Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
March 24, 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:
Twelfth Working Advisory Group (WAG) Meeting
Meeting Notes of March 20, 2012
Overview & Executive Summary
On March 20, 2012, the Working Advisory Group (WAG) met to conclude its role in the Casey Overpass
Replacement Project Planning Study. The WAG will continue operating as the project transitions into the
25% design phase, but will change its name to the Design Advisory Group (DAG). This name change is
indicative of the group’s more focused role now that an at-grade solution has been selected to replace the
current Casey Overpass. In the upcoming 25% design process, the DAG will address specific areas of
concern such as construction management, urban design, traffic, parking and remaining elements from the
planning study including Washington Street west of the Forest Hills Station and Shea Circle. Over the next
several months, the DAG will meet regularly to ensure that the 25% design process can be completed in a
timely manner to allow the Casey Overpass to be replaced with a new boulevard by the closing of the
Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) in 2016. With the decision regarding the at-grade solution in place, the
process to replace the Casey Overpass will now be known as the Casey Arborway Project.
The meeting described herein addressed the decision made by MassDOT secretary Richard Davey to replace
the existing Casey Overpass with an at-grade solution and the implications of that decision. While the
“bridge/no-bridge” decision of the WAG process will not be revisited and is closed, a robust public process
will continue through the DAG process described in the above paragraph. Commentary from the group
members fell into one of two distinct camps:
Those who are content with the at-grade solution, feel its merits have been adequately
demonstrated and are ready for the process to continue; and,
Those who feel the process has been inadequate, in some cases biased, that the merits of the atgrade solution have not been proven, and that the process should be delayed for additional
study.
Several action items came out of the last WAG meeting that will be addressed as the DAG process gets
underway. These include the following:
Meeting materials will be provided to DAG members 48 hours prior to all meetings. Printed
materials will be available at all DAG meetings.
As has been the case during the WAG process, committee members unable to attend a given
meeting will be allowed to send a substitute to be their “eyes and ears” in the meeting. This
substitute will be able to ask clarifying questions, but will not be able to slow the process down by
reopening old business.
MassDOT will review the composition of the DAG with an eye towards adding suitable
representation for the business community. New groups will not be added to the DAG, but groups
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
which have had little representation to date will be requested to send members who can commit to
regular attendance during the next phase of the project.
MassDOT will review the possibility of providing an additional DAG session specifically to address
traffic questions raised by committee members at the meeting described herein.
The FAQ document will be revised to reflect the current status of the conversation between
MassDOT, DCR and MHC regarding Shea Circle.
Detailed Meeting Minutes
C: John Romano (JR): Good evening everyone; your attention please. I know it’s a little warm in here.
Welcome back. Tonight, we’re here for the final WAG meeting which as you will see in a little bit will
turn into another project. We have a very brief presentation tonight, less than ½ hour so we ask that
you hold your questions and comments until the end and then, as always, we’ll have Q&A. Joining us
tonight are David Mohler, Director of MassDOT planning and Michael Trepanier, an Environmental
Planner with MassDOT. Tonight is my last WAG meeting, after the public meeting on the 29th; I will be
succeeded by Kate Fichter who works with David Mohler. Secretary Davey has requested that I take on
several other projects including one in the North End. I want to thank all of you for your hard work and
hope that you will show Kate the same courteousness you’ve shown me over the past nine months.
Another quick house-keeping matter: please take your name tag and mark it up if there’s anything
wrong on it. Starting with the next meeting we’ll have a new sign-in sheet and name tags. Now an
overview of our agenda: we’ll talk through the selected alternative, the design schedule, the 25% design
phase, the key elements and schedule of that, and the continued community partnership. As you all
know, a few weeks back the Secretary announced that the at-grade alternative would be going forward
into design. Planning is complete minus a few elements we tabled at the end of the last process such as
parking and Shea Circle, but planning is over and there’s only one alternative now, the bridge is done,
it’s an at-grade solution, the decision has been made. These meetings are going to be design meetings
to work with the community, residents, businesses and stakeholders and the MassDOT team to build
absolutely, positively, 110% the best project that can be built and that’s the at-grade alternative and
that’s where all of these meetings will go. Tonight, we won’t be doing any design work.
Q: Jeff Ferris (JF): Did you say it’s the 100% best alternative?
A: JR: I said we’d be doing the very best to make it a good project, like when you give 110% on something.
C: JF: O.K. because we certainly haven’t done that so far.
A: JR: You’re entitled to that opinion.
C: Bernie Doherty (BD): I know people have their emotions here, but please don’t editorialize John, we can
discern these things without you; we need respect here for everyone.
A: JR: Bernie, that’s fine, I give everyone their due, but when something is someone’s opinion, I want
everyone to know that that’s what it is. O.K. moving ahead: from here on in, this is going to be called
the Casey Arborway Project. So tonight, we won’t do any design work, we’ll be going ahead with the
process and schedule going forward.
C: JF: I have a question. It said reconnecting neighborhoods and open space, both alternatives connect
open space, both connect neighborhoods in different ways, both have different types of barriers, some
people see the bridge as a barrier some people think a six-lane at-grade highway is a barrier.
C: David Hannon (DH): There’s opinion right up there on that slide.
A: JR: Guys, I asked you to please hold your comments until the end; this is a very short presentation and
then we can do Q&A. So, next slide. We’re maintaining the guiding goals and objectives. We’re not
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
changing anything in terms of how this group operates and there will be no more homework
assignments. Integral to the development of designs and operational issues, we will continue to address
mobility and livability and continue to integrate local ideas.1
Q: JF: Can you go over the Secretary’s letter? I don’t think the four reasons he gives make sense. He said
it [the at-grade solution] will improve transit and it doesn’t. The bicycle accommodations are equal,
there’s more open space with the bridge and the reconnection is equal as well.
A: JR: We’re not going to debate what’s in the Secretary’s letter; that’s been decided. We knew and we
told you that there were many elements that were common to both options. He didn’t say one option
did things that the other didn’t.
Q: JF: Well then how did he make his decision? It doesn’t make sense.
A: JR: The decision was made based on community input and input from the project team.
C: JF: But open space gets better with a bridge. He left out cost; that’s the real driving factor.
A: JR: He didn’t say the bridge was better in terms of open space. He said both options increase open
space over existing conditions.
C: JF: The bridge option provides more open space. You get more open space with the bridge.
A: JR: Jeff, that decision has been made and we won’t debate any further. This presentation is really
supposed to only take 20 minutes. And I did ask you to hold on until after the presentation.
C: Paul King (PK): Welcome back; it’s good to see all of you again. Much of what you see here is a direct
carryover from the planning study. We have identified key issues: construction management, logistics,
traffic management and neighborhood protection. Making sure this all works for commuters, business
and transit users and along with that, working with you and the city to prevent cut-through traffic. We’ll
work with the MBTA to maintain bus service and headways during construction. We didn’t address this
much earlier, but we have a lot of small businesses out there and we don’t want them hurt. We can
come up with plans to handle construction so they won’t be hurt. There’s also Arborway Yard. We have
held the curb lines there and will continue to hold it harmless.
C: DH: The at-grade solution increases access to Arborway Yard. That will promote development that
wouldn’t happen with a bridge.
A: PK: Duly noted. Let me get through the schedule. So, here we are today, a few months beyond where
would have liked to be, but still doable. 25% design will be in about six months and then after that we’ll
go to 75%.
Q: JF: When will you do the MEPA filing?
A: PK: Just a moment, Jeff, I’m coming to that. During construction we’ll have regular community meetings
so that we can manage things and quickly address anything that goes awry. 2 So, we’re now in the
design phase. The planning stage is done and we’re into 25% design which will further identify design
parameters. We’ve identified the transit, the bicycles and the pedestrians. We know what to include,
but now we need to make it all work in terms of horizontal and vertical alignments, signal phasing and
urban design. We will be filing an ENF to make sure we address the environmental process. That will
allow MEPA to determine whether an ENF is adequate or whether we will be scoped for an EIR. Once
1
Here, John paused to recognize Kate Chang with Congressman Capuano’s Office, Julieanne Doherty from Mayor
Menino’s Office, Val Frias from Councilor O’Malley’s Office, Robert Torres with Representative Malia’s Office, Olu
Ibrahim with Representative Sanchez’ Office and Vineet Gupta of BTD.
2
Here, John Roman paused to recognize Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz and Representative Russell Holmes.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
we get past that, we’ll get into the 75% design phase which in the beginning of developing the bid
package which is what goes to contractors when they bid the job.
Design key elements include new open space we’ll develop what to do with the new MBTA plaza, the
end of the Southwest Corridor Park and the entry to Franklin Park at Shea Circle. These will all become
something new. We’ll work out the elements with signalization, working in priority bus movements and
pedestrian signals. We’ll address pedestrian and bicycle connections, parking, pick-up/drop-off and
school buses. We held off on those during the planning phase, but now is the time for us to address
them. We’ll also address off-peak variations such as whether we could allow off-peak east/west left
turns. We’ll also look at changes to the upper bus-way and the modifications to Washington Street west
of the station so we can deal with the double parking and taxi issues. For Shea Circle and Morton Street
we still have some planning process left. There will be some process to get through there to make sure
we pass muster with the historic folks.
Q: DH: Can you elaborate on that?
A: Steve McLaughlin (SM): We’re subject to chapter 254 of the Massachusetts Historic Preservation Act. We
have to determine if changing Shea Circle to Shea Square represents an adverse effect on the parkland
around Shea Circle. Shea Circle is part of the historic area, but doesn’t contribute to it. Assuming we
agree to Shea Square, we’ll make a determination as to whether that represents an adverse impact and
then forward that to MHC for their concurrence.
C: BD: If you give us just this barebones agenda and ask us to discuss it later on, I don’t think it’s fair.
What’s the cost to you guys? You’re bright intelligent men and you’re asking us to take this on?!
Frankly, I’m concerned as to why I’m paying for consultants. Why can’t we have packets to make notes
in so we can ask questions? We’re not being paid, we’re volunteering our time.
C: JF: John told me it was part of MassDOT’s GreenDOT policy. He’s wrong.
A: SM: We have posted all meetings on the website. As you will recall earlier in the WAG process we
agreed that in accordance with GreenDOT, we would minimize the amount of paper we give out.
C: BD: It’s foolish and counterproductive! If you make a presentation, we should at least have the
documents in front of us.
Q: Representative Russell Holmes (RH): Can we just make 10 or 15 copies and bring them to the meeting?
That way, people who want a copy can have a copy and people who are comfortable not having a copy
can simply not take one.
A: JR: We’ll work it out.
C: Kevin Moloney (KM): Bernie is right. We get a detailed dog and pony show and then this barebones
agenda. These should be in our hands at least 48 hours in advance. To launch this at 6:00 p.m. on a
work night is silly. To say there was an agreement about GreenDOT, that’s ridiculous. We want a
commitment about detailed information. At least 48 hours in advance. We don’t want some mealymouthed bureaucratic answer! We want it 48 hours in advance!
A: Pete Stidman (PS): This isn’t the first time we’ve discussed this; there’s nothing new on the screen.
C: BD: We are talking here not about these materials in particular; we are talking about making an
informed committee. If you feel you can keep all of this in your head, then good luck to you.
Q: JR: If we get these things to you 48 hours in advance electronically, do we still need to print everything
out?
A: [Several group members at once]: Yes, you do.
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: JR: O.K. we will provide 10-15 copies at the meeting for those who want them.
Q: JF: John, are you speaking for just yourself? Will Kate carry this out when she takes over?
A: JR: I am speaking for MassDOT and yes, Kate will carry it out.
C: SM: To just finish up what Paul was saying, we will also address the issue of construction staging,
management and sustainable design. We want to incorporate sustainable design as best we can.
C: PK: So here’s the whole schedule. You’ll see where we have a draft design schedule. With the smaller
milestones, we’re taking our best shot at mapping it out, knowing as we did in the planning stage that
we may need to shuffle the meetings around and address different things or things we cannot finish with
one meeting.
Q: Don Eunson (DE): What is your expected schedule for final design completion?
A: PK: Final design will be around mid-2013 and then there’s a brief period for procurement so you’re
looking at 2014, 15 and 16 for construction.
Q: JF: What does PS&E stand for?
A: PK: That’s plans, specifications and estimate. That’s the contractor’s packet. As you see, right off the bat
we have concentrated our meetings. We tried to develop a logical subject system for you. We don’t
want to try to cover all the subjects in one. Meeting topics include: construction management, logistics
and plans, livability and mobility and making the intersections work during peak and off-peak. These
are all issues carried over from the process to date.
Q: Liz O’Connor (LO): Is the DAG the WAG with a new name? Is there an opportunity to add new
members?
A: JR: The only difference between the two groups is the change between the W and the D.
C: JF: You need to address businesses. There’s a big hole right there. The names Charlie Fiore and Andy
Schell have been kept on the list even though they have not attended and said they would not attend.
Shouldn’t we add some business representation?
A: JR: Yes, and we asked both of them to send representatives and they never sent anybody. We will find
someone and if you want to recommend somebody that would be welcomed.
Q: JF: So potentially you could add some business people?
A: JR: At this stage we will be going out to the business community. That’s something we typically do in the
25% design phase.
Q: JF: You didn’t do it for the past year; you’re going to start now?
A: JR: Yes, that’s what I said.
Q: Allan Ihrer (AI): So anyone can come from an organization provided that the group is represented?
A: JR: Well no, we’d really like to see the same person from a given organization every time as we have
done all along. When somebody cannot make it and they call ahead and say they will send a substitute,
that’s O.K. every now and again, but it can’t be a rotating musical chairs kind of thing.
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: LO: I hate to nitpick, but I asked earlier if I could send a representative and you said no. Now I’m
hearing something else.
A: JR: We’ve been trying to avoid lots of substitution. We’ve been clear that you can occasionally send a
substitute, but they are really there to be your eyes and ears.
C: LO: There shouldn’t be different rules for different seats. I think we need to take this moment of change
to reassess the composition of this committee, make a thoughtful set of decisions and live with them.
A: JR: There haven’t been different rules for different seats. Emily Wheelwright left the JP Neighborhood
Council and she’s sent a replacement. If something changes and somebody leaves an organization, it’s
fine to replace them with someone else from that organization provided they can generally commit to
the process.
C: LO: When I was unable to make a meeting, I just haven’t sent a representative. Some of us have
stepped out and haven’t been represented.
A: JR: The point is that because of the pace of the project, we need people who can regularly attend. Pete
has attended every meeting so he’s been able to step in when Bob hasn’t been able to make it. And,
when Bob is here, I’ve told Pete that he can’t talk until the end.
C: LO: And I respect that.
A: JR: I’ll ask the group. We’ve heard from a few folks that we want some business people on the
committee. Is that reasonable?3 Over the next eighteen months, we’re going to keep going as we have:
if someone can’t be here on a given evening, they can send someone to be their eyes and ears. This is a
public meeting and anyone can attend, but the committee members get precedence in terms of
speaking. That’s why we have the public meetings.
Q: Elizabeth Wylie (EW): A reasonable request might be to pull the list of WAG members and look it over.
Some people came to only 1 or 2 meetings out of a list of 12. Might it be reasonable to ask them to stay
on the WAG and attend more regularly or ask they step down and when looking to fill the empty seats,
look for people who haven’t been represented? That’s a big, divisive point and I want it addressed.
A: JR: We won’t add to the group, but we will fill seats that aren’t being addressed. I’m not kicking groups
off and adding others on. There’s something like 37 groups represented on the WAG today, I’ll get
another person to represent a group that’s on the list but whose person hasn’t been attending, but at
this point the group really should not be getting bigger.
C: KM: What this position indicates to me is that it’s the DOT’s intention to preserve the basic unfairness
and lack of representation on this group. There’s nobody from Hyde Park Avenue, there’s nobody from
North or South Bourne and a whole bunch of the WAG members have never attended a single meeting.
A: JR: We will fill seats that have had low attendance; adding more people doesn’t make sense.
C: KM: So you’re going to keep an unbalanced WAG; let all the elected officials and newspapers take note
of that!
C: RH: I’ll begin where I left off. This group may feel there’s a lack of representation, but if anything,
regional people are missing from the group.
A: BD: This is where they’re taking the bridge down, Russell, we live here.
A: RH: That might be the case.
3
It was generally assented to that it was.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: BD: It is the case.
C: RH: May I please finish? This is a local crowd, but making regional decisions. This isn’t a matter of
South Street and Asticou Road. You guys can walk around the corner and talk to each other. Milton,
West Roxbury and Dorchester will all be impacted and they’re not represented.
A: BD: We are here now. DOT’s alternative is on the table and it’s been selected. What people will be
impacted? Who will be impacted? When the jackhammers and blow torches are going and traffic is all
over the place, the people in this community will be impacted.
A: RH: And those people are well represented in this room.
C: JF: I agree with Russell; regional people are underrepresented.
A: RH: I am going to raise the regional issue with DOT. If you’re going to balance the group it should be
with regional people and not just more JP folks.
C: DH: Make that argument to DOT.
C: RH: O.K. we can argue this all night. Let’s get through the presentation and move forward. Jeff, please,
can we just do that? Please? Thank you.
Q: Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz (SCD): Before we move on, I heard you say earlier that it is your suggestion
to this group that if a WAG member cannot make it that they can send someone to be their eyes and
ears, but that the replacement person doesn’t quite have equal speaking rights. I think that’s a good
and fair idea, but I’d like it crystalized.
A: JR: That’s what we’ve tried to do in the past and that’s why I want to carry it forward. When you work as
a team, if the players change each day, then you can’t move forward. It seems like we’re all O.K. with
that.4
C: JF: The question is that you can have a representative, but they cannot speak.
A: JR: They are the eyes and ears for the group, but since they haven’t been to the last meetings, they won’t
be up to speed. It will give the represented group a chance not to miss the discussion. These are public
meetings; we can’t keep anybody out of the room.
C: JF: I’m not sure I agree with that; I’m not sure I agree. I’ll need to think about it.
C: Michael Halle (MH): In entering the next phase, what we’re working towards is different. I understand
the issues about the group, but this will be a very concentrated six months of making this the best plan it
can be. The big contentious issue is the one that was WAG. What we need to do in the next six months
is get the best plan we can for the solution that has been selected. These are people in this community
who are committed to that goal. People drop in and out for one meeting and if they come in and ask
questions that are three meetings old, it will slow us down. What you say about consistent
representation makes sense. If people are up to speed and can show up and participate constructively
then it makes sense, but if we slow the process down, the delay will make all of us suffer. So whatever it
takes to get use there, it really shouldn’t be this contentious any more. We’ve been through who’s on
the committee once before and this kind of rudeness really shouldn’t be tolerated.
C: JR: As we’ve had some people filtering into the back over the past few minutes, I want to go over a few
things again: one tonight is my last WAG meeting. When the DAG process starts, Kate Fichter will take
it over. The second thing is that two weeks ago, the Secretary made his decision and we’re building an
4
Many people around the room nodded at this.
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
at-grade solution. The planning phase is done, minus a few items we kicked to the 25% design phase.
That decision is made and that’s where we’re going to spend our time. We’ll work on what Paul has
highlighted. The points people brought up about business representation are good. We’ll look into that.
I think we’re O.K. on the issue of consistent representation. A substitute can be your eyes and ears and
members of the public can always come into these meetings, but committee members will still get
deference. I’m seeing mostly nods from people on this. Good.
C: LO: It seems to me obvious that when you make a transition, it’s natural to assess the composition and
see where we are about adding or removing seats. I’m not talking about bridge or no-bridge; I’m
talking about pausing and adding those communities that didn’t have a voice. I think the substitution
rule is good. I just think the WAG and DAG should possibly be constructed differently.
C: Michael Epp (ME): First of all, you will be missed John. The public process is never perfect. I ran the
process for the Charles MGH Red Line Station and I’ll soon be having my 6 th meeting regarding the
Green Line extension. Everyone: treat each other with respect. I remain impressed with the intelligence
of this team. You do your best each meeting and keep trying to do better. The initial outreach is hard.
Getting 38 groups together is amazing. The ability to do that is pretty good and shouldn’t be
underestimated. Thank you.
Q: JF: If we have a new WAG member, aren’t you going to introduce them?
A: Francesca Fordiani (FF): I’m Francesca Fordiani; I’m replacing Emily Wheelwright.
C: PK: All right. Mobility: that’s the integration of modes to achieve a safe and accessible network. We’ll
be addressing that corridor-wide and then in microcosm sub-areas like Morton Street, Shea Circle, the
upper bus-way and New Washington Street. We have signalization, roadway design, intersection design
and operations. We’ll also look at the Washington Street/Asticou Road area. Livability is the issue of
moving around, but also, how nice is it? Open space, landscaping and sustainability. We’ll have a
design charette later this spring and I think this group will be great for that. You’ll be able to sit down
and develop things. Areas to think about there will include the entry to the Southwest Corridor, the
Franklin Park entrance at Shea and the MBTA plaza.
Q: JF: Is the charette after the 25% design?
A: PK: No, that’s a part of it. Now, construction management, Bernie, your favorite topic; it will be tough
out there, but we can manage it. We need to keep businesses going, keep people getting to the train
station. Demolition and construction will likely happen together in stages. The businesses are going to
become more important now because the impacts will be very real for them. Pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations need to work during construction and transit operations need to be kept going. The
MBTA is right with us on this and they won’t let us impact their operations. Thinking of construction we’ll
need to figure out things like laydown areas, temporary parking, and a storage area for the contractor’s
vehicles so the dust will be controlled and of course traffic management which sort of goes without
saying.
So there’s the 25% design phase. The WAG becomes the DAG. At the public meeting next week, we’ll
present the chosen alternative, explain the process, take questions and comments. We’ve got
approximately one meeting a month during the 25% design phase. The DAG meetings are going to be
very topical and focused. Since Shea hasn’t been fully addressed yet, we’ll frontload that one and get it
into the historical process. Another DAG meeting will be the charette. We’ll have multiple areas to
address in that charette and we’ll have subgroups to address each one. The third meeting will be
focused on traffic, roadway cross-sections and operations. The 4th meeting will be construction and
traffic management. This is our schedule to hit the major elements we need to cover. Around the end of
May, we need all this developed enough to file the ENF and start the MEPA process. Hopefully, the 25%
design will be completed in July with the review and comment period following the submission. After
that, we’ll have the MEPA scoping session. That includes a site visit and then a sit-down meeting. We
would then do the 25% design public hearing in October and from there it’s on to 75% design.
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: LO: I’m curious about what happens at the design public hearing if the public dislikes what is presented.
If the DAG is poorly constituted and the DOT doesn’t take its recommendations, it’s possible that the
design could be ill-suited to the community. What veto power does the community have at the 25%
design hearing?
A: SM: All along we’ve had a process. The 25% design hearing is a milestone which is formal, but our
public information meetings have been very similar. The hearing won’t be much different from the five
public meetings we’ve had thus far and the one we’ll have next week or the MEPA site walk meeting.
Today is a big milestone in terms of the decision to go at-grade. As the design goes, there’s still a lot of
tweaking to do.
C: LO: Well I’m wondering what to tell people about the meaning of their participation. I want to know
what I should say to people about paying attention to this process. When someone comments and they
feel their comment isn’t reflected in the public process broadly, they go away feeling that you took their
comment and then did something that was influenced by politics, money and engineering concerns. If I
tell someone that they can go to a meeting and be heard, will there be responsiveness from decisionmakers.
A: SM: Every comment we’ve received, we circulate through all members of the team. We compile them
and we post them. We discuss them as a team and there are themes that emerge. We hear that traffic
is a concern about taking the bridge down. We started talking about traffic and WAG and public
meeting one and I do encourage you to go the website and pull that presentation because it addresses
regional traffic. We know at-grade will work with future traffic, we know it will work better than today,
and equally well as the formerly proposed bridge.
Q: LO: But do people know that? You figured that out without us.
A: JR: I think I get what you’re saying. Let’s say I’m person X and I go to a public meeting and I say the
bicycle lanes should be blue, but when the time comes, they get painted red and the guy who wanted
blue says to himself, “why did I go?” We can’t incorporate every single comment.
C: LO: I’m not talking about crazy outliers; I’m talking about people who really commit to the process.
A: JR: I think the best and most honest thing you can say is that a comment can impact the process.
Without the comment in front of me I really can’t say. We review and take seriously every comment, but
in addition to those we have design manuals follow and designers doing the work. Remember, you guys
are advising, but not designing. We continue to take community input very seriously, whether it’s WAG,
written or public. It’s hard for me to say which comment will get what weight generically without seeing
a comment in front of me, but your input has definitely influenced this process. The idea of Shea Circle
becoming Shea Square came right from you guys, Shea wasn’t on the map when we started. We looked
at it because of you, so there’s something you can talk about.
A: SM: And Washington Street west of the station; you guys brought that to our attention.
A: PK: The 25% public hearing is standard for all projects. Typically, it’s the only hearing we do. We have
a great advantage on this job because we haven’t designed to 25%, brought it all in to show you and
say “here you go.” Usually, the 25% design hearing is the public’s only opportunity and I’m glad that’s
not the case here.
C: Nina Brown (NB): When the Casey Arborway project is done; there will be separate off-street bicycle and
pedestrian facilities under trees. More land added to Franklin Park and the community that stands
where the Howard Johnson’s used to be. There will be a median making it easier to cross the road and
I’m truly excited about what this will look like when it’s done. I’m going to go to the gym every day so
that when it is done, I can ride my bicycle through it. I wish I owned a house on Asticou Road.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: AI: To address the question, a lot of this is about trust and respect. We gave a lot of trust and respect to
the process and we felt we’d be in control of it. In that spirit we sat through ad nauseum meetings. I’m
here for the Stony Brook neighborhood which is very worried about traffic. I sat through meeting after
meeting respectfully and openly participating, trying to get to the issues that concern my neighborhood,
and I think Representative Holmes’ constituents, which is how do people get through the area. I put out
questions about how westbound buses will turn left to access the lower bus-way back in August. I also
asked about the Murray Circle back-ups coming back to the South Street ramps and was told we’d have
a scheduled time to talk about traffic so please be respectful and trust the process. Then, on October
25th, we looked at traffic stuff for about 20 minutes with discussions of the p.m. peak period which I think
isn’t much of a concern for people trying to get to work. We were told we would have time to discuss
this and pick it over, but we were unprepared when we came to the 20 minutes we were given. Answers
to my questions came out in February, six months later, not iterative answers directed to my questions,
but in the form of a general FAQ document and the fact is the FAQ document is just wrong. They said
the queue from Murray Circle comes back to the ramps, but we didn’t see that in VISSIM. They said the
bowties will add 20% more traffic and that’s not in the models. I see that a truly iterative process would
have gotten to those issues.
I was a fig leaf for nine months. This is of great importance to everyone. Things got balkanized the way
they did in December because we didn’t have enough information to answer the bridge or at-grade
question. The FAQ are garbage. The bus movement answers are garbage. I ask about east-west traffic
and the synchronization of signals and it seems like there’s been a total intellectual disconnect. The
answer, after seven months, is that there will be a bus preemption phase but that it won’t be required
every light cycle. So I went through the bus schedule and my numbers are conservative, but it shows a
bus arriving at New Washington Street every minute in the peak hour which means there will be a bus
preemption every single light cycle.
I’ve been very polite, but I don’t see how I can trust this process anymore. I feel disrespected and my
neighborhood feels disrespected. I guess I’ll move ahead with some level of engagement. I want
Arborway Yard addressed by a subgroup. I see the traffic stuff is at the third meeting and we all know
how those things get shuffled along. You say “trust us” and the “VISSIM shows it works fine,” and the
VISSIM doesn’t even have to-scale vehicles and so I’d say I’ve worked with an open mind, but you
haven’t addressed some difficult issues honestly and that’s what’s causing this balkanization. I haven’t
been supported, my concerns haven’t been taking to heart and I guess, enough said.
A: Gary McNaughton (GM): We did spend a lot of time on traffic. I wish I’d only spoken for twenty minutes.
Apropos of the earlier discussion of getting materials out in advance, the technical memo addressing
traffic was in your hands a week ahead of time. The volumes you’re talking about were included in that
document. As to the buses, we changed that design based on community input and the WAG and we
put the buses in there and they were in the simulations back in November that were presented at the
public meeting. We know we can’t harm transit and that commitment is reflected in the final
simulations. The first DAG meeting out of the box will address Shea Circle and Asticou Road; there’s a
lot of traffic there to discuss. Now that we have one design, we can address things like pedestrian
timings and right-turn treatments. A lot of what we’ve been doing since November is getting peer
review comments from people in the community. There’s a lot that’s been done on traffic and lot more
to do.
C: AI: I have here a February response to my specific questions and I see an inherent inconsistency and I
think it will be several buses per cycle, plus extra dead-head buses. I worry that we’ll just design away
and get to DAG 3 without a foundation that we can all see and address because otherwise, we just can’t
trust you.
Q: JF: Can you elaborate on what an iterative process would be?
A: AI: It’s back and forth. We make a point or ask a question and they come back and tell us the answers
and tell us the assumptions that underlie those points.
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: BD: I want to speak to the draft memo addressing air quality analysis and environmental justice
conducted by the Casey Overpass project. I won’t bore you with all of the two documents that go with it,
you can read those for yourself, but I’ll trust the executive summary is adequate to reflect the rest of the
document. It deals with environmental justice (EJ) analysis and what that is basically is are geographic
regions defined by people living there and specific land uses and these called Transportation Access
Zone (TAZ). A TAZ is a unit of geography based on specific land use activities. O.K. I’ll buy it. I goes on
to show that the low income population TAZ of the Boston MPO median household income was
$55,800. O.K. The low income population TAZ was 80% below that at $44,640. Keeping on they
address minority TAZ which is a TAZ with a minority population greater than 21.4%. When I get down to
this, the goal is to determine if there is a disparate impact on EJ populations. These performance
measures work as a measurement of benefits and burdens. The report states that since this project is
not supposed to impact transit, CTPS did not address or examine transit. I’d call the whole report into
question based on that statement alone. Then I go on to the air quality (AQ) report and I won’t bore
you with it, but CTPS utilized the outputs to forecast emissions for no-build and two build alternatives.
The report says that emissions for commuter rail diesel locomotives, commuter boats and park-and-ride
facilities were estimated off models. And so the models show no changes. I don’t know how they got to
that, but they did. I seriously question this. The executive summary is dated December 15 th, and rest of
the report several days later. It’s crap, quickly thrown together to justify an outcome! I don’t sit here
talking about a bridge or at-grade solution. I will talk today and say that I will not be used or see people
be used by people whose salary I am paying! I won’t sit back while my politicians take a no-speak
attitude! From Brookline to Fenway, to Mattapan, Dorchester, Quincy and beyond, Route 203 is the
east-west corridor in this part of the city. When we’re out there pushing for this, I will work with you, but
I will hold you to account on this. I’m a contracts manager and can say from experience that this report
isn’t worth the powder to blow it to Hades!
Q: SF: Just a follow-up on some things Allan said. I’ve known him for a decade and I can vouch that
nobody works harder than him. I hate to hear that he’s felt disrespected. I’m afraid I don’t know how to
interpret the traffic information all that well. I agreed to give my most diligent understanding of the
issues, but it would be disingenuous for me to comment on traffic reports. I guess that does go to what
is the role and expectation of the WAG. Moving on, Allan said the bowtie would add an additional 20%
of traffic, will someone please speak to that?
A: GM: What he’s talking about is the section of Arborway from South Street to the western bowtie. The
formerly left-turning volume is added into that section because it needs to go to the bowtie.
Q: SF: So in terms of the queue for Murray Circle, they’re not sitting in it, they are in it for a little while and
then leaving it?
A: GM: That’s right. The queues we’ve seen go back to around the top end of the ramp. We’ve seen that
on several occasions. Remember back to our meetings about traffic: the queue from Murray Circle will
be metered by the signals of the at-grade solution and we will continue to work with DCR to address that
issue as we advance the project.
Q: Elizabeth Wylie (EW): Based on what I just saw in the presentation, I want to ask that we push the
sustainable design as much as we can. What’s out goal and metric for that? As a sustainable designer,
I’d like to see it integrated fully in lighting, street-lights that don’t contribute to light pollution, permeable
pavement and green stormwater management. It needs to be built in fully rather than just being an
add-on, otherwise it will get value-engineered out. I want to go on record for that.
Also, in the FAQ document, you said that you had already reached out to Mass Historic regarding Shea
Circle. I have a colleague in my office who works regularly with them and they asked about Shea for
me. The response was that no filing had been made and yet the FAQ says that they were approached.
Can you clarify that?
A: SM: MassDOT is authorized to put together the effect finding which is sent to Mass Historic for
concurrence. We haven’t done that officially yet. We have approached DCR and MHC and had
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
unofficial coordination and conversation about it. Shea Square seems to be what everyone wants. Shea
Circle is not a contributing element so we’re not that concerned about adverse impact.
C: EW: Thank you for clarifying that; I feel that the way the FAQ is worded, it does not leave that
impression.5 I also want to talk about trust and the visuals. Without going backwards, I was struck by
the visual imbalance between the two options. I think a lot of people made their decision based on the
cover of the JP Gazette. The bridge renderings were ugly and I’m sure you had better aspirations than
that. I’d like to trust that the visuals were as intended, but I was left with the impression that some
visuals had the intent to deceive.
C: MH: We’ve had a bunch of different focus areas, but for going through the public process now, the Hyde
Park Avenue/ Washington Street to the lower bus-way should be highlighted as an area of interest.
A: Andrea D’Amato (AD): Got it.
C: MH: The whole Murray Circle question has to be addressed with DCR. It’s a mess and that’s got to
happen in another process that will work in conjunction with this one. And one last point: even though
we’re talking 25% here, if we’re going to talk about sustainability, there’s the issue of DCR versus
Boston. Boston has a complete streets policy which is relatively coherent, and I’d throw out the
suggestion, for discussion, to have Boston take over the whole roadway.
A: AD: Thank you, Liz. We have been looking to make this project a high water mark for sustainability.
We’re categorizing all the green information the City of Boston has on green streets, technology, and
enhancing operations and we’re working with MassDOT GreenDOT principles and trying to up the ante.
We would like to put together a though piece on making this project green and get your comments. We
want to get that into the discussion at the charette and to Allan’s point have an iterative conversation
about it.
Q: EW: I appreciate that and it extends from this moment through construction: addressing particulates,
noise and everything. There’s been a lot of talk about who will own the street when the bridge comes
down. People have said MassDOT won’t own the street and that’s what has driven the process. BTD will
get the signals and they have a terrible track record with signal maintenance and coordination. Look at
the traffic today; it’s lousy and that leaves us concerned with who owns it, particularly us on Asticou
Road. We’ve lived with this for years. Who is responsible?
A: SM: At the end of the project, the roadway will be owned by DCR and the City will maintain and operate
the signals.
C: JF: I have a proposal. Over the weekend I went out to California and I came back on the red eye [flight]
and I was going to do a triathlon, but the waves were really big and it was a really nice day and it got
turned into a run on the beach. At the end of the run I got a medal saying I did a triathlon. So here,
we’ve been through this process with a lot of meetings, but just because you sat through all the meetings
doesn’t mean the process was good or is done. MassDOT and the consultant team did a disservice to
the community. We all have high standards and we are so divided. Much of what you have told us is
arbitrary. We could look at the issue of who is on the WAG. The time deadline about when the money
needs to be spent is arbitrary. If you have a project in progress in 2016, you won’t stop paying for it. I
want this process delayed. Go to whoever you have to go to in the ABP and tell them that this project is
too critical to go forward like this. John said we were looking for consensus and we haven’t got it.
A: JR: I said reasonable consensus.
Q: JF: We don’t have that either. Steve Kaiser peer reviewed the traffic. Was his the only peer review?
A: JR: It was one of several.
5
John noted that this section of the FAQ would be rewritten to more closely align with the explanation provided by Steve.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: JF: And have those reports been disseminated?
A: JR: Not yet.
C: JF: Well, Steve Kaiser is a sort of people’s engineer and he has many good points and he looked at this
and he wasn’t weighing for the bridge or against it and he has a list. No bridge is all about urban
planning, no shadows, no pigeons, and with a bridge you have transportation benefits. We were told
there would be two surface alternatives with a bridge. Going to the one surface alternative with the
fewer lanes was so that you could say they were comparable. You said that this was just for the
minimum level of service. You can make traffic work better with 25,000 fewer cars on the street. I’d ask
you to delay this process. This is too divisive. It’s incomplete. The maps aren’t event to the same scale.
C: DH: You shrank the scale on the at-grade map to make it look less overwhelming.
C: JF: You said in the MOE that you couldn’t get a good measure for bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations, but I know why. It’s because you’re afraid to do it because the bridge works better for
bicycles and pedestrians. You’ve got all these bicycle and pedestrian groups thinking at-grade is great,
but they’re wrong. The dissent you are hearing is because this is not ready to move forward.
A: JR: All of that has been floated. It went to all your elected officials and they looked at it. MassDOT
evaluated it and the Secretary has made his decision. I’m telling you from DOT that Secretary Davey has
made his decision and we’re moving forward.
Q: JF: John, do you feel this has been fairly presented?
A: JR: Yes, I do.
C: JF: Then I hope Kate does a better job than you have.
C: BD: I want to talk about the money issue. Every time I brought it up, I was told by Steve not to worry
because there would be money. At the end, we found out we didn’t have any money. We have to give
the money to Arlington to New Bedford. I want to talk to you about Chapter 233, the ABP legislation.
We’re taking a bridge down. There is something I am interested in. You kept telling us $74 million for
the bridge and $53 million for the at-grade. You said it was for the bridge as is.
A: SM: Until August last year, it was as is: that’s three lanes in each direction and at the high level where it
is today.
Q: BD: O.K. and what about one lane in each direction, lower and narrower?
A: SM: That’s about $72 million.
C: BD: On the street program you have this little thing in orange. That’s the bus turnaround directly across
from my community and it just snuck in there. I’m interested in that because under the act it says that
MHD has $2 billion to work with and DCR has $9.6 million to use. It says that no amount shall be
expended on MBTA or Mass Turnpike bridges or approaches. You won’t be taking the bus money from
this pot.
A: SM: This project will be paid for with ABP funding.
C: BD: But look what it says in the law. I’m not a lawyer; I just brought it up on the screen. This jumped
out at me. It’s a catch, I deal with construction contracts all day and I look for catches. You’re sitting
there and I’m paying your salary and you can’t give me an adequate explanation. Explain it to me!
A: SM: Bernie, I can’t say it any clearer than I just did: the project will be paid for with ABP funds.
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: BD: It says no amount shall be expended for Mass Turnpike or MBTA bridges or approaches – in two
places. How is it going to be accomplished? You have not got the money.
A: SM: Maybe we interpret that language a little differently, but the funds will come from ABP to implement
the at-grade solution.
Q: BD: Would you agree that this English is plain and clear? We have a serious problem here if I found it
this quickly.
A: SM: It says bridges owned by the MBTA. There’s no bridge here owned by the MBTA or Turnpike
Authority.
A: JR: Come on, Bernie, you’re twisting the meaning here. There’s no bridge for the MBTA being worked
on for this project.
Q: BD: So under what guidelines can you do this?
A: SM: It is part of fixing a structurally deficient bridge be de-elevating it.
C: BD: Then I’m worried about the bus facility. It was discussed minimal to none.
C: KM: I want to go back to Elizabeth and Allan said about being misled. I stood on the stage in the
Agassiz School auditorium and you said we haven’t made up our mind and we need people to go out
and say it and I did. I said to the public that they should give you a chance. I tried to convince them that
this process was legitimate. Then we went around the room about bridge or no-bridge and it was right
down the middle. After that came the concentrated selling job. We were shown the Embarcadero in
San Francisco and that freeway in Milwaukee and members of the team said “that’s the old way of doing
things” and made a false analogy to the Casey Overpass. The Casey Overpass isn’t a viaduct, it’s an
overpass. The bridge guy even stopped coming to meetings. Instead we got Don, the green guy. We
got beautiful pictures of a six lane highway that will take 24,000 vehicles a day and the handouts
showed no cars. The JP Gazette was biased too and showed beautiful, wide open spaces. I’d like to
know when you’ll show this community the six lane highway with every car there at peak hour. Do you
think the impression will be different when you do that?
A: PS: Nobody believes this is going to be a highway.
C: KM: It’s going to be six lanes wide!
A: JR: We showed you the animations.
Q: KM: But what about the pictures? Where’s the traffic, John, you have six lanes and two cars. We’re
overbuilding if this is true. When will we see honest visuals for the peak hour with actual cars and
buses?
A: JR: Animations based on 2035 volumes were shown in public.
C: KM: You have little things going around and around. Those were not realistic.
C: ME: Being here today, I never thought the at-grade solution would be selected. I was surprised when it
was. I thought both sides were well-described, but I never thought, even with the enthusiasm about it,
that the at-grade would make it. I want you to know that even if the bridge had been selected, I’d be
sitting in this room in the spirit of trying to make it better. I respect everyone in here and I know you all
love Jamaica Plain. I hope that the people who wanted the bridge will work to make the at-grade better
as well. We have traffic figures saying both options work. The pro-bridge folks say the at-grade traffic
model is wrong, but if it is, it’s likely wrong for the bridge too. You can’t have it both ways. BTD has
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
been at every meeting. Why would BTD, the consultant team and MassDOT want this to fail? What
possible advantage to them is there? They believe it will work and I believe they have proven their case.
Q: DE: How many DAG meetings do you really anticipate between April and July to accomplish what needs
to be in the 25% design? I heard Paul say a meeting a month.
A: JR: Our intent is to have four as shown. Paul explained that there’s enough flexibility for us to add a
meeting if we need to, like the times in the WAG process where we couldn’t finish a topic and scheduled
another meeting to address it. It’s not “positively four and no more,” but that’s our intent. Maybe we’ll
wind up having one or two extras given the previous process, the size and diversity of the group and its
opinions; we can only go so fast. If I were a betting man, I’d bet on one, maybe two more, but our goal
is four meetings.
A: SM: Going into the 75% design we’ll continue to meet to cover additional information.
A: JR: We have about 13-14 total meetings stretched out over 18 months. We do have flexibility to add in
more as we have in the past.
C: NB: I want to thank MassDOT for having many more community meetings than you normally have.
Thank you to the consultants for preparing all this material. I appreciate everything you have done. You
have been civil under tremendous pressure and I really appreciate that too.
C: SF: About the Gazette that was held up a few minutes ago. Kevin and Liz were concerned about the
depictions. I find it fascinating. I don’t know how they decided which pictures to show and peak time
would have been interesting, but at a glance, it supports my conviction that at-grade is the way to go.
Traffic does fluctuate, we know that, but a bridge is always there. Representing the Arborway Coalition,
the feedback I got was universally that it would be a better outcome if an at-grade solution could be
made to work. Of course we’re going to be holding MassDOT’s feet to the fire to make it as good as it
can be.
C: DH: One thing I want to point out in the air quality analysis is that it says there is not a significant
change in VMT or VHT, but that’s not true. You said there would be an additional delay of up to 90
seconds for east-west traffic. 24,000 vehicles times 90 seconds per car, that’s 600 hours of driving or
roughly 25 days. That’s the equivalent of sticking 25 cars in the corridor an idling them. And traffic isn’t
linear, it moves in waves and that number is a base number, it could be worse.
A: SM: The overall delay is calculated differently between the two models. The 90 seconds of additional
delay is for east-west traffic moving from Shea Circle to Murray Circle, but there’s a benefit for northsouth traffic. Overall, the average delay is the same and that’s why VHT and VMT are the same.
Q: DH: So shooting over the bridge is the same as getting through three traffic lights?
A: SM: Yes, because of the improvements in north-south traffic.
C: DH: I’ve lived in this neighborhood for over 10 years and BTD keeps talking about what they can do to
improve traffic and it never improves. For us to trust that it will be better is a tall order. I want to go on
record as saying that traffic already stinks today and that the bowties are too complex and convoluted.
Q: Michael Reiskind (MR): I want to address Paul’s presentation. We talked at length about the make-up of
the DAG and John is leaving. You and Steve are the project managers. When do the consultants
change?
A: SM: We generally don’t negotiate consultant contracts in a public forum, but there is a contract
mechanism in place to keep this consultant team through construction. I see no reason to stop it. There
is no plan to change consultants.
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: MR: Shea Circle goes through a state process. Isn’t it park of the Emerald Necklace and will therefore
have to go through a more stringent city process?
A: Michael Trepanier (MT): Simply put, no. We don’t typically apply for a local level certificate of
appropriateness because MassDOT has immunity from that. We deal with state Chapter 254 and the
Emerald Necklace is state registered. Even with all that, Boston Landmarks provides a consultant and
advisory role, not a regulatory one.
C: MR: And even though you are not building a bridge, you may need concrete forms made of lumber.
Remember, this is an Asian Longhorn Beetle Restriction Zone.
A: SM: Good point.
Q: MR: What is the scope of work for 25%? We’re going from Shea to how far west?
A: SM: The Forest Hills gate of the Arboretum.
Q: MR: I’m hoping Ukraine Way will be pulled in there? And I’d like a map of who owns every street and
every light?
A: SM: Yes to Ukraine Way and I believe we have generated and posted such a map.
A: AD: We did a parcel ownership map, but we have not gotten to the level of the signals. We can do that.
Q: MR: And the last thing is the mitigation for businesses during construction. During the Orange Line
construction that said they would do all the needed mitigation and businesses applied for help when
they were going under and it took two years for them to get the money approved and they got paid after
they’d already gone out of business. I’m convinced that Forest Hills businesses never recovered from
1983-87 and that’s why the area looks the way it does today. They said the two year process was the
legal requirement, is that still the case?
A: SM: We’ll have to look into that. We’re concerned right now about how we’ll get this done. Once we
know that it will lead to those discussions.
C: MR: It is a toughie.
A: JR: And we acknowledge it.
Q: JF: Will you follow DCR parkway guidelines on this project?
A: SM: We will follow all guidelines: MassDOT, DCR, and the City guidelines too.
Q: AI: In the interest of trying to get us to a place from which we can move forward, is it possible to have an
abbreviated WAG or DAD meeting where we go over what was presented back in October and talk
about updates so we can understand all of this? I think it would really help to find spots that need
further focus.
A: JR: We will look at it and get back to you.
C: RH: I’m all about process. I do recall the group being told money wouldn’t be a decision criterion and
when we come back to it, money was mentioned by the Secretary so that does resonate with me, it’s a
concern. I know we’ve talked about not voting and so I was surprised when Kevin said there was a vote.
A: JR: It was not a vote, Representative; it was a very unofficial sense of the room.
Page 16
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: RH: All right, but I would say that the challenge the community feels is that something has been decided
without a vote. I agree the word was consensus, but without a vote, consensus is subjective. I’d suggest
that in the new process you indeed augment the group and build in a sense of voting on key decisions
along the way. It’s difficult to say that we have consensus now and you might have gotten there with a
yes or no vote. This is what happens when you don’t empower a group to the level that it can vote. I
will ask that the new process include a voting mechanism in it.
C: Wendy Williams (WW): I have a problem with the way community members get to air their views. I saw
many reports come out after the process that said people were divided. We need to heal that division.
People need to be able to speak their mind.
A: JR: And that’s why we have the public meetings and the WAG sessions. Remember, at public meetings,
you guys are there to hear from the public, that’s when the community gets its chance to speak. These
meetings are for you guys.
O.K. anything more; no, all right, good night and remember that the public meeting is on the 29 th.
Next Steps
The next milestone in the public involvement process will be the first public information meeting of the 25%
design phase. This meeting will be held in the auditorium of the Boston English High School on Thursday,
March 29, 2012. The meeting will run 6:30-8:30. The purpose of this meeting will be to explain the
Secretary’s decision to the community and explain the 25% design process and meetings associated with it.
Page 17
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Nina
Brown
WAG
Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis
Howard/Stein-Hudson
Kate
Chang
Office of Congressman Michael Capuano
Sonia
Chang-Diaz
State Senator
Julie
Crockford
Emerald Necklace Conservancy
Andrea
D’Amato
HNTB
Lisa
Dix
WAG
Bob
Dizon
WAG
Bernie
Doherty
WAG
Julieanne
Doherty
Office of Mayor Thomas Menino
Michael
Epp
WAG
Don
Eunson
WAG
Dorothy
Farrell
Resident
Jeff
Ferris
WAG
Kate
Fichter
MassDOT
Giannalda
Fontana
Resident
Francesca
Fordiani
WAG
Sarah
Freeman
WAG
Michael
Halle
WAG
David
Hannon
WAG
Richard
Heath
Resident
Mary
Hickie
WAG
Olu
Ibrahim
Office of Representative Jeffrey Sanchez
Allan
Ihrer
WAG
Don
Kindsvatter
HNTB
Paul
King
MassDOT
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
David
Mohler
MassDOT
Kevin
Moloney
WAG
Steve
Nutter
[For Kevin Wolfson]
Liz
O’Connor
WAG
Michael
Reiskind
WAG
Nathaniel
Shea
Office of Senator Chang-Diaz
Marilyn
Stout
Office of Representative Russell Holmes
Robert
Torres
Office of Representative Liz Malia
Michael
Trepanier
MassDOT
Fred
Vetterlein
WAG
Wendy
Williams
WAG
Elizabeth
Wylie
WAG
Page 18
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Received Emails
Please see the following pages.
Page 20