Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
October 31, 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:
Tenth Working Advisory Group (WAG) Meeting
Meeting Notes of October 25, 2011
Overview & Executive Summary
On October 25, 2011, the Working Advisory Group (WAG) met to continue its role in the Casey Overpass
Replacement Project Planning Study. This meeting is the second 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: past performance of the regional model and
an overview of the bridge and at-grade solutions, bicycle, pedestrian and transit analysis results, regional
traffic analysis, and local travel time analysis accompanied by a demonstration of Vissim simulations for the
a.m. and p.m. peaks for the at-grade and bridge solutions.
Past Performance of the Regional Model & Review of the two Solutions
o In the 1980’s, the CTPS regional model was used to project traffic volumes for the Central
Artery project. Based on conservative land use estimates, the regional model overestimated
traffic volumes for the Central Artery’s build year, 2010, by approximately 13% when
compared to 2010 traffic counts.
o In looking at current conditions, the at-grade road network around the Casey Overpass
shows a number of odd designs that lead to congestion and make modeling existing
conditions a difficult exercise. One of the most problematic locations is the intersection of
New Washington Street/South Street/Arborway and the piece of Washington Street that runs
south from this intersection to South Street at the exit for the upper bus-way of Forest Hills
Station. Problems from this location ripple throughout the corridor.
o Significant improvements will be made to the at-grade intersections in the corridor
regardless of which solution is chosen; however both solutions are equally capable of
managing 2035 projected traffic volumes. 2035 traffic volumes are based on 2010 traffic
counts and enlarged with input from CTPS and the BRA.
o The top 5 existing deficiencies were reviewed and the improvements proposed for each
alternative were presented. Those top 5 areas include:
 Shea Circle
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.




Hyde Park Avenue/Washington Street
New Washington mid-block
South Street/Arborway Ramps
Asticou Road at Washington Street
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Analysis Results
o Pedestrians:
 Generally, both options provide significant improvements for pedestrians.
Intersections will become easier to navigate and crosswalks will be provided on all
approaches to the intersections. The alternatives also include significant pedestrian
enhancements away form the roadway that are not captured in this analysis, but are
instead evaluated in the MOE’s.
 Both options provide an overall pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) of C. The analysis
tool used to derive this rating does not take into account some elements of the
pedestrian experience. For example, once sidewalks are modeled as being 6 feet
wide, increasing their width into the 8-12-foot range, the preference expressed by
several WAG members, does not further improve the pedestrian LOS. The design
team believes that sidewalks wider than 6 feet are appropriate for the Casey
Overpass corridor and will evaluate their impact over the next several WAG meetings
addressing livability issues.
 A key pedestrian difference between the bridge and at-grade options is that with the
at-grade option, the head-house that provides access to the northern end of the
Forest Hills Orange Line platform could be relocated to the northern side of New
Washington Street. This would serve pedestrians coming off the Southwest Corridor
pathway system and curtail their need to cross New Washington Street midblock.
WAG members expressed significant concern over the cost of this operation and
more information on it will be brought to them over the next several meetings.
 The design team currently believes that removal of the New Washington Street midblock pedestrian crossing is required to manage queuing at the two intersections at
either end of this busy part of the corridor. Under both options pedestrians would be
directed to improved crossings at the intersection of New Washington
Street/Arborway/South Street. Current modeling suggests that even a midblock
pedestrian signal that operated only when actuated by a crossing walker would
trigger significant queuing and signal coordination issues. Several WAG members
requested that the design team continue to work to see if the midblock crossing can
be kept.
o Bicycles:
 Both options provide significant improvements for bicycles. Generally speaking, the
bicycle LOS in the Casey Overpass corridor today is between E and F. With both the
at-grade and bridge solutions, the overall LOS rises to C.
 At present a major difference between the at-grade and bridge options is that with a
bridge, all movements are available to bicycles at the two ends of New Washington
Street. With the at-grade solution, left-turns for bicycles must be accomplished as
box turns. It is possible the bicycle left turns could be accommodated in the median
with two-stage bicycle box; however further discussion of this may be held to the
25% design phase.
 The other major difference is that the at-grade solution includes additional bicycle
enhancements along Washington Street, along the west side of Forest Hills Station.
o Transit
 Both the bridge and at-grade options provide an overall transit LOS C.
 In both solutions, the 39 bus would operate on New Washington Street with a bus
lane and queue jump light to facilitate smooth operation in traffic.
 A significant difference between the two options is that with the at-grade option, the
upper bus-way at Forest Hills Station can be shifted to the south and expanded. As
this option would position the exit of the bus-way near Asticou Road, WAG members
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
representing the Asticou/Martinwood neighborhood expressed concern regarding
engine noise and light pollution from bus headlights.
Regional Traffic Analysis
o CTPS has modeled both the at-grade and bridge solutions and has determined that both are
equally capable of handling regional, 2035 peak hour traffic volumes and that neither
solution would trigger significant diversions away from or to the Casey Overpass corridor.
Local Travel Time Analysis:
o Both the bridge and at-grade solutions offer significant improvement in terms of LOS at the
intersections within the Casey Overpass corridor. Under current conditions, many of the
intersections in the corridor operate at LOS E or F during the peak hour. Both alternatives,
using 2035 traffic volumes, can offer LOS in the D-A range.
o Travel times between key local points are also generally similar. Overall local travel times
are improved by either solution, but some connections see benefits with the bridge, while
others experience improvement with the at-grade solution.
o Local traffic is therefore not a key differentiator between the two options.
o There was significant concern expressed by some WAG members regarding the accuracy of
the modeling for the current conditions. The design team explained that the modeling for
future conditions can be considered more accurate because of the simplified and standard
designs being proposed. Design team members also stated that current conditions are most
likely worse than modeling indicates.
Detailed Meeting Minutes1
Past Regional Model Performance and Review of Solutions
C: John Romano (JR): Welcome everyone; thank you for being here. This is part two of the traffic
presentation. About a week ago, I sent out two technical memos for the WAG that addressed traffic and
a few other housekeeping items. The goal tonight is to go halfway through the presentation, break for a
Q&A session and then do the second half of the presentation with another Q&A at the end. Going
forward we have WAG 5C which will be right here on November 9th. We have a public meeting on the
21st of November at the Hennigan Community Center. After that we have WAG meeting 6A in this room
on the 5th of December and then the last public meeting on December 14th at Curtis Hall.
C: Jeff Ferris (JF): I don’t think that Curtis Hall’s meeting space is adequate to the crowds we get for our
public meetings.
A: JR: O.K. we’ll check on that and see about the location for the 14th. Thank you for that. Before I turn
this over to Gary to discuss traffic, I want to recognize Ray Pegram from Representative Holmes’ office,
Julianne Doherty from Mayor Menino’s office, Joe Cosgrove from the MBTA, Tad Read from the BRA,
Vineet Gupta from BTD, Robert Torres with Representative Malia’s office and Nikka Elugardo from
Senator Chang-Diaz’s office. I’d like to also recognize City Councilor Matt O’Malley and Valerie Frias
from his office. I understand Representative Holmes will be joining us later. 2
C: Gary McNaughton (GM): I actually want to start with one element of old business. It’s been asked a few
times about how successful the regional model has been at predicting traffic conditions for past projects.
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
2
State Representative Russell Holmes did join the meeting later in the evening and was recognized by John Romano.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Scott Peterson from CTPS has something on that to share with us before we go into the rest of the
presentation.
A: Scott Peterson (SP): Someone here asked if there are any good examples of places where we can match
predictions made by the regional model to actual conditions today. I did some research and it turns out
that the forecast year for the Central Artery project was 2010 and that seemed like a perfect example
because it was both an interesting job and one that covered Boston and Cambridge. When the
modeling was done for the Central Artery, the regional model was a little smaller than it is today, but it
still covered all the major roadways like the Turnpike, Route 1A and the tunnels under the harbor.
Comparing the estimates made by the model for 2010 to actual demand, we see that the model
overestimated traffic volumes by about 13%. This is because the trips in the model are driven by land
use and in the 1980’s when the modeling for the Central Artery was done it was expected that Logan
Airport would grow more than it has, that all of the Turnpike air-rights would be developed and that the
development in the Seaport would be much heavier than it is today. This is generally speaking,
representative of how models have gone. Models generally overestimate future volumes, in part to be
conservative and ensure we can meet the demand.
C: GM: Thank you, Scott, and remember I’m going to pause for questions later. We have some things that
we’re trying to accomplish with either alternative: safety is an overarching goal. We want to improve
bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, enhance transit connections because those customers are
important and we want to do all of this while still providing acceptable vehicle operations. We’re going
to get into the urban design aspects of how we do that in the next few weeks, but for now, I want to walk
you through the deficiencies in the current street network. Before I do that, I want to remind you that
both the bridge and at-grade solutions can handle 2035 traffic volumes. We are not relying on any
diversions to make things work and we are providing many pedestrian and bicycle enhancements.
Now, let’s go back to the deficiencies in today’s network:
What we’ve discovered is that the South Street/Arborway/New Washington Street intersection
and the stretch of Washington Street going south to South Street where it turns towards the State
Lab is really the heart of the problems you see in this area and those issues ripple throughout
the corridor.
Shea Circle is a little more remote, but it has deficiencies in terms of having too many access
points and presenting difficult conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.
Washington Street to the west of Forest Hills Station has friction from pick-up/drop-off activities
and also presents problems for cyclists. There’s also closely spaced signals and the bus-way
coming out into Washington Street opposite South Street.
If we zoom in a little closer, South Street/Arborway/New Washington Street is particularly
problematic because of the off-set and how that makes the through movement from the offramp a left-turn/right-turn movement through the intersection. The signals are set too close
together and the geometry is confusing. As a result it makes effective signal coordination very
difficult.
Hyde Park Avenue/New Washington Street is also illustrative of the oddities of intersection
configurations in this corridor. The through movement happens via this little connector road that
weaves around the overpass.
So, we took a look at all that and thought about what changes we could make:
Here are the surface roadways assuming a bridge and you can see how we can make nice,
single intersections with better geometries. The improvement in the situation for bicycles and
pedestrians will be night and day.
If we look at the at-grade solution, we have wider crossings, but many of the same things: more
linear roadway connections and better bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. The at-grade
option also includes improvements on Washington Street to the west of the station.
With Shea Circle, under any alternative, we’ll have some improvements as we reduce the
number of entry exit points. We’re currently working with two ideas, the egg-about which
provides some signalization and pedestrian improvements and then the Shea Square idea which
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
turns the circle into a convention four-way intersection. While this is important, we can make the
changes to Shea Circle independent of and with whichever solution is selected, so just remember
that it’s independent of the bridge/at-grade question.
Looking at New Washington Street with the bridge solution, you can see that with the bridge
alternative, the through movements are actually through movements. The road stays to the
north of the corridor with the Southwest Corridor pathways terminating at the edge of the
pavement. The midblock crossing is eliminated.
If we transition over to the at-grade solution, the alignment of the roadway goes to the south.
Instead of the angular connection for the Southwest Corridor pathways of the bridge solution, we
provide a sweeping connection that sends pedestrians to cross at New Washington
Street/Arborway/South Street. One thing we can also accomplish in the at-grade solution is
moving the head house to the north side of New Washington Street which eliminates much of
the desire to cross at the mid-block crossing that’s there today.
At Hyde Park Avenue/New Washington Street we can provide a traditional four-way intersection
in each option. Pedestrians would have a crosswalk protected by signals over all four
approaches under both solutions. With the bridge solution, all turning movements are available
at the intersection, though with the at-grade we accommodate east-west left-turns with the
bowties.
Looking at Washington Street west of the station, if we go with the bridge, we’re just making
some modest changes to Washington Street between New Washington Street and South Street
to make everything line up. If we go with the at-grade option, you can see some fairly dramatic
changes: the bus-way moves south, the pedestrian and bicycle paths come in, there are onstreet bicycle lanes, better managed curbside pick-up/drop-off and taxi activity to reduce friction.
All of those enhancements give you significant benefits.
C: GM: I now want to turn to the 2035 traffic analysis. The analysis is based on 2035 volumes except when
we’re comparing back to existing conditions. The standard is to do a no-build analysis as well, but we
know that’s not going to happen here so we feel it’s more valid to compare each solution to current
conditions. Bear in mind that there are still changes you can ask us to make at this time: you can tell us
about median widths, non-peak-hour design changes, bowtie adjustments, signalization and pedestrian
phasing. What we’re presenting tonight doesn’t deal with all that. This is 2035, the worst peak hour of
the day and what we see is that all modes are accommodated better with both solutions. What this
means is that we can move forward focusing on the livability aspect of the project.
There are many similarities and some differences between the options and now I’ll walk you through
those. First the similarities:
Overall capacity: when you look at how many cars can be processed per hour by both solutions,
it’s pretty much the same.
On the north/south connections, we need the same number of signals and lanes.
Under both alternatives, the critical link that needs to work is Washington Street, west of the
train station, between South Street and New Washington Street.
Both solutions offer dramatic improvements for bicycles and pedestrians.
And now the differences:
The roadway geometry and alignments are different.
The specific travel times from point-to-point within the corridor are different.
East-west left turns are restricted with the at-grade solution, and accommodated in the median.
With a bridge, all turning movements are permitted at the intersections.
East-west surface traffic volumes are different between the two solutions, however north/south
volumes remain similar.
The level of improvement to Washington Street west of the station is greater in the at-grade
solution and lesser with the bridge solution.
The head house moves to the north with the at-grade solution, but remains at its current location
with the bridge alternative.
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Analysis Results
Pedestrians
C: Maureen Chlebek (MC): You’ll recall that last month we focused on the methodology of the pedestrian
and bicycle analysis with the focus on the New Washington corridor. Just to remind you, this is
multimodal analysis that includes bicycles, pedestrians and transit and it’s perception based. That
means it takes into account not only how many pedestrians are on the sidewalk, but how close they are
to traffic, how wide the sidewalk is, whether there are parked cars between them and moving traffic and
so forth. Remember, peak hour goal is LOS D for automobiles and the highest, balanced, LOS we can
achieve for bicycles, pedestrians and transit. For example, we stated that we wouldn’t get LOS A for
buses at the expense of pedestrians.
At the summary level, both the bridge and at-grade solution can offer bicycles, pedestrians and transit
an overall LOS C in both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. When we speak about pedestrian analysis, I
want to highlight a few features. Once you get an intersection which provides a pedestrian with 40
seconds of delay or less, decreasing the delay doesn’t push the analysis much higher. Similarly, once
the sidewalk is 6 feet wide, because of the pedestrian volumes we have out there, the score doesn’t go
higher as the sidewalk is made bigger. The way we build the analysis up is to start at the level of the
individual crosswalk, then bring it up to the level of the sidewalk link, looking at how close traffic is and
how many pedestrians are walking in the opposite direction and then we come up to the average level
for the whole corridor.
Q: Don Eunson (DE): How long was the delay at the signals?
A: MC: It’s around 40 seconds. That corresponds with LOS C and that’s not very different between the two
alternatives. We are proposing concurrent pedestrian phasing with both solutions and so with the atgrade solution the delay comes up a bit, but is balanced out by some of the amenities that option offers
so it still gets to an average LOS of C.
Q: Liz O’Connor (LO): Can you flip back and forth between the two slides so we can compare a little more?
A: MC: Sure. That’s the at-grade alternative. This is focused on New Washington Street and as we know
from the overview Gary gave us, we have some urban facilities off New Washington Street and
throughout the corridor so as we apply the Measures of Evaluation (MOE) we’ll get into those. On the
at-grade alternative we have new off-road walkways in addition to sidewalks and the facilities on
Washington Street west of the station.
C: LO: It seems like there are more pedestrian delays with the at-grade solution.
A: MC: There might be more delay at one given crosswalk, but it’s the same throughout the corridor. Right
now you have exclusive pedestrian phases in the corridor, we’d propose concurrent throughout with both
solutions.
C: JF: But it seems like the bridge solution means a lot more delay for pedestrians.
A: MC: With the bridge solution, pedestrians have a little more delay crossing the east-west flow. With the
at-grade solution the difficulty is more crossing the north-south flow. You need to try to look at delay
holistically, but we can compare at the crosswalk level if you want.
C: Bernie Doherty (BD): to me, this looks totally different if dark green is the best, yellow is lower and
orange less than that.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: MC: This is one instance of one crossing. You need to consider the whole facility and things like how
often your walk is interrupted by a street or driveway. If one intersection is right on top of another, that’s
going to make some difference.
C: Kevin Moloney (KM): It’s showing a significant difference between the numbers of greens and yellows if
you compare the colors on the bridge and the at-grade solutions.
A: Pete Stidman (PS): But she’s talking about walking through the whole corridor and you’re talking about a
single crosswalk going across it.
A: MC: You really get a better picture if you look holistically; try to come back to the LOS C for the whole
corridor.
C: LO: The lens I’m reading into this is which is preferable for us: at-grade or bridge. It seems important to
compare one to another if our role is to figure out which is preferable.
A: MC: That’s actually a great segue, because I have a summary slide that does just that for you.
C: Nikka Elugardo (NE): I think I’m getting the difference between the bars and circles. The circles are one
location, but the bars are crossings. I’m getting the idea that for both options the pluses and minus just
average out.
A: MC: Right, the trip is the average. Let me get back to the amenities on New Washington Street. The big
difference between bridge and no bridge here is moving the head-house which only happens with the
at-grade solution. When you move it, people no longer have any real desire to cross midblock so that’s
positive for that approach.
Q: David Hannon (DH): Could we move the head-house with both solutions?
A: MC: There’s an issue of cost; it’s really only viable with the at-grade solution.
A: Andrea D’Amato (AD): And physically, it’s very difficult because of where bridge supports would need to
go.
C: JR: So remember what we discussed a few meetings back: the bridge is more expensive than the atgrade solution so if you choose a bridge, some of the money that would be available for things like the
head-house has already been used up.
A: Steve McLaughlin (SM): Right, with the bridge it’s more expensive, so at-grade gives you more left over
for improvements such as moving the head house and vent stacks. Now we’re not exactly sure where
the head-house would move to, but once we select an alternative, and if it’s at-grade, then we’ll
determine exactly where to put it. We’re working on it with the MBTA right now, but we have engineers
crawling through tunnels to check this over. So the exact location of the head-house, assuming we
move it, won’t be thoroughly known for a few months yet.
Q: KM: What’s the cost associated with moving it?
A: SM: We don’t know exactly yet. There’s a lot we need to nail down first. We have issues over ADA
compliance, fire control and suppression, staffing and so forth. But, if you bundle the head-house,
ventilation building and bus-way work, we’re currently estimating $20-30 million.
Q: DH: But there’s no individual head-house number?
A: SM: It’s going to be several months before we get an individual figure for the head-house because we’re
still figuring out where the roadway will be exactly. And we’ve got things like do we need one elevator
or two to comply with ADA? Where do the CharlieCard gates go and how many?
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: JF: Could it turn out to be too pricey for even the grade level solution?
A: SM: That’s a possibility though I don’t know how probable that is. A lot of things are possible.
C: JF: You’ve been telling us for months that the traffic works for both a bridge and at-grade solution
though you’ve never shown us any traffic models so I want to know why you can’t give Kevin a ballpark
figure.
A: SM: I just gave you the reasons: staffing, need for elevators, need for CharlieCard readers, we don’t
know that just yet.
C: JF: But those are all MBTA improvements.
C: KM: I don’t think this is treating the WAG fairly for DOT to just say “it’s a significant expense.” We’re
entitled to know the underlying assumptions going into this and when you’re asked for the statement of
assumptions going into the conclusions you’re presenting and you say you won’t give them to us that’s
just not fair.
A: SM: I’ve told you all along that if a bridge goes back, there’s no moving the head-house.
C: KM: I’m just asking for the baseline, underlying assumption.
Q: SM: So what is it you want to know?
A: KM: You said it would be a big expense to move the head house. What is that expense?
A: SM: $20 million but that number is rough and could change. I will have more information on this in
subsequent meetings.
C: AD: Much of this is still a moving target. We’re doing the estimates. I don’t have the latest estimates on
me, because that’s not what this meeting was supposed to address, but at the next meeting we’ll have
further assumptions and further conversations completed with the MBTA. We do intend to give you
those ranges, but they are complicated and we probably won’t know all of them until we’re into 25%
design.
A: KM: We understand that this is complex that there are contingencies and possibilities, but we just want
to see one number.
A: Vineet Gupta (VG): He just told you that you would get the number.
Q: DH: I guess my concern is that DOT has made all these assumptions and we haven’t been involved in
making them. My underlying concern is that we’re making all these improvements to the MBTA and so
all the funding comes from where? Will the MBTA partner to build this or is it just one big slush fund?
A: SM: We’ve been over much of this before. To replace the bridge in kind is $70 million. When you put a
smaller bridge back it’s around $53 million. At-grade begins at $28 million without any changes to the
MBTA and that number has been consistent. Based on what you have told us, we expect the $28 million
to rise, but it can’t rise past the $53 million mark.
C: BD: The reason for putting the head house north of New Washington Street is to let people cross the
road easier; there’ll be elevators or escalators and people will go under the street to cross it.
A: AD: Currently, the head house is exit only. Looking at the pedestrian volumes, you can see how many of
the pedestrians are coming from the north to access the station. Given the importance this committee
has placed on transit, it seemed warranted to give it a discussion to accommodate the demand. The
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
moment we touch the head-house and you know this as well as anyone that we have to bring it up to
ADA and that means a lot of work.
C: BD: Yes, I understand all of that, but the statement was made in the presentation that it would make it
easier for people to access the station and now you bring in elevators, and manning, and it sounds like a
lot of this is still up in the air. Why make presentations to us like this and get into debates? If you have
to move the head-house for safety in the at-grade solution, why aren’t you doing it in the bridge
solution?
A: AD: It’s not a safety issue; it’s an amenity to address a demand.
A: JR: When we look at this, we have the ability to move the head-house in the at-grade solution because
we’ll have more room because of no bridge supports and a lower cost. So if we can do it, why wouldn’t
we?
C: BD: $48 million versus $53 million doesn’t sound like much of a cost-saving to me.
A: Allan Ihrer (AI): We’ve waited six months to hear about the traffic. Can we hear them out, please? It
would be nice to hear what they have to say and think about how we address the impacts later. Then
we can take up the head-house and determine if it’s feasible or not.
C: MC: Going back to the point about comparisons, this slide gives you the big picture. The existing
situation requires pedestrians to generally cross 3-4 lanes of traffic in both directions. With the at-grade
it’s the same. With a bridge it goes down to two lanes in each direction, so that’s a plus, but you get
fewer additional amenities. All the other crosswalks remain the same.
Bicycles
C: MC: Now I’d like to get into bicycles. A few factors that go into this: the biggest is whether there’s a
bicycle lane or not. Another element is how many driveways bicycles have to cross; we’re always looking
for where those conflicts are. In terms of how bicycles deal with intersections, it’s very similar to how we
analyze it for vehicles: what’s the delay and how long is the green time?
Under existing conditions, bicycles don’t fare all that well. There’s no bicycle lane so you’re either
jammed up against the curb or trying to stake a claim to the whole right lane and that shows up in a lot
of E’s and F’s for the LOS. With the at-grade solution and designated bicycle lanes, bicycles get an
overall LOS C. It’s similar with the bridge because there are still two signalized intersections to traverse.
Off New Washington Street, with the at-grade approach there are the improvements on Washington
Street west of the station. For a short distance on Hyde Park Avenue and Washington Street east of the
station approaching New Washington Street there would be bicycle lanes.
Q: LO: On the bridge alternative, are we planning to put bicycle lanes on the bridge?
A: MC: There’s a shoulder on the bridge that would accommodate bicycles, but no striped bicycle lane.
Some big differences for bicycles between the two solutions is that with the at-grade, east-west left turns
are constrained and accommodated by the special merging zones at the corners of the intersections.
With the bridge, all turns are available.
C: JF: There have been suggestions to allow bicycles to make the left turns at the two ends of New
Washington Street.
A: PS: We see possibilities that with the 12-foot median there could be two-stage bicycle box cubes and we
feel those could be discussed during the 25% design phase.
C: MC: Getting to the comparison slide you can see that both solutions provide bicycles a significantly safer
experience than they have today.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Transit
C: MC: Moving on to transit, bus route 39 is the only stop in the New Washington Street corridor and things
we look at include its travel speed, how much it is delayed, what the loading and unloading conditions
are and what amenities there are for bus riders. Here’s the current loop for the 39 bus and we currently
think it would operate on New Washington Street, but with a queue jump lane and priority signal. It
achieves an LOS C under both conditions. We have the other bus routes that use Forest Hills Station
and they also get some improvements. There are definite improvements in the at-grade approach for
buses using the upper bus-way.
Q: AI: While those other bus lines aren’t stopping in the corridor, they are doing critical left turns and there
will be new buses coming from the Arborway Yard which I expect will happen. They would be using the
bowties and that additional travel time needs to be worked in. Will those be addressed in the traffic
study?
A: MC: As we get further into this, Gary will give you those travel time tables.
A: GM: And we did acknowledge that just directing the buses to the bowties would have a negative impact
on service. To balance this out, we’d have a bus-only left turn lane from Arborway onto Hyde Park
Avenue with queue jump signals to help them out.
C: AI: I just bring this up because of the increases volumes at-grade. Any of the upper level buses would be
taking a left to go to the Arborway facility at peak times with high level volumes and I don’t think we saw
anything about that in our packets.
A: AD: We should add a note to present that the impacts will be to the other buses and discuss the queue
jumps they will receive.
C: MC: So to give you the overview, we discussed the 39, we talked about the modifications to the upper
bus-way in the at-grade solution and the changes to the taxi zone up there as well. So, the 39 stays on
New Washington Street, the overall transit bus LOS is C and the at-grade option gives you some
additional benefits.
Q: JF: What happened to moving the 39 bus?
A: AD: The groundswell from this committee was for keeping the 39 bus where it was so that’s what we’re
doing. We also heard that you want us to come back with more information about the head-house and
what happens to the other buses operating in the corridor. The 39 is the one for which we have the
most information because it’s the only one stopping in and staging from the corridor.
C: DH: We want to know where the money is coming from; is the money for the head-house coming from
this program or the MBTA.
A: Joe Cosgrove (JC): The MBTA doesn’t have that money.
Q: DH: So now we’re subsidizing the MBTA?
A: JR: Wait a minute; it’s not subsidizing an improvement for the MBTA. We’re making changes to the busway because you told us we should address taxis and their pick-up/drop-off area. That’s for you, not the
MBTA, but yes, they get a benefit too. Joe didn’t come to us and say “I need ten new buses running here
or I won’t support the project.” This is stuff we’re doing for our project that happens to benefit the
MBTA. We’re not subsidizing cyclists, but we’re making things better for them. We don’t have to move
the head-house and as Jeff said it might prove too costly even with the at-grade approach, but it’s not
an upgrade for the MBTA, it’s an amenity for all of you and we’d like to incorporate it if we can get a
reasonable price.
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Elizabeth Wylie (EW): Similarly, as we do our jobs, and thank you for putting that so eloquently, and we
sort through the issues, it would be nice for you to come back to us with information about the cost for
the changes on Washington Street west of the station that are not present in the bridge solution. That
would help us sort through the issues.
C: AI: We’re trying to come up with the best alternatives we can put together; it’s like a Lego set and so we
need the biggest number of bricks we can get together so we can choose between two great alternatives
at the end of this.
Q: Kevin Wolfson (KW): With the pedestrian crossings of New Washington Street, can you say the
differences in terms of crossing distance and time?
A: MC: We have the data in terms of lanes, but we can bring it back to you in terms of feet. The
information on distance and time is figured into the traffic simulations Gary will run for you in a little bit.
Q: EW: Is it possible to determine the length someone would have to walk through the underground tunnel
from the north side of New Washington to the platform?
A: AD: It’s actually a direct connection; you would drop right onto the platform.
A: Paul King (PK): The platform extends under the roadway.
C: EW: I’m just reflecting on the Dartmouth Street tunnel at Back Bay Station; there have been some safety
concerns over it and I don’t think it’s heavily used.
C: Sarah Freeman (SF): Using us as a test group and hearing about the pedestrian elements, I wonder if
there’s some way, that’s more objective, or some way to go about it so that if someone at WalkBoston
had to ask about delay, maybe some more filling in, we see the LOS and the differences between them
and really maybe it’s five or ten seconds more and someone could balance it better. Maybe if people
could see the times between connection points.
A: AD: This is good because we’ll have a table of travel distance and times. If we connect it with certain
desire lines, would that help?
A: SF: Yes, so that way people can connect it to their daily commute.
C: Suzanne Monk (SMk): I’m more interested in safety and I’d happily have a longer walk if it were safer.
My second point goes back to parking. What’s the timeline for that discussion and the issues of the LAZ
and MBTA parking going away?
A: JR: At the last WAG meeting we discussed that a bit and the parking issues is going to the 25% design
phase because we know we’ll need to discuss it regardless of what solution we pick. So while we know
we need to keep thinking about it, it doesn’t factor into the current discussion. In the meantime, we’re
not waiting to get started on it. We met with DCR last week and they’re reaching out to the courthouse.
We know it’s an issue we need to address.
Q: JF: The changes to Washington Street west of Forest Hills Station and moving the bus-way are amenities;
it’s not critical to making the traffic work, it’s an amenity that goes with the at-grade proposal. Is it
critical to making the traffic model work?
A: GM: Certainly it’s helpful. You have the same volumes on the corridor with both alternatives, but you
get some distinct benefits by pulling the bus-way to the south and you have less pick-up/drop-off friction.
Q: JF: This is about the Casey Overpass and so is moving that or not moving that critical to how the traffic
analysis works?
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: GM: It’s not make-or-break, but it works better with the changes. As I said, that’s a critical link. To the
extent we can improve that, the better the link works.
C: JF: It’s been brought up to see if you could change Washington Street below South Street to three lanes
as a way to get space for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. You could widen it out again at Ukraine
Way to have a lower cost solution.
A: GM: You could do that between South Street and Ukraine way, but you need all the current lanes to the
north of South Street to make it all work.
Q: DE: Maureen, did I hear you say that a 6-foot sidewalk would be adequate in this area?
A: MC: The urban facilities analysis is based on national standards. A 6-foot sidewalk is deemed adequate
by the model given the volumes we have here so what happened was that as we ran the analysis, we
got the same LOS whether we had a 6-foot sidewalk or an 8-foot sidewalk. That doesn’t mean a 6-foot
sidewalk is our design preference.
C: DE: Good, because our approach is that 8 feet for the sidewalk is better and 10-12 feet is preferable.
We want to be able to have two people walking abreast pass each other going in opposite directions.
A: MC: As we got into the urban facilities analysis we felt that it wasn’t capturing everything so that’s why
we’re working in the MOE as well.
C: VG: From what I understand, the model is very number-based. Professionally, it’s not the only way
forward. There are issues like sidewalk widths and perceptions of space, and shade and those make the
walking environment. That’s the bigger picture the model misses.
C: DE: I appreciate that you’re addressing our desire-line concerns at the end of the Southwest Corridor
pathways and moving the head-house to the north side of New Washington solves some of that, but not
for the bicyclists who still need to cross to the cycle cage at the station. I also want to ask the basic
question of whether you’ve look at the mid-block crosswalk and whether it might work better if it were
an on-demand signal.
A: MC: It would be very difficult to manage the queues. I know it wouldn’t come on every cycle, but when it
did, it would trigger the kind of queuing we see today. That’s why we don’t advocate keeping it.
C: VG: But I think it is something that you should keep looking at.
A: AD: Demand to use the midblock crosswalk peaks at the same time traffic demand peaks.
A: GM: It’s a challenge for both alternatives which is why we’re trying to get rid of it. If we can relocate the
head-house, it helps to limit the demand.
C: DE: It’s just that the City has put in desire-line crosswalks at Massachusetts Avenue and Dartmouth Street
to respond to demand.
A: SMk: But those are much longer stretches. The space between the end of the Southwest Corridor and
the intersection of New Washington Street/Arborway isn’t that long.
A: Essek Petrie (EP): We’re planning to contour the path so that the desire line will be towards the
intersection.
A: JR: Similar to the parking, it’s the same challenge whether it’s at-grade or a bridge. We don’t have to
decide this today, we can keep talking about it.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: BD: I want to speak on behalf of the Asticou/Martinwood neighborhood. We’re now pushing the busway down so that its outlet is across from Asticou Road and we’re expanding it from two bays up to
three. There’s a hell of a noise problem from the trains and buses as it is right now. While I’m not
speaking against it, I am bothered by the casual way we talk about it just happening. The impacts will
be significant and we need to understand them better. We’re talking about a two year construction
project regardless of which alternative we pick. It will be debilitating to the business community and
hard on residents. There are real human impacts and I’m very concerned. I want it understood that
they need watchful consideration. There’s nothing that’s been said here that I disagree with: we need
bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkways, but I’m more concerned about the traffic and I’d like to see it.
C: AI: Over at the station the other day, I know we’ve addressed taxis and pick-up/drop-off traffic a little
bit, but we have a transit hub and I guess we haven’t discussed it thoroughly and I’d like to discuss it a
little more.
A: AD: We heard that comment right out of the starting gate. We’ve been thinking about it all along the
way.
C: David Watson (DW): Somebody raised the issue of bicycles coming off the Southwest Corridor and
moving the head-house not doing much for them. I think that’s probably right since most cyclists won’t
bring their bicycle down to the platform. I think you do need to think carefully about the midblock desire
line.
A: AD: Cyclists would actually want to go to the crossing at New Washington Street/Arborway because the
bicycle cage is on the northwest corner of the MBTA property.
Q: DH: Do both alternatives alter the upper bus-way?
A: AD: No, just the at-grade solution.
C: DH: And I also want it on the record that if the bus-way exit goes in across from Asticou Road we’ll be
hearing more motor noise and have headlights shining into our homes all the time. We’re against that.
C: EW: Most lay-people don’t usually see plans. When you look at the at-grade plan and the bridge plan,
I’ve noticed that the bridge plan is all green. People are drawn to that nice green plan. Most people will
see all the trees and be seduced. I’d suggest you use your drawings to show more equity between the
two plans. You show the similarities and differences very nicely in your tables, but the drawings make
the at-grade solution look much more seductive.
A: AD: One of the most important things this group told us to do at the outset of our process was to show
how the Olmstedian connection would work. The fact is that means trees and green space and we can
do more of that with the at-grade solution.
C: EW: But we’d like to see what the human experience is with the bridge.
C: JF: That doesn’t make any sense. The bridge alternative is no wider than the at-grade. You probably
have the same amount of room or more. She’s telling you that you’ve fluffed up the at-grade solution to
make it look better.
A: JR: O.K. we got it. We’ll have more on what the green space for the bridge would look like, and for the
at-grade solution too, at our next WAG meeting when we do the livability piece.
Regional Traffic Analysis
C: SP: I want to show you how the two alternatives impact regional traffic. Earlier in the study, I started
analyzing who uses the Casey Overpass today, where they’re coming from, their origins and destinations
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
and that’s a lot of work that’s summarized in four slides. Just as a reminder to you, I look at the big
picture, all of eastern Massachusetts. Gary is responsible for the local picture. Outputs of the regional
model include highway and transit use, environmental justice impacts and air quality. We developed the
forecast for 2035 to feed the local analysis. We base much of what we do on land use data. I’m using
adopted land use. Adopted land use means it has been officially adopted by the MAPC. There are
several additional local projects which Gary brought into the analysis with input from the BRA. We are
assuming the maximum projected growth for 2035.
This chart represents the travel patterns of people using the Casey Overpass; the thicker the blue line,
the more people are using a route, the thicker the line gets. As you can see it’s just a few routes into
and out of the Casey Overpass corridor. This red oval represents the points at the edges of Gary’s local
study area where we’ve checked to determine how many trips in and out there are. In truth, I was a
little surprised by the results. No matter which alternative you pick, the demand coming into the area
remains pretty much the same. That buttresses Gary’s conclusion that both alternatives have similar
capacity and can process the same number of trips.
Q: JF: Perhaps you can explain how it’s possible that people would make the same decision regardless of
the option we choose; when there’s a back-up on the bridge today, people immediately divert into the
neighborhoods. What am I missing?
A: SP: Land use is what produces trips and those stay fixed, but there are different roadways to choose from
and those roadways have signals and differing prevailing speeds and there are different routes and
paths to pick. Remember, I’m addressing everything outside the red circle.
Q: JF: So are those individual cars in an hour?
A: SP: It’s cars per peak period.
Q: JF: And the input and output are different because some cars stop within the corridor?
A: SP: Yes and there are some trips which just operate within the circle.
Another metric I checked because we have the surrounding neighborhoods of Mattapan, Jamaica Plain
and Roslindale was vehicle miles traveled or VMT for those locations. Within each one of those
neighborhoods, there’s a certain amount of streets and vehicles traveling on those streets. Miles
multiplied by vehicles gives you VMT. I wanted to check to see if VMT went up because people were
making more circuitous trips and what I discovered is that between the two solutions, the change in VMT
is under 1,000 for both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Bear in mind that the scale for VMT is 184,000
so that’s a negligible difference. I next checked whether vehicles are hitting more congestion and I did
that by analyzing average speed and that’s also the same between the two solutions. So the bottom line
is the number of trips is the same, VMT is the same, and speed rounded to the nearest mile per hour is
the same as well. All of these metrics were trying to me tell me if people are detouring, losing throughput in the area and none of them showed signs of changing throughput in the corridor regardless of the
solution chosen.
Q: PS: A question on how this is done: do your models have every street in the City? Can you suddenly
make one street have a prevailing speed of 100 miles per hour and have everyone go there?
A: SP: We deal with regional traffic so if a street has the potential to cater to regional traffic, it’s in the
model. For some very small streets and dead-end streets we do simplify them out of the picture. The
model does get down to a fairly fine-grained level of detail for local streets. We have things like number
of lanes, posted speed limits and whether there’s on-street parking or not. And yes, if I change the
model so that the prevailing speed on a street is 100 miles per hour, you can see all the traffic go there.
Q: LO: I’m having a difficult time understanding that bridge and no-bridge are the same. Am I alone in
feeling that it flies in the face of common sense?
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: GM: We’re going to get into this further in a moment, but what this is telling you is that you won’t have
gridlock with the at-grade solution. Depending on the time of day and direction of travel, you may
experience 30 to 90 seconds of additional delay with the at-grade solution, but what that means is that
won’t be enough to push people to local streets. You’ve all seen the routes you can take to avoid the
Casey Overpass corridor and some are quite circuitous; they’re all going to take you longer than 90
seconds.
C: BD: But you’ll agree that unless the signalization is spot on and there are never any anomalies or
emergency vehicles, your formula might go crazy.
A: SP: With either solution if there’s an accident or signals break down, people could divert from the
corridor, but you know the area as well as anyone and as you know there aren’t too many ways to get
through the area.
Q: JF: Do those trips include north/south trips?
A: SP: Yes they do.
Q: JF: You had average speeds for the neighborhoods, what does that mean?
A: SP: That’s one way we test for regional impacts. If there was an issue with spillover traffic we would see
lowered average speeds in the surrounding neighborhoods and we just don’t.
Q: JF: So for Jamaica Plain, does that cover Allan’s house on Williams Street.
A: SP: If that’s within a ½ mile radius of the area around Forest Hills and Green Street stations then yes.
Local Travel Time Analysis
C: GM: All right, I’m going to try to move through this quickly. I won’t go through all the detailed LOS and
queuing analysis because that information is in the technical memo and there’s even more of it on the
website; it’s all at your fingertips. What I want to give you is an overarching message and that is that
both solutions are big improvements over existing conditions. When I talk about the bridge and atgrade versus existing, I’m talking about against existing operations. What we have determined is that
even with 2035 volumes, which are higher than those you have today, overall operations in the corridor
are comparable for both solutions and better than today. Both options have the same ability to process
traffic through the corridor. There are some differences between the two, but you won’t be in gridlock
and the queues won’t be spilling from one intersection to the next.
We showed you this diagram earlier. Red means E’s and F’s and you see a lot of them today, especially
in the western end of the corridor. This is the critical link here on Washington Street between South
Street and New Washington Street. If you look at the at-grade solution, you can see greens and yellows,
things get better. If you look at the bridge solution, we also have some yellows, but the reds come out.
The technical memo addresses LOS for each intersection, but if you look at the corridor as a whole and
compare current and future operations in both options there’s significant improvement. You see LOS D,
C, B and even an A. That’s consistent both morning and evening. There’s one LOS E in the at-grade
solution and one for the bridge option. They are similar, there’s no significant difference.
Now, let’s look at travel times. I can tell you about LOS all day, but travel time is really what it’s about.
The travel times for the alternatives were calculated using 2035 volumes for peak hours, when things are
at their worst. Outside of those peak times, travel time will be faster because demand is lower. In the
technical memo there are a series of tables with the 30 different combinations of movements. We have
those for both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods and that’s also in the handouts we just gave you so if
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
there’s a particular movement you’re worried about, you can check it, but let’s walk through some of the
more significant ones:
A-F the regional east-west flow, what do they experience? Under existing conditions, they travel
over the bridge in 0.8 minutes. With the new bridge that remains about the same. With the atgrade solution you add between 30 and 90 seconds to that, but remember that’s nowhere near
long enough to trigger diversions.
D-F doesn’t really change from today, but if you’re going from F to D, the bowtie does length
your trip slightly. Right now that F-D is a around 2 minutes. When we use the at-grade solution
it’s around 3.1 minutes in the a.m. peak and 4.5 minutes in the p.m. peak. The bridge
alternative makes it the same as existing or maybe a hair better.
B-F is not impacted by left turn restrictions. Today that’s 3 to 3.5 minutes. At-grade that gets a
little bit better coming down to around 1.3 minutes in both peak hours. With the bridge
alternative it’s 1.4 minutes in the a.m. and 2.0 minutes in the p.m.
A-E in the afternoon is currently 6.4 minutes in the a.m. and 3.1 minutes in evening. We know
the ramp backs up routinely today. With the at-grade solution, we knock it down to 2.2 minutes
a.m. and 3.7 minutes p.m. The bridge also provides improvements 1.8 minutes for the a.m. and
2.6 for the p.m.
D-E going from Hyde Park Avenue to Washington Street. Today it’s a little less than a minute in
both peak periods. At-grade gives you an additional delay of about half a minute, with the
bridge it’s about the same.
C-E would be impacted by the bowtie. It’s about 2 minutes today and it gets a little bit longer
with the at-grade. With the bridge the travel time comes down a bit, to 2.1 minutes in the a.m. and 2.6 minutes in the p.m.
Q: BD: If you’re taking South Street coming down, which you didn’t have in the study, you’re not taking into
account the traffic that’s backed up down to the Arboretum.
A: GM: We have that information and can give it to you. What we’re showing here is the time from one
intersection to the next. If the delay is caused by the intersection, it’s factored in. The fact is that we’d
say the trouble with current conditions is probably understated by our analysis. So we’re using what our
analysis tells us, but we don’t doubt there are days where you experience more delay under current
conditions.
C: JF: But this isn’t total delay, it doesn’t tell me how long it takes to get to the intersection.
A: GM: If the delay is caused by the queue from the intersection, then it’s factored in.
C: JF: But for example, B to C in the afternoon takes a lot longer than a minute.
A: GM: The congestion and complications at that location and the midblock pedestrian signal all result in
worse conditions than you see in the analysis. When we show better than existing, we know some other
things are happening.
C: JF: So maybe you’ve overstated your alternatives as well.
A: GM: Actually we’re more confident about the predictions than we are about the existing. The reason for
that is we’re doing away with the atypical intersection configurations and other oddities that make
modeling the current situation so difficult.
C: JF: But you’re not telling me how long it takes me to get from the monument down to that intersection.
A: JR: Jeff, we can’t impact stuff that’s a mile away up the road in Jamaica Plain. If there are a lot of
intersections between the monument and this intersection, we can’t take those away.
Page 16
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: GM: That correct, but if the delay is being caused by one of the intersections in the corridor, both of our
solutions can make it better than what you have today.
C: LO: I’m still concerned that if the model understates current problems, it may be overstating the
improvements offered by the alternatives.
A: GM: The analysis methodologies we’re using are better suited to the proposed conditions. Those models
deal much better with the proposed intersections than the mess you have today. Generally speaking,
the software has a difficult time with the types of intersection you have out there today where through
movements are actually two quick turns. As Scott told you, regionally, whatever you pick doesn’t make a
difference. There are specific movements that you can consider with the regional travel times, like the
inbound delays in the morning peak hour where you come across the overpass and it’s great until you
hit Murray Circle and then you’re in a standing queue. That won’t change, but when you say “hey, it
took me 30 seconds longer at-grade,” the fact is that we’re just off-setting some of that Murray Circle
queue. It takes everyone else the same time to get through as well so we’re metering the flow and
allowing Murray Circle to process traffic a little more systematically.
So, to summarize on future traffic the story is overall improvement. Pedestrian and bicycle conditions
improve. The vehicle capacity in the corridor is the same. Scott’s modeling shows no added or diverted
traffic. Just so you know Scott did a test run where he pulled out the Casey Overpass and just left
today’s streets in place and it triggered a massive shift. So, if there was an appreciable change, the
model would show it. The overall travel times between the two options are consistent and that’s
supported by Scott’s work. The bottom line is that traffic isn’t a differentiator between these two options
and how they serve local and regional traffic.
With that, I want to get into the simulations because I know you all want to see that. These were done
using a program called Vissim. I want to thank Colleen Medeiros who worked on these and has spent
hours on them. They are very complex models with a lot of parameters to set. The animations I’ll show
you represent the 2035 peak hours. Off-peak, things will run better.
Q: DH: Can you post these to the website?
A: GM: We’re actually working on doing that right now. At the moment, they are big, big files, around
30MB, but we think we can get them ready for the web by dropping the quality a little.
C: MC: This first animation is the at-grade alternative in the a.m. peak in 2035. We used an aerial
photograph for the background so you’ll see some cars not moving; those are just part of the
background.
C: Colleen Medeiros (CM): I started this back in August and so the design plans have changed a little bit
and so the background is older, but it does have all the movements. The background is for the wide
median and I know you’ve moved onto the medium median. The medium median will offer some
additional pedestrian benefits and shorter crossing distances, so this animation is actually more
conservative.
C: Matt O’Malley (MO): I see that you have the red lights built in.
A: GM: Yes we do.
C: SF: This seems a little fast; that car just took the right turn very quickly
A: GM: We’ve sped it up a little bit. Watching it in real time is like watching paint dry.
C: SF: So this is with the bus-way removed?
A: GM: No, the queue jump lane is there. You’re about to see the bus come up and get his light.
Page 17
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: AI: We don’t see traffic backing up onto the Arborway from Murray Circle.
A: GM: The model really ends at the end of the bridge. We know Murray Circle is out there. Another
thing, you did send it that photo to me of traffic on the bridge. We know that right now the bridge is
very bumpy and people are slowing way down to take it. That shock-wave is contributing to the backup.
C: SF: There’s another factor at Murray Circle. The signal there includes a phase for Prince Street which is
residential; if it were on a sensor instead of coming up every time that might help.
A: GM: Prince Street isn’t in the study area, but we’ve looked at that for delays. It could be there is
detection in the ground and it’s broken. When the loop breaks it defaults to coming up every cycle.
Now let me show you the Vissim for the bridge.
C: Russell Holmes (RH): From the way this looks, it looks as though this is running smoother than the atgrade version.
A: GM: If you’re on a bridge you’re going to move over the area without stopping, however, you want to
focus on the times the cars are waiting. If you can process the cars through each cycle and the queue
isn’t going back to the next intersection, that’s acceptable. It’s about how many overall cars get through.
C: RH: If you wait in any intersection for just five seconds, just see what happens. The few seconds become
a big deal when lights turn green and people start blowing horns. You look at each experience and tell
me which one you’d feel more comfortable on.
A: GM: Part of that depends on where I’m going.
C: MC: Now let me show you p.m. at-grade.
Q: RH: So right now, below the word Arborway, I’m seeing three rows of cars. Is that why my perception is
wrong?
A: GM: There are specific movements, yes, but the point is if I come through here at-grade, I can do it, I’m
not sitting in gridlock the way I am today.
Q: AI: These are 2035 volumes, and at the peak, what are we looking at?
A: GM: Those are expanded versions of the 2010 counts. The expansion has been done with input from
CTPS and the BRA. That’s all in the technical memo you received.
Q: RH: Would you comment on the pedestrians and bicycles? Isn’t this harder for them?
A: GM: When a pedestrian is crossing, the through traffic is stopped by the concurrent phasing. Now, they
do need to deal with a certain number of turning cars, but whether you have at-grade or a bridge, the
number of turning cars is the same. Imagine today, if I’m taking a turn, I’m not going to be up on the
bridge.
Now we’ll show the bridge alternative in the p.m. peak. I’d like to point out this critical link between
South Street and the Arborway at New Washington Street; you can see how well it’s doing.
Q: SMk: If this is p.m., why are all the cars going north?
A: GM: That’s just the view we’re showing, as the view moves, you can see all the cars moving west.
Page 18
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: RH: I still say that the experience for the person going east-west is worse when you’re doing at-grade so
you need to show me that you’re still getting through the area in the same amount of time. If you’re
showing just this zone, regional may be getting worse. You need to show Shea Circle and the signals
beyond it.
A: PS: The closer you zoom to the intersections, the better you can see how well it works.
A: GM: We’re trying to show the corridor in total, but we do have some zoom-in views.
Q: PS: Is Ukraine Way a part of this model?
A: GM: It’s not because we won’t be changing it.
C: AI: I’m very skeptical about traffic backing up. There was that time I was on the east end of the bridge
and saw it back up to nearly a standstill in the morning. I think there should be more friction at the
South Street intersection with the traffic backing up from Murray Circle. I know it’s been a frequent topic
with Sarah saying it’s backing up to the bridge.
A: GM: The bridge today is sub-optimal. We know people don’t love the temporary condition and they
definitely don’t like the bumps.
Q: DE: What you said earlier about a metered effect with the at-grade, do you mean that the back-up at
Murray Circle would be shorter because the traffic is coming in bite-size pieces?
A: GM: There would still be a standing queue, but it’s one less cycle you’d have to wait at Murray Circle
and so that’s worth stating. It’s like this: imagine you’re at Dunkin Donuts and there’s a line of ten
people in front of you. If you sit down and wait at a table, nobody else comes in, and you get in line
when there’s only three people at the register, then your wait in line is shorter because you already did
some of your waiting somewhere else.
Q: AI: But aren’t you causing friction for north/south traffic? I’m skeptical that these models reflect actual
traffic movements.
A: GM: The numbers are all in there. The numbers that these models are running on represent higher
volumes than today. Those volumes are built by using 2010 traffic counts built up with data provided to
us by the BRA and CTPS.
Q: AI: But what about the study that said the Casey Overpass has a volume around 34,000 cars. That was
by Ralph Denisco who worked for BTD at the time and what about the 1999 study for the PGA Tour?
A: JR: Allan, we’ve been over that before. That number was in one study for which nobody could find any
supporting data.
C: AI: I guess my question is where this all adds up and just questioning the numbers because when I look
at the bar chart it doesn’t quite connect with the numbers on the map.
A: GM: I don’t know which two pieces of paper you’re looking at, but the bar charts are from ATR counter,
the tubes in the road, and they count a little differently than people doing turning movement counts.
Q: AI: Then which one are we using?
A: GM: Well the other piece is that one set might be current volumes and one set might be future. Come
see me when we’re done and I’ll walk you through it.
C: EW: If traffic isn’t a differentiator and the LOS isn’t largely different, then for us, the basis of decision is
the human experience. So I ask what Olmsted would do and he was a political scientist and his design
Page 19
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
philosophy was a reaction against industry and he’d keep people away from machines, so I guess the
more you can do that, the better.
C: KW: It’s nice to hear people say it’s not about traffic. My opinion and Livable Streets’ opinion would be
not to have a bridge, because Olmsted’s rule was not building more than you need to. When he
encountered gradients in the land, he respected them and didn’t change them. His parks flow with the
land. I can’t see Olmsted building a bridge. Yes, there will be more lanes at-grade, but the fact that
there isn’t a huge structure over you counts for a lot. I know a lot of people at Livable Streets believe
that; one of them is Ken Crockmeyer who designed the Southwest Corridor Park.
A: AD: One of the things we were trying to do tonight was respond to your wish for traffic, traffic, traffic.
Tonight we’ve illustrated the mobility aspect of things and in the next meeting we’ll be addressing
livability which is going to be the big differentiator. We’re still moving lines and changing things here so
please give us your comments.
C: JF: I don’t buy this traffic being the same. We all know traffic backs up and we wait through several light
cycles. I’m familiar with South Street going to Roslindale and you say in the p.m. peak it’s 0.7 minutes.
There are huge back-ups on South Street and you’re not showing anyone waiting through multiple light
cycles.
A: GM: And as I explained earlier, your existing conditions here are quite atypical and the analysis is
understating the delays. It’s in fact longer than that, we know it too, because of the poor alignments
and confusing network. If we’d modeled the existing conditions in Vissim, you’d see the back-ups, but
there’s no point in that because we’re not going to rebuild the existing conditions. We’ve spent almost
two months making sure the build scenarios are accurate, particularly at the intersection you’re talking
about, but when it comes to existing nobody designs software to model left turns that happen 100 feet
from the through movement.
C: JF: It just seems like existing should be more accurate.
A: GM: We have all the data and can show you.
C: Bob Dizon (BDz): If you modeled the current configuration and showed the back-ups, maybe it would
boost confidence in the model.
A: GM: That would only show you what you already know.
C: RH: It would tell us much more than that, it would tell us you know what you’re doing.
C: EW: It’s very hard for us to imagine what we don’t know. All we can think of is the grisly Casey
Overpass and we can’t imagine a beautiful structure. Design and attention could give us that. Let’s not
get mired in the existing.
A: JR: That’s very true. I grew up a few blocks from North Station and with the elevated train overhead it
was quite dingy. When people we’re told the train was coming out they said it couldn’t be different and
now look at it. It is difficult to imagine something different whether that’s a better structure or no
structure, and Representative Holmes, with all respect, at some point you need to trust us. If we have to
keep coming back and showing you more and more, then we may as well pack it in. We have
professionals here who have no reason to lie to you and it seems like there’s always a challenge to us
for another measure.
C: KM: You’re putting down people who have asked reasonable questions.
A: JR: Kevin, nobody’s putting anybody down, I’m just saying that we’ve been very open with you
throughout this process and at some point you have to trust us.
Page 20
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: KM: When you tell us this is your conclusion without saying why, you should expect to be criticized.
A: JR: O.K. you know what happens out there today better than any of us, but if a Vissim showing existing
conditions is the thing then we’ll discuss it.
C: AI: And I’m here representing 900 people and I’m trying to do my due diligence and represent my
neighborhood. If something is best for my neighborhood, I’m going to advocate for it, even if it’s not
popular. When they ask me why we did one thing or another, I just want to be able to say we tested the
information hard.
A: JR: That’s just what we’d expect you to do; we hope you’re all doing that.
Q: RH: Since the analysis model for the whole area’s existing conditions seems time consuming, can we
maybe look at Murray Circle? Is it that simple?
A: GM: We can look at some ways to do that.
A: AD: That is outside our scope. You would need to speak to DOT about that.
Next Steps
The next milestone in the public involvement process will be the third of the Series 5 WAG meetings. This
meeting will take place on November 9th from 6:00-8:30 p.m. in Room 133 of the State Laboratory located
on South Street.
Page 21
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Bob
Dizon
WAG
Bernie
Doherty
WAG
Don
Eunson
WAG
Jeff
Ferris
WAG
Sarah
Freeman
WAG
David
Hannon
WAG
Mary
Hickie
WAG
Allan
Ihrer
WAG
Vineet
Gupta
BTD
Joe
Cosgrove
MBTA
Robert
Torres
Office of Representative Liz Malia
Ray
Pegram
Office of Representative Russell Holmes
Russell
Holmes
State Representative
Matt
O’Malley
City Councilor
Valerie
Frias
Office of Councilor Matt O’Malley
Nikka
Elugardo
Office of Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz
Tad
Read
BRA
Rebecca
Oleveira
Jamaica Plain Gazette
Don
Kindsvatter
HNTB
Andrea
D’Amato
HNTB
Essek
Petrie
HNTB
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Maureen
Chlebek
McMahon Associates
Colleen
Medeiros
McMahon Associates
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT
Paul
King
MassDOT
John
Romano
MassDOT
Kevin
Moloney
WAG
Suzanne
Monk
WAG
Liz
O’Connor
WAG
David
Watson
WAG
Emily
Wheelwright
WAG
Kevin
Wolfson
WAG
Elizabeth
Wylie
WAG
Julieanne
Doherty
Office of Mayor Thomas Menino
Daniel
Webber
MBTA
Marcus
Owens
Resident
Marylin
Stout
Office of Representative Russell Holmes
(mother)
Page 22
massDOT
-_
..­
Welcome to the meeting of the WAG for the Casey Overpass Replacement Project Planning Study!
If your name appears below, please place a check. mark in the last column. If not, please print below.
First Name
Honorable Kathleen
Last Name
Coffey
Title
Organization
West Roxbury District Court
Genie
Beal
Greenspace/BNAN (Boston Natural
Areas Network)
Nina
Brown
Arnold Arboretum
Mary
Burks
Josephine
Burr
Barbara
Crichlow
Lisa
Dix
Bob
Dizon
Dorchester/Mattapan
Neighborhood Association
Lower South Street
Neighborhood Association
West Seldon Street & Vicinity
Neighborhood Association
Woodhaven/Colbert/Regis
NeiQhborhood Association
Boston Cyclists Union/JP Bikes
<
<
----
Address
445 Arborway
City
Jamaica Plain.
MA 02130
Telephone
(617) 971-1300
44 Allendale
Street,APT#144
Jamaica Plain.
MA 02130
617.971.1635
Accelerated Bridge Program
Email Address
Present?
kathleen.coffey@jud.state.ma.us
bealmiOlmindsorina.com
nbrowniOlbrownrowe.com
burks167@gmail.com
iQsQebine.burriOlgmail.l;om
bcrichlow28iOlaol.com
romoniadix@aol.com
Bernard
Doherty
CPCAY - Community Planning
Committee for the Aborway Yards
36 Asticou Road
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
(h) 617-524-2573
(w) 617-449-1554
Tom
Dougherty
Area E Police Advisory Board
3 Peak Hill Road
617-835-5091
Mike
Epp
JP/South Street Main Streets
7 Greenough Ave
W. Roxbury, MA
02132
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Don
Eunson
Walk Boston
bob.dizon@Qmail.com
dohertllirbciOlaol.com
bernard.dohertv@Darsons.com
tll.doughertll@lIahoo.com
V
L..//
(617) 498-4682
eoomiOlcomcast.net
Jeffrey
Ferris
Southwest Corridor PMAC
Charles
Fiore
South Street Business Community
55 South Street
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
(617) 524-9200
Sarah
Freeman
Arborway Coalition
22 Arborway
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
617-524-0602 (H)
617-384-8759 (W)
Eric
Gordon
Forest Hills Neighbors
deunsoniOlamail.com
V
·effreviOlferriswheelsbikeshoo.com
V
freema~sherwood@hotmail.com
v""
ericbot@mac.com
Michael
Halle
Chair - Boston Police J P Traffic
and Parking Com m ittee
83 Wyman Street, No..1
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
(617) 524-5865
David
Hannon
Asticou Martinwood South Street
Neighborhood Association
27 Asticou Rd.
(617) 524-1401
Mary
Hickie
Emerald Necklace Conservancy
125 The Fenway
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Boston, MA
02115
Carlos
Icaza
38 Greenough Ave.
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
(617) 524-7997
Allan
Ihrer
JP Business & Professional
Association
Stony Brook Association also
CPCAY
116 Williams St., #2
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
617-595-5145 (cell)
617-983-5524 (H)
Kathy
Kottaridis
West Roxbury Courthouse
Neighborhood Association
41 Morton Street
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
617.799.5256
Bob
Mason
Friends of Healy Field
Neighborhood Association
14 Bexley Road
Roslindale, MA
02131
617-327-5698
President
m@halle.us
dmhannon@@mindsDring.com
~
(617) 522-2700
hickiemiOlomail.com
i/'
allan@bbmc.com
aihrer@comcast.net
V"
kottaridis@aol.com
masonsmith@rcn.com
-
massDOT
--_
.. ­
Welcome to the meeting of the WAG for the Casey Overpass Replacement Project Planning Study!
If your name appears below, please place a check mark in the last column. If not, please print below.
First Name
Dale
Last Name
Mitchell
Kevin
Accelerated Bridge Program
Organization
Ethos Care
Address
555 Amory Street
City
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Telephone
(617)522-6700
Email Address
Moloney
Arborway Committee
20 Rambler Road
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
617.522.3988
moloneys@verizon.net
Suzanne
Monk
Franklin Park Coalition
Liz
O'Connor
Michael
Reiskind
Andy
Schell
West Roxbury Courthouse
Neighborhood Association
JP Business & Professional
Association
Washington Street Business Group
Karen
Schneiderman
Cathy
Slade
Fred
Vetterlein
David
Watson
Title
Emily
Wendy
Wheelwright
Williams
Wesley
Williams
.Kevin
Elizabeth
Wolfson
Wylie
c(j.J'.rt1A-1A
r
v\ ~\-0Yl (\/\ Q
..L-1l p\J/EL
Ij'{h./ I
(j 111-r,{t4A
'V;~
Wilmore/Norfolk Neighborhood
Association
Livable Streets
Asticou Neighborhood
r
.~
)
()
JP Neighborhood Council
Arborway Gardens
"
"X-->Yl6~
r
,of,/xCL uf ~ !kI~
V
I
''
V~'-\ () ('s If-f'-tl'C€
~/A'r.o
'CJ..rJ 01­
arUA/J~
I
f
fA
C'
/{jJ~
.II f..ffJ~~J
~JJ tl.J/( ,ai/ ;J;;:';:s""Z?;
'r:sTP
liz@strategllmatters.org
c/
L/
j!lmichaelIalrcn .com
3399 Washington SI.
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Boston, MA
02111
. 60 Temple Place
617-524-3800
schellprinting@comcasl.net
(617)338-6665
kschneiderman@bostoncil.orQ
cathllslade 1Ialaol.com
fsv. iDlalcomcast. net
171 Milk Street, Suite 33
Boston, MA
02109
617-542-BIKE (2453)
davidlalmassbike.oro
ewheelwrio htlalama il. com
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
10 O'Leary Way
27 Asticou Rd.
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
(617) 522-7325
617-784-8062 Cell
,/
V-­
yJ
wwilliams333lalverizon.net
weslellwilliamslal!lost.harvard.ed
u
kevin. m. wolfsonlalomail.com
/
ewvlie32Slalcomcast. net
J
JJe,~\;t~CXJ) SerVW\
"
L---­
"
Wc-=t3v7(:~
A
V--/
/
wolfslmlalvahoo.com
Boston Center for Independent
Living
Rowe Street Neighborhood
Association
Stony Brook Neighborhood
Association
Mass Bike
Present?
I
M.$T'A
~.JJ h
_ct--­
fa!J Kn2hn/J ",.J
I
jh.,u ff, //t a;2/-3 Iv
I'
~U II/lJ"lX J-j'5/ ::;re it tlfMtt;' ,(~ 1 / /'
n-,IJ8 /rr1"'Aslb'A-Qi:f6hoo ,Co,...,
/"
I
V
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Received Emails
Please see the following pages.
Page 23
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us> Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:08 AM Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis FW: Casey Overpass Recommendations image917d25.JPG@1feb01ba.505d4b24 Nate: Please put this exchange with comments received. John IobnRomano
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.govlblog/traosportation or follow us on
twitter at www.twitter.comlmassdot
-----Original Message----­
From: Gerard P. O'Connor r_,,;'.....'
Sent:
October 07, 2011
Kevin, thanks for correcting my confusion on the precise type of traffic engineering solution that is being proposed for New
Washington Street as part of the "at-grade" option. The "median U-turn" or so-called "Michigan left" is indeed a different
structure from the "bow1ie," as the literature I have been able to find on the subject makes pretty clear. It would be
helpful for those of us following this process for the DOT design team to use the term "median U-turn" in order to reduce
confusion.
Just to be clear, my understanding is that a median U-turn is a traffic engineering solution that facilitates a left turn by
sending the arterial traffic straight through the intersection, then into a special U-turn lane to reverse direction, then taking
a right turn back at the original intersection. See here. The "median U-turn" left turns that I have seen in my limited
research seem primarily to be used in Midwesiern suburban locations where the "car is king," like 8 Mile Road in
suburban Detroit, a heavily traveled state highway that crosses residential streets. (By the way, I can find nothing
resembling this structure in the haphazard mish-mash of streets at Coolidge Corner, which you suggest below as an
example of a local "median U-turn").
1
The problem I am worried about is that New Washington Street at Forest Hills is not a state highway in the Midwest, nor
an "arterial" with "high arterial through volumes," but rather a busy city block, bound by Forest Hills T station and the
Southwest Corridor, and by two signalized intersections at either end. That gauntlet must now accommodate (1) east­
west automotive traffic, (2) bike and pedestrian traffic, (3) transit buses serving a major transit hub, (4) several school bus
stops, (5) a bike path terminus, and (6) a busy pedestrian crossing. It also connects Hyde Park Ave. with the rest of
Forest Hills and JP. Has the group questioned whether such a hard-engineered, car-centric solution is appropriate here?
Also, I do not accept the reasoning below that "the design team came up with the at-grade solutions because they are
viable solutions for the area." I think that is backwards. I think, and I suspect that most of my neighbors think, that the
WAG was convened precisely to help determine whether, in fact, any given solution will be viable for our neighborhood. It
is not safe to assume that any at-grade solution will work without undue harm/effect on Forest Hills or the communities
east of the overpass that might be used by diverted drivers. As of now, the proposed "at-grade" solution appears to
consist, in its entirety, of a couple of computer-generated pictures each depicting a few people, some trees and a single
car. That, to me, does not establish its viability. If we do select an at-grade option, then it should be based not on the
scant record so far, but upon careful consideration of several critical issues, such as:
- Are there any examples of the "median U-turn" actually being built, and succeeding, in circumstances resembling the
tight quarters and multiple uses of an urban location like New Washington Street? if so, what can we learn from
them? Will it really facilitate urban design, or will make the area look like a Midwestern state highway strip -- i.e., as out­
of-place in its own way as the Casey Overpass is today? If there are no suitable examples, then how will we achieve
confidence that this will work both as a traffic solution and as an improvement for the future of the Forest Hills
neighborhood?
- Of the 209 bridges and overpasses in the state's "Accelerated Bridge Program," how many other projects are
removing an existing overpass and replacing it with an "at-grade" solution? If any, do they share the traffic and
neighborhood characteristics that we have at Forest Hills, so that we can measure apples-to-apples the likelihood of a
successful implementation here?
- What agencies or entities would have to approve the creation of the new U-turns on the Arborway and on Morton
Street? Are we sure that the DOT has the rights necessary to construct this additional infrastructure? Will the
Accelerated Bridge Program pay for it? Does the DOT have the right to make the proposed changes to Shea Circle? Will
DOT be able to dictate their proposed changes to MBTA structures and operations, or will there be a separate process? If
essential rights have not been secured, then should we be considering this "at-grade option" as a finalist? What happens
if the design team selects the at-grade solution and then cannot build one or both of the U-turns, or make the changes to
Shea Circle?
- Currently, one function of the Casey Overpass is that it absorbs the significant a.m. eastbound traffic back-up from the
Arborway at the Centre Street rotary, which backs out onto the overpass surface most mornings between 7:00 and 9:00
a.m. One can observe this on any weekday morning. With no overpass to absorb that queue, hundreds it not thousands
of feet long, all those cars will be on the street, backed up past the South Street intersection. Will east-west traffic even
be able to make U-turns? Will the planned "arterial" accommodate this additional backed-up traffic? Do we think that the
eventual solution will be that these drivers will eventually give up and go somewhere else? If so, then where do we think
they will they go? What effect will that have?
.
- Where will people bound for Forest Hills station be dropped off and picked up if we remove the drop-off lanes from
New Washington Street? What effect will they have on local traffic in the new place where we put them?
- Will school buses still be able to drop off and pick up students on New Washington Street? If so, how will that affect
the traffic? If not, then where will they go? What effect will that have on local traffic?
- Will the pedestrian crossing from the Southwest Corridor Park to Forest Hills be sacrificed to the proposed new multi­
lane "arterial" on New Washington Street? Will pedestrians between the station and the Southwest Corridor really walk all
the way up to South Street, cross, and walk all the way back, or will they attempt to cross at the traditional point? Will we
have to built barriers in the median to prevent jaywalking, as they did on Columbus Ave. at the police
headquarters? What effect would that have on the appearance of the area -- would it feel like a divided highway instead
of a city street?
2
- Are we sure that all of these new traffic signals will work together? What happens if they don't? As just one data
point, if someone on Yale Terrace wanted to drive to Forest Hills to drop off someone at the train station or pick up a
couple of pizzas at the Dogwood, they currently have to go through one traffic signal, at the corner of Arborway and
Washington, to get to Hyde Park Ave. Under the "at-grade" proposal, it looks like that driver would have to go through (1)
a signal at the east end of Shea Circle, (2) another signal at the west end of Shea Circle, (3) a third signal at Arborway
and Morton, (4) another signal at Arborway and South, (5) a U-turn signal on the Arborway at the Arboretum, (6) back
through the signal at Arborway and South, and finally (7) back to the signal at Arborway and Hyde Park, where they could
turn right and get their pizza. (I am leaving out the signalized crosswalk on Hyde Park Ave because that would be the
same in either scenario). Of course this is just one example, but to me this risks isolating the Hyde Park Ave. section of
the Forest Hills station from the rest of the neighborhood. Has the design team finalized the number and location of the
signals and the median U-turns?
- How would a bike make the same trip described above? The meeting materials for the last public meeting state about
the at-grade options: "Allows for improved bicycle and pedestrian crossings and connections at grade, on and off-street, in
all directions to all destinations." Sounds great, but the WAG meeting minutes appear to reflect considerable uncertainty
about many aspects of bike transportation, such as how bikes will make left-turns. Various concepts such a "bike boxes"
are discussed, but do not appear to be included in the designs as yet. How did we arrive at the summary conclusion that
everything will be better "in all directions to all destinations," if we don't even know exactly how the bikes will travel? Has
the proposed "box turn" been used elsewhere in Boston or locally, so that we have an idea of how it would work? Are the
characteristics of these particular intersections suitable for bike boxes? Will anyone know what they are for? Is there a
plan to install more bike boxes in the city, or would these be the only ones? How will, e.g., bikes on Morton Street waiting
to cross into the Washington Street box interact with cars turning right onto Washington Street?
- Do we expect that some of the 24,000 - 30,000 cars per day currently using the Casey Overpass as part of a cross­
city east-west route will seek another way through Mattapan, Roslindale and JP? Will that have any effect on those
neighborhoods? Should those neighborhoods be included in this process now, to ensure that the design team and the
WAG have an opportunity to hear any concerns?
I think everybody agrees that the Casey Overpass is ugly, way too big and an unpleasant reminder of the bad old days
when our main planning goal was to maximize the number of cars through the city. However, it does serve a useful
function of carrying tens of thousands of cars per day over the Forest Hills neighborhood, preserving the walkability of the
neighborhood, allowing easy access to Forest Hills station and connecting the Hyde Park Ave. section of JP to the rest of
the neighborhood. Replacing the current hulk with a much smaller, appropriately designed, single-lane overpass will
continue to serve this limited function, can help calm Arborway-bound traffic and will also permit the continued many other
uses of New Washington Street. On the other hand, turning New Washington Street into a Midwestern-stYle "arterial"
raises all of the above questions, none of which have been addressed fully and satisfactorily as yet.
Based on my review of the process and independent research to date, replacing our current overpass with a smaller and
better bridge seems to be the obvious choice. Who knows, maybe it is possible that the at-grade option might prove to be
as good, or better. Right now, though, we have no idea what it would really look like, whether it would work, and how how
we would address all of the ancillary issues that it would raise. I appreciate the DOT's outreach efforts and the WAG's
generous volunteer efforts in this process, but as of now I lack confidence in the adequacy of the analysis supporting the
proposition that an "at grade" option would work as well as a replacement overpass. Any answers to the above
questions in advance of our next public meeting would be greatly appreciated. If we can't answer the questions
satisfactorily before deciding on an option, then I would question the wisdom of including the at-grade option in the final
options.
Finally, I would like to repeat that the most critical outcome of this process is to secure a binding commitment from the
state DOT that we can hold it to. Based on our experience with the Arborway Yard, we should not accept less than a
binding commitment and continued meaningful community throughout the process.
Thanks again for the helpful clarification and for your efforts on the WAG.
Best regards,
Jerry O'Connor
3
I
,..,.
MORSE
~
...".
. ~. BARNES·BROWN
. . PENDLETON PC
Th.law flrm built for busin<ss.® Gerard P. O'Connor Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton, P.C. Reservoir Place Business
I
Technology & IP
I
Employment 8r. Immigration
I
Taxation
To ensure compliance with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or Oi) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
This message (including any attachments) may be a confidential and privileged communication to the intended addressee. If you are not the
intended addressee, you have received this message in error. In that case, please permanently delete this message and call us at 781-622­
5930 so that we can avoid this inconvenience in the future. Thank you.
-----Original Message----­
From: Kevin Wolfson [mailto:kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday,, September 29, 2011 1:55 PM
Hi Jerry,
Thank you very much for your detailed letter. I would like to address an important point of understandable confusion in your
letter.
The "bow-tie" designs described in both the Wikipedia article and the UrbanStreet article you linked to are different than the
"bow-tie" designs we have been discussing. The at-grade options we are considering are versions of the "Median U-Turn"
design described in the UrbanStreet article, not the "Bow-Tie" design (despite the terminology we've been using). The
"Median U-Turn" forces left turning traffic to move though the intersection, make a u-turn in the median! and then turn
right. The u-turn is placed in the median of the main arterial (in this case, Rt. 203). That is what we are considering.
4
The "bow-tiel! design in those articles requires round-abouts placed in the cross streets (Washington, South, and Hyde Park
Ave, in our case). Again, we are not considering a "bow-tie" like that. We are considering a version of a "Median
U-Turn" design, to use that article's terminology.
The article recommends that "agencies should consider the median u-turn alternative where generally high arterial through
volumes conflict with moderate or low left turn volumes and any cross street through volumes." That situation is exactly
what we have around Forest Hills, which is also why the at-grade designs make sense for the area.
There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to the median u-turn design, as the UrbanStreet article points out.
However, it's crucial that we all understand that the design team came up with the at-grade options because they
are viable solutions for the area.
Median u-turns, like what we are describing, exist successfully in several other areas around Boston. A few examples: on
Beacon St. in Coolidge Corner, Brookline, vehicles can't turn left onto Harvard St, they must use median u-turns on either
side of the intersection. Memorial Drive in Cambridge uses several median u-turns to handle left turning traffic. Huntington
Ave near Symphony also restricts left turns,forcing drivers to go make U-turns before the intersection with Mass Ave .. In all
cases, median u-turns manage car movements while opening up space for the pedestrian and bike infrastructure,
businesses, and landscaping that are so crucial in making those places destinations.
Best,
Kevin Wolfson
LivableStreets Alliance
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Gerard P. O'Connor <qoconnor@mbbp.com> wrote:
September 28, 2011
To: Casey Overpass Working Advisory Group:
From: Jerry O'Connor, 22 Yale Terrace, Jamaica Plain
Re: Working Group Recommendations
This to provide the Casey Overpass Working Advisory Group some thoughts and suggestions as you move
forward with your work. As a direct abutter of Shea Circle and the existing overpass, and a close observer of the
proceedings to date, I have some specific observations and recommendations that I hope you will consider.
1. I recommend a single-bridge solution, and oppose an "at-grade" solution.
I recommend that the WAG 'endorse the (narrow) single-bridge solution. Here are the reasons why:
(a) The problem we are trying to solve is that the Casey Overpass is at the end of its useful life. The function
of the Casey Overpass is to carry traffic over a potential chokepoint on Morton Street/New Washington Street
IArborway as it cross two busy streets and the Forest Hills station. Therefore, it makes the most sense to me to
replace it with a piece of infrastructure that continues to serve that function, unless there is separately a reason to
believe that that function is no longer necessary.
(b) From my 20 years of residence and daily experience, I cannot conclude that the function served by
the Casey Overpass is obsolete. Nor does any information provided to date by DOT support such a conclusion.
(e) An at-grade solution will not best enable the flow of traffic. Not only are the two street intersections very
busy, there is also a major transit hub, with MBTA buses coming and going, pedestrians stopping traffic to cross
New Washington Street, and school buses that stop all traffic on the street when they put on their stop lights to
pick up .or discharge passengers.
(d) I am dubious that an "at-grade" solution will work. The examples given to the WAG of other "at-grade"
solutions, such as the Park East Expressway in Milwaukee and the Embarcadero in San Francisco, do not share
the characteristics noted above. Those examples lacked comparable type and amount of cross-street traffic,
andlor did not move directly over the middle of a busy transit hub, andlor were considered underutilized or
obsolete, andlor were located in circumstances, like being on the water, which permitted planners basically to
move traffic from a viaduct to a street-level road with no major negative consequences. With appreciation for the
work done to investigate these examples, I respectfully suggest they are not applicable.
(e) Most importantly, the "at-grade" solutions call for complex left-turn strategies such as the so-called "bow
tie" left turn, in which left-turning traffic on the arterial street, e.g., Morton Street would actually turn right,
onto, Washington Street, then go around a roundabout to reverse direction, then proceed back across the Morton
5
Street intersection to accomplish the left turn onto Hyde Park Ave .. Click here to see a video example of how
these bow ties are intended to work.
The problems with bow ties include:
- There is no space to put such roundabouts on Hyde Park or Washington Streets. Bow ties might
work in comparatively wide open spaces (click here to see the video example) but we cannot plunk a set of
roundabouts down at Forest Hills.
- The examples of the medians to be used with the so-called "bow tie" turn in the August 13
presentation included VFW Parkway and Baker Street and Arborway at Custer Street (see the August 13 WAG
presentation). These intersections are not bow tie turns at all. I know that they were not intend to be examples
of bow ties but, rather, of the median width. However, the lack of any examples of successful bow tie installations
locally -- or anywhere -- is to me a warning that it might be impracticable. At the least, I would insist on several
clear examples of where this method has been successfully employed in a similar urban situations, before we
were asked to consider it seriously.
- This document about alternative left turns -­
http://www.urbanstreet.info/lst symp proceedings/Ec019 e3.pdf -- seems to me to be reasonable and
authoritative. It states that bow ties are not desirable where the left turn traffic or the cross-street traffic
are factors. I think we have both those situations.
- The Wikipedia entry on bow ties states: "As of yet no agency has designed a complete bowtie
road junction." I concede that Wikipedia may not be an authoritative source, but I would invite the DOT to rebut
it, or to make a compelling case why this would be the appropriate location for the first one anywhere.
To me, based on the research I have done and my familiarity with the area, the idea of the "bow-tie" left turn
is a non-starter for the above reasons. Moreover, it is an alarm bell that the "at-grade" solution as a whole might
not be supported by clear thinking and solid engineering. I don't think it will work, and I oppose it.
2. Accountability is critical.
We need to know that the hard work of the WAG and the community will not be wasted. We must come away
from this process with concrete and enforceable assurances that the solution that the community puts forward will
be implemented. We need look no further than the Arborway Yard next door to see what will happen if we settle
for anything less. There has. been an "agreement" in place for at least ten years regarding the Arborway Yard and
yet nothing has been done -- except that the MBTA gets to park its buses there.
I think that a significant risk in the WAG process is that permitting a broad, design-oriented process, without
focusing and hard-nosed issues of binding agreements, budgeting and accountability, leaves the door wide open
for the same outcome. I can envision a future statement to the general effect of "We value the effort and the great
ideas of our partners in the WAG. Unfortunately, there just was not enough money to put into place all of their
great suggestions, and the safety of today's users has to come first. Therefore, we are proceeding with a
replacement solution that we can afford [and that no one on the WAG ever would have approved]."
I should hasten to note that the representatives DOT who have run the public meetings have been great to
listen to and work with and have welcomed community input. But so were the MBTA representatives who worked
with us during the Arborway Yard process. I think a degree of skepticism is justified. I am very concerned about
what is going to happen when this project moves forward to the next stage. Will it be turned over to a different
team? Will the final decision makers be bound by what the WAG has suggested? Where will the money come
from?
We can't allow a result like the one that happened at the Arborway Yard. The conclusion of the WAG process
must lead to a binding agreement, and an ongoing oversight and participation role for WAG representatives, so
that we have transparency and accountability throughout the process until the successful end. This should be
addressed now. if the current DOT attendees do not have the authority to bind the agency, then the right people
at DOT should be brought in so that we are assured of the agency's undertaking in a meaningful, enforceable
way.
3. That means that the WAG should focus on the necessary and the achievable.
6
I believe that along with pushing the DOT as an agency for binding commitments and accountability, the WAG
can best insure the success of this effort by directing its focus on the actual Casey Overpass, instead of
attempting to fix too many things at once. For example:
Any changes to Shea Circle should be minimal. Shea Circle has been brought into the conversation
about replacing the Casey Overpass, and it has been suggested that Shea Circle needs to be redesigned as an
an egg, or a square. I disagree. Based on my experience, almost all of the accidents in Shea Circle happen
because cars coming up Morton Street from Mattapan can't tell that the rotary is coming up, and they smash into
the island. In the summer, when our windows are open, we hear this happen every week or two. A flashing light
would fix this problem for a couple of thousand dollars. Aside from that, it seems to me that the automotive and
bicycle traffic entering and exiting the Shea Circle rotary regulates itself pretty well. On the other hand, putting in
a number of traffic lights will only cause more idling cars sending their exhaust into the neighborhood. We don't
need a redesign of Shea Circle, other than to accommodate the disappearance of what is now the eastern
abutment of the Casey Overpass, and we certainly do not need more traffic lights.
We should not let the group's focus drift to other priorities in this process. I agree that traffic on the
Arborway is too backed up sometimes, and that it goes too fast other times. However, I don't see how the Casey
Overpass replacement will fix this issue one way or the other. Once the traffic is on the Arborway west of the
Casey Overpass, it doesn't really matter how it got there. From that point, it is going to get backed up, or go too
fast, regardless of the structure it used to get there. The only exception to this I can think of would be if the
replacement of the Casey Overpass was intended to reduce the number of cars that reach the
Arborway. However, this is not the intent. Furthermore, the only times I have ever seen the Casey Overpass
backed up (other than because cars can't travel at more than 10 miles per hour because of its poor road surface)
is when the Arborway traffic to the west is causing the backup. So again, I suggest that there is no logical
connection between the admittedly unfavorable conditions on the Arborway and the need to replace the Casey
Overpass. We should fix the Arborway, but in this current process it is a distraction -- again, unless you propose
to use the Casey Overpass replacement as a means of intentionally limiting westbound access to the Arborway,
which has not been stated as a goal and which I would oppose.
Similarly, I strongly support improving East-West transit options. As has been noted, this will likely ameliorate
some East-West auto traffic and we should be looking at it. However, I do not see it as a substitute for replacing
the Casey Overpass, nor discussion of it in the WAG process as useful to the present goal of ensuring that a
replacement bridge gets built timely and the way we want it.
On the other hand, concerns such as traffic backup on Washington StreetlAsticou Road heading into the
Overpass area, or about the re-direction of westbound traffic coming from 1-93 through areas like Mattapan if the
bridge is not replaced, strike me as directly related to the decision of whether the overpass gets replaced. We do
need to consider these immediate concerns.
We should utilize and improve the existing bike infrastructure, I ride my bike a fair amount -- 900
miles since I put my new odometer on in August. I understand that bike advocates, of which I consider myself
one, want to provide first-class bike lanes on the replacement bridge. That's fine with me if we can get them. But
consider also that the Casey Overpass connects two of the very worst roads I have ever seen for bikes, I.e.,
Morton Street and the Arborway. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have ridden on
them in the last 20 years, despite using Shea Circle on a daily basis. Putting a first-class bike bridge in between
these two streets strikes me as a waste of money, especially if it does not take the rider directly to the Arboretum
as the current bike lane does Gust about). A bike lane on the bridge sounds like the right thing to do for bikes, but
in practice I doubt very much that anyone would use it, because of what you would have to endure to get there
and where it would leave you at the end. I know I wouldn't. Also, there is already a bike path, the
Pierre Lallemont Path, that already goes from the Southwest Corridor almost all of the way to Franklin Park. We
could extend and expand this path, using the Southwest Corridor, the 500 Arborway property, the space that will
be made available by the replacement bridge, and the existing park entrance, to create a very nice path to
connect Franklin Park with South Street, and then over to the Arboretum. If this overpass was a true bridge, e.g.,
over water or a railway, that bikes needed access to, then I of course would completely support this effort. But it's
not -- iI's merely a short viaduct to carry through traffic over a set of major obstacles, to get to the same
destination that the surface traffic can get to. There are many such bridges, like ones on Route 9, that we bikers
either just deal with or avoid. So go ahead with the bike lane on the bridge, if you must, and I will stand up and
applaud if you get it done. But I see a far better and more practicable solution along the Lallemont path.
We should not place too much weight on minor concerns such as "shadowing." Concerns about,
e.g., shadowing caused by a new bridge are legitimate. But as an abutter,.1 will accept the shadowing from a
small, single-lane bridge as a significant improvement over what is there now, to say the least. There are trade­
7
offs in any process like this, and to me the shadowing factor is insignificant compared to the advantages we will
gain. Getting the WAG-approved design for a replacement bridge built is sure to be a major improvement to our
neighborhood, so we should keep our eye on the goal of making sure it gets done.
We need to discuss how this will be paid for and when it will happen. The WAG should insist that DOT
share information about the federal and state funding that might be available for the project. For example, federal
money might be available for bike improvements along the Lallemont Path. Also, the WAG should seek more
information about the timing of the work. This summer, DOT replaced 14 bridges on Route 93 in ten weekends-­
see http://93fast14.dot.state.ma.us/. Why is this bridge going to take several years? Is there any way to
accelerate it? The longer it takes, the greater risk that significant pieces that the WAG negotiates for now will be
sacrificed to future financial exigencies.
I hope these points are helpful, and I ask that you consider them as you move the process forward. I know that
reasonable people can and likely will disagree with some of the views expressed above, and I welcome any
clarification or response that might improve upon my own understanding of the subject. Thanks very much to
both the WAG members as well as the DOT representatives for your efforts on behalf of our community.
Jerry O'Connor
1 4:19 PM Overpass bus transit issues Hi everyone,
This discussion points out the strong need for traffic models, which will help us see the "big picture" in terms of flow and
impacts to the larger area. The concerns about "debilitating congestion" are understandable, along with skepticism about
traffic being "no worse if the overpass is not replaced", and the belief that "many signals ... wiIl cause a bigger problem". At
the same time, the neighborhood I represent on the WAG includes the area inbound from the Overpass. We see many
negative impacts from the current Overpass: during morning rush hour, traffic sits through multiple cycles on the lights; and
when it isn't rush hour, it is a speedway that is dangerous for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and residents - a high accident
area. The Overpass doesn't solve the bigger problem; it simply moves it. Let's work towards a balanced solution that
considers all of these concerns - and achieves the best outcome for Forest Hills, including the adjacents neighborhoods and
parks. (I can't be at the Thurs, meeting, but I'I1 be at the WAG.)
Thank you in advance for working together,
8
Sarah Freeman
Arborway Coalition representative on the WAG
Allan,
I am a member of the Roxbury/Dorchester/Mattapan Advisory Transit Committee, as well as a member of WAG. I
have mentioned those issues before. I live in Mattapan near Gallivan Blvd. I explained about the 40K vehicles
traveling along Morton Street toward the Casey Overpass and the 20K vehicles cutting through Franklin Park
coming from 93N. The traffic along Gallivan Blvd/Morton Street includes commuters from 93S. When the Morton
Street bridge is replaced our problems will be for a short length of time but if the Casey Overpass is not replaced
it will be a life time of traffic issues in the area.
The many traffic signals planned will delay those buses you mentioned and cause a bigger problem that the ROM
is dealing with now. If WAG members could attend the ROM meeting this Thursday, at the Golf Clubhouse in
Franklin Park at 6:00pm a lot of what you raised may be explained.
I can't make the WAG meeting tomorrow but I will be at the meeting Thursday, I hope to see you there.
Barbara Crichlow
W. Selden St.& Vicinity NA
9
Hello all,
I personally love the idea that we might get rid of the overpass, but only if its negative impacts are
virtually nil. I'm representing a residential neighborhood which is close knit despite being surrounded
by institutionaillight industrial uses, and permeated by East/West peak hour traffic. As a representative
of my neighborhood I have an obligation to look after its interests, but I also know from many
conversations that the concerns of my neighbors are felt by others in the Forest Hills area.
We are told traffic will be no worse if the overpass is not replaced. I and many others from JP and other
neighborhoods are very skeptical of this. It would be comforting if we addressed the prospect
of debilitating congestion with more than the elimination of left turns. My ongoing harangue that we
address workable transit for the East/West traffic, is an attempt to sync up my neighborhood's interests
with those of the larger city.
Residents of Dorchester and Mattapan need to get to and from their jobs, in less than 2 hours of
commuting each way. There is no currently no legitimate East/West transit choice, so folks drive their
cars to and from work. To an unknown extent, traffic that currently passes over the Casey Overpass and thru our neighborhoods could definitely be reduced by a dedicated East/West bus transit route. In our WAG meetings we've given absolutely no attention to accommodating a legitimate and efficient East/West transit route. By not accommodating facilities for such a route we may be making decisions that'll will make those alternatives more costly and difficult to achieve, in the future. Additionally, in our WAG meetings we've given minimal attention to possible improvements or impacts on transit, other than the #39 bus: Dorchester, Mattapan, and Hyde Park buses leaving the Arborway Yard and turning south onto Hyde Park Ave. towards Forest Hills Station haven't been addressed. Dorchester and Mattapan buses leaving the Arborway Yard and U-turning at Hyde Park Ave to head eastward haven't been addressed. Dorchester and Mattapan buses turning from Hyde Park Ave to head east will be/may be slowed due to backups at the intersection. Roslindale and Dedham buses leaving the Arborway Yard and turning south onto Washington St. towards Forest Hills Station haven't been addressed. Roslindale and Dedham buses leaving Forest Hill and turning north onto Washington St. towards the Arborway Yard haven't been addressed. Addressing all these topics is generally quite simple, but just as the #39 bus has received a special pullover lane and/or special signaling so too should these buses, including a future East/West route. Finally, there are 'synergies' to be achieved when 500 Arborway is removed and replaced with parking for the Arborway Yard MBTA employees. Regardless of whether we have a bridge or no bridge solution, the courthouse will be needing 75 to 100 spots and it may be that future Arborway Yard MBTA garage could house them. As we close in on the end of this portion of Casey Overpass project, it seems reasonable to give bus transit as much focus as we have to bicycle turns. Respectfully, Allan Allan Ihrer 116 Williams St., #2 11
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:09 AM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
FW: Casey Overpass Recommendations
Another one/piece of previous
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
-----Original Message----­
From: Michael Halle [mailto:m@halle.us] Sent: Saturday, October 08, 201112:49 AM To: Gerard P. O'Connor Cc: 'Kevin Wolfson'; freemansherwood@hotmail,com; bcrichlow28@aol.com; aihrer@comcast.net; Romano, John (DOT); ewheelwright@gmail.com; ericbot@mac.com; jeffrey@ferriswheelsbikeshop.com; wwilliams333@verizon.net; moloneys@verizon.net; kfm@barronstad.com; fsv.jp@comcast.net; kathleen.coffey@jud.state.ma.us; schellprinting@comcast.net; bernard.doherty@parsons.com; Elizabeth Wylie; Michael Epp; Mary Hickie; David Watson; Nina Brown; td.dougherty@yahoo.com; masonsmith@rcn.com; josephine.burr@gmail,com; cathyslade1@aol.com; wesleywilliams@post.harvard.edu; romoniadix@aol.com; burks167@gmail,com; David Hannon; kk@historicboston.org; Eugenie Beal; allan@bbmc.com; dmitchell@ethocare.org; Bob Dizon; Don Eunson; michael reiskind; liz@strategymatters.org; Suzanne Monk; City Councilor Rob Consalvo Subject: Re: Casey Overpass Recommendations Jerry, Thanks for your extensive list of comments. Traffic analysis of the type you're requesting is the scheduled topic ofthe next WAG meeting. This information is critical towards understanding not just the gross throughput but also the turn-by-turn performance of the different Casey design alternatives. Members of the WAG have been asking for this information since our very first meetings. We're now at the point in the design process (i.e., down to two alternatives) where such a detailed analysis is possible. I'm sure I'm not the only one looking forward to seeing the results of this analysis. I would urge my fellow WAG members to avoid the temptation to stake out 1
rigid positions on one design alternative or the other at this time, at
the expense of continued study and discussion. It's understandable, but
our work isn't done. We owe our greater community close attention to the
details that will affect daily life for countless people for decades to
come.
Even if you have so strongly favor one design alternative that you'll
never change your mind, it's still important to make sure we make both
alternatives the best they can be. There is just no way to know how this
public process will finally work out. If your priorities and the
opinions of the people you represent are reflected in both alternatives
as much as possible, they are assured to live on into the final design.
There will be plenty more time for long letters, impassioned speeches,
the painting of the rosy and the bleak, and the liberal use of metaphor,
hyperbole, and Wikipedia. Let's just get down to the best plans we can
first!
Thanks, and have a great weekend all,
--Mike
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us> Friday, October 14, 2011 7:17 PM Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; 'ADAmato@hntb.com'; 'EPetrie@hntb.com'; King, Paul C (DOT); McLaughlin, Steve (DOT) Fw: Casey Overpass Recommendations FYI
Hey Gerard et al.
For those who read this e-mail from Gerard, I just wanted to clear something up about the bike and walking
aspects he mentioned, I believe there are some solutions.
First of all, one of the improvements of an at-grade version would be that a person who lives on Yale Terrace
and wants to pick up some pizzas or drop a friend at the train station might, if there weren't a big highway
looking bridge along the way, prefer to walk instead of drive their car (thus lessening traffic congestion!).
There's a nice route through the cemetery during the day or along a nice bike-ped path along side of the road at
anytime.
But for a bike there are a few solutions. They could mimic the pedestrian moves I just described, or they could
1
get on the Arborway and take a left at Hyde Park Ave in two different ways, ifit was designed right (and right
now we're in concept design, so these details would normally come later), they could either pullover to the right
after the intersection into a Two-Stage Tum Queue Box or merge into the left lane and slip into the median in a
45 degree anglecut Median Refuge Island (Click on the "Recommended" tab under the "Design Guidance"
section as you scroll down.
There are lots of bike boxes in the country and few in Boston down at Commonwealth, there are also lots of
Two-Stage boxes and Median Refuges, and those examples are listed in the links above.
In your earlier e-mail you also mention Arborway and Morton Street as being some of the worst bikeways in the
city. All I can is not for long if I can help it. And certainly not forever.
Morton Street is wide enough to have nice wide cycletracks (that's a physically protected bike lane) on either
side, and this could happen the next time it is repaved or possibly before. It would likely not be terribly
expensive, and I think we can get the process moving in the very near future precisely because of the Casey, and
all the more-so if it goes at-grade, because that will be a more attractive place to pass through on your way to
the SW Corridor, which would be attached.
This new cyc1etrack would give people in Mattapan a way to ride from the intersection Harvard St and Morton
St all the way to the South End without having to deal with traffic. Fairly safe on-street connections could take
riders easily into JP Centre, Mission Hill, The Longwood Medical Area, Northeastern University, the Back Bay
and plenty of other major destinations. It could become a major commuting route and extension of the SW
Corridor. And over the years, more good connections could be improved along this new network.
Maybe even someday, we could create a better path connection down the Arborway to the Pond, and connect to
the Em Necklace. Big dreams yes, but very attainable I think.
-and shadows do more than block the sun, they severely limit economic development because psychologically,
the vast majority of people do not like walking under big cement overpasses. I'm a JP history buff and
sometimes I like to imagine what the neighborhood would have been like if the expressway would have been
built. I don't think anyone would say it wouldn't have made a difference. It would have. And so does this.
I think what the traffic models will show is that for car drivers, the at-grade will make things a little bit better
for some and a little bit worse for others-but not whole lot better or a whole lot worse for anybody. But for
bikes and pedestrians, the at-grade will absolutely be a whole lot better. Safer, sunnier, more attractive, a nicer
place to be.
Anyway we may continue to disagree, but I'm glad you're involved in the process.
-Pete
-Pete
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Gerard P. O'Connor <goconnor@mbbp.com> wrote:
2
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:10AM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
King, Paul C (DOT)
FW: Casey Overpass
image002.jpg; image004.jpg; imageOOB.jpg; imageOOB.jpg; image015.jpg; No Overpass New
Wash. Vs. Current New Wash ..pdf
You should put this with comments fro project.
Thanks,
John
John Romano
Municipal Affairs Liaison
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Direct: 617.973.7028 [ 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
-----Original M~~:f~;~i;~;~:'
From: Allan Ihrer
Sent:
Subject: casey Overpass
Hello my fellow WAGies,
I agree that we should keep our minds open, but I also agree there are daunting issues that need to be
seriously dealt with. Please take a look at the items below and also the attached document. Allan Ihrer
Casey Overpass and New Washington St., PDF, shows tripling of New Washington SI. traffic volume
Casey Overpass Photos, copied in below
Traffic Backups on the Arborway
Most of us know that morning traffic backs up from the Centre SI. rotary over the Casey Overpass. To my
knowledge we do not have queuing data for the Arborway. The extremely fun animations we saw recently
1
showed no friction to traffic flow resulting from AM traffic backups on the Arborway. Traffic modeling should
include that friction.
Traffic Counts
At our last meeting it was said that past traffic/turn counts were flawed and should not be considered. I believe
they should be accepted and used to evaluate future traffic volume models. I also believe the 2035 traffic
volume growth assumptions are erroneous and are based on a traffic counts done at an economic low period
and can be shown to be an underestimate of reasonable future growth. 4 years ago we saw traffic counts
greater than those we are told will happen 24 years from now.
2000: BTD, Arborway Yard Project (June 2000)
Casey Overpass daily traffic counts: ~ehjcle-Ifolume = 34,00q The design and implementation of the traffic/turn counts were overseen by Ralph DeNisco of the Boston Trans. Dept.. (Ralph was later employed by McMahon Engineering, who is overseeing our traffic engineering) http://web.massdot.net/CaseyOverpass/downloads/ArborwayMasterPlan.pdf (page 106) 2007: OCR Department of Engineering, Casey Overpass Evaluation (June 2007)
Casey Overpass daily traffic counts: ~I:lhicl~ volume ;-26,Ooq
Peak AM: 1339 west + 858 east, Peak PM: 853 west + 1405 east
http://web.massdot.net/CaseyOverpass/downloads/structural traffic 092608.pdf (page 10)
2011: Mass DOT Casey Overpass Replacement (June 2011)
Casey Overpass daily traffic counts: ~tiicle volume ;"24~OOQ
Peak AM: 1362 west + 913 east, Peak PM: 838 west + 1370 east
http://web.massdot.net/CaseyOverpass/traffic.html
2035: Mass DOT Casey Overpass Replacement Assumptions, No Build (2035)
Casey Overpass daily traffic counts: ~tiicleV:6iume = 25,(jQQ
Peak AM: 1416 westward + 950 eastward, Peak PM: 884 westward + 1445 eastward
http://web.massdot.net/CaseyOverpass/downloads/McMahon CaseyTraffHighlites051811.pdf
Dropoffs and Pickups
A key element in a transit hub are areas where transit users can be conveniently picked up and dropped off by
cars. We need to make sure these are accounted for. New Washington St.'s well used pickup/dropoff area next
to the Southwest Corridor has disappeared in our sketch plans. Perhaps we should rethink this? This area
could in the future be used to accommodate continuous East/West transit. (See Accommodating Possible
Future Transit below)
Accommodating Possible Future Transit
One of the assumptions in our traffic modeling is a 10% increase in transit use, with commensurate reduction is traffic volume (?). There is no effective or proposed transit route that would reduce the traffic East/West load thru Forest Hills. Traffic models of future traffic volumes should not include a transit increase for this thru traffic. In the future, an effective bus route may be designed and implemented to do this. We should be responsible and give some care to make sure this might be accommodated. The proposed elevator and entry on the Southwest Corridor should be placed to allow adding a bus pullover lane, and perhaps a dropoff/pickup area. (See Dropoffs and Pickups above) Accommodating Current Transit Routes Dorchester and Mattapan buses must make regular and frequent rush hour southward turns from the East, onto Hyde Park Ave., towards the low side of Forest Hills Station. These turns should be addressed in our plans and traffic models. 2
Dorchester and Mattapan buses leaving the future Arborway Yard must make a U-turn at Hyde Park Ave. This will require a similar street plan/width/signalling as the #39 bus requires on New Washington. This should all be included in our plans and traffic models. Dorchester and Mattapan buses turning from Hyde Park Ave to head east will be/may be slowed due to backups at the intersection. Any delays should be displayed in our traffic models. Roslindale and Dedham buses leaving Forest Hills and turning north from New Washington St. north onto Washington St. towards the Arborway Yard entry haven't been addressed. At our last WAG meeting John Romano made light of someone (me) inquiring about the possibility of the "taking of properties" along the Right of Way of this project? The inclusion of this land in the possible project boundaries might have allowed for more ideal choice in the alignment of the new roadways. It might have created a better flow of greenspace from the Arborway eastward to the Southwest Corridor and onward to the greenspace at the Arborway Yard. It might also have allowed greater distance between pedestrians and the roadway, particularly at the corner of South St. and New Washington St.. Casey Ooverpass traffic backed up from Center St.. grade. 3
Cars on Rossmore Rd. cutting through the Stoneybrook neighborhood n the AM.
4
Cars backed up on Forest Hills Ave. in the evening. (Also backs up from Glen Rd.
5
New Washington and South St. Corner.
6
Michael Carroll
I Dunning Way Apt 104
Jamaica Plain MA 02130
101812011
JobnRomano
Mllllicipal AffiIirs Liaison
Massachusetts Department ofTnmsportation
10 Park Plaza, Suite 3170
Boston, MA 02116
Re: Casey OveIpllSS Project
Dear Mr. Romano,
I don't believe an "at-grade" solution is viable and that a bridge solution is necessary.
As someone who grew up in Jamaica Plain and still lives here, a1most in the shadow of
the current Casey overpass, rve observed the overpass and the traffic on and around it for
quite a long time. I drive over the oveIpllSS several times every day. I can attest that the
current single lane oftraffic in each direction bas seemed more than adequate. In all my
yems, I think I have seen less than ten people using the ovelJlllSS on fuot or by bicycle.
Bike and pedestrian lanes would be nice but little used. I do think that any plan should
minimire the spots created under the overpass where homeless can live. About 3 years
ago they necessitated that the fire department respond when some oftheir furniture
caught on fire. I have driven all the at-grade streets around Forest Hills and cannot
imagine all the overpass traffic passing though them even with improvements and
upgrades for increased flow.
Thank you for allowing me to voice an opinion.
Sincerely,
~I~
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
King, Paul C (DOT) <paul.c.king@state.ma.us> Friday, October 07, 2011 4:33 PM Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis 'ADAmato@HNTB.com'; Don Kindsvatter; McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); 'McNaughton, Gary'; 'Maureen.Chlebek@mcmtrans.com'; 'Essek Petrie'
FW: Casey Overpass
Nate,
Please add to files.
Another at-grade vote (if you're counting)
Paul C. King, P.E.
Project Manager
Accelerated Bridge Program
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, -Room 6500
Boston, MA 02116
Office: 617-973-8137
Mobile:617-939-6915
oaul.c.king@state.ma.us
~-
From: Meghan T. Sweeney [mailto
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 •
To: King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: Casey Overpass
II •
'r
Dear Mr. King,
John Romano in the DOT indicated that I should address my comments to you about the Casey Overpass project. I fully support at-grade options.
I live on Orchardhill Rd, which is accessible only from one-way Morton Street, which abuts the Casey Overpass, which I use everyday. This project, whatever direction it takes, will impact me very directly on a daily basis. In the mid 1990's, I worked in the Faneuil Hall area. I remember the highway overpass and how prohibitive it
was to walk to the waterfront and the North End. I moved out of Boston for a few years, and when I returned
the Big Dig had been completed. I was amazed at how much downtown Boston had changed because the
highway was gone, and how accessible and inviting both the waterfront and the North End had become.
Currently, the Casey Overpass divides the Forest Hills area. The area under the overpass is not pedestrian friendly. Walking to the Southwest Corridor Park is unnecessarily difficult. It is also poorly lit and dangerous. And the space, which could have been used constructively, sits there empty and neglected. The 1
Overpass renders the Forest Hills neighborhood merely a transportation hub and not an inviting, aesthetically
pleasing residential neighborhood. It is important to remember that Forest Hills is not an industrialized
transportation artery; primarily it is a residential neighborhood.
I believe that an at-grade solution is the best solution for the Forest Hills neighborhood and those of us who are
direct abutters of the current Overpass. I have high hopes that an at-grade solution would render Forest Hills a
more inviting and aesthetically pleasing neighborhood that better serves both its residential and commercial
inhabitants. I am confident that transportation engineers can figure out at-grade traffic solutions. I do not
believe that a bridge (or bridges) would enhance the quality of the area.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments.
Thank you,
Meghan T. Sweeney
44-B Orchardhill Rd.
~A02130
2
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
King, Paul C (DOT) <paul.c.king@state.ma.us>
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 8:34 AM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Romano, John (DOT)
FW: Support for At-Grade Option for Casey Overpass
Hi Nate,
Tally another for at-grade.
Paul C. King, P.E.
Project Manager
Accelerated Bridge Program
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Room 6500
Boston, MA 02116
Office: 617-973-8137
Mobile:617-939-6915
oaul.c.king@state.ma.us
From: John Hersey [ m a i l t o = - ­ Wednesday, October ~
To: Mclaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT) Subject: Support for At-Grade Option for Casey Overpass Sent:
Mr .McLaughlin and Mr. King,
After attending a recent meeting of the Casey Overpass, I wanted to voice my support for the at-grade
alternative. It would remove an enonnous barrier that has divided neighborhoods and disconnected nearby
parks from neighborhoods and each other. Further, the at-grade option would leave room in the state's
transportation budget to extend non-automotive facilities to Washington St. towards Roslindale.
I want to thank you for your work on this project. All the best. - John Hersey
1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
King, Paul C (DOT) <paul.c.king@state.ma.us>
Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:45 AM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Romano, John (DOT)
FW: Casey Overpass
Nate,
Another
Paul C. King, P.E.
Project Manager
Accelerated Bridge Program
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Room 6500
Boston, MA 02116
Office: 617-973-8137
Mobile:617-939-6915
paul.c.king@state.ma.us
From: Tom Parks [mailto _ _
Sent: Wednesday, Octob~
To: Mclaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); russell.holmes@mahouse.gov; liz.malia@mahouse.gov; sonia.chang­
diaz@masenate.gov; jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov Subject: Casey Overpass Dear Sirs and Honorable Representatives,
I am writing to request that you support the at-grade connection alternative proposed to replace the
existing Casey Overpass.
I favor the position articulated by Livable Streets, which envisions that this represents "an enormous
opportunity to reconnect four of the most beautiful parks in Boston, and the neighborhoods that surround
them. It is an opportunity to set an example for sustainable infrastructure. And perhaps most
importantly, it is an opportunity to enhance Forest Hills as a vibrant neighborhood of its own."
Thank you,
Tom Parks
28 Upton Street #3
Boston MA 02118
1
FROM THE DESK OF
PETER BARBER
September 24, 2011
Thomas E Broderick
Acting Chief Engineer
MassDOT
10 Park Plaza
Boston,MA 02116
Dear Mr Broderick
I have had the opportunity to review the various options pre­
sented to replace the Casey Overpass and wish to strongly sup­
port an at grade solution. Independent of the large cost ditIer­
ential, a surface solution slows speed. reconnects the urban
neighborhood, and eliminates the massive structure.
It i~ important to minimize resulting negative traffic impacts on
surrounding streets, but many areas elsewhere in the city cur­
rently cope with a level of inconvenience that exceeds the prob­
able road patterns that can be achieved with additional modifi­
cation of presented scenarios.
Thank you for all your efforts.
Peter Barber
70 POND STREET JAMAICA PlAIN 01130
pKBABBFR@rIlMCASTNfI
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
King, Paul C (DOT) <paul.c.king@state.ma.us>
Friday, October 14, 2011 8:44 AM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Romano, John (DOT); Andrea D'Amato (ADAmato@HNTB.com)
FW: Casey Overpass Project
Another at-grade supporter. Maybe we should take a public vote.
Paul C. King, P.E.
Project Manager
Accelerated Bridge Program
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Room 6500
Boston, MA 02116
Office: 617-973-8137
Mobile:617-939-6915
paul.c.king@state.ma.us
From: Jon Hicks [mailto~
sent: Thursday, October 13,
11 8:47 PM To: King, Paul C. (DOT) Subject: Casey Overpass Project Paul King, I just want to quickly reach out to you and express my support for the at-grade alternatives to the Casey Overpass Project as it will greatly enhance the neighborhood surrounding Forest Hills and improve safety for cyclists like myself who commute through there regularly. Thank you, Jonathan Hicks 1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
McNaughton, Gary <Gary.McNaughton@mcmtrans.com>
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:05 PM
ADAmato@HNTB.com; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; john.romano@state.ma.us
RE: Regional Traffic & average speeds
Yes. Scott may be able to provide some back up on what his model reported, but we can chime in on the effect of the
overpass on speeds. In fact, I spoke with Kevin Wolfson about a similar idea. I plan to get some off peak speed
measurements for the overpass traffic to present or otherwise incorporate.into.the project.
I hope to that in the next few days, but not tomorrow given the rain. Let me know if you want me to reply directly to
Sarah.
Gary McNaughton, P.E.
McMahon Associates
617-556-0020, x-3007
-----Original Message----­
From: Romano, John (DOT) Uohn.romano@state.ma.us]
Received: Wednesday, 26 Oct 2011, 4:19pm
To: Andrea D'Amato [ADAmato@HNTB.com]; McNaughton, Gary [Gary.McNaughton@mcmtrans.com]; 'Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis' [ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com]
Subject: FW: Regional Traffic & average speeds
Hi All:
Can you respond?
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
-----Original Message----­
From: SARAH FREEMAN [mailto:freemansherwood@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:00 PM
To: Romano, John (DOT); scottp@ctps.org
Subject: Regional Traffic & average speeds
Dear John, Scott and Casey Consultant Team,
1
Thank you for all your hard work with the Casey WAG! It was good to see the long-awaited traffic data last night. I have
a follow-up question related to the travel speeds in the area and the role of the overpass in relation to parkway speeds,
especially inbound/westbound.
I hope we are all looking for an outcome that considers everyone's priorities and concerns and then strives for a
balanced outcome, and most of all, what would be best for Forest Hills. In addition to believing that a bridge is a
negative impact for Forest Hills, one of the Arborway Coalition's main concerns is safe access for all users. The speeds of
traffic coming from Casey Overpass onto the Arborway at the Arborway Hillside (across from Arnold·Arboretum) are
very fast. The "Gateway to the Arborway" planning process explored alternatives for a continuation ofthe path at the
dead end sidewalk (at the base of the hillside). Whenever we have had site visits to that location (most recently last
week, planning for potential landscape projects, removal of invasives, new plantings on the hillside), people are startled
by the speed of the traffic coming from the Overpass. They even ask who would want or dare to be on a path in the
Vicinity of such traffic. It seems like the downhill approach from the Overpass, even in its current condition, sends a
message that we want to create a freeway atmosphere. We believe that the Overpass contributes to a climate of
speeding on the parkways, not just on the block across from the Arboretum, but further inbound as well. (It seems that
traffic climbing up a slight hill would not reach comparable speeds at this location.) It does not feel like a place that
would be safe or pleasant to walk or bicycle, even if a path is created.
It came as a surprise to me that the "average speed" in JP at the peak (3 hours frfom 6 - 9 AM, if I remember correctly)
was only 18 mph. I don't know if anyone has clocked the traffic passing my house (22 Arborway) at 6 AM, 7 AM, and
even 8 AM. It feels and sounds like it is moving 50 mph+, and the volume is very high compared to other roads in JP.
Maybe if the other roads are at or near a standstill, you get an average of 18? I trust your numbers, but I'd like to
understand them better. Anything you can do to help clarify this and the role of the Overpass would be greatly
appreciated.
John: I have a conflict Nov. 9, so Beth Worrell will be representing the Arborway Coalition again. (I may be able to
attend for a little while at the beginning, if at aiL)
Thanks for all you do,
Sarah
Important notice to recipients:
Copies of documents that may be relied upon by you are limited to the printed copies (also known as 'hard copies') that
are signed and sealed by the Engineer and/or Land Surveyor. Files in electronic formats, or other types of information
furnished by the Engineer and/or Land Surveyor to you such as text, data or graphics are for your convenience only. Any
conclusions or information obtained or derived from such electronic files will be at the user's sole risk. When
transferring documents in electronic formats, the Engineer and/or Land Surveyor makes no representation as to long­
term compatibility, usability, or readability of the documents resulting from the use of software application packages,
operating systems or computer hardware differing from those used by McMahon Associates, Inc. at the beginning of the
project.
2
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
King, Paul C (DOT) <paul.c.king@state.ma.us>
Thursday, October 27, 2011 2:24 PM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; McNaughton, Gary
Romano, John (DOT)
FW: Travel Time Comparisons
Nate,
Please file.
Gary,
Any response to the end of this? .
Paul C. King, P.E.
Project Manager
Accelerated Bridge Program
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Room 6500
Boston, MA 02116
Office: 617-973-8137
Mobile:617-939-6915
paul.c.king@state.ma.us
From: Mary Hickie [mailto:hickiem@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 2:01 PM To: Jcrockford@emeraldnecklace.org; King, Paul C. (DOT); Romano, John (DOT); kevin.m.wolfson@gmail.com; ewheelwright@gmail.com; ericbot@mac.com; jeffrey@ferriswheelsbikeshop.com; bcrichlow2B@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; cathyslade1@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; bob.dizon@gmail.com; deunson@gmail.com; jpmichael@rcn.com; liz@strategymatters.org; wolfslm@yahoo.com; cC"jullieanne.doherty@cityofboston.gov"; Torres, Robert (HOU); Chang, Kate; valerieJrias@cityofboston.gov; nika.elugardo@masenate.gov; Russell.Holmes@mahouse.gov; Gupta, Vineet; Read, John; Dalzell, John Subject: Travel Time Comparisons Dear Paul:
I've been looking over the information we were given at the last WAG meeting (10/25/11), specifically the
Travel Time Comparisons and would like to reiterate a comment I believe was mentioned (but maybe not
heard!) at the meeting.
The Travel Time Comparison chart does not indicate a point along South St. as one of the Origin/Destination
points. In my opinion, this neglects to take into consideration a substantial amount of traffic that feeds through
the project area both morning and evening and should be added to the studies. While this impact is felt most
directly by the AsticoulMartinwood neighborhood, especially because of the cut-through traffic from
1
Washington via Asticou to South, it is also a large contributor to the number of vehicles impacting the traffic
study area.
According to the numbers cited in Existing Traffic Highlights.pdfthe weekday a.m. count from South onto
Washington is 311 and Washington onto South is 181; p.m. totals for the same are 181 and 269
respectively. In Casey_Trafficl_092211.pdfvehicle queue lengths on South St., both a.m. and p.m. are
amongst the longest in the area at 269' and 267' respectively. These are all numbers for existing conditions
today and not projected 2035 numbers.
Ideally, it would be helpful to understand where the traffic on this section of South St. is coming from (is this
another regional issue?) but failing that at least an understanding of travel times, as with the other origins and
destinations, would be helpful. Thank you in advance for your help.
Mary Hickie
Emerald Necklace Conservancy WAG representative
Martinwood Road resident
2
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Thursday, October 27, 2011 1:08 PM
Adam Lewis; McNaughton, Gary; Chlebek, Maureen; King, Paul C (DOT); McLaughlin, Steve
(DOT); Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
FW: Feedback on WAG 10/25
Levels of Service disks.jpg
Hi Nate Please put this with comments received from 10/25 meeting.
Gary - can you please give Don a call to address his question on more info details on the mid block crossing? Also, we
need to respond to his other issues/suggestions via e-mail.
Thanks,
John
John Romano
Municipal Affairs Liaison
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Direct: 617.973.7028 | 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: Don Eunson [mailto:deunson@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 11:51 AM
To: Romano, John (DOT)
Cc: Wendy Landman
Subject: Feedback on WAG 10/25
Hi John
Some comments -- in no particular order -- for your consideration:
1. Level of Service diagrams for pedestrians and bikes. The LOS disks on these diagrams don't work. The "green" disks look black and so they communicate a different message than if they were a nice bright green. Clearly it takes longer to digest and understand these diagrams than you might have hoped. I wonder if part of
the problem is your choice of yellow for the acceptable levels of service C and D. Yellow is somewhat alarmist.
What if level A and B were solid bright green and levels C and D were stripes of bright green (still acceptable)
and only levels E and F were orange or red. (See attached jpg image.)
Also, in my opinion, the LOS circle in the KEY in the lower right corner should not have any colors in it, just
the letters AM | PM on a white background.
1
2. Neighborhood cut-through traffic
To Gary and traffic team: You say that the total travel time at-grade is only 30-90 seconds longer than the total
travel time over a bridge. And so this seems negligible and you imply (or say?) that an at-grade alternative will
not cause neighborhood cut-through traffic. What you don't acknowledge is the following: Drivers often prefer
to keep moving rather than being stopped in traffic, even if the overall travel time is slightly increased.
WalkBoston thinks it is important that you and the City of Boston present some of the techniques that Boston
could use to prevent cut-through traffic: one-way streets, opposing one-way streets, turn-prohibitions?, even
cul-de-sacs, and anything else that you know will work. Boston successfully implemented such techniques in
the South End back in the late 80s early 90s (?). We think it is time to talk about specific methods to prevent
neighborhood cut-through traffic.
3. Single stage crossings vs.
two-stage crossings
I thought Colleen said that pedestrians could cross all lanes in one signal cycle in her simulations. Yes, WalkBoston generally recommends single-stage crossingss. However, we recognize that the number of lanes, the width of the median, and the length of WALK light are all interrelated. (And then there is the viability of
median trees to take into account !) For your at-grade alternatives, how many seconds of a WALK light would it take to get across all lanes and the
median in one signal cycle? How wide/narrow would the median have to be to accomplish a one-stage
crossing? (Please respond.)
If one cannot make it all the way across in one cycle, then the median needs to be wider, more generous and
inviting and landscaped. We need to know that you are taking into account how pedestrians behave and you are
trying to come up with a solution that balances the different objectives. WalkBoston could support a balanced
solution.
4. Sim
ulations show slip lanes
The simulations show at least 3 slip lanes, including at the Washington/Arborway/Hyde Park Ave intersection. It is hard for us to know if this is a relic of earlier road configurations or if you are putting slip lanes back in. We cannot overlook slip lanes; they are simply too dangerous for pedestrians. 5. The so-called "Bow Tie" configuration. It would be helpful if you called this a "median U-turn". All WAG members received an email from a resident who did research on-line and learned that a "bow tie" is apparently something quite different than what you propose. The term "bow tie" seems to be misleading. 6. Southwest Corridor Park desire-line crosswalk
I would like to talk with Gary for a few minutes so that I fully understand his response about queues and the
desire-line crosswalk. It's my responsibility to report back to WalkBoston, and I can't do this if I only have a
vague response and if I don't really understand the issue. Can we set up a time for a brief phone call?
Thank you.
Don Eunson
2