CASEY ARBORWAY PROJECT
Welcome New DAG Members
May 15, 2012
Today’s Agenda
1. Overview of the Planning Phase
2. Project Web Site
3. Casey Project Schedule
4. DAG Design Phase
Overview of the
Planning Phase
The Public Agency Process
The Partnership Continues
– MassDOT – highway & transit
– DCR – owner of surface roadway and
signals
– City of Boston – owner of adjacent
roadways, parks and maintains signals
Casey Overpass - Historic Overview
1955 Original Construction
6 lanes
1990 Rehabilitation
4 lanes + sidewalk
2010 Bridge Restrictions
2 lanes
6
4
2
Bridge Condition - Design Flaws
Photos from 2010 Inspection - BRIDGE IS SAFE TODAY!
ABP Funding
• Budgeted $25M to re-deck bridge – bridge
deemed beyond useful life.
• Original Cost to replace in kind =
approximately $52 million with no surface
street improvements
• MassDOT – once in a lifetime opportunity –
engage community and stakeholders to
explore solution that met mobility and
livability goals.
The Challenges
• Address a deteriorated bridge – explore viable
options for a solution that meets mobility and
livability objectives
• Address the current surface street issues:
confusing, complicated and unsupportive for all
modes – Asticou, New Washington, Shea Circle
• Utilize existing roadway area – address MBTA
infrastructure
Orange Line Vent Stack
Orange Line Exit Stair
Commuter Rail Vent Grate
Route 39 Bus Loop
The Challenges
• Hold transit harmless, improve bike and pedestrian
access and circulation
• Restore Emerald Necklace connection
• Create gateway opportunities to celebrate historic
open space and transportation assets
• Develop and
test designs
and traffic
solutions that
address local
and regional
needs
Confusing and Overly Complicated Street Network
T
Replace Critical Missing Link
T
Address Safety, Mobility & Livability Goals
in all Designs
• Improve Mobility: connections, circulation and access for all modes
and users
• Enhance Livability: manage vehicular traffic flow; improve the Emerald
Necklace connection; improve pedestrian and bicycle access
Working Group Contributions
Safety
Goal: Address structurally
deficient bridge
Community Directive:
•Address confusing surface street
network
•Accommodate all modes – crossings,
intersections, circulation
•Hold MBTA transit operations harmless
•Include Shea Circle and improve safety
at that location
The Public Process – 9 Month Planning Phase
• 13 Working Advisory
Group Meetings
• 5 WAG Assignments
Completed
• 6 Public Meetings &
5 Open Houses
• Full documentation
of process and
progress on Web
site
WAG Accomplishments
• Established guiding principles, goals
and objectives
• Continued to balance mobility needs
with livability opportunities
• Challenged the design team to
incorporate new ideas based on local
concerns
• Integral to developing methodology
(MOEs, traffic models, design ideas)
Traffic Discussions and Products
• Discussed at 11 WAG meetings and 5 Public
Meetings
• Existing conditions analysis – all modes
• Traffic and parking counts, license plate survey
• Developed local and regional model inputs
• Traffic simulations for all modes
• Developed 2035 projections
• Regional and local traffic model tested against
the two conceptual alternatives
Urban Design Discussion and Products
• Discussed at 12 WAG meetings and 5 public
meetings
• Reviewed and evaluated past studies
• Developed 25 concepts tested with fatal flaw,
14 concepts tested with WAG for each sub area
• Developed pedestrian and bike circulation plan
• Developed 3 at grade alternatives with 7
iterations, 3 bridge alternatives, narrowed to 2
at-grade and 2 bridge alternatives
Measures of Evaluation (MOEs)
• Discussed at 11 WAG meetings and all public
meetings
• Documented every comment by WAG
Additional Research Requested
• Additional traffic analysis and counts
• Comparable local medians, crosswalks, traffic
• Review of other cities experience removing
viaducts
Previous Analyses & Studies
Studies and Plans Compiled Since 2000
2010 City of Boston: Centre and South Streets Streetscape and Transportation
Action Plan (prepared by Mcmahon Associates)
2008 MBTA Parcels V and W Solicitations and Request For Proposal
2008 BRA: Forest Hills Improvement Initiative: Use and Design Guidelines and
Transportation Action Plan (prepared by Traffic Solutions LLC)
2008 BPRD: Franklin Park Transportation and Access Study (prepared by
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.)
2008 DCR: Structural Condition Investigation and Traffic Study (prepared by SGH)
2007 DCR: Arborway Traffic Review (prepared by Stantec)
2004 BPRD: Arborway Master Plan (prepared by Rizzo Associates, Inc.)
2001 MOA between City of Boston and MBTA on Arborway Yard
2000 Green Triangle Study
Built On Past Work
Focus Areas of Past
Studies
Project Principles
Project Principles
• Improve Safety
• Improve quality of life
• Address structurally deficient bridge
• Ensure inclusive public process
• Integrate artistic elements in designs
• Adopt the principles of Universal Design
• Respect the design for Arborway Yard
• Meet ABP budget and schedule
Traffic Analysis
Existing and 2035
Traffic Study Area
Surface Streets Designed Around the Overpass
Top 5 Areas of Concern Today
Traffic 2035 All Modes
• Address local surface system – New Washington
Street and intersections at Hyde Park and South in
both alternatives
• Address pedestrian, bicycle and transit access,
circulation and crossings
• Accommodate regional traffic without adversely
impacting local conditions
• Allow for a local network to support future
development and integration with abutting
neighborhoods
Forest Hills Area - Estimated Actual Build-out
FHII Final
Forest Hills Area - Estimated Actual Build-out
Eight Parcels
3521 Washington St
(former Flanagan & Seaton)
3615 Washington St
(former Hughes Oil)
Arborway Yards
Fitzgerald Parking Lot
(New owner is LAZ Parking)
MBTA Parking Lot
MBTA Parcel W
MBTA Parcel V
MBTA Parcel U
Forest Hills Area - Estimated Actual Build-out
BUILDOUT DETAILS
Base Information:
 September 23, 2008 Final
Community Recommendations
estimated the following:
• 375 to 461 Housing Units
• 98,000 to 118,000 Retail SF
• 145,000 to 356,000 Office SF
 Proposed development of 3529
Washington Street
2011 Updates:
 Actual Buildout of Parcels V & W
 LAZ Parking envisions building
on the front / corner of the parcel
 Minor expansion of bus facility &
new retail across Washington St.
= reduced retail at Arborway Yard
 Estimated Actual reflects 80% of
aggregate Buildout of the 2011
Update/Upper
Summary:
 310 to 390 Housing Units
 132,000 to 165,000 Retail SF
 332,000 to 416,000 Office SF
2011 Updates
Forest Hills Improvement Initiative Parcels
Site
MBTA Parcel U
MBTA Parcel V
(Per Approved Plans)
MBTA Parcel W
(Per Approved Plans)
MBTA Parcel S
Station Parking Lot
Fitzgerald Parking
Lot (now LAZ) Note 2
Arborway Yard
Parcel Note 3
Housing
Units
Retail/Service
Area (sf)
Office/Comm
Area (sf)
Total Bldg
Area (sf)
FHII Final
2011 Update /
Upper
120
4,000
-
143,000
120
4,000
-
143,000
FHII Final
Actual /
Permitted
8
4,000
-
12,800
-
4,011
8,022
12,033
FHII Final
Actual /
Permitted
40
10,000
2,000
56,000
-
12,983
19,286
32,269
FHII Final
2011 Update /
Upper
-
42,000
169,000
211,000
-
42,000
169,000
210,000
FHII Final
2011 Update /
Upper
135
15,000
-
163,000
80
15,000
-
125,000
FHII Final
2011 Update /
Upper
160
45,000
128,000
348,000
160
35,000
125,000
330,000
Upper
-
30,000
60,000
90,000
Upper
30
22,000
35,000
90,000
Buildout Range
2011 Update /
Upper
Estimated
Actual
Housing
Retail/Service
Office/Comm
Total Area
390
165,000
416,000
1,032,000
310
132,000
332,000
826,000
Buildout Range
Note 1
Washington St. Parcels (New)
3615 Wash. St.
(Huges Oil)
3529 Wash. St.
(Flan. & Seaton)
All Parcels
Totals
2035 No Build Traffic Volumes
2035 Regional Model (CTPS)
Local Development Parcels (City)
2035 No Build Traffic Volumes
2035 No Build Growth Summary
Assuming NO change to local roadways, travel
patterns, etc……
Vehicular Volumes:
Casey Overpass (Regional):
+ 5%
Surface Roads (Regional & Local): + 12%
Non-Motorized (Peds & Bikes):
+ 13%
Transit Ridership:
+ 10%
How the Analysis was Performed
1.
2.
3.
Base Year Calibrated - 2010
Forecast Year No-build – 2035
Alternatives developed – CTPS performed
regional analysis
• Overall volumes
• Travel times
• Air Quality
4.
5.
Regional analysis results provided to project
team
Project team examined local traffic operations
Design
The Path of Design
Improving
Mobility
And Livability
Design
Identified Ideas to:
• Address local concerns around the MBTA
station for drop off, taxi, and bus stops
• Protect local neighbors from cut through
traffic (Asticou, New Washington)
• Allow for off- and on-street bicycle circulation
for recreation users and commuters
• Integrate sustainable design concepts
Design
Identified alternatives to:
•
Remove barriers that impede connections to abutting JP areas,
block vistas of open space and historic architectural resources
•
Create Gateways for Southwest Corridor Park, Franklin Park at
Shea Circle and the Arboretum
SOUTHWEST
CORRIDOR
PARK
ARNOLD
ARBORETUM
FRANKLIN
PARK
Restore Parkway in the Spirit of Olmsted
Utilize full width of corridor to
separate modes with
generous planted medians
Olmsted’s 1892 Plan for the Arborway
Conceptual Alternatives
DESIGN
At-Grade Conceptual Alternative
DESIGNER GENERAL’S WARNING: THE DESIGN SHOWN
HERE IS PRELIMINARY AND CONCEPTUAL, DESPITE THE
HARD LINE FINISHED STYLE RESULTING FROM THE
SOFTWARE PROGRAMS USED
The Experience - New Washington Street
Relocated Orange
Line Head house
Olmsted tree line
boulevard
Off street bike lanes connect
to and cross at intersections
Area for community
gathering
Bus #39 remains
at current location
passenger loading
at intersection
On street bike lanes
Area for crossings – approx 20’
wide for bikes and pedestrians
Landscaped median
allows for minimal
plantings in this section
Bridge Conceptual Alternative
DESIGNER GENERAL’S WARNING: THE DESIGN SHOWN
HERE IS PRELIMINARY AND CONCEPTUAL, DESPITE THE
HARD LINE FINISHED STYLE RESULTING FROM THE
SOFTWARE PROGRAMS USED
The Experience - New Washington Street
Bus #39 remains
at current location
passenger loading
at intersection
Regional vehicular
traffic located above
Area for community
gathering
Off street Bike lanes
connect to and cross
at intersections
On street bike lanes
Usable contiguous
open space
connections
Area for crossings – approx 20’
wide for bikes and pedestrians
Measure of Evaluation (MOEs)
The Measures of Evaluation (MOEs)
•
Approach Taken to Casey’s MOEs
•
•
WAG Integral to the formation and evolution of the
MOEs – developed over the 9 months
•
•
All modes, livability objectives, new measures
Principles (fatal flaw), Goals, Objectives and Measures
MOE’s used throughout the process and to evaluate
alternatives on their own merits
•
MOEs’ shaped the alternatives (i.e., surface streets redesigned for all alternatives – rendering some MOEs
obsolete)
MOEs – The Distribution
MOEs
Mobility
Livability
Goals
3
3
Objectives
9
7
Measures
16
15
Applied to Existing Conditions and
both Conceptual Alternatives
MOEs – The Results
Existing
Conditions
Bridge
At-Grade
Mobility
-10
3
7
Livability
-10
0
13
Total
-20
3
20
MOEs
Conceptual Alternatives
TRAFFIC
How can traffic operations be similar?
• North-south traffic volumes unchanged between
alternatives
• At-grade offers additional improvements to critical northsouth link on South Street
• Removal of Bridge only adds east-west through traffic to
surface streets (additional thru lanes provided at-grade)
• All turning movements happen at grade regardless
East West
Regional Travel
• Regional travel times relatively unchanged for
overall trip
• Any in-bound delays at grade on New Washington
are offset by existing delays at Murray Circle
• In fact, the new design of New Washington may
“meter” the travel times, providing more
systematic processing of traffic
Local Diversions (cut-through)
• Concerns on cut through focused on east/west
travel.
• The At-Grade Alternative increases east/west
travel by only 30 to 90 seconds.
• The travel times along alternate routes
(potential cut-through routes) are greater than
the proposed at-grade network
Future Traffic Conditions: Summary
Improved over existing conditions and
minimal difference between the alternatives for:
• Pedestrian/Bike/Transit Operations
• Overall Vehicle Capacity
• No Added or Diverted Traffic
• Overall Travel Times Remain Constant
Traffic is not a differentiator
between alternatives
The Selected Alternative
At-Grade
The Basis for Decision
• Safety and Benefits
• Extensive Community
Involvement (6 public meetings
and 13 working group meetings in 9
months)
• Removing visual barriers to
connect neighborhoods
• Restoring the Emerald
Necklace and connecting
open space areas
• Traffic not a differentiator
The Basis for Decision
• Advanced bike and pedestrian connections
(north/south and east/west)
• Improved bus operations in and around the area
• Measures of Evaluation
• Cost Estimates – design, construction and lifecycle
Estimated Cost of Conceptual Alternatives
Item
Bridge
At-Grade
Demolition
Construction
Bridge replacement
$30.2 Million
New Washington Corridor
$31.1 Million
New Washington & Shea
$36.3 Million
Asticou and Shea
$9.1 Million
MBTA
$12.2 million Improvements
Maintenance
Total
+$73 Million
$53 Million
Both alternatives include costs for Shea at $6 million as each design is interchangeable
Project Web Site
For Detailed Results
Casey Project Web Site Documents
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyoverpass/
Traffic
Documents
• Traffic flow maps
by mode
• Level of Service
by Mode
• CTPS graphics
• Travel Time
Analysis
Meetings
• Notices
• Presentations
• Graphics
• Minutes
Casey Arborway Project
Schedule
Accelerated Bridge Program Opportunity
Project Schedule
25% Design Submission
by September 2012
75% Design Submission
by March 2013
Final Design July 2013
Construction Completion
Advertise September 2013
September 2016
PLANNING
STUDY
2011
25% DESIGN
2012
TO FINAL DESIGN
2013
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
2014
2015
Community Involvement Throughout Project
Select
Alternative
25% To Final Design Review
Construction Staging & Traffic Management
Planning and Phasing
Construction Management Meetings
2016
Design Process
• Planning Stage - COMPLETED
• 25% Design – Identifies design parameters:
– Horizontal and vertical alignments
– Signal phasing
– Urban design and landscaping
– File the environmental notification form (ENF)
• 75% Design – Includes additional design detail
(plans/specifications) based on 25% review
• Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PSE) – Finalizes
all construction-related documents
Design Advisory Group
Technical Focus
Design Phase
Casey Arborway Project – 2012-2013
Community Participation – DRAFT Design Schedule
2012
25% Design
Begins
File
ENF*
Submit Receive All
25% Design Comments
MAR APR MAY JUN
WAG
DAG
DAG
DAG
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
DAG
PUB
MTG
WAG = Working Advisory Group
MEPA
SITE
MTG
25%
DESIGN
PUBLIC
HEARING
MEPA = Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
DAG = Design Advisory Group
2013
Submit Receive All
75% Design Comments
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
DAG
DAG
75%
DESIGN
PUBLIC
MEETING
*ENF=Environmental Notification Form
DAG
Submit
PS&E**
Design
Advertise
JUL AUG SEP OCT
PS&E**
DESIGN
PUBLIC
MEETING
**PS&E=Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
The Community Partnership: WAGDAG
Next Phase: Design
• Maintain guiding principles, goals and
objectives
• Integral to developing designs and
addressing operational issues
• Continue to balance mobility needs with
livability opportunities
• Continue to challenge the design team to
incorporate new ideas based on local
concerns
Community Concerns
• Construction Management
– Logistics, traffic
management, protection of
neighborhoods, commuters,
business and transit
• Strategies to protect
neighborhoods from cut
through traffic
Community Concerns - Continued
• MBTA bus trips travel
time – during and post
construction
• Coordination with small
businesses before and
during demolition and
construction
• Arborway Yard and the
ABP program
Proposed DAG Meetings
25% Design Phase - Meeting Topics
• Construction Management
• Logistics and plans
• Traffic plans and management for all modes,
• Cut through traffic, business access
• Livability
• Urban Design – gateways
• Landscaping and open space
• Mobility
• Roadway and intersection design, signalization, medians
and non-peak hour designs
Casey Arborway Project – 2012
Community Participation - DRAFT Schedule
D
E
S
I
G
N
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
S
25% Design
Begins
Submit 25% Receive All
Design for 25% Design
Comments
Review
File ENF
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
WAG1
DAG
DAG 1
DAG 2
DAG 3
DAG4
Public
Meeting
AUG
SEP
MEPA
Site
Meeting
25%
Design
Public
Hearing
Meeting Topics
DAG1 Design: (Shea Circle & Asticou Rd/Washington St)
DAG2 Design Charrette: (SWCP, MBTA Plaza & Franklin Park)
DAG3 Design: Traffic (roadway cross sections & operations)
DAG4 Construction and Traffic Management
OCT
Casey Arborway Project
Discussion