Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
June 22, 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:
Second Working Advisory Group (WAG) Meeting
Meeting Notes of June 14, 2011
Overview & Executive Summary
On June 14, 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 two conducted by the WAG in
preparation for the third public meeting, scheduled for June 29th. 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 had three parts: discussion of the BRA development numbers being used to
generate local trips for the 2035 projections, a conversation regarding the at-grade options discussed at the
June 2nd WAG Meeting, and small group reporting on ideas for a bridge concept.


BRA Development Numbers:
o The amount of square footage the BRA predicts will be developed in Forest Hills by 2035 has
been adjusted down to roughly 80% of what was in the Forest Hills Improvement Initiative
report. This is based on permits issued by the BRA which stipulate less than the maximum
amount of development on the permitted parcel and conversations with property owners.
Even if the total amount of development in the area varies by 20% in either direction, the
traffic modeling being used builds in enough flexibility to account for it.
o The WAG has generally accepted the development numbers being used by the project team
as supplied by the BRA and will not revisit them; however, the group cautioned the project
team to continue its policy of strict honesty with the committee, based in part on previous
bad experiences with the MBTA.
At-Grade Ideas:
o In all at-grade ideas, the WAG remains focused on ensuring strong bicycle and pedestrian
access; at the very least maintaining and ideally improving the operations of the 39 bus, and
other buses, are likewise important.
o The group was divided regarding the ideas put forward for the west side of Forest Hills
Station. While some group members lauded this concept an even balancing of the needs of
all transportation modes, which draws on ideas provided by the WAG, and has the
opportunity to improve MBTA bus service, other members stated that it would only harm the
operation of the 39 bus and represents a problematic level of departure from the WAG’s
original charter.
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

Bridge Ideas:
o The group was relatively evenly split over whether there should be a single bridge structure
or two structures. The WAG was likewise divided as to whether or not bicycles and
pedestrian accommodations could be dispensed with on the bridge if they were excellently
provided at-grade.
o WAG members expressed consensus regarding that the bridge should be as narrow as
possible to lessen its shadow impacts. Shadows should fall along roadways and not
parkland. The area beneath the bridge should be as light and airy as possible to make it
feel like part of the community. Ideally, the under-bridge space should lend itself to artistic
or retail use.
Discussion of Old Business
C: John Romano (JR): Thank you for being here everyone at our fifth WAG meeting or meeting 3B. As we
said at the end of our last meeting, we’re shooting for 8:30 as our time to wrap up, but we may run over
a bit.
C: Andrea D’Amato (AD): Everyone should have an agenda. As usual, we have lots to cover tonight. Last
time we looked at at-grade options and discussed how the at-grade situation impacts a bridge and
therefore naturally goes before it. Today we’ll look at a bridge and the measures of evaluation. These
are all things we need to look at in preparation for the June 29th public meeting. We will need four of
you to present at that event. Before we get into those items we have some old business to address.
Bernie has been asking us about the development projections and we will go over them again. Sarah
and Michael have asked us about the possibility of an underpass, similar to the one taking
Commonwealth Avenue under Massachusetts Avenue as a possibility to connect Washington Street to
the Hyde Park corridor. We have begun to analyze whether that could happen, but we don’t have it for
today, we’ll have it for the next WAG meeting and give you the pros and cons of it.
C: Michael Halle (MH): I actually dropped the footprint of the Massachusetts Avenue crossing into the
profile; I could say a few words about it.
A: AD: Please go over that with Dennis off line. The other thing everyone has asked us about is paper
copies of the meeting materials and today we’ll be giving you all that paper. We know there’s a lot of
text and this will give you time to review it.
C: Jeff Ferris (JF): The layouts would be some of the most helpful items for us to have.
A: AD: We heard you and carefully took note; you’ll get it all.
At this point, Andrea turned the meeting over to Tad Read of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) and
Gary McNaughton (McMahon Associates) who briefed the WAG on the development plans for the Forest
Hills area. These plans are significant since the amount and type of square footage built drives, along with
numbers from the CTPS regional model, the projected number of trips to be run through any replacement
for the Casey Overpass. Highlights of this presentation1 included the following:

The main source for local development plans that impact traffic projections for 2035 comes from the
Forest Hills Improvement Initiative. This plan includes the following design parcels:
o The Arborway Yards
1
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/presentation_061411.pdf
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
o
o
o
o
o
o
The Fitzgerald Parking Lot
The MBTA Parking Lot
Parcel W
Parcel V
3521 Washington Street
3615 Washington Street

At present the BRA holds two sets of numbers for each parcel: the square footage or number of
dwelling units originally set down in the Forest Hills Improvement Initiative and an adjusted number
based on either discussions with property holders or approved development plans filed with the
agency. This second set of numbers should be deemed a more accurate reflection of future
conditions than the first. Many of the numbers have been adjusted downward because the
developer has filed plans that call for building less square footage than the maximum possible on
the site in question. Adjustments include the following:
o The lessors of parcels V and W have permits on file with the BRA. These permits stipulate
less structure than originally predicted in the Improvement Initiative.
o Numbers associated with the Fitzgerald Parking Lot have likewise been adjusted downward.
While no permits have been filed, this is based on a conversation with the owner of the
property regarding his intentions for it.
o The Arborway Yards plans currently included a larger MBTA bus facility; therefore the
amount of land available for private development has been adjusted down to 330,000
square feet from an original amount of 348,000.
o The two parcels on Washington Street have also had their numbers adjusted down based on
conversations with the owners and ideas discussed by these owners in public forums with the
Jamaica Plain Community.

These numbers represent the BRA’s best understanding of the future development picture for the
Forest Hills area between now and 2035. The adjusted amount of square footage expected to be
built is approximately 826,000 or roughly 80% of what was projected under the Forest Hills
Improvement Initiative.

The development numbers provided by the BRA are being used by McMahon Associates to project
2035 vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian and transit trips. These numbers are then added to CTPS regional
projections to give a fully nuanced view of future traffic. The CTPS model is fiscally constrained and
represents one of the most sensitive tools for these types of projections.

Using the revised numbers provided by the BRA, the project team believes that projected
development in Forest Hills will create an additional 830 vehicle trips during the peak hour in 2035.
This is compared to 820 trips that would be generated just using the Forest Hills Improvement
Initiative numbers.2 These 830 will be dispersed across the entire roadway network and no one
development is expected to have a huge impact by itself. The modeling used by the project team
contains enough flexibility to accurately project traffic volumes in a 20% range based on square
footage of surrounding developments. Therefore developed square footage by 2035 can vary by
20% in either direction without major impacts on the traffic projections.
Q: David Hannon (DH): Parcels V and W are being leased? I thought they would be sold.
A: Tad Read (TR): They are 99 year leases so for all practical purposes it’s like they’ve been sold. They
won’t change hands while I’m alive.
Q: Kevin Moloney (KM): If you adjust the square footage down, just that address today? That seems frozen
in time.
2
This is due to the slightly higher proportion of retail space in the adjusted numbers.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: Gary McNaughton (GM): Some of the adjustments have been made for parcels that haven’t been
permitted yet.
Q: KM: So why are you adjusting them down then?
A: TR: Two adjustments have been made because permits have been issued and structures will be built.
Buildings tend to last between 40 and 60 years. That takes us beyond the planning period. Right now
parcels V and W will likely be built next year so we won’t see a change in the structure on the site by
2035. On the other parcels, the developers could do something different, but these are the best
numbers we can get right now.
Q: MH: For the residential housing units I buy what you’re saying. Buildings put up in 1985 are still
standing today. That makes sense to me. My question is on the retail side. Could a new use, if retail
closes, drive the trip count higher or is that not an issue?
A: GM: Retail is the highest of any generator, so if a retail site closes and it’s converted to something else
that isn’t retail, the trip count would only go lower.
C: Bernie Doherty (BD): Now in that is the Casey Overpass where from late 2013 to 2016 there will be
demolition and construction. Traffic will slow down badly. Once the replacement is in, what will the
impacts be? Building out the Arborway Yard, all the other locations, what do you think the impacts will
be, how long will they last? Have you factored that in? I’ve gone through building the Forest Hills
Station in this community and when the Arborway was reconfigured to accommodate it and I know how
little it takes to mess things up. I appreciate these numbers, but you are asking us to accept an awful lot
because we all know things will happen differently down the road. I’m surprised about the leasing of
parcels U and W because we were told they would be sold by the MBTA for a profit. Make your
statements clear to us. We don’t want to hear about 99 year leases. Yesterday I went to a hearing at
City Hall conducted by Matt O’Malley and the only terms I can think about it in are those of
disappointment and disrespect. The MBTA officials there didn’t understand the issues; they claimed they
were still examining it. They disrespected us and the elected officials by failing to have the data at their
fingertips.
A: GM: All I can say is I’m present this information as straightforward as I know it.
C: JR: I hope everyone at this table since March understands by now that we’ve been laying everything on
the table and being honest. At the first meeting, you though we had a set of drawings in our pocket and
I hope you understand by now that we don’t. We’re here with an open slate. I know you don’t want to
hear this Bernie, but I can’t fix 10 years ago or 20 years ago. The lease on the MBTA land, it makes no
difference to the traffic. Joe Cosgrove says 99 year leases and I take him at his word. We have to make
some assumptions to make a plan. We can’t plan every change and if we try to, the Casey Overpass will
fall down while we’re doing it. At some point, we have to trust each other or give up. We’ve been
honest with you and we want you to work with us. Gary says they can be out by 20% and still
accommodate the traffic. Will you be able to come back in 2035 and say we were out by 20% and that
we lied? Nobody knows. We really need to move on. We’ve done the best we can to not keep
anything back. We’re doing everything we can to get all the input from you, your officials and your
agencies. It won’t be what everyone wants, but it will be the best possible result we can get and to do
that you need to trust the numbers a bit. The model accounts for changes, but we can’t account for
everything and if I said we could I’d definitely be lying. I think we’re doing a decent job here. Bernie is
right that things will change a little bit, but you’ve done a ton of good work as a group and we need to
move ahead.
A: JF: In the interest of moving forward I agree. The big transportation issue is that this is a node and
people are coming from all directions and that’s the traffic we’re dealing with. Development is
important in the local sense, but the implication of 10 or 50 units is small compared with regional traffic.
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
We want to see this effort be successful. Our challenge is to make the area desirable for people so it will
be nice whether we get the high numbers or the low numbers.
C: JR: At the end of this, we want to make sure we’re proud of our solution. When we’re done here, I want
this to be good. I want to come back to Jamaica Plain which I didn’t know at all when we started this
project and say “I had a hand in this.” But I ask that all of you move forward from the issue of the
development numbers. We have to get moving and keep punching away.3
Discussion of Meeting 3A Concepts
Options for New Washington Street
A: GM: I wanted to take some time to go over what we heard regarding the at-grade concepts. As you
recall, Option A, is the traditional intersection with no east-west left turns. We did the list of pros and
cons for you based on your feedback: it lets you take down the bridge and gives you good site lines, but
the missing lefts are really hard on residents. Maybe combined with the bowtie approach this could
work, but this concept as I’m showing it to you now probably doesn’t have much life left in it. All of this
is in your packets so you can review it at your leisure.
Q: DH: In the traditional intersections, what happens when you allow the left turns?
A: GM: You wind up with a much bigger paved area and the bicycle and pedestrian crossings get longer. It
becomes much less desirable for those modes and the urban design aspect is hard too. We agreed it’s a
lot of pavement, probably too much.
Q: Kevin Wolfson (KW): What happens if you just turn the left lanes into left turn lanes?
A: GM: When you put in the signals and left the turns, you wind up needing an exclusive left turn phase on
the signal. That makes it less efficient because everyone’s green time gets shorter.
C: JF: You all said we agreed that we didn’t want more lanes here and I don’t think we’ve seen what that
looks like. I don’t think you’d need three through lanes.
A: GM: We actually shared that with you three weeks ago; you can see it on line. You would need an
additional lane to accommodate the left turns and some additional space on the side streets. It winds up
making for very long pedestrian crossings.
C: Josephine Burr (JB): Anecdotally it seems the bulk of the traffic there isn’t left turns in those areas; they
don’t cause the huge back-ups.
A: GM: The east-west left turns do not have as heavy volumes so that’s why we targeted them. That’s a
good segue to the bowtie which more popular. In that option we accommodated the left turns outside
the intersections via U-turn lanes in the median. We went through the pros and cons and it there are
the common pros of bikes, pedestrians and green space, all of which benefit from this as compared to
the traditional intersections. There are more signals, that’s a con, but we can make them quite efficient.
3
Following this conversation it was generally agreed by the WAG to move forward from the issue of the
development numbers and not to revisit them.
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
You still need three lanes in each direction and we still need to consider what should be done in the
median.
Q: MH: Based on how sketchy this is, is the queue length for the bowtie turnaround what you would need?
A: GM: Yes we can accommodate that. The nice thing is that in this approach the signals have only two
phases so they are very efficient.
Q: MH: After the bowtie, the through lane to the Arborway, given that currently you have one lane and a
ramp, could you narrow down the roadway?
A: GM: We assume we are matching existing conditions at that location.
Q: DH: It seems to me that this creates more traffic lights and with the turnarounds, you’re creating four
extra blocks that traffic has to travel.
A: GM: That’s true, but adding a few cars to a through movement has a much lower impact than a left turn.
It’s the efficiency of the signals that lets that happen; it doesn’t give you a negative impact.
C: DH: It’s the extra mileage and the associated emissions that worry me. A car turning left drives four
additional blocks.
A: GM: As we refine that, we’ll be considering travel distances. We hope that the extra distance would be
off-set by less overall delay at the signals. Idling is worse than moving in terms of emissions.
Q: DH: Do we know what the percentage of cars taking the left turn is now? How many cars would do
this?
A: GM: If you look at the two movements it’s a little fewer than 400 cars in the a.m. peak hour making that
left with about 200 cars doing it at each intersection. 1,700 cars go straight through.
Q: Mary Hickie (MHe): Can we assume that the three though lanes will accommodate morning and
evening traffic?
A: GM: Yes, it operates at acceptable levels. It operates effectively and manages the queues. The next
round of detailed analysis will get into just how well you want it to work.
Q: MHe: And that’s basically what we have out there now?
A: GM: Well, to some extent yes, but the street network is disorganized. Simple organization gets us a lot
in this case.
Q: Michael Reiskind (MR): How much longer will those cars have to wait on average?
A: GM: We’re getting to that. We haven’t tallied up the travel times yet, but we’ll be working with CTPS to
further refine it.
Q: Representative Russell Holmes (RRH): What about the 39 bus?
A: GM: A con for this one is transit vehicles. There are some things we can do with signal preemptions for
transit vehicles, but that’s at the next level of analysis.
C: AD: That was in there as a comment that we need to be aware of the 39 bus. We are aware of the
concern about it.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Allan Ihrer (AI): On all of these, especially the bowtie, ultimately, I think an east-west transit route would
be a benefit. I think a high speed or express bus route is needed and it would be nice if we could see
accommodations for the bus so it doesn’t have to pull into the station.
Q: Andrew Padilla (AP): What happens to Morton Street in this picture? Do you know yet?
A: GM: That’s something we need to work out and some of it depends on what we choose for an
alternative. When these become alternatives, we’ll figure it out. We’re aware of it.
C: GM: Wrapping up my section here, we got a lot of comments on the continuous flow intersection and
hopefully we captured them all. Please read through them. The big negative of course is just how
different it is. We’ve included some links to Wikipedia so you can see pictures of the intersections. This
type of intersection can process a lot of traffic efficiently, but it does have some challenges.
C: Don Kindsvatter (DK): Another focus area was the west side of the station and we showed you a few
variations of it. Tonight, we’re sharing a refinement based on what you told us. We’re shaving away the
east side of street and this lets us extend pathway from the Southwest Corridor all the way down to
Blackwell Path and strengthen the connection to the Arborway Gate. We talked to the City about this
and they pushed us to separate bikes and pedestrians onto their own paths which we can do except right
at the Blackwell Gate where it has to compress down into a multi-use path again. We’ve created some
pick-up and drop off space for buses and kiss and ride, but it’s not for taxis. The taxis go up onto New
Washington Street. This assumes that we can move the 39 bus down into an expanded upper bus way.
This gives you two lanes of traffic in each direction with bike lanes extended from Ukraine Way to the
sharrows on South Street. The 39 has an exclusive bus lane to get it to the intersection of New
Washington and South Street where it will cross with a priority signal. We’re meeting with the MBTA on
this and other operating issues, but thus far they have told us to keep working.
C: KM: I have several concerns about this proposal, some of which I told Paul King at the end of the last
meeting. It seems to me that all of a sudden we have this idea to redesign the MBTA station and the bus
ways and that’s not in our charter. This plan has a negative impact because it increases the length of
the 39 bus route and eliminates its turnaround space. The MBTA is eliminating stops on the 39’s route
to try and speed it up. If you put this in, it negates that plan. On May 18th, I was asked to stand up in
front of the public and speak on behalf of the DOT and the WAG and I said I had faith in you because
you would do no harm. This plan does harm. I said we’d maintain and improve the three present
surface loading points. You people, on your own, without consulting us, came up with this plan and it
vitiates the goals and objectives. Earlier, John said we’re up here telling the truth and I thought that was
the case and then I came to a meeting and saw this. The MBTA put the 39 where it is to improve its
operations. This will negatively impact the bus and Asticou Road. Finally it depends on the MBTA for
implementation which in this neighborhood, we know since we started the CPCAY, backs away from its
commitments at the last minute.
A: AD: This is not an alternative at all. There were break out groups that asked to look at this area. We
were asked to look at pick up and drop off and school buses. We heard all of that. We wanted to try to
address it. We’ve been working with the MBTA and we have promised not to negatively impact the
headway of the 39 bus. This is an effort to try to be flexible, hear you, and address the problems you
have raised. To me, it sounds like your response collectively is to keep the 39 where it is. Fine, that will
make our design job much easier. We were trying for an open mind. The MBTA will keep us honest on
this; I will keep us honest on this because I ride the 39. We were just playing with ideas, but from this I
take it that you want us to make keeping the 39 bus where it is a given.
A: MH: I’m not ready to dismiss this concept; I’d like to see the option.
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: KM: This is simple: this is about our charter and goals and objectives and one of them was maintaining
the passenger loading points around the Forest Hills Station.
A: AD: This is a response to what you asked us. We may discover we can’t solve this issue. I hear from you
that this shouldn’t be placed in front of the public.
C: JF: To respond to Kevin, we have problems with the goals and objectives. We have an objective that says
we’ll maintain quality transit service, but the objectives are basically a laundry list of ideas we tossed out.
Kevin, it was you who said three transit loading points, but we never voted that one up or down. That’s
a problem in getting to this point; we need to get through the evaluation criteria. I think the real issue is
that we have a goal of maintaining quality transit, but how we get there should be open for discussion.
C: JB: There’s room for improvement on the 39 bus. As it exists right now isn’t perfect and in the spirit of
that we should be looking at options. My husband was delayed coming home the other day because the
39 hit a car negotiating the intersection, but I would like to hear from the MBTA on the realism of these
ideas.
A: Steve McLaughlin (SM): We asked you for your problems with the area and Andrea digested it down to
three key spots: this area, New Washington Street and Shea Circle. When we started thinking about this
area, we had heard from you about the need for connections and separating the various travel modes. I
went down the hall forty feet from my office and talked to Joe Cosgrove at the MBTA. There are
identifiable problems out there and we can find some solutions. Some solutions could be cheap. I don’t
love the idea of putting a deck out there for buses because it doesn’t help me with my bridge at all, but
we need to work together to find solutions. Do I have a budget just for this? No, I don’t, because I
didn’t know it was a problem. We don’t have alternatives just yet. Whether this will be done in one
construction contract or a couple, I don’t know. Some of this could happen with the MBTA later; right
now it’s premature to say.
A: Joe Cosgrove (JC): It is very early and we’re getting our first look at this too. We’re looking at what
works and what doesn’t, but the MBTA is open to this. There are concerns. The operations guys spent a
lot of money on the 39 and we want to protect that investment.
C: MH: I appreciate that the consultant team is being responsive on this one. One thing I’d mention is that
the Arboretum may not want a path with bicycles on it tying directly into what they consider a walking
path.
C: BD: I just want to say that I came to this process because someone said we’re taking down the Casey
Overpass. Do I understand there are ancillary issues? Yes I do, but right now I’m looking at a project
that you have said will cost between $40 and $70 million. I just want to make sure and this causes me
concern because we seem to be going further and further afield. I appreciate your willingness to
investigate. The reality becomes that if we do this, there is expenditure and I want to know if it’s come
from the $40-70 million or is it coming from the MBTA.
A: JC: I think the MBTA would like to know that too.
A: JR: We’re not there yet, but I promise that if we get to a point where something can’t happen we’ll tell
you. You’re seeing all the work on the table in front of you as it’s done. Normally you don’t see these
iterations in a traditional public involvement process, but your questions are right on target.
C: ME: A lot of people in this room were on the 39 bus committee and we went through the process with
the MBTA and made a lot of choices, but in that study we just looked at the area up to the end of South
Street and we never looked at the turnaround area. I think it’s great to look at this because ignoring it
would be a real oversight on our part. The area where the bus turns around now isn’t accessible and it’s
a long way from the station.
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Fred Vetterlein (FV): I like some things about this plan and I want to say so. You have found a way to
widen Washington Street allowing pedestrian pathways and making space for the pick-up and drop off
traffic. That’s great. I think this would help out with issues of taxis and some of the problems seen on
Asticou Road.
C: Bob Mason (BM): We were given this on paper to think about and not to try to get through all the way
tonight. I believe when the presentation was given, Mr. Kindsvatter said there would be an exclusive bus
lane and a priority signal. I think that would only help the 39 bus.
A: AD: We are running well behind schedule here, so we must move on. But I’m going to give Kevin a pen
and he’s going to work on the pros and cons of this option and we’ll edit them. Then it will go on the
website for people to see. Kevin, we don’t want you to get up to defend something you cannot in good
conscience defend. And, lastly, we know we have to be kind to the 39. We won’t negatively impact it.
Discussion of Bridge Options
C: Dennis Baker (DB): Well, I’m glad everyone is in a debating mood tonight because I want to put forward
an initial concept for a bridge. A couple meetings ago I showed you this existing conditions slide. There
are a lot of options and real estate to work with because the current bridge has to go. The corridor is
very wide so the bridge could move around within it. A new bridge could be narrower or lower.
Because the at-grade and the bridge options are intertwined, before working up this concept, I asked
McMahon to put together a street network that assumes a bridge. As you can see on the slide, we can
get away with fewer lanes and can move things around to a great degree. The alignment is similar to
New Washington Street today, but the intersections are simpler and better organized.
Q: JB: Is that the exact same as what’s out there now?
A: GM: It’s a little narrower than what you have out there today.
Q: MH: Is Hyde Park Avenue the same width it is now?
A: GM: For this exercise, we kept the north/south roads the same as they are today.
Q: AP: When southbound Washington Street turns into New Washington, is the little island still needed for
traffic volumes?
A: GM: Again, for this exercise, we just left the north/south roads as they are today.
Q: RRH: What happens when you come off the Arborway?
A: DB: That’s a great segue and if I can just flip to the next slide, I’ll show you. What we looked at was a
split bridge alternative. We wanted to improve the pedestrian and bicycle access and a problem with
today’s bridge is that the sidewalks don’t connect to anything; they dump you in the middle of the road.
By splitting the bridge, we can put the pedestrian and bicycle amenities on the outsides where they can
connect to other things and then we can put all the ramps in the middle. This concept aligns the bridge
to miss the MBTA structures, which saves some costs, and for the sake of simplicity, we’re showing the
bridge over the at-grade alignment, over the center line. A lot of this could be changed dramatically; it
doesn’t have to be split. For some clarity here’s a cross section view that includes sidewalks on both
sides and eight-foot shoulders, which gives us room to retrieve a broken down car and accommodate a
bike lane. This scheme would give you much less length and width than today. The abutments would
be around the court house in the east and pretty much the same in the west.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: MR: Where does this fall in relation to 500 Arborway?
A: DB: That’s well off the screen here to the right; this is a much shorter bridge.
Small Group Reporting
Group A – Presented by Josephine Burr:





A new bridge should minimize shadows below and around it while maximizing noise deflection from
the roadway surface; these things may argue in favor of a higher structure.
A new bridge should have logical pedestrian outlets and enjoyable views; these things may argue in
favor of a shorter structure.
Assuming one bridge, rather than two, it makes the most sense to place the bicycle and pedestrian
access points on the south side of the bridge as there is no real pedestrian outlet at the bridge’s
northwest corner.
Pedestrian stairs connecting the bridge to the Forest Hills Station might be helpful, but might add
complexity at the intersections and increase shadows.
The area below a bridge should feel like part of the neighborhood: activated, lively, lit and
aesthetically pleasing so the bridge is an architectural feature and as asset. This area should have
the potential for the development of retail and art space.
Group B – Presented by Jeff Ferris:









The current Casey Overpass is little used by modes other than vehicles because of the difficulty of
accessing sidewalks. Not having to cross streets to access pedestrian and bicycle amenities on a new
bridge would make it more attractive to non-motorized users.
Bicycles and pedestrians should be able to access all points on the bridge and the ground. This
means that connections for them should be made going north/south and east/west.
Franklin Park is to the east with the Arboretum to the west. A bridge would likely close the possibility
of the bowtie approach, possibly requiring a bicycle/pedestrian flyover at Shea Circle.
A new bridge should act as a bicycle/pedestrian connector for longer distance travelers through the
park system. If possible, it should tie in the Arborway Hillside which is currently inaccessible.
The group did not reach consensus as to whether bicycles should be accommodated in the shoulder
or on a separate path, but some agreement was reached that the south sidewalk on the bridge
should act as a multi-use path with space for bikes.
A high bridge would be good as a viewing platform, but would require a longer span. Gentle slopes would be better for bicycles and pedestrians.
Two smaller bridges would likely have lower shadow aspects.
Green and under-bridge space should be arranged to be pleasant, but not attract homeless people. Group C – Presented by Maureen Chlebek:




On the Arboretum side, the group felt that the abutment should be placed where engineering
judgment dictates.
Bicycles and pedestrians should be fully accommodated at-grade, but not on the bridge, to provide
for a smaller bridge.
With regard to one bridge versus two, the group felt that whichever option provided the narrowest
bridge(s) with the least shadow impacts should be pursued. Shadows should fall over roadway and
not park space.
Darkness under the bridge should be remedied.
Presenters for the public meeting will be Jeff Ferris, to discuss bridge ideas with Dennis Baker. Fred
Vetterlein will present the traditional intersection with left turns prohibited. The bowtie concept will be
explained by Wendy Williams and Cathy Slade will present the continuous flow intersection.
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: AD: We are out of time on this, but I do want to say that it took us 40 hours to go through the go
through the goals and objectives. It was a long detailed process. Part of that process involved
developing the following mission statement which we place even above the guiding principles:
Provide better modal connections, reconnect the historic landscape for the Emerald Necklace, improve access and circulation for transit, pedestrian and bicycle without creating unacceptable vehicular traffic congestion/delays.4
C: JF: It’s not so much about restoring the Emerald Necklace, but reconnecting it.
A: AD: Duly amended.
C: Sarah Freeman (SF): One big negative for people who live on the inbound side of the Casey Overpass is
that the bridge creates a speedway. If we’re going to talk about avoiding unacceptable delays, we
should talk at the same time about traffic calming.
A: FV: It’s not a speedway; I had to sit through three light changes just this morning.
A: AD: We will email the goals and objectives to you and you can comment on that topic; please do email it
back to us.
C: FV: We haven’t mentioned Shea Circle much tonight and last night our community met and it’s
important to us. You don’t appear to have referenced Cemetery Road and Rossmore Road, both of
which are used by people who live on McBride Street and areas throughout Jamaica Plain. They are
already using it to avoid the Forest Hills intersections and it will only get worse in demolition and
construction. We’ll be sending a letter to Liz Malia about this.
A: AD: All right; we will provide you with drawings of Shea Circle too, I know you have asked for them.
C: KW: Can we see some examples of bridges that are of equal or similar scale to what Dennis proposed
tonight that have thriving neighborhoods around them?
A: DB: I’m actually working on a photo-collage of that; so I’ll be able to show you something soon.
C: AD: Let me just bring us back here. You gave us 97 ideas and we tried to be very attentive to
understanding what was sought after in all 97. We wanted to get to 12-15 objectives; a meaningful
number we can actually use. We have kept the goals which you have seen and eliminate duplications.
We figured out what should be a goal and what should be a principle and did a lot of amending and
merging. It’s been a few weeks’ work. We currently have 19 objectives and we need to get down to 12­
15. We know these will be morphed and reduced further as we apply them to alternatives; that will be a
good reality check. One of the key things we did when we looked at these was to say that we cannot
keep any objective that can’t be measured: there needs to be a data point associated with it. We
developed a reference document that walks you through everything. We will give you those as a look at
our working notes. We will also give you a spreadsheet with the 19 objectives we have now. We know
we need measures to go with each, but this is the beginning of the road to real measures. For those of
you who just want a quick overview, we have a sheet for that too. Please look at the sheet with the 19
objectives and let us know where you think we can merge or cut things. We had some objectives
addressing Vehicle Miles Traveled or VMT and we don’t think we can measure that because this isn’t a
corridor study. If you think there are other ways to say things that make them more robust and inclusive,
we welcome that. You are welcome to wordsmith, but please don’t ask us to look at things we cannot
measure.
4
This is the statement as amended by discussion with the WAG.
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: BD: I appreciate that we are moving along here, but what we’re being asked to do will impact us for
years to come. We need time to digest this. We need to be able to talk amongst ourselves on these
issues.
A: AD: And I appreciate that and we want the conversation; that’s why you’re all getting these materials.
We are trying to be completely accountable to you for every idea you gave us.
A: JR: We’re going to make this work; we’re giving you the time to go through this. Other than looking at
alternatives, we realize that this is a critical piece. Please send us your thoughts as soon as you have
them. Mark up the sheet with the 19 objectives and send it to us electronically. Two public service
announcements: remember to sign in if you didn’t do so already and the Fast 14 project is now down to
the Fast 11, we got another bridge done last weekend with another one coming this weekend. We
opened three hours early, but please stay off I-93 unless you need to get directly to Boston or Medford.
Next Steps
The third community meeting will be held on June 29th from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Boston English High
School. A half hour open house will begin at 6:00 p.m. The WAG is scheduled to meet twice in July, on the
13th and 27th. These meetings will take place at the State Laboratory on South Street.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Dennis
Baker
HNTB
Genie
Beal
WAG
Nina
Brown
WAG
Josephine
Burr
WAG
Maureen
Chlebeck
McMahon Associates
Andrea
D’Amato
HNTB
Bob
Dizon
WAG
Julieanne
Doherty
Mayor’s office
Michael
Epp
WAG
Jeff
Ferris
WAG
Sarah
Freeman
WAG
Michael
Halle
WAG
Mary
Hickie
WAG
Russell
Holmes
State Representative
Allan
Ihrer
WAG
Don
Kindsvatter
HNTB
Paul
King
MassDOT ABP
Kathy
Kottaridis
WAG
Bob
Mason
WAG
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT ABP
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Kevin
Moloney
WAG
Suzanne
Monk
WAG
Liz
Andrew
O’Connor
Padilla
WAG
Resident
Essek
Petrie
HNTB
John
Romano
MassDOT
Cathy
Slade
WAG
Fred
Vetterlein
WAG
Emily
Wheelwright
WAG
Wendy
Williams
WAG
Kevin
Wolfson
WAG
Elizabeth
Wylie
WAG
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Small Group Flip Charts
Please see the following pages.
Page 14