Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
November 11, 2011
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:
Eleventh Working Advisory Group (WAG) Meeting
Meeting Notes of November 9, 2011
Overview & Executive Summary
On November 9, 2011, the Working Advisory Group (WAG) met to continue its role in the Casey Overpass
Replacement Project Planning Study. This meeting is the third of three conducted by the WAG in preparation
for the fifth public meeting, currently slated to take place on November 21st, 2011. The alternating schedule
of WAG and public meetings serves to both brief the community and gather its questions and comments to
inform the work of the WAG. The purpose of the WAG is to work through the many details associated with
this project in a compressed timeframe that will allow the current Casey Overpass to be replaced with either
an at-grade solution or a new viaduct by the closing of the Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) by 2016.
The meeting described herein addressed four major topics in a free-form discussion interspersed with
presentation by members of the design team. Topics included: revised perspectives of the two solutions,
comparable viaduct/elevated railroad removals in the Boston area, recent changes to the options and
elements which will be discussed further during the 25% design stage, and performance of the options when
graded by Measures of Evaluation (MOE).
Revised Perspectives of the two Options
o The perspectives are designed to give WAG members, and the public, a flavor of what both
solutions could feel like from a livability perspective. One additional perspective was
requested by WAG members: a look at Washington Street west of Forest Hills Station for the
at-grade solution. Specific aesthetic treatments, such as the finish retaining walls, lighting,
landscaping, and the underside of a potential bridge will all be discussed during the 25%
design phase.
Review of Comparable Viaduct Removals
o Project team member Don Kindsvatter walked the WAG through the history of several other
viaduct/elevated railroad removals in the City of Boston including the Orange Line and Tobin
Bridge ramps in Charlestown, the Orange Line along Washington Street and the Central
Artery. Don also explained the concept of “object versus space” and “looking out versus
looking in.” In brief, the essence of Don’s presentation is the idea of currently, Forest Hills is
dominated by the object of the Casey Overpass and as such, most of the area “looks out” or
away from the viaduct, rather than looking into Forest Hills. Removal of the viaduct can help
to activate the edges of the space in Forest Hills such as businesses along Hyde Park Avenue.
o WAG members fell into three broad categories in their reaction to Don’s presentation:
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Those who feel removal of the overpass would provide significant aesthetic benefits
to the Forest Hills area and that the analysis has proven that traffic volumes can be
handled with an at-grade boulevard.
 Those who feel that removal of the overpass would provide significant aesthetic
benefits to the Forest Hills area, but are still concerned that the at-grade roadway
will not operate in the effective manner shown by the analysis.
 Those who feel that a well-designed bridge could provide an aesthetic focal point
and gateway for Forest Hills.
Refinements to Alternatives:
o Several changes have been made to the options since the previous WAG meeting based on
committee members’ suggestions. For the at-grade option these include:
 Shifting the bowties inward, towards New Washington Street to reduce travel times.
 Designating pick-up/drop-off lanes for school buses, taxis, and private cars.
 Removal of a pick-up/drop-off area on Washington Street between South Street and
New Washington Street to improve traffic flow and address queuing.
 Restoration of the tree line.
 Items to be further addressed during the 25% design phase include exact operations
for the 39 bus, and buses coming from the east that use the lower bus-way, and
potential use of the median for accommodating bicycle left-turns on New Washington
Street.
o For the bridge option, this includes:
 Removal of the proposed angle parking in front of Arborway Gardens.
o For both options: landscaping, lighting, additional aesthetic treatments, and the use of slip
lanes will be further discussed during the 25% design phase.
Performance of the alternatives as graded by the MOE:
o The MOE have been generated by WAG members and represent one of their most significant
contributions to the project. It should be noted that the MOE do not exist to attempt to
differentiate between the two options, but to grade each option on its own merits.
 For the current configuration, the MOE yield a score of negative 10 for both livability
and mobility.
 For the bridge solution, the MOE yield a score of zero for livability and three for
mobility. It should be noted that zero is an improvement from negative ten and should
be seen primarily as neutral.
 For the at-grade solution, the MOE yield a score of seven for mobility and thirteen
for livability.
o At the end of the discussion regarding the scoring of the options by the MOE, project
manager Steve McLaughlin provided current estimated costs for both the at-grade and
bridge solutions. Steve underscored that these numbers are estimates and are subject to
change. At present, the bridge option is estimated to cost $72.7 million, whereas the atgrade option is projected to cost $52.4 million. For an approximate breakdown of these
costs, including projected costs for the work at the MBTA station in the at-grade option,
please turn to page 16.

Detailed Meeting Minutes1
Additional Perspectives of the Project Area for At-Grade & Bridge Options
C: John Romano (JR): Welcome everyone; thank you for coming. We have three more meetings left in the
planning study period, don’t worry we will have more as part of the 25% design phase, but for the
planning study, there are three more: November 21st is a public meeting, details about that are on the
1
During the conversation, many of the comments made refer to the PowerPoint presentation given at the meeting
summarized herein. Users may find it helpful to have a copy ready to hand when reading this document. A copy of this
presentation is available here: http://web.massdot.net/CaseyOverpass/Meetings.html
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
flier at the door, WAG meeting 6A which will be on December 5th here, and the final public meeting on
December 14th. We had heard at the last meeting that Curtis Hall would be a problematic location so
we’ve moved that meeting to Boston English; we’re just finalizing the permit. There’s another meeting
scheduled for November 22nd. That’s not a Casey Overpass meeting, but it will be on the agenda
among other items. That’s being held at the Mildred Avenue School in Mattapan. If anyone of you
would like to attend that you’re welcome to do so.
I will stress as I did at the end of the last meeting how important it is to get your feedback through this
process. Please don’t wait for the public meeting because, I’ll be frank, at the last public meeting we got
some criticism that the WAG did too much talking. You can make comments, but at the next meeting,
we’ll be focused on taking questions and comments from non-WAG members. We get a lot of questions
from you guys and we’ve been getting answers back to people. We sent out responses from Gary on
Monday last week. Those are very helpful. They help us prepare for the public meeting so please keep
doing that. Encourage your friends and neighbors to write in too. Get those comments and questions in
to us and we’ll get you answers. I want to pause here and recognize Representative Russell Holmes,
Kate Chang from Congressman Capuano’s Office, Jullianne Doherty from Mayor Menino’s Office,
Robert Torres from Representative Malia’s Office, Vineet Gupta of BTD and Tad Read from the BRA. 2
With that, let me turn this over to Andrea and her team.
C: Andrea D’Amato (AD): Thank you, John. We are now at a point where we’ve had two meetings in series
five to address traffic and mobility; tonight is all about livability. We’re getting close to the end of the
planning and concept design phase of this project. Our current goal is to develop the conceptual
alternative. Things will change as we get into the 25% design phase, but tonight’s focus is livability.
We’ll talk about new perspectives based on comments we received over the past few meetings. Then
Don will talk you through livability and after that we want to have a conversation with you about what
makes this area special to you and what you want to see for the future. Then we’ll discussion conceptual
alternatives. We’ll be showing you those on the screen and on handouts that we’ll give you. That will
walk you through the changes made to the medium median at-grade solution and the single bridge
since last time. We will also touch on items that will be addressed during conceptual design and items
that are appropriate for the 25% phase. We will then go over the Measures of Evaluation (MOE) and
how the options score based on them. The last element will be a discussion of the public meeting. I
need some WAG members to volunteer for that, preferably folks who have yet to speak at one of the
public sessions.
So, for orientation, we put together this slide to show you the boundaries of the space we’re dealing
with, it is the foundation of the calculations that serve as the basis for the measures. It’s around 25
acres in total and the area along the north of New Washington Street is 2 acres plus or minus. Just to
give you a sense, Copley Plaza is about 2 acres. The plaza immediately to the north of the Forest Hills
Station is about 1.5 acres. That’s approximately the size of Post Office Square. We have this section to
the east, which we call the boulevard, that’s the connector between New Washington Street and Shea
Circle and that’s equal to about 4 blocks of Commonwealth Avenue. For comparison purposes, you can
think about the entry into Shea Circle being similar to the entrance of Murray Circle. So, this is what
we’re addressing from an urban design perspective.
Q: Michael Halle (MH): The areas over the tunnel box, where you can’t have large plantings, can you point
that out with the laser pointer? Is that like a block of Commonwealth Avenue?
A: Don Kindsvatter (DK): It’s this area through here. That’s equal to about ½ of a block on Commonwealth
Avenue.
Q: Jeff Ferris (JF): Are you four blocks in the boulevard section more than just that green blob?
A: AD: It’s the green blob at the eastern end of the corridor, minus New Washington Street.
2
During the course of the meeting Nikka Elugardo from Senator Chang-Diaz’s Office, Representative Liz Malia and
Valerie Frias of Councilor Matt O’Malley’s Office arrived; all were recognized by John Romano.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Now, I want to run through some perspectives and I’m going to try to take this a little slower than I did
last time. The first view is from the Arborway Yard looking south at the courthouse. Here’s the existing
view, the at-grade view – you’ll see we’ve started dropping the bicycle lanes – and now here’s the view
with the bridge. Please don’t get excited about the treatment for that wall, that will be resolved during
the 25% design phase, this is to show you the blockage and how quickly it would come up from the
roadway. This next view is from the end of the Southwest Corridor Park looking at the MBTA station.
Here’s the view today and now here’s the at-grade: we’ve got on-street bicycle lanes. This perspective is
from just in front of the relocated head-house and we’re standing approximately on the off-street bicycle
and pedestrian paths. The bus area is on the south side of the corridor. Now here’s the bridge view.
You can see the bicycle lanes and the bus making its turnaround.
Q: David Watson (DW): So are you standing in the same location for both views?
A: DK: The viewer is at roughly the same location, but the roadway is a little further to the north in the
bridge option.
Q: Sarah Freeman (SF): And the green in the at-grade is new green space?
A: AD: It is. It’s in no way landscaped yet, that’s for the 25% phase, but it’s newly created area.
O.K. now we’re standing at roughly the westbound on-ramp for the Arborway and looking down New
Washington Street to the east. This is the view today and now here’s at-grade: the bus lane is over here,
the median is 12 feet wide, there are minimal plantings because of the tunnel box, and here’s the
extension of the Southwest Corridor Park.
Q: David Hannon (DH): So this is South Street?
A: AD: You’re basically looking down from the Arborway. Let me show you today’s view to orient you: the
Southwest Corridor Park ends here, the median is relatively narrow. All this land off to the south is
taken up by the Route 39 turnaround. You have a three lane cross-section with pick-up/drop-off lanes.
C: JF: It’s three lanes at the mid-block crossing, two where the intersection is.
A: AD: You’re right; that’s what I was trying to say, I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Now, here’s the view with the bridge. Everything shifts to the north. Here’s the bus-way, the expanded
MBTA plaza and we’ve maintained some of the current landscaping.
Q: Don Eunson (DE): Where’s the crosswalk on the far side of the intersection?
A: DK: It would be over there; we just didn’t have the time to sketch it in.
Q: Kevin Wolfson (KW): Is that similar to what the bridge would look like from below or could it look
different?
A: AD: You could do all sorts of treatments for the underside of the bridge. It’s a function of what you want
and how much it might cost.
Q: Bob Dizon (BD): How wide is the median in the bridge option?
A: DK: It’s around 8 feet wide; it’s really designed to be just big enough for the support columns.
C: JF: The renderings don’t seem accurate. The lane and car sizes don’t match up.
A: AD: This is about livability, not traffic; they’re not designed to scale.
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: JF: You’re trying to present livability and part of that is how much pavement there is. This shows
relatively little pavement.
A: AD: And we’ll get to that; right now we’re trying to get you to focus on the green space treatments.
So, the next view is looking from the edge of the Southwest Corridor Park towards the State Lab. Here’s
the view today, you can almost see the sign for the arboretum. Here’s the at-grade and bridge views;
these haven’t changed all that much. This is a new perspective we took: we’re on the edge of the where
in the in-bound 39 bus pulls in from the Arborway Yard and we’re looking down through the boulevard
area. This is the medium median option. That median is about 12 feet wide.
Q: DH: Would the courthouse be there on the right?
A: AD: Yes, it’s behind the trees and if Nina were here, she’d be happy to see that for the pathways along
the edge of the Arborway Yard, we’ve used her designs. Now, here’s the bridge option. It’s hard to get
the perspective right with the trees. We didn’t want to just make them vanish.
Q: Allan Ihrer (AI): So the bridge is descending here, and what’s the height?
A: AD: It would start coming down just past the courthouse.
Q: AI: And what sort of elevation is there between the sidewalk and the bridge?
A: DK: its 16.5 feet tall over Washington Street and after that it starts coming down pretty quickly.
C: AD: Here’s the view from the LAZ parking lot looking towards the Southwest Corridor Park. It’s odd
because there’s no real focal point in the view for the at-grade solution because most of what you’d be
able to see is open space landscaping. Here’s the Route 39 turning around, the bicycle lane, the wider
median and the crosswalks. Now, here’s the bridge view which is pretty much the same except the
widened plaza is on the MBTA side of New Washington Street.
Q: DH: Can you show me where the 39 bus turns around?
A: AD: The bus would exit a curbside lane and make the U-turn in the intersection with a queue jump
signal to give the bus priority.
A: DK: The stop line would be pulled back so that as the 39 pulls out of its lane, it can get to the head of
the queue.
C: AD: And as we’re looking at these, we’re starting to do the pick-up/drop-off accommodations and
setting them up so that the desire lines focus people towards the bus.
Q: Michael Reiskind (MR): Would the bus make the turn from the right lane or left lane?
A: Gary McNaughton (GM): Buses would turn from the right lane with a signal to protect them as they cross
the intersection. That gives much more room to make the turn and lets buses operate from a convenient
loading point on the curb.
C: JF: That head-house view looks different from what you showed on the first slide.
Q: AD: That’s true. We were sort of next to the head-house in that initial view; I guess I was a little off on
that.
C: JF: Show me the next slide, the South Street intersection with the bridge. I feel that on the Hyde Park
Avenue side it drops down differently. It looks like at South Street, traffic on the bridge dips down and
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
then goes back up again to get onto the Jamaica Way. With the hill, you could actually stay at the same
height.
A: AD: We could stay a little higher and go directly into the hillside as we do with the current bridge. That’s
a 25% design directive. We did want to avoid creating unusable dead space under the bridge, that’s in
part where this came from. That was something the WAG agreed to back in August.
Comparable Viaduct Removals in Boston
C: DK: We’re really getting to the point of making a bridge/no bridge decision. To help us do that, I
wanted to look at other places in Boston where viaducts and bridges have come down and how those
areas have been transformed. I want to do that through some urban design concepts and the first of
those is the idea of “looking out versus looking in.” Right now, the Forest Hills area sort of turns its back
on the bridge. From what you’ve told us, that’s something you’d like to change, you want to attract
people into the area. The other urban design concept is “object versus space.” An object like the Casey
Overpass defines and dominates the area around it. When you remove that object, you start to see the
edges of the space and those edges begin to define it instead.
So let’s go through some examples. Here’s City Square in Charlestown. At one time, it had an elevated
section of the Orange Line in it and ramps to the Tobin Bridge as well. Removing all those elevated
structures has helped to transform the area. The edges have been redeveloped with new buildings and
a lovely park in the center. That didn’t happen immediately, it took some time, but that redevelopment
is still ongoing. Another location is the Central Artery through downtown. The spaces around it weren’t
the nicest in the downtown until the bridge was removed. Now that the object of the artery viaduct has
been removed, you can see how the edges of these buildings have redeveloped. What used to be leftover space is now a space for activity. There’s also Washington Street through the South End. The
edges of that were blighted, but as you can see it’s been transformed. Again, it didn’t happen
overnight, but now we see new investment, activity and redevelopment. Another interesting area is
Sullivan Square in Charlestown which was originally a park. That park got taken away piece by piece,
first by the Orange Line and then a viaduct, but now both of those are gone and there’s a plan in place
to remove the overpass and put in a new at-grade street system to meet the area’s needs.
Q: DH: Is that where the Schraft’s Building is?
A: DK: Yes, it’s over here in this corner of the picture. Forest Hills has a similar history. The Orange Line
and train lines have gone into a tunnel and the Casey Overpass is coming down. The area under a
viaduct can be mitigated to be attractive, but it tends not to be a place where people congregate. With
the at-grade option, you have the opportunity to kick off something similar to the transformations we just
discussed. From an urban design perspective, another bridge could mean that what’s in Forest Hills will
stay quite similar to what you have today. Now, we want to hear from you.
C: JR: As Don and Andrea said, we want to take some time to see what your thoughts and opinions are
based on the ideas we just discussed.
C: Ricky Oder (RO): I’m from Roslindale and this is my first meeting.
A: JR: Sir, I’m sorry to interrupt you, but for now, I’m taking comments from WAG members.
C: KW: I guess this isn’t much of a comment, but I’m glad you showed all that information. I agree with
everything you said about object versus edge and how that can transform neighborhoods. I think one
thing that’s implied is that all of those places still have cars making it through and despite those cars atgrade, there’s still activity going on at the edges because there isn’t the object in the middle.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: MH: I agree with and value a lot of what Don just said, but I want us to be careful. This area is a lot of
park land split by the transportation assets. As far as the development piece, the development won’t be
parallel to the corridor; nobody will build an office park on the Southwest Corridor. There’s strength in
Don’s analogy, but it’s a little flawed. There are some places on Washington Street where the Orange
Line came down and now if anything the streets are a little too wide. We now have the opportunity to
design in Forest Hills for traffic and aesthetics and that’s a positive thing whichever option we choose. I
would just caution against drawing too much or putting out straw arguments that could be rebutted,
because the case you made is strong. You just need to avoid people deciding that one part doesn’t
apply and then not listening to the rest of what you said.
A: AD: I agree, but there’s a lot of land around here up for redevelopment. You have Arborway Yard and
the MBTA parcels, one of which is under construction now. As the buildings come in, they may orient
themselves differently depending on what’s in the corridor. Yes, on New Washington Street its park
land, but more than half of this corridor either has or will eventually have something along it.
C: MH: Given that it’s possible that buildings will orient themselves towards this corridor rather than
Washington Street.
C: Bob Dizon (BD): I think there is some relevance because the retail edge on Hyde Park Avenue isn’t all
that active. There are some empty store fronts and none of the businesses there that serve food have
outdoor seating in spite of the wide sidewalks. I can definitely see the issue with the central object.
Q: Emily Wheelwright (EW): I’m curious about noise; do you have an idea of which would be louder for
people on the ground, bridge or at-grade? I could imagine it either way? If you’re in a coffee shop, it
makes a real difference if you can hear the person next to you.
A: JR: I think the best I can do right now is tell you about my own experience growing up in the North End
and then working on the Big Dig. When the traffic came off the elevated expressway it got very quiet.
There’s some noise from the ground level roadway not, but the amount of lanes on the surface is about
how many lanes there were on the bridge, and the noise is quieter.
C: JF: In your spaces, this is an urban environment, and you’ve got green and structures and architectural
elements which is a mix of interests. Having some of this in here creates that interest. The Hyde Park
corner in the at-grade view is just sort of vacant, but it’s interesting in the bridge, and that’s with no
aesthetic treatments on the bridge. There are award-winning bridges. Having a structure to look at is
not objectionable. Some thought should go into what the bridge should look like. It can hopefully be a
nice view either way. I don’t find the bridge objectionable.
C: Barbara Crichlow (BC): There are pros and cons about the demolition of the Orange Line. Bus service
has taken a hit since the Orange Line came down. The transportation for buses through Eggleston
Square is worse and Dudley isn’t any better. We have another transportation hub here and I worry that
if we go at-grade, all the buses here will take a hit and schedules will be off. Aesthetics-wise it will look
better, but in terms of getting people from one place to another, it will be another Eggleston Square.
C: Mary Hickie (MHi): I’m coming at this from the livability perspective and living on Martinwood Road, my
neighborhood is very inward looking. I feel overshadowed by the State Lab, the MBTA’s clock tower
would be overshadowing if not for the grade difference and so leaving my neighborhood, if I’m not
going towards the Arboretum, whether it’s walking, bicycling or driving, it would give me a greater
feeling of openness to remove one of the overshadowing objects from Forest Hills.
C: KW: In terms of perspectives, none touch on Washington Street in front of Asticou Road. That seems an
important thing to fit in. In terms of livability, that’s a big change.
A: AD: We had been thinking about doing one looking south towards Ukraine Way.
C: KW: Or from Ukraine Way looking north, either one would be fine, because it will be much different.
Then another small point: nobody ever says “let’s put up a bridge to make an area better,” but back in
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
the 1950’s, that’s what people thought, would help and that’s why we have all these viaducts and then it
stopped. It’s not that nobody ever thought that way, but it’s now been proven not to work.
C: AI: Getting back to what makes this area special to me: I like to go to the Arboretum. I like to go to Java
Joe’s or Fazenda and the pizza shop. I like to go to DB&S Lumber. The other morning I went there on
short notice and still got to work on time. That meant crossing Forest Hills twice. This is an area that
links me to Roslindale and Hyde Park and the Arboretum and so I think one thing we’re being asked to
accept is that everything will be exactly the same or better transportation wise and if you do accept that,
who wouldn’t want to be rid of the bridge? I like bridges, but not that much, and so the leap of faith to
be made is if the traffic will work. That’s the elephant in the room. One thing that makes this area
important to the region is that it’s a connection point.
C: Lisa Dix (LD): I live in Mattapan and Forest Hills is a huge part of my life in terms of accessing other parts
of the city, getting family to and from work and going to Longwood. Forest Hills doesn’t work for me
traffic-wise. I drive through it now and its horrific trying to move around the station regardless of which
way I approach it. I’ve diverted my route all kinds of ways and it still doesn’t work. It doesn’t work
trying to safely pick up family members. I’m petrified of the possibility of hitting a pedestrian mid-block
and I don’t think the bridge being there or not resolves that. There’s horrific traffic. I would be really
fearful of trying to cross the street, especially in the PM with the fall darkness, people just aren’t visible.
The sad part for me is that the WAG has focused on the bridge, but it needs to move beyond that. I’d
rather just go over Forest Hills to avoid and I don’t see a great solution as to when you take the bridge
that fixes it.
A: Michael Epp (ME): In most cases the proposed travel time improvements are significant. In changing the
at-grade street network things will get better. Those are predictions, but I think it shows just how much
improvement we can get. A lot of things we’ve talked about will be improved with either a bridge or atgrade solution.
C: DH: Well, I guess one thing I don’t see in the visualizations is the reality of traffic. I see one or two cars.
My sense is that I’d love to see the area without a bridge. Visually, it would be much more pleasing, but
I do believe that even though we can handle the extra 24,000 cars per day at-grade, we’ll still have
those cars on the surface. It’s just that much more traffic to deal with as opposed to having a smaller,
lower, aesthetically pleasing bridge that just gets traffic through Forest Hills from one side to the other.
The underside of the bridge could be designed nicely. Some new bridges like the Zakim are a huge
improvement. I think we can have a beautiful bridge that keeps traffic off the streets.
A: MH: In this meeting and others, people have emphasized the importance of getting traffic through.
There’s a risk in that becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. We don’t want a desolate expanse at the
Arborway Yard; we don’t want local business suffering. To make that happen, we want it congested, but
not too congested. If we just lean on getting people through, nobody is going to stop here and integrate
this spot into their community. We want to make sure we optimize paths to businesses that aren’t there
yet.
A: David Watson (DW): My comment follows on that. Thinking of my daily commute to work through
different neighborhoods, I ride my bicycle over bridges, next to them, on surface streets, and what I’ve
discovered is that while I appreciate the efficiency of a bridge, and I do think from your traffic
simulations that you’re at-grade solution works equally well, but what I’ve noticed is I feel more
connected to the community when I’m on surface streets with shops, parks and people. There’s so much
potential with the surface option. Places I’d have just pass through with the car, I stop when I’m on my
bicycle. I’ll stop, visit the restaurants or shops and I’ll bring my wife back later to enjoy what I’ve seen
because I connected with the community.
C: Suzanne Monk (SM): I’d like to comment on what David Hannon said. I appreciate that it would look
great without a bridge, but when the bridge was built 60 years ago, it was two lanes in both directions
above and below and if there were still two lanes and the bridge wasn’t in bad shape, people would be
using it. Human nature being what it is, people will go out of their way to travel some place if they don’t
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
have to sit in traffic. I’ll go 10 minutes out of my way to avoid sitting in traffic. On Rossmore Road, the
traffic has increased and I can see that if you bring the bridge down, people will go through my
neighborhood. We have a tot-lot and new young families and we’re getting concerned about it. I’d love
to see it work at-grade, but the cars aren’t going away. You have a whole generation who came up in
the 1940’s and 50’s and they are taking cars to the hospitals. It won’t work without a bridge.
C: Fred Vetterlein (FV): I agree with what Dave and Suzanne said. It would be a beautiful bridge, but we
have to think of the long-term. To make this a place like Harvard Square we need to integrate all the
elements. It will take time. I think we should see the bridge as an opportunity. A beautiful bridge can
be something people look at. There are beautiful bridges over the Thames in London because those
structures were opportunities for an architect to display their skills. I’ve never seen that approach here.
The box-beam you’ve showed us is already more attractive than the Casey Overpass, but it’s still not
knock-your-socks-off, and that’s before any real effort has gone into it. We come back to whether traffic
will really work. We keep talking about surface design, but we haven’t really, have to have a concrete
sense as to whether it will work or not. We can use the edges, we can make this a square, but without
some guarantees that the traffic works, we’re better off with a bridge.
A: KW: I totally understand and respect the worries about going through the area, but the project team
spent the last two meetings telling us why the operations for every mode and almost every movement
are improved for both options. It’s frustrating for concerns over traffic to get back into the livability
conversation. Right now, the Casey Overpass is a high-speed, isolated pocket. There are traffic lights at
both ends. It doesn’t make sense to have a high-speed throughway here. The other point is think about
other areas in the city with lots of cars like Massachusetts Avenue in front of Symphony Hall. It’s almost
five lanes there and a major commuter route and people are thinking about how to make it better, but
nobody is suggesting an overpass. Imagine coming out of Symphony Hall and seeing an overpass. I
think if we can shift our focus from the bridge to the spaces around it, that’s what we should be doing.
C: AI: I look around and I know we have a lot of folks representing their institutions or businesses and I
know we’re all neighbors, but you get a lot of angst from the people who will be impacted by
underperformance of the traffic in this location. Huntington Avenue at Symphony Hall does have an
underpass and I think those of us who live here see the Casey Overpass as not so much a high speed
overpass, but a low speed parking lot. It’s a place where the traffic can sit so it doesn’t impose at grade
level. The concern is over a few hours every day, but one thing I see is that we’ve dealt with a lot of
issues, better for cyclists and we’ve spent a lot of time on that, and the quality of your experience will be
better, and it sounds like we’ve addressed pedestrians and now we’re talking about a bridge. We’ve
dealt with structural issues and it seems like we’re getting down to quality of life and the sense of will it
function as we’re told and it comes back to what Fred said, will it function as we’re told. Nobody would
say they prefer a bridge based on aesthetics.
A: JF: I would. It could be a landmark and an icon.
A: DH: It could be a gateway.
C: Beth Worrell3 (BW): I want to follow up on what Kevin said. The bridge may function as a high speed
roadway, but it connects into the Arborway which is supposed to be a 30 mile per hour road. Because
people can cross the bridge so quickly they get to Murray Circle and just sit at the light. Forest Hills is a
gap in the Emerald Necklace and the bridge doesn’t seem to help that aesthetic deficiency or provide
much benefit to traffic. There seem to be so many more advantages to the at-grade solution that the
only reason you would favor a bridge at this point is because you just can’t or won’t believe the traffic
study.
C: Russell Holmes (RH): Thank you for taking me as your first non-WAG member. Here’s my difficulty: we
came here to discuss livability and you say it will work without a bridge. Look at the MOE, it was clear
3
Beth Worrell is the alternate WAG member for Sarah Freeman. Half-way through the meeting, Sarah left and Beth took
her place.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
from the criteria we developed six months ago that on livability, no bridge was going to come out better.
We’ve sat here for 45 minutes and articulated everyone’s same viewpoints that they had at the outset. Is
there are a point you’re trying to get to? I can hear the WAG member bias and I can hear bias from
your team members; if we can just have a vote.
A: JR: I’m sorry sir, there’s no vote on any of these issues.
C: RH: What I hear is that livability is generally better without a bridge, but it comes back down to whether
you can handle the traffic. In its simplest form, that’s what we’re asking. It’s a question of trust. I trust
you’ve done the best you can to model traffic. That’s the biggest concern. We can have this discussion
for another six months, but that will still be the concern.
A: JR: We spent the past two entire meetings on traffic. Gary spent those two meetings going over the
technical memos he sent out and what he told us all is that the traffic works for both options. We
showed Vissim and more numbers than anyone would ever want to see and the answer is the traffic
works for both options. Allan said it best: whether you accept it or not, I hope that after eight months
together you trust us, and I don’t think anyone feels we’re lying, but you have to make the decision on
your own. Our team of experts says it works and you have to decide if you believe them. They’ve done
the models. CTPS came in here using the model they use for the whole state, not just for this project or
the WAG. Andrea has given out a document previously that went 100 or so objectives this WAG gave us
and that’s been whittled down to the MOE. We have a 38 page document about that tonight that you
can take home with you. We were asked by the WAG several times to discuss livability and this is your
chance. That’s what this is for. Did anyone change their perspective since we started? I think some
people have, but maybe not. Either way, this is your chance. We went through six hours of traffic with
this group and we said traffic works.
C: RH: I guess that’s where we were last time around. When you hear people who are pro or anti bridge,
what you still hear is the issue of confidence on whether the traffic can move. That’s where the concern
is.
A: JR: Some people may feel that way; not everyone.
C: EW: I would say I’ve been convinced that at-grade can work. Originally, I was pro-bridge. I don’t think
people are stuck on their own biases.
C: MH: I try to play as straight as possible. Let me hit a few items: the cut-through traffic will be an issue
for all neighborhoods. We need to address that. If it’s not within the zone of MassDOT to do
something, then it’s on BTD. I’m on Lamartine Street and we see the back-up at 5:00 p.m. The way to
address this is to correct driver behavior. If we build four lanes on an overpass, there will still be people
who want to cut through. From a livability perspective, with signals, you can better tune them as time
goes by so that when there’s less traffic, you can give pedestrians more time. If you build a bridge,
there’s no controlling it. People will roll.
C: SM: I used the overpass when it was in good condition, not now, but if it comes back, I’ll go back to
using it. When we had the overpass working, my neighborhood wasn’t full of cars. Once in 12 years’
time I’ve seen a cop waiting to catch speeders in Shea Circle. I think we need more accountability. I like
the idea of surface roads, but I need to get my husband to the hospital and I need that straight-through
pass-over. I’m on the fence; I’d like to see it work.
C: RO: I live in Roslindale and commute over the bridge. One nice thing about the bridge is that when I go
over it in the morning, there’s a great vista of the city that I don’t see anywhere else. I know a new
bridge wouldn’t be as high, but I do look forward to that vista. The experience in Charlestown is
beautiful. The difference there is that the traffic there didn’t go away; it’s under the park in a tunnel. If
we take down the bridge, the traffic will come through here. I assume you can handle it, but it won’t
improve the ground level feeling to have that many more cars fighting through here. It’s more noise,
congestion and something for pedestrians to dodge. The fact is, some of us are dependent on getting
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
our cars around the city for work and obligations and I know that’s impacting how I feel. I don’t live
here, but overall, I’d like to see a beautifully designed lower bridge to move the traffic.
C: Pete Stidman (PS): People have heard me talk a lot about bicycles; bicycles are tied to the idea of
livability. One of the icons of the livability movement, John Gill, is from Copenghagen and he says it’s
about inviting people to be present and hang out on the street. To me, I live in Roxbury, and I’ve been
involved in Jamaica Plain for ten years and I think this group’s purpose is to envision what the future will
become. Building a bridge is the antithesis of inviting people into this neighborhood. We’ve talked
about whether we trust the traffic counts: the project team has accounted for 2035 traffic volumes. That
assumes more traffic than today. This group’s job is to envision the future. If we envision more traffic
every time, the next time we have to rebuild this area, we’ll keep building bigger, and bigger until
eventually we’re next to a highway. Over time, that’s what you get. If we’re about even more
infrastructure than 2035, I don’t see it as a vision this community shares and the life we have on Center
Street and the Southwest Corridor Park. I think we want people in Mattapan to come join us and go to
our shops. This will connect to Mattapan by bicycle. Morton Street is wide enough for a cycle track.
There are a lot of benefits all around.
A: LD: I don’t see Mattapan as being parochial or separated from the rest of the city. I feel connected
enough. I access the shops and the everyday life of Jamaica Plain and the other neighborhoods. The
Casey Overpass doesn’t impact that. Transportation isn’t the only means for development the way we’re
discussing, people stopping and using those businesses. There’s another factor that’s the variable of city
planning and that needs to happen all over the city. For many people in Mattapan, there’s a focus on
Forest Hills; there’s no exclusivity that way.
C: Julie Crockford (JC): Thinking at a higher level, when the Casey Overpass was built, we didn’t worry
about cars and climate change. We’re now passed real scientific debate on climate change; we know
global warming is real. Building for traffic increases as both plans do is part of DOT’s mandate and
goal, but it’s not my goal. I want to see more people walking, bicycling or using the MBTA. The atgrade solution for me makes the area more attractive for those other uses. Thinking towards the future
and leaving our children a functioning ecosystem and knitting the area together with green space, that’s
where we should be thinking. If we can handle the cars, and I trust the modeling that we can, I don’t
see why we wouldn’t want to create the new green space.
Q: Liz Malia (LM): I apologize for getting here late – I just couldn’t get here any sooner – but a question
that’s been raised by a number of people, is that a number of years ago, we ended up with the
Arborway Yard because of the environmental pollution of diesel fuel at Bartlett Garage and the concern
raised is whether there are any environmental studies or requirements for this project about the level of
increased car emissions from the at-grade solution.
A: Steve McLaughlin (SMc): As far as the environmental permitting process, we’ll fine an Environmental
Notification Form (ENF) as directed by MEPA. We’ll complete that and file with MEPA and they will
determine whether we’ve done enough or whether we have to do an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
At this point, we don’t anticipate being scoped for an EIR. We think the ENF will be robust enough and
we won’t have to go any further.
Q: LM: Any idea when that would be available?
A: SMc: We will do that either just before or after the 25% design hearing in May or June of 2012. As part
of the environmental justice analysis for this project we’ve addressed issues of mobility and air quality
and we’ve been looking at the carbon monoxide levels for no-build and each alternative. That aspect is
being done sooner and will be refined during the 25% design phase.
C: LM: O.K. I’ll get in touch with you directly regarding the air quality. I just remember sitting through
meeting about emissions and the carbon monoxide and the level of asthma amongst kids in the
community in general.
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Recent Changes to the Alternatives
C: AD: I’m going to run through this quickly, there are maps on the walls, and you also have copies to take
home. I’m only telling you what’s different since the last time around. I’ll also be telling you what’s
flexible in each option and can be dealt with further in the 25% design phase.
For the at-grade solution, we are assuming that the 39 bus will remain in the New Washington Street
corridor based on WAG input. The exit for the upper bus-way has moved south of the entry for Asticou
Road and the staging area for the buses is even further south of that. The MBTA vent stack can be
moved to the southwest corner of the station property. We know the effective operation of transit is
imperative in this area so what we’ve done is allocated pick-up/drop-off space, but we have not
designated whether it’s for taxis or school buses or private cars yet. We have also eliminated a pickup/drop-off area along Washington Street west of Forest Hills Station. This will give us another travel
lane and allow us to manage queues in that problem area that much better. So, we’ve allocated the
space, which use it gets designated for can be addressed in 25% design. We also heard the residential
concerns over parking and so the proposed angle parking in front of Arborway Gardens has been
removed. The bowties have been pushed in closer to reduce travel times; that directly reflects your
comments. In terms of livability and mobility, here are some other features: the crosswalks are 20 feet
wide; the medians are modestly landscaped over the tunnel box and done up to a greater extent
elsewhere. We have on and off-street bicycle accommodations. The tree lines are restored and we have
gathering spaces as well. What’s not in the plans and what will happen in the 25% design phase is how
to maximize the functionality of the 39 turn-around and integrating that into the station. We’ll also talk
about programming the open space and allocating drop-off areas.
Q: JF: So the 39 could go into the MBTA plaza and not operate on the street?
A: AD: It could. That’s an option for the 25% design phase. If you really want it on the plaza we can do
that. We’ll be getting more into landscaping and lighting and non-peak hour signal timings. We
appreciate your comments on that and are already working on non-peak-hour livability aspects. There
have been good comments from you and we’re trying to design for most of the time when people are
around here. Bicycle accommodations, issues at Ukraine Way, the treatment of Forest Hills Road,
simplifying the Shea area, Asticou Road cut-through traffic and cut-through traffic in general, we’ve
already started thinking about those things for operations and design. These things are on our minds.
Q: RH: The left-turn onto Hyde Park Avenue, is that shown in this solution for buses?
A: DK: It’s not on the drawing, but it would be allowed.
Q: RH: So this extra lane would allow the left turns?
A: GM: For everyone’s benefit, we identified three bus routes coming from the east that turn onto Hyde
Park Avenue to access the lower bus-way. We realized these buses would be negatively impacted by the
left-turn restriction. We’re looking to allow that left for buses only. We’ll figure out in the 25% design
phase whether they will make their left using a geometric solution like a dedicated lane or whether it’s
just with signal phasing. Either way, they won’t have to use the bowtie.
C: AI: So buses coming from the east will need something to make their turn onto Hyde Park Avenue. Also,
there would be an exit for the new bus facility coming out through where 500 Arborway is now.
A: AD: That’s accounted for now. Just bear in mind that not every line is set yet.
C: AI: It seems like you have enough space for the 39 bus, but it still needs to be thought about, especially
in light of drop-off areas and taxi spaces. I’ve sent out a picture of cars backed-up on New Washington
Street that will also have to be accommodated.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: AD: Those are all good comments. I would also ask that folks who have friends and neighbors, who
aren’t here tonight, please take these ideas to your friends and bring that feedback to us.
Now, let’s go over the bridge. There haven’t been too many changes here. We assume that the 39 will
remain in its current location. The street network will change no matter what, there’s no installing a new
bridge and leaving everything the way it is now, it will be changed for either alternative. The bridge is a
single structure and shorter and narrower as directed by this group. Parking is reduced to allow more
contiguous open green space. We have areas for community gathering and on/off-street bicycle
accommodations. Things like the aesthetics of the bridge, lighting, how its underside looks, all of that
will be handled at 25%. We’ll also be looking at the plaza area and the lighting and landscaping of the
rest of the corridor.
Q: Nikka Elugardo (NE): Would aesthetics involve things like the piers and abutments?
A: AD: Yes, things like the placement of the piers and size of the abutments.
Q: NE: But the bridge would stay the same length?
A: AD: Yes, the touchdown points remain the same.
C: JF: You just have a different answer to that now than you did at the beginning of the meeting.
A: AD: I said we could make changes depending on what you want.
Q: MR: For 25% design, you mentioned off-peak signalization. I think signalization is a big problem right
now. There used to be three owners. Are there still three today?
A: Vineet Gupta (VG): The City of Boston controls all the signals now.
C: MR: And they are still terrible. It used to be because of the multiple owners and never in 22 years
despite their promises to do so did they talk to each other.
A: VG: We can do all of the operations out of City Hall.
C: AD: And all of the signals will be new.
C: MR: Coordination has been promised for 24 years. I would like, since everyone is in the same room, to
see every signal owned by one entity. That’s a major problem going back into history and the second
thing I’d like to see is better pedestrian connections between Arnold Arboretum and Franklin Park.
Q: LD: I have a question about the bridge alternative. Does Shea Circle have to remain a circle?
A: AD: What we do there is interchangeable. Right now, it can be anything you want.
Q: MH: And when does that choice have to be made?
A: AD: During 25% design, because we’d have a filing if we want to make a square.
Q: DE: On the bridge alternative, at the Hyde Park Avenue intersection, you’re showing slip lanes. Drivers
feel they can make a right turn in those at high speeds. Why do you feel those are needed?
A: GM: We’ve been trying to continue that conversation and it didn’t come up until now. There are actually
some benefits associated with those lanes. As pedestrians, crossing north/south, it lets you cross the
main roadway without the right-turn movement conflicting with you. Whether or not they are included
has been kicked to the 25% design phase, but we want to keep talking with you about it.
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: DE: They are shown in different places.
A: GM: That’s right. They do move around a bit depending on the solution.
C: DE: I want it on the table that we object to them in all cases. I think you’re designing 11-foot lanes and
we’d like to know if you will consider narrower lanes. Off-peak, we believe that with those wide lanes, it
will encourage cars to go faster.
Q: SMc: What travel lane width would you like?
A: DE: I can’t really speak to that without talking to the other members of WalkBoston.
A: SMc: Because to be fully honest with you, MassDOT will propose 11-foot lanes.
C: VG: I think the City of Boston would also like to have some more discussion with MassDOT about that.
C: AI: And this is about the slip lanes. You should look to see if it will give eastbound buses an advantage.
Q: MH: I know there’s also been discussion of using the median to allow bicycle left-turns. Is that still on
the table?
A: AD: In the 25% design phase that can be addressed. The reason I wanted to go over that tonight is
because we want you to know that we’ve heard everything you’ve said, but that there are some items
which are appropriate for the conceptual phase and others that belong in the 25% design phase.
Discussion of the MOE and the Options - Follow-up Items
C: AD: I want to set some context for this. We have taken a very creative approach to the MOE. We have
pushed the envelope and raised the bar due to you. There was a lot of strong, creative input that came
from you regarding bicycles, pedestrians and making transit a priority. We’re very happy about where
these have come out. We’ve achieved an impressive threshold on livability objectives and that’s a credit
to you. We have new measures on that which I have never seen for any other project. These are your
MOE and its wonderful how creative they are. I really appreciate those of you who were not faint of
heart and gave us measures for these. The process to develop the MOE started early in our design
process and your questions and comments along the way have really influenced them and how we’ve
approached the design. Having a new at-grade street network for both alternatives came from your
comments. Interestingly, your comments and questions rendered some of your own early MOE
ineffective. For those of you paying very close attention to the MOE, we have documentation to show
you how they have evolved. I hope you enjoyed reading that technical memo because I really liked
writing it.
Now, I want to walk you through how these MOE score the various options. We began by creating the
same 25 acre base to avoid giving either option an unfair advantage. These measures have been
applied to existing conditions and both solutions to test on their own merits. You won’t be surprised that
the current situation scores negative 10 for mobility. The at-grade situation is bad, it’s not helping any
of the modes, and the connections are limited and complex. Today’s configuration also scores a
negative ten for livability as well. There’s no sense of place in Forest Hills, there’s haphazard integration
of open space, unclear use of open space, no visible connections to Forest Hills Cemetery, Franklin Park
or the Arboretum and the Emerald Necklace is interrupted. So, that your own MOE show the current
situation to be such a mess should help you feel confident in what they tell you about the options.
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
For the bridge, it scored a three for mobility. It moves regional traffic well, and the at-grade is better.
North/south connections were improved and there are off-street bicycle facilities,4 and the MBTA
operations don’t really change. Livability scores a zero; that’s sort of neutral. There are more plantings,
more contiguous open space, but no focal point.
For the at-grade, mobility scores a seven from improve roadways and intersections. You get a lot of
points for improved north/south connections, reduced conflicts and holistic integrate of transit and
improvements to the MBTA. It does very well on livability, scoring a 13. Remember, all of this came
from you and we do have a handout here that shows you everything that’s changed since last time and
who suggested those changes. At a high level, we deleted three MOE since the last time you saw this,
added five, and yes, we got in non-peak travel speeds.
Q: NE: If you’re comparing a negative ten to zero for the bridge. It did improve, but what does that mean?
How can you be negative 10 and 0 at the same time?
A: RH: It went from negative 10 to zero; that’s an improvement.
A: AD: All of the measures can be scored three ways: negative 1, that’s bad, 0, that’s neutral, and 1 which
is positive. These aren’t for comparing the alternatives to each other; you should measure each on its
own merits.
A: JR: And all of this is in the technical memo which you have.
C: MH: To be clear and tie this back to what you said a few minutes ago, people will look at the scores and
say which one is better, but you could look at any given score, and say one is better than the other
based on something minor, like street lighting. Or you could say that you could push the score of one
option or the other up by swapping in something from the other alternative, but then of course the cost
rises. So, these are for grading each option on its own merits, not for comparison.
C: RH: I’d also like to add to his point that each one of us would likely weight each one of the MOE
differently. If your perspective is mobility first you’re unlikely to shift away from that.
Q: DH: Now no-build just means existing right?
A: AD: There is not a no-build alternative in this project. We did that as a test of your MOE and how well
they worked. We have a few follow-up items. I do want to speak with all of you about the public
meeting and who would like to speak at it. If you need to leave, tell Essek on your way out if you are
willing.
C: GM: Last time, we got questions about South Street and so we’ve added C1 on South Street for all
connections. Right now, it’s 4 to 5 minutes from C1 in the a.m. peak and 2 to 3 minutes in the p.m.
With the bridge solution it does really well in the morning, down to 1 or 2 minutes, but it gets worse in
the afternoon. That has to do with bus operations. The at-grade gets the travel time generally down to
1-3 minutes in the a.m. and drops it down as low as 30 seconds for short trips to 3 minutes for longer
movements in the p.m.
Q: MH: But the numbers were within one minute of Washington Street to Forest Hills?
A: GM: Right, they were not wildly different.
We were also asked to expand the video clips to the east and west. This is Shea Square for the sake of
simplicity and this is something we’ll deal with at greater length in the 25% design and we’ll incorporate
it into the longer videos we showed a few weeks back. We also have some of the Murray Circle backup.
4
These are in both the at-grade and bridge solutions.
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: RH: And in that same spirit, when will the 31, 16 and 21 be in the simulation?
A: GM: We’re trying to work that in. We’re not sure we have time to do it. We’ll try to send around a quick
snippet of that. I know some of you have seen the lower quality versions on the web.
Q: JR: If we can get that done in time for the public meeting, but are not able to circulate it to this group,
can we show it to the community?
A: RH: Yes, that’s fine.5
C: GM: We also want to show the back-up from Murray Circle in the morning. Modeling Murray Circle is
probably another project in its own right, but we’re going to show how those queues impact into this
corridor and the hurry-up-and-wait at the Murray Circle light.
C: SMc: I want to talk very briefly about construction costs. We combed through the estimates and here are
a few numbers. The bridge alternative is $72.7 million. That’s the expected low bid by the contractor
when the project goes out to bid in 2013. The at-grade solution is currently estimated at $52.4 million
and I want to run through the components of that. It’s 31.1 million for New Washington Street, $3.1
million for the Washington Street/Asticou Road area, $12.2 million for the MBTA and bus related work,
and the Shea Circle work is $6 million. That makes $52.4 million. I want to underscore to all of you that
the figures I just quoted are estimates. Expect them to change.
C: AD: And remember, Shea Circle isn’t just the circle; there is some spillover in terms of the boundaries.
C: SMc: There was also a request to break down the cost of the MBTA work. Right now we’re carrying an
estimated cost of $12.2 million. The vent shaft is $1.5 million; the elevators are $1.9 million. Shifting
the head-house is $400,000; relocation of the commuter rail ventilation grate is $2 million. The busway improvements for the 39 and in the upper bus-way are $6.4 million. That adds up to $12.2.
Included in everything is one additional item: that’s the demolition of the bridge which is currently
running at $9.9 million.
Q: AI: Can we have those mailed out to us?
A: SMc: Of course, but I want to be very clear that those will change. Some will go up and some will go
down. We’d love it if they all went down, but you know how these things are.
Q: MH: Is there any cost difference in the staging between the two?
A: SMc: As we analyze it in greater detail we’ll know more. There could be; we don’t know yet.
Q: RH: Since these are all estimates now, is giving out these numbers more dangerous than its worth?
A: SMc: We know there’s a difference between a bridge and an at-grade solution. We were asked for
these numbers, so we’re providing them.
A: RH: Yes, it was requested of you; I remember that.
Q: MHi: And demolition is always part of the same budget?
A: SMc: Yes, it’s always a part of the job.
Q: PS: Is there a difference between the job time lines?
5
None of the WAG disagreed with this approach.
Page 16
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: SMc: They are both 36 months. That’s based on us going out and building it as soon as we get done
with our work here.
A: JR: There could be a little play on either end.
Q: Kevin Moloney (KM): Is there any mitigation money in this for local businesses and traffic management?
A: SMc: There’s money built into the budget for police details or flaggers to manage the traffic.
C: AD: This is what we’ll have for the next public meeting: we’ll summarize the previous WAG sessions,
address the alternatives, the perspectives, the MOE methodology and evaluation. We’ll have the open
house as we always do with the boards that will detail everything so that people can really get into the
traffic and the MOE’s.
C: JR: All of the traffic and technical memos are on the website and have been there for several days. The
technical memo and presentation from today should be up early next week.
Next Steps
The next milestone in the public involvement process will be the fifth public meeting on Monday, November
21st. This meeting will be held in the auditorium of the State Laboratory on South Street. The open house
will begin at 6:00 p.m. with the meeting running from 6:30-8:30. This meeting was originally slated to be
held at the Hennigan Community Center, but has been moved to the State Laboratory at the request of
Representative Malia.
Page 17
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Kate
Chang
Office of Congressman Michael Capuano
Maureen
Chlebek
McMahon Associates
Joe
Cosgrove
MBTA
Barbara
Crichlow
WAG
Andrea
D’Amato
HNTB
Ramona
Dix
WAG
Bob
Dizon
WAG
Julieanne
Doherty
Office of Mayor Thomas Menino
Nikka
Elugardo
Office of Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz
Michael
Epp
WAG
Don
Eunson
WAG
Jeff
Ferris
WAG
Sarah
Freeman
WAG
Valerie
Frias
Office of Councilor Matt O’Malley
Vineet
Gupta
BTD
Michael
Halle
WAG
David
Hannon
WAG
Mary
Hickie
WAG
Russell
Holmes
State Representative
Allan
Ihrer
WAG
Don
Kindsvatter
HNTB
Paul
King
MassDOT
Liz
Malia
State Representative
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Kevin
Moloney
WAG
Suzanne
Monk
WAG
Liz
O’Connor
WAG
Matt
O’Malley
City Councilor
Rebecca
Oleveira
Jamaica Plain Gazette
Essek
Petrie
HNTB
Tad
Read
BRA
Michael
Reiskind
WAG
John
Romano
MassDOT
Marylin
Stout
Robert
Torres
Office of Representative Russell Holmes
(mother)
Office of Representative Liz Malia
Fred
Vetterlein
WAG
Ralph
Walton
Resident
David
Watson
WAG
Daniel
Webber
MBTA
Emily
Wheelwright
WAG
Wendy
Williams
WAG
Page 18
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Kevin
Wolfson
WAG
Elizabeth
Wylie
WAG
Page 19
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Received Emails
Please see the following pages.
Page 20
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Thursday, November 03, 2011 1:01 PM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; 'ADAmato@hntb.com'; McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C
(DOT)
Fw: Casey Overpass
Nate Please be sure to include in project comments. Thanks John ----- Original Message ----­
2 •
From: Nan Porter [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 201112:S6 PM To: Romano, John (DOT) Subject: Casey Overpass ?II .Il.s
b. Dear Mr. Romano: I am writing to you today about the Casey Overpass and plans that are being discussed to repair it versus remove it. I have lived in Jamaica Plain for 28 years as first a renter and then a home owner. I have loved living in this urban environment even with the negatives of traffic, density, crime etc. I feel that the overpass is an ugly cold blight on the character of Jamaica Plain. It allows traffic to quickly flow, but it also creates a community disconnect that should be repaired. Yes there will be more traffic on the surface roads, but there will also be more bike traffic and pedestrian traffic in the now cold uninviting underpass environment. The link to the park system will be greatly enhanced, the neighborhood will actually be no closer to the traffic than they are now but will not be in the bridges shadows. Thank you for listening to my opinion that the Overpass should be torn down not repaired. Sincerely, Nan Porter 7 Cerina Road Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Monday, November 07,2011 12:00 PM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
FW: Casey Overpass Traffic Simulation Videos Link
For the record.
John Romano
Mnoicipal Affairs Liaison
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Direct: 617.973.70281 Mobile 617.438.4301
For news and updates check out our website www.mass.goy/massdot blog at www.mass.goylblog/transportation or follow us on
twitter at www.twitter.comlmassdot
-----Original Message----­
From: Romano, John (DOT) Sent: Monday, November 07, 201111:59 AM To: 'Holmes, Russell (HOU)'; 'kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com'; 'ewheelwright@gmail.com'; 'ericbot@mac.com'; 'jeffrey@ferriswheelsbikeshop.com'; 'bcrichlow28@aol.com'; 'wwilliams333@verizon.net'; 'moloneys@verizon.net'; 'kfm@barronstad.com'; 'fsv.jp@comcast.net'; 'K5chneiderman@bostoncil.org'; 'kathleen.coffey@jud.state.ma.us'; 'schellprinting@comcast.net'; 'bernard.doherty@parsons.com'; 'ewylie325@comcast.net'; 'michael.epp@seacon.com'; 'hickiem@gmail.com'; 'david@massbike.org'; 'nbrown@brownrowe.com'; 'td.dougherty@yahoo.com'; 'masonsmith@rcn.com'; 'josephine.burr@gmail.com'; 'cathysladel@aol.com'; 'wesleywilliams@post.harvard.edu'; 'romoniadix@aol.com'; 'burks167@gmail.com'; 'dmhannon@mindspring.com'; 'kk@historicboston.org'; 'bealm@mindspring.com'; 'allan@bbmc.com'; 'aihrer@comcast.net'; 'dmitchell@ethocare.org'; 'freemansherwood@hotmail.com'; 'm@halle.us'; 'dmhannon@mindspring.com'; 'bob.dizon@gmail.com'; 'deunson@gmail.com'; 'jpmichael@rcn.com'; 'liz@strategymatters.org'; 'wolfslm@yahoo.com' Cc: Gupta, Vineet; Elugardo, Nika (SEN); Torres, Robert (HOU); 'valerieJrias@cityofboston.gov'; 'jullieanne.doherty@cityofboston.gov'; 'Chang, Kate'; 'Dalzell, John'; Read, John; DorcenaForry, Linda - Rep. (HOU); Pegram, Raymond (HOU); Smith, Jefferson (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Mclaughlin, 5teve (DOT) Subject: RE: Casey Overpass Traffic Simulation Videos Link Hi Rep. Holmes:
As you are aware, bus routes 21 and 31 access Forest Hills Station from Morton Street through Shea
Circle. Bus route 16 enters Shea Circle from Forest Hills Drive. The traffic simulations are being expanded to
show traffic operations at Shea Circle and Cemetery Road, which will illustrate the conditions these bus routes
will encounter. Also, during the alternatives analysis, we recognized the effect the left-tum restrictions in the
at-grade alternative would have on these bus routes and as a result, the at-grade alternative is being modified to
include a westbound bus only left-turn/queue jump lane from ArborwaylNew Washington Street westbound
onto Hyde Park Avenue southbound. We are working to incorporate this lane into the simulations.
I hope this addresses your concerns.
Regards,
1
John Romano
Municipal Affairs Liaison
Massachusetts Department of Traosportation
Direct: 617.973.70281 Mobile 617.438.4301
For news aod updates check out our website www.mass.gov/massdot blog at www.mass.govlb10g/traosportation or follow us on
twitter at www.twitter.comlmassdot
-----Original Message----­
From: Holmes, Russell (HOU) [mailto:russell.holmes@mahouse.gov] Sent: Friday, November 04,2011 3:40 PM To: Romano, John (DOn; 'kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com'; 'ewheelwright@gmail.com'; 'ericbot@mac.com'; 'jeffrey@ferriswheelsbikeshop.com'; 'bcrichlow28@aol.com'; 'wwilliams333@verizon.net'; 'moloneys@verizon.net'; 'kfm@barronstad.com'; 'fsv.jp@comcast.net'; 'KSchneiderman@bostoncil.org'; 'kathleen.coffey@jud.state.ma.us'; 'schellprinting@comcast.net'; 'bernard.doherty@parsons.com'; 'ewylie325@comcast.net'; 'michael.epp@seacon.com'; 'hickiem@gmail.com'; 'david@massbike.org'; 'nbrown@brownrowe.com'; 'td.dougherty@yahoo.com'; 'masonsmith@rcn.com'; 'josephine.burr@gmail.com'; 'cathysladel@aol.com'; 'wesleywilliams@post.harvard.edu'; 'romoniadix@aol.com'; 'burks167@gmail.com'; 'dmhannon@mindspring.com'; 'kk@historicboston.org'; 'bealm@mindspring.com'; 'allan@bbmc.com'; 'aihrer@comcast.net'; 'dmitchell@ethocare.org'; 'freemansherwood@hotmail.com'; 'm@halle.us'; 'dmhannon@mindspring.com'; 'bob.dizon@gmail.com'; 'deunson@gmail.com'; 'jpmichael@rcn.com'; 'Iiz@strategymatters.org'; 'wolfslm@yahoo.com' Cc: Gupta, Vineet; Elugardo, Nika (SEN); Torres, Robert (HOU); 'valerieJrias@cityofboston.gov'; 'jullieanne.doherty@cityofboston.gov'; 'Chang, Kate'; 'Dalzell, John'; Read, John; DorcenaForry, Linda - Rep. (HOU); Pegram, Raymond (HOU) Subject: RE: Casey Overpass Traffic Simulation Videos Link Good afternoon John,
Could you please provide more detail and a simulation that includes bus routes #21 and #31 ?
Thanks
Russell
Russell E. Holmes
State Representative
6th Suffolk District
Room 254
State House, Boston 02133
(617) 722-2220
Russell.Holmes@mahouse.gov
From: Romano, John (DOT) [mailto:john.romano@dot.state.ma.us] Sent: Friday, November 04,2011 3:26 PM To: 'kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com'; 'ewheelwright@gmail.com'; 'ericbot@mac.com'; 'jeffrey@ferriswheelsbikeshop.com'; 'bcrichlow28@aol.com'; 'wwilliams333@verizon.net'; 'moloneys@verizon.net'; 'kfm@barronstad.com'; 'fsv.jp@comcast.net'; 'KSchneiderman@bostoncil.org'; 'kathleen.coffey@jud.state.ma.us'; 2
'schellprinting@comcast.net'; 'bernard.doherty@parsons.com'; 'ewylie325@comcast.net';
'michael.epp@seacon.com'; 'hickiem@gmail.com'; 'david@massbike.org'; 'nbrown@brownrowe.com';
'td.dougherty@yahoo.com'; 'masonsmith@rcn.com'; 'josephine.burr@gmail.com'; 'cathysladel@aol.com';
'wesleywilliams@post.harvard.edu'; 'romoniadix@aol.com'; 'burks167@gmail.com'; 'dmhannon@mindspring.com';
'kk@historicboston.org'; 'bealm@mindspring.com'; 'allan@bbmc.com'; 'aihrer@comcast.net';
'dmitchell@ethocare.org'; 'freemansherwood@hotmail.com'; 'm@halle.us'; 'dmhannon@mindspring.com';
'bob.dizon@gmail.com'; 'deunson@gmail.com'; 'jpmichael@rcn.com'; 'Iiz@strategymatters.org';
'wolfslm@yahoo.com'
Cc: Gupta, Vineet; Holmes, Russell -Rep (HOU); Elugardo, Nika (SEN); Torres, Robert (HOU);
'valerieJrias@cityofboston.gov'; 'jullieanne.doherty@cityofboston.gov'; 'Chang, Kate'; 'Dalzell, John'; Read, John
Subject: Casey Overpass Traffic Simulation Videos Link
HiAII:
Here is a link to the 4 traffic simulation videos showed at the last WAG meeting:
http://www.massdotprojectcaseyovemass.info/
Regards,
John
3
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us> Monday, November 07, 2011 1:27 PM 'julie kaufmann' RE: casey overpass; one way rotary around the station Hi Julie:
I forwarded your comments to our Casey Overpass team. Here is their response. I hope this is helpful.
We have reviewed the one-way circulation plan from the previous studies. While there were some benefits to that
configuration, it did not allow for acceptable traffic operations. The one-way configuration would have allowed for the
Washington/South Street corridor along the west side of Forest Hills Station to operate one-way in the southbound
direction. Hyde Park Avenue would have operated one-way northbound. The difficulty with that configuration is that
you have relatively high volumes of through traffic on each roadway and the one-way configuration requires a high
volume of traffic to make crossing connections at New Washington Street and Ukraine Way. These crossing movements
result in a high volume of turning vehicles that significantly degrade intersection operations. Even if the direction of the
one-way roadways is reversed, the same difficulties arise. As a result of the poor operations, the one-way configuration
was not included in the alternatives developed for this project.
Please note our next public meeting will be on Nov. 21st. Details will be in the local paper soon.
Regards,
John Romano
Municipal Affairs Liaison
Massachusetts Department of Traosportation
Direct: 617.973.70281 Mobile 617.438.4301
For news aod updates check out our website www.mass.gov/massdot blog at www.mass.govlblogltraosportation or follow us on
twitter at www.twitter.comlmassdot
-----Original Message----­
From: julie kaufmann [mililtc). Sent: Saturday, November To: Romano, John (DOT) Subject: casey overpass; one way rotary around the station Hello, I live at forest hills and traffic is difficult..i avoid driving through it as much as possible I read about Overpass traffic ideas in the JP Gazzette. I have not been able to attend overpass meetings due to job change. However, I attended many meeting re forest hills and T parcels in 2007. Traffic was exhaustively
discussed and I believe that a traffic survey was done (john dazell senior architect 617-918-4334
john.dazell.BRA@cityboston.gov). A one way traffic solution; ie a rotary around the station was
considered.
1
years back, when the orange line was elevated (1985), the road way around the forest hills station was a
one way rotary ( I lived here then, too). This would make a lot of sense today in conjunction with
looking at traffic from changes in the Casey Overpass, especially if the bridge will not be rebuilt.
please forward one/way rotary traffic idea to those looking at traffic impact. john dazell may already
have some info from work that he commissioned in 2007.
Please let me know if there is anyone else I shoudlcontact
Sincerely, Julie Kaufmann
2
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <John.Romano@dot.state.ma.us>
Monday, November 07, 2011 1:32 PM
'bcrichlow28@aol.com'; russell.holmes@mahouse.gov
RE: Casey Overpass Traffic Simulation Videos Link
Barbara:
Here are more detailed answer to your questions you sent me on Saturday.
We are providing additional information and simulations for bus routes 16, 21, and 31, as requested by Rep.
Holmes. Also, during the alternatives analysis, we recognized the effect the left-turn restrictions in the at-grade
alternative would have on these bus routes and as a result, the at-grade alternative is being modified to include a
westbound bus only left-turn/queue jump lane from Arborway/New Washington Street westbound onto Hyde Park
Avenue southbound to avoid increases in bus travel times.
With regards to the single lane in each direction on bridge, the Casey Overpass currently carries a peak of 1,370 vehicles
per hour (vph) in the peak direction. (The opposite, off-peak, direction is approximately 800-900 vehicles in the peak
hour.) For the future year, 2035, the peak directional volume is projected to increase to 1,445 vehicles in the peak
hour. The capacity of a single lane on a limited access roadway, such as the overpass, is up to 2,400 vehicles per
hour. With the current and projected peak volumes, there would be more than adequate capacity on the Casey
Overpass with one travel lane in each direction even if volumes significantly exceeded projections. Furthermore, the
constraints along this corridor are the intersections that feed traffic onto the overpass, including the Cemetery Road
signal and Shea Circle to the east and Murray Circle to the west. The capacity of those intersections constrains the
volume of traffic that can be processed onto the overpass, making the single lane sufficient to accommodate potential
traffic growth.
The other deficiency with the Sumner Tunnel was the overall roadway width. While the bridge would include the same
single lane in each direction as the Sumner Tunnel did, the lane and shoulder widths will be designed to current
standards and will provide for safer, more efficient operations than the two-way Sumner Tunnel.
John Romano
Municipal Affairs Liaison
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Direct: 617.973.70281 Mobile 617.438.4301
For news and updates check out our website www.mass.gov/massdot blog at www.mass.govlblogltransportation or follow us on
twitter at www.twitter.comlmassdot
1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Wednesday, November 09, 2011 11 :45 AM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; King, Paul C. (DOT); McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); 'Andrea D'Amato'
Casey Comment
Hi All:
Please put with comments received to date:
Hone call from Rick.
Roslindale resident who drives over the Casey everyday. He likes the views of the city from the overpass. He has not
attended any meetings but has been following the process through the web site. He is very pleased with the process
and has confidence that the process will yield the best result. He favors the single bridge because he s concerned with
traffic at Washington St!South St. He stated he did not review all the technical data and trusts that the process will yield
the best result. He feels that either of the two alternatives will be a big improvement over what is there today.
John Romano
Municipal Affairs Liaison
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Direct: 617.973.7028 I Mobile 617.438.4301
For news and updates check out our website www.mass.gov/massdot blog at www.mass.gov/blog/transportation or
follow us on twitter at www.twitter.com/massdot
1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Wednesday, November 09, 2011 3:04 PM
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; 'Andrea D'Amato'
Casey Comment
Hi Nate:
Here is another Casey comment I received via phone this morning. Lisa Beatman from Roslindale.
She is a daily commuter over the Casey Overpass and feels that the single lane in each direction bridge is the better
option. She is concerned for both vehicles and pedestrians, too much congestion. She feels there will be too much
traffic at-grade and is especially concerned about the South St/wash St intersection. She has been on the web site and
feels our presentations are very well done and very informative.
Regards,
John Romano
Municipal Affairs Liaison
Massachusetts Department ofTransportation
Direct: 617.973.7028 I Mobile 617.438.4301
For news and updates check out our website www.mass.gov/massdot blog at www.mass.gov/blog/transportation or
follow us on twitter at www.twitter.com/massdot
1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 8:36 AM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; 'Andrea D'Amato'; King, Paul C (DOT); McLaughlin, Steve (DOT)
FW: Casey Overpass Project
Hi All:
Please log in this comment for the Casey.
John Romano
Municipal Affairs Liaison
Massachusetts Department ofTransportation
Direct: 617.973.7028 I Mobile 617.438.4301
For news and updates check out our website www.mass.gov/massdot blog at www.mass.gov/blog/transportation or
follow us on twitter at www.twitter.com/massdot
-----Original Message----­
From: Michelle Geffken [mililltoi""
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 20111:28
To: Romano, John (DOT)
Subject: Casey Overpass Project
John Romano,
Unfortunately, I will be unable to be at the November 21 public meeting to discuss the final two plans for this project.
As a resident of South Street I would like to voice my preference for the at-grade solution. I'm happy that a less
expensive solution is being proposed and am pleased with the improvements it would bring which I believe would
benefit the community and Forest Hills area.
Thank you.
Michelle Geffken
635 South Street
1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 8:37 AM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); 'Andrea D'Amato'; King, Paul C (DOT)
FW: Casey Overpass Project
Hi All:
Please log this comment in for the Casey project.
Thanks,
john
John Romano
Municipal Affairs Liaison
Massachusetts Department ofTransportation
Direct: 617.973.7028 I Mobile 617.438.4301
For news and updates check out our website www.mass.gov/massdot blog at www.mass.gov/blog/transportationor
follow us on twitter at www.twitter.com/massdot
-----Original Message----­
From: ANNE EMERSON [m'liltcl~
Sent: Monday, November 14, 201112:03
To: Romano, John (DOT)
Subject: Casey Overpass Project
Hi there John Romano, You will no doubt remember me from the Boston Museum Project and all those meetings about
parcel 12, but I am a JP resident who lives by Kelly Circle at 200 Pond Street and watch the traffic every morning.
Somebody told me that 58,000 cars a day pass in front of my house. I strongly support the at-grade solution for the
Casey Overpass. It's long overdue to knit that area back together and get rid of the overpass and all iterations. It's not
unlike the Big Dig issues we struggled with for so long, it's an real opportunity to make something nice for the
community at the street level. I plan to come to the meeting on Monday night. Please let me know if contact you
registers my opinion on this or if I need to write to someone else. Look forward to seeing you Monday....just like old
times. Anne Emerson
1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
King, Paul C (DOT) <paul.c.king@state.ma.us>
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 2:56 PM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; 'adamato@hntb.com'; Romano, John (DOT); McLaughlin, Steve
(DOT); 'Gary.McNaughton@mcmtrans.com'
Fw: ATTN: Paul King, Project File No. 605511
From: DOT Feedback Highway
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 02:37 PM
To: King, Paul C. (DOT); McLaughlin, Steve (DOT)
Subject: FW: ATTN: Paul King, Project File No. 605511
FYI ...
From: greg hunt
Sent: Monday, November
To: DOT Feedback Highway
Subject: ATTN: Paul King, Project File No. 605511
To Whom it May Concern,
I'm writing in regards to the MassDOT Monsignor Casey Overpass Project in Jamaica Plain. I live less than a 114 mile
from the overpass, and constantly travel through the area by car, bike, and on foot. I have been following the progress of
the design process, and am encouraged at the sensible alternatives that are being considered to replace the overpass. As I
cannot make it in person to the upcoming public meeting, I wanted to write to express my support for the surface road
alternative. I am excited at the prospect of increasing bike lanes and public space in the area of the overpass while still
accomodating the many vehicles that pass through Forest Hills. And, as a civil engineer working on repairing our public
infrastructure, I know fIrst hand that building another elevated bridge structure will be more costly to maintain in the long
run. I urge MassDOT and its partners on this project to support not just the drivers, but also the bikers and walkers of
Jamaica Plain and to move forward with the surface road alternative.
Sincerely,
Gregory Hunt
64 Hyde Park Ave. #3
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
1