Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
April 15, 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: First Public Information Meeting1
Meeting Notes of April 6, 20112
On April 6, 2011 the MassDOT team for the Casey Overpass Replacement Project Planning Study held the first of five
public information meetings associated with the six month planning study. MassDOT municipal liaison John Romano
opened the meeting by welcoming the audience and explaining that the public meetings would alternate with meetings of
the Working Advisory Group (WAG). The next such meeting will take place on April 20th, 2011 from 6:00-8:00 p.m. in
Room 133 of the Massachusetts State Lab. While these meetings are open to the public, they constitute working sessions of
the WAG and as such, committee business is given precedence. John reminded audience members that meeting agendas
including his contact information and mail-in comment sheets were available at the sign-in table. He also requested that
people sign in to add their names and contact information for the stakeholder database.
At this point, Boston City Councilor Matthew O’Malley was recognized. Councilor O’Malley thanked the audience and
DOT for their presence. He commented that the replacement of the Casey Overpass will have a major impact on Jamaica
Plain and the City as a whole and that for it to be successful, the community, City and DOT will need to work together to
determine how to replace the bridge within the next six months. Councilor O’Malley also noted that while the Arborway
Yards project had not been funded, the two projects are not mutually exclusive and should be considered together. He then
thanked the DOT again for their commitment to the community process and recognized Robert Torres from Representative
Malia’s office.
John then thanked Councilor O’Malley for his remarks, recognized members of Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz’s staff in the
audience, State Representative Russell Holmes, and noted that Julianne Doherty from the Mayor’s Office would be present
later during the meeting. He commented that in addition to the WAG, MassDOT has been working closely with the BRA,
BTD, MBTA and DCR. His opening remarks concluded, he turned the meeting over to MassDOT Accelerated Bridge
Program (APB) Project Manager Paul King who briefed the audience on the current status of the project with a short
PowerPoint presentation. Assisting Paul in this presentation were Dennis Baker (HNTB), Andrea D’Amato (HNTB), Gary
McNaughton (McMahon Associates), and Scott Peterson (CTPS).
1
Meeting attendance is listed in Appendix 1. Comments received from the public immediately prior to, at, and after the meeting are listed in Appendix 2.
2
This meeting was advertised in the Boston Globe on March 25th and 30th. It was advertised in the Jamaica Plain Gazette
on April 1st. 38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Highlights of the Presentation3
o The planning study process will have five public information meetings, alternating with meetings of the WAG. It
is expected that the alternating schedule of these meetings will allow comments and questions from the public
information meetings to inform the efforts of the WAG. Public information meetings will include:
o The meeting summarized herein addressing the project’s purpose, goals and the existing conditions.
o A second meeting in May addressing issues and opportunities, the evaluation criteria that the WAG will
begin developing at its next session on April 20th, 2035 traffic projects, and the framework for design
alternatives.
o A third meeting in June addressing development of alternatives and a review of the refined evaluation
criteria.
o A fourth meeting in July to finalize alternatives and apply the evaluation criteria.
o A fifth meeting to select a preferred alternative. It is expected that this meeting will take place in
September or October of 2011. The preferred alternative will be selected based on reasonable consensus.
The goal will be to select that alternative which best addresses the area’s problems and serve the
community well for the next 50 to 60 years.
o The current Casey Overpass was built in the 1950’s. The bridge is currently safe thanks to emergency repairs and
a rigorous inspection program, but the structure’s design flaws and ongoing maintenance, when balanced with its
age, clearly indicate that the time has come to replace the bridge. This creates a historic opportunity and the entire
project team is keeping this in mind as they move forward through the study phase. Key elements of this
opportunity include:
o Chances to improve mobility and livability for residents and users of all modes.
o Tightening the connections between the Arnold Arboretum, Franklin Park and the rest of the Emerald
Necklace park system.
o Improvements in at-grade conditions for all modes including bicycles and pedestrians.
o Improvements to transit connections – both bus and Orange Line.
o The Casey Overpass will be replaced through the Patrick-Murray Administration’s Accelerated Bridge Program
(ABP). The ABP is an eight year, $3 billion program to reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges
throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through repair or replacement. This means that the replacement
of the Casey Overpass is funded and will take place provided the project can be completed by June 30th, 2016.
This means an intense community process, particularly over the next six months. Following the selection of a
preferred alternative the project will undergo:
o 25%, 50% and 75% design between late 2011 and early 2013 – the community will be involved during
this process through meetings and website updates. This will be an excellent time for community
members to provide input on traffic conditions, how the new solution should look, and how the new
solution should be built to minimize community impacts.
o Demolition and construction between early 2013 and early 2016. Community briefings on project
progress will be provided during this time to monitor the impact of the project on the neighborhood.
Dust, noise and traffic in particular will be monitored by MassDOT.
o The current planning study is being addressed by a partnership consisting of:
o MassDOT – the bridge’s owner, providing oversight to the project team.
o The consultant team headed up by HNTB - bringing expertise in regional and local traffic, planning, and
landscape design. This team’s capabilities are augmented by the Central Transportation Planning Staff or
CTPS, the planning arm of the Boston MPO. CTPS maintain the regional transportation model and are
considered the local “gold standard” in traffic modeling. This is important since the Casey Overpass does
carry regional traffic from as far away as Quincy and Milton.
o Local and state agency stakeholders: BRA, BTD, MBTA and DCR.
3
A copy of this presentation can be seen at:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyoverpass/downloads/presentation040611.pdf
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
o The WAG – composed of a diverse body of representatives of the neighborhoods, local community
groups and institutions. The purpose of the WAG is to create a small forum where the detail of
developing alternatives can be fully discussed. Members of the community are encouraged to contact
their local WAG member with questions, ideas and concerns.4
o Given its compressed schedule, the project team is fortunate to be working in an engaged community that has
already produced several transportation, open space and economic plans addressing the area around the Casey
Overpass. All of these plans have generated a wealth of data on which the project team can draw. Plans that the
project team is aware of and have made available to the community via the project website include:
o 2000 Green Triangle Study
o 2001 Memorandum of Agreement between City of Boston and MBTA
o 2004 Arborway Master Plan
o 2007 Arborway Traffic Review
o 2008 Structural Condition Investigation and Traffic Study
o 2008 Franklin Park Transportation and Access Study
o 2008 Forest Hills Improvement Initiative: Use and Design Guidelines and Transportation Action Plan
o 2008 MBTA Parcels V and W Solicitation
o 2010 Centre and South Streets Streetscape and Transportation Action Plan
o The project team has also researched the history of the Casey Overpass and the Arborway around it. Landmark
dates for the area include:
o Construction of the Arborway in the 1890’s as a scenic carriage road.
o In the 1900’s the pavement began to deteriorate from increased automobile traffic; a 1908 report suggests
paving the roadway to automotive standards.
o In the 1920’s automobile traffic increased dramatically and there were calls to reconfigure the roadway to
handle the regional load. Shea Circle was built and discussions about an overpass began.
o Between 1950 and 1953, the Casey Overpass, named for local priest Monsignor William Casey was
constructed. The bridge’s impressive height served to accommodate the then-elevated Orange Line. At
the time, the Casey Overpass included 3 lanes in each direction and no sidewalks.
o In the early 1980’s the Orange Line was depressed into the southwest corridor along with the Amtrak and
Commuter Rail lines. The southwest corridor park was built along the rail lines at street level.
o In 1990, the Casey Overpass was reconfigured to have two lanes in each direction and sidewalks down
both sides of the bridge.
o As of 2010, for safety reasons, travel on the Casey Overpass has been restricted to one lane in each
direction.
o As noted previously, the Casey Overpass is safe as repaired and restricted to a single lane in each direction.
However, there is an array of factors that point to the need for prompt replacement rather than continuing to spend
money on repairs for diminishing returns. The bridge:
o Has a significant problem with corrosion at the median and center line. The corrosion is due to years of
water and deicing salts.
o Deck has significant problems related to corrosion and a faulty original design. This faulty original
design compounds the problems seen today.
o Piers have problems that could be addressed, but at high cost. The piers were found to be badly damaged
in summer 2010, but have been repaired and stabilized.
o Is in a condition that repairs at this point are so expensive that it makes little sense to save the bridge.
o The Casey Overpass is a dominant feature in Forest Hills with a heavy visual presence in the area. For drivers,
pedestrians and cyclists not familiar with the area, the bridge’s presence creates a confusing at-grade network.
This is in part due to the need to split intersections into unusual configurations to go around the structure’s piers.
Removal of the overpass provides an opportunity to reconfigure the at-grade network to make more intuitive sense
for all users and to strengthen pedestrian, cycling and transit connections. Over the next few months, the project
team and WAG will consider the area beneath the bridge as a blank slate, however, some elements such as the
Courthouse, the Forest Hills station and the Arborway Yards are considered fixed and will be protected by the
project.
4
Members of the WAG as of 4/6/11 can be seen here:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyoverpass/downloads/presentation040611.pdf
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
o With regard to local traffic, the project team has collected data from 16 intersections in the area around the
overpass.
o Data was collected in accordance with BTD specifications: 11 hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., during
the school year, and observing cars, heavy vehicles such as buses and trucks, vehicles and pedestrians.
o Regional traffic has also been observed through a license plate survey and used to validate outputs from
the CTPS regional model.
o Traffic over the Casey Overpass is primarily northwest in the morning towards Boston and Brookline and
southeast in the evening towards Milton, Quincy and Dorchester. In the morning peak hour, the bridge
carries 1,350 vehicles towards the northwest.
o The traffic counts also showed where there are currently high - over 50 - bicycle or pedestrian movements
during the peak hours. The project team will work to strengthen these connections and also areas that are
currently less than welcoming to cyclists and pedestrians such as the crosswalks at Shea Circle.
o The project area also hosts approximately 17 MBTA bus routes serving 18-19,000 passengers per day.
The project will do nothing that hampers the ability of the MBTA to serve its customers and will attempt
to improve bus operations where possible.
o The project team will also take into account off-street parking and potential future development in the
area.
o CTPS is the transportation support staff for the Boston MPO and maintains the regional, multimodal model for all
of eastern Massachusetts. This model is an excellent tool to bring to bear on the Casey Overpass since the
structure does carry some regional traffic. As the project progresses, the regional model will be used to see how
different potential solutions impact regional and local traffic. Thus far the regional model, validated by the
research mentioned above, has shown that:
o 50% of trips over the Casey Overpass begin in Boston with the other 50% being regional travel along the
northwest-southeast corridor mentioned above. Major regional origination points include Milton, Quincy,
Newton or Brookline.
o In the morning, regional traffic tends to approach the Casey Overpass along Morton Street, Gallivan
Boulevard and Route 28 and then fan out to the Jamaicaway, Centre Street and VFW Parkway. In the
evening, the reverse is true.
o With a great amount of data gathered to support its work, a key task of the project team, WAG and community is
to imagine some of the possibilities and challenges associated with replacing the Casey Overpass. Some
challenges and opportunities include:
o Balancing the need for regional mobility while protecting neighborhood livability.
o Modeling conditions in 2035 – will we have as many cars on the road then as we do now?
o How do we manage parking demand?
o How do we address important items in the right-of-way such as the MBTA head-house and platform
ventilation stacks?
o Taking a holistic approach to transportation, balancing the needs of users of all modes.
o How best to strength connections for all modes with an at-grade solution or a new overpass.
o How best to create additional green space and reestablishes something of the Olmstead connection
between the Arboretum and Franklin Park while indicating that Forest Hills is the gateway to three of the
City’s largest green spaces.
o Figuring out a way to celebrate Forest Hills’ unique history of both open space and transportation.
o As the project team moves forward it will be guided by FHWA’s latest livability and mobility guidelines,
MassDOT’s GreenDOT policy, and Boston’s Complete Streets policy. All of these documents focus on livability
and multimodal connections. Members of the community are encouraged to familiarize themselves with these
documents and may do so through the project website at www.massdot.ma.gov/caseyoverpass.
Question & Answer Session
Paul King began the question and answer session by again reviewing the schedule of public meetings covered at the
beginning of the presentation. He once again reminded members of the audience to seek out their WAG member as their
representatives to the working group. Paul underscored the need for the agencies involved, the WAG and the community to
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
work together to meet the accelerated timetable and create an outcome that enjoys reasonable consensus. He then turned
the meeting over to John Romano who facilitated the session.
Q: Valerie Schechter (VS): I work for Jamaica Plain Rentals and Sales. I just got a condominium at Arborway Gardens.
Which group represents me?
A: John Romano (JR): You would be represented by Liz O’Connor from the West Roxbury Courthouse Neighborhood
Association.
Q: Reuven Steinberg (RS): There is a Forest Hills Neighborhood group that isn’t represented on your list; was that an
intentional omission?
A: JR: We’ve tried to come up with a good balanced list while keeping the working group to a manageable size that can
really work through the details. We’re not going to add anyone on the fly during a meeting, but please come see me
after the meeting and we can take it under advisement.
Q: Karen Fayne (KF): What about a group from Roslindale, I’m definitely impacted by this, traffic backs all the way up
Washington Street and definitely impacts Roslindale, I want Roslindale shown as impacted.
A: JR: We are trying to keep the working group contained to a reasonable area around the bridge. We could have a
working group with dozens of people, but then it’s not a working group, it’s a public meeting.
C: Kosta Demos (KD): I live on Yale Terrace, right up from the overpass and as you can see there is some angst from
folks in the neighborhood about this working group. There are a lot of good people who have done good work on that
committee but I think people would feel better if they could see a geographic catchment area or hear about the
reasoning behind how the committee was put together. Rather than having people gripe about it, you might just explain
how it was done.
A: JR: O.K. fair enough: basically, as a team, MassDOT and the other agencies involved, plus some of your local elected
leaders, we looked at the planning processes that have gone on in the area and the expected impact zone and we took a
first run at it. Then, we had the first WAG meeting back in March and added some people based on that. We are
thinking of adding some people tonight based on what we’ve heard, but we have to be careful about how big the WAG
gets otherwise it will cease to function as its supposed to and become a public meeting. Right now our WAG list is
about 95% done; the last time we took it out in the community in March it was 60% done. We’ll try to add a few
people if we can; I know that both Roslindale and Hyde Park are looking to be represented in some way.
A: KD: Certainly I’m not accusing you of some sinister cabal, but this is Jamaica Plain and if you haven’t already figured
it out, process can be chewed to the nub.
A: JR: We had heard something about that. While I have the floor, let me just acknowledge Kate Chang and Vineet Gupta
from the City of Boston’s BTD. Also, Representative Malia, welcome Representative, and Tom McDonough from
Steve Murphy’s office. Is there anything any of you would like to say?
A: Liz Malia (LM): Nothing right now, thank you John, I’m here to listen and learn tonight.
C: Vineet Gupta (VG): I’m here on behalf of the City of Boston with BTD. All City agencies are fully engaged in this
process. While this is a MassDOT project we want to work with the community and make sure we proceed in a
friendly way. Please feel free to contact me or Julianne from the Mayor’s office any time.
Q: Jim Stillman (JS): I live up the Arborway where I’ve been for sixteen years. I was wondering if there’s been any
discussion of running the Orange Line out any further to pull traffic away from Forest Hills. I would be a lot more
comfortable if they were in the room tonight; I think you’re going to need to work with them on this.
A: Steve McLaughlin (SM): We are working closely with the MBTA on this project and certainly that is facilitated by the
fact that we are all now one agency. The MBTA has representation of the WAG. At the moment, extending the
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Orange Line is a much bigger project than this is. The general context we need to keep focused on is the bridge which
needs to be removed and replaced with something. Our job is to figure out what that something is. I really can’t
comment on the long-range plans of the MBTA, but for the moment ask that we all keep our focus on the bridge.
C: Paul Schimeck (PS): I appreciate all the multimodal concern you have shown and your general approach to this project.
One thing I don’t see here and was thinking about is the land around the area. Not only does the removal of the
overpass create a lot of space but there are already some small parcels of open space around the bridge that are unused.
There are interesting opportunities to develop adjunct uses such as small community facilities.
A: Andrea D’Amato (AD): Thank you Paul, we have members of the BRA in the room and they have been working with
us to ensure that we keep those elements in mind. We’ve had a number of meetings with them. John and Tad are in
the room tonight. Anything either of you would like to say?
A: John Dalzell (JD): Thank you Andrea, we are providing input to the project team. For the moment, we’re watching and
responding as needed.
Q: Nika Elugardu (NE): I’m a member of Sonia Chang-Diaz’s staff, I live on Green Street, and I’m a car-pooler. I think
my question would be for Scott Peterson. At a future meeting, could you bring a version of the multimodal model with
you so that people can see what would happen to traffic with various different changes?
A: Scott Peterson (SP): I’d really love to be able to do that, but unfortunately it can take hours just to set up one iteration
the model is that big. If people are deeply interested they are welcome to visit our offices and see the simulation
running.
A: Gary McNaughton (GM): I think what you may have seen in some meetings past is a program called SimTraffic, that
produces a sort of simulation that people can watch on the screen. Making those models falls to us and we will
generate some that you can watch if you wish. Those models take a little less time, but they cannot be changed on the
fly either.
C: Peter Simmons (PS): We took a group out to look at signal timing and it seemed to us that there is more efficiency you
can get from the lights already out there with the signals you have out there. For example, the light at Tower Street is
stopping people from going north while the light under the overpass is green.
A: GM: We have started our analysis of existing signals, but we haven’t gotten onto interim measures yet. Fortunately, all
of those lights are on the City’s network so those timings can be changed relatively easily.
C: Evan Reynolds (ER): I’ve lived on Saint Rose Street for 46 years. Have you dismissed the idea of a tunnel?
A: JR: Yes, a tunnel is off the table.
A: Paul King (PK): There is really too much stuff to get under out there: the Orange Line, Amtrak and then under that
there’s the Stony Brook Culvert. I know that we have tunnels in the bottom of the harbor, but there’s not nearly so
much stuff out there.
C: Jeff Ferris (JF): As a WAG member, I’m disappointed in the delay about getting materials out. I think we should have
had these materials already. You’ve been collecting data since this time last year, but we haven’t got anything. Let’s
get moving already. When you do your list of WAG members, I think the agency partners need to be shown as well.
A: JR: O.K. thank you for your comments.
C: Bernard Doherty (BD): I’m also a WAG member and I live on Asticou Road. Another point I’d like to make is that
you haven’t really explained what the ABP is and how much funding is available for this project.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: SM: The ABP is a $3 billion project to fix hundreds of structurally deficient bridges across the Commonwealth and the
Casey Overpass is in the list. The sunset date of the program is June 30th, 2016. This project is funded, but we don’t
know the solution. We want to hear from the community about what solution they feel is best. I could just put a bridge
back: that’s the easy solution, but there could be an at-grade solution, a smaller bridge, a combination of the two. I just
can’t tell you a cost tonight.
C: BD: So you have no real idea of how much money has been put aside for this project and you have a short window to
obtain the money. Have you given any thought to the cost to replace the bridge? What’s your maximum number?
A: SM: I can put another bridge like the Casey Overpass back for about $70 million. An at-grade solution is another
number, a combination is another number and a smaller bridge is another number. If we get into moving the MBTA
head house and ventilation stack that’s yet another number, but the most important thing for you to take away from this
is that the project is funded now through the ABP and we need to stick to our schedule to access the funding.
C: No name given (NNG): I’ve lived here for 28 years and I own my own business. Can you provide us with contact
information for the WAG members? I trust Bernie and Jeff, but we need to know how to contact these people. Can
you give us a way to contact them, because we want to work with you without the craziness of the Whole Foods?
A: JR: I can promise the community that we won’t install a Whole Foods at this location. I think we were hesitant to put
contact information for WAG members on the project website, but we’re getting so many requests for it that we’ll need
to figure out a way to make that available. We’ll work on that in the next few days.
C: Jerry O’Connor (JO): You asked for our top priorities and for me, its accountability. We’ve had wonderful working
groups before, on the Arborway Yard for instance, but that project is stalled. I don’t want the bridge to come down and
then have nothing go up to replace it. My suggestion is that in addition to WAG and community meetings which I both
think are great that you have an ombuds-person with real time reporting who we can connect with to determine whether
we are on time and on budget. Not to lump too much on your plate, but it defies logic to me that we’re going to ignore
Arborway Yards. There has to be a way to work that into your plan. Accountability is my main priority. Thanks for
coming out again and for keeping the information flowing.
A: Henry Allen (HA): I’m a member of the CPCAY and people should be aware that the MBTA board did not fund the
Arborway Yards project today. That’s a 13 year planning process that engaged many people with strong support from
all our local politicians. We just had 500 people sign a petition and send it to Rich Davy and Jeffrey Mullen all urging
that after 13 years, $30 million from the MBTA is a reasonable investment. There’s no end in sight for what was
supposed to be a temporary facility. I enter this process as an abutter and wonder how I and my neighbors will access
our dead end street. I find it very difficult to accept the planning. I respect the working group, but I find it difficult to
respect this process. Arborway Yards is a model of TOD, unless you plan on violating previous commitments, those
acres are sacrosanct: there’s supposed to be transit there, there’s supposed to be green space there. Don’t you dare
touch a square foot of that, you need to respect the work and the support of the elected officials, given today’s vote, I
just don’t see DOT respecting this community.
A: JR: Thank you, Henry.
C: David Hannon (DH): I’m a WAG member too and I just want to say that anyone is welcome to talk to me. I’m here to
be a bridge between the community and DOT.
C: Allen Ihrer (AI): I live in the Stony Brook Neighborhood behind Doyle’s and I’d like to say I agree completely with
Henry Allen. Our community is really stuck with Arborway Yards. I have done over 100 hours in the bus yard and the
volumes are huge. I don’t see any evidence of a pedestrian count in your numbers. We know that when traffic backs
up people take the capillary streets. In my neighborhood we have major cut-through traffic on McBride and Carolina
and I want to see those in your traffic modeling. The gentleman over here who mentioned the transit solution: that’s
something we need. Maybe an express bus between Mattapan and the Green Line at Cleveland Circle running along
the 203 corridor; I think that’s going to be critical. I’d like to see some money carved off from the Accelerated Bridge
Program for the Arborway Yards. Lastly, any of my neighbors, feel free to bring me your ideas and questions.
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Sarah Freeman (SF): I live on the Arborway, and I’m a WAG member. You’ve echoed my priorities about improving
connections and simplifying traffic patterns. In your traffic analysis, have you looked at speed? One of my
observations as been that up and down stream from the overpass the traffic doesn’t move very well, but the overpass
itself is a speedway. I think it would be a better to have a roadway that promotes slow and steady traffic.
A: GM: We can get out there and take some additional speed data, but as we look at future scenarios, I think you’ve hit the
nail on the head. We would also prefer a slow and steady approach since that’s better for bicycles and pedestrians.
C: Michael Halle (MH): I’m also on the WAG and in listening to comments from the community, it seems like right now
we’re mostly dealing with concerns and fears about accountability. I think as a group we are there in part to provide
that accountability and to make sure that comments from the community are addressed. All options are on the table.
Two years may be a short time line for a bridge, but it’s peoples lives and that’s a process all of you will be a part of. I
think this process is good in that it recognizes that any community process contains two classes of people: those who
want to know and those who need to be part of the leadership of the project. We are here to hold the DOT accountable
and make sure that when you want an answer you can get it. What’s on us is to make sure that we participate
constructively. We have six months and we can’t dawdle. If we do, it’ll be another Casey Overpass by default and I
know we can do better than that.
C: Gail Sullivan (GS): I live on Yale Terrace. I know this is a bridge project and something of an emergency, but the
planning needs to be bigger than we have seen thus far. While the history was great, there’s been no mention of the
very sizable institutions close to Forest Hills from both an urban design and transportation planning perspective. Those
are the Boston Nature Center, Franklin Park Zoo, not to mention two state labs. The neighborhood needs to understand
the actual destinations in the area. Those of us in the area, and I’ve been here fifteen years, we know what the traffic
impacts are, but you have to stretch your planning out: Murray Circle can impact Shea Circle. I know this about
replacing the Casey Overpass: you have to include east-west traffic. You need to look holistically.
A: AD: Great comments and thank you. Just so you know we did have a slide show taken by WAG members rolling
before the meeting started, but one thing that did come out of that was highlighting the architectural history and
institutions you mentioned.
C: JR: Andrea, let me just take a moment to acknowledge City Councilor Felix Arroyo and City Councilor John Connolly.
C: Anne McKinnon (AM): I really want to underscore the need for you to list the agencies on the WAG. Mark Boyle
from the MBTA is here and he’s a brilliant real estate director. You need someone from bus operations at your
meetings as well. With 150 buses an hour, I’d see that as key for this project.
C: Emily Wheelwright (EW): I bike to work every day and since the new bike lanes have gone in and the bike path has
been repaved, the number of cyclists is way up. I think if you put in more bike lanes and strengthen pedestrian
connections you’ll see greater demand.
C: Sam Curtis (SC): I grew up on Lennoco Road and I now live in Hyde Square. I’m all in favor of a holistic approach,
but I think we need to be careful to limit the expectations that we have to this project. We won’t solve every problem
in Jamaica Plain. The second is you guys have studied this an awful lot and I wonder what you think in your heart of
hearts is what we should put up.
A: AD: Thank you for your comment, and nice try on trying to get out of us what we think we should replace the bridge.
We don’t know yet ourselves, that’s why we’re listening to all of you.
C: JR: O.K. everyone, I think that’s it for tonight. Thanks for coming out. We’ll see you again soon.
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Next Steps
The next major public involvement milestone in the process will be the second WAG meeting on April 20th, from 6:00-8:00
p.m. in Room 133 of the State Laboratory on South Street. The second community meeting is currently scheduled for the
18th of May.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees5
5
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Emmanuel
[none provided]
Resident
Rik
Ahlberg
Resident
Chris
Ahn Allen
Resident
Kriss
Aho
Resident
Jim
Allen
Resident
Henry
Allen
Resident
Rian
Amiton
Resident
Michael
Austin
Resident
Dennis
Baker
HNTB
Mary Grace
Barber
Resident
Wayne
Beitler
Resident
Martin
Bernart
Resident
Lee
Blasi
Resident
Nancy
Campbell
Resident
Heather
Carito
Resident
Dan
Church
Resident
Sander
Cohan
Resident
John
Connolly
Boston City Council
Nolly
Corley
Resident
Zack
Coza
Resident
Roger
Cuevas
Resident
Andrea
D’Amato
HNTB
John
Dalzell
BRA
Kosta
Demos
Resident
Bernie
Doherty
WAG
Don
Eunson
Resident
Karen
Fayne
Resident
Jeffrey
Ferris
WAG
Richard
Fine
Resident
Gannalda
Fontana
Resident
Liz
Forsythe
Resident
Sarah
Freeman
WAG
Emily
Gallagher
Resident
Todd
Gilbert
Resident
Andrew
Grace
Resident
Tolle
Graham
Resident
Michael
Halle
WAG
David
Hannon
WAG
Mary
Hickie
WAG
Jim
Hinsman
Resident
Scott
Hoffert
Resident
Illegible entries appear in scanned copies of the sign-in sheets
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Justin
Humphreys
Resident
Jim
Hunnewell
Resident
Kate
Hutchinson
Resident
Allen
Ihrer
WAG
Kate
Janisch
Resident
Tobias
Johnson
Resident
Louise
Johnson
Resident
Swati
Joshi
Resident
Caryn
Kauffman
Resident
Scott
Kelly
Resident
Don
Kindsvatter
HNTB
Grace
King
CTPS
Paul
King
MassDOT
Donna
Klein
Resident
Carrie
Knudsen
Resident
Linda
Kowalcky
Resident
Joseph
Lieber
Resident
Tim
Lindgren
Resident
Janice
Loux
Resident
Liz
Malia
State Representative
Jason
Marder
Resident
Matt
Mark
Resident
George
Marsh
Resident
Deacon
Marvel
Resident
Jonathan
McCurdy
Resident
Anne
McKinnon
Resident
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Doug
Mink
Resident
Dale
Mitchell
WAG
Suzanne
Monk
WAG
Dave
Nagle
Resident
Paul
Nelson
MassDOT
Nicholas
Nesta
Resident
Gerard
O’Connor
Resident
Adrew
Padilla
Resident
Scott
Peterson
CPTS
Brian
Potter
Resident
Tad
Reed
BRA
Megan
Reilly-Padilla
Resident
Liam
Reilly-Padilla
Resident
Michael
Reiskird
Resident
Bill
Reyelt
Resident
Kevin
Reynolds
Resident
John
Romano
MassDOT
John
Romano
MassDOT
Michael
Rousseau
Resident
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Stephen
Russo
Resident
Valerie
Schecter
Resident
Paul
Schimeck
Resident
Nancy
Shapiro
Resident
John
Shostak
Resident
Laura
Smeaton
Resident
Amy
Smith
Resident
Reuven
Steinberg
Resident
Peter
Stidman
Resident
Ann
Stillman
Resident
Jim
Stillman
Resident
Mark
Tedrow
Resident
Nancy
Thompson
Resident
Robert
Torres
Office of Representative Liz Malia
Lindsey
Tucker
Resident
George
Uhlrich
Resident
Frederick
Vetterlein
WAG
David
Watson
WAG
Karen
Wepsic
Resident
Emily
Wheelwright
Resident
Levering
White-McQuillan
Resident
Wendy
Williams
Resident
Kevin
Wolfson
WAG
Beth
Worrell
Resident
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Comments Received
See following page
Page 13