Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
April 5, 2012
To:
Steve McLaughlin
Project Manager - Accelerated Bridge Program
MassDOT
Through:
Andrea D’Amato
HNTB
Project Manager
From:
Nathaniel Curtis
Howard/Stein-Hudson
Public Involvement Specialist
RE:
First Public Information Meeting1
Meeting Notes of March 29, 20122
Overview & Executive Summary
On March 29, 2012, the MassDOT team for the Casey Arborway Project held the first in a series of
public meetings associated with the six month 25% design process for the replacement of the Casey
Overpass with an at-grade boulevard. At this point, no further design effort will be expended on a
replacement bridge. The beginning of the 25% design process represents the end of the Casey
Overpass Planning Study which determined whether to replace the viaduct with a new bridge or
surface roadway.
As part of the 25% design, the Working Advisory Group (WAG) which formed the core of the Planning
Study will now change its name to the Design Advisory Group (DAG). The DAG will play a more
focused role than the WAG and address the key issues associated with the design of the preferred
alternative such as construction management, signal timing, and vertical/horizontal roadway
alignments. Several DAG meetings are scheduled to take place over the spring and early summer of
2012. The next major public milestones will include the MEPA Scoping Meeting, currently slated for late
summer and the 25% design public hearing set for early fall. The public process will not end with the
25% design hearing and will continue, as will work by the DAG, through 100% design. While DAG
meetings will be open to the public, they constitute the body’s working sessions and as such,
committee business will be given precedence.
During the course of the meeting, audience members were presented with the selected alternative for 25% design: the at-grade solution; and provided with a detailed roadmap of the 25% design process and more generally, the design process through 100%. Reaction among audience members who
specifically addressed the issue was split with approximately ¾ speaking in favor of the preferred
alternative and ¼ stating their continued preference for a bridge. For those satisfied with the decision, there is a general sense that MassDOT and its project team have satisfactorily proven that the at­
1 Meeting attendance is listed in Appendix 1. Comments received from the public immediately prior to, at, and after the meeting are listed in Appendix 2.
2 This meeting was advertised in the Boston Globe, Baystate (Boston) Banner, Roslindale/West Roxbury
Transcript, West Roxbury Bulletin, the Jamaica Plain Gazette, and the Dorchester/Mattapan Reporter.
A Spanish version of the advertisement was presented in the Jamaica Plain Gazette. Haitian Creole versions were placed in Baystate Banner and Dorchester/Mattapan Haitian Reporter.
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
grade solution can effectively process traffic, that the agency has conducted a transparent and
thorough public involvement process and that the project should now move into the 25% phase.
Many of the same people expressing satisfaction did note that there remain outstanding issues with
the preferred alternative, but that they look forward to working with the project team to address them.
One item of particular concern is that elements that make the at-grade alternative attractive, such as
the moving of the Orange Line head-house north of New Washington Street or improvements to
Washington Street west of the Station not be lost in the design process.
Those who expressed dissatisfaction with the decision generally stated their belief that MassDOT has
not provided satisfactory proof that the at-grade solution is viable and that the agency has
conducted a biased or rushed public involvement process in which many of the community’s
outstanding questions have been left unanswered.
The major next step for the project team is to begin the DAG process. The first 2 DAG meetings are
scheduled for April 30 and May 16, 2012.
Detailed Meeting Minutes
Presentation
C: John Romano (JR): Welcome to the public meeting on the Casey Arborway Project. I want to
acknowledge Olu Ibrahim from Representative Sanchez’s Office, Robert Torres with Representative
Malia’s Office, Marilyn Stout who is here for Representative Russell Holmes, Julieanne Doherty from
the Mayor’s Office and Heather Perez from Councilor Arroyo’s Office. Tonight we have a very short
presentation. We ask that you hold off on your questions until then the end. Its 20 minutes and
then we’ll have Q&A.
A few other things: please sign in on your way out if you did not already do so; please give us your
email address for our database. One official thing I need to do is tell you that this is my last
meeting on this project. Kate Fichter from MassDOT planning will take my place facilitating DAG
and public meetings. Kate couldn’t be here tonight because she had a long-standing prior
commitment put in place before the Secretary told her she’d be assigned. I will be going to some
other projects around Boston as directed by the Secretary. I want to thank the WAG, it’s been
great working with them and all of you and I’m sure I’ll be back to see you again. I’m going to turn
this over to Paul King in just a moment, but before I go into the agenda, David Mohler, the head of
MassDOT planning is here. He’s just listening mostly, but he will be getting up and discussing how
the WAG will turn into the DAG.
The first item is the selected alternative. Most or all of you have heard via email or the newspaper
that DOT has selected the at-grade alternative for 25% design. That is the decision of Secretary
Davey; all meetings from here on out will address the at-grade solution. No more discussion of a
bridge. Secretary Davey has made that decision and we want to work with the DAG and the
public to make that solution the best we can so we can all be proud of the job we’ve done in
2016. The decision is made and we won’t go back from it. Tonight, we won’t go into any design
work. We’re here to go over the design process and give you a schedule of meetings over the
next 18 months prior to advertising the project. There will be plenty of chance for public input over
the next several months. Here’s Paul King, please remember, this is just about process tonight and
hold your questions until the end.
C: Paul King (PK): Thank you John. As John said, and you all know, Secretary Davey has selected the
at-grade solution to proceed into design. As you’ll see, we’re changing the name of the project to
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
the Casey Arborway Project. I’m sure most of you have seen this drawing of the at-grade solution.
There are some important elements to this including:
The linear parkway tightening the connections of the Emerald Necklace.
The improvements to New Washington Street and Washington Street west of Forest Hills
Station to improve bus operations.
Extension of the Southwest Corridor Park to bring it into Forest Hills and connect it to the
station and surrounding amenities.
Improvements to Shea Circle which we believe will become Shea Square.
What was the basis for how this decision was made? We had a very involved community process
that included 12 WAG meetings and 5 public information meetings. We received a significant
amount of comment letters and emails and we’ve incorporated those as well. All of them were
accounted for and considered. It was generally felt that removing the overpass would remove a
visual barrier and reconnect the neighborhoods, restore the Emerald Necklace and connect the
open space, cultural and recreational resources of Arnold Arboretum, Forest Hills Cemetery and
Franklin Park. We can also provide on and off-street bicycle accommodations and multi-use
pathways. We can improve bus operations with changes to the MBTA bus berths. These are things
that we cannot do or cannot do anywhere near as much of if we opt for a new overpass. We
also used the Measures of Evaluation that were numerical grades that we gave to elements of
each alternative to measure the benefits based on the goals and objectives and balancing
livability and mobility. The at-grade solution is much more cost-effective up front and of course
does not have the high maintenance costs associated with a bridge.
Through the planning process, we’ve had a strong partnership of the state agencies, MassDOT
Highway Division, MBTA, DCR who owns the roadway, and the City of Boston which owns the
signals and adjacent roadways. The next phase is going through design with our agency and
community partnership which is vital to making this a success. The WAG will transition to the DAG
and have a more technical focus. The phase we just completed was a planning study and we
needed to determine what to accomplish and what to include. Now we need to take those
elements and make them work in design. Our DAG will help maintain the guiding principles and
objectives that shaped the planning study, including holding harmless the Arborway Yard,
maintaining MBTA access and improving mobility and livability. Mobility is getting people around;
livability is how nice it is to be in a place. They will help us address operational issues of all the
elements in the project and will continue to challenge us to incorporate new ideas, address local
concerns, think creatively and make this the project the community needs it to be. More
specifically, the DAG will address:
Construction management: everyone looks at this project which will change this space
forever, but right now it will impact moving around, businesses and the MBTA. We need our
DAG to help us do that, conveying the concerns of the community and helping us to
develop our construction management plans in an iterative process.
Traffic management: once we start construction, where will the traffic go? We’ll work to
develop strategies with you and the City to avoid cut-through traffic. A big concern is bus
operations. Forest Hills Station is a highly concentrated area of bus operations critical to this
community. The small businesses in the area need to be brought into this process in a
greater degree than they thus far have been. As we get into construction there will be
impacts on them and so we need to coordinate with them to ensure that they will continue
to be functioning and profitable.
Arborway Yard: will be held harmless. Our designs maintain the initial plans for it and we
abut and skirt the sides of it. The current designs for that project are what we are using, but
we can adapt to changes if need be.
Now let’s look at design and construction. As you see, we are here in 2012 and the most important
thing is this end date in 2016. We assume three years for construction and if we back to final design
and then 25% design, we’re here. We’d like to have a little more time, we’ve had a slight delay, but
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
we’re still on track. We plan a 25% design submission in six months. We have a breakdown of what
goes into that in just a few slides. After 25% design, we go into final design which runs 6-9 months and
then we’re into construction by 2013. We have allotted three years for construction though we will see
about shortening that if we can. We will continue to have community involvement all along; we’re not
done with public involvement. During construction we’ll have construction management meetings,
monthly, every two weeks, whatever suits the construction and the schedule. We’ll have looks-ahead
and all that sort of good stuff. People will be able to air their concerns and ask their questions.
So, let me talk about key elements. Planning is done and we’re ready to start design. We’ve identified
the design parameters, but now we need to start developing it. We know what’s in, but now, it’s time
to make it work in terms of horizontal and vertical alignment, signal phasing and timing, urban design
and landscaping which is one of the biggest opportunities of this project with the structure coming
down. We will also file an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) to deal with our environmental
process. By September, we should have our 25% design completed and then we’ll go to 75% from
which we can develop the construction documents for bidding and building. Here are some things
the DAG will address in its meetings:
Open space and landscaping: this is something new to be created. There will be more than
exists today. We want to restore what we can of Olmsted’s Emerald Necklace and tighten the
connection between Arnold Arboretum and Franklin Park.
Signalization and roadway configuration: what we need to make it all work. This is a great
opportunity to improve things for all modes and take it beyond what’s there now. It’s not safe
out there right now for bicycles and pedestrians and we will make the accommodations so
much better.
Parking issues: pick-up/drop-off activity is a big issue around the station along with school
buses, double parking and MBTA buses. Right now the configuration means that no matter
how well the signals get timed, it’s a mess. We will clean that up and bring it to the level where
it should be.
Non-peak design variations: we’ve spent a lot of time talking about peak traffic numbers and
those are scary and we can design to handle them, but that’s a fraction of the day. I was out
on the street in Forest Hills today between 10 a.m. and noon and it was pretty sparse. We want
to design to handle peak traffic, but also non-peak traffic a little differently. We’ve talked
about eliminated east/west left turns and that’s needed and critical during peak hours, but
maybe during off-peak hours we can let those intersections operation traditionally with all
moves available.
Shea Circle and Morton Street: based on our work with the WAG, the cycling advocates and
the City of Boston, we’ve really heard that Shea Circle isn’t friendly to anything but cars. We’ve
found that a square configuration, Olmsted’s original design, can accommodate the vehicle
traffic and make it friendlier to non-motorized users.
Construction Management and Staging: these are critical. We won’t sugarcoat that there’s
some upheaval coming, but we can make it better.
Sustainable design: as we go forward we need to keep in mind the environment and ecology.
We’ll incorporate sustainable design elements to the greatest extent we can.
Now, let’s go through some more schedule information. We’re here at the first public meeting and
we’ve allotted one DAG meeting per month. Our 25% design process will run for approximately
seven months. During that periodwe’ll file the ENF with MEPA and there will be an official public
comment period. That includes a site walk and public meeting like this one. At the end of that, we
take those comments and incorporate them into the 25% design and have the design public
hearing. Typically you get just one hearing at 25%, but that’s not the way we’re doing it here. It will
be public all the way through. Going into next year, we’re working on 75% design, working with
the DAG and continuing with further refinements until we get to the PS&E drawings that will go to
the contractors.
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
As I said earlier, our WAG will turn into the DAG and its focus will become more technical. This will
be about ideas becoming real and so we’ve focused our DAG meetings and we won’t try to
tackle more than one issue per session. We’ll divvy them up on construction management,
livability and mobility issues. This is the schedule, it does say draft, but we think this is the best way
to approach it, one meeting a month. As we work with the WAG, we may find that there are a
few times that there will be a need to slot in an additional meeting to develop a topic further or
address something specific, but for now we expect one per month. After those few months we’ll
go through the MEPA process. From that process we’ll get your comments and internal comments
and integrate that into the 25% design. Then we’ll have the 25% design public hearing and that
gets us to the end of 25%. There’s a lot to do in all that time. We look forward to working with you.
We are excited about this project and we think you will be too when all is said and done. I
appreciate your input and your patience. Please continue to guide us and make this better.
C: JR: Thank you, Paul. Representative Holmes has joined as, us has Councilor O’Malley. Prior to Q&A,
Dave Mohler is going to say a little more about the WAG turning into the DAG.
C: David Mohler (DM): I’m David Mohler. I’m the director of planning at MassDOT. You can always
contact me at david.mohler@state.ma.us or at (617) 973-7844 about this project or any other.
Kate Fichter from my office will be the project manager for public involvement. You can contact
her at Katherine.fichter@state.ma.us or (617) 973-7342. Her information is also printed on your
agenda.
I will take two minutes to discuss the WAG turning into the DAG. Thanks to everyone who
participated on the WAG. Its 39 members and they put in a lot of time and effort. We’ll
reformulate the WAG into the DAG. We will review all 39 people to see if they still want to
participate and commit. If you can’t commit, we may shrink the DAG. We want and welcome
you, but we are transitioning from planning into design. We won’t discuss at DAG meetings why
we’re not building a bridge. If as a DAG member, you cannot commit to that first, basic ground
rule, membership may not work for you. That’s not to cut off or stifle debate. You can come to all
the public meetings, comment through MEPA and at the design public hearing. Kate will be in
touch with all of you to gauge your desire to be on the DAG. There was a sense that we might
need ground rules for the DAG and we will discuss those at our first meeting and then live by them.
That’s never to stifle debate, but just to keep moving us forward.
Question & Answer Session3
C: JR: I’m going to do this in a reasonable fashion. I’ll try to go left to right and front to back. I will get
you on one pass or another. Please state your name and where you’re from and I’ll ask you to
keep it to one comment. This is a big crowd and I want to get everyone in.
C: Mark Tedrow (MT): Thank you for making the right decision. Looking at the LOS studies, I think you
guys show 14 bicycles per hour coming off the Southwest Corridor and on a nice day, I think it’s
closer to 40 or 50. I know there’s a traffic count on Lower Washington Street going on right now
and hopefully some bicycle counts will be part of that too.
C: Allan Ihrer (AI): I spent about 12 years working on the Arborway Yard and thousands of hours on it
and got very involved in traffic in this area. I spent two years on the Forest Hills Initiative and I just
spent a year on the WAG. In the WAG, we spent 30 minutes – 30 minutes in the second-to-last
meeting looking at color-coded dots that showed how traffic would work in the area. We heard
that we spent a huge time on the process, but there was no give and take. 6 months before that I
3
Individuals who did not provide their names are listed at “Community Resident.”
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
asked about buses moving through the area and transit along with Representative Holmes and
how those buses from Mattapan and Dorchester would get to the lower bus-way and I have yet to
see the turning movement count documents and for traffic engineering, that’s like wood for
carpenters. We haven’t seen anything with buses moving. They say buses won’t go through the
intersection of Hyde Park Avenue/Washington Street every signal cycle and so it won’t interrupt
signal synchronization, but I’ve done my own calculations and I think it will be interrupted every
cycle and so traffic will be thrown off. I’ve been asking for that for 4 or 5 months and I’ve received
nothing. We’ve been told that there will be a bow-tie near the Arnold Arboretum gate. In the
morning, traffic backs up almost to that bow-tie and the U-turn will add 20% more traffic because
cars won’t be allowed to make east/west left-turns. We never saw any traffic information. If you
look at the animations, it looks like Sunday afternoon.
The fact is, I prefer the at-grade option, but I think this community has been done a disservice and
now the community is Balkanized; we’re split 30/70 or 60/40 and at the last meeting I was
disrespected. I spent 9 months working on this with an open mind and waited patiently for traffic
and when I finally got a look at it, it was 30 minutes. I’ve been asked that we embrace this and
move forward and maybe we can or maybe we can go back and plan some more, but I’ve
asked that we start by going back and dealing with traffic in a back and forth iterative process so
we don’t get too deeply into the DAG process and wind up dealing with traffic in the last two
meetings again and don’t see serious problems that will harm this area.
The animations are bogus, it looks like three lanes heading west, but they will probably need 4 and
so it’ll be 7 lanes across and we should have dealt with this in the WAG, but we didn’t and I have
difficulty that I never got any support from the state or the community in my efforts to deal with this
basic issue. We’ve built to the point that people are enemies and that’s unfortunate, and we can
have ground rules and that’s great, but what about rules for MassDOT taking us seriously and
actually listening to us.
A: JR: Thank you for your comment.
C: Frank O’Hara (FO): I used the bridge to commute to school and I use it to go to work. I initiated the
repaving of the Jewish War Veterans Memorial Parkway. When I started, the City and State didn’t
know the proper name for it and it was in awful condition. What can be done to keep traffic
moving? How much time should I add to my commute from West Roxbury to the Seaport? 20
minutes? 30 minutes? Can I take a show of hands to see who uses it to commute to work? O.K.
maybe 10 people that I can see; to make this safer, you should put in pedestrian or bicycle bridges
like they have over Storrow Drive.
A: JR: Thank you for your comment.
C: Jeffrey Rand (JRa): I run Grenier Print shop. That’s a family owned business that’s been in Forest Hills
since the 1950’s. I think there will be a lot of traffic during construction. DOT has my shop as being
on Hyde Park Avenue, but it’s on Washington Street. Hyde Park Avenue ends at Tower Street; it
doesn’t reach Morton Street.
Q: Sarah Freeman (SF): I live on the Arborway and I’m on the WAG representing the Arborway
Coalition. I want to express my appreciation that we’ve gotten to this point. I do want to ask, on
behalf of me and the coalition whether there is a landscape designer and City involvement on this
project so we can make the most of this opportunity?
Q: Community resident (CR): Are you going to answer any of these questions? She asked a question.
A: DM: We will answer questions; we’re just not going to respond to comments. There will be a
landscape designer; there already is one. That person will participate on the DAG. As to City
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
involvement, BTD and BRA have been involved all along, Vineet Gupta is here and we expect the
Councilors will also continue their involvement.
C: Jonathan Baker (JB): I live 200 yards from the Casey Overpass, I’m involved in transportation and I
want to make it known that there is a lot of opposition to this project from people who live near it
and it hasn’t been properly represented. It’s people who live in the shadow of this who will have to
deal with 25,000 extra tail pipes, children unable to cross the road, traffic strangling our community.
We can’t exit from our street, Asticou Road, and I want to make it clear that there’s opposition to
this project. It’s not about pedestrians or bicycles, it’s about tail pipes. The bridge exists and should
be replaced.
Q: Deanna Keene (DC): What are the plans for Murray Circle and the bus drop-offs, where will those
be?
A: JR: Murray Circle is outside the scope of this project, but we will collaborate with DCR and BTD on
that issue, it won’t go totally unnoticed. Murray Circle is going to stay a circle as far as we know.
Shea Circle will likely become a square based on what we learned from the WAG.
Q: DC: And what about the buses?
A: PK: I assume you’re referring to Washington Street west of Forest Hills Station? Along here where it
backs up?
C: DC: All three bus areas. What will happen to them?
A: PK: On Washington Street west of the Station, we’ll widen the roadway towards the MBTA property
and we’ll place curbside cut-outs to let people pull out of the travel lane for kiss-and-ride. We’ll
provide more room for taxi cabs and we’ll improve the bus-way itself, pulling the exit away from
the intersection and creating more room for bus operations. As to school buses, it’s hard to control
them because they can stop anywhere, but we’ll try to better organize them. There’s a lot
happening here. We’ll keep the Route 39 where it is and provide queue jump lights for it. There
are still some things we’re working out with the City and the MBTA on that.
A: Steve McLaughlin (SM): The final location of the bus stops hasn’t been determined yet. We’re
working closely with the MBTA to finalize that. I know Dan Webber from service planning is here
with us tonight.
A: JR: This is the next level of design that we’ll address going forward.
C: Mary Sawyer (MS): In answer to some of the earlier comments, there are a lot of us who are very
excited about this outcome. The at-grade solution will be wonderful and it was a very brave
decision for the agency to make. I congratulate you.
Q: Dan Hermes (DH): I’ve been a homeowner in JP since 2006. I’m just becoming aware of this
project; thank you for being here. I want to know about neighborhood representation. Does
anyone actually know Eric Gordon? Eric didn’t represent us. That was a failure and we hope that
going forward there will be better representation. The other representative was Andy Schell and
he was asked to participate but said he didn’t have time, but he was kept on the list so there was
no active commercial representation. Moving onward on the DAG, I’d like someone to represent
those interests. How will that be addressed?
A: JR: As David said earlier, Kate will contact all members of the WAG. We reached out to Andy and
Charles Fiore and we asked them. When they send they couldn’t participate, we asked for
representation. They didn’t send anyone. We asked Carlos Icazza and he did send someone. We
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
are working on this with the Mayor’s Office and we do have someone they have suggested for
both business groups. It’s not for lack of trying. That’s not an excuse, just a reality, but we will be
adding those parties.
A: DM: If anyone here wants to be on the DAG, I can’t guarantee we’ll add more to our 39 people
because that’s already awfully big, but if people do drop off and you’d like to join, please let us
know. If you have a regular neighborhood meeting and want us to come out, we’ll come to those
meetings. We have never intended to divide anyone, but please try to put that behind you and
work together to get the best project you can.
Q: Richard Walton (RW): Can you please go back to the timeline? A red square showed up with the
initials MEPA in it and got the DAG and WAG confused.
A: DM: Two things: where is says “file ENF in May,” that’s the environmental notification form. That’s
filed with the Massachusetts Office of Environmental Affairs. We file the ENF, they take comment,
and they have a meeting and then determine if we have to file more documents. We hope they
say no.
Q: Eric Prokosh (EP): I’ve lived in Forest Hills for eight years. At-grade will be a great improvement for
walking and cycling. One thing that made me support the at-grade solution is being able to move
the exit for the Orange Line platform north of New Washington Street so people don’t have to cross
the traffic. I’m concerned with cost overruns, changes of agency and maybe somebody
forgetting that promise. My question is how can we ensure that promise is kept?
A: DM: The short answer is that you cannot ever 100% ensure anything. I’d love to say that you can,
but you can’t. The way it is ensured is through the DAG and the DAG cares and will get into the
weeds. It’s ensured by these meetings. At 25% we’ll have design plans to show you. That won’t be
the last time you’ll see those plans. We’ll do work on the 25% design plans based on your
comments and bring them back to you for a 75% design hearing and then we’ll show you final
design. The best way for you to get what you want is to keep involved. Question your DAG
member. Come to these public meetings. Ask us to come to your community group.
A: JR: And we do have DAG meetings scheduled between all the milestone meetings.
Q: Jen Rowe (JRo): I’m really excited about this and it looks great. My question is this: I ride the
Southwest Corridor bicycle path and when I cross the street at the end, if I have a walk signal and I
get hit by a car, I’m still at fault. Have you figured out some safe way for bicycles to cross to the
Station?
A: SM: That’s a very good question, the confluence of bicycles and the rule of law. We need to look
at it more. We have a wide crossing area at South Street/New Washington Street and we have
right-of-way for bicycles, but we still need to review it further.
C: Dorothy Farrell (DF): I’ve lived in JP for 20 years. Thank you to everyone who has worked on this; it’s
monumental. There are a lot of people very much in support no matter what others might say.
C: Mary Hickie (MH): I’ve been on the WAG as the representative of the Emerald Necklace
Conservancy and I live on Martinwood Road. I support the at-grade solution after a long slog
through all the WAG meetings. There’s still a long way to go: still lots of things to figure out like the
tricky traffic issues, but I will keep working on the DAG to make that happen.
Q: Colleen Robertson (CR): I’m from Hyde Park. You said you had five public meetings over the past
nine months. This is my first time hearing about it. I feel left out of the decision making process. I
have to drive down Hyde Park Avenue. Lower Mills have been left out. My second thing is how do
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
you get on the Jamaica Way after you make it a surface road? Where will courthouse parking
be? I use the overpass a lot for the hospitals taking pregnant women to and from the hospitals,
asthmatics; it will take me a lot for time when I can take people myself as opposed to an
ambulance costing money and gas.
A: Gary McNaughton (GM): Let me jump in and explain the traffic. If you’re on the north/south
roadways into Forest Hills, you can make any left you want. The only purpose of the U-turns is for
east/west traffic coming along the Arborway. Those are the moves that will be redirected to the
bowties. The difference, and we talked a lot about this in the earlier meetings between this and
bridge is that if you travel east/west through the corridor at peak periods, you will experience 30-90
seconds of additional delay, but this processes traffic very efficiently and will only be 30-90
seconds.
A: DM: As to the failure to get notice to you, I don’t have a great reason. Representative Holmes
called us on that at the last WAG meeting. We will do a better job. If you want to be on the DAG
personally, let me know. If you want us to come out to address your community group, let us know.
There is no good answer other than that we’re sorry.
A: JR: We did advertise in the West Roxbury, Roslindale local papers and the Baystate Banner. Nate
who does the advertisements does between 5 and 6 community papers plus we place
advertisements in the general circulation papers, the Globe or Herald. The WAG meetings are only
advertised to the WAG members. As Dave said, we’ll do a better job, but we didn’t just limit
outreach to the JP Gazette. It was in the Herald I believe for this meeting. With regard to
courthouse parking, we know that needs to be addressed, but we’d have to deal with it regardless
of the solution selected so we will be addressing that in the DAG process and you’ll receive more
information about it at later public meetings.
C: Emily Wheelwright (EW): I live on Williams Street. I’m very pleased that we’ve come to this decision
for an at-grade solution and now I hope we can come together and get the best solution we can.
We have a great opportunity to be creative about peak hours versus off-peak hours. Maybe we
can cut back to four lanes instead of six during off-peak.
A: JR: Thank you for saying that, that’s a point Paul brought up. Peak versus off-peak will be
addressed by the DAG.
C: Pete Stidman (PS): I’m the director of the Boston Cyclists’ Union and before I speak my own piece,
several of our members are here tonight including the one with the six-month old at the back who
just left, but she’s very happy about this decision and can’t wait for a safe place to push her
stroller.
I want to say thank you to the team and to MassDOT for a fair and thorough process. I want to say
a lot of people have been talking about WAG members who didn’t come and I did call those
people and asked their opinions and they were pretty evenly split so I don’t think they’d have
impacted the process much and MassDOT shouldn’t be held responsible for them. We’ve just
come through a very healthy debate as a neighborhood. We went into every detail of these
options and I’m happy about the decision, but more importantly, the decision has been made. To
go backward now or redo the decision would harm the neighborhood because of the funding
deadline. There are over 400 structurally deficient bridges in the Commonwealth and MassDOT
has a responsibility to the legislature that made the ABP bill. There’s pressure to create jobs and so I
for one am ready to dig into the design process where we can air concerns about bicycle lanes
and the MBTA station and bicycle crossings. Playgrounds would be nice in the new green space
and I want to encourage all of you, there are 39 members of the WAG, find out who your
representative is and ask them to move forward constructively on the process.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Community Resident (CR): I’ve always been a bridge proponent. I’m disappointed that so many
people are upset with the perceived delay because that came on account of Representative
Malia and Councilor O’Malley asking for additional public meetings. The statement by Secretary
Davey ending discussion was very annoying. I think a 3 month delay was reasonable and we
wanted that time to reach out to commuters. There was time to reach out to us to hear what we
had to say in criticism and proposals and I think need to invite some of us annoyed people onto
the DAG so that we can participate in traffic planning. My last comment is that I’ve attended
several public meetings where they said Shea Circle wasn’t part of the bridge plan. I find that
misleading.4
A: SM: Regarding Shea Circle becoming Shea Square, I’m not sure which public information meeting
you came to, but it was the result of the WAG identifying this community’s issues. It wasn’t us that
raised it, it was community members saying “it’s dangerous for bicycles and pedestrians and there
are accidents there.” It seems right now that a four-way, signalized intersection is the prudent
thing to do.5
C: Kevin Reynolds (KR): I’ve lived on Rosemary Street for 50 years. Its four streets north of Forest Hills off
South Street and it takes me 10 minutes to pull onto South Street mornings and evenings. I want the
overpass replaced. 6 lanes of traffic will divide JP from West Roxbury and Roslindale. These groups
can’t have been chosen well, South Street wasn’t represented.
A: JR: Thank you for your comment, sir.
C: Bernie Doherty (BD): It’s nice to see people involved. I’m Bernie Doherty. I’m on the WAG and
Chair of the Asticou/Martinwood Association. I want to echo the sentiments expressed by Allan
earlier in regards to the type of process. It wasn’t open or fair and it’s been a bag job since the
beginning. The truth of the matter is we have a group of City, State and other agencies trying to
jam this down our throats!
The problem is we as a community are divided because we’ve been lied to. The bicycle and
pedestrian people want to restore Olmsted’s dream of Arnold Arboretum and Franklin Park
connected. The bridge may not be responsible for disconnecting them, but they say it does. They
say the bridge is dark and dangerous. I don’t see all those puff pieces with the trees. When you
get down under there, you’ll see six or seven lanes. Pete says the bike group likes this and that.
Pete says safety, safety, safety on his website. If it’s safer to cross 7 lanes of traffic than 5, I don’t
get safety! If it’s easier to make children and seniors cross those lanes, then I don’t get safety!
I’m not happy with you pols in the room. This process has been abysmal. There are 5 bicycle
groups, 3 walking groups, and 4 conservancies. We spent more time on bicycle lanes than
anything else. At the second-to-last meeting we saw videos with some cars going by and it looked
like Disneyland! This is not my process. I thought the process was we would determine some atgrade and bridge alternatives and present it to you, the public to decide. I want to point out that
Representative Holmes came to these meetings and midway through he said he felt Mattapan,
and Dorchester, and Quincy that use 203 as a major transportation route weren’t being
represented. This lady pointed out the issue of ambulances. Have we done an actuarial study
and determined that we will accept all these additional deaths and injuries?!
When we went through this study, we were told the bridge needed to come down or it would fall
down and as I look through the documentation on the ABP, I find out that DCR put $28 million
Here, John Romano paused to recognize Kate Chang from Congressman Capuano’s office.
The idea of Shea Circle becoming Shea Square was first raised in the public information on May 18,
2011. It was also discussed at greater length at the meetings on June 29, September 13, and
November 21.
4
5
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
aside to resurface it. Where did that money go? When you ask what I want, I want honesty! We
don’t want rules, regulations and guidelines! I put on the uniform of my country and will not be told
that I cannot speak and I will speak!
C: Abbi Holt (AH): I drive and bicycle through the intersection and I’m very happy about the at-grade
option. By limiting left turns and removing bridge supports this will be a lot safer and less scary.
Thank you, DOT.
C: Noel Jenka (NJ): I live on Robeson Road. I’m sorry you folks are upset about what we’ve done for
bicycles. I’m quite pleased about this decision. I’m originally from northern Virginia and there are
places there that were absolute disasters until overpasses came down and since then it’s just
worked for everyone. People get around faster and it’s better for business. I just wonder want we
can do for this process to show how it will be better. The question of whether it’s safe for people to
cross the street and getting hit at signals is something we still need to talk about.
Q: Community Resident (CR): I live across the street and I haven’t been in Jamaica Plain that long,
but now that I’m here, I love it. I’ve lived in Boston for 9 years and I’ve seen what happened in the
North End and the near the Boston Garden with the highway and elevated train coming down.
Now there are parks and fountains and I take my kids there, before it was awful with drugs and
crime. I worry about traffic sure, but it’s hard for me not to see the benefits of this alternative. My
question is are there numbers and stats to say how this will work? Is there anything to say how
successful this will be given the transformative experience of downtown Boston?
A: SM: The whole process thus far, from WAG meeting one and the first public meeting shortly after
that, all of that is one our website and we have minutes of virtually every word. All of the prepared
documents regarding traffic are on the website. I encourage you to read those documents and
immerse yourself in them. We have been very transparent in that regard. We looked at existing
traffic and forecast it forward to 2035 based on immediate and background growth. The forecast
for both alternatives is that in 2035, traffic will work better than today.
C: Noel Twigg (NT): I live on Weld Hill and want to express support for the decision made. As someone
who commutes under the bridge every day I look forward to the improvements being made. I
can’t think of any area improved by an overpass, but I’ll bet we can all think of areas bettered by
new open space. Thank you.
C: Jeffrey Ferris (JF): Longtime resident and 30-year owner of Ferris Wheels Bike Shop which I opened
not to make money, but because I believe they are important for the community. Now, this isn’t a
religious revival, but I want to talk about the Bible. I looked up the parable of the man who built his
house on sand and the winds and the rains came and it washed away. The man who build his
house on a rock; his house stood up. You need a good foundation. In a planning situation, you
need to examine the applicability of an abstract idea to the actual situation. Check, examine the
appropriateness to the situation. A lot of folks have probably read “The Death of Urban Highways”
and it examines things coming down in various locations: the Embarcadero, Portland, and
Milwaukee. None of those places look like Forest Hill where there are 7 arterials that come
together. This is a complex traffic situation and it’s not like any of those places that have been
enhanced by at-grade solutions.
The current Casey Overpass is ugly I won’t stand here and defend its appearance, but designs
have changed and a new one wouldn’t look like this. I’m disappointed with DOT. I’m
disappointed with the bicycle and pedestrian groups who have been against the bridge since day
one. This isn’t a bicycle or pedestrian project. There are improvements for bicycles and
pedestrians in each option and you get more trees in each option. This is a major automobile
movement. People like complete streets and their livability, but it has to work for everyone. It’s not
about making cars suffer. Smaller intersections are safer to cross. Statistically, there are more
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
accidents at bigger intersections. The at-grade solution keeps getting bigger. With a bridge,
smaller streets, smaller intersection, it works for all modes, locally and regionally. The bridge is the
real complete streets situation. It’s a win-win with a bridge. You showed us the 39 doing a big loop
either way. Keep it where it is and it’s a short loop.
This whole project is on a foundation of sand. The timeline is arbitrary. To drive this through
Jamaica Plain as it is now is a disgrace. For people to say it’s been a good process just adds to the
division. The two drawings aren’t even on the same scale. Is that a fair way to present something?
Put a stop to this or you’ll be fought every step of the way. The sooner you go back and resolve
the issues, the better it will be.
A: JR: Thank you.
C: Ed Burke (EB): I live on Wachusett Street. I’m against the at-grade solution and I agree with Jeff.
This has been railroaded and I want a Zakim Bridge. Bicycles and pedestrians won’t pay for this
project. The motorists are the ones who pay taxes. The people in Mattapan and Dorchester have
been disenfranchised and I think it’s been smoke and mirrors since the start. Now is the time to
take this, make like an etch-a-sketch, shake it up and start from scratch.
C: Steve Dudley (SD): I lived in Jamaica Plain since 1974. I live on Weld Hill. I’m concerned about the
movement of traffic for cars going onto Hyde Park Avenue. From Tower Street to Walk Hill Street
there are 700 homes and they all have to go into Hyde Park to go anywhere. I hear this and I here
just after the station was put in with all the new green space. Now, all the green space around the
station is up for lease or sale. There’s development on South Street, the Harvest grocery store and
they want a bank with a drive-up ATM. There’s a sign on Hyde Park Avenue saying that parking lot
is up for lease and they want to put a six story building there. They’d put in 675 parking spaces for
900 units. I asked what it was about and a person on the WAG told me that parking is like cocaine
for cars. If you don’t have it, they won’t come. With all the development around the station, I
think there will be more traffic in 2035. Have you taken that into account? I don’t know what
Arborway Yards will be, but I think taking down a commuter bridge is a bad idea if we don’t know
the answer.
C: Anne McKinnon (AM): Two issues I’d like to raise as we go into design that need to be addressed.
Please go back to the slide for the basis for decision. Rich Davey’s letter doesn’t mention the
Measures of Evaluation (MOE). Members of the public got to see them for a nanosecond in
November and we were encouraged to dig into them on the website so I did. They will be
important for the design effort, but two of them are incomplete. They are critical because they
address bicycles and pedestrians. When I hear people say at-grade is better for bicycles and
pedestrians there is no basis for that because the bicycle and pedestrian MOE are not completed.
They should be. One MOE is about the number of trees. That’s a design issue. I came up with 12
MOE’s that could be ranked differently and 4 of them are bogus and should be eliminated. 2
address real estate and there was no economic development effort by this team. They talk about
urban design and visual benefits and so I think as we go forward, because I think this is a done deal
and I’ve sort of wasted my time, the things we used to make decisions need to be vetted early
and you need the concurrence of the DAG. I’m surprised these were relied on.
The issue of consensus: you need to make a commitment to consensus. You said on the website
you wouldn’t go forward without it, but you don’t have it on the WAG or in the neighborhood. You
need to decide if you’re going to commit to it. You didn’t give it time. As Allan pointed out,
September comes around and we’re hearing you traffic. You need to decide to commit to
consensus or say the input is advisory. Make the commitment, stick to it and take the time.
Q: Paula Okunieff (PO): I’ve lived in JP for 25 years on a cut-through street that people use to get
around traffic. In many places where bridges came down and it became more livable, it was
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
because there were parallel routes for the traffic and they weren’t near transit hubs. My question is
have you thought about where traffic will go during construction and what sort of detours,
treatments and outreach you’ll provide to local and commuter traffic so they know their alternatives since the alternatives are currently saturated during peak periods.
A: JR: On outreach and detour plans, early in the presentation, we mentioned traffic management
during construction is something we will work through with the DAG. In the final design contract it
will be developed in very thorough detail. As to outreach, that’s my department and it will be part
of the process. We will develop that protection strategy in the next 18 months.
Q: Hillary Kelley (HK): I’m from Orchard Hill Road. I’m very visual and I was wondering if you could
point out another area that’s similar with two bicycle paths, a bicycle lane, and three traffic lanes
and then mirrored on the other side so I can go view that?
A: JR: We will get back to you on that.
C: Claire Humphrey (CH): I live in Jamaica Plain and I wasn’t going to talk tonight, but I felt I had to
say something. I’m very disappointed in the disrespect for the concerns of cyclists. Nobody ever
says “oh those pesky pedestrians,” and I just feel all of us trying to get around deserve equal
measures of respect. I use this area mostly by car. I drop off my wife and kids at the station and
then I use the overpass to get home. But I also ride my bicycle. I’m just getting into this process
now and I learned about it through my cycling group. I have a lot of respect for those folks who
disagree with the outcome. I’ve heard lots of concerns from both sides. I’m personally excited
about the at-grade, but I respect people who disagree and I want their eyes on it too. I’m here
and saying this as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver.
C: Marcus Owens (MO): I’m amazed coming in late that I’m hearing this dissent from people involved
in the process. Except by coming in by accident back in October, I haven’t heard anyone in
Dorchester talk about this. Route 203 comes to our neighborhood and we’ve been left out of the
process. We’ve been kept out like we’re a 3rd world county and you’re saying this is a done deal?
This is crazy!
A: JR: There were several WAG members from Mattapan/Dorchester and we had a meeting in
Mattapan at the Mildred Avenue School in November. We advertised it in the newspaper and at
the public information meeting prior to it. We had a meeting with 50-70 people there.
C: Joe Pryse (JP): I want to commend you all for getting us closer to Olmsted’s original design. I’m
sure none of the people who don’t like this outcome are as qualified as Olmsted.
Q: Mitch Zakrzewski (MZ): I live and work in Forest Hills. I’m a pedestrian and a driver. If it’s shown
there’s enough lack of consensus, would DOT be open to looking at this process again? I think DOT
has shown some bias just by showing the underbelly of the bridge. The 24,000 of us who drive over
it have one of the best views in the city.
A: DM: We are not reopening the process. We had what we believe to be a good, open process.
The fact is that we failed to reach full consensus, but we did have to make a decision. That’s the
Secretary’s responsibility. Based on the input we received, the decision has been made. This is the
end of the planning process and we’re into design. All of you: take advantage of the design
process and participate. We are going to design an at-grade solution. We want to work with you
on it, but we are moving forward.
C: Kate Hutchinson (KH): I live on Woodlawn Street which is just across from Forest Hills Station and I
moved here two years ago to be near transit. I rely on the MBTA, I don’t drive, but sometimes I do
get a ride into work and there is morning traffic. This is a city. If you want no traffic move out to the
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
suburbs where I grew up and there’s nothing to do. You can cross six lanes of traffic safely when
the traffic is directed by signals. Our planners have done a lot of work and research and spent a
lot of time on this. I want us to move forward as a community and make it better for everyone. Yes
it’s a change, but a change for the better.
C: Todd Consentino (TC): I live on the Mattapan/Roslindale line and I found the meetings open and
well-advertised. I’m really looking forward to the best at-grade solution.
C: Michael Halle (MHa): I’m a member of the WAG and a few questions came up and one job of
WAG members is to answer those questions as we move forward and one thing is that I had not
made my decision early in this process. I was learning towards a bridge and so I spent a lot of time
looking at traffic and one thing I looked at was emergency access. If you or a loved one is sick or
the cops need to come or your neighborhood is on fire, you want those emergency services there
right away. I realized though that with the at-grade solution, it’s a wider road, there’s more space
for people to move over. Ambulances come from all over and they need to make these turns, it’s
easier because ambulances can ignore left-turn restrictions.
In general, I came to believe in the at-grade solution because it allows dynamic reconfigurations.
It allows us to put in a dedicated bus lane someday if we need it. If somehow there are fewer
vehicles in the future, we can repurpose the space, like for a farmers’ market. We can do those
things with an at-grade solution, but not with a bridge. Neither plan is perfect, but at-grade is
better.
C: Kevin Wolfson (KW): I represent Livable Streets on the WAG and will on the DAG. Thank you,
MassDOT. We support the at-grade solution. Moving forward you mentioned traffic calming
during construction and we ask it go past construction so that the neighborhoods will be protected
since this will continue to be a busy area.
C: Michael Epp (ME): I’m Michael Epp from the WAG and JP resident since 1980. I’m also on the Main
Streets Business Association for South and Centre Streets. I got the MBTA to establish its first open
design process which is essential for my job. I’m an architect. I’m involved in the Green Line
extension and I’m dedicated to the open design process. This is MassDOT’s first such process in
Jamaica Plain and they have done a great job. Democracy isn’t perfect; it’s like watching
sausage being made. We used to have government agencies that never talked, but now we
have MassDOT, DCR and BTD all agreement on things. We now have a good design direction, the
kind of collaboration we need and I applaud it.
C: Community Resident (CR): I’m from Roxbury. Thank you to everyone for being involved and for the
at-grade solution. Keep in mind that the ABP has a deadline and that deadline for funding is hard.
Even if you don’t agree with the decision, obstruction only hurts all of us because the funding will
go away. The decision is made; make the best process you can because we need the money. If
we all work together, it will be better for all of us.6
C: Phoenix Boulay (PB): I bought my bicycle from Jeff Ferris with whom I respectfully disagree. I think
this was a fair process. I’m a cyclists and a pedestrian with no car right now. I want the at-grade
solution for quality of life. I’ll stay in Jamaica Plain even if I move from my current address. I pass
through Forest Hills 6-8 times a day on my bicycle or by foot and it’s very difficult. This isn’t about
bicycles versus cars. I can see new businesses already opening in anticipation of this change and
we all need to be conscious of moving forward respectfully and taking in consideration of what’s
best for all.
6 Here, John Romano paused to recognize that members of the Boston Police Department were in
attendance.
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Carol Pryor (CP): I live in Forest Hills. I’m not on the WAG, but I did work on the Forest Hills initiative
and on that process we were highly divided and had strong differences. At the beginning of the
process we were told we’d reach consensus and we couldn’t get there, but I joined the initiative
because I felt it would be a good learning experience. I don’t know which side to support
because I don’t know who to believe. Maybe the community needs an independent technical
advisor, not the City or State. This just feels very demoralizing. Maybe this is democracy and how it
does, but I’d like to see someone think these open processes had good information and the issues
were well understood. That would be my input at this point.
C: Bob Dizon (BDi): I’m on the WAG and from Jamaica Plain. I support the at-grade solution and it
was a hard one to make. It has the greatest chance of success for the most users and uses. For
me, this is my first time in a public process and it was a crazy learning experience. I went to nearly
every WAG meeting and I believe the consultant team made a compelling argument. I am
satisfied we should go forward. There are challenges to address, but they made a compelling
argument to me. I want to stress how important the improvements along Washington Street west
of the Station are to connect the neighborhoods. Both solutions make New Washington Street
much nicer, but the at-grade solution really fixes West Washington Street.
C: Sarah Kurpiel (SK): I’m a homeowner in Jamaica Plain and a traffic engineer. I wholly support the
at-grade option. I’d like this down to four lanes and this won’t be popular of course, while
everyone’s input is important the people who walk the area every day should have the most
important say. I’m glad DOT is moving forward and I look forward to what’s next.
C: David Vitale-Wolf (DW): I’m pleased with the decision. I want to echo the concerns over the
involvement of other communities particularly Mattapan and Dorchester, the agency must involve
communities of color. That said this process, the DAG and design, need to go forward.
C: Community Resident (CR): I’ve been involved in the community for 15 years and watched the
Arborway Yard process. I’m sad that it came down to a decision of doing the overpass or having
the at-grade solution with the extra goodies associated with it. I know money is key, but it’s sad.
Once people came off the bridge it ceased to be an innovative solution and the decision is made.
When we go up Melnea Cass Boulevard, we see a pretty nasty multi-lane highway system. Please
don’t put that here. Do a better job than that. Clearly, Forest Hills Station is the most important
multimodal station north of Quincy and please make the effort to let people in cars get directly
into the station. Increase the number of trips that start here with the rail system and go interstate
such as to TF Green Airport and it wouldn’t be a situation where people in Hyde Park or Brookline
who might otherwise drive would say I won’t go to Forest Hills because it’s such a mess.
C: Jonathan Kirby (JK): I live in the Stony Brook neighborhood, have attended most public meetings
and I support the at-grade solution. While it’s difficult to listen to all the conflict, in meetings and
the Gazette I think if we look at it as healthy conflict going forward and see it as a way to keep
each other honest, then it will be good for us. Look at this an opportunity for us to come together.
The first part is done, but there’s a long way to go. I don’t think stopping the process is the proper
thing to do right now. Let’s move forward, keep the engineers honest with discussion and I want to
throw in traffic calming for Stony Brook and everywhere else. Please focus on that. Thank you.
C: Gail Sullivan (GS): I live right by Shea Circle, soon to be a Square. I challenge my friends and
neighbors in Jamaica Plain: tell us your concerns, don’t try to stop the process. I’m for the atgrade solution, but we have a lot of common interests. We’re all concerned about traffic and
safety. No side of the argument owns those issues. We don’t want obstacles. We want our
neighborhoods connected and we the neighbors should be looking to make sure those needs are
met. DOT, it’s disheartening to hear this level of critique. If it’s not going to be a consensus, that’s
fine, but be honest about that. People are volunteering their time and they deserve honesty and
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
transparency. Our opinion doesn’t deserve to win, but we deserve openness. I also want the
scope expanded down to Ukraine Way to make it more livable.
A: JR: Thank you.
Q: AI: I agree with Gail and 4 months ago we asked for more time and it wasn’t obstruction, it was
trying to get answers from MassDOT and their engineers and we still need those answers. We have
no idea what traffic will be like. Will you, Mr. Mohler, commit to starting the DAG process with a
serious addressing of the questions on the table for 4 months? If it’s 1 meeting or 2, will you commit
to getting that rock foundation?
A: DM: Thank you. I understand that you’re not an obstructionist. I will commit that what you say
tonight was a draft agenda and we’ll talk with the DAG about what it should be. Traffic has been
at the center of this discussion and once the DAG talks about it we may get consensus, but the
discussion will be about traffic within the design process for an at-grade solution. So, I can’t say the
first meeting will be about traffic, but we will address it.
C: SM: I do want to respond to the question about similar situations. We discussed it at a previous
meeting and it’s on the website, but we’ll extract that and put it up there on its own.
Next Steps
The 25% design process is now underway. The next milestone in the process will be the first meeting of
the DAG on April 30th, 2012. DAG meetings are anticipated to continue at the State Laboratory
located at 133 South Street in Jamaica Plain. Meeting times will continue as 6:00-8:00 p.m.
Page 16
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Patricia
Adam
Resident
Valerie
Anderson
Resident
Jeanette
Ayala
Boston Neighborhood Centers
Michael
Babcock
Resident
Jonathan
Baker
Resident
Lisa
Beatman
Resident
Phoenix
Boulay
Resident
Sarah
Buerman
Resident
Ed
Burke
Resident
Jody
Burr
DAG
Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis
HSH
Elizabeth
Charney
Resident
Maureen
Chlebek
McMahon Associates
Susan
Cibusky
Resident
Steve
Clinkerbeard
Resident
Todd
Consentino
Resident
John
Covert
Resident
Julie
Crockford
Emerald Necklace Conservancy
Andrea
D’Amato
HNTB
Dennis
Delaney
Resident
Matthew
DeMarrais
Resident
Lisa
Dix
DAG
Bob
Dizon
DAG
Julieanne
Doherty
Office of Mayor Menino
Bernard
Doherty
DAG
Steve
Dudley
Resident
Michael
Epp
DAG
Sherry
Eskin
Resident
Ivy
Eskin
Resident
Tom
Evans
Resident
Dorothy
Farrell
Resident
Todd
Feathers
West Roxbury/Roslindale Transcript
Jeffrey
Ferris
DAG
Giannalda
Fontana
Resident
Francesca
Fordiani
DAG
Michael
Frank
Resident
Sarah
Freeman
DAG
Linda
Freeman
Resident
Emily
Gallagher
Resident
Mark
Gravallese
MassDOT District 6
Bette Jo
Green
Resident
Ken
Griffin
Resident
Vineet
Gupta
BTD
Page 17
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Michael
Halle
DAG
Clay
Harper
Resident
Richard
Heath
Resident
Chris
Helms
Resident
Dan
Hermes
Resident
Abbi
Holt
Resident
Claire
Humphrey
Resident
Kate
Hutchinson
Resident
Olu
Ibrahim
Office of Representative Sanchez
Allan
Ihrer
DAG
Jameson
Jones
West Roxbury/Roslindale Transcript
Mary Jo
Kane
Resident
Deanna
Keene
Resident
Hillary
Kelly
Resident
Don
Kindsvatter
HNTB
Paul
King
MassDOT ABP
Sarah
Kurpiel
Resident
Matthew
Lawlor
Resident
Kristine
Leroy
Resident
Carl
Lowenberg
Resident
Charles
Lucas
Resident
RJ
Manchester
Resident
Deacon
Marvel
Resident
John
McCormack
MBTA
Jonathan
McCurdy
Resident
Anne
McKinnon
Resident
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT ABP
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Monroe
Moseley
Resident
Cathy
Murphy
Resident
Mark
Navin
Resident
Jack
Newirth
Resident
Christina
Nuncio
Resident
Anne
O’Connell
Resident
Frank
O’Hara
Resident
Matt
O’Malley
City Councilor
Phoebe
O’Mara
Resident
David
Ofsevit
Resident
Paula
Okunief
Resident
Rebecca
Oleveira
JP Gazette
Don
Oliver
MassDOT Right-of-Way
Karen
Payne
Resident
Heather
Perez
Office of Councilor Arroyo
Essek
Petrie
HNTB
Chris
Pluta
Resident
Nerys
Powell
Resident
Page 18
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Peg
Preble
Resident
Arthur
Prokosh
Resident
Carol
Pryor
Resident
Joe
Pryse
Resident
Jeffrey
Rand
Resident
Michael
Reiskind
DAG
Kevin
Reynolds
Resident
Kris
Richardson
Resident
Carlene
Roberts
Resident
John
Romano
MassDOT Public Affairs
Jen
Rowe
Resident
James
Rowlings
Resident
Michael
Santry
Boston Police Department
Dan
Scanlan
Resident
Rosemary
Schwartz
Resident
Nancy
Shapiro
Resident
Nathaniel
Shea
Resident
Tyler
Sinclair
Resident
Mary
Smoyer
Resident
Pete
Stidman
Boston Cyclists’ Union
Marilyn
Stout
Office of Representative Holmes
Laura
Struessner
Resident
Gail
Sullivan
Resident
Joe
Sweeney
Resident
Rachel
Szakmary
City of Boston
Katie
Taylor
Resident
Mark
Tedrow
Resident
Tony
Telesco
Resident
Robert
Torres
Office of Representative Malia
Noel
Twigg
Resident
George
Ulrich
Resident
David
Vitale-Wolf
Resident
Ralph
Walton
Resident
Ralph
Walton
Resident
Michael
Wheeler
Resident
Emily
Wheelwright
Resident
Carolyn
White
Resident
Joann
Whitehead
Resident
Billy
Wirasnick
Resident
Fred
Wolflink
Resident
Kevin
Wolfson
DAG
Mitchell
Zakrzewski
Resident
Page 19
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Comments Received
See following page
Page 20
Elizabeth A. Charney 15 Meehan St, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130-3609
29 March 2012
Thomas Broderick, Chief Engineer
MassDOT
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
Attn: Paul King, Project File No 605511
I am appalled that the Dept of Transportation has ignored the request of State Rep.
Elizabeth Malia and Councilman Matt O'Malley delay the decision regarding the Casey
Overpass Design Plan. Another 2-3 months in which better, accurate traffic studies and
outreach to commuters would enable us all to make a better decision. The meeting held last
December was logistically incorrect: the location did not allow all interested patties to
attend, SRO (Standing Room only) was ridiculously uncomfortable as well as inconvenient,
and the acoustics were terrible. It is clear that the community, transportation and
development officials, the consultant agency and WAG are split 50-50 in whether to replace
the Overpass with bridge construction or to choose the "at grade" plan. Commuters cutting
through Forest Hills to Dorchester to Newton to Faulkner Hospital have all been ignored.
This is our tax money at work. If hindsight is 20-20, then we should all realize together that
rushing this decision only means history repeats itself like other mistakes. Residents,
commuters, businesses and thousands of citizens suffered the poor decision & design of (1)
the John Fitzgerald Expressway for 50 years (2) the Central Artery tunnel project took 15
years. We all know The Big Dig ran way over budget and we are still sufferiug the mistakes
of government, consultants, contractors & politicians. We have not reviewed the potential
growth and impact of the Forest Hills Initiative, Arborway Garage, and Burnett Develop­
ment Projects on JP and Forest Hills as well as the myriad of future traffic.
DOT and the Transportation Consulriug Firm have not sufficiently monitored traffic
through the Shea Circle, Forest Hills and immediate neighborhoods. I drive 2x a day 7 days
a week this immediate route, and have seen the back ups during rush hour: 6:30am-9am and
3:30pm to 7pm. I also witness the shortcuts commuters and residents have to take to avoid
the bridge only because it is currently in disrepair.
The "at gradc" visual projection shown at previous meetings does not take into account (1)
emergency vehicle access to Faulkner and other hospitals (2) traffic back ups (3) auto
accidents or vehicle breakdowns and potential accidents from bicyclists who do not obey
the law. I am reminded of the too often asked question "how many deaths before the
government puts in a stop sign (or traffic light)? That question will be asked multiple times
with the at-grade construction. What are we to do when within months of construction
residents, commuters, politicians, and gover11ment agency(s) realize the at-grade does 110t
work? Who do we sue? How does it get corrected?
Respectfully submitted,
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us> Monday, April 02, 2012 1:05 PM Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); 'EPetrie@hntb.com'; Fichter, Katherine (DOT)
Fw: Casey Overpass Concerns/At Grade Design
FYI
Please review.
----- Original Message ----­
From: Greaney-Williams, Ann J.!!.!.!;!!!"4 Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:13 To: Romano, John (DOT) Subject: Casey Overpass Concerns/At Grade Design Dear Mr. Romano, I've been following the proceedings for the Casey Overpass redesign and was a bit concerned about the design for the at grade solution. While in itself, I have no problem with the concept of at grade, I am concerned that traffic hasn't been completely evaluated in that area and that the plan creates a "throughway" mentality for drivers (based on the drawings I've seen on your website). Generally and depending upon the time of day, there is a lot of traffic coming from and to the current Arborway/Jamaica Way at high speeds, above and beyond the posted speed limits. I frequently walk from my home in the Bourne area past Forest Hills Station to South Street or Southwest Corridor Park, frequently with my child. I have been doing so since we moved to the neighborhood when she was one year old, five years ago. Based on the design on the Transportation website, we will need to cross SIX lanes of highway (even if you don't call it a highway for real). I fear that this will cut off our access to Jamaica Plain and Center Street because, in reality, it is not pedestrian friendly. It is CAR-friendly though! Can you please consult an Urban Designer who is pedestrian focused for effective solutions. While I agree that the bridge is an eye-sore and a waste of space and that an at-grade solution could theoretically be better. It has to be done with a primary focus on pedestrian mobility. There are a lot of people and potentially more people who will use this area if it is cleaned up. And, historically, car-centered designs such as this, have been known to inhibit pedestrian access to parts of urban town centers (like JP Center). One must also consider the nexus itself...it's history. There is currently high speed traffic coming down Hyde Park Ave, Washington, the Arborway, and channeling in from Mattapan via the area around Franklin Park. Many of these folks are traveling 40-50 mph (regardless of whether the signs say 30-35mph)! And even 30-35 can be "high-speed" in a pedestrian oriented environment such that Forest Hills is and could be with an effective design solution. The Forest Hills area needs more access to South and Center Streets, not less. And, when you add school buses, and the opening of the Harvest Co-Op Grocery, traffic (both vehicular and pedestrian) will increase. Please be aware, that it is already difficult to cross Hyde Park Ave and Washington without getting hit. People come down that street from Roslindale like their cars are on fire. Traffic calming needs to occur within the entire Forest Hills 1
Station Zone and even up towards Walk Hill Avenue. I have almost been hit crossing these intersections with my
toddler...when I had the cross signal ...multiple times in the last five years. People don't stop or come to screeching stops
(I have seen folks slam into other vehicles and called 911 for them in the past) .... and I can't even count on one hand how
many times I've seen folks just blow through the light at Ukraine Way and the two intersections in front of the Forest
Hills Station (near Dogwood).
Please evaluate this design based not only on car commuting and getting around the central city, but also on the
neighborhood scale, town scale, and regional scale to assess the effectiveness of this solution. I do not think that
creating a six lane highway for pedestrian and bicyclists to cross is a very effective solution, but a good urban designer
might be able to create something safer and more effective.
Ann Greaney-Williams
.',~
. ,..'
2
"'''',:.1 .
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us> Friday, March 30, 2012 1:45 PM Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C (DOT); 'Essek Petrie' FW: casey overpass FYI
From:
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:01 PM
To: russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; sonia.chang­
diaz@mahouse.gov; Matthew,omalley@cityofboston.gov
Cc: felix.arroyo@cityofboston.gov; julieanne.doherty@cityofboston.gov; Romano, John (DOT)
Subject: casey overpass
Hi. I understand that a decision has been made, but it feels totally lacking in full comprehension of the impact that will
follow. I am at a loss at the lack of foresight in this new plan. It feels like the decision of taking the bridge down without
replacement, was decided preeminently without taking into account relieving pressures of current and increasing traffic in
the area.
I am a Jamaica Plain resident and homeowner for the past 17 years. I also work in the community providing home
physical therapy services for children ages birth to 3 years old within Boston, so I drive between all the communities in
Boston throughout the day.
We need a better way of determining the full impact of the estimated 24,000 cars that typically drive from route 203 to the
Arborway on the overpass daily. How can a 6 lane, at grade roadway handle this mess? During the morning and evening
rush hours, the overpass allows more fluid movement of this traffic. Imagining the MBTA buses, school buses, cars and
trucks having to negotiate with each other, stop lights, pedestrians and bicycles along this proposed "New Washington"
roadway sounds like a nightmare. The Forest Hills area all ready has too much traffic. Just the cars and buses waiting on
Hyde Park Ave moving North bound on a typical morning is too much, without an overpass, this traffic would undoubtedly
multiply. In addition, even with the traffic lights being timed to move traffic smoothly, every bus could over-ride the lights,
taking them out of sequence and taking another several light patterns to re-time them. In which time another bus would
presumably come by and un time the lights again.
I am also concerned that once an at-grade roadway is developed, more traffic will seek alternatives through our JP side
streets and neighborhoods. This is not increasing our quality of life as the at-grade option proposes.
I hope that you will do everything possible to support a new bridge to replace the current Casey Overpass. To address
better traffic flow, decrease traffic through the neighborhoods, ease pedestrian and bicycle movement through the area
and thereby continue to increase the quality of life in Jamaica Plain and Boston.
Thank You,
Deb Rivkin
3
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Friday, March 30, 2012 1 :40 PM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
FW: Casey Overpass - Design Advisory Group
Put with project comments please.
From: Kurpl~I;' Saraiij.
Sent: Friday, March
2012 12:03 PM
To: Romano, John (DOT); Mclaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT)
Cc: Bourassa, Eric; Lautzenheiser, David
Subject: Casey Overpass - Design Advisory Group
Dear Casey Overpass Project Team,
Thank you for conducting a lengthy public process, and congratulations on choosing an alternative.
As the Casey Overpass process moves from working group into design, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)
requests to join the Design Advisory Group. MAPC is the regional planning agency for Boston and the surrounding 100
cities and towns. As the Overpass replacement is a regional issue (as was mentioned at last night's public meeting
multiple times) we'd like to provide input on behalf of our region as well as assist in the design of the roadway with our
bicycle and pedestrian engineering and planning expertise. MAPC would also like to make sure that the design process
follows MAPC's MetroFuture (http://www.metrofuture.org/content/what-metrofuture) plan for the region.
We understand the WAG was a large group, and you'd like to keep the DAG to a manageable size, but we hope
MassDOTwili see the importance of having MAPC's presence at the table. As we have many JP residents on our team
(including myself), we are personally aware of the importance and impact of this project and would like to assist DOT
create the best plan for the neighborhood as well as our region.
We look forward to hearing back from you on this issue, and we encourage MassDOT to develop a forward-thinking plan
for the Casey Arborway.
Thank you,
Sarah
Sarah Kurpiel
Transportation Engineer and Planner
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
60 Temple Place, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02111
==_. 4
Nathaniel Cabral·Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Friday, March 30, 2012 12:45 PM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; King, Paul C. (DOT); McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); 'Essek Petrie'
FW: MassDOT got it right! -- no Casey overpass
FYI
-----Original Message----­
From: David Rohrlich~
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 7:25 PM
To: Romano, John (DOT)
Cc: jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; matthew.omalley@cityofboston.gov; sonia.chang­
diaz@masenate.gov
Subject: MassDOT got it right! -- no Casey overpass
Dear Mr. Romano,
Credit where credit is due -- the Massachusetts Department ofTransportation
was right to decide that the Casey Overpass should be replaced by an at-grade
crossing, and it should not now reverse a decision that it got right. I understand
that there is a meeting tonight where some people will argue that the Casey
Overpass is essential to traffic flow and should be rebuilt. Unfortunately I cannot
attend the meeting, but I adamantly reject the notion that the Casey Overpass
is essential to "traffic flow." In an era of oil scarcity and catastrophic climate
change, we need to look beyond the need for "traffic flow" and start thinking
about alternative forms of transportation and sustainable modes of living.
If we can't even get the little things right, like whether to rebuild an overpass
or replace it with an at-grade crossing, then we have no future on this planet.
Sincerely
David Rohrlich
18 Arborway
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
6
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Friday, March 30, 2012 12:30 PM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; 'Essek Petrie'
FW: In support of the Casey Overpass at-grade option -- tear the bridge down!
FYI
From: DOT Feedback Highway Sent: Thursday, March 29, 201ii!·3:S5"Ji>M""'''"' To: King, Paul C. (DOn; Mclaughlin, Steve (DOT); Romano, John (DOn Subject: FW: In support of the Casey Overpass at-grade option -- tear the bridge down! FYI...
From: Kasey Hariman [mailto.
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:27 PM
To: DOT Feedback Highway
•
Subject: In support of the Casey Overpass at-grade option -- tear the bridge down!
Dear Department of Transportation,
My name is Kasey Hariman and I'm a resident of Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts. I live on South St, just a few
blocks from the Casey Overpass, and I have lived here for 6 years. I very much support the at-grade option for
the Casey Overpass. The decision was a good one because of the options for pedestrians, cyclists, and better
traffic flow it will create, as well as the potential for more efficient and safer drop-off points for cars dropping T
riders off at the Forest Hills Station. Tearing down the bridge will also better serve the economic growth of the
area, since it will make the businesses on Hyde Park Avenue more accessible to the rest of Jamaica Plain (and
vice versa). The public comment period has gone long enough, and the community members who oppose the
bridge seem more focused on keeping Jamaica Plain from changing, rather than helping it grow, and protecting
narrow personal interests than considering the common good. Please consider this another vote of support for
Secretary Davey's decision to tear down the Casey Overpass and replace it with an at-grade option. Thanks so
much for your time.
Sincerely,
Kasey Hariman
150 South St. #2
JamaicaPlain, MA
02130
7