Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
July 11, 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: Third Public Information Meeting1
Meeting Notes of June 29 20112
Overview & Executive Summary
On June 29, 2011 the MassDOT team for the Casey Overpass Replacement Project Planning Study held the third of
five public information meetings associated with the six month planning study. These public information meetings have
been and will continue to alternate with the meetings of the Working Advisory Group (WAG). The next WAG meeting is
scheduled for July 13, 2011 from 6:00-8:00 p.m. at the State Laboratory on South Street. While WAG meetings are
open to the public, they constitute working sessions of the WAG and as such, committee business is given precedence.
The following WAG session, July 27th will also be held at the State Laboratory.
During the meeting, committee members presented several WAG session’s worth of work to the community. This
included:
 Three at-grade options for the New Washington Street area.
 A bridge option combined with basic improvements to the at-grade network.
Design team members also presented early concepts for Shea Circle and a concept for improving Washington Street
west of Forest Hills Station. Both of these areas were identified as problems by WAG members. Reaction to the
concepts presented was generally positive. Key concerns expressed by audience members included ensuring that traffic
flows smoothly in the Casey Overpass corridor and that traffic flow is balanced with bicycle and pedestrian accessibility.
A major next step for the project team is to take the feedback obtained at this meeting and apply it to the concepts
presented. These concepts will then be further developed into alternatives and evaluation criteria, also developed in
concert with the WAG, applied to them. The alternatives and how they perform with regard to the evaluation criteria
will be presented at the next community meeting.
Presentation & Discussion
John Romano the project’s municipal liaison opened the meeting by welcoming the audience and thanking them for
their attendance. He then recognized Representative Russell Holmes, Nikka Elugardo from Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz’s
office, Robert Torres from Representative Liz Malia’s office, Julieanne Doherty from Mayor Thomas Menino’s office,
1
Meeting attendance is listed in Appendix 1. Comments received from the public immediately prior to, at, and after the meeting are listed in Appendix 2.
2
This meeting was advertised in the Boston Globe, Baystate (Boston) Banner, Roslindale/West Roxbury Transcript, the Jamaica Plain Gazette, and the Dorchester/Mattapan Reporter.
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Kate Chang from Congressman Michael Capuano’s office, and City Councilor Matthew O’Malley. Also recognized
were Joe Cosgrove of the MBTA and Vineet Gupta of BTD. John noted that members of the WAG have been hard at
work and providing the MassDOT team with strong feedback and good questions. The meeting, he explained, would
give the audience a chance to do same, but given the volume of material that needed to be covered, John requested
that questions and comments be held until after the presentation. For those who did not want to ask their question or
make their comment at the meeting, addressed comment sheets were provided as were full contact information for John
and Paul King (MassDOT). Feedback can also be provided to WAG members.
Following his opening remarks, John turned the meeting over to MassDOT Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) Project
Manager Paul King who briefed the audience on the current status of the project with a short PowerPoint presentation.
Assisting Paul with the presentation were Andrea D’Amato, Dennis Baker, and Don Kindsvatter (all of HNTB), Maureen
Chlebek (McMahon Associates), and WAG members Jeff Ferris, Cathy Slade, Fred Vetterlein, and Wendy Williams.
Highlights of the Presentation3
o The Casey Overpass, while safe as repaired and frequently inspected by MassDOT, has reached a point of
obsolescence and must be demolished. The current six-month planning study represents a historic opportunity
to replace the bridge with a solution, either a bridge, at-grade, or combination of the two that respects and
serves the neighborhood and region. The opportunity is also historic because the project is fully funded
through the Patrick-Murray Administration’s landmark Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP).
o ABP funding will expire on June 30th, 2016. Therefore, the replacement project for the Casey Overpass must
be accomplished on an accelerated timetable. The current planning phase will run through October of 2011.
Between October 2011 and 2013, whichever solution is chosen to replace the Casey Overpass will be
designed and between 2013 and 2016, the preferred alternative will be built.
o The current planning study represents a unique partnership consisting of the following elements:
o MassDOT Highway Division – the current bridge’s owner
o MBTA – which operates the Forest Hills Station, Orange Line, and local bus service
o DCR – owner of the land around the overpass and the Arborway
o The City of Boston
o The Consultant team
o The WAG
o The meeting summarized herein is the third of five community meetings. Thus far, meetings have addressed
purpose, need, and opportunities. The WAG and consultant team are now able to share with the community
initial concepts that will be assembled into alternatives in the next few months. Meeting three deals with
concepts for Shea Circle, New Washington Street and Washington Street along the west side of Forest Hills
Station. An initial bridge concept was also presented.
o Due to the timetable of the ABP, a recommended alternative must be in place by October of 2011. In May,
the project team shared several design extremes with the community. These extremes were never intended to
be built, but instead to show the limits that the WAG and project team would work inward from in developing a
recommended alternative. This process has resulted in the concepts shared at the meeting summarized herein.
The next step, after further work by the WAG and consultant team, will be to share an actual set of alternatives
to which evaluation criteria, also developed by the WAG, will be applied to arrive at a recommended
alternative. In developing the concepts, the WAG has started by looking at the at-grade street network since it
should be improved and because its design has an impact on a potential bridge.
o One of the key at-grade areas identified for improvement by the WAG is New Washington Street which runs
between Washington Street and South Street just to the north of the Forest Hills Station. As the design team
3
A copy of this presentation can be seen at:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyoverpass/downloads/presentation_062911.pdf
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
began to think about this area, it began by noting that the current at-grade network in the area presents a set
of unique challenges and that it would make sense to think of the area as a blank slate to ensure the broadest
range of ideas would be developed to rationalize it. The corridor, however, is not a complete blank and some
challenges must be addressed in trying to improve it. These include:
o The turnaround loop for the Route 39 bus. This loop could potentially be replaced by exclusive bus
lanes in the street system and a priority bus signal that would allow the 39 to reverse direction using
Washington Street where it crosses New Washington Street.
o The ventilation grates over the commuter rail provide for the release of air pressure when high speed
trains pass through Forest Hills Station. The grates have approximately 1,500 square feet of surface
area. They can be moved and reshaped provided 1,500 square feet of surface area is maintained
and grates remain over the commuter rail tunnel. They could be moved to the north side of the
corridor or placed in a median.
o The Orange Line ventilation stack, which includes a set of exit stairs and the starter’s booth for the 39
bus, are currently perpendicular to the corridor. The ventilation stack could be rotated so that it sits
parallel to the corridor. The exit stairway could be split from the stack and pushed to the north side of
the corridor to provide an access point for neighborhoods north of New Washington Street.
o The design team has been working closely with the MBTA on these ideas and the agency has yet to
see any fatal flaws associated with them. The MBTA has given its assent for design work to progress
to the next level.
o The design concepts presented at the meeting are at a 10% level of design. Readers looking at these concepts
using the on-line version of the presentation should bear in mind that while the computer-based tools used by
the design team to sketch the concepts lend the drawings an air of finality, they are in fact very early drafts.
Red hatched areas in the drawings show the existing Casey Overpass, while the brown areas are existing
surface roads that would be relocated.
o The design concepts begin from the idea of trying to accommodate all current traffic, with at-grade roadways.
The initial boundary idea for this included far too much paved area and presented a formidable barrier to
pedestrians and cyclists. As such, the design team began to modify it to achieve the goal with fewer lanes.
These concepts are the result of that exercise. All of the concepts shown can accommodate bicycles,
pedestrians and projected 2035 traffic. None of them will preclude implementation of the Arborway Yards
project or the Forest Hills Improvement Initiative.
o Traditional Intersections – no left turns – Presented by Fred Vetterlein and Maureen Chlebeck:
o This option uses traditional four-way intersections at New Washington Street/South Street and New
Washington Street/Washington Street. Eastbound and westbound left turns, which have a lower
volume than north and southbound left turns, are prohibited.
o This concept provides open space by removing the overpass, restores sight-lines and provides
opportunities for pedestrian access in the median. The loss of all east and westbound left turns would
likely cause significant inconvenience to residents, particularly the approximately 500 households in
the Stony Brook neighborhood.
o The only left-turn that could be more easily dispensed with is the one carrying traffic from the
Arborway off-ramp to South Street northbound.
o This design is one step beyond simply placing 7-8 lanes on the ground. The bow-tie concept, which
seems better, allows left turns but accommodates them in the median outside of the intersections.
o Another idea advanced by the design team4 is the redesign of Washington Street west of Forest Hills
Station. This concept redesigns the upper bus-way to accommodate the 39 bus and widens
Washington Street to accommodate pick-up and drop-off traffic and a bus lane for the 39.
o Bowtie – left turns in the median – Presented by Wendy Williams and Maureen Chlebeck:
o This option accommodates left turns in the median outside the intersection. Eastbound traffic seeking
to go north on Washington Street would continue to the east of Washington Street, make a U-turn in
4
Presenting WAG member Fred Vetterlein termed it “excellent.” This concept is not particularly tied to the traditional
intersection concept, but was raised by the presenter.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
the median, travel westbound to Washington Street and then make the desired move as a right.
Advantages of this option include accommodation of all current traffic moves, a wide median, and the
potential to provide better pick-up and drop-off facilities on New Washington Street. The project team
recognizes that vehicles seeking to make a left will need to travel a slightly longer distance and clear
an additional signal. At the next level of analysis, the impact of the distance and extra signal will be
determined.
o Additional advantages of this approach include improving the link in the Emerald Necklace, improved
sight-lines through the removal of the overpass, and better access at the Arboretum’s Forest Hills
Gate.5
o Potential disadvantages include multiple lanes for pedestrians to cross and curb lines at the
Arboretum’s Forest Hills Gate.
o WAG members would still like to information about the following with regard to this option:
 How Morton Street and Orchard Hill Road would connect to the new street layout.
 School and MBTA bus circulation and whether buses would be able to use the bowtie’s Uturn lanes.
 How cyclists and pedestrians would navigate the new layout.
o Continuous flow – Presented by Cathy Slade and Maureen Chlebeck:
o The nearest continuous flow intersection to the Casey Overpass is in New Jersey. This intersection
type is new, but very efficient in terms of processing large vehicle volumes.
o This intersection type allows left turns to be made from the opposite side of the road so that the
through movement can continue to move at the same time. For example, westbound traffic seeking to
go left on Hyde Park Avenue would cross the median and then make the left from lanes along the
southern edge of the corridor. All movements are controlled by signals to avoid conflicts.
o Pedestrians only have to cross two lanes of traffic at any given time, but the pedestrian and bicycle
environment is more complex because of the need to look for traffic in both directions. The decision
points, where motorists need to get into various lanes to make their desired turns, occur earlier than in
a traditional intersection. Therefore additional signage is required.
o This option is generally regarded as creative and capable of accommodating all modes. The wide
green space made available by this approach would help to reconnect the Emerald Necklace, remove
the barrier of the Casey Overpass and help Forest Hills feel like more of a neighborhood and not just
a transportation hub.
o Concerns include:  Pick-up and drop-off accommodations on New Washington Street.  Additional signals leading to additional delay.  Potentially complex bicycle and pedestrian crossings. o Shea Circle – Presented by Maureen Chlebeck:
o Based on feedback from the WAG, the design team is pursuing two options for Shea Circle,
maintaining a rotary or converting it into a signalized intersection.
o The signalized intersection option greatly improves pedestrian and bicycle access, but has the potential
to remove some or all of the large, mature trees that occupy the center island of the existing rotary.
o The rotary options include condensing the number of approaches down to four and/or installing
pedestrian signals to enhance pedestrian access.
o These are early concepts only. More work remains to be done on Shea Circle.
o Washington Street west of Forest Hills Station – Presented by Don Kindsvatter:
o Washington Street west of Forest Hills Station was identified by WAG members as a major problem
area in Forest Hills. Issues include:
 The double intersection at the ramps to and from the Arborway.
 Conflicts with buses coming off South Street to turn around.
 Cars parked on Asticou Road for pick-up and drop-off.
5
The design team currently envisions that the western U-turn of the bowtie could also be used to improve pedestrian
access at this location.
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
 Conflicts with the double-parked taxis and cars in the taxi stand.  The 2, 250-foot long aisles of the upper bus-way are at capacity.
 The connection from the Southwest Corridor Park to the Arboretum’s Blackwell Gate is weak. o To address these issues, the design team has developed a concept which shaves land from the western
edge of the Forest Hills Station property to:
 Extend the Southwest Corridor paths for pedestrians and cyclists almost all the way to the
Blackwell Gate. Near the gate, where the corridor narrows, a mixed-use path would be
installed.
 Create a dedicated pick-up and drop-off lane that would work for kiss-and-ride users and
school buses. Taxis would be accommodated on New Washington Street.
 Extend the bicycle lanes on Washington Street all the way north from Ukraine Way to the
sharrows on South Street.
 There are two potential options to accommodate the 39 bus in this concept:
 Keep the current turnaround loop.
 Expand the upper bus-ways by placing additional deck over the railroad tracks. An
exclusive bus lane would bring buses up to the light at South Street/New Washington
Street and a priority signal would help them cross the street.
 The MBTA has been fully briefed on this option and sees no fatal flaws at this stage.
o Bridge concept – Presented by Jeff Ferris and Dennis Baker:
o The complete removal of the existing Casey Overpass offers a number of unique opportunities for a
replacement bridge given the wide corridor available. The removal of the formerly elevated Orange
Line also means that a new bridge could be much shorter both in terms of height and length than the
current structure. It could also have fewer lanes.
o The at-grade network informs where a new bridge would be placed in the corridor in terms of
connections and supporting members. Therefore, consideration of the at-grade solutions is somewhat
further advanced than the bridge concept. This does not mean that options for a new bridge will not
be fully investigated.
o If some traffic is placed on a new viaduct, the at-grade street network will need to carry less traffic.
The design team has asked McMahon Associates to develop a basic at-grade network that assumes a
new bridge. The result is two lanes in most of the corridor with turning lanes at the intersections.
Initial traffic modeling suggests this option is viable.
o The initial bridge concept includes:
 Two, single lane bridges straddling the at-grade network.
 Sidewalks are pushed to the outside of the bridges to provide connections to other pedestrian
amenities while access ramps are pushed to the inside to connect to the at-grade roadway
network.
 This means an under-bridge environment with plenty of air and light.
o The project team is looking to both the WAG and community for ideas about what would be
important in terms of bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and so forth with regards to a bridge.
o The two bridge concept is predicated on the idea that if the bridge should be a connector for bicycles
and pedestrians, that the structure’s sidewalks should connect the rest of the pedestrian/bicycle
network. Ideally, a cyclist who is at the Arboretum should be able to ride east to Franklin Park or
Forest Hills Cemetery without interruption.
o Regardless of how well the bridge accommodates cyclists and pedestrians; bicycle and pedestrian
facilities should also be excellent at-grade however the bridge would present the opportunity for
through cyclists or pedestrians in the Emerald Necklace to skip the intersections in Forest Hills.
o The bridge creates some questions, one which is assuming the bridge is a single travel lane with a
breakdown lane at the shoulder, there will be a wider segment of roadway and effectively, whether it’s
identified as a bicycle lane or not, confident cyclists will likely use it as one. There is also the issue of
the sidewalk which could be a multi-use path since some cyclists may want to use it. A comfortable
multi-use path is probably about 14 feet wide. A standard six foot sidewalk with a fence on one side
and barrier on the other is probably too narrow.
o On the bowtie concept there was an option for a pedestrian crossing at the Arboretum’s Forest Hills
Gate, but that seems to go away in this option so that brings up the idea of putting a two-way, shared
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
path on the south side of the bridge. Do we want a shared path on the north side of the bridge to
access the Arborway Hillside? Some of us here did a walkthrough of the Hillside and expanding its
use as a park creates opportunities for the Hampstead neighborhood to access Franklin Park.
o The Emerald Necklace is a fabulous 19th century park which got cut up for cars in the 20th century.
Ideally it would be used like the Minute Man Bike Trail or the Esplanade with thousands of people
using it.
o We have opportunities and questions regarding the bridge: does it need a sidewalk? Does it need to
accommodate pedestrians? If there is bicycle and pedestrian access, it creates questions about bridge
height and length. Anyone who has used the bridge knows that it presents a long, steep climb. If the
bridge was a little lower, it would be more attractive to cyclists and pedestrians. A wider sidewalk
would allow the access of machinery to keep the path clean. A split bridge would lighten the area
underneath the bridge, but the total amount of shadow could be the same.
Andrea D’Amato concluded the presentation section of the meeting by thanking the WAG for its efforts and
complimenting members for their sophistication in addressing the complex issues associated with the replacement of the
Casey Overpass. She explained that at the next community meeting, the WAG and design team would be able to
share alternatives based on the concepts discussed herein. The goal of the planning study is to arrive at a
recommended alternative and at the heart of that exercise are the measures of evaluation (MOE). These measures will
be used to evaluate alternatives in a balanced and equal manner. Developing the measures is the result of significant
work by the design team and WAG. This work takes into account all of the previous studies and plans for the Forest
Hills area. Above the MOE are the following eight guiding principles developed by the WAG:
•Improve safety for all users.
•Address a structurally deficient bridge.
•Protect and respect the design for Arborway Yard.
•Develop alternatives that meet Accelerated Bridge Program budget and schedule.
•Adopt Principles of Universal Design (accessible and barrier-free design).
•Strive to have an inclusive process for the sharing of information.
•Improve quality of life for residents.
•Integrate artistic elements in designs.
These guiding principles have been used as fatal flaw criteria and several concepts have already been dismissed for
failing to meet one or more of these criteria. The design team is currently working to reduce the 93 objectives given to
it by the WAG to a manageable list of between 12 and 15 measurable objectives which will be used to inform the
measures of evaluation. At the next community meeting, the WAG and design team will share these measures of
evaluation, a set of alternatives, and regional traffic models for those alternatives.
Question & Answer Session
John Romano began the question and answer session by explaining that he would take questions going from right to
left across the audience. He also asked at attendees with a question or comment state their name for the record and
note if they were WAG members.
Q: Ralph Walton (RW): When you were discussing the conditions around Shea Circle, which is an area that has seen
some pedestrian fatalities, you appeared to be eager to add some more traffic signals, but you didn’t say if they’d
supplant the signals at Cemetery Road and whether they would be connected to them.
A: Maureen Chlebek (MC): If we signalize that area, those signals would be coordinated with those at Cemetery
Road. Right now we’re just trying to see what the best approach for Shea Circle is and determine how we should
proceed to address a problem area that the WAG brought to our attention.
A: Andrea D’Amato (AD): We have yet to apply the fatal flaw criteria to Shea Circle. This area can be designed
separately in that it works like a puzzle piece that can fit with any of the concepts under discussion for the middle of
the corridor. We’re digging into Shea Circle next and we’ll be asking questions like how much of the rotary needs
to be preserved? These were just schematic drawings to get your feedback. When we see you next time, they’ll be
much more refined.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Michael Reiskind (MR): I’m on the WAG and while I have made a few jokes about tunnels during our meetings, I’d
like to ask for a bridge alternative that includes a tunnel under Shea Circle. This means that east-west through
traffic would go over Forest Hills on the viaduct and then pass under the circle in a tunnel. It solves your problem
with the circle and many of the problems Jeff mentioned with the weak link in the Emerald Necklace.
A: MC: The last time we spoke about a tunnel, we discussed one for New Washington Street. This isn’t something
we’ve heard about before, so we’ll need to think about it further.
A: Kate Chang (KC): I greatly applaud Michael Reiskind’s idea and I think it’s innovative, but before we go too far
down that path, I want it understood that this is federal funds for a bridge project, not a miniature Big Dig.
A: Steve McLaughlin (SM): One point of clarification: there are no federal funds associated with this project. Right
now it is funded entirely by the Commonwealth through the Transportation Bond Bill that created the ABP. There
are some federally funded projects under the Accelerated Bridge Program. Again, this project is not federally
funded.
Q: Anne McKinnon (AM): The first speaker who discussed the traditional intersection – what does bus relocation have
to do with that?
A: Fred Vetterlein (FV): I brought that up because it’s a good alternative; I wanted people to think about it.
A: AD: The WAG members came up to tell you about the meetings we’ve had with them and the advice that they gave
us. What they told you about were things they had asked us to address.
Q: AM: In your guiding principles when you say you won’t impact the Arborway Yards, is that the MBTA’s bus palace
or John Dalzell’s eight acre parcel?
A: AD: We are saying that we won’t touch any of the property; it’s the Arborway Yards. No impacts on it whatsoever.
C: AM: I’d like it clarified as MBTA. How does Shea Circle being on the National Register impact the planning?
A: SM: If it is in fact on the Register it would impact the design, but we are looking at those areas the WAG directed
us to.
A: Don Kindsvatter (DK): We will be looking into this issue with Joe Orfant and some of the other DCR folks. I’m not
sure how Shea Circle and this segment of the Arborway is described in the Register so we just don’t know yet.
C: AM: I think that would be important. On the at-grade you only had one surface street alternative associated with
the bridge design. Fewer lanes are needed with a bridge, but several surface street options could be tied into a
bridge. It’s important that we have more options to comment on. I want to see some creativity applied to that.
A: Dennis Baker (DB): You will have an opportunity to see more of those. We just wanted a concept that we could
use to draw out comments and questions regarding a bridge. We want you to tell us what’s important about a
bridge and at-grade solutions.
C: Jeff Rand (JR): I’d like the group to tell us about how your at-grade solutions would work during the peak hour.
Your presentation was excellent, but I’d like to see how this would all work. We all know what happens with traffic
when there are excessive wait times. People get frustrated, there are accidents, and the opportunity to better
connect the Emerald Necklace would be lost.
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: MC: That’s a good comment; let me explain a little further about the traffic analysis. We have been analyzing
these and have already done one cut of traffic analysis to see if the concepts are worthy of additional
consideration. The concepts you saw here tonight passed the initial test. After this, CTPS will be modeling these
options in the regional model and based on that we’ll do another round of analysis. When we narrow it down to
just a few options among which we’ll pick, we will have traffic simulations that you will see in a meeting.
C: Mark Tedrow (MT): I’m a year round bicycle commuter from Roslindale. The continuous flow option has me
concerned about how I’d do it and how the kids who go to and from this school every day would cross it.
A: MC: If we move forward with that option, we’ll be adding bicycle and pedestrian amenities, but to be fair, that
intersection does represent a challenge for pedestrians and cyclists.
Q: Jeff Ferris (JF): On the WAG. How do you weigh how well the intersection works at non-peak times, which is 80%
of the time versus those four peak hours?
A: MC: As you know we usually look at peaks and it if it works at the peak hour it will work off-peak, but we’re not
designing these intersections to operate at LOS A or B during rush hour. We’re working with you and the rest of
the WAG to come back with a traffic analysis where we take out a through lane or make other changes to shrink
the amount of pavement and determine what could be an acceptable LOS for the area.
C: Erica Quigley (EQ): I love that people are talking about connecting green spaces. As a user of all modes, I go
from Green Street to the Boston Nature Center and the easier it is for me to drive the more likely I am to do so.
The only thing that’s going to cause attrition and get people to switch to other modes is to make things truly awful
for cars. You need a certain amount of flow to get people through, but I’d encourage you to increase the signals
and wait times to make driving less pleasant. I would also advocate for signage in the Forest Hills Station that
shows you what green spaces can be accessed from there.
A: Michael Halle (MH): One thing we have talked about as the WAG is that because of the characteristics of the
roadways and because they are DCR roadways, the transit connections east-west through Forest Hills and over the
Casey Overpass just aren’t there. There are a small number of people taking the bike route, but for the most part
people are forced to drive. We’ve raised the issue that if there were an east-west express bus, you could address
demand not met in years.
Q: Bill Cadogan (BC): Are you considering the use of ITS traffic controls. Everyone runs these times and from a
control engineer’s point-of-view, that’s just a refuge for the weak. If you put in ITS and traffic optimization and
networked signals you would save a lot of fuel.
A: AD: Yes, we’re working with the City and DCR to do that.
C: Barbara Crichlow (BCw): This is my first meeting as a WAG member and my concern is that my end of Morton
Street will be congested. The traffic needs to flow. If you put all those cars at-grade with six traffic lights, they are
going to find a way to go through West Seldon Street and the neighborhoods. There’s another ABP project going
over the commuter rail near where I live and where will those cars go? We need to protect the neighborhoods
because that’s where the children and senior citizens are. I’d rather see a bridge that gets people out of the
neighborhoods. If we don’t do this right, it will go terribly wrong.
A: MC: We are working with CTPS and Scott Peterson on this; he’s here tonight. When we get to alternatives, we’ll be
running them in the regional model to see where traffic goes if it leaves the network.
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: BCw: Please make sure they include the intersection of Gallivan Boulevard and Morton Street. We have a real
problem with speeding at that intersection and there are two schools there.
C: Bernie Doherty (BD): I’m a WAG member and I live on Asticou Road and when Barbara uses the term terrible,
she’s right. If we get this wrong, the impacts could be terrible. We need to make decisions based on what will
happen to the Forest Hills community first and what happens further out second. The car won’t be going away. I’d
love to believe that everyone will jump on a bike, but it will never happen. I’m just reflecting the facts as they are.
Synchronization doesn’t work, cars don’t diffuse and leave and we all run the risk of making things terrible here. I
want to make sure we are pushing for our particular points of view, but I want to make sure that the people who
live here are considered uppermost.
C: No name given (NNG): I’ve lived in Forest Hills for 40 years: first on Lotus Street and now on Walk Hill Street. I
think this is a 9-5 solution because on weekends I can move around. This is a major commuter route. Beginning
in 1985 with the construction of the Central Artery we saw people going this way to get to Longwood and
Cambridge. Traffic does back up here on both Hyde Park Avenue and South Street and so you have a difficult
point and solution. About five years ago, I began to see cars parked on Walk Hill Street and I realized they were
commuters from Randolph and Brockton who were driving to Jamaica Plain and taking the Orange Line to work.
We have to share our transportation assets and so they have to work for everyone. I’d also add the issue of
signalization, Vineet is here and that’s good, but the signals don’t work very well and they do back up. I do often
think twice about driving in the area because of it.
Q: Andrew Padilla (AP): I live on Rossmore Road and I’ve heard a lot of people in the neighborhood talking about
what traffic will look like during construction. We’ll be heavily impacted and I’m not sure at what point we’ll find
out what sorts of ways people will have to get around during demolition and construction. Do you have any
thoughts?
A: John Romano (JR): At the beginning of the presentation we went over the overall process for replacing the Casey
Overpass from planning through construction’s end. Once we get out of the planning phase and into the 25%
design process we’ll be talking with the community about construction staging. It’s an important stage of the
process; we’re just not there yet.
A: MH: That comes up regularly in the WAG and we won’t lose sight of it.
A: JR: Yes. We hear that all the time and we won’t forget it. It’s always part of our normal process, but we need to
get out of the planning phase first.
C: No name given2 (NNG2): I live between Williams and Rossmore and I’m a proponent of the bridge. I have to
commute by car and I have a real sense of traffic. We have to be concerned about making sure emergency
vehicles can get through because people’s lives are at stake.
A: JR: Good point.
C: Caryn Kauffman (CK): I think the Shea Circle area works well for traffic, as a traffic calming device, but not for
bicycles and pedestrians. I think you could avoid making changes to it beyond just improving things for bicycles
and pedestrians.
A: JR: O.K. thank you for that.
Q: Nikka Elugardo (NE): Can you show the sliders from the second community meeting?
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: AD: At the second community meeting, we showed some boundary options, ideas that we wouldn’t build, but that
we would work in from to find the recommended alternative. One concept maximizes green space and tries to
replicate Olmstead’s design at the expense of traffic flow. Another one maximizes traffic flow at the expense of
green space. In thinking about the how we would balance extremes to arrive at a recommended alternative that
enjoys reasonable consensus, we presented a slide that showed a set of sliders, sort of like dimmer switches and
that various options would push the sliders into different positions. As we showed with the boundary options, a
concept that maximizes green space at the expense of everything else could create unacceptable traffic conditions.
This is a simplified way of thinking about what the WAG will be doing with its evaluation criteria.
C: Allan Ihrer (AI): I’m a WAG member and I live in the Stony Brook neighborhood. I have a lot of neighbors here
tonight and I think we’re all concerned for our neighborhood and the way traffic is such a barrier that we can’t talk
to our neighbors across the street or let our children cross the street and that’s all day long. If anyone is interested
in the conditions in the corridor, go up to the bridge between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning. I suspect a bridge is
really needed here. Lunch time traffic is bad as well. I’m asking folks to pay attention to life in the neighborhoods,
on Wenham Street and Wachusett Street and in the Stony Brook neighborhood. When I worked on the Arborway
Yards with Ralph Denisco from BTD, he told us that there are just too many cars in Boston and you can’t make
things work better with signals because if you adjust them in one place, it messes them up somewhere else. I don’t
think we can solve our problems by making cars zip through Forest Hills. When I saw the drawing with the two,
one-lane bridges, I thought that it was a design that tried to accommodate everyone’s sacred cows, dealing with
pedestrians and bikes and cars and light underneath the bridge. Maybe what we need to do is just look at what’s
really important. Maybe we need to look at getting traffic through the area and making the streets more workable
and just focus on pedestrian and bike accommodations at grade. As far as an express bus, we’ll need one, and
right now we’re not seeing anything that can accommodate that. To get one, we’d need to speak with the Emerald
Necklace folks to let them allow transit buses on a part of their roadway system. If everyone can pitch in and give
up on one or two of their most pious wishes, we could actually get something great here.
C: Sarah Freed (SF): I live south of Shea Circle and I drive to work and walk up to South Street regularly. I know you
will be thinking about pedestrian access in your next iteration, but whatever you come up with, please think about
how it will work when there’s lots of snow on the ground.
C: JR: All right, folks, that’s it. Thank you for coming down tonight. Have a happy and safe July 4th and remember to
send us your input. There is no Fast 14 work this weekend, but we are doing the Cedar Street Bridge in Wellesley.
Please remember to sign in if you didn’t already do so.
Next Steps
The next major public involvement milestones in the process will be the July WAG meetings both of which will run from
6:00-8:00 p.m. at the State Laboratory on South Street. The meetings will be on July 13th and 27th respectively. An
additional WAG meeting is tentatively slated for mid-August. The next community meeting, which was originally
scheduled for August, is now planned for mid-September.
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Dennis
Baker
HNTB
Phoenix
Boulay
Resident
Jody
Burr
WAG
Bill
Cadogan
Resident
Kate
Chang
Office of Congressman Capuano
Todd
Consentino
Resident
Joe
Cosgrove
MBTA
Barbara
Crichlow
WAG
Andrea
D’Amato
HNTB
Dorothy
Daily
Resident
Renie
DeKere
Resident
Lorain
DelaPorta
Resident
Bob
Dizon
WAG
Julieanne
Doherty
Office of Mayor Menino
Bernie
Doherty
WAG
Nikka
Elugardo
Office of Representative Chang-Diaz
Don
Eunson
WAG
Jeffrey
Ferris
WAG
Francesca
Fordiani
Resident
Liz
Forsythe
Resident
Sarah
Freeman
WAG
Vineet
Gupta
BTD
Michael
Halle
WAG
John
Hassen
Boston Police - Captain
Richard
Heath
Resident
Mary
Hickie
WAG
Russell
Holmes
Representative
Melanie
Howard
Resident
Justin
Humphreys
Resident
Jim
Hunnewell
Resident
Olie
Ibrahim
Resident
Allan
Ihrer
WAG
Minden
Jones
Resident
Swati
Joshi
Resident
Caryn
Kauffman
Resident
Jim
Don
Kilmurray
Kindsvatter
Resident
HNTB
Paul
Deacon
King
Marvel
MassDOT
Resident
D.
Matten
Resident
Jonathan
McCurdy
Resident
Bill
McCurtin
Resident
Anne
McKinnon
Resident
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT
Suzanne
Monk
WAG
Paul
Nelson
MassDOT
Jack
Neuwirth
Resident
Matthew
O’Malley
City Councilor
Rebecca
Oleveira
Jamaica Plain Gazette
Andrew
Padilla
Resident
Scott
Peterson
CTPS
Essek
Petrie
HNTB
Erica
Quigley
Resident
Jeff
Rand
Resident
Michael
Reiskind
WAG
John
Romano
MassDOT
Michael
Ruderman
MassDOT
Dean
Rusk
Resident
Jeffrey
Sanchez
Representative
Cathy
Slade
WAG
Laura
Smeaton
Resident
Amy
Smith
Resident
Mark
Tedrow
Resident
Robert
Torres
Office of Representative Malia
Fred
Vetterlein
WAG
Ralph
Walton
Resident
Emily
Wheelwright
WAG
Wendy
Williams
WAG
Kevin
Wolfson
WAG
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Comments Received
See following page
Page 13