Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
September 7, 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 August 31, 2011
Overview & Executive Summary
On August 31, 2011, the Working Advisory Group (WAG) met to continue its role in the Casey Overpass
Replacement Project Planning Study. This meeting is the fourth of four conducted by the WAG in preparation
for the fourth public meeting, scheduled for September 13th, 2011 at the Boston English High School. 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 two major topics in a free-form discussion. The first agenda item
was addressing the clarifying design directions. This was begun on August 17th, but had been shifted to a
specially-scheduled WAG meeting to allow it full discussion. The second agenda item was the presentation
of the finalized measures of evaluation (MOE). The MOE have been a work in progress since almost the first
meeting of the WAG. They have been consistently refined by the project team based on WAG and
community input. At the meeting summarized in these minutes, WAG members were provided with a copy
of the finalized MOE as well as a longer form document showing how every comment provided has been
addressed by the project team.

Summary of the Design Directions:
o The majority of the WAG still prefers a single bridge to a split bridge assuming that one is
built to replace the current Casey Overpass. Variants of a split bridge are still being revised
and the split bridge concept will still be presented to the community at the September 13th
meeting.
o While it is not unanimous, the majority of WAG members agreed with design directions two
and three as presented.
o WAG members understand that a shorter bridge in terms of length; will also mean a shorter
bridge in terms of height. WAG members generally prefer a shorter, smaller bridge,
assuming one is selected to replace the Casey Overpass.
o As a baseline condition, assuming a bridge, WAG members feel that the type of space under
the Shea Circle end of the Casey Overpass should not be replicated. Ideally, under-bridge
space that is tall enough to walk through or see under should be welcoming or programmed
in some way such as public art of wayfinding.
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

o WAG members generally prefer the “medium median,” however there remains strong
interest in seeing a bicycle accommodation in the New Washington Street median that would
allow cyclist to make east-west left-turns from the median. Signalizing these left-turns with
bicycle signals is also of interest.
o Design directions seven and nine have been merged. There was significant discussion about
how to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians within the corridor and whether, at some
points, a system of three pathways, one for through cyclists, one for through pedestrians,
and one for pedestrians accessing transit or vehicles at curbside might be needed at some
points such as in the New Washington Street area. Another concept discussed was the idea
of a single, broad path with lane markings indicating where faster cycling and slower
pedestrian traffic should be.
o Generally speaking, WAG members agree that Shea Square is preferable to the “egg-about”
concept. The egg-about is in turn preferable to modifications to the rotary. The design team
will continue to work on the alignment to Shea Square to maximize the number of mature
trees that can be saved.
o The design team will continue to develop visuals in accordance with the WAG’s request for
them. 3-D modeling will be performed once a recommended alternative has emerged given
the complexity and expense of this task.
Discussion of the MOE:
o The MOE were positively received by WAG members. Some minor amendments were
provided during the meeting. WAG members with specific threshold data to help add
nuance to the MOE are requested to provide it to the design team for use in fifth series of
WAG meetings.
Clarification was also provided by MassDOT project manager Steve McLaughlin about what can and cannot
be funded through the Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP). At the August 17th WAG meeting, committee
members had provided the design team with an assortment of interesting ideas for programming the new
open space around the solution which replaces the current Casey Overpass. Ideas discussed included dog
parks, skate parks, water features, tennis and basketball courts and an amphitheater for community
functions. While MassDOT will provide attractive landscaping for the selected alternative and will leave
space for the kind of functions noted above, it cannot in fact build them using ABP funding.
Detailed Meeting Minutes
Discussion of the Clarifying Design Directions
C: John Romano (JR): Welcome all. We are at WAG meeting 4D. Thank you for being with us tonight. We
have a short, focused agenda this evening. We need to cover what we didn’t at our August 17th
meeting. My good friend Nate tells me that at 8:30 p.m. this facility will be shutting down and we will
need to leave so we need to keep on track. Before we get into our agenda, Steve [McLaughlin] who
always gets the job of saying things we won’t be doing needs to make a quick statement. As we told you
at the beginning of this process, if we heard a suggestion about something we wouldn’t be able to do,
we would tell you right away and we heard some of those suggestions at the last meeting. Before I turn
this over to Steve, I want to recognize Nikka Elugardo from Senator Chang-Diaz’s office, State
Representative Russell Holmes, Dan Webber of the MBTA and Tad Read from the BRA. With that, Steve,
here are your two minutes.
C: Steve McLaughlin (SM): Thank you, John. Last week during the breakout sessions and in the
presentation afterwards you brought up a lot of good points. That session was about programming for
open space and we got a lot of great ideas from you: water features, dog parks, skate parks, basketball
and tennis courts, amphitheaters and farmers’ markets. Those are all wonderful ideas and as we go
forward we want to leave space for them, but as a project we won’t be funding those items. We let that
discussion go as long as we did because we don’t want to stifle you, but I also want to be very honest
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
with you: we can create the space for those items, but we cannot build them. Whatever we build won’t
be a scar on the community. It will be landscaped when we’re done, but we just aren’t set up to put in a
dog park.
C: JR: All right. Let’s move on to clarifying the design direction. I approached these things a bit the wrong
way around last week and I want to apologize for that. I said these were questions and we then got into
a bit of a debate, but these aren’t questions. These statements are in fact boiled-down versions of what
we’ve been hearing. The discussion I want us to have is not about whether we heard them, it’s about
whether this is what you have intended for us to hear because these are the impressions we’re taking
away from WAG meetings, community meetings, and all the written comments we’ve received. We have
enough WAG members here tonight for each one of you to read one of these and then you can discuss it
amongst yourselves. We want to hear from all of you tonight because we need your input on this. If
that seems fair and reasonable,1 I’ll toss the first one to Kevin Moloney.
[Author’s Note: Several of the clarifying design directions were revised based on the discussion summarized
herein; however the design directions are presented here in the form in which they were read on the
evening of August 31, 2011. The design directions as read are presented in bold italics.]
C: Kevin Moloney (KM): The majority of the Working Group prefers the single bridge over the split bridge, as
it minimizes shadow, constraints on the Arborway Yard, and provides more space at-grade. I support that.
A: Suzanne Monk (SMk): I support that as well.
C: Jeff Ferris (JF): It’s kind of separate from the sidewalk on the bridge question. I was talking with Gary
and Don before the meeting and they have a bridge that splits at the Arborway and joins in the middle
so you could get some of the single bridge advantages. I think a problem here is that we haven’t been
shown very many bridge alternatives.
A: Michael Halle (MH): I would say that if there’s an alternative, an additional possibility for a bridge, then
maybe we need to look at it, but minimizing shadow is a theme that’s been consistent throughout our
discussions. Constraints on the Arborway Yard are something a bit amorphous, but I think we want to
make sure they are reduced. Providing space at-grade is definitely a theme we’ve discussed because
that’s where we assume the most significant pedestrian and bicycle activity. That third one is very
important.
C: Bob Dizon (BD): I like the idea of the split bridge by the Forest Hills entrance to the Arboretum. That
would be a helpful access point and it’s not as busy down by Shea Circle. Whatever we put on the
bridge for bicycles and pedestrians is only as good as the access points to it. The access right now is very
difficult so if there was a way to improve the access points, that would be good.
Q: KM: So is there another alternative? We’ve been presented with this list, but now there’s another
alternative. If there is one, you have a duty to put it up.
A: Andrea D’Amato (AD): We showed a split bridge and there was a lot of conversation regarding it at the
last WAG meeting. Several WAG members wanted us to draw it differently and go through some issues
related to it. We’ve done that and we will go through it for you now.
C: MH: And as you present it, all of us should be thinking about it in terms of the three parts of the first
design direction.
C: JR: Bernie Doherty has a wake to attend tonight and he asked me to convey that they don’t necessarily
agree with preferring the single bridge and that some residents of his neighborhood support a split
1
Audience members generally nodded their assent.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
bridge. Let me clarify that even if we generally agree to this design direction, we will not walk out of this
meeting and never show the split bridge again. It will be shown at the next community meeting.
C: AD: Also, Dennis Baker is stuck in Arizona due to Hurricane Irene and won’t be getting back to Boston
until tonight so Gary McNaughton will be presenting this split bridge alternative.
C: Gary McNaughton (GM): Each side of the room has two large drawings. One shows the at-grade
network and the other shows the bridge. What you have here is two separate structures. It keeps the
alignment for the westbound flow that you would have with the single bridge and there’s no sidewalk on
that side. The eastbound span at the ends is more the split bridge alternative. That’s directly adjacent to
the opposite structure because you can only bring them together for a short distance and as such you
wind up with a barrier in the middle. With the eastbound side, you do have a sidewalk, but there is that
barrier. This is wider over New Washington Street than a single bridge would be because of that barrier.
The reason for that is because the bridge and surface roadway start together and you have to keep them
separate long enough so that you have adequate space to swing the bridge back over the surface
roadway. There are some real limitations with this. This concept was drafted keeping the same end
points as the earlier bridge alternatives. You can see that it’s together over New Washington Street, but
it splits apart very quickly. Another issue with this is where to put the columns. When you look at this
one, you wind up getting long distances where need some support over travel lanes. The way to address
that is to put columns on either side of the roadway, but that’s more intrusive at ground level. The big
benefit to this approach is it provides easy access to a continuous path for pedestrians and cyclists
between the Arboretum and Franklin Park.
Q: MH: So even when this comes together you still need two sets of columns?
A: GM: There’s a limited stretch where you can have single columns. Some of the width is a function of the
sidewalks.
C: MH: So let’s come back to the three criteria: it minimizes shadows, but not as well as the single bridge.
The constraints on Arborway Yard are perhaps a bit better?
A: GM: The Arborway Yard side has the same situation as it would with a single bridge, but on the
courthouse and neighborhood side it would have some increased intrusions.
C: Paul King (PK): I would say a split structure is going to be more intrusive no matter what you do because
there wind up being additional touch-down points.
C: SMk: I think if we have columns on both sides we wind up with a little sunny strip, but there isn’t more
room for cars or bikes. I don’t see the advantage.
C: JF: There’s another possible variation on this: the worst place right now is getting onto the bridge at the
Arboretum Gate. At Shea Circle, the traffic is moving slower and there’s a stop sign. Potentially this
could be a single bridge at Shea Circle with the access similar to how it is now and then splitting at the
Arboretum end.
C: MH: This is what I’d suggest: if you make that a priority, the easiest way with a single span is to
pedestrian signalize both ends. That helps at the Arboretum and you don’t get the intrusive bridge.
A: GM: I just want to caution you that there are limitations about where you can install pedestrian buttons.
There are warrants for their installation just like vehicle signals. If you only have a handful of people,
you will have a tough time justifying the signal.
C: MH: I understand, but this does get to other issues about drivers flying across the bridge.
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: GM: I don’t want to just hide behind the signal warrants either. One problem with little-used pedestrian
signals is that the light there is green almost all the time and drivers get used to that so they stop
registering the signal. Then, the one time it is red, there’s a strong possibility the driver doesn’t see it
causing a potential safety hazard.
C: Kevin Wolfson (KW): The advantage of a split bridge is for bicycles and pedestrians, but I think the vast
majority of desire lines for them aren’t over the bridge; it’s north-south using the at-grade streets. If we
build a bridge for a handful of cyclists and pedestrians, it just doesn’t make sense. We’ve talked about
the breakdown lanes on the bridge working as de facto bicycle lanes. I don’t think that’s particularly
safe and I don’t think lots of people will use them if that’s the set-up. Breakdown lanes get full of debris
and I certainly wouldn’t want to be in that kind of space with a beginning cyclist or some kids. I’m
supporting a narrow bridge and excellent facilities for bicycles and pedestrians at-grade.
A: JF: They will have excellent accommodations at-grade; that’s what we’ve been told all along. We’ve
been told we have plenty of space. I think we have room for good accommodations on both the bridge
and at-grade. I personally don’t have a problem with shadows from the bridge.
C: SMk: I see this as taking up a lot of the room we want to use for green space.
C: MH: It’s not just an issue about shadow; it’s also a big structure that feels big at-grade. Moreover, this
feels like we’re drifting into two and three, but I have one more comment on this. David Watson
mentioned that this split bridge, with the ramps coming up in the middle creates a very funny asymmetric
merge for cyclists. I think this produces more complexity than reward.
C: KM: But we’re not addressing Jeff’s proposal: his proposal was for a single bridge that would split at the
Arboretum and it solves from problems. The rest of it could be a single bridge.
Q: JR: So would that be possible Gary?
A: GM: Yes, you could do that. I would caution you that because of the need to make the surface road and
bridge come together, the further west you push the split, the further the structure goes to the west.
C: MH: All of this is just getting us a sidewalk on one side of the bridge. If we want to go gung-ho for
sidewalks, let’s install the pathway through the Arborway Hillside. This is sub-optimal for a lot of trouble
and complexity.
Q: JR: How about the rest of you? Let’s hear from some of the quiet folks in the room.
C: Sarah Freeman (SF): I think the split is a big price to pay. As much as I hate crossing traffic, unless you
go all the way and have a physical separation, you’ll only get the most traffic-tolerant cyclists using the
bridge. I feel if we do a minimal bridge then it should be a lane for cars and a breakdown lane and
that’s it.
C: GM: Please just note that the drawings you’re seeing tonight do include a multi-use pathway.
A: JR: You can have anything you want up on the bridge, but everything you add makes the bridge wider
and goes counter to the theme of having a narrow bridge. The bullet doesn’t say the WAG unanimously
wants a narrower bridge, but majority of people would like to see one. There are even some hybrid
versions, but I think this is where we want to come out.
Q: Wendy Williams (WW): Do we have room up there to maintain the width of the sidewalk or multi-use
path? What I heard is that we lose room where the split occurs. So my question would be, is there
enough space to have a multi-use path on a split bridge?
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: JF: You have 25 feet between the edge of the bridge and the wall by the Arboretum, there’s plenty of
room.
C: JR: All right. Let me wrap this up. Can we be comfortable with: the majority of people would still like to
see a single bridge, but some people don’t agree with that and would like to see some kind of split,
bearing in mind that we will put all alternatives before the public?
A: MH: On the three sub-points of item one, I think you need to add something about intrusiveness at
grade.
C: JF: But we have a third alternative that would be a less intrusive split bridge.
A: JR: Right, but even that will still be wider. The single structure will always be narrower. The hybrid might
be wider to a lesser extent, but it will still be wider.
C: MH: I haven’t heard that the majority has changed here. I think that most of us still prefer a single
bridge.
A: JR: And we are cognizant that majority doesn’t mean everybody.
C: JF: The majority of the working group prefers that only bicycles be accommodated on the bridge within the
shoulder.
A: MH: There was a clarification that came out of the last meeting. I think we should note that within the
shoulder doesn’t mean it’s just a breakdown lane. Ideally, there would be striping to indicate that this is
a bicycle area and it would be swept like a street.
Q: JR: Other thoughts?
A: Allen Ihrer (AI): You will need that breakdown lane either way.
C: JF: This is a total lack of vision from everybody. We want to see people traversing the Emerald Necklace.
There are thousands of people riding along the Minuteman Trail and that’s not connecting some of the
region’s greatest green spaces, it’s just a strip through the woods and thousands of people use it. We
have an opportunity to create a signed, marked, safe bicycle accommodation so that people will use it.
This is not about today, it’s about the future: making it easy to go from the Arnold Arboretum to Franklin
Park. Why should you have to go through the intersections below when you can make a clean sweep?
Ray LaHood has a policy for bicycles and pedestrians and he says they should be accommodated on
bridges. People fought long and hard for that policy. This is about a different vision than today: safe,
attractive, and no more stops and starts.
A: AI: I guess that works if you have the access to the bridge on the outside by the Arboretum, but if you
have the narrow bridge scenario at the ends you have some pretty intense crossings. I don’t think you
can sell the thing as safe and totally convenient unless you have the snake’s tongue at the ends.
C: JF: With the hybrid solution you effectively deal with the high speed traffic at the west end of the bridge.
At the eastern end, you’re crossing a surface road with a stop sign. That traffic isn’t moving anywhere
near as fast.
C: SMk: The thing is that the new bridge will be a lot lower so there won’t be the views you have today.
When people are walking they stop and go. I think the at-grade area is the natural space for
pedestrians and cyclists. All we want is to get the fast-moving through traffic out of Forest Hills. Bicycles
are fine, but I think we all agree they should work like cars. They can use the breakdown lane on the
bridge. If you install more bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on the bridge you’re making it wider
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
for a very few people. You’re just making this bridge wider and wider and given that we’ve all said we
want a narrow bridge, I just don’t get it.
C: KW: I agree that this should be a world class area for pedestrians and cyclists and it should set an
example and connect the Emerald Necklace by connecting the Arboretum and Franklin Park or Forest
Hills Cemetery. Jeff has suggested a bridge would be better for cyclists and pedestrians than
accommodating them at-grade, but the best bicycle accommodations around the City, the Minuteman
Trail, the Southwest Corridor, they all have stops. You have to cross intersections, but that’s O.K. in part
because there isn’t a great big invasive structure overhead and that makes those facilities inviting. I
would bet that if you had the Casey Overpass over the Minuteman Trail, not a whole lot of people would
use it. This should connect parks, but to connect the Arboretum and Franklin Park and then skip the
connection to the Southwest Corridor, it just seems backwards.
C: MH: I applaud Jeff for making this change of national viewpoint known to the group and I agree that we
should accommodate everyone everywhere when it’s feasible. When you don’t accommodate
pedestrians and cyclists on bridges, you’re cutting them off from destinations. Just imagine the Charles
River Basin bridges without sidewalks. There’s also the build it and they will come concept, but I think
we need to look at what’s on either end of the bridge. If we had businesses on either end or shopping
at one end and residences on the other, then maybe it would make sense. This goes back to Michael
Epp’s comment of a few meetings ago regarding value engineering. The two ends of our bridge here
are parks and the number of individuals potentially using the bridge as cyclists is small compared to the
number of cyclists we know are at grade.
A: Julie Crockford (JC): I walk and bike in the area and as much fun as it is to fly over the Casey Overpass, I
do think that with a lower bridge I won’t want to be up there anymore. Improving the at-grade
environment is most attractive for me. I think if you need a bridge, then a narrower one is better.
C: Lisa Dix (LD): I think this whole discussion has been completely belabored and done to death. I’d rather
not continue it, but if we need to, I would say this: the constraints of having pedestrians on the bridge
are about safety. Can you safely provide access on and off the bridge and prevent the issues around
shadowing and a poor at-grade environment? I really don’t think that short of changing the traffic in
this city, you can create that safe environment unless you have more separations between the bicycles
and pedestrians and the cars and that means a wider bridge and I’d really rather see a narrower bridge.
A: JR: O.K. it seems like this discussion has actually touched on two and three. I think it’s safe to say, and
not saying that we have no opposing views, but that people generally agree with two and three as
written. The one piece I would also add is that people understand that we could separate traffic from
bicycles and pedestrians by a very large distance, 20 feet or more, but it would add width to the bridge.
C: SF: The majority of the group prefers that the overall length of the bridge be minimized to the extent
possible, which means the height of the bridge would also be minimized.
A: JR: Everyone gets this, right? The shorter you make the bridge in terms of length, then the shorter it has
to be in terms of height. That’s just geometry.2
C: WW: The majority of the group prefers that the low ends (the approaches) of the bridge be built using
walled-in (filled) sections rather than open, but un-usable space such as there is now at the ends of the
existing bridge.
2
The group expressed its agreement by a general nodding of heads
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: JF: There’s no open space now that’s unusable. At the Arboretum end, it’s quite high at the abutment.
There is a crawl space at the Shea Circle end. To be fair, there’s no use on the western end except for
graffiti.
Q: JR: So picking up on what Jeff said, it seems there’s consensus around the Shea Circle end. At the other
end, do people feel that at a certain point, where it starts to get low, we should just fill it?
A: SMk: This is really about the Shea Circle end.
A: JR: That’s the point. I think we’ve heard from you that you don’t want that sort of circumstance again. It
sounds to us as though you would prefer a filled space rather than a nasty space.
C: AI: You know a census in 1990 showed 50 habitations under the Shea Circle end of the bridge.
C: MH: I think to some extent we’re tainted by the current bridge. I think some of the blocked in space
could be used for something like a wayfinding kiosk or piece of public art. I think this isn’t that major of
a point honestly.
A: JR: And certainly we would get into the finer detail in the 25% design phase.
C: KM: I think the baseline going in should be that we won’t replicate the Shea Circle conditions on either
end of any new potential bridge.
A: JF: Once you get to a height that you can see through and walk through, it should be open.
A: SF: The more solid space you have under a bridge, the more massive it feels.
C: BD: On the at-grade concept, the majority prefers the “medium median” alternative. Important to align
the bowtie with a narrow median (roughly 12 feet) at South Street and Hyde Park Avenue to shorten
pedestrian crossing distances and a wider median (roughly 20 feet) elsewhere to break up the pavement
and give drivers more of a parkway feel. At the U-turn locations the median widens to 33 feet.
A: SMk: I agree. I’ve liked the bowtie since the start and I prefer making it wider when you can.
C: MH: I don’t put a huge priority on giving drivers a parkway feel, because whatever it means elsewhere,
in Massachusetts, parkway means fast. I think we don’t want to encourage speeding.
A: KM: I think that was about emphasizing the positive impacts of the Emerald Necklace.
A: JR: So let’s amend it to read something about the parkway feel for all users and the general area.
Q: AI: How much of this median width is driven by the U-turn for the 39 bus? I know that with the narrow
bridge scenario you needed a certain amount of space for it.
A: GM: The medium median does provide the needed space for the 39. We could tackle it a few ways with
the narrow median, but it would have been tough.
Q: AI: So the narrow median isn’t a going concern at this point?
A: GM: It’s not preferred.
C: SF: I don’t know if number six is the right place for this to tie in, but it mentions shorter pedestrian
crossings and the other thing about the narrow median is if the bicycle path isn’t in the median and
instead over by Arborway Yard, it can be about maximizing green space.
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: AI: When you go through this thought process, we’ve been looking at the 39 bus next to the station and
also over by Asticou Road. If the bus is over there then you end up possibly having the area at the end
of the Southwest Corridor path being very different. If the bus isn’t there you can pick up a lot of space
and that opens the question of what you want to give that median strip over to. I don’t know if we’ve
developed this point enough to reach consensus.
Q: KW: At one point we discussed the idea of a bicycle path running down the middle of the median for
New Washington Street or handle bicycle left turns. Is that still possible?
A: GM: Certainly it’s still possible. I think we presented this based on that we have heard a preference for
a narrow median and placing the bicycle accommodations along the edges.
A: KW: And I’d agree with that east of Hyde Park Avenue and west of South Street, but I think it would be
good in the New Washington median. I’d be curious to see it.
C: Don Kindsvatter (DK): There’s space to play with to try that. We’d taken it out for the moment based on
what we heard from you. There are also the MBTA vents to consider.
C: MH: Another way to accommodate it is to put a bicycle lane left-turn into the median by taking a little
nook out of it. The bicycle lefts are something that keeps coming up. We need to figure them out. I
think Kevin’s idea sounds like a good possibility.
A: DK: Fortunately this is the widest point in the corridor so we have some space to work in.
C: JF: I would just point out that the left turns are for vehicular cyclists.
A: MH: O.K. that makes sense. You wouldn’t be riding there in the middle if you weren’t traffic tolerant. I
think we might want to revisit this as a separate issue: there’s the possibility of using the median for
cyclists making left turns and having it signalized for them. Of course this will mean the whole median
can’t be planted; there would be a 10-12 foot paved strip down the center.
C: LD: This is another we have beaten to death. I think this is better addressed in number nine where it
speaks to evaluation of better crossings.
A: JR: All right, let’s move on.
C: JC: Sidewalks and off-road bicycle paths should be located on the outsides of the corridor and should be
designed as an extension of the Southwest Corridor Park utilizing separate bicycle and pedestrian paths
where space permits.
A: LD: I would propose that we merge this one with number nine.3
C: MH: I think there’s consensus that on-road accommodations are also part of the plan. We shouldn’t just
be discussing off-road.
A: JF: Can we please say off-street and on-street bicycle accommodations? When you say on-road and offroad in the cycling world, you’re actually talking about two different styles of riding.
C: Nina Brown (NB): On number seven, you should say the off-street paths will be located in a park-like
setting along the edges of the corridor.
3
WAG members agreed to merge these two directions.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: MH: Right, the statement mostly addresses New Washington Street, but not the rest of the Casey
corridor, so maybe we strike the part about outside the existing park space.
C: JF: There’s a little more to this. When you mention the extension of the Southwest Corridor, this is an
important issue regarding single-use or shared-use paths. In the Boston area, we don’t have successful
single-use paths. With the Southwest Corridor Park, there are theoretically separate paths for cyclists
and pedestrians. The signage is poor and in some places the pedestrian path is just the sidewalk and
people don’t want to walk next to traffic, but on the Esplanade where an effort is made to separate the
bicycles and pedestrians everyone pretty much goes all over the place. So the real question is whether
you want two separate paths or a single, wider path.
Q: JC: I’m curious as to why we say it’s an extension of the Southwest Corridor Park.
A: KW: The statement is about the separation of the pathways.
C: BD: I see this problem a lot. When the sidewalk is right up against the road, people tend to gravitate
over to the bicycle path. I think it works best when the two paths are buffered from traffic a bit and are
close together, but well-marked as to which is which.
A: JR: So the problem happens when the pedestrian pathway isn’t as comfortable or is in some other
fashion unequal to the bicycle pathway. Would you be happy if we ensured that both pathways were
equal and well-marked?
A: BD: Something along those lines; yes, that would work.
C: KW: Bob, I agree with you and to Jeff’s point, I agree that we should see many people using this space.
It’s a commuter corridor and I think separate paths would help. The more people we have, the more
important that becomes. There should be paths on either side throughout the corridor, but I’m also
curious to see how that would work with the bicycle left turns in the New Washington Street section.
A: MH: There are places that are definitely pedestrian areas, like the waiting space for the 39 bus and
these should be exclusively for pedestrians. Anywhere we have a bicycle facility, especially in the New
Washington Street core of the corridor; we have to assume pedestrians might gravitate to it. Bicycles
won’t ride right along the curb by the 39, but pedestrians may walk where the bicycles are. The problem
with total separation is that it sends the signal that you can move without conflict. Bicycles should know
that pedestrians are around and shouldn’t be lulled into a false sense of security thinking they can roll
along without worrying about a pedestrian. I’d say have a wider path with different edge treatments
marking it for slower and faster non-motorized travel. There’s something like this on Vassar Street in
Cambridge though it really could have been done better.
Q: AD: So the idea of separation is good, recognizing this will be pedestrian intensive so whatever we do
we need a visual treatment to make the use clear whether it’s landscaping, signage, paint or all of it,
there has to be special treatments to delineate the difference.
A: MH: I want them together on the same surface.
C: AI: Because it takes space to create the quality atmosphere we’re looking to make, I think we need to
reflect that some of it is just sheer space and the ability to have multiple screening layers of trees. As
such, I think the more we can squeeze the center median, the better an experience we can make.
Q: JR: So maximize the space at the edges of the corridor?
A: AI: Yes.
Q: JF: So are you proposing sidewalks, pedestrian paths and bicycle paths?
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: DK: I think the sidewalk and pedestrian path would be the same. Possibly not right at the curb and
maybe with some trees to screen it.
Q: JF: And in Forest Hills, would we need a sidewalk at the curb for pick-up and drop-off? What about on
the north side of New Washington Street?
A: DK: I would say yes to both.
C: MH: I think the pick-up and drop-off sidewalk is a separate facility and that really can be a sidewalk.
That’s not space you want to see bicycles using. You have the space for through bicycle and pedestrian
routes. It pushes people away from traffic and makes visual sense.
A: JR: O.K. we’ve got your general direction.
C: JF: Wait, I’m still not comfortable. Would you have three corridors? If the pedestrian pathway is next to
the street it’s not attractive.
A: DK: It depends. In front of the MBTA station, do we want a large green space or a plaza where people
can walk everywhere? We don’t know that yet. If we need to, we could have a separate path. There
could be three. We just need to figure out what makes sense.
C: NB: For Shea Circle, the majority of the group prefers the signalized intersection over the “egg-about.” If
the signalized intersection is not possible, then the egg-about is preferred over the traditional
rotary/roundabout.
A: MH: I think we heard a lot about trees last time.
C: SMk: That would bring us to egg-about; that lets us save some trees.
C: JR: We’re asking about the choices for this area. What we’ve heard is that it’s Shea Square, number 1,
Shea egg-about, number 2 and only then if we can’t do either of those, the rotary.
A: MH: I’d agree, my preference is for the intersection, but at the last WAG meeting I heard a lot of
discussion about preserving trees.
C: SF: So maybe there’s a hybrid alternative. Shea as an intersection currently has a lot of pavement. The
advantage of the intersection is that there’s no circular motion. So could the intersection look more like
an egg but without the U-turn?
A: GM: That’s what the egg-about was trying to do. It’s trying to accommodate the heavy left turn
movements. You end up getting very close to the traditional intersection again. The egg-about is
already the hybrid or compromise alternative.
Q: JF: What is the historical situation for Shea Circle?
A: JR: We reported out on this a few meetings ago. The answer is that changing Shea Circle would be an
adverse effect, but probably not so bad that it would stop the process. We would have to go through a
filing process on it and it’s not a 100% guarantee we’d get a positive response.
Q: SMk: Does the egg-about trigger the same process?
A: GM: We would be saving trees with the egg-about.
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: SM: There wouldn’t be the same adverse effect, but we want to know what direction you’d like us to go.
C: SMk: We like the signalized intersection because we get more green space around the edges.
A: JR: And that would certainly be part of our pitch to the historic people, but they rule on it, not us. They
may not see it that way. We just want to be straight about it with you.
C: NB: I prefer the signalized intersection. It adds park land to historic parks and it improves the entrance
to Franklin Park. Having additional space would make the entrance more accessible and safer.
Q: MH: The only thing I’d say, and generally I agree with this, is, is there a possibility on the approach of
Route 203 to build in some sort of median space that allows you to save some trees? Or is that just
wasted space again?
A: GM: We’ll play with all the alignments and see what trees we can save. There’s a lot of play back and
forth.
C: JR: Right, we’ll try to save whatever we can. Remember, if you widen in the middle, you take away from
the edges. But in general, it seems like we’re moving towards Shea Square with the fall-back position of
the egg-about.
C: NB: I think it would be helpful to look at the health of those trees and see if any might be blown down
by the next hurricane.
A: DK: There are currently six trees out there. One is in poor shape, the rest seem healthy.
C: LD: The group asked that visuals be developed to better understand benefits and limitations of the designs,
comparable medians, bridge structures, perspectives and 3-D views of the new bridge to assess the underbridge alignment.
A: JR: I’d say this one goes without saying.
A: AD: And we have drafted the last two views we promised you at the last meeting. We’ll stick with these
for a little while because we’ll be rendering alternatives, but for the purpose of the public meeting it
helps them to see what you’ve done. With the 3-D modeling, we’ll be doing that once we have a
recommendation. You’ll be seeing it in WAG 5.
C: JF: I have to say that your track record on visuals is poor. Giving us fine print and double-siding things; I
want more thought and care in them. I want them user-friendly and I find your GreenDOT policy
ridiculous.
A: JR: You’re welcome to hold that opinion Jeff. We have full scale drawings at the two public library
branches and Julianne is carrying around a set that she can show people at community meetings. I
think we made an honest attempt to follow our GreenDOT policies and we can debate whether it was
the right approach or not. There’s always something we could have done better, but if at the end of the
day, the thing you decide to be upset about is the graphics, I think that’s the least of our worries.
C: MH: I think at the end of this, you should say 3-D views of the solution. Just change the wording to
make it safe.
A: AD: There was a specific ask regarding the under-bridge area so we just wanted you to see that we
hadn’t lost it.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: SF: I think Michael got it. I’d just say that any time you say bridge structure you should say “solution” or
“option,” just so people don’t think it’s been decided.
A: AD: Again, this one was really about the under-bridge, but we got it.
C: AI: I have one phrase for you: traffic modeling. For us here in the neighborhoods, the traffic models
show how it works for all three modes. We need to see it work moving all the cars.
A: AD: That’s for the fifth round of WAG meetings and, we have also heard you on bicycles and
pedestrians. When we show you the modeling, we’ll start with bicycles and pedestrians and work
outward to motor vehicles.
C: KW: And the renderings are very helpful. If you could show one from the Arboretum, from the west side,
where the bridge starts, looking to the east, that would be very helpful.
A: AD: We have that view in progress.
C: WW: I agree that the visuals have been a big help and I appreciate the time you spend on time.
C: JC: I thoroughly support the GreenDOT policy; double-sided every time.
A: AD: And we will put these on the website shortly.
C: BD: I’d like one that showcases the increased green space where the Southwest Corridor Park ties into
New Washington Street. Maybe standing on the sidewalk there and looking up towards the Arboretum.
Discussion of the MOE
C: AD: I want to spend some time on the MOE. Thank you to everyone who gave us suggestions and
comments. Both you and the project team have spent considerable time on these. We got suggestions
from eight WAG members and some were very detailed. Many of those were addressed in earlier
iterations we’ve given you. We have a detailed account of every comment we’ve received.
One thing I want to explain is about the purpose of the MOE. These are to measure each alternative
based on its own merits. They may help in comparing the alternatives, but it is more about evaluating
each alternative based on the goals you gave us at the outset of this process.
In terms of goal one, I would comment quickly that you’ve seen a lot of this. We added another transit
objective, 2.03, regarding buses. These were great ideas. There were questions and comments about
simplifying turning movements so we have something to address that. We were careful about the use of
your words: quality connections, access for bicyclists and pedestrians. We used your language.
Goal three: my hat is tipped to you for this one. These are really interesting challenges about
addressing mobility and livability. We consulted with a lot of people and the BRA’s Tad Read and others
gave us some great suggestions about place making and community and we came up with measures for
that. A lot of your iterations helped us to find data that we can measure. We tried to do some
measuring addressing sustainability and the gain of net trees is a big objective as is managing storm
water. We also discuss light pollution. Most of this is appropriate to the 25% design level, but we felt it
was appropriate to enshrine some of it here.
Goal five has been expanded. People weighed in on usable space, contiguous space. We got the place
making ideas in there again. It’s great to have an Olmstead-style corridor, but we want to make it
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
usable. We came up with something addressing off-peak vehicle speeds. Elizabeth put in something
regarding the proximity of roadways to residences. This has a judgment on both sides, but we felt it was
worth some testing. We added in something about the orientation of building facades and Tad, and
John and Gary and Don all looked into that.
For goal six we added something to address shadows and the Emerald Necklace. These are your ideas
and we tried to do them justice. We can measure every item we have in there. We go next to the
nuance for fifth series of WAG meetings.
C: MH: In 6.01, where you say edge, the public wouldn’t get that. Just clarify what that is.
A: AD: We will amend that.
C: MH: This goes to tweaking, but when you think about how many trees is a good gain, is it 200? 215?
Another thing to think about on vehicle speeds is thinking about the envelope of survivability. What’s
the speed at which cars are traveling when the odds of a pedestrian surviving being hit are at their
highest?
A: AD: Don has offered to do specifics for the measures. Now that you have these, if you have specific
thresholds, please send them to Don. Those measures will also be combined with ones supplied by
MassDOT and the City.
Q: JF: On evaluating roadway geometry: you have 30 different possible automobile movements. That’s six
roadway entrances and five destinations, so five times six is thirty. You probably have even more
pedestrian movements. Will you evaluate every possible combination?
A: GM: Yes we will. When we talk about overall network delay, if we have 50 cars being delayed, it will be
weighed for less than if we have 500 cars being delayed, but we will look at every combination.
C: JR: We have 12 minutes so we won’t go through the public meeting agenda, you have a copy of it, but
there will be a lot to show the public. They haven’t seen a lot of what you have and we will have two
WAG speakers to help them through it. We’ll also have the usual open house session at the beginning
of the meeting. I know it puts a strain on our WAG members to be there early for that, but we really
appreciate your presence during that part of the meeting so please do come if you can.
C: KM: Thinking of what’s been shown in terms of the bridge they haven’t been exemplary bridges. To me,
those renderings are just smaller versions of the Casey Overpass: concrete on brick. The one you
showed tonight is better, but it’s not anything like the Japanese bridge Dennis showed at the meeting on
the 17th. The at-grade solutions seem gussied up, but the bridge solutions seem dull, stolid and ugly.
When you showed beautiful bridges people liked them. I’d like you guys to show some of the good stuff
you showed at the WAG meeting.
A: AD: We won’t show anything to the public you haven’t seen yet. That’s the rule. We will show the
public all of the example bridges you saw in the WAG meeting.
C: MH: Let me be specific. The bridges we like are solid structures where the decks and supports are
cleanly merged and where the structure doesn’t trap light. Darkness under the bridge is a big thing.
The example bridges were lighter concrete. I’m surprised at how much light concrete can focus the light.
I think some of your mock-ups would look better if they were light and had a solid box on the underside.
Q: JF: I actually cannot attend the September public meeting, but the hybrid split bridge we discussed today,
will that be shown?
A: AD: We only show things to the public you guys have seen.
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: MH: I am happy to waive the rule, but it has been the rule to date. It’s another plan that none of us
have seen, but on the other hand it can be difficult for people to understand these things without a
picture. We spent fifteen minutes talking about it earlier in the meeting before we got it.
A: JR: I think we can waive the rule; it’s not that much difference. I think it’s fair and reasonable. I can
email it around for everyone to review. Michael has a good point that it can difficult to get these things
without a graphic.
C: WW: My concern is that we have a packed agenda already and more alternatives will muddy the waters.
Could we speak to the things we’ve discussed regarding the split bridge?
A: JR: How about as part of the open house? We can say that there’s a variation of the split bridge and it’s
not as fully flushed out as the rest of them. We can send it around electronically for your review. I’m
sorry in advance, but we don’t have time for print-outs.
C: AI: As we go into this community meeting and present the variety of ideas and solutions I expect some of
this will be cutting and pasting. As we do that I think it’s important that we carry enough detail for
people to be able see how we have assimilated the various good pieces of the different options together,
how we got rid of the worst and took the best.
A: AD: We anticipate that WAG meeting 5A is going to address a lot of that kind of work.
C: JC: I would just note that all these alternatives seem like too much. I think two bridges and two at-grade
options are plenty to discuss.
A: JR: I think we can have them as display boards. We’ll show the variations of the split bridge.
A: JR: Remember, this is a big agenda and they don’t have much time to get through it. That’s in part what
the open house is for. This is a lot of information.
Q: JR: My last question: are we listening? Is there something we haven’t show you or talked about or
covered? I think we’re hearing everything, but is there something that you would wish for? The traffic
stuff is coming. It will be at WAG 5 or Andrea is going to be exceedingly upset with me.
A: MH: In the bridge cross-section homework, one person suggested shifting the bridge over to the plaza to
function as a protection against the rain. We’ve been talking about mitigating what bridges do, but
there are potential beneficial functions of bridges. This might be something to think about for the WAG
sessions after the next public meeting.
A: LD: I would say that there’s a lot of concern in the community about demolition.
A: JR: We agree, but that’s part of the 25% design process. That’s the next phase. We’ll mention that
again at the community meeting.
C: WW: I would just say there’s a lot going on and we all experience frustration, but it’s important that
we’ve been able to give feedback and be positive.
C: JF: We’ve been rushed a lot. Having opportunities to flush out things like the hybrid split bridge would
have positive impacts. I want to make sure we have enough time to discuss things. Pushing people to
come to conclusions is premature.
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Next Steps
The next milestone in the public involvement process will be the fourth community meeting. This will take
place at the Boston English High School on September 13th, 2011. The meeting will run from 6:00-8:00
p.m. with a half hour open house beginning at 5:30 p.m. The WAG is next scheduled to meet in Room 133
of the State Laboratory on South Street on September 28th. This meeting will run from 6:00-8:30 p.m. A
subsequent WAG meeting is already scheduled for October 12th.
Page 16
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Genie
Beal
WAG
Nina
Brown
WAG
Andrea
D’Amato
HNTB
Liz
Dix
WAG
Bob
Dizon
WAG
Nikka
Elugardo
Office of Senator Chang-Diaz
Jeff
Ferris
WAG
Sarah
Freeman
WAG
Michael
Halle
WAG
Russell
Holmes
State Representative
Don
Kindsvatter
HNTB
Paul
King
MassDOT
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Kevin
Moloney
WAG
Suzanne
Monk
WAG
Rebecca
Oleveira
Jamaica Plain Gazette
Tad
John
Read
Romano
BRA
MassDOT
Dan
Webber
MBTA
Wendy
Williams
WAG
Kevin
Wolfson
WAG
Page 17
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Flip Charts Taken by Project Team Members
Please see the following pages.
Page 18
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 3: Received Emails
Please see the following pages.
Page 19
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Friday, September 02, 2011 2:34 PM
McLaughlin, Steve (~OT); King, Paul C. (~OT); Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis;
'AOAmato@hntb.com'; 'EPetrie@hntb.com'
Re: Casey Overpass project
Hi all
Please review and Nate please put with all project comments.
------Original Message-----­
From: nika.elugardo@masenate.gov
To
Cc: Sonia.Chang-Oiaz@masenate.gov
Cc: Romano, John (DOT)
Subject: RE: Casey Overpass project
Sent: Sep 2, 2011 2:19 PM
lit dEU, _ .
Dear Ms. Kowalcky,
The Senator forwarded me your email and letter arguing for a surface-only solution to the Casey Overpass project. I also
read through your attached listing of other similar projects. It is a super research product! Thank you so much for
sharing it with us and with John Romano at MassOOT.
The Senator is an ex officio member of the Working Advisory Group that convenes neighborhood advocates and local
and government officials to work with the MassDOT team and consultants on developing and presenting design
alternatives to the community. I sit in on these meetings on behalf of the Senator, and I know firsthand that John's team
reviews all of the research sent in from the community and factors it into the work we are all doing together.
These WAG meetings are open to the public. The next WAG meeting is currently scheduled for September 28th at the
State Lab Building in JP at 6PM. The next public meeting where the WAG's work will be presented for public discussion is
September 13th at 6pm at English High School. I hope you can attend this meeting to hear the various points of view and
to raise your concerns more publicly.
On September 13th, the WAG will present at least 4 alternatives to the community, including bridge and at-grade
(surface-only) solutions. You can see these posted at the following locations:
JP Branch Library
12 Sedgwick Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
Connolly Branch Library
433 Centre Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
They are behind the desk, so you would have to ask to see them.
Jullieanne Doherty from the Mayor's Office will also have a set at her office at City Hall. You can reach her at
617.635.3485.
1
Members of the community and the WAG have submitted research, opinions and concerns about both bridge and no­
bridge solutions. Even a bridge-based solution will have to address concerns on the surface, so the feedback has been
complex. While it is certain that no solution will address everyone's concerns, MassDOT and the WAG have expressed a
hope that most of the concerns will be addressed in some measure by whichever solution is ultimately chosen by the
community.
Toward this end, the WAG has worked closely with MassDOT, and its partners at other city and state agencies, to
develop a system of goals, objectives and metrics for evaluating each of the alternatives. These include metrics assessing
the connectivity green space and landmarks, quality of life and aesthetics, as well as things like traffic, bicycle and
pedestrian flow. These metrics will not be determinative, however. Ultimately, the community will make a qualitative
judgment, taking the metrics into account, about which solution best balances the various indicators involved, such as
pedestrian and biker safety, connecting the Emerald necklace and many of the other factors you mentioned.
Thank you again for your hard work and for sharing it with our offices. I hope you will continue to be engaged in this
community-driven process as we move toward selecting the final alternative.
Best regards,
Nika Elugardo, Esq.
Senior Aide for Policy and Planning
Office of Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz
617.722.1673
nika.elugardo@masenate.gov
www.mass.gov/legis
Room 413C
STATE HOUSE
Boston, MA 02133
iI'• iO -0'
b
From: Linda Kowalcky
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 8:24 AM To: Chang-Diaz, Sonia (SEN)
Subject: Casey Overpass project Dear Senator Chang-Diaz,
As a resident of the Forest Hills area of Jamaica Plain, I am closely following the discussions with MassDot about the
future of the Casey Overpass.
I'm attaching a copy of the letter that I recently sent to MassDot in support of the surface solution to the overpass
project. I'm also attaching a reading list about similar projects from around the country that I compiled
while researching the issue so I could make up my own mind about this question. I hope that isn't presumptuous, but I
know how busyyou and your staff are, and thought it might be helpful.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Linda Kowalcky
71 Weld Hill Street
2
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Monday, August 29, 2011 11 :36 AM
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
FW: Casey Overpass project WAG UPDATES
include in project comments.
Andrea - FYI
John Romano
Municipal Affairs Liaison
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Direct: 617.973.7028 I Mobile 617.438.4301
For news and updates check out our website www.mass.gov/massdot blog at www.mass.gov/blog/transportation or
follow us on twitter at www.twitter.com/massdot
-----Original Message----­
From: SARAH FREEMAN
J . . . . . . . . U1
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 4:28 PM
To: Romano, John (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT)
Subject: RE: Casey Overpass project WAG UPDATES
.J?
•
Dear Paul, John & Casey Consultant team,
I have some feedback regarding the great color maps we were given at the last WAG meeting:
Alternates 3 8r. 4 (at-grade): There is no street label for the "Arborway". The only label along the parkway corridor is
"New Washington St. (between Washington 51. & South St.)
Alternatives 18r. 2 (bridge): The ONLY label along the parkway corridor is "Arborway".
Suggestion: Can these miSSing names please be added to the draft alternatives moving forward? Also, now that we
have an opportunity to repair the damage that was done to the continuity of the Arborway when the Casey Overpass was
built, it would be meaningful to retain the Arborway name in some form for the New Washington section (e.g. double
name: New Washington St.jHistoric Arborway). That way, both the Arborway and Washington St. retain their continuity.
Thank you,
Sarah