Neighborhood
Association. I can assure you that when this comes up, people will be extremely concerned. You’re
moving the buses down. I still don’t think you can pay for this with Accelerated Bridge Program money.
We never agreed to this. The bus is one of the noisiest vehicles going! Dan Webber says we need to
train the drivers for this and I can’t see that happening. We’ll fight this every way we can! You’ve
inflicted plenty on us. You talk about moving the taxis for us. You wouldn’t need to move the taxis if the
taxi department would just enforce its own rules. People are picking up and dropping off on Asticou
Road and that needs to stop. I just need to see BTD come down here and do some enforcement. I’ve
asked for decades that you come down here and enforce the rules! Vineet, does BTD like this?
A: Vineet Gupta (VG): From our perspective, we looked at the 39/taxi swap and there were two issues: one
was that we wanted to make sure the travel time for the 39 was the same regardless of where it was
located. The second issue was to make sure that the residents and business in the area were not
impacted by moving the bus any more than they would be by keeping it on New Washington Street.
Those are the two criteria we hit with this. Our issue with the location of the 39 is that U-turn. We were
concerned that regardless of the MBTA estimates regarding bus operations that bus service would be
compromised with even a slight back-up. Making the U-turn wouldn’t be all that easy and so were
worried it would take longer to load and unload. Relative to the location on the deck, we are and
continue to be concerned about the impacts to the residential area. We’ve talked about protecting that
area with walls or landscaping.
Q: BD: So the statement saying that the City of Boston supports this is incorrect?
A: VG: No, that’s not true. I’m saying we had two criteria that this plan met. One was travel times and the
other way local impacts.
Q: BD: But you don’t support this?
A: VG: I’m trying to tell you what I think. We were concerned over travel times at the U-turn on New
Washington Street. To address that we thought about moving the 39 bus and I think it makes sense.
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
The travel time will decrease. Regardless of whether the 39 bus comes down here, we don’t want to
increase suffering west of Washington Street which is why we feel that all along the edge there needs to
be a buffer to protect the neighborhood.
C: BD: When the station was built, I remember working with the MBTA. We were told we wouldn’t have all
the buses up here. Now you’re asking for more buses. You’ll impact my community with lights, air
quality and you have here is a proposal, but you keep saying it like it’s a fact. Your proposals keep
becoming fact. You’re not trustworthy and you’re not doing the bidding of the people. If you had to live
with this proposal you would be extremely concerned. Be concerned for our neighborhood. It’s a small
community, but there was once a local politician who called it “three insignificant streets” and he lived to
rue the day he said it. These are people, not buses or bicycle paths! I want you to remember this
impacts us! We should not support this!
C: Michael Halle (MHa): So in the interest of the technical details: when you come from Roslindale on
Washington Street and you come into the intersection where the buses turn in, even if it is unsignalized,
you could essentially put in a stop line to open it up. I raised this comment with the design team during
the past few weeks and this has to do with the four-lane cross-section. The way the intersection works
now is it is signed ‘right-turn only’ onto Ukraine Way, but the option is there, at least under the initial
2016 build conditions to have that lane be bus-only from Ukraine Way up. Otherwise, I would leave it
to MBTA Operations regarding the gap for buses to get in. It will be helpful for riders to understand the
impacts and I would reiterate the hold transit harmless pledge. I’d also caution when you do your stop
analysis that you’re talking lefts and rights. Straights may be more efficient. It’s about whether the bus
traffic is queuing on Washington Street where queuing on South Street. People need to understand the
changes.
Q: Gail Sullivan (GS): My reaction is similar to Mary’s in that I like this plan better than the U-turn on the
Arborway. Does this mean expanding the existing bus deck?
A: PG: Yes, we would have to expand the deck over what’s known as Parcel S.
C: GS: My instinct is that this is better overall, but I think why you’re getting a negative reaction is because
you need to provide more information. We can’t get plans that don’t show the signals. We need an
analysis of current conditions, proposed design #1 and proposed design #2 in terms of travel times.
Give it to us on a spreadsheet and send it out to us. The 39 bus bunches. It will always bunch. Given
that reality, how many bunched buses can you get at this site? Give us the real information. It took me
12 minutes to drive here from Yale Terrace tonight. We all know what it’s like. You need to tell us
whether this makes it better, worse, or the same.
A: SM: I want to recap why we did this. We’re listening to the comments we got on the design to this point.
We had the U-turn and the City said there might be problems with training the drivers and bunching.
We heard about the taxis being a problem and the behavior of the drivers. We walked the site with the
taxi supervisor from the Boston Police and we talked about how the customers feel. We met with MBTA
Operations and when we looked at it, knowing that the 39 would spend time in the upper bus-way
during construction, we knew that everyone was concerned about travel times as part of the holdharmless pledge and so we thought about making a permanent swap and pushing the taxis away from
the neighborhood towards where they will be used and the 39 closer to where riders can transfer to
other buses. We saw it as a win-win. The travel times are a little better in the morning and about the
same in the afternoon. This came from your comments. There is no grand conspiracy.
C: Heather Carrito (HC): I live on the 3rd house in on Asticou Road and we’re all concerned about the noise
and headlights. I’ve been unemployed for 16 months and without the air conditioning running, the
noise from the bus station is very bad. I’m considering selling my home already and this may put me
over the top. There’s a pay phone that nobody answers which rings and rings. Now there will be this
with all the buses pointed at my house. It may be good for commuters, but not us.
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: Todd Consentino (TC): How many more or fewer taxi spaces are there?
A: DK: Today there are six signed spaces on Washington Street west of the station and three on the lower
side of the station. Under this plan we’re discussing tonight, they’d all move up to the north end of the
station.
Q: TC: And what about the remaining spaces?
A: DK: It would be for passenger pick-up/drop-off activities, but not taxis.
C: Pete Stidman (PS): I think Todd is trying to make a point that we’re really concerned about and I just
want to clarify it. That last pick-up/drop-off spot on Washington Street towards the Arborway, if you’re
putting a cycle track there that’s going to block the visibility of the cyclist that might want to continue up
South Street. So we would hope that the cycle track could come out towards the street so that bicycles
could be seen by the traffic and start to merge. If they are forced to pop out from behind parked cars,
you might have a chance for conflicts and potential crashes.
Q: Francesca Fordiani (FF): For my reference, how many bus trips come into the bus-way now and how
many are we adding?
A: MC: Let me look that up and get back to you.
Q: Jody Burr (JB): My feedback on this in general is that speaking from living on South Street in Roslindale
and then generally switching to a 39 bus, from that perspective, I like moving the bus closer to where I
make my transfer and I like moving the taxis which I do think addresses some of the Asticou issues. It’s
hard to look at this and not imagine the current situation and part of that is the lack of coordination
among signals. Would the signals be coordinated so you can usually get a green through that area?
That’s one question. The other is about the left turn where the buses going south get in. Did you say it
would not be signalized?
A: PG: The entrance would not have a signal, but anywhere we have buses exiting there is a signal.
Q: JB: So I guess I just want some reassurance that the situation will be vastly improved and if it’s not
improved that it can be changed again in the future. The other question is about drop-off spaces. The
two bump-outs on either side of Washington Street, are those for drop-off?
A: DK: Yes, they will be.
A: PG: While I don’t tend to favor the term “vastly improved” because of the way it raises expectations, it
was our intent and – and McMahon’s analysis bears it out –to improve the situation as much as possible.
On any job where you have traffic signals, volumes are going to wobble over time and you’ll need to
fine-tune, tweak and improve. Yes, the signals will be coordinated, and yes that’s always been the
intent. All your questions get addressed in the FDR. It is then up to you to read that and gauge whether
you believe the proposed design is better, but our charge has been to make this work effectively.
C: LO: You need to remind her5 that synchronization can only go in one direction.
A: PG: Generally speaking, you synchronize in the dominant direction of traffic, but here we have multiple
synchronization efforts going on to mirror the east/west and north/south patterns we have in the
corridor. There is a lot going on. There is a lot of traffic, but you can address that by taking out bus
loops and straightening the road. The information you want will be at hand in the FDR and you can
judge what you think of it and whether you find it acceptable.
5
Here is the writer assumes that the Liz O’Connor means Jodie Burr.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: LO: I don’t think you guys control synchronization because you can’t promise it. Please get a
Memorandum of Agreement with the City so that they will respond when the initial synchronization fails.
We’re all cyclists and bus riders and drivers. This picture is a bunch of tradeoffs. I want to encourage us
to stop talking about individual turns and thinking about the larger tradeoffs. I think the idea of putting
the taxis on the east/west road which has high volumes is crazy. I’d like to hear more from the business
community. The fellow from the Blue Frog Bakery who spoke last time should be heard on this particular
issue because those bus and taxi uses and drivers are all customers of his. I want the business owners,
who are working so hard in this little corner of the world, to be supported in the current design phase
and especially the construction phase. If we could have a conversation as a group about the bigger
picture, I think it would benefit us and help us see some the tradeoffs and possibly be more willing to
bear some of the costs that we’re being asked to bear.
C: Hillary Kelley (HK): I have a quick comment. I think this is an improvement. I like the idea of
consolidating the taxis. This solves the problem of getting people away from that mid-block crossing of
New Washington Street because there will be no reason for them to do it. I think the consolidation of
buses is also good.
Q: Peg Preble (PP): I live in the neighborhood. I never got on the DAG and I had a lot of difficulty finding
my representative. First I was told I had a representative and I could find out who they were, then I was
told I wouldn’t be told who my representative was, but that I could submit a question in writing and it
would be given to my representative. I do have a question which is would any DAG member like to
represent me?
A: KF: Where do you live?
A: PP: I live off Bourne Street.
Q: KF: That’s Jessica’s area isn’t it?
A: JM: Well sort of, I’m not official there, I represent RozzieBikes, but that is my neighborhood.
C: PP: Well I was told I could send in my question.
A: KF: You definitely can.
A: JM: I’m happy to represent you.
C: PP: Thank you, I have a representative!
C: Representative Russell Holmes (RRH): I would ask that she give her question to me as well.
Q: KF: While you’re here, what’s the question?
A: PP: The taxi cab issue: the statement is that we will solve the taxi issue by moving it. I was on the Forest
Hills Task Force Initiative and I don’t think it will solve the problem. It won’t. It’s just moving it to
another road that will be impacted, somewhere worse. Historically, they haven’t kept the taxis under
control and I’m afraid it will be worse.
C: Michael Epp (ME): You can never tell about these things. When I saw the 39/taxi swap on email, I
thought Asticou Road would love it, but it seems I may have been wrong. To me, this is a good, clean
diagram with a good solution on it. I did a bus station downtown, Charles/MGH which has the best ADA
accessibility of any of the MBTA stops and my wife from the ADA access rules for the Commonwealth.
What makes this solution so good is that the primary and accessible access routes are the same which is
just what you want. There are least four people here from the 39 bus improvement group and I think it’s
not going to add time to the route. Having a consolidated dispatcher for the MBTA will help the 39 and
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
other buses tremendously because they will know what’s going on down Centre and South Streets. The
taxis need to be addressed by the City. Perhaps the taxi spots in the morning could be used for school
buses. I will say that you are going to have to address synchronization carefully since signals less than
300 feet apart generally present a real challenge on synchronization.
C: MR: I’m torn on this. I like the new taxi location. I think it will work better and address some of the
double-parking issues because there’s more space. I think I will have to disagree with Bernie. I don’t
think this will be worse. Giving taxis more room is helpful and moving them helps to eliminate the
illegal U-turns which every single cab seems to do. This makes them go back south via Hyde Park
Avenue and Ukraine Way. I would ask that the cabs get a head-house of their own with a bathroom so
they use that location and not the others we’ve talked about at length.
I do have a lot of questions on whether the 39 bus would really work. I want to know about the time
needed for the bus to leave and get onto South Street for today, the first proposed scheme and now this
one. The 39 bus was once in the lower bus-way and it got moved to the loop which everyone in bus
operations said they liked at the time because it saved travel time. I want to complain about getting rid
of the inspector for the 39. The MBTA has said that the problem with bunching is related to the lack of
inspectors and inspectors not paying attention. Removing an inspector will make it worse. More
inspectors would be better aligned with Bus Rapid Transit which is supposed to be the direction the MBTA
is going.
Q: Beth Worrell (BW): A question about the bay for the 39. Is it the eastern-most bay because of the length
or the number of people? Could it be in the bay closest to Washington Street so it doesn’t have to be
behind the other buses?
A: DK: We have it there to make it easy for it to turn around.
A: PG: The 39 could possibly use the middle bus-bay, but for the number of people and volume of buses,
we feel this puts them in the best position.
C: GZ: From my understanding on the bus-way, as it was originally planned, the buses from the south
used the upper bus-way. The 39 comes in from the north. If you’re a passenger riding on that bus you
have to cross all these additional signals and make an unsignalized left. Six-minute headways means 10
buses an hour. They’re coming from the north. They should have to deal with one traffic light with
traffic stopped in both directions. You’re not driving the bus. Don’t worry about the U-turn. Passengers
aren’t going to wait through four traffic lights when they can get off at the last stop on South Street and
jaywalk. I think you’re not taking into account the time it takes the bus to come into the station.
C: HC: I have a safety concern about the midblock crossing. That’s where the Southwest Corridor ends
and with human nature being what it is, people will go right across.
C: PO: You’ll have students from English High crossing there and jumping the fence. It will be unsafe. It
will be like that kid who was walking on the street a few winters ago when the sidewalk wasn’t plowed.
C: BD: I want to mention a few other things. Look at the roadway where you have four lanes instead of
three since the City wants that. When I look at those four lanes, I see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 pull-off areas.
A: DK: Yes, right now we’re showing it with the maximum number of pull-off spaces possible.
Q: BD: So just using common sense, does it make sense to have a four-lane highway and then having one,
two, three, four pull-outs on the west and one, two, three on the east to have people pulling on and off?
The taxi drivers won’t buy into this, the police won’t enforce it. I’ve been trying to get the Hackney
Division to enforce it for years. This is insanity. You’re putting something in place because your concept
doesn’t work without. I want some answers to the questions I put out!
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: PG: So in your opinion, would this design be better if it had fewer curb cuts?
A: BD: For safety alone that would be better, just count the number of cars. I want safety. I want someone
not getting killed.
A: PG: If we don’t provide anything it will also be unsafe.
Q: DWe: I have a question: how many people get on or off the 39 at Forest Hills relative to the other
buses?
A: DW: We’ll get that data for you.
A: PO: It’s the highest ridership bus of any in the system.6
A: MHa: I believe the alightings are somewhere in the 10,000’s.
A: KF: We’ll get it for you.
Q: LO: Michael Halle mentioned that most of the taxis go south. If they all want to go south, doesn’t the
39/taxi swap force them through more traffic lights? Do you have taxi data?
A: PG: We are looking to get that data and are still trying to get it. That is a good segue. There is another
meeting on the 17th just to discuss traffic which includes bus operations. I just want to remind people to
send us their question on those topics so we can prepare for the 17th.
C: Kevin Moloney (KM): I think we ought to take a look at what’s going on here and not make it about six
cabs or seven cabs. You have come up with this decision and said this is what you will do. You admitted
it has a negative impact on the 39 bus and when you’re pressed, you have no facts. You rushed to
judgment and present it as a fait accompli and now you’re being caught. You’re just doing this to make
an at-grade solution work. You said that you’re all one agency and that the MBTA is just down the hall.
It now becomes clear that DOT is running the show and the MBTA will do whatever DOT tells it to.
Vineet or Dan didn’t give ringing endorsements. This is a disgrace! You’ll all be gone in four or five
years, your consultants will all go home, and we’ll be stuck living with this!
A: VG: I want to repeat the City’s opinion. In terms of travel time we believe this is better for the 39 and
taking the cabs away from the neighborhood makes sense. It is my understanding that this is a proposal
and that based on feedback a decision will be made. The thing not discussed is what happens on the
western edge of Washington Street in terms of a buffer and I think that should be brought up.
C: MHa: On the cabs and how they serve different directions, if you look at that issue the new location is
better. You can get to Hyde Park, Roslindale and Mattapan. The east/west direction is less well served
by transit and so having better taxi connections is good. They can also get back to Jamaica Plain as well.
C: PO: One quick point: you said you ran Synchro models for this. Please provide those to us before the
traffic meeting on the 17th, full descriptions for each intersection like you did for Allen before. That will
help us come up with questions.
A: PG: Yes, we can do that.
C: JM: Make sure the Synchro accounts for the double-length buses; doing that that is very significant. The
other thing is that as someone who lives southeast of Forest Hills, this loop onto Hyde Park, people take
a U-turn because they want to avoid signals. I’ve taken taxis that did a U-turn. Under this plan they’ll
6
According to the most recent MBTA Blue Book (2010), the 39 bus is the third highest ridership in the system. The
number 1 spot is occupied by Silver Line 5, and the number 2 spot goes to Route 66.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
have to go through six or, I guess, five lights and that’s a big expense for cab riders. The U-turn making
the same move would take half the time; if we knew the proportion of taxis making which moves that
would be a help. I think about ¾ of them go south, I just feel it’s not knowledge that’s well known.
A: MC: I want to address the question that was asked a little while ago 7 about buses. There are 31 buses
going into the upper bus-way from each direction during peak periods and adding the 39 means an
addition 10-13 buses. The 39 has a ridership of about 7,800 boardings per day. We can get more data
on the ridership for the other bus routes.
C: PG: We do need to move on, but before then, one element we want to recognize is the bus headlight
issue. Bus headlights are low, but we recognize your concerns. Don will walk you through this.
C: DK: Whether or not the 39 bus moves into the upper bus-way, the buses are opposite Asticou Road.
We’ve been looking at mitigations: design elements to lessen the negative impact of the bus headlights.
Because of the position of the bus and the houses, the headlights can hit on the two upper floors of the
houses. We’d like to see what we could put on the western edge of Washington Street to block those
lights. Now, if we install some sort of screen, it will have two sides to it. I’ve just highlighted the
existing chain link fence in this photograph of current conditions, 8 and we can figure out a way to block
the headlights. Here are some barrier examples: masonry, wood, landscape, some dense landscape,
there are lots of variants. Here’s an example that’s panels. One side could become an art project.
From the Asticou side, it would be nice for that wall to be green.
Q: HC: What about the noise? It’ll be a bus every minute and it’s the noise that’s getting me just as things
are now.
A: DK: Landscape alone won’t fix the noise. The noise on buses comes from the motor, the tires or the
exhaust. For that you would need a taller, more solid barrier.
Q: BD: I want to make a comment. You’re walling off a whole community! What’s wrong with the buses
where they are now? This is the accelerated bridge program, not the accelerated bus program! When I
started on this thing, we were discussing a bridge that needed to come down. Now, all of a sudden, this
bus thing just jumped in here! It was three bays before and now it’s four. What’s the reason it has to
move?
A: DK: There are several reasons. Right now the buses enter the intersection with South Street on an Scurve which makes that intersection worse. Moving the exit south addresses that issue. The upper busways are at capacity; this improves that situation. It also gives the MBTA better layover space.
Q: BD: But why can’t you make it come out across from South Street? There’s no reason to make it come
out across from Asticou Road.
A: DK: If we leave it there, we cannot widen Washington Street west of the station to add in new pick­
up/drop-off capacity which is something the community wanted.
C: BD: When I first got on the WAG, we talked about accelerated bridge, now all of a sudden, the bus-way
is coming into this. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this traffic pattern doesn’t work unless you stick
us with the bus impacts. It’s not in our best interests! I won’t sacrifice these people to make your plan
work! I’ll fight to the end to see that this doesn’t go through! This is a major transportation facility on
top of another and we’re being asked to absorb all of this. Well you can tell Tommy for me that I am not
happy with this! He ought to know better! And, you, Vineet, should know better!
A: VG: Please don’t point at me.
7
8
See on page 8 from Francesca Fordiani.
Available at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: BD: Well, I will point at you, sir!
C: SM: When we convened the WAG in March, 2011, the first order of business was to discuss higherorder
goals and values. The WAG’s first homework assignment involved all of you going out with cameras to
identify, among other things, problem areas. We didn’t know about this area. You brought it to us.
You told us about the turbulence, the pick-up/drop-off issues, the MBTA buses, the taxis and so forth.
You told us to look at this area and we’ve been looking at it for months now.
A: BD: You’re correct, we did identify problems, but we did not identify the bus station moving as a way to
correct them! How were we to know that this would be where you’d go with it?
C: SM: I would encourage you to go back to the minutes. We discussed these areas at length. We even
had a meeting that addressed vignettes. We’ve been discussing all of this for over a year.
Q: Kevin Wolfson (KW): Compared to what’s out there today, it seems like there is more personal vehicle
pick-up/drop-off space.
A: PG: There could be, yes, we’ve provided for it.
Q: KW: So if you eliminated the pick-up/drop-off between the bus exit and the Casey Arborway, could you
exit the buses north of South Street, would they fit?
A: PG: I’d have to look at it. The underlying lines seem to fit, but I can’t be sure just looking at this.
C: KW: It would reduce the noise and light impacts and maybe take out a signal.
A: PG: The light impacts yes, the sound impacts only maybe.
A: DK: And it would just move the signal.
C: GS: I think I disagree with Bernie. I think the bus rearranging is natural outgrowth of this project, but
Asticou Road is taking a hit. You need to try to move the roadbed of Washington Street as far to the east
as possible. That may mean eliminating some of the pick-up/drop-off spaces. I don’t like any of your
sample sound/light walls. They look like border fences. If it’s above six-feet tall and opaque it’s going
to look like a detention camp. We cannot do that to this community. I trust a better solution can be
found; be creative.
Q: CR: I’m now stepping back. I take the 38 and 39 buses both. The 38 is slower, but it goes very close to
my house. The bigger question which I’ll address is whether any asthma or pollution studies have been
done. I suffer from asthma and I can’t imagine crossing the six-lane highway or using a tunnel under
the road. I can’t run away from a mugger. The tunnel under the road 9 makes me very paranoid
because it reminds me of New York. I don’t want to cross a six-lane highway, I’ll never make it. I can’t
get to the Arboretum today and that’s only cross Route 203. Who did your pollution studies?
A: SM: The pollution studies were done by the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS). They are the
technical wing of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and they keep the
transportation model for eastern Massachusetts. We have discussed this heavily with them. CTPS did an
air quality analysis broken down into Transportation Access Zones (TAZ), which is a small area unit of
9
The only “tunnel under road” associated with this project is the proposed head-house north of the new Casey
Arborway in the current vicinity of New Washington Street. This head-house would not be a tunnel, but would
deliver MBTA patrons directly to the Orange Line platforms.
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
measurement by neighborhood. They did not find a significant different between the bridge and atgrade solutions.10
C: CR: I’ve known people who work for CTPS and I don’t believe it.
A: SM: All I can do is to suggest that you review the documents on the website. The letters that they wrote
are on our website and I encourage you to look at them. It’s all in the minutes.
C: BD: And when you look at those letters you’ll find out that it says in the report that they did not consider
this to be a major transportation area. That’s what it says right in the document. It’s the most ludicrous
document I think I’ve ever seen present by a group. That was presented at a WAG meeting and both of
them, they had two letters, it literally says that when we did this study and they showed the eight
different communities around the area that they used, and they said that given the fact that there’s no
major transportation in the area that they did not see a problem. No major transportation. Read it for
yourself, it’s in there.
C: KM: I want to say something about the DOT’s use of the word ‘minutes.’ We ought not to accept the
minutes. At best they are notes. We don’t have a stenographer taking down minutes. We have
someone summarizing and taking notes, but they are not minutes. Nobody has ever taken a position on
the WAG or the DAG about being able to go back and make corrections. They are not a court record on
which you can rely. The other thing DOT has done, both John Romano and Kate Fichter is to say
regularly “go back and look in the minutes, we discussed it.” You go back and you look and you see a
brief reference. In my mind, those are not discussions or debates, they are brief little mentions and then
months later they say “it was discussed.” Let’s not use these minutes. They are not a good record. It’s
an interpretation and it doesn’t include all the key points. We’ve never been able to make any changes.
C: MHa: I’d note the time and say that we have two other proposals to review tonight and that in the
interest of serving the community down at Shea Circle we ought to go there.
Q: Anne McKinnon (AM): Can we agree that Kevin’s request to call them notes and to give people the
chance to review them or make corrections or what would you like?
A: KM: I’d like to have people have the opportunity to make corrections and have the DOT and its
consultants to agree that changes should be made.
Q: PS: Could we please discuss Shea Circle?
C: LO: I think the issue is that you say it was discussed and then the changes discussed suddenly become
part of the project.
A: KM: Every fundamental decision has not been reached on the basis of a vote by the DAG members or
the public. They get made between meetings and then presented back to us as a fait accompli.
C: JB: I want to respond to that. We’re not here to vote. We’re here as an advisory committee. We’re
here to give our input. Everything has been presented respectfully to us. It’s very difficult to accumulate
all that input and then render it back in a way that pleases everyone. We need to keep the big picture in
mind. You’re being accusatory.
A: KM: I feel used and abused in coming to these meetings. We’re having our first real debate right now.
When was the debate over bridge or no bridge? You see? Moving the bicycles, that decision was made
in secret. We inquire about it and they said “oh we met with our professionals and made a decision.”
10
These documents can be read at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Documents.aspx
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: ME: When we started this process as WAG members, we asked that DOT approach this project in a
consolidated, multi-modal manner which they have done. Typically, they treat projects singly, but this
team did not do that. We asked them to balance the modes and they did that. I do want to talk about
removing parking spaces. Remember, local merchants depend on those parking spaces and if we pull
out too many, they will suffer. On pollution, the models that are used are not micro-scale. Moving a
bus 200 feet this way or 400 feet that way won’t show up. The model is just too gross for that.
C: Kevin Hollenbeck (KH): I’m Kevin Hollenbeck with DCR. Maybe you already looked at this, but if you
switched the exit and entrance for the bus-bay – this is just a thought and maybe you already looked at it
– but you might need less of a noise/light barrier for the neighborhood.
C: LO: While you’re thinking on that suggestion, Kevin made a point about the idea of “we discussed it,
now it’s over.” When there is significant dissension, I want that reflected in the meeting minutes. I want
the notes to reflect when there is a lot of dissension. I want it noted when people are not happy about
things.
C: JB: I don’t know if we’ve left the 39/taxi swap discussion yet, but I feel that some kind of mitigation for
Asticou Road is very important. I think in developing that mitigation they should be directly involved.
Whatever it is, some kind of green wall, they should be in that discussion specifically.
Q: MHa: Was the idea of reversing the entrance and exit to the bus-way looked at?
A: DK: We did look at it, if you reversed the entrance and exit, the northbound buses pulling in would wipe
out a bay.
C: RRH: I asked the same question. I’m asking “why not” since Bernie wants to be rid of the kiss-and-ride
traffic. Why don’t you look at it? Asticou/Martinwood doesn’t want the buses and at the very least you
could know the turning radius. I think it might help the problem with people going north/south and the
39 getting in and out.
A: PG: Thank you. We will look at it. It is counter to what we usually do, but we’ll look at it.
C: Ruth Helfeld (RHe): We’re trying to solve a problem which would be better with cleaner, quieter buses.
That should be considered since buses do generate a lot of pollution and asthma rates in the city are
quite high.
Discussion of Shea Square
C: PG: The next topic for discussion is Shea Square. Please turn to Figure 3B. 11 In past iterations we had
showed a single eastbound left-turn lane at Shea Square. In discussions with the City and looking at this
left-turn we came up with the idea of having a double left-turn from the Casey Arborway to Circuit
Drive. We would need to narrow the median island down to about 12 feet wide. This would accomplish
a few things: it would reduce the queue and the time in the cycle needed for this left turn. That’s good
for all modes. It would add about three feet of additional crossing distance. That’s about one step in
pedestrian terms. If there is a double left-turn on the Casey Arborway, we’ll need a double receiving
lane on Circuit Drive. We can do this at the cost of one (curbside) parking space.
C: MC: We’re looking at about 600 left turns in the peak hours. This would cut the queue’s length in half
and raise the intersection’s LOS from an overall LOS “E” to “C”. When we have one left-turn lane it’s
400-500 feet of queue. With two lanes, it drops to 175-230 feet.
11
Available at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
Page 16
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: LO: This is about cycling. I ride my bicycle on Circuit Drive. This looks twice as dangerous as the
previous proposal. This might be bicyclist approved, but I’d like the people who are knowledgeable
about cycling to address it.
Q: KW: You said that the difference in the crossing is three feet?
A: PG: The way we arrive at that is because we add a lane. Adding a lane adds 11 feet to the road’s
overall cross-section. To make space for that lane without making the road substantially wider we
narrow the median by 12 feet. By doing this, our overall difference in terms of curb-to-curb walking
distance is 3 feet between the currently proposed approach and this one with the double left-turn.
Q: KW: So Figure 3B still shows bicycle lanes?
C: AM: The handout describes it in a little more detail.
A: PG: That was our bad on an earlier version. Yes, tonight’s handout explains the three feet in detail.
C: KW: Well, any time cars are merging, it’s dangerous for everyone. It seems like the danger from the
merge might off-set the advantage.
A: PG: The biggest challenge is about having enough space to let the cars turn and merge back together.
If you don’t have the distance, you’re right, it doesn’t work, but we challenged our team to get the
length right. That’s why we’re losing one parking space.
Q: KW: Won’t the cars just use the full length and wait until the very end to merge?
A: PG: I don’t know everyone’s driving habits, but this is a reasonably common approach to dealing with a
heavy left-turn volume. From a practical standpoint, the ones that don’t work are where the merge is
too short.
Q: KM: Don’t you need Mass. Historical’s12approval to do this?
A: KF: No, we don’t.
C: KM: We were under the impression that you had to make a filing and get a ruling from the Mass
Historical Commission. We were under the impression that you had to file and were going to but had
not yet.
Q: KF: Yes, we do need to file. Mike, can you speak to this?
A: Michael Trepanier (MT): Hi, I’m Mike Trepanier with MassDOT Environmental. That’s correct that we do
intend to file a determination of effect with the State Historical Commission
Q: KM: What if they say no?
A: MT: I don’t think they would say no. Historic Preservation review isn’t a yes or no. It’s not a permit that
you obtain. It’s a consultation. Shea Square is an element that’s part of a historic district, yes, but
geometric changes between one or two left turns isn’t a major issue.
C: KM: You’re advocating the DOT position.
A: MT: I’m not advocating for any position. You’re talking about a review process and the historical aspect
isn’t a review process.
12
The Massachusetts Historical Commission
Page 17
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: KM: But you’re speaking as a DOT employee.
A: MT: I am employed by the DOT. That is true.
C: Margaret Dyson (MD): Hi, Margaret Dyson, City of Boston. The Boston Landmarks Commission does
have a review and approve process. They are correct in that Mass Historical is in an advisory role on
this. It’s a funny distinction, but it would be an issue of an adverse finding or no adverse finding. An
adverse finding can be mitigated. It’s not as though they can so no the same way we can. I’m sorry if
that’s as clear as mud.
Q: CR: Does Boston Landmarks Commission have a role here?
A: MD: If they want to change the park yes, but if it’s in the rotary no.
Q: ME: The original Olmsted design featured a traditional square, did it not?
A: DK: That’s right.
C: MHa: On the issue of the bicycle lanes, I think the merge might be problematic. If you push the bicycle
lane closer to the original curb lane and paint a separator you could make it work. The double turn
processes traffic faster and that probably means better operations.
A: PG: It does, LOS goes up one letter grade.
C: MHa: So then perhaps you could have a shorter cycle time and use that to benefit pedestrians.
A: PG: Yes, that would be the plan.
C: GS: I like the two-lane approach. I’ll send you details of my suggestion, but I think you should extend
the double left-turn further. You need to pay attention to Liz’s point on bicycle safety and you need to
draw a line right across Shea Square and make it as narrow as you can, make the medians as narrow as
possible to benefit pedestrians and bicycles to the greatest extent allowable. The processing of traffic is
important, but this needs to be a bicycle and pedestrian win zone. I’m less concerned about the distance
I have to travel versus how narrow the mouth is for cars. That’s what makes it pedestrian friendly. What
worries me is a yawning plaza full of cars; it needs to narrow traffic. I do have questions about where
the bicycles are. There are quite a few lines here, a lot of stuff needs clarification.
C: Frederick Vetterlein (FV): This is very important for the Stony Brook neighborhood. We have 30 mothers
who like to use the cemetery and right now they have to cross the bridge and sort of duck their way
across the intersection. Since this is just three feet more, I think this is good. This will make traffic run
better and that’s good. Right now Circuit Drive is dangerous for bicycles and this adds a sidewalk from
Shea Square to the bridge over Cemetery Road, but it’s important that the bicycle path link with it to give
bicycles another way to access Circuit Drive. The merge needs to take place before the bridge since that
bridge can’t be widened.
C: JB: I’m going to out myself as someone disappointed with going from the egg-about to the Square. I
understand that the rationale is pedestrian friendliness, but I think currently the rotary is a nice gateway
to a congested area that’s complex and a straight-away where people speed. It sounds like there are
real reasons for this second left-turn lane, but what the rotary does is help slow people down entering
the corridor. My hope is that the landscaping helps to slow people down in the Square. The second
lane may compromise some of that. The median greenery treatments need to be significant. All in all
though, if it’s truly that much of an improvement, I like it.
Page 18
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: BD: Looking at this from the perspective of the roundabout and the egg-about and how we ended up
with the square, at least we’re keeping consistent. This is now up to six lanes and speaking for the
senior citizen I am becoming, I don’t know if I want to see six lanes of traffic. The problem is increasing
issues for cyclists and pedestrians. Am I to understand that coming down Morton Street doesn’t present
the same issue?
A: PG: Right turns process better than left turns. That statement alone accounts for why you only need one
right-turn lane.
C: GS: The big right-turn problem is at Cemetery Road.
Q: PO: Where are the bus stops, on the far side on Morton Street or the near side? The reason I ask is
whenever a bus stops, you get the same stop for cars for a few seconds. That makes a little back-up.
Depending on where you have the pull-outs, you’ll need to provide a longer space so that cars going
through can get by the bus.
A: DK: The eastbound bus stop would be about next to the Franklin Park Villa building at 131 Morton
Street, in a similar location to where it is today. There is currently no westbound matching bus stop. If a
westbound stop were to be included, it would most likely go on the far side of the intersection with
Circuit Drive.
C: PO: O.K. because that bus comes every two or three minutes so you’ll need to account for it.
C: Nina Brown (NB): I have long been a fan of Shea Square, partly because I was hit by a car in the circle
and partly because I am a landscape architect. I’m pleased to see 60 feet of new green space added to
Franklin Park and at Yale Terrace where the Howard Johnson’s used to be. You’re adding 60 feet of
green on the end of Yale Terrance and that’s good too. That will be a nice gateway into the corridor
and if the planting is done right it will be a much nicer entrance into the parkland than today where
trying to wend your way around the rotary makes people anxious.
C: Paul Romary (PR): As the representative for the Shattuck Hospital, I can say the rotary is just awful. We
run a shuttle bus and we get transports from the corrections department. The double left-turn will help
facilitate those things for us. The Circle is also awful for people who walk to our facility. We can figure
out the bicycle part. The Square is better for us.
C: TC: The double left seems to be about convenience and not safety. Once we had bicycle lanes down
both sides, but those were removed to shorten pedestrian crossings. We’ve been told bicycle paths will
be maintained, but this is the issue of ice. I’d like to see some drainage and to DCR, when there’s a nice
warm day and the snow melts, please go out and put out some salt to deal with the ice or remove it. If
not, all we’re doing here is getting a longer pedestrian crossing, no bicycle lanes and all to process cars
faster.
C: LO: Which in and of itself is problematic. It’s not rotary versus square. The egg-about had a lot of
safety features to offer and kept more trees and made the commute in from Mattapan much better. I’m
surprised there’s been less disagreement from the Mattapan representatives. Remember, it’s not today’s
rotary versus the square, there was also the egg-about. I like to cross here. This isn’t the only way and I
think this is really sad. It’s not ugly now and this is going to make this look like Melnea Cass
Boulevard/Massachusetts Avenue.
Q: PP: Everyone says the Circle has a bad accident rate. It seems to me that it was from people barreling
into the Circle. There’s no sign except for one that comes up when it’s already too late to slow down.
What was the traffic issue, what were the accidents?
A: PG: Rotaries are a challenge for crash and safety issues. We could sit here and tell you that if people
used rotaries right they would be safer, but the fact is rotaries across Massachusetts are being made
Page 19
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
safer by eliminating them. Trying to make this area more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, that was the
primary charge. Rotaries are by their nature challenging and they are all around the state. Replacing
the rotary is safer.
A: MC: In the FDR we go through the crashes for the whole corridor, but of all the study area intersections,
this was the one that was dangerous. The report contains crash diagrams. I can’t stand here and
deliver on specific numbers, but there were a lot of rear-end collisions and it was higher than the
statewide average.
Q: CR: I live on Morton Street at Washingtonian Court and when I come from Milton and have to go all the
way around, I actually have to pray. I think the square sounds fine on paper, but my bigger concern is
with the bridge coming down, we have all this traffic from the South Shore and with the bridge coming
down and all that traffic going to ground level, how is this going to impact my neighborhood with the
back-up and the lights. What kind of traffic will my neighborhood get and how close will it be to my
home?
A: PG: If you’re asking about how much additional traffic is going to go down Morton Street, we’ve already
spent a lot of time on that in previous meetings, but I am happy to sit with you after we break and walk
you through it.
C: MHa: With regard to bus stops, is there an opportunity to place one here and does it make sense?
When you go to the double turn, when you shorten the queue, the turn lane impacts more people and
so the lane can be shorter. I think it probably comes out in the wash. The transition from Shea Circle to
Square: as the person who named the egg-about, there were some big problems with it from a
pedestrian standpoint. There were signals where a pedestrian could walk into an oncoming car. If we
pursued it further, we would have found it even more pedestrian unfriendly.
A: LO: But at least then we would have answered the question. I polled my neighborhood association and
we were in favor of the egg-about. It’s a huge change to us; as big as bridge/no-bridge. You may be
right, but we could have looked at it further. It would avoid the yawning car plaza where everyone is
going to block the box. I’d also like Representative Holmes to weigh in on how this impacts buses from
Mattapan.
C: PS: From the bicycle perspective, across the board, if you have a two-lane circle or more, it’s dangerous
to cross. It never works. We know that. It’s horrible. For this design we’re talking about we’re still wait
to see if not having a bicycle lane on New Washington Street would work. We haven’t yet got a
commitment from DCR on cleaning the paths so I’m wondering if this second lane will preclude an onstreet bicycle lane.
A: PG: That is an agenda item we wanted to discuss. We never have trouble filling our time together as
we try to discuss everything. The question for all of you is whether you want to keep going now or defer
to the 17th. Our charge is to present the how’s, where’s, why’s and who’s, and we still have one more
design modification to go.
C: KM: This is just another example of overcrowding the agenda. This thing has been going since 5 or 10
past 6:00. The room is hot, people have left. This isn’t a desirable situation. To take away from the
transit meeting that Representative Holmes brought about over MassDOT’s objections and try to cram
this into that meeting is unwise.
C: RRH: The traffic meeting will be a half hour of them talking to you and two hours of us talking. I don’t
care about what else they want to talk about; it will be a traffic meeting. That’s what the traffic meeting
is going to be if I have to stand at the front of the room and manage the meeting. That’s the way it’s
going to be. The traffic meeting isn’t negotiable. That’s not what he meant, I’m assuming, he meant
the next DAG meeting.
Page 20
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: SM: Yes. Clearly the traffic meeting is a traffic meeting. We have more to discuss tonight. We should
have another DAG meeting two weeks after the 17th.
Q: GS: Can you send this [the maps and graphics] out with every line annotated? Where the bicycle lanes
are, where the crosswalks are? Tell us when the next meeting will be and we’ll have the conversation
then.
C: AM: And put some color on it.
A: PG: Yes. We can do that.
Q: BD: I want to say thank you for tonight. This was productive because we actually had a discussion.
When we discuss the egg-about and I look at the Square, I think that I’d like to save it, but perhaps the
Square is better for safety. This young lady asked about the 24-26,000 cars and the circle being unsafe.
Have you studied the accidents that will happen in the corridor when you bring those cars down to the
ground? You’re talking about 24-26,000 more cars going east/west.
A: PS: But they’re all going slower with less dangerous merging.
C: BD: It’s the cars coming through east-to-west. Put those cars on the ground and they will converge with
cars going north-to-south.
A: DW: They will all be going slower and they won’t run into each other.
C: BD: Seriously, I am very concerned about a member of the public who lived in the impacted area not
being treated with respect. We don’t answer their questions in a sidebar; we answer them on your time.
You’re being paid a salary by the taxpayers, you answer it! We need to make sure people are heard!
C: CR: I work a lot of late nights. I haven’t been to a meeting in months. Excuse me for my ignorance on
what you’ve discussed.
A: PS: It’s just that we’ve been over the traffic several times. We all invest our time in this. I work 60-70
hours a week too and attend these meetings.
C: RRH: This is what happened when we’re here too late. People are at the end of their tethers.
A: KF: All right everyone, that’s it for tonight. We’ll see you all on the 17 th for the traffic meeting and we’ll
get back to you regarding the meeting after that. It will be sometime during the week of the 29th. Good
night.
Next Steps
At the time of this writing, there are two scheduled DAG meetings for the month of October. These include
the traffic meeting on October 17th at 6:00 p.m. and a continuation of the meeting summarized herein to be
held on October 29th at 6:00 p.m. Please note that the session on the 17th will take place in the
senior center of Curtis Hall. Curtis Hall is located at 20 South Street in Jamaica Plain. The meeting was
moved at the request of State Representative Russell Holmes. The meeting on the 29th is currently scheduled
to return to Room 133 of the State Laboratory.
Page 21
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Todd
Nina
Jody
Nathaniel
Heather
Joe
Bernard
Jullieanne
Margaret
Michael
Dottie
Jeffrey
Kate
Francesca
Paul
Mark
Vineet
Michael
Ruth
Mary
Kevin
Russell
Tom
Hillary
Don
Paul
Steve
Lynn
Jessica
Kevin
Alice
Mark
Liz
Paula
Essek
Peg
Michael
Bill
Paul
Steve
Nathaniel
Gail
Robert
Blake
Brown
Burr
Cabral-Curtis
Carrito
Cosgrove
Doherty
Doherty
Dyson
Epp
Farrell
Ferris
Fichter
Fordiani
Godfrey
Gravalese
Gupta
Halle
Helfeld
Hickie
Hollenbeck
Holmes
Jacobson
Kelley
Kindsvatter
King
McLaughlin
McSweeney
Mink
Moloney
Molori
Navin
O’Connor
Okunief
Petrie
Prebble
Reiskind
Reyelt
Romary
Schneider
Shea
Sullivan
Torres
MBTA
DAG
DAG
Howard/Stein-Hudson
[For David Hannon & Elizabeth Wylie]
MBTA
DAG
City of Boston
City of Boston
DAG
DAG
Community resident
MassDOT
DAG
HNTB
MassDOT
BTD
DAG
DCR
DAG
DCR
State Representative
Community resident
DAG
HNTB
MassDOT
MassDOT
Community resident
DAG
DAG
MBTA
DAG
DAG
DAG
HNTB
Community resident
DAG
DAG
Shattuck Hospital
DAG
Office of Senator Chang-Diaz
DAG
Office of Representative Malia
Page 22
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Ture
Frederick
Dan
Kevin
Beth
George
Turnbull
Vetterlein
Webber
Wolfson
Worrell
Zoulalian
Office of Councilor O’Malley
DAG
MBTA
DAG
[For Sarah Freeman]
DAG
Page 23
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Received Emails
Please see the following pages.
Page 24
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
dwean2@gmail.com on behalf of David Wean <David@WeanZabin.com>
Sunday, September 30, 2012 11:53 AM
katherine.fichter@state.ma.us; paul.c.king@dot.state.ma.us;john.romano@state.ma.us;
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; Liz@strategymatters.org; okunieff@att.net;jpmichael@rcn.com;
williamreyelt@hotmail.com; stephen_schneider@harvard.edu; fsvjp@comcast.net;
wepsic@hotmail.co; kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com; ewylie325@comcast.net; geopz99
@aol.com
Casey - DAD member comments (process, other issues)
Members of the DAG, DOT, consultants:
Apologies for sending three separate emails, but there were really three separate categories, and much of this
would be lost if they were combined.
Here are some general thoughts and suggestions when going through my accumulated notes from the past few
months.
Comments from the public - On the website, is there a place for accumulated community and WAG
and DAG member comments? Though the 11/21/11 meeting minutes have a pile of comments, I
don't see any others, such as the 7115 letter from the Southwest Corridor PMAC in support of the
mid-block crossing. I suggest that all public comments be posted (by month, perhaps) including a
reposting of the ones from the 11/21. Having it searchable would also be useful.
Communication within the DAG. The emails from Kate and Paul are sent with undisclosed
recipients, other than a few DoT officials and consultants. In the interest of transparency, could you
please set up a listserv so that all members of the DAG can communicate freely? (I notice that Kevin
used actual email addresses in his recent email - I assume he typed them or cobbled them from an
earlier source I can't find. I've used his list for these emails I'm sending today.)
Traffic models - I'd feel more comfortable with the traffic models if I knew that they reproduced
actual traffic under today's conditions. How frequently and at what times of day and on which days
has this been validated? For example, could the engineers tell me what the model predicts for
Washington 1 South 1 New Washington between 8 and 9 am next Tuesday?
Methods of Evaluation of the orignal WAG - My reaction to the MoEs from the original DAG - the
scoring gave equal weighting to crucial and non-crucial factors. See http://xkcd.com/9371 Hopefully if
we're going through similar exercises in the DAG, we'll be more careful to weight things according to
what really matters.
Parking at the T Station - There is currently parking at the T station, both on the upper and lower
sides. Who uses this parking? It looks as though the upper parking is being eliminated - what effect
1
will this have on the people who currently use the lower parking? Should there be all-day parking there at all? That's all for now - I look forward to the DAG meetings resuming tomorrow! David 2
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
dwean2@gmaiLcom on behalf of David Wean <David@WeanZabin.com>
Sunday, September 30, 2012 11:45 AM
katherine.fichter@state.ma.us; pauLc.king@dot.state.ma.us;john.romano@state.ma.us;
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
josephine.burr@gmaiLcom; nbrown@brownrowe.com; tconsentino@gmaiLcom;
romoniadix@comcast.net; Bernard.Doherty@parsons.com; eppm@comcast.net;
dottiefarrell@gmail.com; francescafordiani@gmail.com;
freemansherwood@hotmaiLcom; mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu; dmhannon61@gmaiLcom;
hickiem@gmaiLcom; aihrer@comcast.net; sydney@sjdsgn.com; hmk1111@hotmaiLcom;
stk1221@gmail.com; jessica@masspaths.net; kevinfmoloney@comcast.net; mark.navin1
@gmaiLcom; Liz@strategymatters.org; okunieff@att.net;jpmichael@rcn.com;
williamreyelt@hotmail.com; stephen_schneider@harvard.edu; fsv.jp@comcast.net;
wepsic@hotmaiLco; kevin.m.wolfson@gmaiLcom; ewylie325@comcast.net; geopz99
@aoLcom
Casey - SW Corridor PMAC concerns and questions
PMAC DoT 071512.pdf
Members of the DAG, DoT and consultants:
I'm writing to pass on accumulated questions and concems of the Southwest Corridor Park Management
Advisory Committee related to the new parkland to be built at the end of the Corridor, and its interaction with
other aspects of the Casey project.
Mid-block crossing - The PMAC is opposed to the removal of the mid-block crossing of New Washington
Street. A detailed rationale for this position is contained in the letter I sent on July 15th. (I don't see a
copy of this on the DoT website to reference people to, so I've attached a copy here.)
Access for DCR vehicles - We want to remind the designers that in designing the infrastructure for the
new section of parkland, there should be full access to park vehicles (e.g. ramps and paths of sufficient
width for trucks, snow plows, etc.) and that the space be maintainable.
Budget and Funding for new park space - How much money is allocated to the new parkland? (We are
planning to work with the Boston Architectural College on design ideas, and it would be helpful to
understand what we're working with.) What's the process for making sure it actually gets allocated and
spent - or could cost overruns in other areas eat away at this?
Timing of Design for new park space - When (both %-wise, and calendar-wise) are the designs for the
new park space going to be drawn up? (I.e. how much time is there for input from the PMAC?) We've
been under the impression that our collaboration with BAC could take place second semester of the 2012­
13 year. Please confirm that this is reasonable.
Who actually will be building the various features of the new parkland - will it be part of the overall
$53 million contract, or separately contracted to another entity?
Regards,
David Wean
DAG member representing the SW Corridor PMAC
3
Parkland Management Advisory Committee for the Southwest Corridor Park
Katherine Fichter
Manager of Long-Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
July 15, 2012
Kate,
I'm writing as the DAG representative of the Southwest Corridor Park Management Advisory
Committee (PMAC). At our last meeting, the PMAC resolved to strongly advocate for the
retention of the existing pedestrian crossing between the Southwest Corridor Park and Forest
Hills station.
Though the current design for the area includes a new Orange Line head house north of Route
203, there will still be substantial pedestrian traffic that needs to cross the 5 or
6 lanes to get to the station. The new entrance will not serve the commuter rail tracks, nor
provide access to the many bus lines that originate at Forest Hills. Further, with other similar
arrangements, such entrances are considered unsafe or unsavory, so we even expect that many
Orange Line passengers will choose not to use this entrance.
The current signalized crossing between the park path and the station provides a safe and direct
connection. The proposed pedestrian routing sends pedestrians out of their way, either to the
SouthlWashington or Washington/Hyde Park intersections. Based on drawings distributed at the
June 15th DAG meeting, I estimate that the trip from the park to the station will be increased by
at least 170 feet - 49 seconds at the standard allowance of 3.5 feet per second (plus whatever
additional delay occurs due to the signal tinring).
One ofthe main reasons the community was given for the decision not to replace the bridge was
that it would be an improvement for pedestrians and cyclists, better linking parkland to
transportation. Increasing the trip time from the end of the path to the station entrance by 40% is
a result opposite to the goal of increased access.
The PMAC urges the planners to dig a little more deeply in their bag of design tools and come
up with a solution that at least is no worse than the current situation for the people who choose
not to drive cars through the area.
David Wean
Representative to the Casey Overpass Design Advisory Group
for the Southwest Corridor PMAC
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc: Subject: dwean2@gmail.com on behalf of David Wean <David@WeanZabin.com> Sunday, September 30,2012 11:37 AM katherine.fichter@state.ma.us; paul.c.king@dot.state.ma.us;john.romano@state.ma.us; 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.navinl
@gmail.com; Liz@strategymatters.org; okunieff@att.net;jpmichael@rcn.com;
williamreyelt@hotmail.com; stephen_schneider@harvard.edu; fsvJp@comcast.net;
wepsic@hotmail.co; kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com; ewylie32S@comcast.net; geopz99
@aol.com
Casey - DAG member urges DoT to keep bike lanes in the design
Members of the DAG, DoT and consultants:
While I have great regard and admiration for the long-term vision of my well-organized friends at the
Boston Cyclists Union and Livable Streets, limiting bike accommodations to off-street side paths is a step
backward for bike commuters. While the cycle tracks will provide comfort to less experienced cyclists,
they have several disadvantages relative to on-street travel:
• Conflicts with pedestrians - even if there are separate pathways for peds and bikes, it's silly to think
that pedestrians will stick to the pedestrian path. And even if they did, many pedestrian
movements require crossing the bike paths, and pedestrians generally are less careful crossing
bike paths than crossing streets. So cyclists should expect to slow down to near walking speed at
these conflict points.
• At intersections, the paths position riders in greater conflict with motor traffic than if they're already
on the street and in the drivers' view. The alternative is to wait at each intersection for a meager
time slice (if there is one at all) for an exclusive crossing, assuming that right-turn-on-red is not
permitted.
• Despite everyone's best intentions, the paths will never be as clear of ice and snow as the
roadways. So in the winter, riders will have to use roads that have been purposely designed to not
accommodate them (remember, the lanes are being narrowed).
The side paths will be a big improvement for people out for a leisurely weekend excursion, or someone
riding to school with their 8 year old. But for the hundreds of people who commute by bike through the
area each day, this design will add to their commute time, reduce their convenience, or, unless they're
assertive enough to use the full lane as allowed by law, reduce their safety.
When the decision was being made whether or not to replace the bridge, one of the benefits was that an
at-grade solution would lead to wonderful improvements in bicycling and walking in the area. While that
was debatable (and is still, in some circles, being debated) removing the lanes and limiting bike
accommodations to side paths is a step backward.
4
It feels like the designers are throwing our commutes under the bus. (Hopefully this is just a figure of
speech.)
David Wean, DAG member
5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 3: Arborway Committee Letter
Please see the following pages.
Page 25
/JU/ _______
Ib~rb~_'Wa¥ Committee advocates for improved public transit options for
residents of Jamaica Plain and surrounding communities. In addition, we
support the "Complete Streets" concept of roadway improvements that will
enhance access and mobility for all transportation users, prioritizing those who
use public transportation, walk, and use bicycles. Along with other groups
participating in the Design Advisory Group (DAG), we support a balanced
approach to transportation improvements that will reduce the impacts of
automobile traffic and congestion in our neighborhoods.
The latest design submitted by DOT shows that the Route 39 bus stop at Forest
Hills Station will be moved to the upper bus way along the westerly side of the
station. The Arborway Committee opposes this move.
The new design, which includes the addition of a third lane to the upper bus
way, will result in greater bus congestion on the upper bus way, longer overall
trip times for the Route 39 bus, the narrowing of the pedestrian walkway inside
the station, longer distances for Route 39 riders walking from bus to the station
platforms, and more congestion along South Street.
Transit access and operations are being sacrificed by DOT simply to allow for
faster throughput of cars via the new Casey Roadway. Not only is this a
violation of the founding principles of the DAG, but also an invitation to
increased in traffic on the roadway and ultimately greater automobile
congestion around the station and on surrounding streets.
The Arborway Committee supports a design that improves bus and transit
access, but not one that diminishes that access for the sake of rush-hour traffic
as this design does. We urge the Casey DAG designers and engineers to
reconsider the location of the Route 39 bus terminus and to return it to the
north side of the Forest Hills MBTA station.
The Board of Directors The Arborway Committee ret .