Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
August 15, 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:
Seventh Working Advisory Group (WAG) Meeting
Meeting Notes of July 27, 2011
Overview & Executive Summary
On July 27, 2011, the Working Advisory Group (WAG) met to continue its role in the Casey Overpass
Replacement Project Planning Study. This meeting is the second of three conducted by the WAG in
preparation for the fourth public meeting, scheduled for mid-September, 2011. The alternating schedule of
WAG and public meetings serves to both brief the community and gather its questions and comments to
inform the work of the WAG. The purpose of the WAG is to work through the many details associated with
this project in a compressed timeframe that will allow the current Casey Overpass to be replaced with either
an at-grade solution or a new viaduct by the closing of the Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) by 2016.
The meeting described herein addressed the project budget and draft corridor-wide concepts to replace the
Casey Overpass. These initial concepts are composed of the individual area concepts for Shea Circle,
Morton Street, New Washington Street, and Washington Street west of Forest Hills Station already discussed
at length by the WAG.
Project Budget:
o Prior to the formation of the WAG and when the Casey Overpass was still under the control
of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), the agency had planned to replace
the bridge’s deck at a projected cost of $28 million.
o Since coming under the control of MassDOT it has been determined that the Casey Overpass
has reached the end of its useful life and should be replaced. The WAG was formed to help
determine how best to replace the current structure.
o The current Casey Overpass could be replaced in kind, in terms of width, length, and height
for $70 million, however, the work of the WAG, comments received at community meetings,
and traffic modeling have shown that a replacement bridge would not need to be as wide,
long or high. Therefore, any replacement bridge will be narrower and shorter in both length
and height. Current estimates for a replacement bridge, assuming one is chosen, are
coming in between $50 and $53 million. This number is expected to continue to change as
the project becomes better defined through the continuing work of the WAG and project
team.
o Current estimates for at-grade solutions are coming in at around $28 million, a number
which is coincidentally the same as the old project deck replacement cost. The $28 million
figure should not be seen as “real,” but rather a floor from which the cost for an at-grade
solution will trend upward.
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
o Given the greater cost of a bridge solution, due to the steel and concrete involved, a
fundable at-grade solution should come in between $28 million and $53 million.
Draft Corridor-Wide Concepts:
o Four draft corridor-wide concepts were shared with the WAG:
 A split bridge
 A single bridge
 An at-grade solution with a wide median
 An at-grade solution with a narrow median
o While a consensus as to the best concept was not reached, several themes emerged
including:
 The bicycle and pedestrian amenities associated with a split bridge are desirable.
 The reduced shadows and bridge width associated with a single bridge are also
considered a benefit.
If a single bridge is chosen, placing bicycle and pedestrian amenities on the
span’s south side to provide the easiest connection between Franklin Park
and the Arboretum may be appropriate, however, consideration should be
given to providing access to the Arborway Hillside.
 A key trade-off to consider is how adding further accommodations to the bridge,
such as a wide mixed-use path, impacts the at-grade environment though a wider
structure and increased shadows.
 Design of an at-grade or bridge solution should respond to the idea of being in
Forest Hills and surrounded by green space.
 For an at-grade solution, group members, felt that a compromise between the wide
median and the narrow median would be appropriate. A narrower median would
create a feeling of less distance to be crossed by cyclists and pedestrians in the Shea
Circle end of the corridor, but a wider median in the New Washington Street
segment would possibly allow a space from which cyclists could make a left-turn
assuming implementation of the bowtie concept.
 While not discussed heavily, preference was voiced for changing Shea Circle into a
four-way, signalized intersection.
Detailed Meeting Minutes
Discussion of Project Budget
C: John Romano (JR): Welcome everyone, thank you for coming out tonight. The next WAG meeting is
August 17th, not the 13th. The 13th is a Saturday and we wouldn’t make you meet over the weekend. So
the 13th is a typo; we’re meeting on the 17th. The scheduling of the next community meeting is still a
little up in the air due to school vacation, so please keep holding the 13th and 15th of September. I want
to acknowledge Julieanne Doherty from Mayor Menino’s office, Greg Stangeways from MBTA service
planning, Valerie Frias from Matt O’Malley’s office and Vineet Gupta from BTD. Representative Malia’s
office is covering another meeting tonight, but we might see someone from there as well as Nikka
Elugardo from Senator Chang-Diaz’s office around 7PM. We have a lot to do tonight because we’re
going to be focusing on draft, and let me underline draft, alternatives for the whole corridor. The
breakout groups will run for almost an hour and then we’ll have 45 minutes to discuss as a full
committee what you did in your small groups. The bottom items of the agenda, the status of the MOE’s
and the assignment, that’s going to be 2 minute updates. And with that, here’s Andrea to get us going.
C: Andrea D’Amato (AD): We’ve already covered the agenda so I want to remind you of where we are as of
today. As we continue to work through filtering and assigning measurable data for the evaluation
criteria we are heading into corridor-wide concepts that we will morph into the alternatives. We have a
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
way to go yet and I appreciate you staying with us as we walk you through all of these steps. Let me
walk you through the background quickly: you will recall that we asked you to tell us the problem areas
in the Casey Overpass corridor. That got us Shea Circle, New Washington Street, and Washington
Street west of the station. We started trying to solve for x in those areas at-grade because that would
inform any possible bridge. We generated over 25 concepts and they all went through a fatal flaw
analysis based on the guiding principles you gave us. That eliminated 12 ideas right away. We have
spent the last few WAG meetings looking at and testing individual pieces and what we’re looking at
tonight in an opportunity for you to look at and shape corridor-wide concepts based on those pieces. In
addition to the areas you found for us, we have introduced Morton Street because it’s directly impacted.
In fitting these pieces together into full corridor options there are a host of variables to consider like how
Hyde Park Avenue at the train station will connect to Morton Street. We have some fixed elements and
then items that can work with almost any design like Shea Circle. We have four possible draft corridorwide concepts: two with a bridge, one at-grade with a narrow median, and one at-grade with a wide
median. From here, we need your help getting enough guidance to morph these into alternatives to
which we can apply your evaluation criteria so that we can move into the 25% design process on time.
Q: Don Eunson (DE): So you said that Shea Circle will work with any alternative?
A: AD: Shea Circle is interchangeable with any of the options. Forest Hills Street and how it connects into
Shea Circle is likewise flexible; really we can do whatever you want with it. Other items in the corridor
are much less flexible.
C: Jeff Ferris (JF): There’s been some indication that if we pick an option that’s more expensive then there
will be less money to mix and match options in the different areas of the corridor.
A: Steve McLaughlin (SM): As we begin looking at alternatives, it’s getting to be time that we have some
hard discussions about the budget as we have said we would. The at-grade alternatives tend to have
more flexibility in them because they cost less. If we wind up with a bridge, which is the more expensive
solution, we wind up with less flexibility in terms of what we can do at-grade. We don’t want to wind up
with an at-grade solution which is costlier than a bridge. When the Casey Overpass was still owned by
DCR and the Accelerated Bridge Program was just getting started, the plan was to rehabilitate the deck
and that would have cost $28 million. Some people may remember that number. Once the bridge was
transferred to MassDOT, we realized we could put on a new deck, but that there wouldn’t be anything to
attach it to and the bridge needed to go. We realized $28 million wouldn’t work anymore and so we
decided to form the WAG to help us figure out how to replace it. Now we have a bridge option and an
at-grade option and permutations of each one. Right now, the bridge solutions we’re looking at with
you are trending around $50-53 million because you have asked us for a bridge that’s shorter and
narrower and we know we don’t need a Casey-sized bridge to handle the future traffic. The at-grade
improvements have a base cost of $28 million, but we expect that to rise. How much it rises depends on
what happens with a host of things and some of them may not be decided in this room. That’s not an
attempt to be flippant. For example, if we say we want to change the MBTA head house that may trigger
program costs that have a bigger impact on the T’s system than we can currently predict. If moving the
head house two feet means spending an extra $20 million because it triggers a change we have to
chase through the whole MBTA system, then we’ll back away because that’s too expensive. What we
need to do is develop the alternatives further and then come back to the issue of cost, but we are
keeping our eyes on it.
C: JF: But potentially rearranging Shea Circle could be doable with the at-grade solution and not with the
bridge.
A: SM: It is currently possible with all options. We have consulted with DCR about the historicity of Shea
Circle and it’s on the national register as a contributing element to the designation of Morton Street.
Removing Shea Circle would therefore be classified as an adverse impact, but probably an acceptable
one under Chapter 254 of the Massachusetts Historic Preservation Act. I have someone here tonight
who can address that further if you wish.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: David Hannon (DH): The price to demolish the existing overpass; is that fixed?
A: SM: It’s around $4 million to remove it. The real problem is where does the traffic go during demolition
and afterwards so that’s why we’ve been careful to ensure that any of our at-grade or bridge solutions
can account for it.
C: JR: The numbers we’re talking about here Steve, the demolition is rolled into them, right?
A: SM: Yes, that’s correct. The $4 million to demolish the bridge is rolled in. So for example, the $53
million price tag includes the demolition, construction, and any at-grade changes we make. An at-grade
solution at somewhere over $28 million would include the removing the bridge and reconfiguring the
roadways. I say over $28 million because that’s just a starting point. We know it will be higher if we go
that way.
C: AD: And this is part of the trade-offs and balancing the benefits. That’s what we’re here to shape
tonight.
Q: Kevin Moloney (KM): At the beginning you said we had $70 million.
A: SM: $70 million is the price to put the Casey Overpass as you see it today back up. You have told us
that’s not what you want
Q: KM: Is that our ballpark? Is $70 million the outside limit? I thought DOT had $70 million to do this
project whatever solution we picked.
A: SM: Right now, we need to not try to build to a budget. Let’s solve the problem first. Right now we can
solve the bridge problem for around $53 million. More than that it becomes more difficult, but not
impossible, but the thing you should take away from this conversation is that as we compare
alternatives, the at-grade solution should be cheaper than a bridge. Recognizing that there’s more
flexibility at-grade, we know the price for that will keep changing. We don’t know where the alignments
are or what we’ll need to deal with underground. There could be ADA issues or fan and ductwork
issues.
C: Fred Vetterlein (FV): It seems a very important piece of this is widening the upper bus-ways and I’m
beginning to hear that it might be a separate piece. Have you looked at that because I think it’s key to
making this work in terms of traffic.
A: SM: I can tell you that the option for Washington Street west of the station works better with an at-grade
solution because of the cost of the bridge. The small additional deck over the train tracks, which is
approximately 15 feet by 400 feet, would cost about $6 million, but it has other ramifications in terms of
the MBTA’s employee parking. Don’t worry; you will see that carried forward.
Q: Fred Vetterlein (FV): So the $6 million for the deck; is it rolled into the $28 million?
A: JR: If you went with that option it would add to the $28 million, but remember we cannot end up with an
at-grade solution that costs more than the bridge.
A: SM: Let me just make it clear that if we can solve our problems with an at-grade solution that say costs
$30 million, it doesn’t mean that we have $20 million left over to spend on whatever we want.
C: JR: Just remember that this is the ABP and we’re focused on bridges. So if we can solve our problems
here for less, then some additional money is available for another structurally deficient bridge.
Q: DH: So new bridges could come on line through this program?
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: SM: There are a set number of bridges already in the program, but there’s a contingency list of bridges
that can go into the program if bridges already on the list can be fixed for less money. Right now, the
Casey Overpass is programmed for $36 million, but we’re going to increase that because we know we
need to. We don’t know how much yet. We know it’s more than the $28 million which was based on
just installing a new deck.
C: JF: This project is just one insult to the community after another. This is the first time we’re hearing
about the budget. You never give us any handouts and at every presentation you have deliberately
made the type on the screen tiny so that nobody can see the words in the presentation.
A: SM: With respect to the cost we have tried to facilitate what the group wanted to see. We never ever
told you “you have this much, go figure out how to spend it.” We asked you to help us develop
alternatives and we came from the ground up with you facilitating that process. We are doing what this
group asked us to do and I stand by that.
C: JF: This is the first time you’re telling us cost will be a factor.
A: JR: Come on Jeff, that’s not true. We never told you that you would have unlimited funding. This whole
group has been doing a lot of work. You guys are seeing far more than most working groups ever get to
see. You’re inside the planning process.
C: Bernie Doherty (BD): I tend to agree with Jeff. The point is that you come here tonight and for the first
time tell us that some sort of decision has been made on $28 million. What does that $28 million
represent? Is it a bridge or an at-grade solution?
A: JR: First of all, don’t fixate on $28 million. That was for the DCR project deck replacement which we
know we can’t do. Coincidentally it just happens to be the base cost for an at-grade solution based on
the numbers we have today. The things you’ve told us are going to add to that base and we know $28
million isn’t a real number because of that. Steve said that the current, expected price is falling between
$28 and $53 million, but it’s illogical to wind up with an at-grade solution that costs more than a bridge.
C: BD: I haven’t been dealing with this issue 60 hours a week like you do. I come to these meetings and in
2 and a half hours try to absorb what you’re presenting to me. If you don’t give me information up
front, I can’t do that. When you met with me in Boston at the out-set of this process, you said it was $95
million and then it was $70 million and now its $28 million. We need to know how much money is
available to us and when we have to make a recommendation to get in front of the other bridges that
are competing with us for funding. I just sit back and look at this and I’m hearing about Shea Circle and
the MBTA. Let the MBTA speak to the costs of moving their head house and the 39 bus. That’s their cost
and it should be a separate pool of money.
A: SM: The ABP exists to reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges in the Commonwealth. The
Casey Overpass is safe today because of emergency repairs, but I think we all agree it’s structurally
deficient. It must come down and be replaced with something. In this room, we are figuring out what to
replace it with. There replacement structure that your work has been guiding us towards is between $50
and $53 million. It doesn’t need to be as high or wide as today’s bridge. $53 million is a reasonable
amount. An at-grade solution will be weighed against a bridge which includes steel and concrete and
I’m honestly cautioning you that an at-grade solution which is costlier than a new bridge will be harder
to fund. That’s reasonable.
C: Michael Halle (MH): I think the way MassDOT has approached this has been the right way. This is a
complex process for people. We have to make compromises to get what we want. It’s hard to think of
the immediate future let alone 25-35 years from today. Let’s get to tonight’s discussion which is about
what we want. It makes sense to me to say what works for us and then we’ll have a discussion about
the money we need to fund our consensus. That’s what you have been pushing us to do all along. I
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
don’t think that really impacts how we approach this. It would only be harder if we had to think about
affording it at every meeting.
A: JR: Remember, we’re not building to a budget. If we got to a solution that gave you everything you
wanted for three bucks, would you feel bad? No, you’d be happy. Let’s get a solution that works for the
best price we can. The money argument doesn’t make sense until we’ve arrived at Michael’s reasonable
consensus. We haven’t been counting every dollar because we know there’s money there. Yes there
are other bridges in the ABP, but they’re not racing against us. It’s not like there are fifty other WAGs
going around the Commonwealth tonight and whichever one gets to consensus first gets the money. If
we spend more money here there might be bridges on the contingency list that don’t get into the
program. If we come back with an at-grade solution that’s $82 million we can’t fund it and we won’t let
you get to the end of the line and say “no you can’t.” We didn’t ask about Shea Circle or the area west
of the station, you told us about them. A lot of people in this room said Shea Circle was important so we
went down the road. We’re doing a real planning process with you and sometimes you have to get
closer to the end to have all the answers you want.
C: Michael Epp (ME): These meetings are about value engineering and we should be seeking the best value
for the least money that solves the problem. I remember the first meeting when you told us that
replacing the Casey Overpass as it stands today would be $70 million.
A: JR: That’s correct.
A: SM: We have talked about 3 numbers: $28, $53 and $70 million. There is no $28 million solution. That
was the cost to replace the bridge deck when DCR though the bridge could be saved. It is also the cost
for the most basic at-grade solution which we won’t do and is purely a coincidence.
A: AD: And I want to speak to the lack of handouts. There’s no disrespect meant. We work very hard to
get to these meetings and I’m just not comfortable giving you drafts. We’re trying to do this very quickly.
If you can’t see the screen, you can hear my words, and you can always go on the website and see the
materials after the meetings. I really need us to move onto the set-up for the small group exercises so
we can orient you to our corridor-wide concept drafts before you get into your groups to help us. We
really need your help to get ready for our August WAG meeting.
Review of the Corridor-Wide Concepts
C: Don Kindsvatter (DK): I want to take you through the four concepts we have thus far. We’ll go through a
series of graphics that show the whole corridor and look at some specific spots within it as well. You
don’t need to try to get everything right now in this presentation because you’ll have everything printed
to a large scale in your breakout groups. These concepts will show you the landscaping, sidewalks and
bicycle paths we’ve been discussing. We’ll also show you a blow-up of what the roadway looks like
under the potential viaducts. The at-grade network under a bridge is simpler because we take traffic
away by putting it on a bridge. As you see these options, please bear in mind that all options include
surface bike lanes.
Draft Concept 1 – Split Bridge
This draft concept includes:
A split bridge with one span carrying eastbound traffic, the other westbound traffic.
Shea Circle largely as it is today – a large rotary.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Morton Street configured as a ring-road. This is one point of lesser design flexibility within the
corridor. A split bridge requires ring-road approach for Morton Street.1
The new Washington Street area includes two travel lanes and a separate lane for the 39 bus. A
wide shoulder helps the 39 bus turn around using Washington Street. That wide shoulder is carried
throughout this section of the corridor.
The edges of the corridor include landscaping and pathways for pedestrians and cyclists.
Pedestrians and cyclists can access the bridge directly from the sidewalks along the edge of the
corridor.
A wall along the side of the northern bridge carrying westbound traffic would complicate, but not
prohibit access into planned driveways for the Arborway Yards.
Draft Concept 2 – Single Bridge
This draft concept includes:
An alignment pushed to the north side of the corridor to avoid the MBTA ventilation stack.
A single bridge carrying both east and westbound traffic.
Roadways centered underneath the bridge so as to place pathways and green space in the sun.
Connection points for roadways and bicycle pedestrian amenities similar to today.
The direct connection approach for Morton Street.
Shea Circle modified into the “egg-about” with the multi-use pathway running through the center
island. Pedestrian signals would help pathway users cross Shea Circle.
The 39 bus is again provided with wide shoulders to allow it to turn around using New Washington
Street and Washington Street.
Draft Concept 3 – At-Grade with a Wide Median
This draft concept includes:
Between 2 and 3 travel lanes in each direction.
Use of the bow-tie concept which accommodates east and westbound left turns using U-turn lanes in
the median. The eastern U-turn lane would be in front of the court house and the western U-turn
lane would be in front of the Arboretum’s Forest Hills gate.
Shea Circle modified into the “egg-about” with the multi-use pathway running through the center
island. Pedestrian signals would help pathway users cross Shea Circle.
Improvements on Washington Street west of Forest Hills Station including an expanded bus-way
which allows the 39 to operate from the upper bus-way. The taxi stand would move north to New
Washington Street. An expanded kiss-and-ride area is also incorporated. In this area, cyclists and
pedestrians are accommodated on separate paths or mixed use paths where there are space
constraints. These paths help to tighten the connection between the Southwest Corridor Park and
the Arboretum.
An east-west bicycle path would run down the center of a wide Arborway median with sidewalks on
the outsides of the corridor. The wide median would help to shorten north-to-south crossing
distances for cyclists and pedestrians.
Morton Street is presented as a ring-road in this concept.
Draft Concept 4 – At-Grade with a Narrow Median
This draft concept includes:
1
For more on Morton Street’s possible configurations, please see
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyoverpass/downloads/WAG_MtgMinutes071311.pdf. In brief, the ringroad approach connects local streets like Orchard Hill Road to Morton Street configured as a one-way loop
around Arborway Gardens and the court house. This ring-road would be split from the Arborway or surface
roadway by a median. The direct connection approach brings streets like Orchard Hill Road directly into the
Arborway or surface roadways similar to the way in which Tower Street connects to Hyde Park Avenue.
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
The bowtie option, but paired with a narrower median. The narrower median provides a minor
benefit to vehicles. The U-turn locations are the same as in Draft Concept 3.
Shea Circle is modified into “Shea Square,” a conventional, signalized, four-way intersection. All
pedestrian crossings would be protected by signals. Cemetery Road/Morton Street would be the first
in a series of coordinated signals throughout the corridor.
The 39 bus’ turnaround site remains on New Washington Street.
Expanded pick-up and drop-off facilities are provided on Washington Street west of Forest Hills
Station.
C: Gary McNaughton (GM): I want to take a minute to talk about traffic operations and analysis. The
overriding factor is that from a vehicle perspective, all four of these concepts are pretty close in terms of
operation. One particular turning movement may be different from concept to concept and everything
certainly works much better than it does today, but in terms of handling traffic these are all comparable.
We also know these options will be refined and changed, but we wanted to show you a little of what you
will be getting into.2 This is a program called V-Sim. What I have here today is a quick animation and a
work in progress, but as we go forward we’ll be able to show you detailed runs through the corridor.
We’ll be modeling this for all the concepts.
Q: Michael Reiskind (MR): Let me ask the Vineet Gupta question: do you have a V-Sim for bicycles and
pedestrians?
A: GM: Bicycles and pedestrians are in this model; they’re to scale so it’s kind of hard to see them.
C: MR: This model seems to favor the car over the bicyclist or pedestrian. It seems set up to think of cars
first.
A: GM: V-Sim is much more flexible. The old Sim-Traffic that you might have seen doesn’t look as good
and it didn’t have bicycles or pedestrians in it. We can actually ramp up the numbers of bicycles and
pedestrians to see what happens.
C: MR: I still don’t have a feel for the pedestrian or bicycle experience.
A: GM: We can actually zoom down on individual crosswalks to demonstrate and measure their experience.
Q: Community Resident (CR): Do both surface solutions require movement of the MBTA items like the vent
stack?
A: AD: At a minimum they both require changes to the commuter rail ventilation grate which is probably
the easiest one to do. We’ve spoken with the MBTA engineers and they feel there are multiple ways to
solve that one. The elements we’d try to avoid would be the combination ventilator, stairway and
starter’s booth. That would require serious design intervention.
A: GM: We’ve shown the surface streets shifted to the south, but that’s just for discussion. We can always
move them north and avoid those structures if that’s what the group agrees they want.
Q: DH: Both at-grade alternatives use the bow tie; does that mean we have to use it?
A: GM: That concept seemed to have enjoyed the most support from all of you. As I recall nobody liked the
large, traditional intersections or the continuous flow. So, bowtie seems to be where we are.
C: JF: You didn’t look at how bikes would turn left. I know I asked you to look at that in an earlier meeting.
2
Here, Gary showed a brief traffic simulation video.
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: Kevin Wolfson (KW): With all the alternatives, is it possible to have a mid-block crossing connecting the
Southwest Corridor to Forest Hills Station?
A: DK: The simple answer is yes, it’s a possibility. We could put in a mid-block crossing, but we have some
other options. What I think is that we can make the crossing at New Washington Street and South Street
much nicer. What we would propose is to make a nice sweeping turn out of the Southwest Corridor Park
and direct the path towards the Arboretum. That’s my thinking right now anyway.
A: GM: That option is also better from a traffic operations standpoint since the mid-block crossing you have
now really complicates things.
C: JR: I just want to take a moment to acknowledge Representative Malia; thank you for coming.
Q: Vineet Gupta (VG): On the wide median alternative, how wide can it be? Could you push it any further
north?
A: DK: I think we can get around 60 feet. It would feel wide, but not Rose Kennedy Greenway wide. What
we’re showing here for discussion is between 30 and 40 feet. There is a pinch-point around 500
Arborway.
Q: MH: And what’s it like in the pinch-point?
A: DK: It’s around 30 feet. We can also pick up some additional room if we’re willing to combine bicycle
and pedestrian paths into multi-use paths.
C: AD: Just one thing to remember as you think about green space: the tunnel box is pretty much right
under New Washington Street so while we can make that area greener, don’t expect any tall trees there.
Q: JF: Some of the early discussions of an at-grade solution showed a pedestrian crossing by the Arboretum
at the Forest Hills gate. Is that still on the table?
A: DK: It isn’t shown, but we can put it in. We just need to know a little more about that area before we
do.
Q: BD: With the bridge alternative, could a bicycle just go along the bridge?
A: GM: Yes, a cyclist could do that.
Q: BD: And with a split bridge avoid traffic entirely?
A: GM: Yes, that’s a distinct advantage of the split bridge.
C: Sarah Freeman (SF): With the bridge, there is still the issue of having to go from one side of the corridor
to the other to go from the Arboretum to Franklin Park.
A: GM: The single bridge does continue to present some of that problem because like today you’re
introduced into the left lane. The split bridge addresses that problem and is easier for bicycles and
pedestrians because they would be on the right which is where they are expected by motorists and used
to being. If you’re a cyclist coming over the bridge you can either cross when the bridge touches down
or continue along the shoulder to the Shea Circle area. With either bridge alternative, the north-south
crossing is probably at Shea Circle or maybe the Arboretum.
I want to take a moment and go back to the question regarding bicycles making the left-turn in the bowtie concept. What I foresee, and I’d welcome anyone’s thoughts on this, is that because the bicycle is
smaller and more flexible, you would, for example, cross Washington Street with the light, then change
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
direction at the corner and then proceed north on Washington Street with the next light. It’s basically a
jug-handle for cyclists.
Q: MH: With a wide median, could you have a turning pocket in the median for cyclists?
A: GM: You could do that and I’d invite any of the cyclists in the room to give me input on that.
Q: Mary Hickie (MHe): Can you say this one more time? All of these concepts can handle the traffic?
A: GM: Yes they can. They all work. There is still another level of traffic analysis that we’ll do. We will also
be testing them in the regional model, but all four concepts you see here tonight work with 2035 traffic
volumes assuming that none of the traffic that’s here today diverts away from the corridor.
Report from Small Groups
Bridge Group One - Report by Bernie Doherty
C: BD: We discussed the two bridge alternatives: a single bridge and a split bridge. With the split bridge,
entering and exiting traffic would be in the middle and on the outside, but if you combine the two
bridges, it brings you back to today’s configuration at both ends. The concern that some had had is that
we could accommodate the bicycles on the surface roads as we would with all approaches, but here we
would have a bicycle path coming up that wouldn’t have to cross a lane of traffic and could be extended
along the Arborway Hillside. The shadow issue was brought up. We want to minimize that as much as
possible in keeping with the principles of the Emerald Necklace Conservancy which I support. In my
opinion, while we talk about bicycles, these roadways will carry cars and we should be thinking about
the most effective way to bring them through the area. I believe that a bridge is the most effective way.
All four concepts may model as able to handle the traffic, but I think if we use a surface roadway we’ll
just give ourselves massive backups. We also discussed the Arborway Yard. There are two driveways
here which are planned and more research needs to be done regarding how they will interact with the
new roadway system though we know the split bridge presents the greatest challenge for them. We also
had questions about who would have the care and custody of the bridge and the areas around it; who
will mow the lawn?3 In terms of minimizing shadows, the single bridge would have greater benefits.
With the single bridge we would suggest not having bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on it and
improving the pedestrian and bicycle experience at-grade. Nobody uses the bridge today for walking
and cycling and I wouldn’t disagree with that approach because it’s difficult to get over.
Bridge Group Two - Report by Suzanne Monk
C: Suzanne Monk (SMk): We were very split as a group on whether to have a single or split bridge, but we
all want a bridge. With the split bridge you’d wind up with the same width of bridge you have today, but
with a split in the middle. I do like the idea of the uninterrupted bicycle and pedestrian pathway over
the bridge and so we were thinking of a single bridge with one lane of traffic either way, wide shoulders
for bicycles and then a multi-use pathway on the south side to connect the Arboretum and Franklin Park.
You could provide a mid-block crossing so that people wouldn’t need to go all the way to Shea Circle to
move north-to-south across the corridor. I think the split bridge is easier on bicycles and pedestrians,
but the single bridge, built with hammer-head piers would better for shadows and the at-grade streets
could be pushed in underneath the bridge to provide more green space at either edge of the corridor.
At-Grade Group One - Report by Kevin Wolfson
3
It was explained that if a new bridge is built, MassDOT Highway Division will be responsible for the upkeep
of the span while DCR will address the surrounding green space.
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: KW: Our group discussed the at-grade options. Our first question was about median width and we
landed somewhere in the middle. We think the narrow median, especially at the Shea Circle end feels
like too much pavement and too much of a barrier for pedestrians and cyclists, but this also should be a
pleasant drive for vehicles so the wide median may be too much. We think some of the paths in the
median might be redundant given the plans for multi-use paths along the edge of the Arborway Yards.
The wide median also presents a problem for pedestrians since it makes for a longer crossing distance.
Another thought was the possibility of having a path in the New Washington median to accommodate
left turning cyclists. We all agree that we like a Shea Square, the signalized four-way intersection, more
than a Shea Circle. We also like the idea the logical continuation of the Southwest Corridor Park along
South Street and towards Franklin Park. The way to do that would to provide as much space for that
path as possible and if needed, make the north path the wider of the two. We talked a little about the
39 bus and what it does to this situation. The taxi stand on New Washington Street would be nice, but
we worry about left-turning buses. In terms of community space we talked about trying to have a focus
for it. We liked having it served by the Southwest Corridor and extending it makes logical sense. The
extra green space could be used for a farmers’ market or Rose garden.
Group Discussion of the Reports
C: AD: We wanted to give you an opportunity to discuss this as a full committee. Here’s your chance.
C: Elizabeth Wylie (EW): Some additional comments: the pedestrian access on the bridge is something I see
as a community amenity that provides light, air and views. In 25 years, the presence of the station will
have fostered significant transit oriented development and the ability to get up high and get some light,
air and views will be a real amenity. Aesthetics should be an important goal. The Zakkim Bridge is a
very nice structure and while that isn’t appropriate for this setting, it’s world class design and that’s what
we should strive for; I think the group needs an opportunity to see beautiful bridges because right now
we’re stuck with the Casey Overpass as our view of a bridge and as such, at-grade concepts have been
dominating the discussion.
C: JF: A few things: thanks for the presentation. Suzanne said a narrow sidewalk and we have talked about
sidewalks up to 14 feet wide on a single side, the idea being that if bicycles and pedestrians need to
share, they need about that much space to be comfortable. That’s what we’re seeing in park planning
today. I’ve liked the split bridge all along, but if we wind up with a single bridge, it would be helpful to
put that pedestrian connection on the south side of the bridge. A pedestrian light at the Forest Hills gate
to the Arboretum would also be helpful so you do not have to cope with an unending stream of through
traffic buzzing past.
C: MH: One critical issue: if there is a bridge in place, what are the accommodations we put up there?
What’s the value of a pedestrian way or a bicycle way or providing the whole range of accommodations
for the spread of beginning to confident cyclists? That’s not a zero sum tradeoff. Most people agree that
a narrower bridge means a better experience underneath. A lot of the things we’ve talked about, like
special events, happen off-peak and not at rush hour. For those events, like July 4th, you could close the
bridge and let traffic move through at-grade. For me, if we build a bridge, improving the streetscape
below and making its bicycle and pedestrian experience as good as possible is what’s important. So that
brings us to at-grade where we need to think about some key questions: is a lane reduction better for
life at-grade? Is like below the bridge better? That’s what it comes down to.
A: KW: I did ask Gary at the end of our discussion about lane reductions in the New Washington corridor.
They will test two lanes in each direction and see if there is a queuing program. My point is that the
surface designs aren’t finalized yet.
A: MH: I agree, but if we do an apples-to-apples comparison right now, the bridge will always give you
opportunities for fewer lanes.
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: SF: I hear people asking for examples of beautiful bridges and while I agree that they can be beautiful, I
think that beauty is often shown to its best example at a distance. I’ve talked to a lot of people about
this project and 99.9% of them say “wouldn’t it be great if the traffic could be handled without a bridge.”
Nobody wants gridlock or negative impacts, but if traffic can be managed, why do we need a bridge?
You can roll it up and put it away off peak. I sympathize with people wanting to get over the two
intersections in Forest Hills quickly, but right now they just fly over the bridge to wait at the Murray Circle
light. I’ll repeat that I’d like the group to see examples of where elevated freeways over neighborhoods
have come down and the neighborhoods have thrived without a traffic nightmare. We’ve seen freeway
removal and know how nice it can be.
A: AD: Duly noted and thank you very much. We’ll be working to have a collage of those photos for next
meeting, but if you have some, please email them to us.
C: DE: Getting back to the bridge, I’ve been ill-at-ease with the sidewalk on it because I’m visualizing
bridges over highways that have those anti-missile fences. The more attractive the bridge sidewalk is,
the more the need for a fence goes up. I don’t want a beautiful bridge retrofitted in 15 years with a
chain link fence. In light of that, the view of WalkBoston is that a pedestrian connection should not be
provided on the bridge.
Q: DH: Does DOT have numbers on that kind of thing?
A: SM: I don’t think we keep numbers on people throwing things off bridges, but we all know it happens.
Also, there’s the issue of snow plowing. Eventually, with enough build-up, a chunk of ice can flip over
the top of the railing and land on a car below. So to stop that we’re putting up snow fences on bridges
over roads and train tracks and so that’s a design element to think on; we’re using a small mesh that
breaks up the ice so it still falls, but in little pieces.
C: ME: In the future, it would be great if we could see the street level experience in 3D. Also, 500
Arborway may be demolished so I’d like to see what we can do on the north side of the corridor.
Stormwater is a huge issue and the regulations are changing. You have to treat stormwater and get rid
of phosphates. That means retention structures which is why I favor a wide median. Lighting on the
bridge would also be great. As far as a world class bridge design, good bridges have fewer columns.
Use the metaphor of trees with randomly placed columns like trees in a forest. This is the Arborway in
Forest Hills. Right now the bridge is very straight. Think about ways to make it curvy and romantic.
C: SMk: I take the overpass six times and day and when it’s not rush hour, you flow right from the base of
the bridge all the way through to Brigham and Women’s Hospital and you don’t get stuck in Forest Hills.
During rush hour the fact that you can get over Forest Hills makes a big difference when you’re driving a
car. I represent the Franklin Park Coalition and we want to be able to get over Forest Hills to connect
from one green space to another. As a pedestrian, I’d rather be on the ground where the activity is.
Q: JF: A follow up question on the snow fence: if we have good at-grade facilities for bicycles and
pedestrians and a sidewalk on the bridge, could the bridge sidewalk just be used as snow storage in the
winter?
A: SM: I don’t think we have sidewalks that we can skip taking care of in the winter. Typically, state
highway bridges are either cleaned by DOT or by city or town employees by agreement.
A: JR: We can look into that. Being the community liaison guy its mighty difficult for me to tell someone
who is complaining about a sidewalk that isn’t clear that they’re out of luck because it’s only an eight
month sidewalk.
C: DH: I do want to echo Mike’s point about the Arborway. Anything we do should reflect that fact that this
is Forest Hills, surrounded by green space and parks. I like the idea of pedestrians on one side of the
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
bridge. Also, I know that last time I said the idea people walking across the Shea Circle island was
ridiculous, but today I saw some a couple go right ahead and do it.
A: JR: One thing about bridge sidewalks: we’ve heard people say one side or the other, 6 feet or 8 feet,
and I don’t want to speak for Jeff here, but the bike commuter will use the shoulder anyway, and you
can see that this is all coming down to width tradeoffs. It’s great to have a 14 foot pathway on both
sides, but you just added 28 feet to a bridge you have all said you want to be narrow. When Andrea
keeps telling you about trade-offs, this is a prime example and that’s what you’ll see in the MOE’s.
Somewhere along the line soon you’ll need to start making these trade-offs.
C: MH: The people from Hyde Park Avenue and Washington Street can’t get to a pathway on the bridge, so
it’s a through amenity. For the future, for visualizing in my mind, the pedestrian case for bridge or no
bridge goes to the at-grade experience, because that’s where most people are and really feel the
difference in lanes, shadows, park space and so forth. I think presenting that in a way that’s broadly
accessible will be critical in convincing people in either direction. Any work you can do to increase
people’s comfort level will be good.
A: AD: And we are at work on those kinds of renderings; we just have to nail things down a little further.
C: DK: I just want to give a quick overview on the cross-section homework. We’re still taking these and
we’d love to get more. Most people did all three cross-sections so thank you for thank. Trends we’ve
been seeing: most people centered the roadway in the middle of the corridor with only a few folks
pushing it to the north or south extreme. Most people had a landscaped center median, but not too
many people put bicycles or pedestrians in it. We got a number of interesting bicycle and pedestrian
options down each side.
A: AD: Do give us your assignments if you have them.
C: JR: O.K. everyone, that’s it for tonight. We’re meeting again on August 17th; the 13th was a typo. The
public meeting will be either September 13th or 15th, we think we’ll have that nailed down next week and
get it to you just as soon as we can. We’ll make refinements to all this based on what we heard tonight,
but don’t stop talking. If you have something to tell us, please email or call us. Tonight represented
some healthy debate and we all appreciate your hard work. Your feedback is helping us immensely so
please keep up the good work.
Next Steps
The next WAG meeting is scheduled for August 17, 2011 from 6:00-8:30 PM and will be held at the State
Laboratory on South Street. The next community meeting is set for mid-September, 2011.
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Dennis
Baker
HNTB
Genie
Beal
WAG
Maureen
Chlebek
McMahon Associates
Barbara
Chrichlow
WAG
Andrea
D’Amato
HNTB
Tom
Davis
Community resident
Bernie
Doherty
WAG
Julieanne
Doherty
Office of Mayor Thomas Menino
Michael
Epp
WAG
Don
Eunson
WAG
Jeff
Ferris
WAG
Sarah
Freeman
WAG
Valerie
Frias
Office of Councilor Matt O’Malley
Christopher
Gilman
HNTB
Eric
Gordon
WAG
Vineet
Gupta
BTD
David
Hannon
WAG
Richard
Heath
Community resident
Mary
Don
Hickie
Kindsvatter
WAG
HNTB
Paul
King
MassDOT
Grace
King
CTPS
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Kevin
Moloney
WAG
Suzanne
Monk
WAG
Mark
Navin
Andrea
Padilla
WAG
Representing Wendy Williams
Community Resident
Michael
Reiskind
WAG
John
Romano
MassDOT
John
Ruch
Jamaica Plain Gazette
Cathy
Slade
WAG
Greg
Strangeways
MBTA
Fred
Vetterlein
WAG
Emily
Wheelwright
WAG
Kevin
Wolfson
WAG
Elizabeth
Wylie
WAG
Page 14
./
Welcome to the meeting of the WAG for the Casey Overpass Replacement Project Planning Study!
If your name appears below, please place a check mark in the last column. If not, please print below.
Honorable Kathleen
urv i
Genie
Nina
Beal
..
I':" "'"
Areas
Arnold
Brown
.u.".~,
~J
N'
445 nouu, ""1
Jamaica Plain.
MA 02130
.u
44
Street,APT#144
Jamaica Plain.
MA 02130
.~,
Accelerated Bridge Program
. ,ri ~t"t.,
I
617.971.1635
-,.
m"
,,~
V
knrino.com
.um
.h
Mary
Burks
Josephine
Burr
Barbara
Crichlow
Lisa
Dix
Bob
Dizon
Bernard
Doherty
Tom
Dougherty
Mike
Epp
.com
burks167lalgmail.com
Dorchester/Mattapan
Association
"",,,, .. uu, "c
Lower South Street
~.",,,,,,uu, "uuu Association
West Seldon Street & Vicinity
Nei~"uv, "uuu Association
Woodhaven/Colber[/Keg,s
Neighborhood A~~nri~tion
Boston Cyclists Union,ur' Bikes
Community
"\,I.
Com m ittee for the Aborway Yards
v, vn'
.
Area E Police
.u. ,~u, y
Board
, Street Main
Don
jos Ile h i ne. bu rrlalg ma i I. com
romoniadixlalaol.com
36 nO.MJU Road
3 Peak Hill Road
7 "" ",,"UU\,I" Ave
, Plain,
MA02130
W. Roxbury, MA
02132
,Plain,
MA 02130
(h)o"
""
(w) 617-449-1554
61
"
h
bob.dizonp'o '~"il.com
dohertyjrbclalaol.com
"non
'n de
td.rln,
.com
(617)
Walk
Ferris
Charles
Fiore
South ..eo( Loon 'uu. PMA,(,
Sarah
co ee, """
Eric
South Street Busineoo Community
Arborway
(:
.
i
55 South Street
Jamaica Plain,
MA02130
(617) 524-9200
22 Arborway
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
617-524-0602 ~H~
617-384-8759 (W)
/
,/
V
,"" lmail.com
_L".
..-
V
.net
,-i",
Jeffrey
V
bcrichlow28@aol.com
_L
rnm
I "nm
\/
V-
Forest Hills Neighbors
rnon
Michael
David
Mary
Halle
Hannon
Hickie
Carlos
Icaza
Allan
Ihrer
President
Chair - Boston Police JP Traffic
and Parking Committee
83 Wyman Street, No.1
Asticou Martinwood South Street
Neighborhood Association
Emerald Necklace Conservancy
27 Asticou Rd.
JP Business & ,
Association
Stony Brook
CPCAY
i
i
(617) 524-5865
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
(617) 524-1401
vUo<v", MA
02115
(617) 522-2700
u"" ,,,ivd Plain,
MA 02130
(617) 524-7997
also
116 Williams St., #2
u"" ,,,ivd Plain,
MA 02130
617-595-5145 (cell)
617-983-5524 (H)
West Roxbury COUl" ,uuoe
Neighborhood Association
Bob
Mason
i", 'vo of Healy Field
Neighborhood Association
41 ,.'u, .u, , Street
14
v~~'~y
Road
MAO~;~~in,
rwo", ,va,,,,
n71':!1
MA
617.799.5256
61 (-",,-, -uVQU
.com
1il
dm
38 Greenough Ave.
Kottaridis
V-
'0
I
Kathy
r'
125 The Fenway
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
-,.
""
,~"n
"'lm
allan@bbmc.com
. nAt
kotta rid islalaol.com
.com
\.../
V
-_ -
massDOT
..
Welcome to the meeting of the WAG for the Casey Overpass Replacement Project Planning Study!
If your name appears below, please place a check mark in the last column. If not, please print below.
First Name
Dale
Last Name
Mitchell
Kevin
Suzanne
Accelerated Bridge Program
Organization
Ethos Care
Address
555 Amory Street
City
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Telephone
(617)522-6700
Email Address
Moloney
Arborway Committee
20 Rambler Road
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
617.522.3988
moloneys@verizon.net
Monk
Franklin Park Coalition
Title
wolfslm!a>vahoo.com
"
Liz
O'Connor
Michael
Reiskind
Andy
Schell
Karen
Schneiderman
Cathy
Slade
Fred
Vetterlein
David
Watson
Boston Center for Independent
Living
Rowe Street Neighborhood
Association
Stony Brook Neighborhood
Association
Mass Bike
Emily
Wendy
Wheelwright
Williams
JP Neighborhood Council
Arborway Gardens
Wesley
Williams
Kevin
Elizabeth
Wolfson
Wylie
Wilmore/Norfolk Neighborhood
Association
Livable Streets
Asticou Neighborhood
11
~V
\J
West Roxbury Courthouse
Neighborhood Association
JP Business & Professional
Association
Washington Street Business Group
~.
fVttA-$ :)
00 (
Present?
v'
liz!a>strateg¥matters.org
ij;lmichael!a>rcn.com
3399 Washington SI.
60 Temple Place
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Boston, MA
02111
yf{
617-524-3800
schellprinting@comcasl.net
(617)338-6665
kschneiderman@bostoncil.ora
cath¥slade l@aol.com
fsv. io!a>comcast. net
171 Milk Street, Suite 33
10 O'Leary Way
27 Asticou Rd.
Boston, MA
02109
617-542-BIKE (2453)
david!a>massbike.oro
ewheelwriaht!a>amail.com
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Jamaica Plain,
MA02130
.\,./"
wwilliams333@verizon.net
wesle¥williams@j;lost.harvard.ed
u
kevin.m.wolfson!a>amail.com
(617) 522-7325
617-784-8062 Cell
ewvlie325!a>comcast.net
~
./
massDOT
-"First Name
Honorable Kathleen
Welcome to the meeting of the WAG for the Casey Overpass Replacement Project Planning Study!
If your name appears below, please place a check mark in the last column. If not, please print below.
Last Name
Coffey
Title
Organization
West Roxbury District Court
Address
445 Arborway
City
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Telephone
(617) 971-1300
44 Allendale
Street,APT#144
Jamaica Plain,
MA02130
617.971.1635
Genie
Beal
Greenspace/BNAN (Boston Natural
Areas Network)
Nina
Brown
Arnold Arboretum
Mary
Burks
Josephine
Burr
Barbara
Crichlow
Lisa
Dix
Bob
Dizon
Dorchester/Mattapan
Neighborhood Association
Lower South Street
Neighborhood Association
West Seldon Street & Vicinity
Neighborhood Association
Woodhaven/Colbert/Regis
Neighborhood Association
Boston CYClists Union/JP Bikes
Bernard
Doherty
Accelerated Bridge Program
Email Address
Present?
kathleen.coffey(1iliud.state.ma.us
bealm<1ilmindsorino.com
nbrown<1ilbrownrowe.com
bu rks16 7<1ilgmail. com
josl2ehine. burr<1ilg mail.com
bcrichlow28@aol.com
romoniadix@aol.com
bob.dizon@omail.com
CPCAY - Community Planning
Com m illee for the Aborway Yards
36 Asticou Road
3 Peak Hill Road
Tom
Dougherty
Area E Police Advisory Board
Mike
Epp
JP/South Street Main Streets
Don
Eunson
Walk Boston
7 Greenough Ave
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
(h) 617-524-2573
(w) 617-449-1554
bernard.dohert~@l2arsons.com
W. Roxbury, MA
02132
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
617-835-5091
td.doughert¥<1il~ahoo.com
dohert~jrbc<1ilaol.com
~
(617) 498-4682
eoom<1ilcomcast. net
deunson<1ilomail.com
Ferris
Southwest Corridor PMAC
Charles
Fiore
South Street Business Community
55 South Street
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
(617) 524-9200
Sarah
Freeman
Arborway Coalition
22 Arborway
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
617-524-0602 (H)
617-384-8759 (W)
Eric
Gordon
Forest Hills Neighbors
Michael
Halle
Chair - Boston Police JP Traffic
and Parking Committee
83 Wyman Street, No.1
(617) 524-5865
David
Hannon
27 Asticou Rd.
Mary
Hickie
Asticou Martinwood South Street
Neighborhood Association
Emerald Necklace Conservancy
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Boston, MA
02115
(617) 522-2700
Jeffrey
·effrev<1ilferriswheelsbikeshoo.com
,V
freemansherwood(1ilhotmail.com
ericbot<1ilmac.com
125 The Fenway
,
m(1ilhalle.us
(617) 524-1401
dmhannon@@mindsprin(J.com
JP Business & Professional
Association
38 Greenough Ave.
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
(617) 524-7997
Ihrer
Stony Brook Association also
CPCAY
116 Williams St., #2
617-595-5145 (cell)
617-983-5524 (H)
Kathy
Kollaridis
West Roxbury Courthouse
Neighborhood Association
41 Morton Street
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
Bob
Mason
Friends of Healy Field
Neighborhood Association
14 Bexley Road
Roslindale, MA
02131
617-327-5698
Carlos
Icaza
Allan
President
\/./
hickiem<1ilomail.com
617.799.5256
allan@bbmc.com
aihrer@comcast.net
kotta ridis<1ilaol.com
rnasonsmith<1ilrcn.com
Welcome to the meeting of the WAG for the Casey Overpass Replacement Project Planning Study!
If your name appears below, please place a check mark in the last column. If not, please print below.
.....,,' '"''
Kevin
Moloney
Suzanne
Monk
Arborway Committee
20 Rambler Road
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
(611 }OU-O 100
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
617.522.3988
Accelerated Bridge Program
moloneys@verizon.net
,,,,,,,,,,i,1 Park'
.k
Liz
O'Connor
.... ~ .. u~
Reiskind
Andy
Schell
Karen
Schneiderman
Cathy
Slade
Fred
David
West Roxbury Courthouse
Neighborhood Association
JP Business & Professional
Association
•• u~, '" ',,"'V"
liz@strateqymaUers.orq
j pmichael@rcn.com
3399 Washington SI.
Street Business Group
60 I emple Place
v"u,,""'"
Boston Certer for" 'v" ... '" 'V,,,"
Living
Rowe Street Neig"uu, "vvu
/I,
-,. ion
Stony Brook, ,.,j", 'uv, , 'uuu
Watson
Mass Bike
171 Milk Street, Suite 33
"a,,," Plain,
MA 02130
va,
UU~'V', < <MA
021, ,
617-524-3800
I.net
(61/,.
kschl
-" )ra
Iii\"nl.com
I
.net
fc'
Emily
Wendy
VVI
Williams
Wesley
Williams
rn",
r.n"nrll
JP
Arborway Gardens ,
Boston, MA
02109
617 -542-BIKE (2453)
david,
Iva n.n
Iht@af"'~11 rn",
10 O'Leary Way
'11.
Plain,
MA 02130
VV'
Wilmore/Norfolk Neighborhood
v
I ;""hl..
I
Wylie
Asticou Neighborhood
27 Asticou Rd.
Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130
tTJ
IO-f,02130
\
0, ~~aV.(\1 {J
~
r--- ''\)a~ eJY0
"T0 VII'
\) All ,,<
..--...
\
LC>..L,/1,
J.'
'fI
,
,
I
'!Il4Vlr-r-
L
wwilliams33?""izon.net
wesleywilliams@post.harvard.ed
],!
Kevin
i
')/
(617) 522-7325
617-784-8062 Cell
"I,
~
." .. ~~c""
l@amail.com
.net
';;.;zrlJ-
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Small Group Flip Charts
Please see the following pages.
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Small Group Flip Charts
Please see the following pages.
Page 15
\, '511.1"1'" v~
5b/~,-,
) 1"4(,Lt
.. S1'L ..,....I"'~~ v? "'~£~1'I'C~
_ "' 'tl ~ .. _
11
)"lGI.I:
BRIC6ET'1P
5
• "" !!.,~ 1'71 "" ... .. JIU,E'<- "",m vI£' p"",, O~ "- ,MG
• SPt. I'I'e.~ '5 lt.. «<",.,rc> J\«(£'f5
• t.(~I'<>'"' s IfIIG Le <;-n<vc"",,,e U1<s ot;1tU"~
- 5f1-tf gRiP6f' 5""'"
'N (Plf€<- ,...., ~ ......
w,""'""""" ....... ~Qoo
t , AL I~N fI1f;,Jf
AoFf ~"'aN "oR1\C£ ~/ "'··°""1 o"'!""" 5n.>c"""'J;
\oIKL ~ L-lf 1'1&014" ~ ~
11\t~ RPAo"'1I16[,fRUi? -r1{~j3"-.n:~
3 S ?!.'i
I
'S" \~C.~ 1lerr~ flo .. '?E" of- 'SIK"f' S 'If(Ml5 0 J'lf
"rlO"P"~ ,"=-
17,o-s w,.~
aq;:a,.. .
I
v ~~ f e" "l~ 'T!'~ M~/.NPC~$ ~ ~ oesl"''''''~~
S l c;("-,I,~ 6 \I \ ~ I\) e 0 f
e, ~I",(
LII'tI rtl1> II')(, o~ f~11W "-"''''''l
1tok@)
1V
ID 6~
~I~,c,
MtO (/It ""..- C.NDIT1..,,5
c"M,,";ry All/(>'
"1
CTIV
LOtvlMUl-D
'J ov\h'f4e..6r tc(Vi doV
tx*k V\ {c)1, VI
()YI
0
(J Y1..W Y\ [.l VVO vJ wa! ().r\ • f1rta 11£2 d- P lok.. (
to Y ~1/tJ;vVJIVf YuVO , 'J-JI dt. w cJ; M\ rViJA-tWt.!fJlly Ix- poe""i w . . d
8'daklalU
0/11. [)
uI-~J ck woul d b2
Vlrk wdAa\\ UPfYfA\~ to
~ ~VY1J I,tJ
'\III ().f lull ~ a)'\ ·
\v..y(,.
1iJ'
MC/ tv te +rd ~
clJ ~~ ':.
~~ ~ vJ1 clt
tJU. ~cl
IN lit Q 1'\ ~ tL
()..}L lAP
1m gKULi:"f:x<Le...
w dA 0..1'\
DP.\\1\,1 'Mvf. 01d ~ I'D w~ I-!-u \
\'Iovl
d1UYC<.bl<..
MIll{...
~~
do"" Y\
'i1u 11 II\. +t. v
t-v){ IV.
0 "-
-It bt
fty II <i
I/O t\-t'
'\-t;~k.l
\
qf'! I,:t-k ~ \ 2
I "- Y'( a.? kkJ ""
'M.1 S~i "-1 tkL,
t~ v\ ct... \,I.el.l cllJlLt'L B~ \\A.... -\w.~ l
Qi.-ttwj...'t,~ \)..
'tJ.,tJ.y ij\[b\AvtlqL
,
O.J I 0. \.)J\--Ut...
M~
I~
(p..VI "'U I-
w 'd d&..
<l£v -h, LQ,Y'+t-v I
IApl'1li:C.UtA. C)/V ~ \ l "'']
O Y Y1
0 0v\01) VDwof cMeu IA~ \t. MU v(}
-\c
'VI
-\tW.
(}A1b
I
?\'TlXiM lh
-
'(-.I'
Ii.t W~I/1'(- l\~M\'Ull~
pll \~ ,w d-t lUI
cr1
M [L;t-We..
-bCllt\.(\v(.lI.i 51u at ~cUW'
<&paL-< 01'\ leU dc. hod
vJ<>J..-
I4 v .s tLO L.<.
- ~ '1OV M.e<4 .I-aUVlO.t b>Ott....cL.~c;, ... \
\ ...
~ ~ ~tn 0.."- c.A-{ (../.D. 7 ~ /.-<..t. ct.... G.N\
,,, s.o ~ ... ~~ 'P~fo
dA'I- ~-:
-
......
d0vt'r\ \J\u.1\rVClI~""V.tL<) ~b??~\L.-
_ I\..~ IYl> '" W (j... 4.1"
I..lJ.-L1 c...(JptL vtu Ix ~ ~ p~
_ w £1, 0" - CA V\ I h";!IXYlJ OJ a+- 1n.~ 1111. L hi I\..{£{\<Q....
CIt> l,.& H.~ ~ -ULS H ..< ,
_ ~1iI. b c~ \?-l Molld?
a If l1}'\.( ~
u..f (;) Y\ 'It \'IJ4-V 6 11Id.1 bbr-,JCJ,I
YQ't{,
~~Dptd 0",
o~ 'tJ~ SiY"'U- "7
- ali 1 nw r\l--
_ ;S o ~-.ve
to woAl ~ tat'> en. . CAn..a-14 [JI·..Jr;:111 fv. .i ~au.
rt- CP<n ck;,.. [:> Y\ L-tAv\c {,
__ vuc..dwlIy ~ .... I
li la...
_ ~~nLL {Arotlt'lc.. ~Qf1 On - 'N.tl.y I'J.ir ~ ~ 'Q!I lJ~Y]
\JU) re
a.<:tu d
~ \'b-h..At ~[.9.L.ILd- O\Qrpu.t ~
,
__ \:>\) QlJ on s.ov\V\ ~i 0{ MlJ>f ~ 1\AlIX-- oW!~ blo_
..Ii- {.lit> \ \ tu lJ !'n> M ~n /iJ 1/ I I,. ~ fu..,
peaplf I-UJf
-fwk- brw.l. "(
- Prerc,r- H\~ CYl ~ Sq"CL>6 ~p ll
01 .-vtW\
- 5 N{(...)tlVtLl<..lmkf /1 ~ a.. /dt !Jfp~ 1
G:Vhu.(
~
-
aJ en q
l/ltj 1 - ~
IlVl-h~\J W(/I ~1J ciAf(lCJJI / pn,"o~J pf1)t,inl~
MOY'( /A.l
M
cp,rl~ \
_ etU\j (?or- C<.-jl-L< t-F"cl- p~~<-<>_ 0> ,u:.~....--"-1 a..b.a.k-- ~/~+--j,.A..~
- CfJvt\ ~a ~ bi
,AO -<.~
-"''''' •
8 bl ~
~ 0 VI ~ wCt~V\ i "1bl< _ -e:, I \4. lA"-'>- gM j .s;-\Yu • .3\AA-
- M-C< ~
~ I2t\ ~ IV IlcLt-/r-
iJ 0''1
- -b i \4'
I C< h<
Df>!<' ~
f-v 1:>ila....
'btud ~ .... +
...J Rov> l'-(
~!..Il--t.. ~ +-0 ~ Ca.c...d ~d l..
or
~Cro« ,~
_I
~ 0 ~Y\-"'-'- \
0
~ l'1 - El.v
t) ilL...
:'
IN 0...\ d
¥-4~ H.Q~
-hJ'''~ -ea..~,-eN "<
_ 1"--<" c\..- ",-"" [>c<+'-t . w 'Nio. rc:<:l>l'\.
f--\.c CUL<
,,< Lm c;,~ h ~ 9 "'-10
~
a-
d..
..,' 11 ~
1
Casey Overpass
WAG#4B BRIDGE A Beak Out Group – HNTB Leads: Dennis & Andrea
Attendees:
Mike Halle
Bernie
David D
Rep Malia
Barbara
Don N
David Watson
Genie Beal
1. Split vs. Single Bridge Preference
Arborway yard (AY)future access points – preserve or is it flexible
o Be flexible – No money for the project
Shadow on split a concern. Minimize with of bridge split variations = on
the west, avoid split on east due to AY
WAG Request: who will own and manage both the bridge and streets
below and the land adjacent?
SPLIT offers best opportunity for bikes and pedestrians connections. and
the single does not.
Minimize use of bridge only if you provide high rate At-Grade pedestrians and biker connections
Put a bike lane on the bridge but no pedestrian if adequately provided
below
Is it possible to do a grade- separated multi use path
Extend the multi-use path to the west on the north side of washington
street with few sources crossings
2
Group majority nixed the split bridge due to its complicated accommodations of
peds and bikes – as long as ped/bike at grade is high quality with minimal
crossings
2. Alignment
Align bridge to minimize shadows
Align on south side
Align so shadows fall on paved area – minimize on open or landscaped
areas
Curve from north and west to south to east to allow for park connection
at-grade
Bridge Alignment
1. Minimize shadow
2. Provide best at grade connections for pedestrians and bikers
3. Continuous multi-use path with minimized traffic crossings
4. Best and efficient movement of traffic
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 3: WAG Comments on Measures of Evaluation
Please see the following pages.
Page 15
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11 :38 AM
'Liz O'Connor'
McLaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Andrea D'Amato; Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis;
Hurtubise, Adam (DOT); Jessen, Klark (DOT); Verseckes, Michael (DOT); Dailey, Donny
(DOT)
RE: Next Casey meetings & MOE DRAFT
Paul/Nate:
This should also be filed with projects' comments received, as she gives her input on the MOE's here as well.
IohnRomano
Municipal Affairs Liaison
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Direct: 617.973.70281 Mobile 617.438.4301
For news and updates check out our website www.mass.gov/massdot blog at www.mass.govlblog/transportationorfollow us on
twitter at www.twitteLcomlmassdot
-----Original Message-----
From: Liz O'Connor [mailtrJ/. • • •
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:19 AM
To: Romano, John (DOT)
Cc: Mclaughlin, Steve (DOT); King, Paul C. (DOT); Andrea D'Amato; 'Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis'; Hurtubise, Adam
(DOT); Jessen, Klark (DOT); Verseckes, Michael (DOT); Dailey, Donny (DOT)
Subject: Re: Next Casey meetings & MOE DRAFT
Hi John,
Thanks. I missed the last WAG meeting and am out of town again for the Aug. 17 meeting but I wanted to say
two things: I think the alternatives and the MOE look great and really helpful in clarifying what we should be
thinking about. Secondly, one of my neighbors is interested to know if people can request paper, color copies of
the alternatives (currently on the website in the PPT) from you guys if they want to look them over on paper rather
than on the computer. I'm not sure if this is feasible, but said I'd check in about it. I guess if you agree to it, I can
tell anyone who is so interested to email a request for paper copies.
See you in Sept.
LIZ O'CONNOR
-----.-.~
From: "Romano, John (DOT)" <john.romano@state.ma.us>
To: "Romano, John (DOT)" <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Cc: "McLaughlin, Steve (DOT)" <steve.mclaughlin@state.ma.us>; "King, Paul C. (DOT)"
<paul.c.king@state.ma.us>; Andrea D'Amato <ADAmato@hntb.com>; 'Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis' <ncabral1
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Romano, John (DOT) <john.romano@state.ma.us>
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11 :30 AM
King, Paul C (DOT); Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
FW: Feedback
Please put with all other project comments received to date. This is from Genie Beal.
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: Andrea D'Amato [mailto:ADAmato@hntb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 201111:24 AM
To: Don Kindsvatter; Dennis Baker; Romano, John (DOT)
Subject: FW: Feedback
-----Original Message----From: bealm [mal
Sent: Thursday, July
To: Andrea D'Amato
Subject: Feedback
What a marathon meeting!
My thoughts: It's not going to be a rose Kennedy Greenway, but I hope we can come together in spite of strong feelings
on various sides.
The worst thing for pedestrians would be to have no bridge. Imagine being one and dealing with all the current traffic!
However, a narrow and lower bridge, maybe shorter, hopefully better looking, would go well with an improved grade
level surrounding. If we reached that point together, it would not be difficult to beautify the understory, if that word
fits.
If traffic flows acceptably now, it would with current dimensions. Important that it be narrow because of shadow below.
I have a conflict on Aug. 17 so I guess these are my parting words.
1