CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
April 22, 2011
To: Steve McLaughlin
Project Manager - Accelerated Bridge Program
MassDOT
Through:
From:
RE:
Andrea D’Amato
HNTB
Project Manager
Nathaniel Curtis
Howard/Stein-Hudson
Public Involvement Specialist
Second Working Advisory Grou
Meeting Notes of April 20, 2011
On April 20, 2011, the Working Advisory Group (WAG) met to continue its role in the Casey Overpass
Replacement Project Planning Study. This WAG meeting follows on the heels of the initial public meeting held on
April 6, 2011. This 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, which was attended by a number of community members, 1 had several parts: an initial open discussion and review of the process, conversation about the goals developed by the project team, a review of the small group work done by WAG members to begin developing the goals, objectives and evaluation criteria that will be used to choose among the different options for replacing the Casey Overpass which will come out of the current planning process, 2 and, a discussion of the three bookend concepts developed by the project team for use by the WAG for their homework assignment. Key themes of the meeting included the following: o o
There is some lingering concern over the composition of the WAG, particularly with regard to Hyde Park,
Roslindale and the Bourne Neighborhood. MassDOT is still working through final composition of the group, but will address it at the May 4 th WAG meeting.
The WAG generally approved of the guiding principles and goals articulated by the project team with some exceptions: o o o them twice.
It was suggested that language regarding the inclusive nature of the community process be written into the guiding principles.
Objectives added to the list of goals and objectives by the WAG tended to cluster under the following themes:
Concern was expressed that the first goals under mobility and livability are redundant. It is possible that they are just closely overlapping and intertwined making it appropriate to show
1 While community members are always welcome to attend sessions of the WAG, because these meetings are intended to allow the WAG to conduct its work, committee business will take precedence. A series of community meetings has been scheduled to ensure strong input from residents and other local stakeholders.
2
Digital images of the materials used in this small group exercise can be seen in Appendix 2.
38 Chauncy Street, 9 th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02111 617.482.7080 www.hshassoc.com
Page 1

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. o
Creating a greener Forest Hills with more trees, though without necessarily adhering tightly to
Olmstead’s original plan for the area. o
Turning Forest Hills into a destination for more than just transportation that is pleasant to visit and that has a cohesive visual identity that highlights and celebrates what makes the area unique. o
Improving conditions for all transportation users with:
Safer conditions for cyclists and pedestrians.
Decreased conflict among modes such as ensuring bus stops do not block sidewalks or preventing school buses from tying up traffic.
Strengthening east-west and north-south travel links. o
Removing barriers and making it easier for all modes, but particularly pedestrians and cyclists to o access destinations easily all around Forest Hills.
Connecting Forest Hills Cemetery and Franklin Park to the Arnold Arboretum and the rest of the
Emerald Necklace.
C
:
John Romano (JR): Thank you all for coming tonight. I am John Romano, the Municipal Liaison for MassDOT on the Casey Overpass Replacement Project Planning Study. I want to begin by recognizing Nika Elugardo from Senator Chang-Diaz’s office and Robert Torres from Representative Malia’s office. I have a few items I want to address before we get into this meeting. At our public meeting on April 6 th , we had some requests from people to join the WAG. Based on that meeting we have added Kevin Moloney and Wendy Williams.
We have also received some requests for representation for Roslindale and Hyde Park. Those are still under advisement, but we will let you know by the next meeting.
We have a lot to cover tonight and originally we had even more. As a result we decided not to try to squeeze have a third WAG meeting which will be dedicated entirely to traffic. We know that’s a hot topic and an important feature of the project so we will give it its own meeting. I also want to emphasize the working part of Working Advisory Group. Some of you were great getting us your first homework assignment and some, well, not so much. We have another assignment for you tonight and let me assure you that this is more than busy work. We need your input and information; we really appreciate you getting the assignments done.
Obviously, we can’t grade you, but ultimately your neighbors will. We all felt it was appropriate to mention that.
Anyone who wasn’t at the 1 st meeting or any of the new members, this is a WAG meeting. At the end of the session we’ll try to have time for public comment, but this meeting is for the WAG to conduct its business. As you can see from the meeting two weeks ago, the public meetings follow the WAG sessions. The community meetings are where we take public commentary, but in this forum we need to keep moving along. If you haven’t signed in yet, please do so. With that, I want to hand this over to Steve McLaughlin.
Q
:
Bernard Doherty (BD): Will this meeting have a presentation of what the road or bridge surface could look like?
A
:
C
:
JR: Towards the end of the meeting we will have some bookend concepts to look at.
BD: At the next meeting, I want to see what it would look like to have two lanes on each side coming down and what it would look like with an overpass or a combination of overpass and at-grade. We, as a committee with only five months left, need something conceptual we can look at.
A
:
C
:
Andrea D’Amato (AD): Good, we are going there tonight.
JR: Let me just take a moment to recognize Councilor Matt O’Malley, and then I want to hand this off to Steve
McLaughlin.
Page 2

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C
:
David Hannon (DH): I just want to note the absence on the WAG of folks from outside Arborway Gardens and the Bourne Neighborhood.
C
:
Steve McLaughlin (SM): That absence is noted. The last time we were here, we talked about the bridge and why it has to come down. Tonight, we will discuss evaluation criteria for the solutions you will be helping us to develop. We need some objective way of picking between them. Tonight, we will show you three broad alternatives that we have thought of, but let me underscore that they are not hard lined at all. There’s a bridge concept that shows a potential future bridge. There’s an Olmstead-style concept which emphasizes green space, and then there’s an at-grade solution which just puts all the roadway capacity that’s out there today on the ground. At your third meeting and the next public meeting, we’ll be talking a lot about traffic, giving people a sense of where people are going to and where they are coming from. CTPS will help us run that meeting.
These evaluation criteria that you help us develop tonight are very important. They will help us select the preferred alternative at the end of the planning process. The preferred alternative will then go into the 25% design stage. In that stage we will address our Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requirements as administered by the Commonwealth’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). That will include filing an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) which will show them what we have done thus far. They may ask us to do other things at that point. We could be scoped by DEP for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), but we don’t think so given this is a built up area. We will then go to the 50% design level, the 75% design level, the plans, specifications and estimates (PSE) level and then we will bid the project for construction.
That’s the broader timeframe we are working with here, construction is expected to take about three years.
The most important thing to remember is that we have to be done by June 30 th , 2016, when the Accelerated
Bridge Program (ABP) funding runs out.
C
:
AD: Tonight, after a brief traffic update, we will address goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria. These are central to establishing our priorities and figuring out how we’ll make our decisions. Then we’ll be going through the framework for conceptual alternatives. These are just concepts to get you thinking and they reflect the most extreme concepts. Think of them as bookends. Our last item of business will be your next homework assignment. I want to emphasize that this will be the produce of your effort. The more you help us, the better the outcome will be. Work with your community groups and organizations. You are part of our team and there is no preconceived solution. We will find the solution together. You will work with us iteratively. The public has their opportunity to contribute as well. We are working to get as much input as possible given the timeframe. We now have the meeting minutes and presentations from the first WAG and public meetings posted to the website and we will continue to make materials available that way.
C
:
Jeff Ferris (JF): There were fourteen pages of minutes from the first community meeting. I think some sort of summary is appropriate.
A
:
C
:
A
:
AD: We can certainly do that for you.
Michael Halle (MH): I think you might also do well to put the URL on all meeting materials that you hand out.
AD: O.K. that’s also a good idea.
3 Just as a reminder at each meeting we will have a half hour open house.
One part of your responsibilities is to help us out there. We have summaries of the comments made at the open house on the boards outside this room. Please bring that back and if there are additional graphics you want, please let us now.
3 http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyoverpass/
Page 3

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C
:
Maureen Chlebek (MC): As you know from the last meeting, we have collected a bunch of data and we’re evaluating the existing operations. We are coordinating with BTD and CTPS to develop the 2035 traffic projections. That’s what we’ll be discussing on May 4 th and later that month with the public.
C
:
JF: Many things can happen between now and 2035. Your stated assumption is that traffic will grow, but there are many people working to promote other elements.
A
:
MC: We’re not only projecting vehicular traffic, we’re accounting for bikes, pedestrians and transit use.
Q
:
JF: Could you come up with multiple traffic projections that assume different conditions? I’ve seen that on other projects.
MC: We’re trying not to get into that; it tends to become awfully confusing for the public. A
:
C
:
Scott Peterson (SP): Maureen, I think I can speak to some of this. I’m from CTPS which is the support staff to the Boston MPO. The MPO does long range regional planning which we do in concept with MAPC which addresses land use planning. They work with the BRA and similar agencies in the 101 communities in the
MPO region. They work to determine what the zoning is and what is in the permitting pipeline so that we can understand what will be in the built environment in 2035. All of that feeds into the travel demand model for
Boston and eastern Massachusetts. That gives us expected vehicle, transit, walking and cycling trips. The BRA is involved in this project to make sure all future development is reflected.
C
:
A
:
JF: But if the Orange Line were extended to Route 128, that would definitely lower the number of vehicle trips.
SP: The model is in part based on the fiscally constrained model kept by the MPO. I use what they adopt.
Currently, the model takes into account the 2035 highway and transit projects.
C
:
David Watson (DW): I believe Scott presented on the CTPS model at the Longfellow Bridge meeting last week and one thing that came out of that is that the model doesn’t account for walking or cycling.
A
:
SP: I apologize if you came away from that meeting with that impression. On Longfellow, we weren’t charged to look at the bike and pedestrian activity. That was done by the consultants. Our model does account for walking and cycling and will in this project.
Q
:
Michael Epp (ME): Does the model anticipate every other day driving restrictions? That is if your license plate ends with an odd number you get to drive on certain days, with even numbers driving on other days. This policy is already in place in Europe and could be in Boston by 2035.
A
:
SP: The model could certainly test that policy, but it isn’t adopted in the regional plan at this time.
Q
:
Kevin Wolfson (KW): How flexible is your model? Say we come up with three alternatives; can you put each one through the model?
A
:
MC: Yes, we plan to do that and the model will even tell us what those options do to regional traffic. Once we’ve narrowed it down to two or three possible options, CTPS will run each one for us.
C
:
SM: These are all the right questions, and why we are having a whole meeting dedicated to traffic, but for the moment, I want us to focus on tonight’s agenda.
C
:
AD: Goals, objectives and criteria: it’s important for us to develop common platforms and goals. We don’t have solutions yet, but we want a common understanding of the goals. Then we’ll develop objectives. The objectives will be based on items we can measure.
Page 4

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
First I want to articulate some guiding principles. These will be over us throughout the process. These are as follows: o
Address the structurally deficient bridge. o
Protect and respect the designs for the Arborway Yard. The space is sacrosanct. o
Improve safety for all users o
Develop concepts which meet the ABP budget and schedule.
Now our ten goals; when we started scouring the documents you’ve already done and looked at the most important things in those reports, we cataloged them. We looked at the Federal Highway Administrations new guidelines on sustainability and livability, BTD’s complete streets guidelines and the GreenDOT policy of
MassDOT.
4 We want to meet everywhere and exceed where possible the requirements of these policies. Your first homework assignment also helped us to develop these goals so as you can see, your homework is very important to us. The goals break into two broad categories: mobility and livability: o o o o o
Improve roadway geometry to enhance circulation for all modes of transportation.
Strengthen local and regional corridor connections (addressing desire lines, interest nodes, gateways and coordinated signals).
Improve access to intermodal opportunities to promote transportation choices (addressing the current difficulty of model transfers, park-and-ride use, taxis, bicycles, pedestrians).
Integrate environmental and financial sustainability into the design (the chosen solution should be environmentally friendly in terms of materials and design while reducing the DOT’s maintenance burden). o o o o o o
Remove barriers to neighborhood circulation and connections – both visual and physical, such as streets that are difficult to cross.
Enhance human connections to create a sense of place in Forest Hills.
Integrate transit with economic and residential areas, making these items for harmonious and supporting to each other.
Celebrate the area’s architectural and historical resources, visually highlighting them where possible.
Improve the visibility and connectivity to gateway open spaces such as the Arnold Arboretum,
Franklin Park and the Forest Hills Cemetery.
Enhance residential neighborhoods, reducing cut-through traffic and noise. o
C
:
I want to make sure these resonate with you and that you feel they are the right ones. Let’s not get into wordsmithing. We can always work on that later, but for now, do these seem like the right ones?
JR: Before we go to questions and comments, I want to recognize Liz Malia. Thank you for being here,
Representative.
Q
:
JF: Where does restoration of Olmstead’s historic tree corridor fit into this?
A
:
AD: I would consider that as being under Goal Four under livability, but you can flesh it our further in your small group exercise.
Q
:
Wendy Williams (WW): I like the livability goal, but I don’t see it reflected in the guiding principles.
A
:
AD: We can certainly make it more explicity.
4
Links to all these policies can be found at the project website.
Page 5

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q
:
Dale Mitchell (DM): I appreciate that you have enhance circulation for all modes, but what about all people?
Does that cover people with mobility aids?
A
:
AD: It does; when we say all modes that means all modes and users.
Q
:
Michael Reiskind (MR): I’m not sure I understand the difference between the first goals under mobility and livability; they seem to be the same.
A
:
Paul Nelson (PN): Let me try an example for you: you could improve the roadway geometry for cars by putting back a viaduct that works better, but then it winds up being a barrier in terms of livability.
C
:
A
:
MR: I still don’t quite understand. I feel that mobility seems to be for cars and livability is for everyone else.
Nika Elugardo (NE): Those are two intertwined concepts; I can see why you are having difficulty pulling them apart.
A
:
AD: It sounds to me that you’re saying they are redundant as written. I’m happy to eject one if you like because then we don’t have to develop objectives for it.
C
:
JR: Why don’t you wait until you get into your small groups? If the objectives wind up being the same under both goals then you’ll know it makes sense to get rid of one.
C
:
NE: These seem like great evaluation criteria for the alternatives, but do the principles cover the whole process? Will all the neighborhood groups feel heard in or covered by this; I don’t see if reflected in the written work. I think it would be a good guiding principle.
A
:
C
:
AD: We are happy to take language from you on that.
KW: I think that given the footprint of the Casey Overpass, some alternatives have the options to take some of the space in that footprint and make Forest Hills into a destination, a space in its own right. I think that’s something to note.
A
:
C
:
AD: I believe that would fall somewhere under Goal 2 for livability.
Genie Beal (GB): I’d like to see something about improving the pedestrian experience in relation to the green space.
A
:
AD: I think that’s an objective under one of the goals. Please think about where it might go.
Q
:
JF: How does regional access fit into the goals? Where is the pass-through traffic?
A
:
AD: I would say it’s under mobility goals 1 and 2. What we’re going to do now is divide you into five groups; you have each been assigned two goals randomly. Remember, you goal is to create measurable objectives; we can only work with what we can gather data to measure. If something is missing, now’s the time to throw it on the paper. You have 25 minutes and when you come back, we will hear from each group through its designated spokesperson.
Page 6

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Andrea began the small group reporting session by reminding the working group members that eventually each of them will be requested to present at one of the community meetings. Therefore, reporting out from the small groups will not be WAG members only opportunity to speak.
The first group to report was composed of Dale Mitchell, Bernard Doherty, David Watson, Fred Veterlein, and facilitated by team member Essek Petrie.
C
:
Fred Vetterlein (FV): We started by speak about a lot of questions we have: are we going to have a smaller overpass or surface roads? It’s hard to design pedestrian access routes or road crossings unless we have that.
Since we’re at a general level all of the things fit together. A surface road would need pedestrian crossings at lights, but a viaduct will have ramps that complicate the intersections.
C
:
Essek Petrie (EP): Our first goal was identify connections. We added objectives about bikes, handicapped users, vehicles and connections to green space. We know all of those will be evaluated differently. On our second goal was enhancing quality of life and there we focused on the pedestrian realm around the Forest
Hills Station and the business community.
C
:
FV: One measurable objective we had for the pedestrian realm was the presence of count-down pedestrian lights. Like over by Berkeley; you know how much time you have to dart out and get across the road.
Under the goal “identify and strengthen corridor connections for all users” this group added the following objectives: o
Improve bicycle access – measured by the strength of connections for cyclists in and through the area. o
Improve handicapped access – measured by the installation of new ramps at intersections. o
Improve vehicle connections – measured through the ease with which local and regional traffic moves. o
Improve connections within the Emerald Necklace – measured by how well corridor connections have been reestablished.
Under the goal “enhance the quality of life in residential areas” this group added the following objectives: o o
Improve the pedestrian realm around the Forest Hills Station – measure by safe crossings and presence of count-down pedestrian signal heads.
Improve local business conditions – no measure proposed.
The second group to report was composed of Wendy Williams, Emily Wheelwright, Jeff Ferris, and Michael
Reiskind, and facilitated by team member Gary McNaughton. Wendy Williams provided the group’s report.
Under the goal “remove barriers for neighborhood connections and circulation” this group added the following objectives.
5 o
Improve bicycle and pedestrian connections from the Hampstead Neighborhood for bicyclists and pedestrians to the Arnold Arboretum. o o
Create bus stops which do not impede the pedestrian flow along the sidewalk.
Improve bicycle and pedestrian connections among the Arnold Arboretum, Franklin Park and Forest Hills o
Cemetery, particularly targeting the difficult crossing at Shea Circle.
Strengthen connections between Forest Hills and the Centre/South business district. o o
Improve the connections between Washington Street and Hyde Park Avenue through the Station area.
Improve pick-up/drop-off operations at the Station.
Under the goal “integrate transit with the economic and residential areas” this group added the following objectives.
6 o
Create a bus route to directly link the Jamaica Plain and Roslindale shopping areas.
5
Specific performance measures were not suggested
6
Specific performance measures were not suggested
Page 7

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. o
Improve the circulation of the 39 bus in particular and buses in general at Forest Hills Station, paying particular attention to the upper bus way. It may be helpful consider flipping the bus area with the employee parking area. o
Improving the pathway between the Station and Court House to decrease vehicle trips and need for parking.
The third group to report was composed of Kevin Moloney, Suzanne Monk, Genie Beal, Sarah Freeman, and
Elizabeth Wylie, and facilitated by team member Maureen Chlebek. Sarah Freeman provided the group’s report
C
:
Sarah Freeman (SF): Our group was led by Maureen. Our goal was to improve roadway geometry to enhance circulation for all modes and users. We didn’t like the term enhance because it means different things to different people, so we thought about balance. We like it a bit better even though it’s not perfect.
We added some objectives as well.
Under the goal “improve roadway geometry to enhance (balance) circulation for all modes and all users” this group added the following objectives. o
Provide optimal levels for all modes and users (edited version of provide acceptable levels of traffic operations) - no measure proposed. o
Provide a safe pedestrian environment – measured by the number of pedestrian/vehicle conflict points, simplicity of desire lines and pedestrian patterns, and pedestrian signal timing. o
Provide safe bicycle conditions – measured by safe routes and number of connections to other bicycle infrastructure. o
Improve wayfinding signage inside and outside of Forest Hill Station - no measure proposed. o
Create a segregated taxi stand – measured by the presence of such a facility. o
Improve school bus operation to minimize its impact on local traffic - no measure proposed. o
Provide traffic calming - no measure proposed.
Under the goal “celebrate the area’s architectural, historic, transportation and landscape features” this group added the following objectives. o o
Connect all greenways – measured by the strength of connections between green spaces, particularly for pedestrians, focused on connecting Franklin Park to other green spaces and easing the crossing of Shea
Circle.
Add destination signage such as is used along the Freedom Trail – measured by the presence of such o signage.
Plant more trees – measured by improved air quality and the presence of more trees.
Ensure a new facility makes use of world class design – no measure proposed. o
The fourth group to report was composed of Bob Dizon, Don Eunson, Michael Hallen, and Kevin Wolfson, and facilitated by Andrea D’Amato. Kevin Wolfson provided the group’s report
Under the goal “integrate sustainability principles into design concepts” this group added the following objectives. o
Manage all stormwater runoff – measured by increased groundwater recharge. o
Use of native and low maintenance plantings – measured by the presence of these items. o
Use locally sourced materials and/or reuse material from the current overpass - measured by the presence of these items. o o
Utilize permeable pavements to promote groundwater recharge – measured by the use of such pavement.
Reduce the amount of energy used for the solution that emerges to replace the Casey Overpass, either through electrical co-generation with the MBTA or use of solar or wind – measured by amount of energy saved. o
Minimize future maintenance costs – measured by the use of low maintenance designs.
Under the goal “enhance human connections and create a sense of community place” this group added the following objectives.
Page 8

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. o
Create areas for art and activities, focused particularly on enlivening the under-bridge space (assuming a bridge is part of the solution) – measured by the presence of such spaces. o
Provision of interpretive historical signage - measured by the presence of these items. o
Provision of pedestrian wayfinding signage - measured by the presence of these items. o
Make the space memorable and visible – no measure proposed.
The fourth group to report did not make note of its members on its materials. David Hannon provided the group’s report.
Under the goal “improve access and connections to promote transportation choices” this group added the following objectives.
7 o o
Enhance and expand proposed, separate bicycle and pedestrian paths in the Arborway Yards project.
Improve bicycle and pedestrian connections between the Arnold Arboretum, Arborway, and Forest Hills o
Cemetery.
Improve regional east-west and north-south transportation links through the area either through enhance bus and/or Orange Line service. o
Identify future transit demands and solutions to increase capacity. o
Consider improvements to local streets to provide local east-west connections.
Under the goal “improve visibility/connections to gateway open spaces” this group added the following objectives.
8 o
Develop coordinated signage/identification and branding. o
Incorporate identity features into design at-grade or on a bridge.
Andrea wrapped up the small group reporting by thanking the WAG members for their excellent ideas. She noted that the project team will work to provide them with measurable data points on which the objectives can be tracked.
C
:
AD: We now want to take you into the design process and provide you with a framework for alternatives. We need to arrive at a preferred alternative and what we’re about to share with you now is a framework, bookends, the outside perimeters or the extremes that we will work in from to come to a solution that enjoys reasonable consensus. What we’ll do after that is start taking the concepts you bring to us after seeing our bookends and use the evaluation criteria to refine them. We will develop the alternatives and finally select a preferred alternative.
So you know, the tool we use today for this sort of work is AutoCAD and it makes our lives simpler and lets us do many cool things, but the sad side effect is that it has a tendency to produce drawings which look “done” even when they are quite conceptual. What we are about to show you is conceptual, it is far from finished.
C
:
SM: Let me just echo what Andre just said. You are about to see drawings that “look done,” but we don’t know what we’re building yet. There are no preconceived notions. These are just lines on paper.
A
:
MH: You are responding to what we’ve asked you for; let’s take a look.
C
:
Dennis Baker (DB): I’m going to talk to you about a new bridge. It’s hard for us to develop ideas for the bridge before we answer some basic questions: what do we want it to do? What will it look like? How tall
7
Specific performance measures were not suggested
8
Specific performance measures were not suggested
Page 9

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. and wide should it be? Those are the questions we need to answer before we get into bridge type or design features. We could put back a bridge that closely mimics the Casey Overpass, same alignment and so forth, but we can do better than that. This is a great opportunity because the bridge out there is beyond repair and we’ll have a clean slate. We can use a different alignment than what’s out there today. The existing viaduct is far higher than it needs to be because we no longer have to accommodate the elevated Orange Line. We could get a minimum profile which is 10-12 feet lower than today’s Casey Overpass and still achieve the needed heights over all the streets crossed. That could change the length. We can’t move the western abutment too much, this is the one by the Arboretum, but the eastern abutment which is currently almost at
Shea Circle could be pulled in quite a bit.
Q
:
MH: 10-12 feet is about one storey for a building, right? How high is the Casey Overpass today; about 3 stories?
A
:
DB: That’s pretty close and we could make a new bridge about one storey less. One key question is what would be on the bridge. The existing cross-section is 80 feet wide, originally built to carry three lanes in each
C
:
MH: Again, just for comparison, Centre Street in the middle of Jamaica Plain is 40 feet, eighty feet is twice that.
A
: direction, but it’s been shaved down to a lane in each direction and it’s working all right that way. This graphic 9 shows one possible cross section with one lane in each direction and 12-foot multi-use path down one side. That’s a total of 54 feet when you include shoulders and a median.
DB: Here’s another graphic featuring a shorter bridge. This lower bridge could be a much smaller structure.
One this to understand is what happens at grade level will impact the bridge design. We’ll need to handle the geometry issues. We need to know how important aesthetics are. Do you want a quiet structure or one that jumps out? These are some things for you to think about.
Q
:
FV: I have two questions, since Centre Street is 40 feet wide and allows two travel lanes plus parking, couldn’t you make the viaduct thinner?
A
:
DB: This is just food for thought, but we do have a median and a multi-use pathway. If the median is tall, then we have to provide shoulders to let an emergency vehicle get in to remove to stalled car. If we use a mountable median where the emergency vehicle can cross from the oncoming lanes then maybe it can be narrower.
Q
:
FV: And how do you account for the Arborway becoming two lanes with pedestrian and bicycle accommodations on either side? We’ll need to think about that.
Q
:
KW: Is that a done deal? Will the Arborway become two lanes?
A
:
FV: Well, it could with a two-lane viaduct.
A
:
Gary McNaughton (GM): I want to caution you against getting too wed to that idea. The ramps that come up from street level may mean that you still need four lanes after the viaduct – assuming you go with one.
C
:
Community Resident (CR): I’m thinking about how you might improve the under-bridge environment. Right now its very dark down there and there’s always water dripping on you.
A
:
DB: Under-bridge environment comes up a lot and it’s always a challenge. It’s hard to make that space nice because there’s little sun or water there so there’s not much you can do with plants, but there are some design approaches we can take. Lowering the bridge is great because it makes the bridge less expensive, but it can also make the space below less desirable. These are some tradeoffs to think about.
9
Available online at http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyoverpass/downloads/presentation_042011.pdf
Page 10

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C
:
JF: I don’t know if your lower slide accurately represents the length of the bridge as compared to the height slide. Proportionally it’s much longer.
A
:
DB: That could be. These were put together in a bit of a rush so we’ll double check it for you.
Q
:
ME: Would a shorter bridge still be ADA compliant?
A
:
DB: We don’t have a choice about that. Anything we design has to be ADA compliant.
C
:
Don Kindsvatter (DK): I’m going to show you two bookends for an at-grade solution. We’ve been working on ways to visually talk about the criteria and thinking about them as sliders can be a help. For example, say we push the vehicle slider all the way to perfect. That’s great for vehicles, but has negative impacts everywhere else. Our idea is to try to find the sweet spot where all the sliders drop into the acceptable band.
First, let’s talk about if we just focus on recreating the parkway. Shea Circle is at the right of the screen with the Arboretum on the left. We have a two lane roadway with left turn pockets. The corridor is quite wide. We have green down the middle and on the edges we have space that we can think about different uses for. Do we even want the roadway in the middle; maybe we push the roadway to one side and keep all the green space together? In this example, we have a sidewalk and bike paths similar to the original Olmstead plan where he puts the road in the middle, frontage roads down the sides and a bridle/walking path. He’s filled it out with trees and we would try for as many trees as we could. That option is when we push the landscape slider all the way to perfect. Now, if we push the vehicle slider all the way to perfect and create all the capacity that’s out there today at ground level, we get this. It’s a lot more pavement and it has right and left turn pockets at the intersections. There’s still multi-use paths and still some green space.
C
:
C
:
AD: And, none of these work from a traffic perspective just yet.
DK: Also, the vehicular focus solution is difficult for pedestrians. There are some design considerations of things in the corridor that we will have to deal with if we choose an at-grade solution. These are: o o o o o
105 surface parking spaces under the viaduct, much of it used by the court-house. Should they be replaced in full, partially or not at all?
The 39 bus, assuming it keeps its current route, constrains our options. Could it go somewhere else, bearing in mind that it uses longer, flexible buses. The MBTA wants to use more of those on routes operating around Forest Hills.
There are grade the sight line issues, it can be hard to see in certain intersections and we’ll try to improve that.
Shea Circle is a rotary today that works well for cars, but none of the other modes. Should it stay a rotary? We’ll be looking into making it a simple four-way intersection. What we do at Shea Circle can be used in any option, it’s a mix-and-match.
The MBTA vent stacks and Orange Line exit stairs. They limit what we can do, but moving them is costly.
Maybe the stairs could go to the other side of New Washington Street. There is also a series of grates over the Commuter Rail and Amtrak lines. They serve to release pressure caused by high speed trains going through. They can be broken up or moved, but they need to stay in some form or another.
Q
:
JF: Does the bridge need to have pedestrian access, why do you need two vehicle widths on either side, and what would the design speed be?
A
:
DB: Pedestrian access isn’t required. That’s a design decision left up to the owner; MassDOT, the shoulders and lane widths are federally mandates. You need to be able to get an emergency vehicle up the bridge to get to cars that have broken down. If we include a mountable median, we can get away with less width. The design speed is established during the design phase, but generally its based on running speeds.
Page 11

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q
:
Allan Ihrer (AI): At the corner of New Washington and South Street, there are some old and run-down houses.
Would acquiring them and demolishing them improve any of your angles?
A
:
JR: That’s really not part of our approach to demolish homes.
C
:
SM: I think there is enough right-of-way out there to achieve our project goals without taking property and it would be outside of our scope. We can take properties of course, but we prefer to avoid it.
C
:
MH: Don, when you presented, you followed Olmstead. I want to throw one thing out there: Olmstead’s design isn’t particularly pedestrian friendly, it’s from an era when you took your carriage out to be seen by other carriage owners and it doesn’t reflect the way pedestrians use a space. I think we don’t want to look at this with a “good old days” kind of approach.
A
:
DK: There’s a separation of modes which is still valid today and the tree lined boulevard which I think we can all agree is nice, but there’s no need for us to be slavish in copying Olmstead, I agree.
C
:
MH: What about parking along the edges? That can reduce travel speeds.
C
:
MR: If this is a blank slate with anything on the table, I am going to give you a preview of what I’ll be doing for my homework and its 90 degrees: it’s an overpass going north-south instead of east-west. Your traffic studies show more people going north-south than east-west. That will be my assignment.
A
:
AD: Go for it.
Q
:
KW: As part of our homework, can we consider implementing part of Forest Hills Action plan and making the traffic a one-way loop around Forest Hills Station?
A
:
AD: You can definitely sketch that out.
Q
:
CR: This is a big project. Are there any constraints on the budget?
A
:
SM: We know that we can replace the bridge as it is right now for $70 million give or take, but it doesn’t need to be that high or wide. Strictly at-grade gives us a solution in the $30 million range if we don’t impact the
MBTA. Those are sort of the bookend, total project costs, $70-$30 million.
Q
:
Councilor Matt O’Malley (MO): I appreciate your effort to get a balanced solution. Where do you think a smaller bridge fits into that?
A
:
DB: We’ve started thinking about that but it has a lot to do with what we choose to do at grade. Any alternative with a bridge will be a benefit to traffic.
C
:
John Dalzell (JD): I think another takeaway from Olmstead is the curves. That’s both attractive and helps to slow down traffic. Have you looked at splitting the roadway and pushing one right up against the station?
That might help buses.
A
:
DK: I think we may look at an option which pushes the roadway tightly to the south. In terms of curves, that’s a valid point.
Page 12

Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C
:
JR: O.K. folks, that’s it. Everyone, thank you for coming and we’ll see you on May 4 th .
Ne xt Steps
The next major public involvement milestone in the process will be the third WAG meeting to address traffic. This meeting will run from 6:00-8:00 PM on May 4 th in Room 133 of the State Laboratory. In preparation for this meeting, WAG members have been issued a series of basic line maps of the project area. Their responsibility is to identify the three most important connections that need to be made thinking for all modes.
Page 13

Appendix 1 : Attendees
First Name
Andrew
Scott
Michael
Kevin
John
Robert
Fred
David
Emily
Allan
Don
Wendy
Steve
Gary
Dale
Kevin
Suzanne
Matt
Wendy
Kevin
Elizabeth
Dennis
Genie
Nina
Maureen
Joseph
Andrea
John
Bob
Bernard
Julieanne
Nika
Michael
Don
Jeff
Charles
Sarah
Valerie
Michael
Mary
Ihrer
Kindsvatter
Landman
McLaughlin
McNaughton
Mitchell
Moloney
Monk
O’Malley
Padilla
Peterson
Reiskind
Reynolds
Romano
Torres
Vetterlein
Watson
Wheelwright
Williams
Wolfson
Wylie
Baker
Beal
Brown
Chlebek
Cosgrove
D’Amato
Dalzell
Dizon
Doherty
Doherty
Elugardo
Epp
Eunson
Ferris
Fiore
Freeman
Frias
Halle
Hickie
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
HNTB
WAG
WAG
McMahon Associates
MBTA
HNTB
BRA
WAG
WAG
Mayor Menino’s Office
Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz’s Office
WAG
WAG
WAG
WAG
WAG
Councilor O’Malley’s Office
WAG
WAG
WAG
HNTB
WAG
MassDOT
McMahon Associates
WAG
WAG
WAG
City Counilor
Stony Brook Neighborhood Association
CTPS
WAG
Resident
MassDOT
Representative Liz Malia’s Office
WAG
WAG
WAG
WAG
WAG
WAG
Page 14

Page 15