Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
September 19, 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:
Fourth Public Information Meeting1
Meeting Notes of September 13, 20112
Overview & Executive Summary
On September 13, 2011 the MassDOT team for the Casey Overpass Replacement Project Planning Study held the
fourth of five public information meetings associated with the six month planning study. These public information
meetings have been and will continue to alternate with the meetings of the Working Advisory Group (WAG). The next
WAG meeting is scheduled for September 28, 2011 from 6:00-8:30 p.m. at the State Laboratory on South Street.
While WAG meetings are open to the public, they constitute working sessions of the WAG and as such, committee
business is given precedence.
During the meeting, committee members presented four WAG session’s worth of work to the community. This
included:
Two at-grade options.
Two bridge options.
Options for Shea Circle and Washington Street west of the Forest Hills MBTA station were also presented.
The Measures of Evaluation.
An early look at traffic simulations for the potential options.
Reaction to the concepts was generally positive with a relatively even split between audience members who spoke in
favor of a bridge or an at-grade solution. Those who spoke in favor of the at-grade solution generally did so from the
standpoint that it would create a greener Forest Hills, more reflective of Olmstead’s original design for the area that
would be more welcoming to cyclists and pedestrians. Several also discussed the ongoing maintenance costs
associated with a bridge. Those who spoke in favor of a bridge solution did so from the viewpoint that one is required
to keep traffic flowing through the area and that the increased efficiencies to be gained by improved intersection
geometry and advanced signalization would be counterbalanced by sheer traffic volume and poor driver behavior.
Traffic modeling remains a significant concern to the community and will be addressed in detail at the next public
meeting in the series five WAG meetings beginning later in September of 2011. Additional concerns raised by the
1
Meeting attendance is listed in Appendix 1. Comments received from the public immediately prior to, at, and after the
meeting are listed in Appendix 2.
2
This meeting was advertised in the Boston Globe, Baystate (Boston) Banner, Roslindale/West Roxbury Transcript, West
Roxbury Bulletin, the Jamaica Plain Gazette, and the Dorchester/Mattapan Reporter. A Spanish version of the
advertisement was presented in the Jamaica Plain Gazette. Haitian Creole versions were placed in Baystate Banner and
Dorchester/Mattapan Haitian Reporter.
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
audience included finding replacement parking for the courthouse and ensuring that the 39 bus is not adversely
impacted by proposed changes.
The major next step for the project team is to take the feedback obtained at this meeting and apply it to the draft
alternatives presented. These concepts will then be further refined into final draft alternatives and evaluation criteria,
also developed in concert with the WAG, applied to them. The final draft alternatives and how they perform with
regard to the evaluation criteria will be presented at the next community meeting.
Presentation & Discussion
John Romano the project’s municipal liaison opened the meeting by welcoming the audience and thanking them for
their attendance. He noted that the material to be presented was the result of four WAG meetings’ worth of work and
expressed appreciation for WAG members’ ongoing commitment to the project and for the comments and questions
they have shared with the design team. Public meetings provide the community with an opportunity to do the same.
John commented that for members of the community who preferred to send in their questions and comments, comment
sheets were provided at the sign-in table in the lobby. Full contact information for MassDOT project manager Paul
King was also provided. John then recognized the following local officials: State Representative Russell Holmes, Nikka
Elugardo of Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz’s Office, Robert Torres of Representative Liz Malia’s Office, Jullianne Doherty of
Mayor Thomas Menino’s Office, City Councilor Matt O’Malley, Joe Cosgrove of the MBTA, Vineet Gupta of BTD and
John Dalzell of the BRA.
Prior to turning the meeting over to Paul King who kicked off the meeting presentation, John invited audience members
to hold their questions until the end of the PowerPoint show, but asked them to think about providing specific reactions
to the materials such as “I like x,” “I like y,” “I’d prefer a bridge,” or “I don’t want a bridge.” Obtaining this type of
information is now becoming increasingly important for the project team to ensure that a preferred alternative will be in
place to take into the 25% design process in November of 2011. Meeting this deadline ensures that construction of
whatever is chosen to replace the Casey Overpass can be completed by June, 2016 when funding available through
the Accelerated Bridge Program expires. Commentary during the presentation was also provided by Dennis Baker,
Essek Petrie, and Andrea D’Amato (both of HNTB), Gary McNaughton (McMahon Associates), and Nina Brown, Bernie
Doherty and Kevin Wolfson of the WAG.
Highlights of the Presentation3
Overview of the Planning Study
o The Casey Overpass, while safe as repaired and frequently inspected by MassDOT, has reached a point of
obsolescence and must be demolished. The current six-month planning study represents a historic opportunity
to replace the bridge with a solution, either a bridge, at-grade, or combination of the two that respects and
serves the neighborhood and region. The opportunity is also historic because the project is fully funded
through the Patrick-Murray Administration’s landmark Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP).
o The planning study to determine how the Casey Overpass should be replaced has taken into account issues of
mobility and livability and has also addressed:
o All modes of transportation.
o Improving the connection between Franklin Park, the Arnold Arboretum and the rest of the Emerald
Necklace.
o Ensuring that transit operations at Forest Hills Station are not negatively impacted and that access to
transit is improved.
3
A copy of this presentation can be seen at:
http://web.massdot.net/CaseyOverpass/downloads/MtgPresentation_091311.pdf
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
o The current planning study is being undertaken with an unprecedented level of community input to ensure that
the project can be completed on the timeline of the ABP. To date, the WAG has met nine times and MassDOT
has hosted four public information meetings. By November, 2011, a preferred alternative will be selected.
The preferred alternative will then go into design to be ready for construction between 2013 and 2016.
o The community will continue to be involved through the design process. It is currently anticipated that
the WAG or something similar to it will continue to operate throughout the rest of the project.
o Key stakeholders in the project:
o MassDOT which owns the overpass itself.
o MBTA which operates service through Forest Hills Station.
o DCR which owns the land around the overpass.
o The City of Boston which owns the local streets connecting into the corridor.
o The consultant team headed by HNTB.
o The WAG and the community this committee represents.
o The WAG, a diverse and eclectic body which has worked strongly with the consultant team though an intense,
accelerated process began its work in March, 2011 knowing that its goal would be to arrive at a reasonable
consensus as to how to replace the current Casey Overpass so that design work, and eventually construction,
can begin on time. Forest Hills has been a transportation hub for many years and the removal of the overpass
provides a historic opportunity to better organize transportation assets and integrate land uses that abut the
corridor.
o The design team began its work with the WAG by reviewing all of the previous studies that have been done for
the Forest Hills area.4 The design team then asked WAG members to identify the problem areas within the
Casey Overpass corridor. These were identified as New Washington Street, Shea Circle, and the area
immediately to the west of Forest Hills Station including Asticou Road in addition to the bridge itself. Using this
as a basis, the design team began developing a set of initial concepts. These initial concepts were subjected
to a fatal flaw analysis based on criteria laid out by WAG members. These included:
o Improving safety for all modes of transportation.
o Minimizing impacts to the Arborway Yard.
o No adverse impacts to transit operations through Forest Hills Station.
o Strengthening the connectivity of the Emerald Necklace through the Forest Hills area.
o Several concepts were quickly dismissed early in the process after having failed on one or more the
fatal flaw criteria. No concept that has failed in this regard has been carried forward to the meeting
summarized herein.
Using the initial concepts that passed the fatal flaw analysis, the WAG and design team developed draft
alternatives to address a replacement for the Casey Overpass, New Washington Street, Shea Circle, Morton
Street, and the area west of the Forest Hills Station. After the meeting described in these minutes, the WAG will
continue to meet and will incorporate community input to continue refining the draft alternatives. Additional,
detailed traffic modeling for both the local and regional network will be applied to the alternatives as will the
Measures of Evaluation (MOE) developed by the WAG. A 3-D model of the preferred alternative will be
provided at the next public information meeting. 5
4
These have been made available through the project website at:
http://web.massdot.net/CaseyOverpass/documents.html
5
At this point, Andrea D’Amato provided the “designer general’s warning.” This caveat has become familiar to WAG
members over the course of the spring and summer and states that while images generated with computers tend to
have a finished feel about them, the images presented at the meeting described herein remain drafts and continue to
be changeable based on a variety of factors including community input.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
o The Casey Overpass corridor is approximately 200 feet wide and provides plenty of space in which to provide
excellent accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists. The project team has been using Olmstead’s original
plan for the area as a point of departure for new non-motorized facilities in terms of using green space as a
buffer between modes of transportation. Another model that has been helpful is the Southwest Corridor
Bicycle path which provides separated cycling and walking within a green corridor. Key elements of the
proposed bicycle and pedestrian accommodations include:
o Better connections between the Arnold Arboretum, Forest Hills Cemetery, Franklin Park and the
Southwest Corridor Park by providing at-grade separated paths for cyclists and pedestrians. This is
currently projected to include an 8-foot sidewalk and a 10-foot bikeway separated by a 6-foot planted
median. 5-foot bicycle lanes will be striped on all at-grade streets.
o At points where the pedestrian and bicycle pathways come together, special integration zones with
contrasting paving treatments will be provided. These will signal to both walkers and cyclists that they
may need to merge with each other. Vassar Street in Cambridge has similar treatments as does the
East Boston Greenway.
o In the New Washington Street segment of the corridor, wide crosswalks, between 20 and 30 feet will
improve pedestrian access to the Forest Hills Station and signal to motorists that they are in an area
with significant pedestrian traffic and should slow down. New York City has successfully used similar
crosswalks.
 Assuming an at-grade solution is selected to replace the Casey Overpass; pedestrians will
cross a total of six lanes of traffic, with a pedestrian refuge between them, in the New
Washington Street area.
 Assuming that a bridge is chosen to replace the overpass; pedestrians will cross a total of four
lanes of traffic, with a pedestrian refuge between them. It is important to note that this
crossing will take place under the new bridge.
Draft Alternatives - Bridge
o If a new bridge is built to replace the Casey Overpass, it will not need to be as long, tall or wide as the current
structure which was built to accommodate the elevated Orange Line. WAG members have consistently
expressed the preference that if a new bridge is built that it be lower and shorter. The existing bridge is 1,600
feet long and 80 feet wide. Replacement bridges currently being analyzed by the WAG and design team
would be 950 feet long and approximately half the width.
o If a bridge is selected to replace the current Casey Overpass, at-grade intersections will be reconfigured into
traditional, signalized, four-way junctions. With some traffic using the bridge, the at-grade roadway will
include two travel lanes in each direction.
o Two possible replacement bridges are currently being considered:
o Split Bridge: this concept was originally shared with the community at the third public meeting. This
concept would create two bridges, one for eastbound and one for westbound traffic. This concept
also provides a sidewalk on the outsides of each bridge which is contiguous with the at-grade
sidewalks at Shea Circle and the Arboretum. Having to cross traffic to access sidewalks on the current
bridge was identified as a significant issue by the WAG. With a split structure, daylight would fall
between the eastbound and westbound spans. The project team is currently carrying a 6-foot
sidewalk and a bicycle-accommodating shoulder on the outside of each span; this could be modified
if a split bridge is selected. Variations of the split bridge, particularly one which is split at the
Arboretum (western) end, but merged at the Shea Circle (eastern) end are still under discussion by the
WAG.
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: Community resident6 (CR): How wide is the total bridge width?
A: Dennis Baker (DB): The bridge would be 60 feet wide in total, but remember, it’s not all together, there’s a split
down the middle. Each bridge would provide enough width of breakdowns or emergency vehicles so we’d have 22
feet curb-to-curb and then the sidewalk.
C: David Hannon (DH): I’m on the WAG and one of the benefits of the split bridge is that the on and off-ramps would
be in the middle between the two spans. That lets traffic go right down into the intersection and simplifies them.
A: DB: That’s true. With a bridge you do get smaller, simpler at-grade roadways. When I speak about the bridge,
there’s the elevated part of the bridge and there are also the ramps that take traffic from the at-grade roadway to
the bridge. We call those an approach ramp and they are often built on fill, we’re assuming a filled section and
you’ll see that in the renderings we’ll show tonight.
C: Gary McNaughton (GM): A big benefit of the split bridge is that the ramps are nicely aligned. One thing to note is
the smaller, simpler surface roadway network. The current surface roads are inefficient and work poorly because
they were shoehorned in around the existing structure. You can see a lot of missing pieces and awkward
connections as a result. With our bridge alternatives we would see less surface pavement and better pedestrian
crossings at the New Washington Street intersections with crosswalks in all four directions, not two like you have
today.
Q: John Dalzell (JD): In the last three slides you showed had trees and green space between the two bridges, is that
realistic with the shadowing?
A: Andrea D’Amato (AD): You will note that we have not placed any trees on the tunnel box because there would be
an issue with roots, but yes, we think it would work.
A: GM: Because the bridge runs east-west, we do believe that the area between the two spans would get some
sunlight. I’m not an arborist so we haven’t posited what trees should go in there yet and we do have the tunnel box
where you can see a gap in trees, but we’re reasonably sure we can grow something in there.
Another element I want to mention is that all of these alternatives work from a traffic perspective. We went through
a big effort early in our process with BRA and BTD to model the future traffic volumes 25 years out. Our fatal flaw
criterion was that all of the current and future traffic for the next twenty years would need to be accommodated on
any replacement we designed. All of the alternatives you see tonight are fairly comparable from a traffic
operations standpoint and they all work much better than today. That’s important to keep in mind as you look at
these.
o Significant thought has already gone into the Arborway Yard. If a split bridge were built to replace the Casey
Overpass, driveways to the site would be next to an approach section of the westbound span, adding some
complexity to accessing the Yard. A frontage road would be one possible solution or pushing the bridge
eastward towards Shea Circle.
o Another issue is access to Arborway Gardens and the courthouse. The project team is considering providing
local access to these locations via a one-way loop access road similar to today, but with regional traffic
directed to the surface roadway underneath the bridge. With lowered traffic volumes on the access road,
angle parking could be safely provided in front of the courthouse to replace what is being lost in the lot
currently under the bridge. This one-way access road would connect into Morton Street which would then
connect in Shea Circle providing access to the regional network.
6
Audience members were asked to provide their names prior to speaking. Attendees who did not are listed as
“community resident” abbreviated CR.
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
o
Shea Circle, in this alternative, would receive minimal changes: by pulling the bridge to the west, the number
of roadways going into the circle is reduced by two and Forest Hills Street would tie into the surface road west
of Shea Circle.
C: CR: I’m concerned that there would be a lot of people trying to take a left into Shea Circle.
A: GM: The access road turns out to have a very low volume. With the simplification of the roadway network, the
volumes drop and the left turn happens pretty well. This option doesn’t make major changes to the circle. The rest
of it remains relatively simple though we’d introduce some modern roundabout treatments with delineated
pedestrian and bicycle accommodations.
Q: Sara Freed (SF): Could you go right from Shea Circle onto Forest Hills Street?
A: GM: In this alternative, you would use Cemetery Road. We have other alternatives that keep that right turn. You’ll
see three different options for Shea Circle which are largely interchangeable and we want your feedback on all of
them just as John said.
C: CR: It seems like you would need to loop all the way around the circle of make some maneuvers.
A: GM: You would, but that’s no different from today.
Q: Valerie Schechter (VS): To put this in perspective, there are 11 streets currently going into Shea Circle. Where’s
Yale Terrace on your plan?
A: GM: We’re still figuring out how best to connect Yale Terrace, but I would say this particular design does the least
best, though not bad job, of accommodating it.
o
Another option for Shea Circle has been dubbed the egg-about by WAG members. This concept was
developed as an effort to preserve the mature trees currently in the center of the circle while providing some of
the advantages that would be conferred by turning Shea Circle into a conventional signalized intersection.
With the egg-about, signals are placed on both Route 203 approaches to the rotary to allow protected
pedestrian and bicycle crossings through the center island of the circle. Some WAG members have expressed
a strong preference for this approach while others feel it unlikely that people would want to be surrounded by
traffic, there are however local examples of landscaped rotaries that have center islands used by pedestrians
including the Putterham Circle in Brookline and the Holy Name Circle in West Roxbury.
o
The third possibility for Shea Circle is a traditional, signalized intersection called Shea Square. Medians are
placed between the entering and exiting lanes of Route 203 and plenty of room is provided for tying in Yale
Terrace and Morton Street. The intersection includes wide crosswalks and integration zones for bicycles and
pedestrians as their separated pathways come together to cross the street. Shea Square is generally
considered the most advantageous design for pedestrians and cyclists.
Q: DH: Can you speak to the timing of the lights?
A: GM: All of the lights in the corridor would have a built-in timing, but they would also include pedestrian actuator
buttons and cycle detection. Signal timing in terms of the specifics, how many seconds of green time a given
approach gets, is something we’ll do more of in the 25% design phase after we pick an alternative.
Q: VS: So if we save the trees, does that mean we don’t get our streets back?
A: GM: In this approach, the frontage road for the condominiums ties into the larger surface road before getting to
the Shea area. The yellow line you see on the slide is a walking path.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Gail Sullivan (GS): I think you’re missing Cemetery Road on your plan for Shea Square.
A: GM: It’s right off the view in this slide; I assure it’s there.
C: CR: I like the egg-about, but it looks like you need to go through more traffic lights than you do today coming off
the bridge.
A: GM: Yes, there are two signals to go through.
Q: CR: Is it too early for information about traffic backing up on Route 203 or the Arborway?
A: GM: All of these have passed our initial muster when it comes to traffic analysis. We know that they all work
locally. The next thing to do is to work with CTPS to determine the regional impacts and we will have that for you.
Q: CR: There was some discussion about a sidewalk across the bridge. How did you end up with that versus the atgrade and other mode?
A: GM: There are still ongoing discussions about that. The split bridge provides great connections for a pedestrian,
that’s one of its big advantages. There was some feeling on the WAG that if we provide excellent pedestrian
connections at-grade, we can dispense with sidewalks on the bridge and we’re still working on deciding that. Onstreet bicycles will be accommodated on the bridge.
Q: Jerry O’Connor (JO): I’ve lived on Yale Terrace for 18 years and while I’ve never seen a traffic jam at Shea Circle,
I’ve often seen them at the pedestrian signal up near the Arboretum. Every time you put in a signal it means more
congestion. Why do we need more traffic lights? I really want us to stay away from fumes, back-up and wasted
gas.
A: GM: Early in the process, WAG members identified for us areas of concern within the corridor. Shea Circle does
process traffic well, but it isn’t particularly safe. This is a high accident location, in fact the only one in the corridor
and it’s very discouraging for cyclists and pedestrians who might like to visit Franklin Park. These designs are trying
to address those concerns.
C: Francesco Soriani (FS): My impression is that since the overpass went down to one lane, a lot of people go down
Forest Hills Street. You need to address that and if you can’t make a right turn on Forest Hills Street, I’m going to
need some convincing it will work.
A: GM: We have done the basic analysis and these options work. The current bridge is an emergency situation with
friction at the merge because it’s a temporary set-up. With these designs, we move the friction away from Shea
Circle. The traffic numbers say we can accommodate the bridge traffic on a single lane.
Q: Karen Doherty (KD): I live on Asticou Road. Can you show us the treatments for at-grade with a split bridge?
A: GM: At-grade, we’d be reorganizing the east-west street network. You would see only limited work on Washington
Street west of the station.
Q: KD: And how many traffic lights would it be?
A: GM: It would be similar to today, but just better organized and more efficient.
o The other bridge option under consideration is the Single Bridge. This structure would be:
o Similar to the current Casey Overpass in that it would be a single structure carrying both east and
westbound lanes, but much smaller with a cross-section of approximately 41 feet.
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
o The proposed cross-section would include a lane of traffic in each direction, a bicycle accommodating
shoulder and no sidewalks. The goal expressed by the WAG was to have the thinnest bridge possible
and it is possible that sidewalks are not needed if excellent at-grade accommodations are available.
o The alignment is similar to today’s Casey Overpass, but could be shifted to the north or south.
o On and off-ramps would be positioned to the outside of the structure as on the current bridge.
o Support columns for the bridge would be positioned along the median of the at-grade roadway.
GM: The intersections get a little wider at the medians to accommodate the piers. The lane configurations are quite
similar. It’s less than what you see today, but better organized and effeicent. You see differences to the east. We’ve
taken the opportunity with the surface roadways outside, handling the same amount of traffic they do today, we’ve
shown direction connections of the surface streets into the side streets rather than a frontage roadway. The court has
angle parking where the island is today and tthere would be a direct connection for the condos. While many elements
are interchnagable, this treatment of Morton only works with the single bridge because of the volumes.
Q: Mary Hickie (MH): Can you tell me how high the bridge would be above the roadway at the intersection of New
Washington Street and South Street?
A: DB: The WAG has expressed its desire for the shortest bridge we can provide. That means the minimum clearance
over the roadways would be the minimum allowed by code, 16.5 feet.
Q: MH: And how does that compare to today?
A: DB: The current bridge varies all along its length so that’s a little hard to say, but the new structure would be about
10 feet lower than the existing structure at the high point of the bridge.
C: AD: I do want to address some of the landscaping opportunities. Improving the connectivity of the Emerald
Necklace is a big deal and we’re trying to do that. We have yet to conduct shadow studies for our two bridge
options, but they would impact plantings. However, it’s safe to say the single bridge would cover the medians and
so we’d expect our plantings to be along the edges of the corridor.
Now I’d like to have WAG member Bernie Doherty come up and discuss the WAG’s design directions with regard
to a bridge.
C: Bernie Doherty (BD): I represent the CPCAY and I live on Asticou Road. I’ve been asked to the present things the
WAG has looked in developed the bridge. I’m strong bridge supporter myself. The single bridge concept,
someone mentioned the one lane of traffic going east and west, we have to rely on the traffic study and we’re still
waiting for some additional information there, but we assume that some traffic might go to Washington Street or
Hyde Park Avenue; that point may be well taken. Back to the single bridge: with configuration you have a much
shorter span because the bridge doesn’t have to go over the elevated train. At 16 feet over the roadway, this
bridge is much shorter. It’s unfortunate that we don’t have something that shows you this, but we’ve seen bridges
in the WAG meetings that have very different support columns from those on today’s bridge. A good example of
these is some of the Big Dig bridges that have round columns that come up and flow out into a box at the bottom
of the bridge. With the split bridge, which I like, you have the entrance and exit-ramps coming down into the
middle as opposed to the outsides. If you have a bicycle pathway on top of the bridge you have a much easier
entrance and exit; that’s an advantage. If you split the bridge, the split in the middle helps to address shadowing
and because the bridge runs east-west, I feel you’ll get a lot of daylight as the day goes on. With the single bridge
you couldn’t have plantings down the center. You could remove the bike lane and put in an additional traffic lane
if you need to. We’re trying to get cars across Forest Hills. When this bridge went in back in 1954, there was a
big volume of traffic going through Forest Hills and that hasn’t changed. I think a bridge is the way to go. I don’t
want us to get to 2016 and see that we’ve made a terrible mistake.
A: AD: We have perspectives at the end of the presentation and outside in the open house area we have a board that
shows other bridge types that would be appropriate as design elements at this location. Bernie did a great job just
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
now, but I want to amplify a few of the things he said. Most WAG members do prefer the single bridge because of
shadowing and open space. We have had lots and lots of conversation about which modes belong on the bridge.
The general WAG consensus is that commuter bicycles can use the bridge, but to keep the structure as thin as
possible, pedestrians can be accommodated in excellent at-grade facilities. People want a short, low bridge that
minimizes unusable space at the two approach ends. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should maximize connections
and minimize crossings.
Q: DH: One question: when we saw the single bridge slide, it was positioned down the center and I’ve heard it said
that in the center of the corridor would be least friendly when it comes to connecting the greenway. Could the
bridge be pushed south to make that connection easier?
A: DB: The alignment of the bridge is something we’ve played with. We know the bridge will be the more costly
solution and so we need to do some things to contain costs so we would try to avoid the MBTA ventilation
structures. That drives how much we can push things south.
Q: DH: Seeing as we’ll have one lane of traffic and an emergency lane, could we let the breakdown lane be used for
travel during rush hour?
A: GM: The bridge won’t be wide enough to accommodate two full lanes. You need some shoulder space so that
drivers are comfortable and not right next to barriers. We are confident that a single lane can work if the
approaches are done right.
C: MH: One comment: in the WAG we’ve discussed that during rush hour, it’s often not the bridge that’s the
constraint, but back-ups elsewhere along the Arborway that then have impacts on the bridge.
A: GM: And CTPS is modeling those issues right now and they will be laid out fully in the series five WAG meetings.
C: Pete Stidman (PS): I’m with the Boston Cyclists’ Union. Bob Dizon is a member as well and he’s on your WAG, but
the Cyclists’ Union position is that if you have traffic that will be going over the bridge at 40-50 miles per hour, you
need a cycle track. A simple bicycle lane won’t be enough to provide safety and you can’t ban bicycles from the
bridge.
C: JO: I love the single bridge. I think if the accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians are excellent at-grade then
you could think about leaving sidewalks and bicycle lanes off the bridge.
Draft Alternatives – At-Grade
o There are two at grade solutions currently under analysis by the WAG and design team: the wide median and
the narrow median.
o The Wide Median solution would:
o Have a median approximately 40 feet wide, similar to the one on VFW Parkway in West Roxbury.
o Two lanes in each direction throughout most of the corridor except at intersections where there would
be three lanes to accommodate turning movements.
o Traditional four-way intersections at both ends of New Washington Street. North and southbound left
turns would be accommodated at the intersections, but east and westbound left turns would be
accommodated through the use of turnaround lanes in the median, allowing these turns to occur at
the intersections as right turns.
o Include separate pathways for bicycles and pedestrians.
o A multiuse pathway in the median to activate this space.
o The Route 39 bus would turn around using the segment of Washington Street immediately to the east
of New Washington Street. A queue jump signal would give the bus priority in operating through the
intersection.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
o As presented at this meeting, the wide median option was shown with a set of interchangeable
improvements for Washington Street west of Forest Hills Station. These included:
 A third lane in the upper bus-way built on a deck over the MBTA parking lot.
 Shifting the northern driveway of the bus-way so as to no longer be in conflict with the South
Street/Washington Street intersection.
 Improved pedestrian and bicycle connections between the Southwest Corridor Park and the
Arboretum’s Blackwell Gate.
Q: DH: What’s the reason that the exit to the bus-way has been moved across from Asticou Road?
A: GM: It’s an attempt to free up curb space for other uses like pick-up and drop-off. It also is intended to ease some
of the friction and congestion that you have right now with the bus-way exiting into the intersection with South
Street.
A: AD: In conversations early in the WAG process, the group told the design team about how Washington Street west
of the station is a problem in terms of pick-up and drop-off. The WAG also asked us to look at ways to expand
transit operations at the station. This was an opportunity reorganize the area to let transit grow. We were asked
not to impact headways or the movements of transit vehicles and to have the flexibility to move the 39 into the
upper bus-way or to continue to have it on the station’s northern edge.
C: BD: I assume that you’ll need another signal for the buses.
A: GM: Buses heading to the north would have a priority lane to get them up to the intersection of Washington
Street/New Washington Street. There would then be a priority signal to help them get across the intersection.
There might need to be another signal for buses turning to the south.
Q: BD: And do the school buses stay in that area?
A: AD: They do for now. There are a lot of wants on this area, but only so much curb. We’re trying to centralize
these wants and diminish their impact on the neighborhoods since WAG members told us those impacts were
significant.
C: CR: I sent out a letter earlier stating my concern with your treatment of the 39 bus. You’ve mentioned issues
around it and state that your objective is not to adversely impact transit. By moving the 39 further south rather than
having it closer to Centre Street you will delay the bus and that’s an issue we want to avoid. By putting all bus
traffic on the west side of the station, you’re increasing pedestrian congestion in the section of the station that
would take you out to the new 39 location. With regard to the station itself, the additional buses on Washington
Street will impede automobile traffic. This isn’t protecting the 39 against adverse impacts at all. Most people
aren’t going to walk or bicycle, but they will take transit. You can’t claim you’re respecting the 39 bus because
you’re eliminating its turnaround loop.
A: GM: We do eliminate the loop, but we would use signals to improve the 39 bus’ operation. Current signals delay
the 39 bus because it has to sit with all the rest of the traffic. We would implement transit priority signals and a
dedicated lane so the 39 would be operating with better conditions than the rest of traffic. We have a charge of
not impacting bus headways and Joe Cosgrove from the MBTA will hold us to that. Not harming transit operations
and particularly the 39 is in our measures of evaluation. Our goal here was to provide the MBTA with more
capacity and flexibility.
C: Malcolm Beal (MB): I drive through this every day and I’ve noticed that if a car comes off the Arborway and heads
towards the State Lab, it has to go through two sets of lights. There’s a walkway there now, but it is there any
reason why we can’t put back the roadway that used to be there so that cars going to the State Lab could stay off
that section of Washington Street?
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: GM: The short answer is that we could. That roadway connection you mentioned did exist once upon a time, but
the reason we haven’t added it back is because of the additional conflicts it created for cyclists and pedestrians.
Q: Todd Constantino (TC): You mentioned the cost of the bus-way expansion. Are you saying its more expensive than
having a bridge?
A: GM: For now we don’t have exact cost estimates, but clearly you can see that build a deck is more expensive than
not building a deck.
A: Steve McLaughlin (SM): The bridge right now is running at a cost of approximately $53 million. The ballpark figure
for the deck for the bus-way expansion is $6 million. That’s not a huge cost in the big scheme of things, but we
have to be careful about small things adding up.
Q: Anne Herschfang (AH): How wide is the total right-of-way, how wide are the traffic lanes, and why is the sidewalk a
pitiful 8 feet wide?
A: AD: The corridor varies between 200 and 250 feet.
A: Essek Petrie (EP): We have 20 foot-wide crosswalks with pedestrian ramps that are the same width. These drawings
address traffic patterns so not every detail is there.
A: GM: With three traffic lanes and the bicycle lane, each direction of traffic is around 40 feet wide.
Q: AH: But why are the sidewalks so pitifully narrow? A good sidewalk is 12 feet wide.
A: AD: And that’s a conversation we’ll be having in our upcoming WAG meetings.
Q: CR: Can you tell me now what the projected traffic volumes are for the at-grade solution and how much that will
impact the neighborhood roads? Right now we have cars going over the bridge and staying out of our
neighborhoods.
A: AD: In our series five WAG meetings we’ll be working through that.
A: GM: In some of our early meetings both with the WAG and the public we did show current traffic volumes and you
can go see those on the website. We know that all of the vehicles you have today and all those that will be added
between now and 2025 can be handled on the at-grade solutions. We’ll have more information for you at the
next public meeting.
Q: VS: People have mentioned replacing parking. The courthouse has 100 spaces under the bridge, 10-12 spaces in
its own lot and then about 30 legal and illegal spaces on our access road. Why can’t we give them parking
somewhere else?
A: JR: We really need to keep moving with our presentation, but we promise you you’ll get your answers at the end of
the meeting. We’ll stay as long as you need for Q&A.
o The Narrow Median solution would:
o Be largely similar to the wide median, but have a median approximately 14 feet wide, providing a
pedestrian refuge, but not a multiuse pathway. The space is wide enough to be decorated with
plantings, but is not wide enough for active users.
o During this presentation, the narrow median was shown with the interchangeable Shea Square option
and the one-way loop for the courthouse/Arborway Gardens area. Other interchangeable elements
included maintaining the 39 bus in its current location and lengthening the upper bus-way, but not
adding decking over the MBTA parking lot.
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: AD: Now I’d like to ask Kevin Wolfson and Nina Brown from the WAG to come up and talk about the design
directions for the at-grade options.
C: Kevin Wolfson (KW): Regarding the at-grade options, the big difference is the median width. A narrow median is
helpful because it shortens pedestrian crossings and the median really isn’t usable for plantings over the Orange
Line. We like keeping the walking and cycling paths along the outside, but there’s a limit to how narrow the
median can be. Part of Olmstead’s intention was to make this feel like a parkway. We’d like to see plantings in
the median to help break up the pavement. We’ve gone over this a few times, but I want to reiterate that all of
these designs accommodate traffic equally and while I understand there are concerns, this is less of a traffic
question and more of a question of which way you want the neighborhood to go. There have been successful
viaduct removals across the United States. I represent Livable Streets and I support the at-grade solution.
C: Nina Brown (NB): Enough real estate: that’s exciting. The fact that there’s enough space to accommodate things
that people want is unusual in 2011 in Boston and it’s a wonderful opportunity reestablish Olmstead’s parkway in
a way that works for 2011. This would be a pragmatic, flexible restoration and the Forest Hills neighborhoods
would get new shade trees and green space. Franklin Park would be more tightly connected with the rest of the
Emerald Necklace. This would be an even greener community. The fact that you can make improvements to Shea
Circle and the area around the station makes this an even more enticing possibility. A new bridge will cost in the
range of $53 million and there will be little money left for at-grade improvements. With the bridge, we could not
have the Shea Circle improvements. Shea Circle is dangerous. I have been hit there. The at-grade alternative is
running around $28 million for a base price and that gives you a sense of what’s possible. It will be easier to
maintain the at-grade solution and if we can handle all of our traffic at-grade, why lock ourselves into maintaining
a bridge. I support the at-grade solution and hope it will get your consideration.
A: AD: So as you can see we have passion and great ideas. I want to take you through some of the views and the
Measures of Evaluation and then we’ll let Gary give you a preview of the traffic modeling. We were asked to
imagine the area with and without and bridge and there was a lot of interest in this. These views are quick, rough
and preliminary but we are continuing to enhance them. We will place all these on the project website. 7 We have
also spent significant time on the measures of evaluation or MOE. These are on boards and available as
handouts. These embody the livability and mobility goals. The WAG gave us those goals and we’ve spent months
working on measurable objectives and metrics. The WAG gave us a lot and we tried to incorporate all of us.
We’re pushing the margin on this. These are multi-modal and we have followed the WAG’s instructions. You
can’t read this on the screen, don’t try, but do go pick up copies in the lobby when you leave tonight.
A: JR: These are also on the website so you can download them when you get home.
C: GM: Tonight I want to give you a preview of the traffic animations we’ll be showing you and the WAG. We are
doing all the traditional analysis. For those of you who have been through similar processes in the past we’ll have
all the data of travel times, seconds of delay, level of service and V/C ratios for all modes. We’ll have the hard
facts and numbers and we’ll show you how they operate with some animations which help to bring those dry
numbers to life. This is the tool we’ll be using for animations, it’s very accurate and uses actual volumes and signal
timings. For tonight’s preview, I’ll show you the at-grade solution with the wide median and the 39 bus turning
around on Washington Street during the A.M. peak hour. You won’t see the 39 in this clip because the bus is on
six minute headways and this is a 30 second clip, but you get the idea. Here’s the clip again and I’ll zoom it in so
you can see the pedestrians and cyclists. By the time you see the final animations at the next public meeting, we’ll
have a very realistic depiction for you.
7
Views shown, both with and without the bridge included from the Arborway Yard looking towards the courthouse, from
the head of the Southwest Corridor Park looking towards the Forest Hills Station and from South Street looking
towards the Arboretum; it is recommended that users download a copy of the presentation to review these images for
themselves.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: AD: So, here’s what we’ll be doing next. We will take the design directions and shape final draft alternatives. We
will revise them and apply the MOE to them. We’ll run the modeling for vehicles, transit, bicycles and pedestrians.
We’ll also have a 3-D model for you of the recommended alternative and bring it back to you. We have two WAG
meetings scheduled already and we might have a third. The date for the next public meeting will be a function of
that.
Question & Answer Session
John Romano began the question and answer session by explaining that he would take questions going from right to
left across the audience. He also asked at attendees with a question or comment state their name for the record and
note if they were WAG members.
Q: David Wean (DW): Do both at-grade alternatives have six lanes of road traffic?
A: GM: You have three lanes in the New Washington Street corridor and east of that it would taper down to two lanes
in each direction.
Q: DW: And the improvements in the Asticou Area are they not in the bridge alternatives because of cost or is there a
technical reason?
A: JR: It is pretty much an issue of cost.
Q: DW: So in an ideal world where funding was no object, you could do the bridge and the improvements together?
A: GM: You could. The issue is the cost of the bridge.
A: Paul King (PK): If we do build a bridge, we won’t do anything to preclude the improvements in that area later on.
Q: John Woods (JW): I live in the Stony Brook neighborhood and I understand that you’re doing the traffic analysis,
but I’m curious how far along Washington Street the study will go. I want you to take the traffic study as far to the
north as you can go.
A: GM: We have several elements to this. The local traffic study goes to Ukraine Way in the south. We go a few
intersections to the north past Arborway Yard. That’s at the local level. We’re sensitive to the cut-through issue
and we’ll be analyzing that further. We will then work with CTPS to address the regional implications for all of
eastern Massachusetts. We’re looking at a close, micro local level and then factoring in the broader area.
Q: CR: With the at-grade solution, I’m concerned about the left-turn onto Hyde Park Avenue. A lot of people make
that move. What’s the accommodation for them to make the left and if they have to go down to the bowtie,
doesn’t it make their trip longer with more lights to get through?
A: GM: We’ll be checking travel time comparisons on a lot of the movements in this corridor, but the left turn actually
does work better in the bowtie. We do have exact numbers making the various movements and we’ll be able to tell
you which movements experience longer and shorter travel times. I would say that almost all of them will be better
though one or two might be worse.
Q: CR: I am concerned about the use of Cemetery Road and Rossmore Road as a potential cut-through route during
construction.
A: GM: We’ll be looking at the issue of the cut-through traffic and we will bring that back and present it to you.
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Laura Sweet (LS): I’m a cyclist from Roslindale and on the at-grade solution with the bowties; I’m concerned about
how you expect cyclists to negotiate the left-hand turns. It seems like you’re asking us to cross three lanes to get to
the bowtie.
A: GM: We don’t expect cyclists will use the bowties those we would assume that some of the more confident riders
might. We’ve been working on this issue with the WAG, but currently, we think cyclists would make the east-west
left turns as box turns. That is they would cross the opposite side of the intersection and then use the special
integration area to turn to the left. They could then continue with north or southbound traffic as a through
movement.
C: KD: I feel like we have a civil war developing in terms of trying to accommodate everything we want in this space. I
totally support and goodness of green and I think the traffic modeling is great. How we’ll do this in a month is
beyond me because this presentation doesn’t make it clear to me. I was a member of the failed RPAC community
and it’s more than just one hour of peak time in the whole neighborhood. To look at alternatives and say they cost
too much money is a disservice to the community and shortchanges the design. I feel we’re being pressured as a
community to make choices without adequate information. We can trust our WAG members, but I haven’t heard
anything about the transit mode. This isn’t a master plan, but it seems like it’s trying to be one. DOT is the owner
and cash cow, but there are other owners and the people who live here and I don’t think we’re being given a fair
shake.
A: JR: Nobody said we’d make a decision in mid-October. The decision is probably more like mid-November. We
have the series five WAG meetings coming up in late September and running into October. Then there will be
another public meeting. We never said we were driven entirely by cost, but understand that there is not unlimited
funding.
C: CR: I wanted to add onto what other Stony Brook residents have said and request that you take into account all of
the developments planned for Washington Street, both at the Arborway Yard and on McBride Street.
A: GM: The short answer is that we have done that already. At earlier WAG meetings we worked with CTPS, the BRA
and the MBTA to make sure we had all the right developments to drive the traffic numbers.
C: CR: I’m concerned about the bowtie. I understand that goal is to prevent left turns, but it feels like you’re keeping
more traffic in the mess for longer. I’m also concerned about what feels like a very short distance between the Uturn and the right-hand lane. If cars need to dash across three lanes of traffic to make their turn, the bowties will
back up almost immediately.
A: GM: The exit out of the bowtie is signalized so the movement will be unobstructed by through traffic. It will be a
clear cycle, not at all like today. Those vehicles do stay in the system a little longer and we will be assessing
traveling times, but left turns are very bad for traffic operations. Generally speak it’s better, faster and more
efficient to relocate the left turns to the median.
C: Beth Charney (BC): I live on Meehan Street and I’m passionate that we need another overpass. I thank you for the
traffic study and I think the rotary is fine. What we need is more of a police presence here and better signage. I’m
fearful that more traffic lights will mean gridlock. I use the overpass two or three times a week and Shea Circle all
the time and I’m convinced a bridge is the way to go.
C: Sarah Freeman (SF): I’m a WAG member representing Friends of the Arborway and this overpass is a big piece of
the Arborway. The people I’ve been talking to feel that a bridge should be a last resort. If there’s a good at-grade
solution, why do we want a barrier with noise, shadows and graffiti? Of course nobody wants to make traffic work
and I think people’s concerns over that are legitimate and I support them. We get the Casey Overpass’
downstream traffic in front of our house every day. It’s not a diversion. I just think a bridge is a huge price to pay.
One of my neighbors said that to rebuild it smaller and shorter is just making a smaller mistake. There are
examples from all around the country of places where viaducts have come down the areas around them have just
been transformed. It’s a big burden removed. One further benefit of an at-grade solution is it simplifies decisionPage 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
making. With a bridge you have to keep coming back to the idea of who should be on it and who shouldn’t. With
an at-grade roadway, everyone can be on it.
A: BD: I’d rather make a small mistake than a monumental one. The problem is that I live in the area and you’re
asking us to put all the traffic that’s now on the bridge on the surface road, congested, idling, with all the fumes.
I’ve got a problem with that. I hear emergency vehicles going through the area. I think they should be able to
continue to get through by going over a bridge. I’m not concerned one iota with cost; I’m concerned about
14,000 extra cars morning and evening. I’d like to believe that these panaceas are going to work, but I just don’t
see it. Without a bridge you’ll have a morass.
C: Anne McKinnon (AM): I’m a little bit puzzled that the consultants seem to be saying one thing and the WAG
members are saying another; I’d like it orchestrated a bit better. On the cost, we’ve been told it’s not an issue and
decisions have been made about what to study and what not to study. The bridge guy said he could at an
alignment shift, but it hits the MBTA. We should be going for the best solution possible and checking the costs
later. To presuppose what’s too expensive is wrong and a disservice. Let’s look at a shift and then analyze the
impacts and then look at costs. Also, at the last meeting, I asked about the historic status of Shea Circle. I’d like
to hear some more about that.
A: SM: Let’s talk about cost first. Someone mentioned that the at-grade solution was $28 million. That’s the base
cost without doing anything to Shea Circle or the ventilation stacks for the MBTA. The base cost for the bridge is
$53 million. Those are the base line numbers we’re working with. As we add things into the MBTA, we’re not sure
how far we have to chase those improvements. It could mean retrofitting the whole station. Shea Circle is on the
national historic register as an element contributing to the historic value of the Arborway. The circle itself isn’t of
particularly high value and can be altered, but it’s a case we’d have to make to appropriate historical commissions.
Changing it to Shea Square means an adverse effect, but it’s probably surmountable. If it changes to the eggabout, there’s probably no adverse effect.
C: MB: My biggest objection is 24,000 cars at-grade every day. Six lanes won’t be enough and the traffic will be
crazy. People won’t want to stop at all your lights and you can’t get away from human nature. Put in the at-grade
solution and watch the madness ensue.
C: Barbara Crichlow (BCr): I’m on the WAG and my issue is traffic lights. When we have buses coming out of Forest
Hills Station and they need to get through more traffic lights, it just means more delays on the other end of the bus
route. I support Bernie and the bridge. There are 40,000 cars on Morton Street near my home and they’re
headed this way. That’s not counting the cars cutting through Franklin Park. That’s more congestion, pollution
and fumes. When you talk about the single lane bridges, all I can imagine is the old Sumner Tunnel when it was
one lane in each direction. That was scary and then they put in too more tunnels to handle the traffic. I think we
need a single bridge with two lanes in both directions. Since Shea Circle is on the historic register, I don’t think we
should touch it without talking to the Franklin Park Coalition. I don’t know why we’re talking about the 39 bus,
that’s an MBTA issue. Let them pay for it. As to the greenery, who will maintain it? From Shea Circle to Harvard
Street, the greenery sucks if you’ll pardon me for saying so. It looks like a jungle until you get to Blue Hill Avenue
and then it looks like a desert.
A: AD: We do have a member of the Franklin Park Coalition on the WAG; Suzanne Monk couldn’t attend tonight.
A: PK: And it will be DCR who maintains the new plantings.
C: CR: I want to request more information about Orchard Hill Road. It’s a street that dead-ends with only one
entrance and exit. It’s not even on your maps and you haven’t discussed how I’d get from Forest Hills Street to
Orchard Hill Road.
A: GM: Orchard Hill Road is just off the bottom of the drawing. You’ll have right-turn access into your street from
Hyde Park Avenue northbound. From Forest Hills Street, you could use Morton Street because there will be a short,
stop-controlled segment that’s two ways just so residents can access their street. When you come out, you would
go down to Shea Circle, much as you do today, and access the regional roadway system from there.
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: CR: My name is Paul [last name not given] and I live in Arborway Gardens. In looking at the visuals I’m concern
about the court’s parking infringing on Arborway Gardens. I don’t want to see that parking lot in front of our
buildings because it will ruin my property value. The LAZ parking lot on the corner is often empty and I was
wondering if there was a dialog with them regarding providing courthouse parking. If you infringe on resident
parking, I can forecast anger and conflict.
A: AD: Nothing brings out anger like parking. We’ve been playing with where we can fit parking and we have looked
at the LAZ lot. Currently, there’s a proposal to redevelop that space for uses other than public parking. Duly
noted; we are looking into parking. Those visuals are just ideas.
C: CR: I also live in Arborway Gardens and while I like the at-grade solutions, the angle parking in front of the
courthouse seems very suburban and antithetical to our urban space.
A: AD: There are 105 parking spaces under the bridge currently used by the courthouse. We might try to see what we
can reduce that down to; we will be speaking with them as to what they really need.
C: CR: I can’t believe that you would need to replace all 105.
A: AD: We’re currently looking at 60 to 70 replacement spaces. We’re trying to be creative and we’ll need more
thought on the issue.
A: JR: And we do have the Honorable Kathleen Coffey, one of the judges from that court, on the WAG. She doesn’t
make it to too many meetings, but she does come and she is on the list.
C: Michael Reiskind (MR): I have a comment on the pedestrian access. For trying to reknit the Emerald Necklace, I’m
very disappointed in the pedestrian connections you’re showing. They’re second or maybe third class in all
respects. I don’t think crossing traffic lanes at-grade with lights and a crosswalk is Olmstead’s vision at all. It’s just
not right. You’re not even close. Other major problems: your connection to the Arboretum is inadequate and your
connection to Franklin Park is a path and hopes for the best. You’re drawing blue and yellow lines and not
thinking right at all. This is still more about cars than pedestrians.
A: AD: We have separated bicycle and pedestrian pathways between Franklin Park, the Southwest Corridor Park and
the Arboretum separated from traffic by green buffers. What’s missing?
A: MR: It’s better, but it’s still not the Emerald Necklace. As to questions to think about: the new deck south of Forest
Hills could possibly provide space for taxis so they don’t have to make U-turns in the street all the time. There is a
real need for more enforcement of any future conditions by the State Police. There’s no place for enforcement
vehicles to hang out currently and pull people over safety so they don’t do it. We need enforcement space. Then,
this is the hardest one: the Arborway Yard is on the north side of the corridor and we have 90% designs for that. A
new request for federal funding has been placed and the designs are now different than they were because 500
Arborway is set to be demolished and turned into surface parking. What is the way we accommodate this second
design for Arborway Yard?
A: AD: Michael, those are all excellent topics for WAG meetings.
C: DH: To piggyback on what Michael said, I have a problem with the at-grade solution because the western bowtie is
aimed at the Forest Hills gate of the Arboretum. That doesn’t seem friendly to pedestrians to have constant
barrage of traffic.
C: Allan Ihrer (AI): And to piggyback on all of that, I’m with the CPCAY and live in the Stony Brook neighborhood and
it looks like 500 Arborway will be torn down and I’d encourage DOT and MBTA to put a parking structure there for
the court. If there’s this big bag of money, let’s use it to address some of our problems that we know we have. I’ve
been getting all the emails of dramatic viaduct removals from around the country like the Embarcadero Freeway
and the West Side Highway and they’re very alluring, but look at the constraints we have: Forest Hills Cemetery
Page 16
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
and Franklin Park are big green space areas separated by transportation links. Those projects were at the water’s
edge and on grid street networks. Those models aren’t for us; they don’t apply. If you look at the CTPS model
you’ll see that the Casey Overpass carries an east-west migration of people going to their jobs from Dorchester
and Mattapan. Traffic is the elephant in the room and I know DOT has addressed it to some extent, but it’s time
we started thinking about a transit solution and not just relying on cars. If you want to go west from Forest Hills by
transit, you can take the 41 bus and the 51 bus and then end up in Cleveland Circle, but I would encourage the
BRA to get in there and say we need transit. I trust the folks on the WAG and I trust they’ll show us the
neighborhood traffic impacts. Traffic backed up for five blocks in both directions is a thought we need to take
seriously and I trust we’ll address it seriously. We need to come up with a responsible solution and keep thinking
about people to the east and west of the bridge.
C: GS: I just want to say that my goal is to get the most benefit to the Forest Hills neighborhood writ large. I’m very
excited about the at-grade solution and I have confidence you can address the issues of traffic and parking and the
U-turns. I encourage you to think about this not as a traffic solution, but a solution that’s about the place where we
all live and letting me or my kids walk and ride our bicycles without getting hurt. The at-grade solution is the best
one. It’s not 100% right yet, but it will get there. One little comment: I want the green spaces at the edges
because that’s where the people are. I’m thinking of how good this can be: not a bridge, not a wall, not the crap
we have today. I want livability as our focus. I hear Bernie’s concern, but think of how good this can be.
C: Mark Tedrow (MT): Three items: all options eliminate that pesky midblock crosswalk on New Washington Street
and I like that, but I can see kids jay-walking there. Could you put in a barrier to stop that? On the at-grade
solutions, the crosswalks seem mighty long and the last item is, the left-turn from the Southwest Corridor to South
Street and then southbound on Washington Street would be a great spot for a bicycle box.
A: AD: We’re playing with the alignments of the crosswalks and the landscaping to address the concerns you
mentioned.
Q: Ralph Walton (RW): I live on Amory Street. This started out as a bridge replacement and it’s being funded as a
bridge replacement, but it seems like the MBTA is getting $6 million in upgrades. Will we be shopping for another
funding source?
A: SM: That could be funded under the project or maybe through some development rights. We could look into
phasing the construction. I do just want to say that the idea of the changes to the MBTA were not made up by us,
the idea came from the WAG.
C: Bob Dizon (BDz): Speaking to the friendliness of the neighborhood, I’m a fan of the at-grade solution and I want to
emphasize the importance of addressing the Shea and Asticou improvements. Those will greatly improve access
for cyclists and pedestrians. We can make the center of the corridor great, but if the access points at the end are
bad, things won’t improve. Not addressing those problem areas at the edges would be a shame.
C: Russell Holmes (RH): Everyone, it’s getting late, it’s almost 9:30 and about half the audience has left. If there are
no further public comments and the remaining questions and thoughts are all coming from WAG members, I
encourage you all to take these issues up at your next working session.
C: JR: All right everyone, that’s in for tonight. Thank you for coming. Remember to sign in if you didn’t do so earlier.
Next Steps
The next major public involvement milestones in the process will be the fifth series of WAG meetings. The first of these
is scheduled for September 28, 2011 at the State Laboratory on South Street. The meeting will run from 6:00-8:30
p.m. The timing of the next community meeting is contingent on how many WAG meetings are needed for the fifth
series, but it is tentatively planned for late October or early November.
Page 17
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Page 18
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Dennis
Baker
HNTB
Martin
Bernert
Community resident
Jess
Bolandrina
West Roxbury Transcript
Nina
Brown
WAG
Sarah
Buerman
Community resident
Matt
Burks
Community resident
Kate
Chang
Office of Congressman Michael Capuano
Elizabeth
Charney
Community resident
Maureen
Chlebek
McMahon Associates
Dan
Church
Community resident
Todd
Consentino
Community resident
N.
Corley
Community resident
Joe
Cosgrove
MBTA
Barbara
Crichlow
WAG
Julie
Crockford
Emerald Necklace Conservancy
Terry
Crowley
Office of Councilor John Connolly
Andrea
D’Amato
HNTB
Jenn
DeSutter
Community resident
Lisa
Dix
WAG
Bob
Dizon
WAG
Bernie
Doherty
WAG
Karen
Doherty
Community resident
Jullieanne
Doherty
Office of Mayor Thomas Menino
Bill
Downey
Community resident
Nikka
Elugardo
Office of Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz
Michael
Epp
WAG
Francesca
Fordiani
Community resident
David
Foley
Office of Representation Jeffrey Sanchez
Sara
Freed
Community resident
Sarah
Freeman
WAG
Malcolm
Gale
Community resident
Jon
Goodhue
Community resident
Vineet
Gupta
BTD
Chris
Hall
Community resident
Bruce
Hall
Community resident
Michael
Halle
WAG
Kevin
Handley
Community resident
David
Hannon
WAG
Matt
Henry
Community resident
Mary
Hickie
WAG
Russell
Holmes
State Representative
Kate
Hutchinson
Community resident
Allan
Ihrer
WAG
Page 19
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Rosemary
Jones
Community resident
Wesley
Kent
Community resident
Paul
King
MassDOT
Erin
Kinnehan
MassDOT
Stephanie
Krvel
Community resident
Nancy
LaFarge
Community resident
Diane
Madden
MassDOT
Beth
Mahar
Community resident
Jennifer
Marhane
Community resident
Jonathan
McCurdy
Community resident
Anne
McKinnon
Community resident
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
A.
Michael
Community resident
D.J.
Mink
Community resident
Maureen
Mark
Monks
Navion
Community resident
Community resident
James
O’Brien
Community resident
Mike
O’Connor
Community resident
Rebecca
Oleveira
Jamaica Plain Gazette
Andrew
Padilla
Community resident
Heather
Perez
Office of Councilor Felix Arroyo
Scott
Peterson
CPTS
Essek
Petrie
HNTB
Shaun
Provencher
Community resident
Erica
Quigley
Community resident
Jeff
Rand
Community resident
Michael
Reiskind
WAG
John
Romano
MassDOT
K.
Ruiz
Community resident
Fred
Salimbene
Community resident
Valerie
Schechter
Community resident
Laura
Smeaton
Community resident
Mary
Smoyer
Community resident
Merlin
Southwick
Community resident
Pete
Stidman
Community resident
Gail
Sullivan
Community resident
Mark
Tedrow
Community resident
Pam
Thompson
Community resident
Richard
Thompson
Community resident
Robert
Torres
Office of Representative Liz Malia
Jon
Truslow
Community resident
Frederick
Vetterlein
WAG
Ralph
Walton
Community resident
David
Wean
Community resident
Emily
Wheelwright
WAG
Page 20
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Wendy
Williams
WAG
Kevin
Wolfson
WAG
Page 21
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Comments Received
See following page
Page 22
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .i .
HIGHWAY DIVISION CASEY OVERPASS REPLACEMENT PROJECT PLANNING STUDY JAMAICA PLAIN, MASSACHUSETTS This sheet is provided for your comments.
Your input is solicited and appreciated.
Please return your sheet, with comments, to a staff member at the meeting, or
mail to Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Acting Chief Engineer, Massachusetts
Department of Transportation, Highway Division, 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3170,
Boston, Massachusetts 02116-3973.
The final date for receipt of written statements and exhibits will be ten (10) days
after the Public Information Meeting.
'1
As
t)'Llff'
a
AkO ~~ d-eSl(JVI ~ t~~
d np
elcl\'s~
Clvci . V'-e)t·J"'f1~
di' \,( W\ t14.-eJt'c(Vl.
",d- Hi' S~Y\7 r3roc K.·
"'. VVl-e
l
\A,e;tkPoy~J; H~ C(~ () V'ctJ-£ J--e.\'7 YI ,~.,d Cl..ccowu·J",)-ey
c'fck)~s CJ.Y'J reJ-e5buco\.~, 5d'/,too/ &h,\s. d-e<;\l.V\ (eSs.O~5
k ~If\. Sou~h ~itsb~ ~ .5t~, 15 I:{ or-ej
Jev-e!o '~uJ(
I
hnd.;r pic< V\
1'"~t"'<S«? ;tAr;."!
O'rpOSf
<1l1
k2
TITLE
t~
c....oYII/ /IV{ Vt
Vt/g!-e- U!cJ,{+
1\£:5 iol-eV\\-
NAMEVaVIJ
i11's cc>si~
q
d,'web:)
"J ,~{
,'nc_J
r)".
IIr1QI'n 01'101 St#~JIf£(1
ORGANIZATIONSbny 6'ftI<:l/(, A}-€~hb(" h"od O~'J,
ADDRESS
As5(')(\U~i'ei {\
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY DIVISION CASEY OVERPASS REPLACEMENT PROJECT PLANNING STUDY JAMAICA PLAIN, MASSACHUSETTS This sheet is provided for your comments.
Your input is solicited and appreciated.
Please return your sheet, with comments, to a staff member at the meeting, or
mail to Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Acting Chief Engineer, Massachusetts
Department ofTransportation, Highway Division, 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3170,
Boston, Massachusetts 02116-3973.
The final date for receipt of written statements and exhibits will be ten (10) days
after the Public Information Meeting.
f
rr-Lfv.t.
As
~
~
A...<J
Ny--cow
\
l: lee
3 +r-~ p
N-...e.Ji 0..<'\
+r-e.e.-.s) r
ert.K--t
S
~~ .
~. S'b~ .
( ~:. . . ~ ~t <~ 'I tf r-<-.-c.oP1~cf -fW. ~.9 A'l(iC(Yl(~
£c1
e.-vUJ~'
ADDRESS
TITLE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
:z:tA SQ; "f Sf.
J
JP
ORGANIZATION----'-~---'-5(_~
_ _ _ _ __
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HIGHWAY DIVISION
CASEY OVERPASS REPLACEMENT PROJECT
PLANNING STUDY
JAMAICA PLAIN, MASSACHUSETTS
This sheet is provided for your comments.
Your input is solicited and appreciated.
Please return your sheet, with comments, to a staff member at the meeting, or
mail to Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Acting Chief Engineer, Massachusetts
Department of Transportation, Highway Division, 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3170,
Boston, Massachusetts 02116-3973.
~=(.,S'-----
NAM E ---J-:.A1,-,---,-C(i4,,-,lfto.:.cV\,---,fl1--'-!.LO--,-'1
TITLE _ _ _ _
1---'-13i--'-l.!
ADDRESS
~ ~ ((~s?)I!ore
J.{7{
IYI/P
r0
ORGANIZATION_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY DIVISION CASEY OVERPASS REPLACEMENT PROJECT PLANNING STUDY JAMAICA PLAIN, MASSACHUSETTS This sheet is provided for your comments.
Your input is solicited and appreciated.
Please return your sheet, with comments, to a staff member at the meeting, or
mail to Thomas F. Broderick, P.E., Acting Chief Engineer, Massachusetts
Department of Transportation, Highway Division, 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3170,
Boston, Massachusetts 02116-3973.
The final date for receipt of written statements and exhibits will be ten (10) days
after the Public Information Meeting.
~~~LG~~~Ln~~~~~~~~VV-~
)
, L \ciVv 3
Vur-u~ ~ ~&rn<&- \;bIAs sb.- aA:Jb '-tlu ru?i~-c>
~ ~~
cUQN-----lfi
\[eN~ \QJ)cAfY\l f&M,.¥\~~~
Ahro, ¥~< [~~, (~ rUnohqn cU=~1
11 vwg () f J~ t6 .O-Atvj}~o&</ lM fytM.~(rvv,:c ~
'~J- %1u (~
*~ ~ ~5
lMULL - IF
pY00-8S cA1!Jd ~ rtvb-£~k.. ~·x CMM.- cJxo um­
(fMMA ~.vt d1l1CUJ,SI \DS~ *&;VtlL)~ I vfc- ±heY
~& ~ %'lS c;-vJ-: W fA-- ~/ or: \IV! fJ re.. ~
NAME·tre.a..fu"v w\h
ADDRESS ~9 f\""h UilA- R.d.
TITLE
'1: l
vy\
ORGANIZATION
ftMSN A:
~'Ir\ .~ 01/ ~)~.: Il(,\ 0/ ~i-\d4:. . :. :. e. J. . :. : :. . :~1-b-'- :v'-fV\,--:2)-.-;-\eYeS s~
~~~~Pr~.~~~d ~~l!~~locrr.~ t~~~~<t, I~~~, ro~
PLEASE FOLD AND STAPLE
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Acting Chief Engineer
MassDOT, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza, Suite 3170
Boston, MA 02116-3973
Re: Public Information Meeting
Casey Overpass Replacement Project
Planning Study
Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts
Project File No. 605511
Design Elements
............................................................................................................ PLEASE FOLD AND STAPLE
Emerald Necklace
CONSERVANCY
The Emerald Necklace: Chosen as one of America's Top Ten Great Public Spaces for 2010
- American 'PlalllZillg Association
BACK BAY fENS
*
RIVEHWAY
"t
OLMSTED PARK
*
JAMAICA POND
,'t
ARNOLD ARBORETUM
".'t
FRANKLIN
[!rl'sidnlt
Julie C!'[)cld(lf(J
September 22, 2011
BO,\H[l OF tJIIiECTOl!S
Angela 1'.\cninn
HOIlOrlJrr Diralof
ilenj~ll1if1
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Acting Chief Engineer, MassDOT
10 Park Plaza, Suite 3170
Boston, MA02116
Taylor
Chllir
Kathryn Cochrane l\\llrphy
Vjr,~ C/illir lIIal Clak
Otile !>lcl\.lanus
Via Cllair
Len Swifl
Trcu<;urtr
LeL' Albright
Attn: Mr.Paul King, Project File No. 605511Casey Overpass Project
Peter K. [brlWf
Anne Connolly
Dear Mr. Romano:
John R. Cook
Lynn A. Dale
Michael Dukakis
I am writing to you on behalf of the Board of the Emerald Necklace
Conservancy. We would like to forward to you our comments following
the last public meeting on the Casey Overpass Project on September 13.
Sarah freeman
Cnol Gladstone
Roger F. I-larris. PhD
Janice Hendt:rson
C/Jair, Plirk
OI'U.'i('tT'>
James F. Hunnewell.
Matthew Kiefer
Jr.. AlA
Given the assurance of MassDOT and their team that all four of the
draft alternatives presented at the public meeting will meet the traffic
requirements for the projected 2035 date we strongly favor an at-grade
solution for the project. We believe that the guiding principles and goals
of the Measures of Evaluation can be met with an at-grade solution as
[Mh Krudys
Monroe ~I1lld~ hloseley
Jane Roy
Gregory Sl'ihll'
Wendy Shattuck
Linda Edmonds Turner
E1i7.abelh A. Vizza
lvl'1rjorie Bakken
follows:
Ewtriln
!',\1IK O\'[1ISEEHS
Arborway CoajiliOll
•
It will improve roadway geometry and circulation for all modes of
transportation by reestablishing a properly designed roadway system
through the area
•
It will promote transportation choices by improving conditions for all
modes of transportation, not just motor vehicles
•
The absence of a bridge will remove a visual barrier and promote access
between Forest Hills and the rest of lP
•
A no-bridge solution will increase the tree canopy, minimize adverse
water and light impacts and minimize life cycle costs
•
It will create more open space for activities and gatherings and will
enhance the value of properties through improved visual changes
Arnold Arboretulll
Boston COlllmittee of the Garden
club (]f America
130slon Nature Center of Mass
Audubon
Boston Society of i.andsc"pe
Architects
IlrooklitlC GreenSpace Alliance
Emerald Necklace Greenway Project
The tl.'nway Alliance
tl.'nway Civic i\ssociati(]i!
ten way Community Development
Corporation
Fenway Garden S(Jciety
Forest Hills Educational Trust
Franklin Park Coalition
Franklin Park Zoo/Zoo New England
Friends of larnaica Pond
Friends of Leveretl Pond
Friends of Pinehan!;:
Friends of the 1'>-Iuddy RiVer
Garden Club Federation ofMA
Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
Jamaica Hills Association
Jamaica Pond Association
MASCO
1'>luseutn of tine Arts
125 The Fenway / Boston, Massachusetts 02II5 /
TEl:
6J7.522.2700 /
FAX:
617.522.2770 I www.emeraldnecklace.org
PARK
• It will enhance the visual quality of the area and will help reestablish the
connection between the two largest parks of the Emerald Necklace.
We have been impressed with and appreciate the process that DOT has
undertaken to evaluate future growth against the six stated goals. In
summary, for the reasons stated above we think the character, culture,
and ambiance of the neighborhood can best be met by an on-grade
solution, especially since it avoids imposing another "brutal" overpass
overthe community. We have appreciated being a part ofthe working
group and hope to see the process to a successful conclusion.
Sincerely,
~rd'
President
Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Acting Chief Engineer, MassDOT
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
Att’n: Paul King, Project File No. 605511
Sept. 23, 2011
Dear Mr. Broderick,
The Arborway Coalition is a friends group that cares for & about the Arborway. We have been
fixing it up one piece at a time (historic stone wall, fence, trees, safer crossings), and the Casey
Overpass is a really big piece of the Arborway! Frederick Law Olmsted planned the Arborway as
one piece of a linear park system, a multi-use parkway connector between Jamaica Pond, Arnold
Arboretum & Franklin Park, 3 great parks in the Boston Park System, now known as the Emerald
Necklace.
We feel strongly that an at-grade solution will best serve the Arborway, the neighborhood, and
the parks, and that a bridge should be a LAST RESORT - to be considered if, and only if, it is
determined that the traffic absolutely can not be managed at grade.
A bridge is a barrier, separating Forest Hills from the rest of Jamaica Plain and bringing many
additional negative impacts: noise, shadows, permanent maintenance obligations, plus grafitti, broken glass, and a variety of antisocial activities underneath. Also, it contributes to the climate
of speeding and aggressive driving in the areas inbound and outbound from the Overpass. These
are very negative impacts that we would like to avoid.
Why build a multi-million dollar needless speedway if it isn't absolutely necessary?
Especially since this "expressway" is only 2 blocks long, and then the inbound morning traffic sits through multiple cycles of the light at Murray Circle, the Jamaica Pond boat house and beyond. This “hurry up and wait” type of driving does not shorten the total commute time; it just defers
the waiting to another location. A bridge doesn’t solve the problem; it moves the problem.
We pay a huge price inbound due to the neighborhood-UNfriendly design that routes the Casey
Overpass traffic directly in front of houses (bypassing Murray Circle and setting up a race with
the traffic in the central parkway, beating them to the merge where 4 lanes become 3 lanes at
the approach to Kelley Circle). Many residents are harmed by this speedway mindset that
motorists acquire while on the Overpass. It is dangerous to other drivers, pedestrians, and
cyclists, and it is detrimental to Jamaica Plain residents' quality of life.
One of my neighbors has said that to rebuild Casey shorter and narrower is just "a smaller
mistake". No matter how narrow it may be, if it goes over 2 intersections, it will still be the
largest thing in the area and it will define the character of Forest Hills and this section of the
Arborway/Emerald Necklace for decades to come.
Is Forest Hills better with or without a bridge? Even the staunchest bridge proponents have said
they'd like to believe it can be done without a bridge... but they simply don't believe it. We don't
want to make things worse for residents of neighborhoods directly adjacent to the overpass.
Their concerns about possibly making things worse are understandable and need to be
addressed. This is a challenge for the consultants to design an at-grade solution that works!
Rather than wishing for a replacement bridge to avoid "possibly making things worse", we
believe that elevated highways over residential areas are mistakes, and like other areas around
the country (and globe), when these highways come down, the neighborhoods in the vicinity
thrive. The Arborway Coalition believes that Forest Hills and Jamaica Plain should have that
opportunity, too.
An additional benefit of the at-grade solution is that it avoids the dilemma of inclusion vs.
exclusion of pedestrians & bicyclists who are not "traffic tolerant". Many who care about parks,
green space, and neighborhood quality of life have said that if there's a bridge, please keep it as
narrow as possible. That is a dilemma for those who feel that if we are going to be stuck with a
bridge, it should be accessible to all... which means it will be wider, rather than narrower. And
pretty soon, we are back to the Casey width, or close to it. It is a much simpler & more
equitable solution without a bridge.
Without a bridge draining all or most of the energy and resources for the project, we can focus
on making the surface street network and green space the best that they can be. The Shea
Circle area, New Washington St. and the upper (Washington St.) side of the T station near
Asticou Road can all benefit in ways that are much less likely - or impossible - if we settle for a
bridge.
Let's fix this weak link of the Arborway parkway and make it a strong, green connection between
the Arnold Arboretum & Franklin Park! The Forest Hills area can become a transit-oriented
village that lives up to its name: green, with visible hills nearby, and thriving.
Thank you,
Sarah Freeman
Arborway Coalition Representative on the Casey Working Advisory Group