Welcome
Public Meeting #2
May 18, 2011
Purpose: Why We Are Here
• Deteriorated bridge is at the end of its useful
life. Must be demolished
• Historic Opportunity
• Study to investigate alternatives
– Mobility – Livability
– Emerald Necklace Link
– Better at-grade modal connections
• Community Input
Accelerated Bridge Program Opportunity
•
•
•
Current Bridge Condition
Available Funding
Schedule and Opportunity
PLANNING
STUDY
2011
DESIGN
2012
DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
2013
2014
2015
Community Involvement Throughout Project
Select Alternative
Design Review
Construction Staging & Traffic Management
Phasing
Meetings
2016
The Partnership
MassDOT – Highway and Transit
Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR)
City of Boston
Consultant Team
Working Advisory Group (WAG)
Planning Study
Public Process – Objectives & Schedule
Planning Study
Public Meeting Schedule
Meeting 1 Project Purpose, Goals and Existing
Conditions
Meeting 2 Issues & Opportunities, Evaluation
Criteria, 2035 Traffic Projections, Design
Context
Meeting 3 Sub-Area Design Elements, Refinement of
Evaluation Criteria
Meeting 4 Development of Alternatives, Apply
Evaluation Criteria
Meeting 5 Recommended Alternative
Planning Study Schedule
PUBLIC
MEETINGS
1
2
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
MAR
APR
3
SELECTION CRITERIA &
INITIAL CONCEPTS
MAY
4
5
RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT &
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
JUN
JUL
All public meetings held at the Agassiz Elementary School
AUG
SEP
Design Principles
Goals and
Evaluation Criteria
Development of Mobility & Livability Design Principles
Sequence for Developing Principles and Goals
•Previous studies and plans in the area
•Federal Sustainability/Livability
•MassDOT/GreenDOT goals
•City of Boston Complete Streets
•Working Advisory Group
Evaluation Criteria
•Why measures are important
•How measures will be used
Guiding Principles
• Improve safety for all users.
• Address a structurally deficient bridge.
• Protect and respect the design for Arborway Yards.
• Develop alternatives that meet Accelerated Bridge
Program budget and schedule.
Guiding Principles
• 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.
A Common Platform for Mobility & Livability Goals
• Improve roadway geometry to balance circulation for
all modes and users. – David Hannon
• Improve access, modal and intermodal local and
regional corridor connections to promote existing
transportation choices. – Kevin Moloney
• Integrate sustainability into design concepts. – Jeff
Ferris
• Remove barriers for neighborhood and park
connections and integrate transit into economic
centers and residential areas. – Kevin Wolfson
• Create a destination and sense of place and
celebrate the area’s architectural, transportation and
open space history. – Mike Reiskind
• Improve the visibility, connectivity and access to
gateway open spaces. – Elizabeth Wylie
Sample Consolidated Objectives
• Improve roadway geometry to enhance circulation for modes and users. –
21 objectives
• Improve access, modal and intermodal local and regional corridor
connections to promote transportation choices – 14 objectives
• Integrate sustainability into design concepts – 11 objectives
• Remove barriers for neighborhood connections and integrate transit into
economic centers and residential areas – 21 objectives
• Create a destination and Sense of Place and celebrate the area’s
architectural, transportation and open space history – 17 objectives
• Improve the visibility, connectivity and access to gateway open spaces –
9 objectives
Applying the Principles, Goals and Objectives
•Refine the objectives
•Develop sub-area design elements
•Application of principles to sub-area design elements
•Development of alternatives
•Application of Evaluation Criteria to alternatives
•Recommend alternatives
The Design Process
The Context for Developing Alternatives
The Design Context:
What if ……the Casey Overpass were replaced
with another bridge?
What if ……the focus were only on recreating the
Parkway connection (minimum pavement)?
What if …….the focus were primarily on
vehicular access and circulation at grade
(maximized pavement)?
The Designer General’s WARNING:
The tools we use today for designing and drawing,
principally AutoCAD and other software programs,
make the process faster, more efficient and make
coordination between drawings easier.
There is an unfortunate side effect of AutoCAD
which is the hard-line style makes all drawings
look more finished, more thought out than they
may actually be.
This often leads people to incorrectly conclude that
concepts and ideas shown at the early stages of a
design process are finished designs.
Let us assure you: this is not the case.
What if ……
The Casey Overpass
were replaced with
another bridge?
What if -- the Casey Overpass were replaced with another bridge?
What if -- the Casey Overpass were replaced with another bridge?
What if -- the Casey Overpass were replaced with another bridge?
What if ……
The focus were only on
recreating the Parkway
connection (minimum
pavement)?
What if --the focus were only on recreating the Parkway connection?
T
What if …the focus were only on recreating the Parkway connection?
Olmsted’s 1892 Plan
Key Points
• Separation of modes
• Tree lined buffers
T
What if ……
the focus were primarily on
vehicular access and
circulation at grade
(maximized pavement)?
What if … the focus were primarily on vehicular access and circulation at grade?
T
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Relocation of
Surface Parking
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Route 39 Bus Loop
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Grade variations:
sight line issues
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Shea Circle
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Orange Line
exhaust stack
and exit stair
Commuter Rail
ventilation grates
Sub-Area Design Elements
PUBLIC
MEETINGS
1
2
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
MAR
APR
3
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT &
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
SELECTION CRITERIA &
INITIAL CONCEPTS
MAY
4
JUN
JUL
AUG
5
RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE
SEP
Traffic Volumes & Operations
Traffic 2010-2035
1. Traffic Projections Methodology
•
Regional Traffic Model
•
Local Development Parcels
2. 2035 Future Volumes
3. Traffic Operations
4. Next Steps
Traffic Study Area
Traffic Projections
Future Year 2035
“No-Build” Scenario
Baseline condition assuming no change to local
roadway infrastructure and intended for initial
planning use only
Design Alternatives Traffic Projections
2035 No Build Traffic Volumes
2035 Regional Model (CTPS)
Local Development Parcels (City)
2035 No Build Traffic Volumes
CTPS Regional Traffic Model
•2727 TAZs in the 164 communities
•Travel Demand – Population & Employment
•Travel Supply – existing networks + planned projects
Output - 2035 “No-Build” Traffic Volumes
Forest Hills Area - Estimated Actual Buildout:
Eight Parcels
3521 Washington St
(former Flanagan & Seaton)
3615 Washington St
(former Hughes Oil)
Arborway Yards
Fitzgerald Parking Lot
(New owner is LAZ Parking)
MBTA Parking Lot
MBTA Parcel W
MBTA Parcel V
MBTA Parcel U
Forest Hills Area - Estimated Actual Buildout:
FHII Final
Forest Hills Area - Estimated Actual Buildout:
BUILDOUT DETAILS
Base Information:
 September 23, 2008 Final
Community Recommendations
estimated the following:
• 375 to 461 Housing Units
• 98,000 to 118,000 Retail SF
• 145,000 to 356,000 Office SF
 Proposed development of 3529
Washington Street
2011 Updates:
 Actual Buildout of Parcels V & W
 LAZ Parking envisions building
on the front / corner of the parcel
 Minor expansion of bus facility &
new retail across Washington St.
= reduced retail at Arborway Yard
 Estimated Actual reflects 80% of
aggregate Buildout of the 2011
Update/Upper
Summary:
 310 to 390 Housing Units
 132,000 to 165,000 Retail SF
 332,000 to 416,000 Office SF
2011 Updates
Forest Hills Improvement Initiative Parcels
Site
MBTA Parcel U
MBTA Parcel V
(Per Approved Plans)
MBTA Parcel W
(Per Approved Plans)
MBTA Parcel S
Station Parking Lot
Fitzgerald Parking
Lot (now LAZ) Note 2
Arborway Yard
Parcel Note 3
Housing
Units
Retail/Service
Area (sf)
Office/Comm
Area (sf)
Total Bldg
Area (sf)
FHII Final
2011 Update /
Upper
120
4,000
-
143,000
120
4,000
-
143,000
FHII Final
Actual /
Permitted
8
4,000
-
12,800
-
4,011
8,022
12,033
FHII Final
Actual /
Permitted
40
10,000
2,000
56,000
-
12,983
19,286
32,269
FHII Final
2011 Update /
Upper
-
42,000
169,000
211,000
-
42,000
169,000
210,000
FHII Final
2011 Update /
Upper
135
15,000
-
163,000
80
15,000
-
125,000
FHII Final
2011 Update /
Upper
160
45,000
128,000
348,000
160
35,000
125,000
330,000
Upper
-
30,000
60,000
90,000
Upper
30
22,000
35,000
90,000
Buildout Range
2011 Update /
Upper
Estimated
Actual
Housing
Retail/Service
Office/Comm
Total Area
390
165,000
416,000
1,032,000
310
132,000
332,000
826,000
Buildout Range
Note 1
Washington St. Parcels (New)
3615 Wash. St.
(Huges Oil)
3529 Wash. St.
(Flan. & Seaton)
All Parcels
Totals
2035 No Build AM Volumes
2035 No Build Growth Summary
Assuming NO change to local roadways, travel
patterns, etc…
Vehicular Volumes:
Casey Overpass (Regional):
+ 5%
Surface Roads (Regional & Local): + 14%
Non-Motorized (Peds & Bikes):
+ 13%
Transit Ridership:
+ 10%
Traffic Operations
Existing Average Queue Lengths
AM
PM
Next Steps for Traffic Analysis
• 2035 No-Build Traffic Operations
• Conceptual Idea Screening
• Alternatives Analysis
• Regional Modeling (Diversions)
• Refined Local Analysis
• Multi-modal Operations (pedestrians, bikes,
transit users)
Local Alternative Travel Paths
Inbound
Outbound
Focus Areas for Design Elements
Making the Connections
Focus Sub-Areas for Design
Objective: Identify 3 areas to prioritize designs
Understanding the design challenges and principles.
Priority
Area
Group A
Group B
Group C
1
New Washington Street
area –at the front
entrance to the MBTA
Station
The Asticou area
connecting to the MBTA
Station
The interface of MBTA
Forest Hills Station bus
areas east and west
(Asticou/Laz lot)
2
Shea Circle
Washington Street
Intersection – between
Arborway Yards and Laz
Parking Lot
South Street,
Washington Street and
Arborway Intersection
3
The Asticou area
connecting to the MBTA
Station
Shea Circle
Shea Circle
Sub-Area Design Elements
PUBLIC
MEETINGS
1
2
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
MAR
APR
3
SELECTION CRITERIA &
INITIAL CONCEPTS
MAY
4
RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE
CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT &
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
JUN
JUL
5
AUG
SEP
What Would Happen With No Bridge?
Sample WAG Comments
• Improve appearances and
functions
• More welcoming
• Concerned about design of new
bridge and street conditions
• Change might be good
• Create a neighborhood destination
• Less complicated street system
• Nightmare for pedestrians, busses,
bikes and cars
What Would Happen With No Bridge?
Sample WAG Comments
• Concern of accommodating overpass
traffic on the street
• Removing a barrier in the area that
allows a connection
• Great plans and designs will not be
funded
• Cuts off connection to Mattapan,
Roslindale, JP etc.
• Reconnect historic and open space
resources
• Opportunity for pedestrian gathering
places
Making the Connections
Vehicular Connections
Bicycle Connections
Pedestrian Connections
Sight Lines
Next Steps
Working Group Direction
• Areas of Priority
• Making the Connections
• Points of Interest
Design Screening
Alternatives Development and Analysis
• Regional Modeling (Diversions)
• Refined Local Analysis
Planning Study
Public Meeting Schedule
Meeting 1 Project Purpose, Goals and Existing
Conditions
Meeting 2 Issues & Opportunities, Evaluation
Criteria, 2035 Traffic Projections, Design
Context
Meeting 3 Sub-Area Design Elements, Refinement of
Evaluation Criteria
Meeting 4 Development of Alternatives, Apply
Evaluation Criteria
Meeting 5 Recommended Alternative
Meeting Schedule in 2011
Meeting #3 – Design Vignettes
Working Group Meeting #3a: June 2nd
Working Group Meeting #3b: June 14th
Public Meeting & Open House #3: June 29th
Meeting #4 – Select Alternatives
Working Group Meeting #4a: July 13th
Working Group Meeting #4b: July 27th
Public Meeting & Open House #4: August 3rd
Questions
Comments!