Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
October 3, 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:
Ninth Working Advisory Group (WAG) Meeting
Meeting Notes of September 28, 2011
Overview & Executive Summary
On September 28, 2011, the Working Advisory Group (WAG) met to continue its role in the Casey Overpass
Replacement Project Planning Study. This meeting is the first of at least two conducted by the WAG in
preparation for the fifth public meeting, currently slated to take place in early to mid-November, 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: traffic modeling to date, traffic information to
be presented on October 25th, the issue of parking in the Casey Overpass Corridor, and announcement of
the two draft alternatives that will be further evaluated by the design team to determine the preferred
alternative.
Traffic modeling accomplished to date:
o The design team has combed through the many studies that have addressed the Forest Hills
area in the past and taken new traffic counts to develop an accurate baseline picture of the
traffic situation in Forest Hills. Counts were obtained prior to the initiation of this study in
June, 2010 while schools were still in session and addressed motor vehicles, transit and
school buses, pedestrians, and cyclists. Highly detailed data that addresses the individual
approaches of the intersections within the corridor is available through the project website as
is higher level information addressing the intersections as units.
o The design team has worked closely with CTPS, the BRA and BTD to develop traffic
projections for 2035. Projected numbers take into account regional traffic growth and all
local development currently permitted or under discussion with the BRA. Also accounted for
in the CTPS model are the expected fluctuations in economic conditions over the next 24
years. These projected numbers will be used for the alternatives analysis and by CTPS in the
regional modeling which will be presented at the October 25 th meeting.
Traffic data to be shared on October 25th:
o Some early information has been made available to the WAG by the design team. Thus far,
the traffic analysis indicates that whether a bridge or at-grade solution is selected to replace
the Casey Overpass, conditions within the corridor will improve from their current situation.
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Based on CTPS’ initial modeling results, major traffic diversions away from or to the Casey
Overpass corridor are not seen with either solution.
o Additional information on the two alternative’s impacts will be shared by the design team
and CTPS at the next WAG meeting. Topics covered will include travel times in the corridor
and a greater understanding of the regional impacts of the alternatives. The importance of
ensuring that selected alternative serves local and regional travelers equally was
underscored by several WAG members.
o Levels of Service (LOS) for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit will also be discussed at length
during the next WAG meeting. While an LOS of D is generally seen as acceptable for motor
vehicles during peak hours in urban areas, the project team’s goal is to ensure that transit,
pedestrian and cycling LOS are significantly higher. A sub-goal is to balance the LOS of the
three above-mentioned modes to ensure that one is not sacrificed for the benefit of the
other. For example, a situation in which transit buses experience excellent conditions at the
expense of pedestrian conditions would be considered unacceptable.
Parking:
o The project team is aware of local concern regarding parking. The discussion about how to
provide parking once the spaces under the current viaduct go away, something which will
occur whichever solution is chosen, takes place against a background of a situation in which
new parking will most likely be designed and built by MassDOT on DCR property and
regulated by the City of Boston. The effort to address parking in an equitable manner will
continue into the 25% design phase, but does not vary appreciably between the at-grade
and bridge alternatives.
Draft Alternatives for Further Study:
o As of September 28th, the design team will only continue its study of:
 The medium median at-grade roadway.
 A single bridge, without splits at either end, aligned down the center of the corridor.
While the discussion is not completely closed, current thinking is trending towards
accommodating pedestrians and off-street cyclists in excellent at-grade facilities and
not on a potential bridge. This is in keeping with the generally expressed WAG and
community preference for the narrowest bridge possible.
Detailed Meeting Minutes
Review of Traffic Study to Date
C: John Romano (JR): Welcome everyone. Before we begin, I’d like to recognize Vineet Gupta of BTD,
Jullienne Doherty with the Mayor’s Office, John Dalzell from BRA, Representative Russell Holmes, Robert
Torres from Representative Malia’s Office and Representative Liz Malia. This is the first of the series 5
WAG meetings and we have changed the timetable just a smidgen. The next meeting is on October 25 th
and we’ll be here in this room. We heard from folks in this room and at the public meeting that it felt
like things were getting a little tight at the end of the project so we’re stretching it out a little bit. We’re
not going into Christmas. In the series 5 meetings, the agendas are going to be shorter, but we’ll spend
more time talking about fewer things and giving you all plenty of time for discussion. We also won’t be
having any more breakout meetings; everything is going to happen as a full group. As I moderate the
discussion, I’m going to be calling on people we don’t hear from very often because we need your input
too. I want everyone to get a chance.
Q: Jeff Ferris (JF): So November 9th, is that a fixed date?
A: JR: That could move a day or two depending on when and where we can get space, but it will be close.
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Michael Halle (MH): On scheduling and how much we can discuss: I can see the possibility of having a
discussion meeting that’s maybe optional. I’m not looking for extra meetings in December, but there
might be the need to talk things out. I’m just raising it as a possibility.
A: JR: Yes, that’s a possibility, but we’re not going past December 14th. I’m going to turn it over to Andrea
because I’m really serious about trying to get people out of here by 8:30 tonight. One more thing
before I give her the floor: for everyone in here who’s a cycling advocate, we’d like to chat with you a
little after the meeting if you can stay a few extra minutes. Don [Kindsvatter] has a few items he wants
to go over with you.
C: AD: Thank you everyone for sticking with us. We’re now entering the final stretch of the planning
process and the reason you won’t see any more breakout sessions is to have conversations that let
everyone focus their energy onto one or two major agenda items. The next two meetings will be all
about traffic. Today is traffic part one: it’s all about understanding the methodology we’ll be using to
present traffic, traffic, traffic to you in the October 25th meeting. People have raised the issue of parking
and we’ll have some time to discuss that tonight with Don. Then, John, Paul and Steve will walk you
through the alternatives.
C: Gary McNaughton (GM): As Andrea indicated, tonight’s about a traffic refresher course for all of us and
then the next meeting is when we get into details ad nauseum. Tonight, we’re going to cover where
we’ve been thus far and all of the requests for additional information we’ve integrated into our thinking.
Maureen is going to walk you through the pedestrian and bicycle analysis and then we’ll provide you
with some early traffic analysis results for the alternatives; that’s the first step beyond our initial fatal flaw
screening. Scott Peterson of CTPS is here tonight and while he’s in the middle of his modeling and will
have more for us on the 25th he can provide us with some early looks at things. On the 25th we’re really
going to have it all for you: pedestrians, bicycles, transit operations, details on vehicles, the LOS,
queuing, how the signals are talking to each other and then travel times. We’ll also have more
simulations available to you as well.
To jump right in then, you’ve seen the existing conditions earlier in this process, LOS and the overall
operations at the intersections. D is generally what we target in an urban environment, but as you can
see we’ve got a lot of red in Forest Hills, that’s LOS E and F. We also know how the individual pieces of
the intersections are working, for example this ramp is operating at LOS F. We also know that we have
queuing that’s spilling from one intersection to another congesting traffic and making for bad pedestrian
crossings.
Q: Kevin Wolfson (KW): Can you explain what LOS means?
A: GM: It’s similar to grades at school in that A is good and F is bad, but there’s some additional nuance to
it. A D is considered acceptable for an urban environment and an F can actually be O.K. because it’s a
measure of delay. An intersection could have an F and be working all right, it’s just that it has a very
long cycle time and so there’s a lot of delay. Also, unlike in school you can get an LOS E. F isn’t the end
of the world, but it’s a warning sign, it means there’s something going on with the intersection that has
to be looked at further.
Q: Allan Ihrer (AI): When did you take your traffic counts?
A: GM: We did our counts in June, but prior to when school closed for the summer. We actually find that
June is a higher-than-average traffic month so that’s why we picked it.
Now, one major problem here is the queuing that you have in this tight urban environment with closely
spaced intersections. You can see in this picture that the queues are spilling from intersection to
intersection. The existing roadways are confused and congested. They don’t do anything for pedestrians
and cyclists and the loading/unloading is a little crazy. Shea Circle has its own problems with all its
entrances and exits and we’ll be addressing that. Here’s another diagram from early in our process that
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
shows where we got our traffic counts: the open circles are unsignalized intersections and the circles with
a plus sign in them are signalized locations. We took counts at Shea Circle and took down every single
movement. We also did new counts on Morton Street so we can factor that information into any
changes at Shea Circle. We generally talk to you about traffic in the morning and evening peaks, but we
wanted to show you how traffic distributes itself during the day. The morning peak is a very sharp spike
in volumes, but the afternoon is a bit more spread out. As you can see, off the peaks, the volumes tend
to drop pretty quickly. Our goal is not to overdesign this, but we will talk about how our alternatives
work during the midday and shoulder hours. Let me just quickly explain this graphic: it shows hourly
volumes1 on New Washington Street and the Casey Overpass. The blue bars are the overpass while the
purple ones are the street. The horizontal lines represent the percent of the peak hour volume that’s
represented by a given off-peak volume. The interesting thing is that the Casey Overpass is only
carrying more than New Washington Street during peak hours so this bears out some of our earlier
studies which showed the Casey Overpass serving those dense commuter volumes.
Q: Russell Holmes (RH): So are those the actual counts? What does the 100% represent?
A: GM: The bars represent the volume; the lines are the percent of the peak hour. The goal was show how
quickly the volumes drop off after the peak hours.
A: MH: So 100% is the highest peak and then every other volume becomes a percentage of that.
A: Vineet Gupta (VG): So at 10AM, the surface streets are carrying 60% of their peak hour volume.
Q: RH: So at 5PM, both the Casey Overpass and New Washington Street are at 100%, both equal?
A: GM: Yes, that’s accurate.
A: MH: But they are normalized independently and so they are shown as absolute values.
A: GM: That’s correct. The Casey Overpass is carrying about 2,200-2,300 cars during the peak hour while
there’s about 1,100 cars on the surface.
C: Maureen Chlebek: And all of those numbers are available on the website.
A: RH: Thank you, no problem, I didn’t mean to derail us.
Q: AI: Can you adjust those so that each bar is showing its real number and percentage so we can see how
they relate?
A: GM: And we have that data, we brought this graphic because we were trying to convey the relationship
between the bridge and the at-grade. On the 25th, we’ll give you charts with the absolute values as
well.
C: MH: What I think this is most helpful for is that if you see backed up traffic, this gives you a sense of
when it’s really happening and it also tells you that the at-grade roads back up quicker.
A: GM: And we were trying to help define the peak hours for you.
Q: AI: So if you have the data already, can you put it on the website for us?
A: JR: We can get that out in advance of the meeting on the 25th. We’re going to try this time, because
there will be so much to cover to get everything out to you within a week of the 25 th.
1
Users are advised to download a copy of the meeting’s presentation at:
http://web.massdot.net/CaseyOverpass/Meetings.html
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: GM: So, as you’ll recall, we took existing conditions as our basis to project 2035 traffic volumes. We
worked with the BRA to identify future development parcels and we assigned that to the existing network
for the 2035 no-build picture. That included pedestrians and bicycles. We also have noted north and
south volumes which do rival the traffic on the overpass and we’ll be taking steps to better that as well.
C: VG: I think that’s why comparing the overpass to New Washington Street may be it apples and oranges.
It’s not really 1,100 cars on the surface; it’s more because there are all those north/south cars as well.
A: GM: That’s a good point. Many of those north/south cars are distributing onto the network as well.
Q: JF: Would no-build mean with the Casey Overpass intact?
A: GM: Yes, that’s what it means. That isn’t a possible outcome of this process, but we always use no-build
as a baseline for evaluating our alternatives.
Q: JF: Why does that volumes drop from 1,950 to 1,450?
A: GM: What’s happening there is the 1,950 represents vehicles coming eastbound along the Arborway,
but at Forest Hills, 500 vehicles peel off and come down the ramp to the local network. We have the
detail for every approach on the website so you should feel free to look there for that level of
information.
Another thing we’ll be working with is cut-through traffic and where vehicles may divert. We’re working
with CTPS on the regional diversions. Here’s another graphic that you saw earlier in the process, and
that’s local cut-through routes based on WAG member comment. We have east and westbound cutthrough routes which differ slightly because of one-way roads. We’ll take that information back and
map those cut-through travel times against our overpass and at-grade alternatives. We don’t want to
create situations where the cut-through travel time is even close because that perception will entice
people into the neighborhoods. The other thing you’ve asked us about is the morning commute. If
you’re a morning commuter and you have to stop for another 30 seconds on New Washington Street
does it really mean more delay for you or does it just mean you’re getting to the delay at Murray Circle,
which we know is significant a little slower. So we’ll determine whether we’re causing more delay or just
metering the flow.
Q: AI: And will you include north/south traffic because that’s a direction that makes people divert as well.
A: GM: Yes we will.
Q: JF: It may make no difference in regional delay, but speaking from the perspective of a small business
owner increased local delays will be harmful to our businesses.
A: GM: We are aware of that and I’ll discuss that a little bit later, but we’re going to be looking at local
travel times such as how long does it take to go from Shea Circle to South Street.
Q: Jodie Burr (JB): I’ve been thinking lately while driving to work about the intersection of Brookline Avenue
and the Riverway and I was thinking it probably has a similar flow and I think of it as being a
comparable intersection. Have you looked at it as being comparable to New Washington and where the
overpass touches down?
A: GM: We did do some comparable locations a few meetings ago.
C: MH: I seem to recall that you said Riverway traffic was similar to an at-grade solution.
A: GM: That sounds correct.
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: AD: And we did try to find comparable intersections that have other intersections closely spaced to them
as we have here in Forest Hills.
C: Bernie Doherty (BD): I remember hearing that there were seven different traffic studies done here in past
years and some of them showed 35,000 cars passing over the Casey Overpass every day. I’m
concerned that given the current economic picture, the counts of June, 2011 may be too low. People
may have dropped out of the picture because they’re unemployed. Over at Harvard there’s a huge
potential for construction and we could see a lot of workers moving through the corridor going from the
south shore to Cambridge. I just want to make sure that we’re factoring in those issues with regard to
when we make a study and we say there’s this many cars at one time or another. Once the economy
bounces back we could add another 500 cars.
A: GM: We looked through all those studies and we did find the one you’re referring to that stated a figure
of 34,000 cars per 24 hours and as we really dug into that number, we came to the conclusion it was
misstated. We couldn’t find any supporting data for the 34,000 figure and we found a number of other
reports, better documented, that had lower numbers.
C: VG: And what we’re finding all over the city is lowered traffic volumes.
Q: RH: The MBTA is carrying record numbers so I guess it makes sense; what’s the current daily volume on
the overpass?
A: GM: It’s 24,000 cars. We’re working with CTPS to get the best projections we can. Scott does factor in
those economic conditions and what we can expect to encounter over the years between now and 2035.
We feel we’re on a very solid footing with all this.
A: JR: And I think it’s important to say that the CTPS model isn’t just for this project, it’s for all of eastern
Massachusetts. That data is used for projects and is accepted as accurate throughout the
Commonwealth.
A: Scott Peterson (SP): I’d agree with all that and would add that as part of the MPO, CTPS maintains the
model as part of the air quality conformity efforts for the Boston region. It has a lot in it: traffic, transit,
non-motorized modes, and land use is revised often based on new information, population and
employment numbers. The City of Boston inputs its latest development plans as well. When I started at
CTPS in 1993, we were projecting more development in the Seaport than there is today, so the model
has been adjusted to reflect a less dense development. The current projections are the latest and
greatest based on building permits, the BRA and similar information from other local communities.
C: BD: But I think we can all agree what happens here is fluctuation. We could have 24,000 this year and
28,000 next year and I think that has to be considered.
A: JR: That’s correct. That’s why we’re projecting out to 2035 instead of just looking at a year or two into
the future. We use a longer time range to capture that fluctuation.
Q: Liz O’Connor (LO): At an earlier meeting, I remember Michael asked about CTPS projected volumes
versus counts to see how reliable they are. Was anything ever done with that?
A: SP: I’ve been with CTPS for over 10 years. We had a good model for the Mass Turnpike in terms of the
impacts of the commuter rail extension to Worcester. We’ve had studies for Route 18 in Weymouth but
that was just completed and I don’t have comparative data yet. The model has been used a lot, but
many of the projects for which it’s been used are still in development. I’ll look into the comparatives a
bit more.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: GM: The effort for this project in terms of traffic modeling is much more exhaustive than what I usually
see. You should feel good about these numbers. I can think of many other planning efforts and none
come close compared to this.
Q: JF: Can you look at how the modeling works over a range of different traffic counts? Could you go
between 20,000 and 30,000 cars, something like that?
A: SP: That’s a good point. The volumes are driven by travel times and costs so if we vary the congested
speed, the volumes will reassign themselves. That’s a test we can do.
C: MH: The question has come where people say “I don’t trust the model or I don’t trust the DOT,” and I
think my sense is that you have to trust something somewhere. We need a basis for a number. We can
talk about all that can happen between now and 2035. We have to start somewhere. Local qualitative
assessments have their place, but individuals are notoriously bad at judging how many cars there are
and how fast they’re going. We have to start somewhere. Do we just put six lanes back on a bridge
because we’re afraid our number is wrong? The chances of the model being a little over or a little under
are probably about the same so let’s go with the middle and get started. It seems as though we have all
the data, and admittedly there were some holes at the beginning, but now it’s the best guess and we
should trust it and move forward.
A: JR: And I think guess is a very light term for what Scott does. This is highly technical. I sit on the MPO
and I see what the member towns put Scott through; he wouldn’t just guess at a number, Scott’s not the
sort of guy to just make this stuff up.
C: LO: And I’m not saying that. I guess I just want to know is the model 80% likely to be correct or 30%.
Those numbers should be around.
A: GM: I would really caution you that studies prior to this were not as sophisticated, it wouldn’t be apples
to apples.
C: Michael Reiskind (MR): We had studies like this in the 1980’s, those should be available. The computers
they use for this kind of stuff haven’t changed a bit since then.
A: MH: Come on, that’s not true, the computers have changed immensely. That definitely wouldn’t be
apples to apples.
A: GM: Today’s modeling is far, far more sophisticated that what could be done in the 1980’s.
A: SP: Let me just give you an example. The basic unit of measure for regional model is the TAZ. When I
started at CTPS in 1993, there were 700 of those for all of eastern Massachusetts. Now, because of
increases in computing power, we have 3,000 TAZ for the exact same area. Back in the day, we had
one single TAZ for the entire Town of Carlisle. Now we have 27, there’s been a lot of improvement over
time.
Q: AI: So could we come up with a hypothesis about what the area would be like if we introduced some
effective east-west transit and run that in the model and see what the reductions in traffic would be?
A: SP: Yes, we could do that.
C: RH: This isn’t guessing. We’re starting with real 2011 numbers. That’s no guess. Now, could we agree
on a range of say 10% in either direction? That would let you model as high as 26,000 cars per day and
as low as 22,000. Can you do that?
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: GM: From our perspective, we need a set of numbers. When we look at alternatives, we can check the
roadways for how much reserve capacity they have. That’s probably a better test than running lots of
tests with different volumes.
C: JB: This conversation is really interesting to me given that we’re talking more with our neighbors outside
the meetings as the project moves along. What I’m hearing and what we need to establish is a level of
trust in the people exploring the data. I don’t think there’s anyone more qualified to look at this than
you are, but there was an email we all received today from someone saying at-grade won’t work and
there’s going to be more and more of that non-objective kind of thinking. I think we need to tell our
neighbors that we’re comfortable with this level of objectivity.
A: GM: It’s also important to note that you can go the other way. We could be conservative, assume 20%
more than the counts and just wind up with way too much pavement.
C: Suzanne Monk (SM): My concern is that your June numbers reflect the Casey Overpass down to a single
lane. I live in the Stony Brook neighborhood and since the bridge has been narrowed, I’ve seen people
driving through my neighborhood. I wish you had full capacity numbers.
A: GM: We didn’t start work on this project until it was down to a single lane, but we can pull those old
numbers for you.
C: SM: You should expect those cars would come back. I’m one who used to use the overpass, but now it’s
down to a single lane and the pavement is awful and I don’t feel safe driving on it. Now, I’m using New
Washington Street and 203, but if the bridge were O.K. I’d be using it. I think a lot of people are like
me.
Q: Elizabeth Wylie (EW): Isn’t June when the colleges let out? I see the volumes go way down after the
colleges let out.
A: GM: The counts were taken after the colleges had let out, but June is generally a higher than average
month. The regular schools were still in session and that’s what drives the real change in patterns.
Scott’s model takes these seasons changes into account.
C: MH: Let me just note something so that we can move forward. This is very important trying to figure out
what the capacity of the roadway will be, but if you show us two plans and say the capacity for moving
traffic is the same, we can table the issue in favor of determining the bigger question of bridge or no
bridge. If we wanted to squeeze down traffic that would be a bigger issue, but since the two plans are
going to be equivalent, it’s O.K.
Review of Process for Computing Bicycle, Pedestrian & Transit LOS
C: Maureen Chlebeck (MC): The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) had a new edition just last year and it
has a chapter on urban facilities that’s very forward thinking. It evaluates in a multimodal manner and
it’s perception based. That means that pedestrian analysis is now based on the things that pedestrians
might be feeling like how close they are to moving traffic or parked vehicles. Every mode is evaluated A
through F including E. A is free-flowing and F is high delay and congestion. For this project, we want to
balance pedestrians, bicycles and transit. We don’t want pedestrians down at D so we can get transit up
to an A. We won’t sacrifice any one mode for any other. Remember, in an urban area, LOS D is
acceptable; we’re not aiming for free-flow. This graphic shows how the analysis works out at the end,
but let me walk you through how we get there. Basically, you start off with a base score and good things
add points while bad things deduct points. Places we’ll look at include New Washington Street to Shea
Circle. We have some locations off the corridor that we’ll be considering as well. We’ll build up the
analysis by looking at each intersection, then the links between them, and at the end, the whole
corridor.
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: LO: So I have a quick question: I think this looks great, but you said you wanted to balance all modes
and that in an urban area LOS D would be acceptable?
A: MC: LOS D is acceptable for vehicles. When it comes to pedestrians, cyclists, and transit, our goal is to
balance them. We don’t want transit doing well at the expense of pedestrians.
C: LO: I think that needs some more thought. Automobiles will have to go through LOS D, but pedestrians
and cyclists need those free-flow conditions to make their experience viable.
A: MC: We’re basically saying that we’re willing to give cars a certain amount of delay in the peak hour,
but we don’t want to give cyclists, pedestrians or transit users delays.
Q: JB: And you’ll include existing conditions as a baseline?
A: MC: Yes, those will be included.
Q: JF: So you’re not balancing cars against bikes, you’re keeping the pedestrians, cyclists and transit
together?
A: MC: Yes, that’s right.
Q: JF: And what about the midblock crosswalk at the end of the Southwest Corridor Park? That’s a big
desire line.
A: MC: We’re trying to funnel pedestrians away from that crossing to the intersection of South Street and
New Washington Street. Don has shown you all the treatments they have planned for that intersection
to make it more pedestrian friendly.
C: Michael Reiskind (MR): On the balancing of modes: I think LOS D can be acceptable for cars, but not for
pedestrians.
A: JR: We never said LOS D would be acceptable for pedestrians.
C: MR: I’m about trying to link the Emerald Necklace together. D isn’t acceptable for pedestrians. We
need A or B for pedestrians and maybe bicycles too. Don’t balance pedestrians and bicycles against
anyone else; they need to be a lot higher.
A: MC: And a lot of that is enshrined in the MOE.
A: AD: Remember, any alternative is going to be evaluated on the basis of the MOE.
C: MR: But in looking at your alternatives, I’m already feeling pedestrians and bicycles being pushed out in
favor of cars, you’re clearly leaning towards cars. You need LOS A or B for pedestrians in this corridor.
A: Nina Brown (NB): I’m optimistic about future pedestrian conditions based on big picture statements
we’ve made together in this process about making things better for all modes. One thing I want to
mention that supports how I feel is the crosswalks in the corridor: not only are you making them more
generous in terms of width, you’re shortening them so the whole thing feels better overall.
Q: RH: I get what’s a bicycle and what’s a pedestrian, but what’s transit for the purposes of your study? Is it
a bus?
A: GM: Yes, in this area, it’s buses because what we do on the surface roadways won’t impact the Orange
Line or Commuter Rail.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: RH: But, your improvements may make it easier for people to get to the heavy rail transportation and
that would be a good thing, but let me just be clear, transit means buses for this study?
A: GM: That’s correct, it means the bus.
Q: Sarah Freeman (SF): Is there a measure for traffic speed and its impact on pedestrians?
A: MC: Yes, traffic speed is added into the scoring just like the proximity of traffic. Another thing I want to
point out is that none of these intersections will be set up for 60 miles per hour.
C: BD: I’m more interested in visuals because when you introduce this information to us, you have lots of
time to do it, but the general public has to absorb this very quickly. I look at the value system, A through
F, and the colors are confusing. Pick one or the other. If I were thinking in a traffic motif, I’d make
green good, yellow O.K. and red bad. But, if you want to do A-F do that, if you want to do colors, do
that, but don’t do both.
A: MC: O.K. we can do that. And, in terms of more visuals, we will have those for you at the next meeting.
Now, I want to get into bicycle operations. It’s very similar to how we deal with pedestrians and we ask
things like what are the bicycles’ travel speeds, how close are they to cars and parked vehicles, how wide
is the travel lane? We’ll start by looking at intersections individually and then expanding out into the
overall corridor. We’ll also evaluate the efficacy of the multiuse pathways.
Q: JF: Over at steps one and three; you have bicycle travel and running speeds. There’s a range of how
people ride bicycles. I like to move along quickly, but other people don’t. What does bicycle speed
really mean in light of that?
A: MC: There’s a lot of data that goes behind this analysis and that data is drawn from all over the country.
We start with 15 miles per hour as a base speed and then we adjust it based on conditions in the link
where the cyclist is riding.
C: JF: But generally speaking average car speeds are all about the same.
A: MC: I understand what you’re saying. Bicycles have a greater range of speeds, that’s why we start with
an average speed, drawn from national data and make changes to it. And so you know, one of my co­
workers who is a cyclist had this same discussion with me today so we’re very aware of it.
C: JF: We’ve discussed Washington Street west of Forest Hills Station and how it’s a challenge for bicycles.
We’ve had lots of discussions with Don about improving that area, but it’s not really part of the corridor
and what’s coming up is that the ABP won’t be putting in any work to improve that area.
A: Steve McLaughlin (SMc): Our goal is to improve that area.
C: JF: Well I think that would be good because that’s a difficult section for all modes. Some things we’ve
discussed are not part of the ABP and while it’s easy enough to add in east/west bicycle improvements,
but I’m also interested in the north/south connections.
A: SMc: When we started this group, you told us about that area and that’s a reason we’re here, we
wanted your input. If you solution can fix that area, then we’ll move with it. We feel we can address it
without killing the budget and make some significant improvements.
Q: KW: Some of the pedestrian and bicycle LOS measurements seem to take into account subjective things
like how close traffic is to cyclists; is there anything about how close a bridge is?
A: MC: While the qualitative factors are nationally based, I don’t think having a bridge next to you is in
there.
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: KW: Well I guess that one is pretty subjective; some people might like a bridge next to them.
C: EW: That is very subjective; it could be a beautiful bridge.
A: MC: I think we can all agree on things like whether or not it’s easier to cross the street. We’re all vested
in that. Let’s get there.
Now, let’s take a look at transit operations. It’s not as cookie-cutter as some of the items we just looked
at. The 39 is the only bus actually stopping here and we’ll address it in terms of number of passengers,
dwell-time and the pick-up/drop-off location. We also have to look at the whole transit picture and
through buses like the 16 and 21. We’ll check to see if their trips are better too, as we will with all the
buses coming in from the south.
C: AI: I’d love to see something on New Washington Street that can accommodate an express bus.
Q: JR: Is that a new bus, Allan?
A: AI: It would be, yes.
A: JR: Allan, that’s not part of this study. MassDOT has another study addressing east/west transit
connections in this area, but this isn’t it. This study won’t be adding new buses.
Q: RH: On routes 21 and 31, will they have to go all the way down to make their turn?
A: GM: Yes, they would, but we’re aware that we cannot increase their run-times. To make sure we don’t,
we’re looking at a queue jump signal for the,
C: RH: It seems as though you’d be moving 50 people past the station just to turn them around and bring
them back.
A: GM: That’s correct and that’s why we would give the buses their own queue jump signal that would let
them get past the rest of the cars and allow them to turn left onto Hyde Park Avenue. The queue jump
signals would give the buses priority over the cars.
A: RH: All right. I just want to make sure you’re keeping them in mind because those are crucial links from
Dorchester and Mattapan. They are very important.
Overview of Traffic Materials for the 10/25/11 WAG Meeting
C: GM: So, I want to give you an overview of what we’ll discuss at the next meeting. We also have some
initial, early findings that we want to share with you. There’s not a dramatic diversion impact with both
the at-grade and bridge solutions. We don’t see big numbers of cars either coming to or leaving the
area. The CTPS analysis factors in the vehicle miles traveled and the vehicle hours and it backs up our
local work nicely. There are no big differences between the at-grade and bridge solution in terms of
traffic volumes, vehicle miles traveled, and vehicle hours traveled and air quality. We’re going to discuss
LOS and existing conditions and queuing. Here’s today’s queuing at New Washington Street/South
Street and as you can see it’s stretching down into Washington Street/South Street. Here’s the at-grade
solution, just as an example, and as you can see, the queue is much better managed. We’ll be posting
more on this on the website prior to the next meeting.
Q: Nikka Elugardo (NE): When you do the analysis in terms of handling the flows, are you just pushing
existing volumes through, or are you saying that if we make the roadway handle the traffic better, we
may induce additional demand?
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: GM: That’s the CTPS analysis right there. They are running that data into the regional model to check
for induced demand and fortunately, we’re not seeing that. We want to be careful not to build in too
much capacity.
Q: NE: Are you seeing any major differences between the at-grade and bridge solutions?
A: SP: There’s not a big difference between the two solutions. If you go at-grade, some longer trips are
diverting, but more local trips are fed into the system, so as a result, it makes the same.
Q: NE: So depending on which solution you pick, the different neighborhoods might be impacted
differently?
A: SP: That’s correct.
A: GM: We’re also going to have some very detailed information on travel time. We’ve identified six key
local connection points in the corridor. That means we have thirty possible local routes. We’ll have
travel time combinations for that in existing, no-build and both build options. An important one is the
trip between positions 1 and 4 and 4 and 1. We think the increase in travel time between them would
be roughly 30 seconds to a minute and a half without the bridge. We’ll do that for both east/west and
north/south connections and to Bernie’s request, we’ll have these color-coded.
C: VG: I think you need a scale with two colors so it’s very clear what’s good and what’s bad.
Q: RH: Can we have three colors, to show a little more nuance?
A: JB: I really loved having the scale with green, yellow, orange and red.
A: JR: So if you want to have a separate meeting about colors, stop by and chat with us after the meeting.
In all seriousness, when we meet on the 25th, we’ll have a logical color palate that always has green as
good and red as bad.
C: JF: There was no white in the last graphic.
A: GM: This graphic has white because we have another category for the time travel study: neutral. This
grid is the level of detail we’ll have for you next time. When you get down to it we have six origins and
six destinations. If you go from 1 to 2 and then back to this graphic of our theoretical example, you’ll
see a savings of ½ minute, but you can match up any origin and destination.
C: AD: As we’re struggling to make these complex data sets and then translate them to you, we’re
struggling with how to communicate it to the community. So, while we can all have a giggle about this
together, in all seriousness, if you have ideas about bringing this to the public in a way that’s easy to
digest, we’d love to hear about them.
Q: BD: So you have a ½ minute savings going from 1 to 2; what’s negative in this example?
A: GM: This is just an example, those numbers are made up. This is just to show you what you’ll be getting
into next time, and we’ll be putting all this up on the website so you can sit with it in advance.
C: DH: If you’re going to have the numbers go right to left on the graphic, they should go right to left on
the grid.
C: JF: I think naming the places would be helpful. Why not call Shea Circle what it is rather than assigning
a number?
A: GM: Again, this is just a sample, but those are good suggestions.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: RH: I think they are particularly good suggestions in that we don’t want to run into the New Washington
Street versus Casey Overpass graph issue again.
C: GM: O.K. those are all good points. Let me keep moving since I’m mindful of the time. What we know
so far is that with both a bridge or at-grade solution, we can improve the alignment of surface roads,
enhance pedestrian and bicycle conditions, improve loading and unloading, manage queuing better and
reduce conflicts at Shea Circle. No matter which option we choose we can get to these things.
A: RH: When you look at that, it says to me that we’re back at our original discussion of bridge or no
bridge. This goes back to the fact that this group is overwhelmingly local, but the bridge is a regional
bridge. We’ve addressed all the local issues going back 25 years or more, but from a regional
perspective, you took down a bridge and added four more traffic lights. We’ve addressed all the local
issues, but let’s remind ourselves of the regional importance of this bridge.
A: GM: We all agree and you’ll notice that we’ve focused on the travel time between 1 and 4 since that’s
the regional pass through the corridor.
C: RH: So as we keep going, let’s discuss the opportunity to have one or two of these big meetings in
regional locations like West Roxbury, Hyde Park, Mattapan, Milton or Dorchester. You need to be able
to convince folks of what you showed me here tonight that in the past, their quick trip over the bridge
has just enabled them to hurry up and wait at the light at Murray Circle. This needs to be good for
regional traffic as well.
A: GM: I think a lot of that is going to come back to travel times and overall travel along the route.
C: NE: I’d like to mention that we need to underscore the concept of safety. The Senator’s office gets calls
and emails from people and they are all focused on making it safer. If you can articulate that the
alternatives are safer than the current situation that’s going to go a long way towards convincing people.
A: SMc: I just want to underscore that the Casey Overpass, as repaired, is safe to drive on today. If it were
not, we would not allow anyone onto it.
C: NB: To comment on the regional versus local issue, I’ve been a regional and local user of this area at
different times in my life. When I was in a car accident in Shea Circle, I was a regional passenger. The
four-way intersection can be safer for regional traffic and local pedestrians.
C: JB: The question I have is what we’re aiming for here. I know the grid was made up. There were three
green squares in it, a lot of white, and a few reds. That grid doesn’t seem to align with the bullet points.
A: GM: Bear in mind that chart represents travel time. If we prohibit left turns, your overall trip may be
slightly longer, but with less delay.
C: JB: So the data isn’t in conflict, but it’s a communication issue you need to think through.
C: NB: It just seems like those color-coded squares produce a lot of anxiety.
C: MH: One thing I think we’re getting to is a comparison to current conditions because people can relate
to that. What’s most important to me is where we are and where we’re going. Once we get consensus
about our solution, we need to address the regional issue. There’s going to be a Harvest Co-Op here
and if someone on their way home to Mattapan can stop there easily, I think that should be the model.
Our solution should work to bring people together.
A: RH: So let’s remember that, because earlier in this process, I was hearing that this group was going to
value the local over the regional. Let’s remember that this is about pulling our community together.
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: VG: You’re comparing travel times for vehicles between alternatives. Will you do the same thing for
bicycles and pedestrians?
A: GM: There will be differentiators on all of these. We know both options are better than existing
conditions and we’ll get down into the differences between the two.
C: LO: I want to go back to something we were discussing a little earlier. I’d be cautious about people in
this group saying what people from Dorchester or Mattapan would be happier with; I think it may also
be wrong to assume a four-way intersection is safer and there’s also the issue of the loss of the trees.
C: JF: As we saw earlier, there are twice as many cars going over the Casey Overpass as along New
Washington Street. Of those 30 local connections, two of them are part of the regional picture and the
rest are local streets. I think we need to weight different connections differently depending on what they
do. There’s much more traffic running along the 1-4 and 4-1 connection that the rest of the corridor.
I’m an advocate of a path on the bridge for regional pedestrians, cyclists and skaters, that’s an expanded
way of thinking about it.
A: GM: We will be weighting the moves by volume. 1-4 is going to count differently than 4-3.
C: RH: The challenge is that this group has spent a ton of time getting through all the local issues and now
you need to remember that the regional aspect can’t be an afterthought. A bridge or not a bridge isn’t
a purely local decision because you have regional people traveling the bridge. When you have nonbridge users making the decision for bridge users it’s a problem. My position is that I represent both
local and regional constituents and they’re all pushing me to do the right thing.
C: Lisa Dix (LD): As a WAG member who represents a more regional perspective, if the bridge remains or
goes there’s a big impact regionally. There’s a perception right now that the bridge is unsafe and so
people aren’t on it, but in the past, it was heavily used. What’s happening is that people are filtering
onto the local streets and travel times are getting long. Access into downtown Boston is getting worse
because many people do that through Forest Hills. There’s a perception that the Orange Line is better
than the trolley out of Mattapan for getting safely to downtown. So people are accessing Forest Hills via
Morton Street and Cummins Highway buses. Nobody’s factoring in Walk Hill Street which is getting
used as well. Lastly, in terms of your analysis, I keep seeing it stop at Shea Circle. I think you need to
take the analysis down onto 203 to ensure it’s not backing up.
A: JR: Folks, you’re getting into the detail of what we’re going to discuss next time, but we’ve heard
everything you’ve said.
C: SP: I just want to mention that when we do our regional traffic analysis for this project, we will be
looking at how the different solutions impact different populations including minority and low income so
that will be addressed.
C: DH: Lisa talked about traffic in the neighborhoods and aside from being a quality of life issue, it’s also a
safety issue; the more aggravation you have, the worse you’ll drive.
C: John Dalzell (JD): I want to pick up on some of themes we’ve been discussing. We’re talking about
traffic, but we’re missing some other purposes of Forest Hills. As we go forward, will there be
opportunities to evaluate the approaches relative to place? Are we making a place and destination?
Representative Holmes talked about divided communities and people have talked about the bridge
dividing Jamaica Plain. I don’t see us getting a lot of time on that. Another point is Allan’s concern over
transit. Improvement of the Fairmount Line is the great MassDOT initiative to expand transit access and
that could speak to the needs to people who currently have to transit through Forest Hills. There are
some cool local and regional things that play into this.
A: JR: That’s a near perfect segue to discuss our next two topics. The first and Don is going to go through
that, is parking. We know it has a lot to do with the courthouse and one thing I want to be up front with
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
you about is that tonight isn’t the night we solve the parking issue. It’s probably an issue for the 25%
design process, but we wanted to take some time to flush it out. After we address that, we’ll cover the
alternatives we’ll be carrying after tonight’s meeting.
Parking Discussion
C: Don Kindsvatter (DK): We know there are real issues about parking. Some are physical issues like where
and how much? We also have issues of policy and appearance. There are going to be parking issues
regardless of the alternative we pick. It won’t be a differentiator and something we probably carry into
the 25% design phase. It’s a complex issue because it would most likely work out that MassDOT will
design and build the parking on DCR land and then the City will regulate how the parking is used.
C: JR: Some people have asked use why we can’t make some resident parking under the bridge. That’s not
up to us. The City regulates where the resident parking goes.
C: DK: There are two major drivers on parking: the courthouse and the MBTA so things have to be
discussed within that framework. We want to hear your thoughts and ideas. Here are some basic
overview graphics. There are 105 spaces under the overpass and they go away no matter what. There
are 225 spaces at the LAZ lots and they will probably go away soon and there’s some additional
employee and paid parking on the MBTA parcel. The parking we’re discussing with this plan is to place
roughly sixty on-street, head-in spaces at the courthouse.
A: BD: When we discuss parking and the organizations involved, I don’t understand why we don’t just
annex some of the land of the MBTA side. I’m tired of hearing about who owns what land. Its taxpayer
land and we’re left out in the cold. We ought to be able to get some parking on the Arborway Yard side.
500 Arborway is going to be demolished. Let’s put the parking there. Let’s exercise some decisionmaking on that property; it all comes from the same pool of money.
A: MH: I find myself agreeing with Bernie on this one. Surface parking is the most temporary use of land.
At some point, when development in the area has progressed further, a commitment to a parking
structure makes sense, but during construction a surface lot probably makes sense. I’d also like to know
how many people from the courthouse are actually parking.
C: LO: I don’t know why we’re talking about this right now.
A: JR: Because it came up at the last meeting and we wanted to make it clear that this is an issue of which
we are aware.
C: Liz Malia (LM): This probably won’t make people feel any better, especially in light of how long the land
has been fallow, but at least it might make things clearer. The MBTA owns the land at 500 Arborway
and there’s a signed City/MBTA agreement that gives a large percentage of the land to the MBTA to
build the next generation of environmentally friendly bus service station and the rest goes to the City for
housing and commercial development. That was in progress for 15 years and was being readied for the
next phase when the economy crashed and the funding dried up. There’s an ongoing effort with the
state to get some federal money to move forward on that. If it’s going to happen, it will be fairly soon.
When the original discussion of the Casey Overpass came up, we wanted to address both it and this
issue at the same time, but the complexity was just too great. The DCR is currently piling sawdust in the
area from trees damaged by the Asian Long Horn Beetle, but we’ll know what’s what about the space
soon enough.
C: JR: My guess would be, and I make no commitments because that’s not part of my job, is that the
determination on the grant is near, maybe a month or two and we’ll know yes or no, but our 25% design
process won’t be over in a week. Parking will be covered in that. We all hope we get this funding. I
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
was in one phone call earlier today and it seems everyone is working in the same direction to help get
this funding. Is there anything else you want us to know about parking?
A: Wendy Williams (WW): At the public meeting, residents from Arborway Gardens saw the angle parking
in front of their property. We already overlook a major roadway and so adding the parking lot was
disturbing. We have a petition on the way to the Mayor now to say no to parking in front of our
buildings. I’ve walked behind the courthouse. They have land back there that could possibly hold
parking.
C: AD: The point of this was to show you that we are aware of this issue and know that a broader
discussion on it is appropriate as we move into 25%, but to also let you know that both alternatives will
have roughly the same parking impact.
C: JR: Right, bridge or no bridge, the parking situation is the same.
A: WW: I think it’s just that we’re worried about parking that’s currently available going away.
A: JR: We understand and we’ll find some way to address it. I also just want to reassure everyone that we
won’t be looking to privately owned land to solve the parking issue. Nobody’s property will be acquired.
Q: RH: One thing that came up was building the at-grade first and the bridge later. Can we do that? I only
say that because if Arborway Yards is still empty, could we move the bridge from over there? Can we do
the design in phases?
A: JR: Someone brought that up at the last meeting; I’m not sure it’s possible.
A: SMc: If a bridge is going back, we’ll need a staging area and we’d like to use accelerated techniques to
build it.
Q: RH: But even if we decide there’s a bridge going back, can’t we solve some at-grade problems while
we’re putting it back?
A: JR: O.K. yes, of course we can, that’s a different question. The fellow who asked the question at the
community meeting wanted to know if we could design the at-grade roadways, build them, and then put
the bridge back if it didn’t work at grade.
A: AD: The question you’re asking about is a phasing question and yes, we’ll be working to address atgrade intersections while we’re working on the bridge, assuming we put one back.
Discussion of Alternatives for Further Analysis
C: JR: For the past two WAG meetings and at the public meeting, we’ve discussed the design directions.
We understand that while there are some strongly held contrasting opinions out there, the design
directions are based on the bulk of what we’ve heard at prior meetings and from emails we’ve received
from the public. As we told you at the beginning of this process, we’re getting to the point where we
need to start pushing the ring smaller so we can get to a preferred alternative on the timeline to which
we’ve all agreed. Prior to tonight, we’ve carried four draft alternatives, but after tonight, we’re only
going to carry two: those will be a single bridge and the medium median at-grade roadway. After a
preferred alternative is chosen, we’ll continue the public process into the 25% design phase and that’s
when you’ll get to decide how you sign the pedestrian pathways and what kind of street lights to have.
There probably won’t be a forty member WAG, but some kind of WAG structure will remain and we’ll
continue to take your input on issues like staging and cut-through traffic
Page 16
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: LD: I heard you say single bridge and medium median. I’ve seen a single bridge, but no medium
median.
A: AD: You haven’t seen it yet, because we’ve been showing you the narrow and wide options, but it’s
somewhere between those two.
Q: Don Eunson (DE): Can you quantify medium?
A: AD: It’s going to vary down the length of the corridor.
C: MH: It sounds like in getting to the exact right width for the median, we can leave that fluid for now, it’s
not as big of a decision as bridge or no bridge.
A: AD: That’s correct.
Q: MH: So the big decision about split bridge or single bridge, that’s been made?
A: JR: Yes.
Q: JF: Is there still discussion about whether there’s a multiuse path on the single bridge?
A: JR: Yes.
Q: JF: What about the idea of a single bridge that splits at the Arboretum?
A: JR: Prior to the last meeting I mailed out Gary’s analysis on that.
A: GM: To be clear on this, at the WAG session prior to the public meeting, there was a presentation of a
modified split bridge with the split just at the western end. The problem with that is that while you get
the benefits of the split bridge at the western end, you still wind up with the pedestrian pathway stuck in
the middle of the roads as you have today. It either replicates today’s bad conditions or requires more
pavement and a more complex signal. So, if we go with a single bridge, it’s going to be together from
one end to the other and centrally aligned within the corridor.
C: JF: But the question has to do with the Arboretum end, that’s the end I’ve been talking about.
A: JR: But if we split it at the Arboretum end, that doesn’t fix the problems the split makes at the Shea Circle
end. There is no more split bridge as this time.
Q: JF: So what about a sidewalk on the bridge?
A: Paul King (PK): It’s not 100% out right now, but it’s not leading in that direction. You have all told us you
want a narrow bridge, and the benefits of having a multiuse pathway up there are not outweighing the
safety issues at this time. Not to negate those users, but the level of benefit provided just isn’t
outweighing the downsides. It’s not completely off but we don’t think we’re heading in that direction.
A: JR: And the theme you all told us, or most of you anyway, is that if we can offer excellent at-grade
accommodations, we should keep the bridge as narrow as we can.
C: JF: What you’re doing here is contrary to federal guidelines and ASHTO standards.
A: PK: That would be true if this were a bridge over water and there were no other way around, but there is
another way around, and it would be much better than today.
A: SMc: Cyclists would not be precluded from the shoulder; it would accommodate them. The question is
do we need a sidewalk up there.
Page 17
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: JB: We need something to let people walk off if they break down.
A: PK: That’s provided for, that’s a safety walk which has different dimensions from a sidewalk.
Q: RH: Could Mr. Ferris still ride his bicycle safely over the bridge?
A: PK: Yes, he would be able to do so.
Q: MH: I think certainly the bigger question is what’s resolved and what’s still flexible and from what I
heard the split bridge is out. Is that right?
A: JR: Yes.
C: MH: So this is a question of focus. We can get to how we treat bicycles at the 25% design phase. Let’s
answer bridge or no bridge.
Q: JB: There was an article in the Jamaica Plain Gazette about threatened federal funding. What’s the story
on that from your end?
A: SMc: Federal funding is a complex issue. The ABP is composed of about $2 billion from a state bond
issue and $1 billion in federal funded. The Casey Overpass is all state funded so if we keep that $3
billion, this project is funded. When we put the ABP together, it assumed level federal funding over
seven years. Congress is now talking about changing that. The reality is that we don’t know what will
happen. The federal gasoline tax is currently set to expire on October 1st. Congress has talked about
extending it through March; they keep doing stop-gap measures. The federal gas tax replenishes the
highway trust fund which is spent through an authorization from Congress. Those are extended
currently through February. MassDOT has different pots of money available, but if one dries up the
competition for the remaining pots gets stiffer.
C: BD: I think all of us want to avoid the same situation we had with Arborway Yard.
A: SMc: I have no control over the federal government. My best advice is to write your Congressman.
A: JR: MassDOT won’t take any money away, but we can’t do anything but let Washington work itself out.
A: SMc: Also, stimulus bills can and do come along and things need to be shovel ready. Casey Overpass
isn’t shovel-ready right not, but we ought to keep plugging away with that in mind.
Q: MR: Now that we’re getting down to two alternatives, can we have a range of costs?
A: AD: Very soon; we’re very close.
Q: MR: What about the surface of the bridge right now? I’ve called several times about the bad condition
and it came up at the public meeting.
A: JR: I’ve been in contact with district six, the maintenance group and the bridge group. They’re trying to
figure out if they can resurface the bridge in a way that will be longer lasting than cold patch and do it
this construction season. I agree with you Michael that the bridge’s riding surface is in lousy condition
and my bet is that if we can’t do the more thorough fix, it will be cold patch. Call me again on Monday
and I’ll have something for you by way of answer.
Page 18
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Next Steps
The next milestone in the public involvement process will be the second of the Series 5 WAG meetings. This meeting will
take place on October 25th from 6:00-8:30 p.m. in Room 133 of the State Laboratory located on South Street.
Page 19
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Dennis
Baker
HNTB
Nina
Brown
WAG
Jody
Burr
WAG
Maureen
Chlebek
McMahon Associates
Andrea
D’Amato
HNTB
John
Dalzell
BRA
Lisa
Dix
WAG
Bernie
Doherty
WAG
Jullieanne
Doherty
Office of Mayor Thomas Menino
Nikka
Elugardo
Office of Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz
Michael
Epp
WAG
Don
Eunson
WAG
Jeff
Ferris
WAG
Sarah
Freeman
WAG
Eric
Gordon
WAG
Vineet
Gupta
BTD
Michael
Halle
WAG
David
Hannon
WAG
Russell
Holmes
State Representative
Allan
Ihrer
WAG
Don
Kindsvatter
HNTB
Paul
King
MassDOT
Liz
Malia
State Representative
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Kevin
Moloney
WAG
Suzanne
Monk
WAG
Liz
O’Connor
WAG
Essek
Petrie
HNTB
Michael
Reiskind
WAG
John
Romano
MassDOT
Cathy
Slade
WAG
Robert
Torrres
Office of Representative Liz Malia
Ralph
Walton
Community resident
Emily
Wheelwright
WAG
Kevin
Wolfson
WAG
Wendy
Williams
WAG
Elizabeth
Wylie
WAG
Page 20
-_
massDOT
..­
First Name
Honorable Kathleen
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.
Last Name
Coffey
Genie Beal
Nina Brown
Mary
Burks
Josephine
Burr
Barbara Crichlow
Lisa Dix
Bob Dizon
Title
Organization
West Roxbury District Court
Address
445 Arborway
44 Allendale
Street,APT#144
Greenspace/BNAN (Boston Natural
Areas Network)
City
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Telephone
(617) 971-1300
bealm@mindsorinq.com josgehine. burr(ci)gmail.colll
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
bob.dizonlalamail.com dohert)!jrbc(ci)aol.com
bernard.dohertvlalnarsons.com td.doughert)!@)!ahoo.com (617) 498-4682
eoom@comcast.net deunson(ci)qmail.com
ieffrev(ci)ferriswheelsbikeshoo.com 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)
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
(617) 524-5865
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Boston, MA
02115
(617) 524-1401
Eric Gordon
Forest Hills Neighbors
Michael Halle
Chair - Boston Police JP Traffic
and Parking Committee
83 Wyman Street, No.1
Asticou Martinwood South Street
Neighborhood Association
27 Asticou Rd.
Emerald Necklace Conservancy
125 The Fenway
JP Business & Professional
Association
38 Greenough Ave.
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130 (617) 524-7997
Stony Brook Association also
CPCAY
West Roxbury Courthouse
Neighborhood Association
116 Williams St, #2
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130 617-595-5145 (cell)
617-983-5524 (H)
Friends of Healy Field
Neighborhood Association
14 Bexley Road
Roslindale, MA
02131
617-327-5698
freemansherwood@hotmail.com ericbot(ci)mac.com David Hannon
Mary Hickie
Carlos Icaza
Allan Ihrer
Kathy Kottaridis
Bob Mason
President
/'
.
CPCAY - Community Planning
Committee for the Aborway Yards
Southwest Corridor PMAC
V
romoniadix(ci)aol.com
Doherty
Ferris
/
bcrichlow28@aQI.com Bernard Jeffrey
t/
nbrown(ci)brownrowe.com
bu rks16 7(ci)gmail.com
1/
Walk Boston
Present?
kathleen.coffey@jud.state.ma.us Dorchester/Mattapan
Neighborhood Association
Lower South Street
Neighborhood Association West Seldon Street & Vicinity
Neighborhood Association . Woodhaven/Colbert/Regis
Neighborhood Association Boston Cyclists Union/JP Bikes
Eunson
Email Address
617.971.1635
MQ(;~~~I1J1OJA ~'A
Don /'
Accelerated Bridge Program
41 Morton Street
V
V
V
!//.
V
t/
m@halle.us -/
dmhannon@@mindsorinq.com ~
(617) 522-2700
hickiem@qmail.com 617.799.5256
allan@bbmc.com
aihrer@comcastnet kottaridis@aol.com
masonsmith@rcn.colll
.,/
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.
'~nn'
Care
ov"'~"~,,
Accelerated Bridge Program
MA 02130 Kevin Moloney
Suzanne
Monk
~.
uu. nUT
Committee
20 Ru ... v.v. Road
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
617 fi??
::\QRR
uvonnor
'f Courthouse
,vvu Association
JP Busin,,~~ & "u,'
i
I
Association West
",u,v
i
'v
Andy Schell
vV<,,~"" ,~,u"
Street DU~" '''~~ Group
Karen Schneiderman
Boston
Cathy Slade
Fred Vetterlein
Living
Rowe Street Neighborhood
Association Stony Brook, wi", 'vv, "vvu
David
Watson
Mass Bike
~v" 'v,
,u,
Independent
Wesley Kevin
Elizabeth
1l..,~
z {i.
VVI
Williams
Williams
I
Wylie
r.n"nril
JP
Arborway Gardens
Wilmore/Norfolk Neighborhood
i
1 i""hl"
Asticou .. "'~"uu" 'uuu
V
j I2michael<1ilrcn.com
3399 Washington St.
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
617-524-3800
60 Temple Place
Boston. MA
02111
(617)338-6665
.net I
Hlill
lra I IRI,,(,) I. com
m
Emily Wendy
rnno liz@strategllmatters.org
,.~'''' ,uv"
....v,'uv'
V
i
, 'G' onl" I Park
wolfsli
Liz ~
moloneys@verizon.net
fo,
171 Milk Street, Suite 33
Boston, MA
02109
l:rtf
.net
617-542-BIKE (2453)
di
n.n -'''''
Iht<1ilamail.com
10 O'Leary Way
27 Asticou Rd.
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
va" .aiva Plain,
MA 02130
not
""" Ims33?"" wes lellwi IIia ms<1ill2ost. ha rva rd. ed
.!J.
kevir ~
l<1ilamail.com
(617) 522-7325
617-784-8062 Cell
." ..
"
/
~~~""
.net
\/"""
\/
/
V
/
V
IL
:(vi\~ etA(\(\P~
\))\\~-vJ
iY\().'-\0,\ m~
'11..)\\PMNw> .A)~e,\(t'...:r .-N '*\~'::cl:,
~
1'--­
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Received Emails
Please see the following pages.
Page 21