Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
July 18, 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:
Sixth Working Advisory Group (WAG) Meeting
Meeting Notes of July 13, 2011
Overview & Executive Summary
On July 13, 2011, the Working Advisory Group (WAG) met to continue its role in the Casey Overpass
Replacement Project Planning Study. This meeting is the first of 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 results of the WAG questionnaire, the Measures of Evaluation
(MOE), a small group exercise regarding concepts for Morton Street and Shea Circle, and a brief discussion
of the possibility of a tunnel for Hyde Park Avenue/Washington Street at New Washington Street.
WAG Questionnaire:
o The WAG questionnaire is just a snapshot of WAG member opinions at one point in the
process and it is expected that viewpoints will continue to shift as the process moves forward.
However, questionnaire results did confirm some themes of the planning effort to date.
WAG members are:
 Concerned about bicycle and pedestrian access.
 Want to improve access to transit.
 See the Casey Overpass Replacement Project as an opportunity to add green space
to the Forest Hills area.
 Would like to see improved pick-up/drop-off facilities in the area.
 Are evenly split regarding whether an at-grade or viaduct solution is most
appropriate for Forest Hills.
Measures of Evaluation: 1
o Reaction to the MOE was generally positive with WAG members generally agreed with what
was shown. Concerns were expressed with regard to:
1
At the time of the meeting described herein, WAG members had sent in five responses to the project
team’s call for amendments to the MOE. Since the meeting, numerous amendments have been offered by
WAG members. Amendments to the MOE are still being accepted through 7/20/11, one week from the
meeting detailed in these minutes. Amendments received via email are included as Appendix 3.
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Ensuring that strengthening the connectivity of the Emerald Necklace through Forest
Hills is more explicitly stated in the MOE.
 Differentiating between adequate and ideal bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
 Ensuring that the way in which each MOE is written accurately reflects the measures
and metrics clustered below it.
Shea Circle and Morton Street Concepts:
o A consensus was not reached by any of the small groups regarding which of the three
concepts shown would make an ideal replacement for the current Shea Circle. In general,
most WAG members requested either more information or posed questions:
 Can Forest Hills Street be dead-ended at Shea Circle or changed to simply its
connection to the Circle; possibly as a one-way northbound.
 Can lanes be trimmed out of the traditional intersection to potentially spare some of
the mature oak trees currently in the center island of Shea Circle?
 Would the mixed-use path crossing the center island of the modified Shea Circle
actually be used?
 How effective would signals be at protecting pedestrians and cyclists trying to cross
the circle?
o While a strong consensus was not reached, WAG members generally leaned in favor of the
ring-road concept for Morton Street. This concept would separate Morton Street from the
Arborway, turning it into more of a local street providing access to Arborway Gardens, Yale
Terrace and Orchard Hill Road. This approach was praised as offering less friction for
automotive traffic and a longer run of bicycle and pedestrian pathway without crossings.

Hyde Park Avenue Tunnel
o The project team has analyzed the idea of a north-south tunnel on Hyde Park Avenue. A
basic review of the idea has shown that it would block access for bicycles and pedestrians to
the Southwest Corridor Park, complicate access to the Arborway Yards parcel, require a large
at-grade intersection on the tunnel’s roof at Washington Street/Hyde Park Avenue/New
Washington Street and incur substantial costs for minimal improvements. As such, this idea
will not be pursued further.
Review of WAG Questionnaire Results
C: John Romano (JR): Welcome all and thank you for joining us tonight. We have a few schedule
adjustments that we need to make. The August 3rd community meeting is being shifted to either the 13th
or 15th of September, so we ask that you hold those evenings. We are also going to add a WAG
meeting on August 17th because we have a lot to cover and we don’t want to jam things in. We are still
staying on schedule to be done in mid-October; we’re just sliding things around in the middle. We
should be here for the meeting on the 17th. I want to take a moment to recognize Dan Webber of the
MBTA,2 Nikka Elugardo from Senator Chang-Diaz’s Office, Julianne Doherty from Mayor Menino’s
Office, and Vineet Gupta from BTD. Anyone who has comments on the MOE please hand them in at
any time tonight. We’re not to the final version of the MOE yet, but we will be getting there within the
next week because we need to start using them.
C: Andrea D’Amato (AD): We have a number of things to do tonight and we’re all a bit tumbled upside
down at the moment. One of our team members, Essek Petrie, was hit by a car going home last night
and so he won’t be joining us this evening, but he is O.K. Tonight we’re going to go over the data that
came from WAG Assignment 3 and you don’t have to take a ton of notes because we’ll post all the data
on the website. We’re going to spend some more time on the MOE because we haven’t been through
2
Dan Webber is in charge of service planning for MBTA bus routes serving Quincy and those which use the
Forest Hills Station as a hub. Mr. Webber has been briefed on the work of the Casey Overpass Replacement
Planning Study through Joe Cosgrove who is in charge of long range service planning for the entire MBTA.
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
them with you yet. We got five responses from WAG members and using those we have whittled them
down to 12. We will take additional comments for one more week starting tonight because we need to
have the MOE done so that we can use them to spend the rest of July and August on design. If you have
something with you tonight, please give it to Don or email it to John. We will then move on to our
breakout exercise for tonight which will address Shea Circle and Morton Street; every group will have
them same assignment. Our last items will be a review of the idea of an underpass for Washington
Street at New Washington Street.
At this point, Andrea turned the meeting over to Chris Gilman (HNBT), Don Kindsvatter (HNTB) and Gary
McNaughton (McMahon Associates) who briefed the WAG on the results of Assignment #3, the MOE, and
concepts for Shea Circle and Morton Street. Highlights of this presentation 3 included the following:
Results of WAG Assignment #3
85% of questionnaire respondents4 don’t walk or bicycle over the Casey Overpass today.
Assuming one is built, the majority of respondents would like to see a span which is lower and
shorter than the current viaduct. Survey results showed a strong preference (83%) for a single bridge
versus two narrow structures. The general preference is for an unobtrusive bridge that blends with
its surroundings.
43% of respondents feel that the use of the Casey Overpass as a viewing platform for events such as
the 4th of July fireworks is unimportant.
Regarding non-motorized use of the bridge, even if strong bicycle and pedestrian connections are
provided at-grade:
o 52% of respondents feel a sidewalk should be present on any potential new bridge.
o 60% of respondents feel a bicycle lane should be present on any potential new bridge.
Survey respondents were asked a series of questions to determine what they would be most and
least willing to give up in the Casey Overpass corridor to make room for other elements. Based on
this:
o Respondents are most willing to give up on-street parking.
o Respondents are least willing to give up commuter bicycle lanes.
95% of respondents indicated that taxi and pick-up/drop-off facilities should be part of any new atgrade network.
Survey respondents were asked a series of questions to determine which modes of transportation
they feel should be prioritized in the new solution for the Casey Overpass Corridor: According to
these questions, respondents feel that pedestrians and public transportation are the most important
modes in the corridor. Conversely, they indicated that taxis are the least important.
Respondents were asked a series of questions addressing how the solution to replace the Casey
Overpass should improve their quality of life. Respondents indicated that the ideal replacement
solution should:
1. Make it easier to use transit and other sustainable transportation modes.
2. Increase green space.
3
This presentation consisted primarily of pictures and tables. Readers may find it useful to have a copy
ready to hand while perusing these minutes. A copy can be obtained at:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyoverpass/downloads/WAG_Mtg071311Pres.pdf
4
21 WAG members responded to this assignment.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
3. Tied for third place:
 Provide the community with an invigorated sense of pride.
 Eliminate cut-through traffic.
 Increase personal safety.
Respondents were evenly split regarding the ideal replacement solution:
o 47% favor an at-grade solution.
o 47% favor reconfiguring the local street network to tie into a smaller bridge.
Q: Michael Halle (MH): Did you get most of the responses to the questionnaire prior to sharing the split
structure with the public back in June?
A: JR: We shared the split structure with the WAG session immediately prior to the June community session.
C: AD: Remember, this questionnaire just represents a moment in time. We expect that viewpoints will
continue to shift as we go forward. We just wanted to take a snapshot.
Discussion of the Measures of Evaluation
C: Gary McNaughton (GM): What we’ve been doing is trying to boil the MOE down in a number of ways.
We’ve already been through them and removed duplications of which there were many. Another thing
we’ve done is to make sure that each MOE is associated with a measurable data point. Based on the
five responses we got since the June community meeting, we have whittled the MOE down from 15 to
12.
C: AD: These are all written down on the back of your agendas so you can take it home with you and look
at it closely if you have not already done so.
Q: Mary Hickie (MHe): This whittling down, how many responses is it based on?
A: AD: What we had to do was look at everything thing the WAG gave us and we trimmed that down based
on removing duplications and looking for things that actually have a measurable data point associated
with them. We incorporated your original comments, items the community gave us, and the five sets of
amendments we received from WAG members since our June community meeting.
C: GM: Under goal one, we have the MOE of minimizing the impact of cut-through traffic on local streets.
That can be measured by forecasted volumes on local roadways based on our modeling and the work
being done by CTPS. As we start to apply these we may find slightly different measures in which they fit
and apply them to the various alternatives. Going to the next one, providing convenience pedestrian
crossings, you can see that we grade it based on how many lanes a pedestrian has to cross. We want
you to continue to look at these and provide us with your comments.
Q: Don Eunson (DE): Minimizing local street impacts: does that take into consideration strategies the City
might take to address cut-through traffic?
A: GM: Our first take would assume that the existing street network along the sides of the corridor would
remain as they are today. Based on our modeling and the CTPS modeling, we may discover concepts
that would do better based on possible changes outside the corridor.
Q: Vineet Gupta (VG): Would we identify key local streets for cut-through traffic in advance?
A: GM: We have already addressed some of that. In an earlier meeting we worked with WAG members to
identify the cut-through pathways.
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Jody Burr (JB): I’m thinking about the West Side Highway in New York which has many lanes to cross,
but also has an effective pedestrian network based in part on the frequency and efficiency of pedestrian
signals. The signals there really convey when the pedestrian has the right-of-way. Pedestrians aren’t
just an after-thought that gets to go when a car isn’t turning left.
A: GM: Don talked about that idea when we were working through these metrics. Since that’s an aspect of
signal design we’re looking to see whether it’s appropriate to address that now or in the 25% design
phase.
C: VG: The section where you address minimum sidewalk width: that’s got more to do with moving parallel
to the roadway, not crossing it. It seems to me that 1.02 is generally about the pedestrian environment.
Maybe it would be helpful to label it to address the pedestrian environment more generally.
A: GM: I think what we’re trying to get to there is helping us notice if a concept is using so much room for
vehicles that it’s leaving less room for the sidewalks. I think you’re right though that pedestrian
crossings isn’t quite the right title, it could be pedestrian environment.
C: Peter Stidman (PS): Leaving cyclists out of the roadway geometry section might be disadvantageous to
them.
A: GM: We have that in a later goal.
C: PS: That goal addresses type and quality of bicycle path; I think we need to address bicycle lanes.
A: Don Kindsvatter (DK): I think we were operating with the assumption that we would have bicycle lanes
regardless of which option we pick so we weren’t measuring that specifically.
C: PS: O.K. I get your point, but there’s a difference in the types of bicycle lane. Five feet is the minimum,
but cyclists generally prefer six feet. Historically, bicycle accommodations in Boston were just the right
edge of a 14-foot travel lane, so we are a little sensitive.
A: AD: Point taken.
C: MH: Looking at 1.03, it uses the terms for the standard LOS for traffic. Bicyclists and pedestrians have
their own unique LOS which can be more complicated to measure. I think with 1.03 you should either
call it out as addressing vehicles specifically or state that it’s addressing all modes.
A: AD: These are all great comments; these are the things we would like from you in writing in the next
week.
A: GM: Yes, these are all great comments and we want them. The second goal that has the bicycle
element build into it: ensuring that there are bicycle paths and good connectivity among them. This goal
also addresses surface loading points for transit. Removing barriers for neighborhood connections
overlaps somewhat with modal connections so we trimmed this one down to a single measure
addressing curb access.
Q: Kevin Wolfson (KW): What’s curb access?
A: GM: Those are the curb cuts that allow driveway access out into the road network.
C: MHe: I read remove barriers as taking out anything that separates Forest Hills from the center of
Jamaica Plain and yet the only item on here supports access for local development.
A: AD: There was a lot of overlap among these and we had to simplify them. That idea bothered us too, so
we put it under the livability goals.
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: Allan Ihrer (AI): So an obstruction would be to any legal vehicle movement?
A: GM: For the mobility goal, yes.
C: AI: And on livability, you might say a six-lane roadway would be an obstruction.
A: AD: The point here is that we need to use these for measuring and testing and if a MOE didn’t help us
differentiate between concepts we dumped it.
C: CG: In terms of integrating sustainability, we wanted to increase tree canopy. That will be measured by
the number of trees planted. We’ll also be looking at air quality numbers and minimizing life cycle costs.
Q: Wendy Williams (WW): What have you done with pervious pavement?
A: AD: That’s relevant to the 25% design process. We could have pervious pavement in any option.
C: WW: I would like to see something about pervious surface and planted areas.
C: VG: I think storm water management should also fall somewhere under sustainability.
Q: MH: On 4.02, could we possibly have a plan that would make air quality worse?
A: AD: There are a lot of things that could happen: fuel standards for the MBTA, new technologies for
vehicles and so forth, but we felt air quality is important so we left it in.
A: GM: There have been projects that have reduced capacity and increased delay. That does technically
lead to a reduction in air quality.
C: CG: Goal five is to create a destination and a sense of place. We want to increase space for community
gatherings and we’d like it to be contiguous space. On goal six we want to enhance visual quality along
New Washington Street and in the areas around the bridge. We want to increase the amount of green
and landscaped area.
C: VG: This actually does address removing the barriers. I think you just need to change the label on goal
three.
Q: Michael Reiskind (MR): Do we have 12 or 14 objectives?
A: AD: We have 12 objectives, 14 measures and many more metrics.
A: CG: The important number is 12 objectives. It goes from the general to the specific: goals, objectives,
measures, metrics and data.
C: Jeff Ferris (JF): Early on we had talked about reconnecting the Emerald Necklace as a goal and I don’t
see that reflected here.
A: AD: We have written that into the mission statement which we shared with you prior to the June
community meeting. I think it’s also included under landscaping and visual barriers.
C: MH: You might want to talk about the connectivity of the landscaped space. Right now you seem to just
be measuring area and not connectivity.
C: JB: It feels like there’s an opportunity to integrate something about the Emerald Necklace into pedestrian
and bicycle connections.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: AD: This is your opportunity to go through the objectives and tell us exactly what you want us to do, but
we need your comments in writing so that we can tabulate them. We always welcome you jettisoning
anything, but at this point you need to give us specific ideas with associated measures and metrics in the
next week so we can use these in our next two meetings.
C: PS: I agree with what Jody said. I think a good measure could be a contiguous walking and cycling path
from Franklin Park to the Arboretum with the minimum number of crossings.
A: AD: We can add that in, but at the risk of repeating myself, please write these down, and specify them
and get them to us within the next week.
Q: KW: When we get to alternatives, will we just use the scores from the MOE to pick an alternative?
A: AD: They will help you identify the trade-offs you will want to make to pick the best alternative.
Q: Nikka Elugardo (NE): Are all of these equally weighted?
A: AD: Yes, they are all worth equal amounts. No one criterion is more important than any other.
C: VG: The objective of the scoring system is not to pick this is a winner and this is a loser: it’s a guide to
the community to see how you can mix and match elements to come up with the best option. While they
are quantitative, they aren’t definitive.
C: GM: I would say that it will help us weed out any obvious failures early in the process.
C: NE: It seems like that makes the subjective measures that much more important because it would be on
this group to pick among alternatives that are close together in terms of numeric score.
A: PK: There is going to be some subjective choices made by this group once the numbers are put together.
A: AD: There will be tradeoffs and next time when you see alternatives, because we are coming to that
point, you’ll see them with the MOE in mind.
C: JR: So think of it this way: if alternative A scores well on 1 and 2 but B scores well on 5 and 6, that lets
you know that you should try to mix and match the options so that we can put all of the best aspects or
most of the best aspects into a single option.
A: AD: And so this is your big chance: give us your feedback on the MOE within the next week.
Discussion of Shea Circle and Morton Street
C: GM: So right now I want to address Shea Circle and how we might connect Morton Street into the atgrade network. All of the concepts we’ll share with you tonight have passed the fatal flaw criteria that
we used when looking at concepts for New Washington Street.
C: DK: We have three concepts for Shea Circle. We will show you the roadways first and then how the
bicycle and pedestrian amenities might layer onto them.
C: GM: In our first effort at this, we tried to retain all the current legs to Shea Circle, but signalize it with
two signals. That didn’t work well from a traffic perspective so we scrapped it. We also looked at
keeping all the access points into the rotary, but shifting the splits further to the west. We didn’t like that
one either from a traffic perspective or a safety perspective and it doesn’t do much for urban design. So
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
that brings to our first concept, which is still work in progress. In it, we try to apply some treatments to
make this more like a roundabout. We have new pedestrian connections and the entrances to the circle
flare out a bit more which slows the cars down through increased deflection. This is a big diameter circle
and so it’s hard to make a true roundabout. We’re also considering changing the entrance of Forest
Hills Street so that it only allows for right-in/right-out moves.
Q: DE: Can you tighten this up to make it more like a roundabout?
A: GM: The big goal here was to preserve the landscaping and the mature trees at the center of the rotary.
Q: AI: Might it be helpful to just dead-end Forest Hills Street before it reaches the roundabout?
A: GM: We’ve thought about that or making it into a one-way going away from the circle.
Q: WW: How does Yale Terrace fit into this?
A: GM: Let me defer that to when we present Morton Street.
Q: MH: Right now you’re still showing a two-lane rotary. It seems like with a split bridge overpass with a
single lane in each direction you might not need two lanes in the rotary.
A: GM: In reality, assuming we have a bridge, we’d have a lane to the bridge and a lane to the surface
network so we would need the two lanes in the rotary.
C: DK: For this option, we show the bicycle lanes in light blue and the pedestrian pathways in yellow. In
this option, they all run around the outside of the circle.
Q: JB: But there are no crossing signals in this option?
A: GM: Not in this one, you would still be waiting for a gap. Now in our next concept, we have tried to
change the shape of the rotary to implement signals to give you protected crossings. This lets you
activate the center island and use it to get cyclists and pedestrians across to Franklin Park.
C: MH: That’s sort of an egg-about instead of the roundabout.
A: GM: The next idea for Shea Circle is to make it into a traditional intersection. This goes right through
the center of the current rotary wiping out all the existing trees, but it does create a lot of new green
space, possibly more than what is out there today.
C: DK: Overlaying bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on this, you can see it follows the geometry of
the intersection with every movement protected by a signal. One thing that we did notice is that on
Forest Hills Street and Morton Street beyond the rotary, there are no sidewalks.
Q: MH: If we make changes, Vineet, do we have to put in sidewalks?
A: VG: I’m not sure, but this intersection seems pretty big.
A: GM: We were going back and forth about that, but we have big through movements and a heavy
volume left-turn.
C: VG: Of course, traffic has to flow, but this seems like a lot of capacity.
C: JF: Concerns as to the status of Shea Circle with regard to the National Register of Historic Places were
raised at the last community meeting. I’m surprised we didn’t address that already. I was just down at
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Shea Circle the other day and some of those old oaks are 60 feet apart. I’d like a plan showing the
trees in relation to the proposals.
A: DK: We are meeting with DCR next week and getting answers about that.
C: Nina Brown (NB): Generally, DCR doesn’t like rotaries because they are not great for pedestrians and
bicycles, but I think Patrice Kish is open to looking at roundabouts in a different way. I think this is a
huge improvement for everyone. I do like the idea of placing the open space at the edges where it can
be used.
A: AD: These are all great comments for the breakout groups.
C: GM: I also want to talk about Morton Street. The concepts we’re showing tonight happen to be drawn
with the bowtie option for New Washington Street because we needed a base to start with, but focus on
Morton Street. One concept shows Morton Street and the Court House segregated from the Arborway
Network. The right-turn slip lane from Hyde Park Avenue by the train station is closed off. Morton
Street becomes a one-way loop that provides access to the Court House and Arborway Gardens and
Orchard Hill Road. Your access out would be a leg of the revised rotary or signalized intersection where
Shea Circle is today.
C: GM: Along the court house area there could be angle parking which could replace some of the spaces
currently under the viaduct.
C: GM: Our second approach downgrades the Arborway into an urban street more like Washington Street.
All the local streets come out like driveways. We do keep the little bypass road in front of the court
house and that allows us to maintain some angle parking there.
Q: NB: How would pedestrians cross all those driveways?
A: GM: They would cross just as though it were a regular street.
Q: MH: You have a bowtie entrance right across from the outlet of Morton Street in this concept. Do you
think people might try to cross two lanes of traffic to get there?
A: GM: The exact location of the bowtie there could move to prevent that from happening.
Q: NB: Would all the buff-colored areas of existing pavement being removed become green space?
A: DK: At our next meeting we’ll show the concepts with trees and green space.
Q: KW: Does either concept’s cross section limit pedestrian and bicycle amenities?
A: DK: I think there’s enough space to include everything we would like to put in, but I will caution you that
this is one spot in the corridor where I still have to go out and get measurements.
A: GM: The one with the ring road does take up a little more space.
Q: DE: As we go into the breakout groups, is there anything we should know about MBTA bus impacts?
A: Dan Webber (DW): The MBTA has been reviewing all these plans along with you. We will continue to
review them and are sure that our concerns will be addressed.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Small Group Reporting
Group C: Michael Epp, Jeff Ferris, David Hannon, Mary Hickie, Bob Mason, Emily Wheelwright, and Beth
Worrell - Presented by Bob Mason.
There was concern as to whether Shea Circle is historical or not, however, the group agreed that the
Circle is “a mess and should be changeable.”
Both pros and cons were voiced regarding the egg-about: some group members felt that it is still a
rotary and that its center would be wasted space. Other group members stated that the center
island path would make a nice break for cyclists and pedestrians. The egg-about might be a good
compromise position if it is determined that Shea Circle has historical merits and can only be
subjected to minimal changes.
The group would like to save or replace the oak trees.
The group would like to see if lanes could be trimmed from the traditional intersection concept.
The one-way ring-road concept both isolates Arborway Gardens while insulating it from traffic due to
the loss of the right-turn from Hyde Park Avenue. The local traffic loop shouldn’t be congested since
it is one-way.
The direct-access approach gives back the right-turn slip lane from Hyde Park which improves access
to Arborway Gardens, but it could mean too much traffic friction.
Group B: Nina Brown, Don Eunson, Michael Halle, Suzanne Monk, Michael Reiskind, and Kevin Wolfson Presented by Don Eunson and Fred Vetterlein.
Existing Circle was rejected as not working for anyone.
Egg-about was also rejected since pedestrians generally shy away from using center islands. Powder
House Circle in Somerville is a good example of this.
Most of the group, with a few exceptions concerned about park connections, preferred the traditional
intersection concept, but would like to see it with fewer lanes. Group members agreed that they
would be willing to trade longer queues for fewer lanes.
The traditional intersection seems to offer clean, simple, straightforward bicycle and pedestrian
connections to Franklin Park.
The added green space offered by the traditional intersection should be highlighted when discussing
this concept with DCR.
The Forest Hills Street approach could be made into a standard T-intersection, dead ended, or made
one-way with a right-out only.
The group generally preferred the ring-road approach for Morton Street since it could allow for a
continuous bicycle path along that section of the corridor. There was interest in seeing whether the
Arborway could be pushed further to the north or narrowed to create additional green space.
Concern was expressed over Cemetery Road and Rossmore Road which get significant cut-through
traffic and should be part of the planning process.
The 64 parking spaces in front of the court house could solve the parking dilemma if the spaces were
reserved for the court. Right now it is rumored that this parking is used by commuters.
The direct access option was dismissed as violating the parkway character of the roadway and
making additional crossings for cyclists and pedestrians.
Group A: Jody Burr, Barbara Crichlow, Lisa Dix, Nikka Elugardo, Allan Ihrer, Liz O’Connor, Peter Stidman,
Dan Webber, Wendy Williams and Elizabeth Wylie - Presented by Allan Ihrer.
Concern was voiced over how the both the Shea Circle and Morton Street options would work for
both school and transit buses.
The group appreciates that Shea Circle is a lovely spot with mature trees.
The egg-about is interesting:
o Are there enough pedestrians to merit the signals?
o Would people use the central path or just go around the edges?
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
o Would signals be effective to stop both lanes of traffic?
o Appreciate the green space preservation.
Some approval for and some opposition to the traditional intersection.
No real consensus reached on Shea Circle.
Appreciation for the slow-moving traffic buffered from the Arborway in the ring-road concept.
Concern regarding both Morton Street concepts as to how Arborway Gardens residents will get to
Hyde Park.
Concern that people may try to cross two lanes of the Arborway to reach the bowtie.
A bridge might allow the direct access concept to work better.
C: JB: I live on a one-way street that’s similar to the ring-road concept; it’s the section of South Street,
parallel to Washington Street going into Roslindale Square. When there’s congestion on Washington
Street, it becomes a cut-through. I worry that if the signal at Shea Circle backs up, then this would
become a cut-through.
A: MH: I think angle parking in front of the court house would help with that. I have a question about the
connection to Hyde Park Avenue’s connection to Morton Street, could that remain the way it is now?
A: GM: We pulled it out to reduce conflict. Also it could add to the street’s attractiveness as a cut-through.
C: JF: A comment on the comments: I’m generally not a big fan of rotaries, but the signal pattern with the
egg-about presents an interesting opportunity. Everyone says they don’t want to be in that environment
in the middle, but people have expressed strong opinions in favor of bicycle paths in the median.
Comment number two: thinking about Shea Circle, we ought to be thinking of about 1,000 bicycles and
pedestrians going through there with the Emerald Necklace working like the Minute Man Trail or the
Esplanade.
A: MH: I think people are more willing to travel in the median because you’re making a connection to
someplace you want to be, just like you’ve been advocating for, Jeff.
A: DH: I’d say it’s different when you’re surrounded by traffic on all four sides all the way around.
C: NB: The bike path isn’t in the median; it’s down either side of the roadway.
A: Elizabeth Wylie (EW): One concept showed it in the median and a number of us were concerned about
it.
C: Liz O’Connor (LO): The real issue is where the cars will be. I’d hate people to discount the egg-about
based on their feeling of how the bicycle and pedestrian experience would be.
C: PS: I feel like we need to look at everything together in the whole corridor. There are a lot of strong
concerns for bicyclists and pedestrians.
A: AD: And that is just where we’ll go on the 27th when we next meet.
Discussion of the Hyde Park Tunnel
C: GM: We had been asked to look at the idea of trying to grade separate Hyde Park Avenue from the
Arborway via a tunnel. We’ve looked at it and there would be walled sections or ramps leading down
into the tunnel that would inhibit access to the Arborway Yards. The walled sections would go as far
north as the Arborway Yards southern edge and as far south as the entry to the Forest Hills lower busway. There could also be issues of access to the Southwest Corridor Park for pedestrians and cyclists.
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
From a traffic standpoint, the reason the Casey Overpass provides the relief that it does is because it
takes 2,300 cars out of the at-grade intersections. The north-south roads are carrying about half of that.
It’s not as big a bang for your buck. The intersection that would be associated with the tunnel would still
have three through lanes and a turning lane. From our perspective and assessment it doesn’t work and
that’s before we’ve even looked at cost which would surely be substantial.
A: MR: The traffic numbers you cited are correct, but I think if you add up New Washington and South
Street plus the volumes at Hyde Park Avenue and Washington Street, the numbers are greater than the
Casey Overpass. My main question is that if we put in the Casey again, what we’re leaving on the table
is the greater north-south traffic. The biggest question is are we looking at the lesser problem and that
by not doing anything with the greater problem, do we realize that we’re leaving a major problem on
the table.
A: GM: As we get into alternatives we will be covering issues like that. To date our analysis has been of the
fatal flaw yes or no variety. On the north-south, I would note that you’re not just dealing with traffic
that’s going in two separate corridors, there’s a lot of back and forth between the two.
C: MH: I know that when Sarah brought this up, she wanted us to look at South Street too, but you can see
from this that we don’t have the width in the corridor.
A: MR: I agree, but we’re leaving some major congestion on the table.
C: GM: I’d urge you to wait until our next meeting with that thought. I think our redesigns can address
some of those problems.
Next Steps
WAG members have been tasked with a homework assignment in which they have been given cross sections
of the Casey Overpass corridor and print-outs of vehicle lanes, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations and
green space. Their goal is to cut out the print-outs and paste them into the cross sections in the manner they
would prefer. In doing their homework, Vineet Gupta suggested that they focus on the green connections
first and then lay the roadways in around them.
The next WAG meeting is scheduled for July 27th from 6:00-8:30 PM and will be held at the State Laboratory
on South Street. An additional WAG meeting is scheduled for August 17th also at the State Laboratory. The
next community meeting is set for mid-September, 2011.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Nina
Brown
WAG
Josephine (Jody)
Burr
WAG
Andrea
D’Amato
HNTB
Lisa
Dix
WAG
Julieanne
Doherty
Office of Mayor Thomas Menino
Michael
Epp
WAG
Don
Eunson
WAG
Christopher
Gilman
HNTB
Michael
Halle
WAG
David
Hannon
WAG
Mary
Hickie
WAG
Allan
Ihrer
WAG
Don
Kindsvatter
HNTB
Bob
Mason
WAG
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Kevin
Moloney
WAG
Suzanne
Monk
WAG
Liz
O’Connor
WAG
Rebecca
Oliveira
Jamaica Plain Gazette
Scott
Peterson
CTPS
Michael
Reiskind
WAG
John
Romano
MassDOT
Pete
Stidman
Fred
Vetterlein
WAG
(in for Bob Dizon)
WAG
Dan
Webber
MBTA
Wendy
Williams
WAG
Wesley
Williams
WAG
Kevin
Wolfson
WAG
Beth
Worrell
Elizabeth
Wylie
WAG
(in for Sarah Freeman)
WAG
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Small Group Flip Charts
Please see the following pages.
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 3: WAG Comments on Measures of Evaluation
Please see the following pages.
Page 15
2. Enhance the quality of life in residential areas.
4. Strive to have an inclusive process for the
sharing of information.
7. Protect and respect the design for
Arborway Yard.
8. Develop alternatives that meet ABP
budget and schedule.
6. Adopt the principles of Universal
Design (accessible and barrier-free
design).
3. Address a structurally deficient bridge.
5. Integrate artistic elements in
designs.
The use of transportation investments to improve the standard of living, the environment, and quality of life for
all communities. Livable communities are places where transportation, housing and commercial development
investments have been coordinated so that people have access to adequate, affordable and environmentally
sustainable travel options.
Livability:
1. Improve safety for all users.
The ability to reach a destination and to use, choose and transfer modes within reasonable time and costs.
Mobility is higher when average travel times, variations in travel times, and travel costs are low. The provision
of multi-modal opportunities is essential for good mobility.
Mobility:
Guiding Principles:
Provide better modal connections; reconnect the historic landscape for the Emerald
Necklace; and improve access and circulation for transit, pedestrian and bicycle without
creating unacceptable vehicular traffic congestion/delays.
Mission Statement:
1.01
#
Minimize local street impacts of cut through
traffic
Objective
1 Reduction in forecast traffic volume
0 Forecast traffic volume remains the same
-1 Increase in forecast traffic volume
Changes in forecast traffic volumes on key local streets Are these
measures the best way to assess this?? Isn't cut-through traffic
prevented by strategies that are independent of traffic volumes?
Measure
Travel demand forecasting model
Data Source
Objective: Develop a balanced list of equally weighted measures to evaluate selected alternatives: Target select between 15 to 18 measures (2 to 3 per objective)
Goal 1 Improve Roadway Geometry to Balance Circulation for all Modes and all Users
07/19/11
Measures of Evaluation - DRAFT
Minimize vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
Provide convenient bicycle access Is this
specifically about on-road bike facilities?
1.04
1.05
2.01
#
1 Most crosswalks have average delay 15 seconds
0 Most crosswalks have average delay 20-30 seconds
-1 Most crosswalks have average delay 40 seconds or greater
Slip lanes (Dedicated vehicle right turns with pedestrian islands) Added
by Don
1 Most crossings do not have slip lanes
0 (how to quantify a number of slip lanes that would get zero??)
-1 Most crossings do have slip lanes
Level of Service (LOS) and Overall Delay Shouldn't these measures be
relative to some standard, rather than relative to existing
conditions?
1 Surface street network delay decreases
0 Surface street network delay unchanged
Traffic analysis, design plans
-1 Surface street network delay increases
Simplify network - number of turns between specific destinations
1 All turns made at most direct location
0 Minimal turn restrictions with alternate route provided within project
limits
-1 Multiple turn restrictions, alternate route not provided
Variation in number of miles traveled
Regional
1 Total vehicle miles reduced
0 Total vehicle miles remains the same
Design plans, traffic analysis, travel demand forecasting
-1 Total vehicle miles increased
model
Local
1 Total vehicle miles reduced
0 Total vehicle miles remains the same
-1 Total vehicle miles increased
Number of routes/connections within network
1 Connections provided along most major desire lines
Traffic analysis, design plans
0 All connections made, but choice limited/connections not direct
-1 Connections missing along some desire lines
Projected average delay for pedestrians at crosswalks Added by Don
Traffic analysis, design plans
Maintain or improve surface loading points for
passengers at Forest Hills Station
Objective
Number of and access to Forest Hills Station loading points
Measure
Design plans
Data Source
Improve Access and Modal & Intermodal Connections Locally & Regionally to Promote Existing Transportation Choices
Improve roadway and intersection operations
1.03
Goal 2
Provide convenient pedestrian crossings
1.02
1 Most crosswalks closely correspond to desire lines
0 Some crosswalks generally align with desire lines
-1 Most crosswalks align counter to desire lines
Presence of median Is there a better way to quantify this? What size
and type of median? This is important but vague.
1 Yes
-1 No
Desire Lines - how the sidewalks and crosswalks align with desire lines
Maintain or improve surface loading points for
passengers at Forest Hills Station
Increase transit ridership or trips
2.01
2.02
-1 Alternative decreases transit ridership
0 Alternative has no impact on transit ridership
1 Alternative increases transit ridership
Variation from current average number of riders
1 Curb side loading/unloading area increased. Access to MBTA
maintained
0 Curb side loading/unloading area increased. Access to MBTA at
fewer than three locations
-1 Curb side loading/unloading area not increased. Access to MBTA
at fewer than existing
Travel demand forecasting model
Design plans
4.01
#
Goal 4
3.05
3.03
3.02
3.01
#
Measure
Cost estimates
Design plans
City of Boston, Federal sustainability standard, Travel
Demand Forecasting Model
Grow Boston Greener guidelines / design plans
Data Source
Enhance local connections to activity centers
Objective
Data Source
Compare existing and future connections
1 Most or all connections are provided along attractive, pedestrianfriendly pathways
0 Some connections are provided along attractive, pedestrian-friendly Design plans
pathways
Measure
Remove Barriers for Neighborhood and Park Connections and Integrate Transit into Economic Centers and Residential Areas
Increase tree canopy This really is more of a
measure of quality of life (and belongs under
Goal 5 in support of "open space history")
Number of net trees planted in the study area
1 Increases number of trees by 100 or more
0 Increases number of trees by less than 100
-1 Does not increase number of trees
NAAQ air quality standards
1 Air quality has improved
Improve air quality / reduce vehicle emissions
0 Air quality remains constant
-1 Air quality has depreciated
Total amount of pervious pavement in study area
Utilize pervious pavements where appropriate -1
Perhaps pervious pavement is not a high
0
enough priority to factor into MOEs
-1
Comparison of life cycle costs
1
Reduce life cycle costs
0
-1
Objective
Integrate Sustainability into Design Concepts
Improve bikeability, bicycle access
2.04
Goal 3
Improve pedestrian access and safety Sidewalks
2.03
Sidewalk Width Suggested widths to come from WalkBoston
1
0
-1
Connectivity of sidewalks - missing connections I don't understand this
Design plans
section: What are sidewalk "on-street connections and off-street
connections"? Don
1 Provides off-street connections to existing networks
0 Provides a mix of on- and off-street connections
-1 Does not provide off-street connections
Length of Bike Paths
1 Provides off-road bike path along both sides of corridor
0 Provides off-road bike path on one side or in center of corridor
-1 Does not provide off-road bike path
Design plans (Bikes lanes to be provided in all designs)
Connectivity of bike paths - missing connections
2 Provides off-street connections to existing networks
1 Provides a mix of on- and off-street connections
0 Does not provide off-street connections
Design plans
Support access to future development
Increase space for community gatherings or
activities
5.02
Objective
Data Source
Total amount of contiguous space
Design plans
Additional sidewalks integrated with existing walking network. Allows curb
Design plans
access to development parcels
Measure
Create a Destination and Sense of Place and Celebrate the Area's Architectural, Transportation and Open Space History
-1 Few connections are provided along attractive, pedestrian-friendly
pathways
Comparison of existing and proposed pathways to desire lines
Provide clear, direct pedestrian access through
1 Pathways match most desire lines
Station circulation analysis; design plans
the station to connect surrounding areas
0 Pathways match some desire lines
-1 Pathways mats few desire lines
Measure of direct/indirect impacts to number of businesses located within
project area
Reduce impacts to Residences
Aerial maps
1
0
-1
Enhance local connections to activity centers
5.01
#
Goal 5
4.03
4.02
4.01
6.01
#
Goal 6
5.02
Number of public space areas
Data Source
Design plans, aerial maps
Measure
Measure of visual quality along New Washington Street
1
0
-1
Enhance visual quality - (Edge) This seems
vague and hard to quantify. DE
Design plans
Objective
Improve the Visibility, Connectivity Character? and Access to Gateway Open Spaces
Increase space for community gatherings or
activities