Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
June 29, 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:
Third Design Advisory Group (DAG) Meeting
Meeting Notes of June 18, 2012
Overview & Executive Summary
On June 18, 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 monthly.
The meeting described herein had four major parts:
 An overall description and discussion of the proposed design for the new Casey Arborway at-grade
corridor.
 Breakout groups addressing specific intersections within the corridor.
 Discussion of pick-up/drop-off operations around the Forest Hills Station.
 Discussion of previously asked questions related to mobility issues.
With regard to the corridor discussion and the break-out groups, reaction from the DAG was generally
positive, particularly regarding the scaled-down version of the new boulevard which would be appropriate to
2016 traffic volumes. However, a significant number of Group members expressed a strong belief that the
new roadway should be built in 2016 to 2035 specifications, given the potential difficulty of mustering the
needed funding and political will to expand the boulevard to the 2035 version at some point in the future. It
should be noted that, to be conservative during the planning phase, the traffic volumes projected for 2035
were assumed to include additional growth in surrounding development, thereby increasing the projected
amount of traffic. Additional themes of the corridor discussion included the following:
 The need for continued work on bicycle and pedestrian crossings and how bicycles can safely and
effectively make east/west left turns at the ends of New Washington Street.
 Formalizing the center of intersections to prevent motorists from “blocking the box.”
 Creating pedestrian access to the Arborway Hillside and pairing it with a pedestrian crossing at the
western bowtie.
 Ensuring that the Orchardhill Road/Courthouse/Arborway Gardens frontage road access to the
eastern bowtie does not become an inviting short-cut for through traffic.
 Whether or not it is safe to prohibit east/west left-turns at either end of New Washington Street, but
then to permit these movements during off-peak hours for the convenience of local residents. Some
DAG members suggested that time-based turn restrictions would be confusing and dangerous.
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
In terms of pick-up/drop-off operations around Forest Hills Station, it was generally agreed that taxis are a
necessary and important component of the Forest Hills transportation network and that planning for their
presence is appropriate. Ensuring that the operation of taxis does not negatively impact other traffic
operations or degrade local quality of life was also noted as a major concern. The idea of removing all
school bus operations from the New Washington Street section of the corridor was received with general
approval.
With regard to open questions from previous DAG meetings:
 The entire CDM Smith peer review of the planning study’s traffic work has now been posted to the
project website.
 The MBTA has reviewed the project team’s information regarding bus operations and does not feel
that MBTA buses have been undercounted as part of the Casey-related traffic analysis. The MBTA
will continue to work with the project team to ensure that a comprehensive understanding of bus
operations is integrated into the 25% design package for the Casey project.
 The project team attempted to reintegrate a midblock crossing into the New Washington Street area.
Thus far it causes too many queuing issues (for vehicles) to be worthwhile given changes to the
intersections at both ends of New Washington Street to make them more pedestrian-friendly, such as
wider crosswalks, and the shift of the MBTA head-house to the north which would allow pedestrians
coming from the north to access the Orange Line platform directly without needing to cross to the
station..
 Additional counts from February 2011 for many of the intersections in the corridor have been obtained from the Boston Transportation Department and will be integrated into the team’s
understanding of area traffic operations.
Detailed Meeting Minutes
C: Kate Fichter (KF): Good evening and welcome to DAG meeting number 3. Tonight’s topic is mobility. I
hope you all got the materials we sent out on Friday in three emails. I know that isn’t the easiest way to
get things, but they are big documents and we wanted to ensure you got everything. We also have
printed copies. We’ll be going through all of that in detail tonight.
Two things to reiterate: please let us get through tonight’s presentation. Items 2, 3, and 4 are all things
you asked for and which you all want to know about. We’ll have Q&A after item 4, but please let us get
through. We have a few people here with us tonight I want to acknowledge: Ruth Helfeld (DCR), Vineet
Gupta (BTD), Joe Orfant (DCR), Joe Cosgrove and Dan Webber (both MBTA), and Representative Russell
Holmes. We’re going to have break-out groups as we did in DAG #2 and we want to leave about 45
minutes for that. Now I’m going to ask Steve to say a few words about where we are in the process and
a little more on the 25% design phase.
C: Kevin Moloney (KM): When you sent out the draft agenda, I asked whether we would be able to look at
what was on it and make comments and amendments to it. You said that DOT wouldn’t do that. You
also said that at the end of the meeting you would let us ask questions. I want to hear about the peer
review that John Romano said would be made available back on March 19 th and which has been
withheld by the DOT1 Paula says there are lots of conflicts and mistakes in your traffic materials and
Bernie has four written questions which have gone unanswered for five weeks 2 I want these issues and
any others addressed at the end of the meeting and that means we ought to have an hour for it. How
much time will we get?
1
The peer review materials are available on the Casey website at
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Documents.aspx
2
MassDOT has responded directly to Mr. Doherty’s questions.
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: KF: I think we’ll have to see how much of the agenda we get through.
C: KM: I don’t think that’s appropriate. That’s insulting to the whole DAG! We’re here to advise DOT and
we’re treated like this is kindergarten. We sit through your prepared agenda and we get put in small
groups to do useless busy work. Those small groups are a waste of time. This is a waste of time. How
much time do we get? Give us a commitment!
A: KF: Kevin, I can’t do that until I see how we do on the rest of the agenda. I’m going to let Steve make
his remarks now.
C: Steve McLaughlin (SM): Good evening everyone. I want to show you these very large binders. This is
the planning study that the WAG helped us develop over the last year. This will all go on the website
[editor’s note: the planning study materials are available for public review in the Roslindale and Jamaica
Plain (Sedgwick Street) branch libraries]. Its three volumes with three appendices; everything in it is
already on the Casey project website, but this is all of it in one place. We’ll have these materials as a
reference in the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) that we file.
Q: Jessica Mink (JM): Can you put copies in the Jamaica Plain and Roslindale branch libraries? [editor’s
note: see above].
A: SM: We will try to do that.3 I can promise you one copy in the State Transportation Library at 10 Park
Plaza. The planning study compilation has virtually every word spoken during the WAG process and the
updated traffic analysis.
We read the newspapers and see your emails and we know some of you are concerned about the traffic
and trying to get into every aspect of it. Some people will never believe what we have to, but most of
you –I truly believe the majority of you just want us to get this as right as we possibly can. We have
professional consultants and we work with the Central Transportation Planning Staff on our traffic
modeling and projections. When we make changes to our traffic model, the results of that change don’t
always come back to you that second. The important point is that when we do a little change in the
model, it’s going to change the results from what you have already seen in the published data. As this
process continues, you can expect it to keep changing. We know fundamentally that the traffic works (in
the new Casey configuration) and. The basic analysis overall is that this project works.
Q: Allan Ihrer (AI): Will the Synchro 7 information for the at-grade and bridge proposals be in the planning
study document?
A: SM: Yes and it’s already on the project website.
C: AI: And getting to the point of what Kevin said what was there in paper, there are discrepancies. We
heard this would be a smooth ride from one end to the other and in the Synchro which we had to FOIA,
we see a 4.5-minute wait at one intersection and an 800-foot queue at another one and that gives us
pause. I trust that this is an adequate process and that’s what we hoped to address with the traffic
meeting4 We wanted to rehash the red, green, and yellow dots, 5 and we were told that LOS isn’t an
effective guidepost and so that brings me back to the Synchro 7 data: the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C),
the total delays and queues and the output on how each lane performs and when I see it’s not
performing the same as the dots that gives me and others pause and we’re concerned about it and
we’re trying to make this an open process where we can see the problems. We see you fail to identify
problems and glaring absences and we don’t see what’s happening at the eastern bowtie and traffic
3
This was done on June 29, 2012.
Held on May 24, 2012 and with materials available at
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
5
The phrase “red, green, and yellow dots” refers to a graphic detailing LOS used during the WAG process.
4
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
backing up the Forest Hills Drive intersection which is a mess in the morning and we just have to trust
you that the Square is better than the egg-about. The problem is that all we really have is your say-so.
A: SM: The models that we have used we have tried to make available to you in print and on the website as
fast as we are able. Back in January as we were comparing the at-grade and bridge options, we asked
CDM/Smith to do a peer review of the traffic model. They do lots of reviews of proposed private
developments and so they know all the tricks people use to make traffic models look more appealing
than they really are. We made everything open to CDM/Smith. We let them visit with CTPS staff and we
asked them to find out if the analysis was solid. Here is what they told me and I’ll read it to you wordfor-word.
C: KM: I don’t want just a piece, I want the whole report which you guys got in January, which John
Romano told us on March 19th would go on the website and be circulated among the DAG members,
and which Kate Fichter tells us you are still working on, getting it ready. Let’s have the whole report.
A: SM: I think I’ll read the section anyway: “while we have identified minor adjustments and clarifications
which may be necessary, the traffic analysis provided for the Casey Overpass project has been
performed in a professional manner consistent with standard engineering practices and the guidelines of
the MassDOT 2006 project development and design guidelines. Our recommendation to provide
additional analysis summaries are solely to further illustrate that traffic operations will be more efficient
in the future with either alternative than the existing conditions or the no-build.”6
C: Paula Okunieff (PO): That’s assuming the data is valid and we’ve seen that all you have to do is come
here and see that the traffic coming to this meeting is less than what you saw coming to the May
meeting. Using June data and undercounting the buses produced results that undercount what the
impacts will be.
A: SM: We are moving forward with this project and we know this solution (the at-grade roadway) works.
We’ve looked at it in detail and we’re convinced. There may be some of you who will never be satisfied.
At some point we have to move on through design which is where we are today. There are further
opportunities for you to say the data is incorrect. We’ll be filing an ENF with MEPA, independent agency,
and that will provide you with a chance to comment. We meet the threshold to file an ENF with MEPA
because we’ll be cutting down more than four trees of a certain diameter.
C: AI: This isn’t about trees or an ENF. This photograph is what happened when Gary said there would
only be one bus turning and I’m not personally saying this project shouldn’t be built. I’m telling you to
look at what the community knows. I’ve got an impartial observer sitting with me who can tell you this
happens any old time and you won’t even let us discuss it.
A: SM: The WAG and the DAG have helped us hugely with this project. We wouldn’t have come up with
Shea Square without you. The problems on Washington Street west of the station, you told us about
that. This group has been valuable and we’ve learned so much from you. The Measures of Evaluation
you helped develop were terrific.
C: David Hannon (DH): You spoke about giving us further information; we’re asking you for it now.
A: SM: What I’m trying to tell you here is that there are some people in this room who we will never satisfy
no matter how much information we give. The MEPA filing is the place for you to bring those concerns
and say just how wrong we are, but we’re in design now and we can’t keep going back to address old
business.
6
The CDM Smith Peer Review and DOT responses can be found on the project website at
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Documents.aspx
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: Liz O’Connor (LO): Paula raised the question about the validity of the June (traffic) counts. I’ve raised
that a few times myself and I want you to design the at-grade solution based on meaningful counts.
That question deserves an answer. How are you addressing the count issue?
A: Gary McNaughton (GM): First of all, counts taken in June are not dramatically lower than those taken at
other times of the year, but we have done supplemental counts to be sure that we have been a thorough
as possible. We did Automatic Traffic Recorder counts (ATR) – those are the tubes you see across the
street – back in December of 2011 and those are integrated into our traffic modeling. This past Friday
we just got new additional count data from the City. Those were done in February. We’ll review those
and we’ll adjust our model if it’s appropriate.
C: LO: That’s an excellent answer and I appreciate it. Thank you.
C: SM: The advocacy of the WAG and DAG has helped us and will continue to help us. We have a meeting
coming up in July about construction. We have the ENF process. We’ll continue developing the 25%
design and then we’ll have the hearing for 25% design. We’ll reconvene the DAG after the MEPA
process and keep moving through the design process.
C: Todd Consentino (TC): I liked your ground rules; can you please make people hold their questions.
A: SM: I’m doing my best on that one. I’ll wrap up: we’re out of the planning phase. The planning study is
going to the libraries. We’re designing and we have been for several weeks now. Paul Godfrey is the
lead civil designer for HNTB and you’re going to be seeing a lot more of him as we go ahead. There,
I’m all done.
C: Representative Russell Holmes (RH): So when we initially began the DAG process, I asked if we could
have a meeting to address all of the traffic questions that have been building up over the past few
months. The last meeting we had was supposed to be that meeting. You gave a presentation,
presented what you wanted to present and when you asked if people wanted another in-depth
discussion, lots of them raised their hand. Everyone is primed and up to speed now and I’m still asking
for the in-depth discussion regardless of what the Gazette had to say. These questions are just lingering.
I’m not here advocating for a bridge, I’m saying we’ll get hurt as the Commonwealth if we keep going
on through this process without bringing the community along. The community members who aren’t
convinced need to be. Allen brings up the point with the three buses and that erodes confidence. Can
the community please have the in-depth traffic conversation? The community wants you to talk for half
an hour and then answer their questions for two hours. People want that meeting; even pro-at-grade
folks want it. Steve, if we build this and it doesn’t work, we’ll look silly. Having that in-depth traffic
meeting is my firm request to Kate and if that means I’ve got to go in and talk to Secretary Davey, I’ll do
it.
C: Bernard Doherty (BD): I’d just like to say that when Allan talks, he’s speaking from the pulpit, but he
makes a strong point. What Russell Holmes says is spot-on. The Asticou/Martinwood/South Street
neighborhood association took a vote last week and we’re 80% opposed to the at-grade solution. We’re
in favor of a solution that makes sense. These are our homes and quality of life. We’ll have to put up
with demolition of the supports and the lead paint and the noise and the construction.
A: SM: And all of that is going to come up in the fourth DAG meeting about construction.
C: BD: I’ll talk about it now. This is my home and I won’t be steamrolled by you! The people from this
community are concerned! I don’t care about the support for the at-grade solution from the groups you
brought in to support you. This concerns me personally!
A: KF: O.K. folks, we’re going to move on here to agenda items 2, 3, and 4. This is something Vineet
suggested and something you said all of you wanted. We’re going to go through each intersection and
talk about it in detail. Before we do that, however, I want to let Paul Godfrey introduce himself.
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Paul Godfrey (PG): You all have a lot to discuss so I’ll be brief. I’m Paul Godfrey with HNTB. As this
project is into the design phase, I’m taking the design lead. The Forest Hills Station was my first project
right out of college so this has a nice full-circle feeling to it. Before we get into Maureen’s detailed walkthrough of the corridor, I want to tell you about our design philosophy. We want to make this a rightsized, multi-modal project. I’ve been getting up to speed over the past few months and Steve is ontarget that your information has been very helpful. Your input really is in the process. Our mindset has
been one of creating a neighborhood-friendly design. This is a big project, but it has to work for you.
We’ve been working with BTD, DCR, and they are here tonight and can say why they are comfortable
with us moving in the direction we are. Our philosophy has been one of reducing the amount of
pavement. I see a lot of questions and concerns about growth and so we’re trying to be as flexible as we
can. We know today and have projections about tomorrow, but you can never be 100% sure about the
future, so we’re trying to be flexible so we can respond to future challenges. That in a nutshell is what
we’re trying to accomplish and with that, here’s Maureen.
Corridor Walk-Through
C: Maureen Chlebek (MC): Tonight, I want to talk to you about three aspects of the project. The design
behind me7 accommodates the projected 2035 traffic volumes and we’ve covered how we derived those
on multiple occasions8 but, very briefly, they are based on projected trips associated with development
predicted for this area plus the background trip growth predicted by the Central Transportation Planning
Staff (CTPS). We’ve begun recently looking at a design that would work for 2016 and be ‘scalable’ to
2035 volumes. I will walk you through what we feel would work for opening day and we’ve looked at
four scenarios for that. Then, the last thing I will do is review enlarged views of the intersections, for
which I will discuss signal phasing. That part will get you ready for your breakout groups. Part of your
handout is a capacity analysis results table. These are constantly changing, but this is for informing
tonight’s discussion. We also show 2016 and 2035 volumes for comparison.
Q: PO: Did you include commercial vehicles?
A: MC: Yes, we have truck and bus percentages.
A: GM: Allan brought up some good points and we looked at heavy vehicle percentages and updated them
again. These are drafts. This is the 25% design and part of that is a document called the functional
design report or ‘FDR’. That’s a substantial document. It is very hard to produce snapshots of this for
you when everything is moving and we’re trying to ensure everything is adjusted and balanced. Each
time we do one of these snapshots of the traffic, it’s to inform discussion. The 25% design will have a
very detailed, fully-documented analysis. This table is to help you understand the difference between
2016 and 2035.
C: KF: I’m going to ask Dan Webber (MBTA) to take a moment and talk about the buses.
A: Dan Webber (DW): Paula, I wouldn’t say the project team’s volumes undercount buses. McMahon took
a survey on one day and I compared that to the MBTA schedule. I also compared the numbers you sent
me to the MBTA schedule and there are discrepancies on both sides. I need to look at this some more
and hammer away it a little longer. We’ll get this 100% done and deal with the implications, but from
the MBTA perspective the buses are not undercounted and we certainly won’t let an undercounting
happen.
7
Meeting graphics are available at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx.
See http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/24/docs/minutesPrimer-Final.pdf for a discussion of how these
volumes were derived.
8
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: MC: When we went over traffic at the last meeting we talked about overall LOS being just one way to
look at this because of the importance of queuing between the intersections. LOS remains important
and a good way to look at this, but there’s more to the table beyond LOS. We’ve looked a lot at
coordinating the east/west and north/south traffic flows to avoid that queuing and we wanted you to
have all this information to inform the discussion tonight. As directed by the WAG, we didn’t design this
for LOS A. We have some movements, not overall intersections, but some movements that are at E or F.
We went with the philosophy of trying to decrease the amount of paved area. For those of you who
were on the WAG, you’ll remember we started with a big, wide cross-section and then pulled back from
that to a design that would effectively process the traffic and get people through in one light cycle.
That’s the design goal for vehicles. We’ll also discuss bicycles and pedestrians.
So, let’s start at the western bow-tie. Going eastbound you start out with two lanes and quickly go into
three lanes by the time you get to this light. Continuing further to South Street/Washington Street, you
can see there are three lanes in each direction. We have a bicycle lane, an off-street bicycle path and a
sidewalk. A design change that we have made since the last meeting is that we removed the bicycle
lanes off the Arborway.
Q: David Wean (DWe): If the bicycle lanes go away, do the travel lanes stay the same width?
A: MC: They do and what that does is allow us to save 10 feet off the total roadway width.
Q: LO: Is it possible to have a cut-through for the Asticou Road folks near the western bow-tie?
A: MC: That’s the Forest Hills gate to the Arboretum and there’s no pedestrian crossing at that location
because there is no sidewalk on the north side of the Arborway. There are pedestrian crossings at South
Street/New Washington Street so we expect people would be able to cross safely to the south side there.
We’re working with our agency partners on the pedestrian/bicycle interactions.
Q: BD: Have you given any thought to what happens when an 18-wheeler tries to use one of these bowties?
A: KF: Yes, we have looked into that issue already, now please let Maureen finish. You all wanted to hear
this.
C: MC: Continuing eastbound we do have a right-turn lane. That’s something we need for the 700 vehicles
that make the right turn in the peak hours. At Hyde Park Avenue, we have three lanes in each direction.
Another design change we’ve made is the Route 39 used to turn around in the intersection, but we
moved it back so it happens in the median and interferes less with the crosswalk. It’s still a queue-jump
lane, but it helps operations of the westbound buses making the left onto Hyde Park Avenue. We have
three general lanes and the bus lane at this point with bicycle paths and sidewalks down both sides of
the roadway.
I also want to talk about the design change for Orchardhill Road/Morton Street. When we went to the
West Roxbury Courthouse Neighborhood Association, they were happy about the lowered volumes on
the service road, but they were worried about having to go all the way to Shea Square just to go west.
They gave us a suggestion to make the bow-tie a full intersection and that didn’t work because of
queuing. So instead we went with another suggestion which was to make Orchardhill Road rightin/right-out with a short portion of road going two-way to access the Arborway which gives residents
there access to the eastern bow-tie. This way, they can get on the Arborway westbound without going
all the way to Shea Square.
C: MC: Continuing eastbound we still have sidewalks and bicycle paths down both sides. At the eastern
bow-tie there’s a signal which doesn’t come on unless a pedestrian activates it to cross to or from the
courthouse. Coming into Shea Square we have two through-lanes with eastbound and westbound
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
turning lanes. We have two lanes getting to Cemetery Road; because of the geometry we have an
eastbound left-turn to Cemetery Road.
Q: Frederick Vetterlein (FV): Isn’t there a left-turn at Circuit Drive?
A: MC: Yes, its two through-lanes with a turning pocket.
Q: DH: Can eastbound traffic make a U-turn to get into the Stony Brook neighborhood?
A: MC: Yes, a passenger car can do it, but nothing bigger. We want to make the move available to
residents, but not large vehicles.
C: PG: Maureen, before you keep going, I want to answer Mr. Doherty’s question in greater detail. The
bow-ties can accommodate all of the trucks below WB-67 which is the biggest truck out there. What you
see out here are mostly WB-50’s with a 50-foot trailer and they can use the bowties without any
problem.
C: MC: Now I want to do the north/south connections. I’ll start at Washington Street/Ukraine Way.
Ukraine Way feeds one lane onto Washington Street and because we have this tight cross-section, we
analyzed this as one lane northbound and two lanes southbound and the volumes are conducive to that;
it can work that way. What that allows us to do is shift the bus-way down and the right-turning buses
enter into their own lane. It’s not a bus-only lane; once the lane is developed any car can get into it and
then there are two lanes by the time you get to South Street. As we continue up we add a third lane for
a northbound left-turn lane at the Arborway. There would be a signal at South Street. The crosswalk
would be relocated to be at this signal. Coming back to bicycles and pedestrians, we have sidewalks on
both sides with crosswalks at each intersection. Along the west side we have a bicycle path that
terminates just before the entrance to the Arboretum; we just ran out of room for it. There’s lots of
analysis that’s been done on the signals, looking at stacking and phasing and what can be permitted.
C: GM: And we want you to comment on all of that in your break-out groups. There will be people at each
station to explain it to you.
Q: Gail Sullivan (GS): It just seems like there would be a lot of conflict there by the bus-way and Asticou
Road and the pedestrian crossing. Could you separate the pedestrian crossing from the bus-way?
A: GM: That’s just the kind of thing we’ll work through in the breakout groups; please write that down on
your sheet.
Q: Sarah Freeman (SF): Can you explain why you are not making a sidewalk on the Arborway heading
inbound from South Street on the north side of the roadway? We’ve spent years planning for access to
that hillside. If you’re on the residential road above it, that’s much steeper and less user-friendly. Can
you explain your thinking?
A: Jonathan Kapurst (JK): We have space for it, but there’s nothing to get to at the other end. There would
be no sidewalk beyond the project limits. We could grade it out so that you could take the turf out and
install a sidewalk later.
A: MC: We certainly haven’t precluded it.
C: Michael Halle (MH): To that point, if you did the sidewalk on the north side as far as the bow-tie and
then had a pedestrian crossing, the people from South Street could go right to the Arboretum which is
on the sunny side of the road. That’s something to look at anyway.
A: PG: Please draw that up in your breakout session.
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: MH: There’s also the bicycle thing. We’ll have to figure out a way to talk about the system-wide issue,
but there are a lot of bicycles on the road now and if you move them to the paths you run the risk of
boosting bicycle and pedestrian conflicts where you have to cross them over the pedestrians.
A: MC: Yes, that would be at the intersections and we’re still working on that.
Q: PO: Are we assuming that people who come down South Street and want to make a left will need to go
all the way down to Ukraine Way?
A: MC: No, the northbound and southbound left-turns are permitted.
C: PO: There should not be a right-turn on red at that location because of the impact of allowing it. The
Washington Street traffic on the lower side: if you take away a lane or change the current flow you will
impact something else because there’s no storage.
A: GM: The southbound movement is running while the northbound is stopped. There are ways to
formalize the signal so you can get rid of the right on red and get that time to maintain operations.
C: PO: If you take away the storage, you just need to consider the tradeoffs. One lane will help downstream, but it will impact traffic going down Washington Street and back traffic up into Roslindale and
it’s already a nightmare with four lanes.
Q: Michael Reiskind (MR): So you’ve added a bicycle path between the Arboretum Forest Hills Gate and
South Street. What have you given up? Is the sidewalk really narrow? What’s the tradeoff?
A: Don Kindsvatter (DK): That bicycle path has been on the plans for quite a while now.
Q: MR: So how wide is the pedestrian path?
A: DK: Eight feet for pedestrians and 10 for bicycles.
Q: MR: I don’t like that. I got into this because I wanted to reconnect the Emerald Necklace from the
Arboretum to Franklin Park. I see an ungracious, car-oriented series of crossings. I want to know how
long it would take you to walk from the Arboretum to Franklin Park and how long you would have to
wait at each intersection. It just seems to me you have improved things for cars and bicycles at the
expense of pedestrians. I assume its two light cycles. Can you do a pedestrian through-put calculation?
A: MC: In the breakout groups we can show you the phasing and timing for pedestrians.
Q: Sarah Kurpiel (SK): You generally have two eastbound and two westbound through lanes. Is there any
way you could narrow this and make some of the through-lanes into shared through- and turninglanes?
A: MC: We tried to bring it down to that, but under the 2035 volumes it doesn’t work.
C: BD: I want to note here on your diagram that you’ve got the MBTA portion of this and it’s never been
discussed with any community group. I got into this because it was dealing with the bridge and now the
buses are involved. Was there ever a vote taken to include the MBTA improvements in this project?
They are moving the buses down, moving the ventilation stack, for the commuter rail and we’ve never
interacted with the MBTA. I plan to ask for a meeting about that.
A: SM: Let me start on that and then I’ll let Joe Cosgrove address it further. The WAG never voted on
anything, it wasn’t that sort of body. When the WAG first started we asked you, as homework, to give us
the problem areas in the corridor, which to your credit you did beautifully. The WAG told us Washington
Street west of the station is a problem and we’ve discussed it at length both with this group and publicly.
The MBTA has been attending these sessions since the first public information meeting. Tonight, there
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
are two members of the MBTA in attendance.9 We’ve had countless meetings between the MBTA and
the project team and this concept has been before you for months.
A: Joe Cosgrove (JC): The work on the MBTA is not separate or distinct. This is all one system. The
proposed changes will make the traffic part of that system work better.
C: BD: We as a community have had no contact with you and none on this particular configuration. We
may have done a little study group about this and said we have a problem with cabs. I’ve been asking
for the lights to be retimed for years and that’s all well and good, but we never agreed to this.
A: JC: The WAG process is where this project got defined. The MBTA changes came from the WAG process.
Q: Jodie Burr (JB): Regarding the lanes on Washington Street and related to the bus-way, I am concerned
about that. I’m on South Street in Roslindale and I’m concerned about double parking during rush hour.
I want to know, and I think the idea of single lane might need to be revisited, but in terms of the taxi
drop-off area, is it longer, the same, what’s the plan for that?
A: KF: That’s number 5 on the agenda. I’m going to let Maureen get moving again now so there’s time for
the breakouts.
A: MC: The plan on the left is for 2035 traffic. We checked to see if we could make things smaller for 2016
and we looked at two lanes, three lanes, allowing east and westbound left turns, split phasing, etc. We
tossed around a lot of ideas. We put the mid-block crossing back on New Washington Street the way
you asked and it just doesn’t work because of some serious queuing issues.
The alternative behind me is something that works for 2016. Essentially it’s the same plan we have for
2035, but we take the cross-section down to two lanes in each direction and add a right-turn lane.10 We
have these bump-outs for pedestrians and because we get rid of the on-street bicycle lanes, we can cut
down the pedestrian crossing by 20 feet. It’s two lanes in each direction pretty much all the way down
through Shea Square. We can process the traffic. Some movements are at LOS E, but we’re managing
the queues between intersections and this is a viable alternative for the base year of 2016.
C: George Zoulalian (ZG): I like this very much. It really goes along with the Arborway Committee’s
mission of improving transit and makes this more of a four-lane roadway like the rest of the Arborway. I
like this.
C: Hillary Kelley (HK): I agree with George. I’m glad the width has shrunk. I also think to Michael’s point
about the bicycle and pedestrian paths, I appreciate having the pedestrian paths pushed away from the
roadway. I think that helps you feel like you’re not right on the roadway. It’s a good buffer and a nice
improvement.
Q: DWe: Comparing these drawings, most of the time the lanes are the same, but you just change the
names. You said that the 2016 approach would be O.K. with current volumes and then you could
expand it out. Where would the new lanes come from when they are needed, say in 2025?
A: MC: The right turn at Washington Street becomes a through-lane and at South Street there’s enough
room to develop another lane.
A: GM: On the intersection plans, you can see the 2016 and 2035 plans overlaid on each other so you can
see what’s different between them.
C: PO: It looks like three through-lanes to me.
9
Joe Cosgrove and Dan Webber
Available at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
10
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: GM: I think this would be a good time to get into our breakout groups. I can walk you through all of
these issues once we’re in the groups.
C: PO: If I look at the drawings that you sent it looks like two through-lanes, and then a left-turn lane and
then a right, even though there were only two receiving lanes on the other side.
A: MC: That’s a right-turn only lane. It may be hard to see on the small version, but it’s a right-turn only
lane.
A: JK: You’re looking at the intersection diagram. The through-/right-turn lane is for the preliminary
design. The right-turn alternative is in the shaded area. In the preliminary design, we left the arrows on
there.
Q: Paul Romary (PM): I appreciate the narrow roadway for pedestrians, but we’re putting a lot of traffic
through these intersections. When do you think you’d want to add the lanes and what’s the feasibility of
adding them 10 years out? Does it make more sense to do this now and suffer all the pain at once
recognizing that the lanes won’t be built in future because nobody has the money or political will or is
that you get another project out of rebuilding the road?
A: Vineet Gupta (VG): I won’t speak for DOT, but if this was mine to do, I would build this so that the 2035
foundations and drainage were in the right place; all done in the first shot. You build it for 2035 and
then retrofit it down to 2016 volumes, not the other way around. Maybe you add a neck-down that can
be taken away later.
C: PR: So it’s like when you’re building a house, you put the expensive stuff for the remodeling behind the
walls, but the problem here is that the remodeling might never happen because you lack the political
will. From the hospital’s (Shattuck Hospital) perspective, it’s better to deal with everything now,
recognizing the future traffic issues.
A: PG: Your point is well taken and I think the way to look at this is you want to address all of the hard
things now, the things that are disruptive and noisy. When we discuss right-sizing, I believe that the
effort to go from 2016 to 2035 would be relatively minor if you do it correctly.
C: Kevin Wolfson (KW): I appreciate the 2016 design. It’s forward-thinking and a big improvement; the risk
of building for 2035 in 2016 is that it leads to induced traffic. If the volume can fit on the new four-lane
cross-section, that’s great, especially if the 2035 volumes aren’t here yet.
A: SM: One thing we’re concerned about is 2035 traffic. We worked with CTPS with their regional model to
come up with the 2035 numbers. We had a baseline for traffic that we shared with the WAG and that
was done based on CTPS, BRA, and BTD inputs. In that, the agencies agreed that we should add more
potential future growth in some cases, and so that means the 2035 numbers we have shared with you
are pretty aggressive. That’s why we’re taking a new look at this now, recognizing that our planning
study projections for 2035 were so aggressive.
C: PR: As an employee of the Commonwealth for 30+ years, whatever you agree to in 2016 could be
entirely wiped out by the time you get to 2035. I want you to recognize the serious risk (of not building
sufficient capacity now).
C: JB: I want to respond and say that for me, as a local resident, one of my biggest fears is gridlock, but a
bigger fear is that we build a giant highway to accommodate three daily peak hours of traffic. As we all
know, by 7:00 p.m., it is generally smooth sailing through here unless something crazy happens which
does happen from time to time, but I worry that we’re building to suit the fears we have of three hours a
day.
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: GZ: I want to buttress Josephine. From Charlesgate to Neponset Circle, there’s no place where this road
is six lanes; it’s 4 lanes. I’m for this smaller cross-section. This way we have a continuous roadway, not
a super highway.
A: PR: But those sections of the roadway aren’t near a major subway and bus terminal.
C: SF: I hear your concern about having to revisit this later, but as someone who lives on the Arborway
today where there is already too much pavement, I don’t want to bring that driving down here. I want
this area calmed.
C: LO: The issues all of you raise are good ones and it comes down to accountability and how we hold the
Commonwealth accountable when we really don’t have any standing and we all know neighbors to
whom the Commonwealth has broken promises. You asked us for a clean slate and I believe you mean
well, but it would be reassuring if we could figure out the maximum level of accountability and how we
could make it different from other failed projects. Stretch your thinking. If you say we’ll build the
infrastructure for 2035, but the road itself is for 2016, what is our ironclad guarantee that there’s money
set aside for the expansion when the time comes and that it’s actionable if the thing isn’t done?
C: Community Resident (CR): Traffic growth in Massachusetts has been flat since 2006 and it’s a real
question to see if it’s going to start growing again. Projections being made today are based on a 2000
study which is currently under revision. It’s wise to make this flexible. Part of the GreenDOT policy is
mode shift and the City of Boston is trying to do that too. That’s where we’re trying to go.
C: Elizabeth Wylie (EW): I want to support what Liz had to say. It’s about politics, uncertain leadership, and
accountability. I also want to add in trees. The drawing showed all these trees and the decision was
made based on trees. As we think about right-sizing, how will the trees fare and who is taking care of
them? We have lovely 30-year growth trees. I don’t want this to be Melnea Cass Boulevard or
Columbus Avenue. If this about reconnecting Olmsted’s Emerald Necklace, there’s still a lot of
pavement; is it for festivals and farmers’ markets? Who pays for and programs that? All my neighbors
are afraid of this project because of the lack of follow-through. It’s tiring and fatiguing.
C: FV: This relates because the next subject you’ll go to is parking for taxis and passenger cars and that’s
important. What Vineet says is important. Design and build for 2035 and put in neck-downs and you
can make more parking for today. You could add 10 cars on Washington Street by providing parking in
the gray spaces on the large maps.11 If we build it wider and add neck-downs we can have parking for
pick-up/drop-off. That spends the money now, provides for 2035, and gives us parking today.
C: AI: I’m always trying to be positive and work to move this forward. The data we received tonight is great
and if we’d had it a while ago, it would have helped a lot. Looking at the at-grade for the evening for
the evening period, I see that if you’re at New Washington Street headed eastbound and wanting to
make a right onto Hyde Park Avenue, I see a tilde and 715 feet of queue and that means it’s backing up
to the Arboretum and the queue is theoretically infinite. It makes me wonder about capacity as you
shrink down the lanes and whether this will make a mess out of South Street.
C: MC: These charts are continually changing and when we do the break-outs we’ll go through by
intersection. We have three different intersection breakouts and Arborway/South Street will be led by
Gary out in the lobby. The next intersection grouping is Arborway/Washington Street/Orchardhill Road
and that’s me and Don and then Shea Square will be led by Colleen. That last one is in the side room
off the lobby.
Q: DH: Will the issue of the bus exit onto Washington Street west of the station be addressed?
A: MC: Yes, that will be in the group addressing Arborway at South Street.
11
Available at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: KM: I just want to be a little bit cautious here. If anybody believes that the Secretary of MassDOT or the
board that runs the DOT has the power or legal capability of delivering a binding, legally-enforceable
agreement to build the rest of this after the first portion is done, you’re out of your mind. It would have
to be something that would pass the House, pass the Senate, get signed by the Governor to get the
legislation and then you have to realize that the House and Senate can make it all go away. Even if they
passed it all and the Governor signs it, you still have to get the funding from the legislature and one
legislature cannot bind the next one. So any talk about a guarantee that later expansion will be funded
by the Commonwealth and built is just poppycock.
C: VG: I think it’s time we get into breakout groups and do the details. Right now, there are just ordinary
crosswalks. Think about creative ways to design them and make things more continuous. The second
thing to think about is traffic. Remember, someday all of these signals will be ours so BTD will take the
analysis and the numbers and do our own review to make sure everything is well-designed. The most
important part of that is the two signals at either end of New Washington Street and make sure they are
synchronized. Washington Street west of the station will get a lot of scrutiny too. The 2035 projections
are very aggressive, in some cases up 17%. That kind of increase isn’t projected anywhere else in the
City. That’s the very aggressive scenario of complete, total build-out.
A: KF: O.K. everyone, I think you know where the breakout groups are. We’ve got until 8:00. When you
come back, we’ll talk about taxis and do a report-out.
Discussion of Pick-up/Drop-off Operations
C: DK: The way the cab stand is signed today, there’s room for five or six cabs and then there’s room for
curbside pick-up/drop-off, but, in reality, the cabs fill up all the room and force everyone else into
double parking. Our idea was to create more pick-up/drop-off on both sides of the street. We’ve
provided space on both sides of Washington Street west of the station. We’re not saying yet how much
is for cars and how much is for cabs, but the cabs are on the east side by the station and the pickup/drop-off occurs to the north of South Street. We’ve been told there are too many cabs and too much
space occupied by them,12 and so the question is: if we limit the number of cabs, is the rest of the space
for private pick-up/drop-off? How should the rest of the space work?
A: SK: I think splitting the cabs into two stands might be an issue. If you split them into two ranks, you’ll
have taxi drivers darting in and out of the travel lane to get to the head of the line. Maybe it makes
sense to have the taxis in one group, on the bottom of the map near 4 and 9. I just think the split will be
an issue.
A: DH: Or just eliminate the cab stand further towards Asticou Road. We don’t need that many cabs. The
drivers just idle and urinate.
C: EW: They come over to our street and use it as a garbage dump and toilet.
C: DWe: I think the five spaces up near the top are effectively useless for people coming from the south
because there’s not a good way to get back whereas from here, [pointing to the map] you can make a
left onto South Street and circulate back to where you came from.
C: PO: There is a problem with this in that there’s not enough space for parents dropping their kids off to
take the 39 bus. There needs to be space for that activity near the 39 bus.
A: JB: It’s less convenient, but they could come back around on Ukraine Way.
12
This statement drew a round of applause from the DAG.
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: AI: Currently, since there are two lanes, when a cab is ducking in and out of line, the traffic can keep
moving, but with one lane heading north, traffic would be at the mercy of any taxi. I would say having
adequate pull-in capacity there is essential so that taxis don’t block the travel lane.
C: FV: I once drove a cab and I don’t see how you can plan for the future and leave them out. There used
to be a Forest Hills Cab Company. It died out because more people owned their own cars, but as
people get rid of their cars, there’s resurgence. Say you took the subway and now you’re coming back
in the rain, finding a cab will mean a lot. Six spaces for cabs won’t be enough. You’re lessening
something that already doesn’t work (because of a shortage of space) and that’s a big mistake. You’re
wiping out the 17 parking spaces on New Washington Street and that seems like a good taxi stand to
me. The length of the cab stand isn’t adequate. Cabs are like flies. They’re annoying, but they’re an
important part of the ecosystem.
Q: MH: Getting to the neighborhood issue with cabs: how much expansion is available in the bus-way and
can cabs with proper medallions access the bus-way?
A: DW: I would say that the bus-way is probably best left for buses alone.
Q: MH: But if you add more capacity to the bus-way?
A: JC: I’m not sure we have the depth that way.
Q: HK: I was thinking of some creative way to combine the buses and taxis.
A: DW: Generally speaking, cabs and buses don’t mix well, operationally.13
A: VG: I think in the future we’ll see more car sharing companies. When you come out of the station, you
should have the choice of a car-share parked on the street, a Hubway shared bicycle, or a cab to fill that
last mile. Think about this progressively. Maybe there will be electric charging stations. The location of
all those transportation choices should be there.
C: BD: Having lived on Asticou Road for 35 years and remembering back to the construction of the station
when we started all the neighborhood groups, the MBTA came to us and asked if they could put in a cab
stand for four taxis. We said four spaces for taxis would probably be too small and it went up to six. The
(issues now are) about enforcement. Cabs aren’t bad, but they inundate our neighborhood with noise
and trash. We’ve lived with this. You talk all about this, but at the end of the job, you’ll go home and
DCR will be the owner of all of this. We’re left with the results. You want to move the exit from the busway south and you’ll bring more buses here and the noise will be more, the exhaust will be more, and
this is my point when I say nobody spoke to us. We’re not being told the truth. We haven’t had an
opportunity to speak on this issue and the impact to our community and we’re demanding equity.
A: KF: That is exactly why we are discussing it now.
A: JB: We talked a lot about it in the WAG process.
C: BD: We discussed it as a concept, not a fait accompli.
A: KW: Everything we discussed back then was conceptual; now we’re making it real.
C: BD: So this means we’re just names on a list.
Q: Representative RH: So how many parking spaces are we losing?
13
The Casey Arborway team continues to work with the MBTA to explore whether any safe and convenient
options exist to combine taxi operations with the bus-way.]
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: DK: 17 on New Washington Street. That’s 30-minute parking.
C: Representative RH: So with that going away, do we need 15 drop-off spots? Maybe we should consider
replacing some of those spaces. It seems like the six parking spaces at #2 on the map are closest to
where people come off the MBTA. The other nine, maybe those could become pick-up/drop-off spaces.
C: DB: If you put that parking there, that’s where you’re going to have the school kids dropped off.
Q: GS: Why are we losing the parking spaces on New Washington Street?
A: DK: We’re hoping to relocate the school buses to another location in the corridor, away from the New
Washington Street block.
C: GM: We met with both Boston Public Schools (BPS) and METCO and both are flexible about where their
buses operate in the corridor. The only BPS buses that stop in the corridor serve West Roxbury High.
They’ve been all over the area. It used be they did their pick-up near Tower Street. Both agencies aren’t
tied to where they are today and would be willing to move.
C: Andrea D’Amato (AD): Both BPS and METCO expressed their concerns about the New Washington Street
location; they would like to get their kids out of there. It turns out that both BPS and METCO have
north/south operations so they would prefer to be out of that east/west direction.
A: Representative RH: It would be nice to have them out of there.
C: PO: We’re really talking about the special service buses: the 39, the 38, the 32, and 33 - they all stop
and drop off at Forest Hills.
C: HK: I’d like to incorporate having some parking near the entry of the expanded Southwest Corridor Park.
If it’s going to be a farmers’ market or kiosk there’s going to be a need for some short-term parking,
maybe for cars to drop things off; maybe not 17 spaces, but there needs to be something.
C: KF: I know that having parking on designated parkways is a concern for DCR.
A: Ruth Helfeld (RHe): I can’t say absolutely not, but generally we do try to avoid having cars park on our
parkways.
Q: JB: Off the cuff, and at the risk of cutting into open space, I am concerned about people going east/west
and trying to drop off at Forest Hills Station. Could we not have a parking area, but a pull-off,
separated from the road, for a kiss-and-ride service lane? Something where a truck could unload?
Q: Representative RH: I want to hear the reason that no parking was recommended on the new section of
Arborway that would replace New Washington Street. Is that because of DCR?
A: DK: Yes, that’s correct.
C: MH: It’s not just DCR, it’s because that roadway is the center of this plan. It’s an issue of does the road
get wider and how people drop-off? If they’re on the west side, taking the right turn and heading for
Ukraine Way, that’s a pretty easy move. Going the other direction is more problematic and it may be
more difficult with the let turns.
Breakout Group Reports
C: KF: In the interest of moving on, I’d like to do the reports from the breakout groups and then have
responses to questions.
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
South Street/New Washington Street/Washington Street west of the Station
C: GM: So here we are at South Street/New Washington Street. Folks, please chime in if I miss something.
Generally people liked the overall design. There were specific challenges about the Arborway coming in
and the box getting blocked. People liked the idea of trying to formalize the box to prevent it from being
blocked, incorporating textures to make drivers notice it and the pedestrian areas. People wanted to
investigate further integrating bicycle crossings to let bicycles go west. There was a lot of strong support
for a north-side sidewalk and a cross-walk at the western U-turn. People wanted to prohibit right turns
on red where possible and using the geometry of the pork-chop island to control speeds. Somebody had
a dog park, but quickly changed their mind on it. I got some interesting comments about landscaping
and using it to make an integrated corridor.
C: Nina Brown (NB): I was concerned about the position of the crosswalk on Washington Street west of the
station and I suggested moving it over to where people are crossing anyway and getting it away from the
buses. I lined up the bump-out with the stone piers for the Blackwell Footpath. I’d like the crosswalk
there to prevent a car from parking there, where it blocks the walking commuters.
C: GM: I also got some suggestions about sound and light mitigations for the buses – a vegetation
treatment perhaps – and maybe making Asticou Road a dead-end, accessible only to emergency
vehicles.
Q: CR: We need to find a way to address left turns for bicycles at either end of New Washington Street. We
talked about two-stage turn boxes and the use of the median for that. As the buses exit the upper busway, is that signalized?
A: GM: Yes it is. The idea is that with the existing crossing, there’s no access directly into the upper busway and the current bus-way is blocked off by the low granite blocks. As that goes away, the path into
the station doesn’t benefit and that helps to consolidate operations.
Q: CR: And the slip-lane has to stop as well?
A: GM: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: BD: I want a clear understanding on the entrance into the bus-way. Are all the buses coming from the
south? Are there any buses coming from the north?
A: GM: It’s the 38, that’s the only one from the north. It’s a low volume bus route.
C: SK: A note on the bottom of the map: with the removal of the bicycle lanes, a lot of people will still ride
on the road so sharrows and signage to remind drivers that bicycles belong there too is important.
Hyde Park/New Washington
C: JK: Maureen and I had Hyde Park Avenue and Washington Street and we had a lot of conversation
about integrating the lower bus-way and how the bus queue-jump will work. Let me remind you about
that: when the bus lane runs westbound, the other lane runs concurrently and the pedestrians can move
across at the same time. That gives you more pedestrian walk time. We got comments about protecting
cyclists at the crosswalks. We have ideas on how that would work: I showed a little sketch at my station,
basically its two crosswalks, one for each mode. The bicycles get colored pavement and the pedestrians
get stripes. We’re starting to get into that. A lot of that generally isn’t handled in the 25% design phase,
but we wanted to make sure we’re checking the direction (from the DAG) as we go. We discussed dropoff parking and that gets back to the city street versus parkway issue. We discussed lighting on the
bicycle path - that’s not for 25%, but we’ll be looking at it as we go on. One question was signage to
make sure that people know what move to take to go to the courthouse and Orchardhill Road and
Page 16
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
whether you’d have time to get to the eastern U-turn when you exit Orchardhill Road. Basically, the way
the phasing works, the left-turn lanes run on a phase, and then the through and right-turn movements
on another. During that there will be a gap for Orchardhill Road.
C: PO: I suggested that we eliminate the bus-only lane and pull the third lane all the way back to the bowtie, basically extend it. The exit from Arborway Yard is pull-out only and when the buses take the leftturn you create another lane that goes right into the bus-way so that two or three buses can go right in.
With the current design, if there are three buses at once, one sticks out. If you take it all the way up to
the bowtie that stops the buses from getting stuck in the queue; they get to go right away and have
some place to wait.
C: EW: We like the additional access to Orchard Hill Road, but we’re worried that people will cut through
the frontage road at rush hour.
C: CR: One of the biggest concerns we have is the right turns at the intersections. We want to see
something that addresses it: maybe pulling the crosswalks back from the intersection so that driver and
cyclists see each other; maybe a protected right turn.
A: JK: And we’ll keep looking at that and we’ll give you options to consider. We currently have sketches,
but those are not for the 25% design. It’s currently quite schematic.
C: CR: I guess we’d just like to see it as early as possible.
Q: SF: Speaking as a timid cyclist and not very traffic tolerant, I’m happier off-street, but the streets do get
plowed and then paths tend to come second. So if there are not on-street bicycle lanes, who plows the
paths? Is it DCR?
A: JM: Some of it’s the MBTA. They’ve been pretty good about plowing.
C: HK: I raised the idea of off-peak lefts onto 203. I don’t want to drive up to the bowties. Maybe not have
a signal, but allow it to happen at night.
C: AI: Regarding the traffic stuff, we haven’t really looked at all the issues, but we’re looking at the 400500 deadhead buses we took here in Jamaica Plain to ease congestion at Eggleston Square and now
we’re looking at it being inflicted on Hyde Park Avenue and that needs to be addressed and that may
piggy-back on the left turns in off-peak hours and that way buses off-peak don’t need to use Ukraine
Way and Washington Street because the buses are driving on the Arborway and so that’s a serious
issues for folks down there, quality of life. That’s a serious issue and a traffic question we need to
address.
C: BD: In terms of allowing turns when traffic isn’t heavy, if you do it for one, you have to do it for all
because it’s an issue of safety. If you get it wrong, it will be a real issue. I don’t want a morass created
just to satisfy a few people. It needs thought. We currently have the buses running concurrently. I like
that and hope you can maintain it. The Green Line never actually used the new station and I remember
meeting with the MBTA to see if the 39 bus might use the trolley turn-around. They said yes, but that
they wouldn’t take out the tracks. Things can change quickly and what we’ll have here, if all these cars
do drift away as we keep positing, is more buses. That may be the case and I want to make sure you
factor that into your 2035 calculations. DCR should be up there with you because they will take this on
in 2016 and we want them having input into the process. We don’t want DCR able to change things
and say its O.K. because they weren’t involved.
Q: CR: So what’s your answer to that?
A: SM: I didn’t hear a question in that, it was a comment.
Page 17
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: BD: My point is that I want DCR playing an active role in this.
A: SM: When we first got this project, the first person I called was Joe Orfant at DCR to thank him for letting
me inherit the bridge. We’ve chatted since hundreds of times. DCR attends these meetings and the
public information meetings and our internal sessions. DCR is joining us as a proponent in the ENF. It is
a MassDOT project in that we will build the job, but DCR is here in the room and working with us.
C: BD: I do contracts for clients and in this case, I see DCR as a client. They don’t just walk away. I don’t
want them able to say they didn’t understand the inputs or information coming out of this process. We
all have the right to know what they are saying in this room.
C: MH: The left-turn question: is that something that needs to be better addressed for the 25% design. It
sounds like it doesn’t, so I think we can discuss it further later.
A: GM: It’s an operational issue and one of signage and signals. We’ve made some good progress on curb
lines and so we can assess that better as we go.
C: MH: I also agree with Bernie that changing policy based on time of day is dangerous.
Shea Square
C: EP: Gail and I had a conversation about Yale Terrace and looking at ways to create more of a park
feeling in the Shea area. Now that we’re moving the space that used to be in the circle to the exterior of
the Square we can get more of that feeling. We talked about having parking during the day for the
courthouse and having it convert to resident parking at night. We’ll address that further in the process.
Kevin talked about pulling the bicycle path into the frontage road.
C: KW: If it’s buffered, having it at-grade means a narrower frontage road.
C: EP: Sarah made a good point about connecting the bicycle paths to themselves and existing paths and
trying to preserve as many trees as possible. We also discussed the cemetery’s new sign and that they
are comfortable with all this.
C: PG: We had a lot of good feedback tonight on the opportunity to right-size this. When we do a 25%
design, we do a Functional Design Report and that’s a pretty detailed document. In that, we think it
would be reasonable and appropriate to identify the thresholds at which 2016 ‘becomes’ 2035 (in terms
of traffic volume) so folks can see that and understand it. At least we could identify those things which
make it reasonable to begin thinking of switching from the 2016 design to the 2035 design. Maybe it’s
five years or 10 years or never, but at least it’s a tangible way to think about the future. There’s logic in
that and we think the FDR is the right place to put it.
Report on Previously Asked Questions
C: KF: One point of clarification: these are mobility questions. We may have some questions we don’t get to
tonight that relate to other areas of our design work.
C: GM: A lot of things we actually discussed during the meeting, but one thing that didn’t come up was the
lead paint on the bridge. I’m going ask Paul to talk about that.
C: Paul King (PK): MassDOT tears down and repaints bridges all the time. The lead paint issue is there and
it’s an everyday thing for us. There are standard specs for structural steel work and there is standard
language about how we address it. It’s nothing new.
A: BD: You need to make sure you give people good information on that; that site will need to be sealed up
tight when the wind starts blowing the dust around. What’s your salvage price on this steel?
Page 18
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: PK: The contractor gets the salvage. That’s standard.
C: BD: I’d like to see that contract.
C: GM: We tried to integrate the midblock crossing as we’d been asked, but it created significant
operational problems in terms of queuing. We’ll keep looking at it, but I don’t think we can get it into
the signals and still make them operate effectively.
We also discussed channelized right-turns and the benefits and flexibility they can offer. Pedestrian
timings: in the planning studies we kept walk times low for flexibility and now that we’re getting into
design, we’ll keep boosting times for pedestrians, anywhere from 10-24 seconds in walk time alone plus
clearance time. We’ll keep refining that and boosting it as much as we can.
Traffic counts: we have some new BTD counts from February of this year for many of our intersections
and we’ll integrate those into our model. By our July DAG meeting on the 18th we’ll know more about
that. There’s also the ongoing discussion about bus volumes. Paula sent some information out and
there were some questions about how that information was put together, but Dan will keep working on
that with us so that by the time we get to the FDR we’ll have a volumes diagram with perfect data for
buses on it and we’ll get that nailed down. Additional travel time discussions will also be presented in
the FDR.
C: BD: I want to make one point: in the first DAG session we discussed Shea Circle and Washington Street
west of the station. I want us to spend more time on that part of Washington Street. I’d appreciate that
as soon as possible.
Q: GZ: Did we have a question about the head-house?
A: GM: Yes, Paula wanted to know about that and she’s outside discussing it with Don.
Q: AI: Given that it’s not a huge increase in distance to walk, I know that you need an egress, but do you
think you still need a head-house with all the elevators and security?
A: GM: The project works without it, but it’s nice from our point of view in that it reduces conflicts and saves
pedestrians some time.
C: DH: One thing we haven’t discussed is the ventilation stacks and grates and where they are going.
A: AD: The ventilation stacks are for the Orange Line and the grates are for the commuter rail. Currently
there are two stacks: one is for the Orange Line and one is for the commuter rail. The commuter rail
stack doesn’t move. We already did an analysis for fire safety and we think the commuter rail grates
would shift south, we’re not entirely sure yet, but it would be some part of the MBTA plaza.
Q: BD: With the head-house and where you’re moving it: as a woman, would you feel comfortable walking
through there?
A: AD: I’d feel fine as anybody: it’s not a tunnel; it’s a direct connection to the platform. Remember the
roadway moves.
Q: BD: Would you need turnstiles?
A: AD: It’s the 21st century, so I’d need CharlieCard gates, but yes, there would be fare collection
equipment there.
Q: EW: The CDM/Smith report, when will that be posted?
Page 19
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: SM: Just as soon as possible. I’ll send it down tomorrow.
C: KM: I just spoke with Steve outside. Remember: Romano said he’d send it out. Steve said it’s a draft
and not ready. Nobody knows what it looks like or when they will finally release it.
C: AI: Graphs are good, we like graphs and things look a lot better in the updated Synchro, but I can still
see some problems and it would be nice to get the most recent Synchro done on this. I know it won’t
have the changes discussed tonight. It would be nice to get the new turning movement counts as soon
as possible. And we still don’t have the older ATR materials. The more data the merrier; it would be
nice to see tonight’s background materials.
Q: MR: Will we schedule a second traffic work shop?
A: KF: We’ll discuss it as a team.
Q: Bill Reyelt (BR): Can we get something for pedestrian wait times?
A: GM: It is a moving target and its very time consuming for us to stop and produce a snap-shot table that
will change again soon anyway. We want to advance through design, get through MEPA and 25% and
get it all into one formalized package and then work through the details. We keep trying to do this on
the fly, but there are many adjustments we want to make and if you make one change at one
intersection it makes changes everywhere else which eats up a lot of time. That’s probably sometime in
August or September. The next meeting is about construction and so I don’t want to load that agenda
up too much.
Q: AI: But we still get the Synchro?
A: GM: We’ve got stuff we can send you, but remember, it’s always moving.
C: KF: O.K. everyone, good night. We’ll see you in July.
Next Steps
The next milestone in the public involvement process will be the fourth DAG meeting of the 25% design
process. The meeting will take place on July 18 th at 6:00 p.m. in Room 133 of the State Laboratory.
Page 20
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Nina
Jodie
Nathaniel
Maureen
Todd
Andrea
Bernard
Michael
Kate
Francesca
Sarah
Paul
Michael
David
Ruth
Mary
Russell
Allen
Jonathan
Don
Paul
Sarah
Kathleen
Steve
Gary
Jessica
Kevin
Paula
Rebeca
Essek
Michael
Bill
Paul
Steve
Karen
Gail
Mark
Frederick
David
Karen
Wendy
Kevin
Elizabeth
Brown
Burr
Cabral-Curtis
Chlebek
Consentino
D’Amato
Doherty
Epp
Fichter
Fordiani
Freeman
Godfrey
Halle
Hannon
Helfeld
Hickie
Holmes
Ihrer
Kapurst
Kindsvatter
King
Kurpiel
McDonough
McLaughlin
McNaughton
Mink
Moloney
Okunieff
Oleveira
Petrie
Reiskind
Reyelt
Romary
Schneider
Schneiderman
Sullivan
Tedrow
Vetterlein
Wean
Wepsic
Williams
Wolfson
Wylie
DAG
DAG
HSH
McMahon Associates
DAG
HNTB
DAG
DAG
MassDOT
DAG
DAG
HNTB
DAG
DAG
DCR
DAG
State Representative
DAG
HNTB
HNTB
MassDOT
DAG
West Roxbury Transcript
MassDOT
McMahon Associates
DAG
DAG
DAG
Jamaica Plain Gazette
HNTB
DAG
DAG
Shattuck Hospital
DAG
Boston Center for Independent Living
DAG
Community Resident
DAG
DAG
DAG
[For Mark Navin]
DAG
DAG
Page 21
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
George
Zoulalian
DAG
Page 22
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Received Emails
Please see the following pages.
Page 23
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
paula okunieff <okunieff@att.net>
Sunday, June 17, 2012 7:40 AM
Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Re: Materials for DAG Meeting - Message 3 of 3
Kate,
The graphics are great. It would be good to see the distance and delays during am/pm peak for the travel
manuevars as well. I would guess that they are not hard to acquire and notate on the presentation.
Polly
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)" <Daul.c.king@state.ma.us>; Essek Petrie <EPetrie@HNTB.com>; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis <ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com> Sent: Fri, June 15, 2012 3:53:45 PM Subject: Materials for DAG Meeting - Message 3 of 3 Friends ­
This is the last of the materials for Monday evening.
Have a great weekend!
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of Long-Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, NlA 02116
617.973.7342
1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Michael Halle <mhalle@bwh.harvard.edu>
Saturday, June 16, 2012 12:35 AM
Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Re: Materials for DAG Meeting - Message 1 of 3
Hey Kate,
I think the removal of the on-street bike lanes is going to produce bike/ped conflict with commuter cyclists. Bringing
them off the road means more crossing of pedestrian desire lines.
Perhaps worse, it's going to delay discussion of what are honestly bigger mobility issues at the next DAG.
At the last meeting, people were already starting to propose their own bike facilities. That's not the way we do things
any more in Boston.
You can solve this problem by bringing in Toole Design Group and having them propose a plan. They are universally
respected by the leaders of all the major bike advocacy groups. With Toole on board and the promise of more public
discussions, we can move forward much more effectively.
--Mike
On 6/15/12 3:50 PM, Fichter, Katherine (DOT) wrote:
> Friends­
> Attached, please find the following materials in preparation for
> Monday's DAG meeting.
>
> • "New Traffic Patterns" is a slideshow representation of many of the
> traffic patterns in the area and how they operate today and how they
> will operate in the future.
>
> • "2012-06-15-Preliminary Design Base Plan" is the latest version of
> the design plan.
>
> • "2012-06-15-Right Turn Lane Alternative" is an alternative that
> shows possibilities for building based on development patterns.
>
> Please review these in advance of the meeting, as we have a lot of
> ground to cover together when we meet.
> This message will be followed by two more.
> 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
> 617.973.7342
2
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherineJichter@state.ma.us>
Friday, June 15, 2012 3:21 PM
Liz O'Connor
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
RE: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Liz-
Knowing your interest in Shea Circle/Square, I went back to look at the notes from the earlier meetings at which it was
discussed. It seems that it was discussed in detail at the August 31 WAG meeting
(http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/24/docs/WAG_MtgMinutes083111.pdf), which includes a sense from the WAG
that the Shea Square design is preferable to the 'egg-about' design. It was also discussed in the WAG meetings on July 27
and August 17.
In addition, the first of the DAG meetings (hUp://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/24/docs/DAG_Meeting3-30­
2012_Final.pdf) focused in large part on Shea issues. The agenda for Monday is not going to include more Shea
discussion, except that some Shea responses may be part of the final agenda item focusing on open questions from DAG
members.
Is there some other way that we can discuss Shea issues with you? Perhaps at the end of Monday's meeting? Staff is
planning to stick around as long as any DAG members or members of the public want to discuss open issues.
I hope this is at least somewhat helpful!
Thank you!
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager ofLong~Range Plaruting
Office of Transportation Plaruting - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
617.973.7342
From: lizcoconnor@gmail.com [mailto:lizcoconnor@gmail.coml On Behalf Of Liz O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:53 PM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOD; King, Paul C. (DOD; Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Subject: Re: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Hi Kate. Can you let me know when (since not at this meeting) we might have an opportunity to discuss the redesign of Shea Circle? I see it is not on this agenda and I think it is a big design issue that deserves some time. Liz On Thu, Jun 14,2012 at 3:57 PM, Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>wrote: Friends ­
3
Attached, please find the agenda for Monday evening's Casey Arborway Design Advisory Group
meeting. As you will see, the meeting is focused on mobility, and will include discussion of many of
the issues that have been raised during the past few meetings.
I would also encourage everyone to visit the Casey Arborway website
(www.massdot.state.us/caseyarborway). which has been revamped and updated with new
information.
Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.
See everyone on Monday evening,
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of Long-Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
TenParkPlaza,Room4150, Boston,MA 02116
617.973.7342
Liz O'Connor
Strategy Matters
617.733.2286
4
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>
Friday, June 15, 2012 3:03 PM
paula okunieff
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
RE: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Polly-
Remembering that you had asked about a cross-section graphic showing the placement of the headhouse and ancillary
facilities, we will be bringing that graphic on Monday and will be happy to go through it with you at the end of the DAG
meeting. In terms of a concept design of the headhouse itself, however, we do not yet have one and likely won't for at
least a little while still. We will of course bring any headhouse concepts to the DAG once they are prepared.
Thank you - see you Monday!
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of Long-Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Deparbnent of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston,:tv1A 02116
617.973.7342
From: paula okunieff [mailto:okunieff@att.netl
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:35 PM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOn
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOn; Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Subject: Re: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Kate,
Can you add the head house to the agenda. We would like to see concept designs for equipment locations,
facilities, etc.
Thanks,
Polly
From: "Fichter, Katherine (DOn" <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>
To: "Fichter, Katherine (DOn" <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>
Cc: "McLaughlin, Steve (DOT)" <steve.mciaughlin@state.ma.us>; "King, Paul C. (DOn" <Daul.c.king@state.ma.us>;
Essek Petrie <EPetrie@HNTB.com>; Nathaniel cabral-Curtis <ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com>
Sent: Thu, June 14, 2012 3:57:18 PM
Subject: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Friends­
5
Attached, please find the agenda for Monday evening's Casey Arborway Design Advisory Group meeting. As you will
see, the meeting is focused on mobility, and will include discussion of many of the issues that have been raised during the
past few meetings.
I would also encourage everyone to visit the Casey Arborway website (www.massdot.state.uslcaseyarborway). which has
been revamped and updated with new information.
Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.
See everyone on Monday 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
617.973.7342
6
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
moloneys <moloneys@verizon.net>
Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:19 PM
'Fichter, Katherine (DOT),
'McLaughlin, Steve (DOT),; 'King, Paul C. (DOT),; 'Essek Petrie'; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
RE: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Kate:
Th:is even:hg, whEn I t:r:i:d the nvitatbn to vEittbe Cas=y Arbmwayw Ebsit:e :fDrthe
":revan pe:j and upda:t:ej new n:fDlffi atbn:' youreID ailre1Pnai to
Www maEB:btstateuslcaEEiyadxl1wgy), 19otthe fuJbwng:re:poru:e from Ver:izon: "Sony, the
wEbsit:ewww maESiotaateus~lWayamnotbefuund.
Kezin
Kevil F.M obney
20 Ran bkRoa:l
J3m ai:a P lID
M as:achUEetts 02130
Tel: 617 522 3988
e-m ailim obnEM@ ver:izon net
From: Fichter, Katherine (DOn [mailto:katherine.fichter@state.ma.usJ
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:57 PM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOn
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOn; King, Paul C. (DOn; Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Subject: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Friends­
. Attached, please find the agenda for Monday evening's Casey Arborway .Design Advisory Group meeting. As you will
see, the meeting is focused on mobility, and will include discussion of many of the issues that have been raised during the
past few meetings.
I would also encourage everyone to visit the Casey Arborway website (www.massdot.state.us/caseyarborway). which has
been revamped and updated with new information.
Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.
See everyone on Monday evening,
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of Long-Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
7
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
617.973.7342
8
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From: Sent: To: C;c: Subject: lizcoconnor@gmail.com on behalf of Liz O'Connor <Liz@strategymatters.org>
Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:53 PM
Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Re: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Hi Kate. Can you let me know when (since not at this meeting) we might have an opportunity to discuss the redesign of Shea Circle? I see it is not on this agenda and I think it is a big design issue that deserves some time. Liz On Thu, Jun 14,2012 at 3:57 PM, Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us> wrote: Friends-
Attached, please find the agenda for Monday evening's Casey Arborway Design Advisory Group
meeting. As you will see, the meeting is focused on mobility, and will include discussion of many of
the issues that have been raised during the past few meetings.
I would also encourage everyone to visit the Casey Arborway website
(www.massdot.state.uslcaseyarborway). which has been revamped and updated with new
information.
Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.
See everyone on Monday evening,
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of Long-Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Deparhnent of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
617.973.7342
Liz O'Connor
Strategy Matters
617.733.2286
9
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
moloneys < moloneys@verizon.net>
Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:44 PM
'Fichter, Katherine (DOT)'
'McLaughlin, Steve (DOT),; 'King, Paul C. (DOT),; 'Essek Petrie'; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
RE: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
KatE:
ThariklOu :lDrs:ndilg outD 0 T 's ''dlaEt' agEnda :lDrneKtM onday'sD AG
m eethg. However, befbre any agEnda :lDrthe m eethg .:ism ade :EirJ.aJ. the dlaftEhouJ:'l. be J:EV.:is3:l. to
have as the first:iten ,lE\.lBv ofthe d1aftand re::eptofD A G m en berspropoffi1s :lDr an endm ents
to the d:ta:B:.
P::Eas:; a:J.v:Ee prbrto cbffi ofbushess, Fr:i:lay, Llli1e 15, lED 0 T agrees to am end the dlafta::
perthe above.
ThariklOU.
KeJ.in
Kevil F .M obney
20 Ram bkRoa:i
J::m a±:a p:an
M as:achUffiI:tB 02130
Tel: 617 5223988
e-m afl;m obne,yf@ vedzonnet
From: Fichter, Katherine (DOn [mailto:katherineJichter@state.ma.usl
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:57 PM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Subject: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
FriendsAttached, please find the agenda for Monday evening's Casey Arborway Design Advisory Group meeting. As you will
see, the meeting is focused on mobility, and will include discussion of many of the issues that have been raised during the
past few meetings.
I would also encourage everyone to visit the Casey Arborway website (www.massdot.state.us!caseyarborway). which has
been revamped and updated with new information.
Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.
See everyone on Monday evening,
10
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of Long-Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
617.973.7342
11
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
paula okunieff <okunieff@att.net>
Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:35 PM
Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
McLaughlin, Steve (DOn; King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Re: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Kate, Can you add the head house to the agenda. We would like to see concept designs for equipment locations, facilities, etc. Thanks, Polly 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>; Essek Petrie <EPetrie@HNTB.com>; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis <ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com> Sent: Thu, June 14, 20123:57:18 PM Subject: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda Friends-
Attached, please find the agenda for Monday evening's Casey Arborway Design Advisory Group meeting. As you will see, the meeting is focused on mobility, and will include discussion of many of the issues that have been raised during the past few meetings. I would also encourage everyone to visit the Casey Arborway website (www.massdot.state.us(caseyarborway). which has been revamped and updated with new information. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions. See everyone on Monday evening, Kate Kate Fichter
Manager of Long-Range Plaruring
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
617.973.7342
12
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:04 PM
katherine.fichter@state.ma.us
steve.mclaughlin@state.ma.us; paul.c.king@state.ma.us; epetrie@hntb.com; Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis
RE: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Hello Kate,
Thanks for getting this out ahead of time. I don't see any mention of Orchardhill and Morton Street being discussed on
the agenda. These two areas were listed in the draft agenda for meeting #3. As in past meetings we have discussed
specific surrounding neighborhoods such as Asticou and Forest Hills Street, I ask that we have an opportunity to discuss
issues specific to the Orchardhill, Morton Street, Courthourse area. This is one of the densest neighborhoods abutting the
new Arborway and I think it's important to have on this agenda or if not this one the next meeting agenda.
I know that we are running fast and furious but I'd hate to miss an opportunity to discuss what we can do to make this
project great for my fellow neighbors.
I'd also like to let MassDOT know that many of my neighbors have voiced support and encouragement for us to look at
having a second entry and exit point on the arborway for the Morton StreetjOrchardhili neighborhoods. At our
neighborhood meeting I mentioned that I thought a good location for this would be at the new bowtie location since
there will need to be a stop light for crossing there anyway why not have an inlet/outlet for the neighborhood. I
encourage your team to look into this option since there will need to be a light there anyway it will help alleviate some of
the 'dead end' feel to the neighborhood. I'll also send an email to Paul King, but thought I'd tack this comment on for
good measure.
Thanks,
From: katherineJichter@state.ma.us
To: katherine.fichter@state.ma.us
CC: steve.mclaughlin@state.ma.us; paul.c.king@state.ma.us; EPetrie@HNTB.com; ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:57:07 -0400
Subject: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
FriendsAttached, please find the agenda for Monday evening's Casey Arborway Design Advisory Group meeting. As you will
see, the meeting is focused on mobility, and will include discussion of many of the issues that have been raised during the
past few meetings.
Iwould also encourage everyone to visit the Casey Arborway website (www.massdot.state.us/caseyarborway). which has
been revamped and updated with new information.
Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.
See everyone on Monday evening,
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of Long-Range Planning
Office of Transportation Plaruting - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
13
617.973.7342
14
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
paula okunieff <okunieff@att.net>
Sunday, June 17, 2012 10:11 AM
Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis;
dwebber@mbta.com
Re: Materials for DAG Meeting - Message 3 of 3
Bus Count Discrepancies.pptx
Kate,
I have serious reservations about the presentation and data you've provided.
I reviewed the bus schedules against the "MBTA" counts that HNTB passed out at the last meeting. The
attached powerpoint is based on my analysis. I've shared this with Dan Webber, and I ask that you share this
with the DAG. There are significant discrepancies in the lower busway data for both AMlPM peak
periods. The undercount ofbuses at the Washington / HydePark and Casey/Arborway intersection calls into
question the legitimacy of the synchro models. If the counts you have reflect 2035, and the counts you used
undercounted current MBTA buses by 75-100% how can we believe the models. The LOS for the N/S roads at
the major intersections, and ICUs for the major intersections are all E and F. VIC is over 1 in each of the
cases. From what I see that intersection does not work with the current model.
Furthermore, I don't think that enough attention has been paid to the pull in/pull out movements from Arborway
yard. After speaking to the yard designers, the pum in entrance will be on Washington Street, and the pull out
will be onto Casey-Arborway westbound (and because of physical structure cannot be moved). I'm compiling
the stats on the turning movements needed to accommodate the pullin/outs. Many of the MBTA buses pulling
out ofthe yard need to travel east (to Dorchester) or to the upper busway, thus they will need to use the bowtie
or travel on lower WashingtonlHyde Park Ave around Ukraine way which is already beyond capacity. and the
bottom line is increased VMT and non-revenue operational hours which are not recoverable by the T. Dan
would know the hourly cost of every deadhead hour/mile.
The presentations that were sent for Monday's meetings are pretty, but they do tell us what we will be
experiencing, and so are not very useful. I suggest, in fact, I request that we be shown
(I) distance and travel times for the typical maneuvers (not just the maneuvers) that are typical for origin­
destination travel patterns.
(2) queues and spillbacks from the major intersection into the adjoining streets. For example, the new stop
line in front of the 39 busway (eastbound) is pulled back. The queue length for that direction of travel is already
greater than 800 feet, which flows back into the Arborway. With the reduction of the length of that road
segment, how far will the queue length go, and how much of that is flushed through during the "coordinated"
signals?
(3) the impact on reverse commuters with respect to delay and queues
(4) queue lengths for the first 15 minutes, if there is spillback and the traffic is not flushed during every cycle,
what will the queue and delays be after I hr. How far back will the traffic stretch?
1
(5) the sensitivity on N/S traffic delay/queues and spillbacks (which is mostly the local traffic, e.g., the moms who take their kids to soccer or baseball practice). -- Given that the buses leaving from the busways were undercounted, then they will block traffic. What is their impact? -- The intermediate lights between South/Arborway to WashingtonlUkraine may be metered, but southbound South street and northbound Washington Stree traffic are not. The northbound Washington street from Roslindale has a bus every two to three minutes (that were undercounted in the PM peak period.) So what is the queue length after an hour at those intersections, and how long are the potential delays? -- ditto for Hyde Park Ave where there are two north/west roads that may experience long queues (Hyde Park ave and Walk Hill) and Washington St (southbound). (6) Since we know that a 2 minute headway really is a recipe for bus bunching, how will you handle the entrance to the lower busway when there are three buses lined up to enter (and no special tum lane), so that the MBTA bus is sticking out into the oncoming traffic. (7) which intersections can be actuated by pedestrians, and what are the walk times for all crossings. the special treatments that are seen on the new drawings are not useful without that information. I would expect that the information would be given to us along with the drawings. (8) bus turning movements ofthe pullouts/pullins which number about 500 a day, many of which occur during peak periods (about I every 5 minutes); and its impact. did you include a signal for buses to tum right onto the westbound Casey/Arborway ROW? Though the bus traffic is not significant compared to the through traffic, the impact on the through traffic is frequent enough to be disruptive and the impact is huge for the MBTA costs. I am also disappointed that we are not being shown the Headhouse layout and facilities during the meeting. I
was under the impression that during this meeting we were going to discuss mobility issues including transit
and pedestrian treatments.
All of these issue address critical information about how well the design will work. Without clarity on these
impacts, how can you expect us to advise you on the validity of the design. Based on the data that you've
provided and my understanding of it, the current design is untenable.
Respectfully,
Polly
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>; Essek Petrie <EPetrie@HNTB.com>; Nathaniel Cabral·Curtis <ncabral·curtis@hshassoc.com> Sent: Fri, June 15, 2012 3:53:45 PM Subject: Materials for DAG Meeting' Message 3 of 3 Friends ­
This is the last of the materials for Monday evening.
Have a great weekend!
Kate
Kate Fichter
2
Manager of Long-Range Planning
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Deparbnent of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston,:tv1A 02116
617.973.7342
3
c
-OJ
--u
til
c
ro
c..
OJ
5.-
U
+-'
C
:J
e
u
--ott:u
til
+-'
c
:J
e
u
til :J co
ro
5.­
l-
Upper Busway: 192,30, 34,34E,
35,36,37,38,4050,50,51
38 bus: 3 arriving
;:
j
39 Bus =
10-18 arriving
9 departing
Bus Rts: 16, 21, 31, 42
=29-32 buses
Casey Overpass Study
At (lrode Altenmli .. 2035
Weekd.y Ewnmll Peak H.u,
BrutWl, Mas..cb.""tts
Lower Busway: 16, 21, 31,
32,33,34,36,38,42
~"Y-
*Pull-Ins
(deadheads):
Spm - 5 buses
6pm - 24 buses
7pm - 30 buses
'IlicnolcoMSTA buo ""I_ ...ly
Count data reflects GTFS schedules (hbb40101) Upper Busway: 192,30, 34,34E,
35,36,37,38,4050,50,51
38 bus: 4 arriving
47 Buses
39 Bus"
8-10 arriving
10-14 departing
Bus Rts: 16, 21, 31, 42
'" 47 buses
*Pull-Ins
(deadheads):
7am ­ 12 buses
8am ­ 13 buses
9am ­ 30 buses
Casey Overpass Study
A! Om'e Alrrniative 2005
weekday Morning Peak Hour
Ilooten, M....dm5cll.
Lower Busway: 16, 21, 31,
32,33,34,36,38,42
Count data reflects GTFS schedules (hbb40101) Cc:m!!l!~'Rwd
#buses I hour -- 39 busway
(leaving Forest Hills)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
o
I
I
•
•
567891011U8M~~DuwwnnnM
#buses I hour -- 39 busway
(arriving Forest Hills)
20
15
10
5
o
I I
I
567891011128M~~DUWW21nnM1
# Buses / Hour Entering Forest Hills Upper Busway­
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
o
••
I
I I I
I
456
789W11U8M~~UWWW21nnM
# Buses/hour Departing Forest Hills
Upper Busway
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
o
II III
456789WIIU8M~~UWWW21nnM
#Buses / Hour -- lower busway
(departing Forest Hills)
50
40
30
20
10
II•
o I
4567891011UBM~~uw~wnllnM1
#Buses / Hour -- Lower busway
(entering Forest Hills)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
.-----­
5
o
I
56789101112BM~~UW~W21llnM1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherineJichter@state.ma.us>
Monday, July 02, 2012 12:24 PM
moloneys@verizon.net
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Jacks, Ulysses (DOT); Nathaniel Cabral­
Curtis
Public Records Request
KevinI recently received your Public Records request dated June 20'". From reading your letter, it appears that we may have
already fulfilled your request by posting both the peer review
(http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Documents.aspx) and the recently discussed traffic data
(http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx) on the Casey project website. Please let me know if the
posted information is sufficient to address your request.
Thank you,
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of LongHRange Planning
Office of Transportation Plarming - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
617.973.7342
1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Fichter, Katherine (DOT) < katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>
Friday, June 29, 2012 5:10 PM
Fichter, Katherine (DOn
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Paul Godfrey; Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis; Verseckes, Michael (DOT)
Casey Arborway - Additional Peer Review Materials + Planning Studies
FriendsFollowing up on last week's DAG meeting, we have now place copies of the planning studies developed during the
Design Advisory Group process in the BPL branch libraries in Jamaica Plain (12 Sedgwick Street) and Roslindale (4246
Washington Street). The materials should be available by request at the front desks of both branches.
Also, additional materials related to the Casey Arborway peer review process have also been posted to
htlp:llwww.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Documents.aspx.
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
617.973.7342
2
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mark Navin < mark.navin1@gmaiLcom>
Monday, June 18, 2012 3:2S PM
Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Re: Materials for DAG Meeting - Message 1 of 3
Kate -­
I'm really sorry about this, but I had minor dental surgery today, and I'm feeling really ill right now. I think it's
very unlikely I'll be able to come to tonight's DAG meeting. I'll ask Wendy Williams if she can fill in for
me. Sorry.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>wrote:
FriendsAttached, please find the following materials in preparation for Monday's DAG meeting.
• "New Traffic Patterns" is a slideshow representation of many of the traffic patterns in the area
and how they operate today and how they will operate in the future.
• "2012-06-15-Preliminary Design Base Plan" is the latest version of the design plan.
• "2012-06-15-Right Turn Lane Alternative" is an alternative that shows possibilities for building
based on development patterns.
Please review these in advance of the meeting, as we have a lot of ground to cover together when we
meet.
This message will be followed by two more.
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
617.973.7342
3
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>
Monday, June 18, 2012 11:42 AM
Michael Halle
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
RE: Materials for DAG Meeting - Message 1 of 3
MikeWe can discuss this in more depth at this evening's meeting (and beyond), but I did want to let you know that we have
alreqdy reached out to Toole (in their capacity as a consultant to BTD) to help us with these issues. We've met with
them and will, I imagine, continue to work with them as the project evolves and the designs become more concrete (so
to speak).
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
617.973.7342
-----Original Message----­
From: Michael Halle [mailto:mhalle@bwh.harvard.edul
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 12:35 AM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Subject: Re: Materials for DAG Meeting - Message 1 of 3
Hey Kate,
I think the removal of the on-street bike lanes is going to produce bike/ped conflict with commuter cyclists. Bringing
them off the road means more crossing of pedestrian desire lines.
Perhaps worse, it's going to delay discussion of what are honestly bigger mobility issues at the next DAG.
At the last meeting, people were already starting to propose their own bike facilities. That's not the way we do things
any more in Boston.
You can solve this problem by bringing in Toole Design Group and having them propose a plan. They are universally
respected by the leaders of all the major bike advocacy groups. With Toole on board and the promise of more public
discussions, we can move forward much more effectively.
--Mike
On 6/15/12 3:50 PM, Fichter, Katherine (DOT) wrote:
5
> Friends­
> Attached, please find the following materials in preparation for
> Monday's DAG meeting.
>
> • "New Traffic Patterns" is a slideshow representation of many of the
> traffic patterns in the area and how they operate today and how they
> will operate in the future.
>
> • "2012-06-15-Preliminary Design Base Plan" is the latest version of
> the design plan.
>
> • "2012-06-15-Right Turn lane Alternative" is an alternative that
> shows possibilities for building based on development patterns.
>
> Please review these in advance of the meeting, as we have a lot of
> ground to cover together when we meet.
> This message will be followed by two more.
> 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
> 617.973.7342
6
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>
Monday, June 18, 2012 11:15 AM
Hillary Kemp
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); epetrie@hntb.com; Nathaniel Cabral­
Curtis
RE: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
HillaryWe will definitely be discussing Orchardhill and Morton Street as part of our presentation this evening, and please feel
free to raise specific questions that you feel aren't addressed.
See you tonight!
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of Long-Range Planning
Office of Transportation Plarming - Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston,:rv1A 02116
617.973.7342
From:
.lIIIIIj~~~III••
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:04 PM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); epetrie@hntb.com; ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com
Subject: RE: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Hello Kate,
Thanks for getting this out ahead of time. I don't see any mention of Orchardhill and Morton Street being discussed on
the agenda. These two areas were listed in the draft agenda for meeting #3. As in past meetings we have discussed
specific surrounding neighborhoods such as Asticou and Forest Hills Street, I ask that we have an opportunity to discuss
issues specific to the Orchardhill, Morton Street, Courthourse area. This is one of the densest neighborhoods abutting the
new Arborway and I think it's important to have on this agenda or if not this one the next meeting agenda.
I know that we are running fast and furious but I'd hate to miss an opportunity to discuss what we can do to make this
project great for my fellow neighbors.
I'd also like to let MassDOT know that many of my neighbors have voiced support and encouragement for us to look at
having a second entry and exit point on the arborway for the Morton Street/Orchardhill neighborhoods. At our
neighborhood meeting I mentioned that I thought a good location for this would be at the new bowtie location since
there will need to be a stop light for crossing there anyway why not have an inlet/outlet for the neighborhood. I
encourage your team to look into this option since there will need to be a light there anyway it will help alleviate some of
the 'dead end' feel to the neighborhood. I'll also send an email to Paul King, but thought I'd tack this comment on for
good measure.
Thanks,
7
From: katherine.fichter@state.ma.us
To: katherine.fichter@state.ma.us
CC: steve.mclaughlin@state.ma.us; paul.c.king@state.ma.us; EPetrie@HNTB.com; ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:57:07 -0400
Subject: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
FriendsAttached, please find the agenda for Monday evening's Casey Arborway Design Advisory Group meeting. As you will
see, the meeting is focused on mobility, and will include discussion of many of the issues that have been raised during the
past few meetings.
I would also encourage everyone to visit the Casey Arborway website (www.massdot.state.us!caseyarborway). which has
been revamped and updated with new information.
Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.
See everyone on Monday 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
617.973.7342
8
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
lizcoconnor@gmail.com on behalf of Liz O'Connor <Liz@strategymatters.org>
Monday, June 18, 2012 9:07 AM
Fichter, Katherine (DOl)
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Re: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Kate, thank you for taking the time to get this to me. I missed that meeting and realize now I never read the
notes, my apologies. My own neighbors were pretty clear on their preferences which would have re-ordered the
square/egg-about and I now see that by missing that meeting, I missed a key opportunity to represent their
interests. Alas.
Additionally, thanks for the offer to stay late. In my own case, I have to leave by 8 tonight so can't take you up
on your offer but will just say that to the extent possible, we (WRCNA) would really like to save as many of
those trees and plantings in the current rotary as possible.
Thanks, see you tonight.
On Fri, Jun 15; 2012 at 3:21 PM, Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us> wrote:
Liz-
Knowing your interest in Shea Circle/Square, I went back to look at the notes from the earlier meetings at which it was
discussed. It seems that it was discussed in detail at the August 31 WAG meeting
(http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/24/docs/WAG_MtgMinutes083111.pdf), which includes a sense from the WAG
that the Shea Square design is preferable to the 'egg-about' design. It was also discussed in the WAG meetings on July 27
and August 17.
In addition, the first of the DAG meetings (http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/24/docs/DAG_Meeting3-30­
2012_Final.pdf) focused in large part on Shea issues. The agenda for Monday is not going to include more Shea
discussion, except that some Shea responses may be part of the final agenda item focusing on open questions from DAG
members.
Is there some other way that we can discuss Shea issues with you? Perhaps at the end of Monday's meeting? Staff is
planning to stick around as long as any DAG members or members of the public want to discuss open issues.
I hope this is at least somewhat helpful!
9
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
617.973.7342
From: lizcoconnor@gmail.com [mailto:lizcoconnor@gmail.comj On Behalf Of Liz O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, June 14,2012 10:53 PM
To: Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Cc: McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Essek Petrie; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Subject: Re: Upcoming DAG #3 - Agenda
Hi Kate.
Can you let me know when (since not at this meeting) we might have an opportunity to discuss the redesign of
Shea Circle? I see it is not on this agenda and I think it is a big design issue that deserves some time.
Liz
On Thu, Jun 14,2012 at 3:57 PM, Fichter, Katherine (DOT) <katherine.fichter@state.ma.us>wrote:
Friends-
Attached, please find the agenda for Monday evening's Casey Arborway Design Advisory Group
meeting. As you will see, the meeting is focused on mobility, and will include discussion of many of
the issues that have been raised during the past few meetings.
I would also encourage everyone to visit the Casey Arborway website
(www.massdot.state.us/caseyarborway). which has been revamped and updated with new
information.
Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.
10 See everyone on Monday everung,
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of Long-Range Plaruting
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Deparbnent of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
617.973.7342
Liz O'Connor
Strategy Matters
617.733.2286
Liz O'Connor
Strategy Matters
617.733.2286
11
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
moloneys < moloneys@verizon.net>
Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:29 PM
'Fichter, Katherine (DOT),
'McLaughlin, Steve (DOD'; 'King, Paul C. (DOT),; 'Jacks, Ulysses (DOT),; Nathaniel Cabral­
Curtis
RE: Public Records Request
casey project 2012 06 20 first letter requesting public documents.pdf; casey project
2012 06 20 second letter requesting public records.pdf
Kate:
Thetewete twO:tB::[UES:s fbrpubJ±:: :re::o:tdsthatI,asaW AG msnberand asaD AG
m snber,m cde il two s:pcnatE::et::t:emto DOT Se:::retaIyD avey,ffiCh datEd 06 20 12,cnp.Esof
whili are at:tache::J. hereto .
IwouJ:l :iJkeD 0 T to fuJfill.:itsre:ponsb:iJ:itEsunderthe PubJ±::Re:o:tdsactil :re::pondilg to
EaCh ofthe::e :etters
Ke.zin
Kevil F.M obney
20 Ram bkRoaJ.
.:am ai:a P 1rin
M affilChl192tl:s 0213 0
Tel.: 617 522 3988
e-m ailim obne,ysw ver:izonnet
From: Fichter, Katherine (DOT) [mailto:katherine.fichter@state.ma.usJ
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 12:24 PM
To: moloneys@verizon.net
Cc: Mclaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Jacks, Ulysses (DOT); Nathaniel cabral-Curtis
Subject: Public Records Request
KevinI recently received your Public Records request dated June 20'". From reading your letter, it appears that we may have
already fulfilled your request by posting both the peer review
(http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Documents.aspx) and the recently discussed traffic data
(http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyarborway/Meetings.aspx) on the Casey project website. Please let me know if the
posted information is sufficient to address your request.
Thank you,
Kate
Kate Fichter
Manager of Long-Range Planning
1
Office of Transportation Planning - Massachusetts Deparhnent of Transportation
Ten Park Plaza, Room 4150, Boston, MA 02116
617.973.7342
2
Kevin F. Moloney 20 Rambler Road Jamaica Plain Massachusetts 02130-3428 Tel.: 617.522.3988 e-mail: moloneys@verizon.net June 20, 2012
Hon. Richard A. Davey, Secretary & CEO
Department of Transportation
Transportation Building
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Re: First Request, pursuant to G.L. c. 66,
inspection of public records §
10, for Dear Secretary Davey:
I write as a DOT appointed member of both the MassDOT Working
Advisory Group ("WAG") and the MassDOT Design Advisory Group ("DAG")
for the Casey Overpass project ("Casey project") to request, pursuant
to G.L. c. 66, § 10, inspection and copying of public records within
the meaning of G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26th ("public records").
The public records to be inspected are as follows:
1. The report of the peer review study by CDMSmith,
Inc. ("CDMS"), including its analyses and findings
(subsidiary and other) and its conclusions and
recommendations, concerning the work of DOT's traffic
consultant McMahon Associates ("McMahon") for the
Casey project as originally submitted to DOT by CDMS
("peer review report") .'
2. The documents that evidence any revisions, changes,
corrections and/or amendments of or to the peer review
, Please note that DOT's John Romano in an e-mail to me on March 19, 2012
(copy enclosed), stated:
MassDOT had a Peer Review done of all of the traffic analysis
performed by McMahon Associates as part of the project. The Review
was conducted by CDM Smith, Inc. We are correctly [sic] working to
have the document posted on the Casey project web site.
I will send
it out to the WAG group as well. (Emphasis added.)
Han. Richard A. Davey, Secretary & CEO
June 20, 2012
Page 2
report made at any time after DOT's first receipt of the
peer review report.
3.
The documents that evidence any communications between or
among DOT, CDMS and/or McMahon concerning any aspect of the
peer review report or any revisions, changes, corrections
and/or amendments thereof or thereto.
Pursuant to § 10(a), a "custodian of a public record shall,
within ten days following receipt of a request for inspection or copy
of a pubic record, comply with such request."
Please let me know when within the time limits imposed by § 10
and where DOT will make production of the above described public
records for inspection.
Thank you.
Ver
Ke
ru y yours,
n
moloneys
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOn Oohn.romano@state.ma.us] Monday, March 19, 20122:00 PM 'moloneys' King, Paul C (DOn RE: On February 29 and again, on March 7, I sent you e-mails (see below) asking the following: "Was there ever a peer review done ....
Kevin:
MassDOT had a Peer Review done of all of the traffic analysis performed by McMahon Associates as part of the project.
The Review was conducted by CDM Smith, Inc. We are correctly working to have the document posted on the Casey
project web site. I will send it out to the WAG group as well.
Regards,
John Romano Municipal Liaison MassDOT From: moloneys [mailto:molonevs@verizon.netl Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:39 AM To: Romano, John (DOT) Cc: King, Paul C (DOT) Subject: On February 29 and again, on March 7, I sent you e-mails (see below) asking the following: "Was there ever a peer review done.... John:
On Febtuary 29 and again, on March 7, I sent you e-mails (see below) asking the following:
'Was there ever a peer review done of any aspect of the Casey Project work done to date by or for
DOT? If, so who did the review? Is there a document that evidences that review? However, to
date you have not responded.
Please answer the questions.
Kevin F. Moloney
20 Rambler Road
Jamaica Plain
Massachusetts 02130
Tel.: 617.522.3988
e-mail: moloneys@verizon.net
From: moloneys [mailto:molonevs@verizon.netj
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 2:10 PM
To: 'John.Romano@dot.state.ma.us'
1
Kevin F. Moloney 20 Rambler Road Jamaica Plain Massachusetts 02130-3428 Tel.: 617.522.3988 e-mail: moloneys@verizon.net June 20, 2012
Hon. Richard~. Davey, Secretary & CEO
Department of Transportation
Transportation Building
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Re: Second Request, pursuant to G.L. c. 66, § 10, for
inspection and copying of public records
Dear Secretary Davey:
I write as a DOT appointed member of both the MassDOT Working
Advisory Group ("WAG U) and the MassDOT Design Advisory Group ("DAG U)
for the Casey Overpass project ("Casey projectU) to request, pursuant
to G.L. c. 66, § 10, inspection and copying of public records within
the meaning of G.L. c. 4, § 7, cl. 26th ("public records").
The public records to be inspected are as follows:
1. The Synchro-7 data prepared or received by DOT
concerning the at-grade alternative for the Casey
project.
2. The Synchro-7 data prepared or received by DOT concerning the bridge alternative for the Casey project. Pursuant to § 10(a), a "custodian of a public record shall,
within ten days following receipt of a request for inspection or copy
of a pubic record, comply with such request."
Please let me know when within the time limits imposed by § 10
and where DOT will make production of the above described public
Han. Richard A. Davey, Secretary
June 20, 2012
Page 2
records for inspection.
Thank you.
Ver
t u1y yours,
- - - - - - -
-