Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
March 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:
First Working Advisory Group (WAG) Meeting
Meeting Notes of March 16, 2011
On March 16, 2011 the Working Advisory Group (WAG) met to kick off the Casey Overpass Replacement Project
Planning Study. Between now and October 2011 when the planning phase of the project is scheduled to wrap up, WAG
meetings will alternate with public information meetings which will 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 large number of community members, had roughly two parts: an
initial open discussion and a review of the presentation that will be given to the community at the first public information
session on April 6th.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.
Initial Discussion
C: John Romano (JR): Thank you all for coming tonight. We are here to talk about the Casey Overpass. This is the
Working Advisory Group or WAG meeting. Our first public information meeting will be on April 6th at the Agassiz
School from 6:30-8:30 p.m. We’ll open the doors at 6:00 p.m. for an informal open house. I want to acknowledge
Julieanne Doherty from the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services and Valerie Friars from Councilor O’Malley’s
Office. Standing to my right are the project managers from MassDOT, Paul King and Steve McLaughlin. I also want
to recognize a colleague of ours from the Boston Transportation Department (BTD) Vineet Gupta. Vineet, I know you
had wanted to say something as we got started.
A: Vineet Gupta (VG): I am the director of BTD. The City of Boston and the Mayor’s office is working closely on this
project with MassDOT and the community. We want a process that is coordinated with other ongoing processes such
as Center/South Street and the Arborway Yards. I will be serving as the City’s point person on this project so please
feel free to call on me for help or with questions as the project moves ahead.
C: Steve McLaughlin (SM): This project is being done through MassDOT’s Accelerated Bridge Program or ABP. The
program was launched in 2008 with a $3 billion bond bill signed into law by the Patrick-Murray Administration. The
goal of the program is to repair or replace structurally deficient bridges throughout the Commonwealth. At the time,
about 2/3 of the money went to what was then MassHighway and 1/3 went to DCR. Since then, those two agencies and
the money have been merged into MassDOT. The Casey Overpass itself belonged to DCR and has now been
1
Members of the project team and the WAG are noted herein by name. Community commentary is presented
anonymously.
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
transferred to MassDOT. We are working with DCR who owns the land; Joe Orfant of DCR with whom we speak
daily is in the audience tonight. Joe Cosgrove from the MBTA is also in the audience tonight and we are coordinating
with the MBTA since they have facilities, bus routes and the Orange Line in the project area. CTPS, the Central
Transportation Planning Staff, is involved, they are the gold standard for traffic modeling in Massachusetts, and they
have done a license plate survey for this and so can speak to you in detail about who is using the bridge, where they
come from and where they are going. I’d like to take a moment and let the present members of the WAG introduce
themselves.2
C: Community Member (CM): I’m here tonight representing the Stony Brook Neighborhood Association. This project is
going to have a major impact on our neighborhood. We have been in touch with Representative Malia’s office and we
would like to be represented on your committee. We are also wondering when there will be time for public comment.
A: JR: There will be a series of public information sessions at which the community will have the opportunity to make
comments and get answers for their questions. Those comments will help to inform the efforts of the WAG. We do
have a representative of your group on our committee: Allan Ihrer.
C: CM: He has a concussion right and cannot participate. Additionally, his work is really tied to the CPCAY.3 I think we
would like some additional representation on the committee.
A: SM: The Casey Overpass needs to be removed. It has to come down and we need to come up with a solution. This is
the group we will be meeting over the next six months. We need to put back a new bridge, an at-grade solution or
some combination of those two. We have a group here that is supposed to address both local and regional points of
view. When we were trying to form this group we knew that we could have 1,000 people on it easily, but we need to
try to keep it small enough that we can interact and work through some fairly intense detail. We gave it our first shot,
we knew the composition wouldn’t be perfect the first time and we are glad you are here. We won’t be adding anyone
to the WAG tonight, on the fly, but we will talk about it and get back to you.
C: JR: I think we’d like to hear from the WAG first regarding people to add to the group. We have heard about the Stony
Brook Neighborhood Association and the Boston Cyclist’s Union. Vineet, can you think of someone we need to add?
A: CM: I’m on the Southwest Corridor Park PMAC (Parkland Management Advisory Committee). I think we should be
involved.
A: CM: We’ve been working with JP Bikes and we’ve been trying to have Bob Dizon added to the committee to represent
the cyclist’s perspective. I know you have MassBike on the WAG, but I think JP Bikes should also be on the
committee because it brings a local point of view in Jamaica Plain and Roslindale. We’ve been working to address
issues that impact local cyclists in particular.
C: Bernard Doherty (BD): I’m interested in the people who will be impacted by this most. That’s the home owners and
businesses next to the structure and I don’t believe there is enough representation of them right now. I have nothing
against the groups here now, all of which have done yeoman and yeo-woman work, but I want to make sure the
homeowners and business people are represented.
A: JR: We’re going to take all of this under advisement well before the April 6th meeting. We’re not going to say yes or
no at this meeting. Give us a few days to work this out. We’re here, we’re open, we didn’t think this group would be
perfect on the first pass. We’re here for you; we want to get it right. I know there are some people on our group who
have not arrived yet. I don’t see our representative for the Washington Street businesses, Allan from Stony Brook isn’t
here, Elizabeth Wylie hasn’t arrived yet. We invited Carlos Icaza, but he’s out of town. David Hannon just walked in
and I haven’t see Charles Fiore from South Street just yet either. Kathy Kottaridis from the Courthouse Neighborhood
Association is on the WAG; I think she will be here soon.
Q: CM: It sounds like you are having community meetings and working group meetings; can you explain when they will
be and how they are related?
2
3
A list of attending members of the WAG can be seen in Appendix 1.
The Arborway Yards Project
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: JR: We will actually be covering that in the presentation we’re going to show in a few minutes.
Q: CM: And are all the meetings open?
A: JR: They are open in that community members are always welcome to attend any meeting. I can’t promise you how
much opportunity you will have to comment at future WAG meetings. This one is purposefully a little loose, it’s a
getting to know you kind of meeting, but at the next WAG meeting it’s going to be a lot tighter because we will have a
lot of detail to get through. The community meetings are specifically intended to get input from the public so that it
can inform the work of the WAG. Now, let me ask, anyone else who seems to be missing from the WAG?
A: CM: I support putting on the Stony Brook Neighborhood Association, but another big thing, and I’ll admit I don’t
know the full make-up of the committee, but it appears it doesn’t have any people of color on it and that’s a big part of
our community.
A: Michael Halle (MH): Surrounding the project you also have the Arnold Arboretum, Franklin Park and the Forest Hills
Cemetery all of which are very active. You could consider adding representation from them. Additionally, we have
people on the committee who can represent more than one group.
C: JR: Just so that we are clear, at not point is there going to be a show-of-hands vote, so having more than one person
from your group on the WAG doesn’t make any difference. This is input to the DOT, to the City and to DCR. You can
bring 100 people to the community meeting. Your input isn’t limited to the one or two people on the WAG. We are
happy to have your input at any time and at the community meeting there will be ample time for you to speak. Based
on what I see here tonight I expect a full house on April 6th and that’s great. The worst kind of public meeting I think is
the one where six people show up. With that, I want to turn it over to Paul King who will explain some more about the
project.
C: Paul King (PK): I am one of the two project managers for this effort. I’m glad you’re all here. You are a diverse group
representing a diverse neighborhood; I’ve never seen so many organizations per square mile in my life which is great.
To give you a brief overview of why you are here, what we have here is a unique opportunity. As much as the overpass
has impacted the area for 50 years, what we do now will impact this area for a long time to come. That will mean
different things for different people and that’s why you are here. We need to know your issues to make it all work. We
need your help to get it right – I don’t live here, you do. You your needs, your concerns, and how things impact you
specifically so we want to make sure we incorporate your ideas.
We expect 5 or 6 meetings of this group between now and October alternating with the public meetings and as we go
through the process, expect to see a lot of information and more developments as we generate possible options. Thus
far we have developed a lot of background information: existing conditions, traffic surveys, license plate surveys,
pedestrian and bicycle counts etc. When we get to our next meeting we’ll be talking about concepts and what is needed
for each. Then we’ll have something more concrete to show you and we can critique them and see what works and
what doesn’t. By September, at the latest October, we will have come up with a reasonable consensus we can all live
with. It’s a lot to do, there will be disagreements I’m sure, but we need a spirit of cooperation here. We’re all working
together, people have differing needs, but that’s the beauty of it. We’re looking to you as neighborhood leaders to be
good representatives for your neighborhoods and community groups. You can certainly meet amongst yourselves
between meetings and bring back information and thoughts to this group.
C: JR: Let me just interrupt you for a moment Paul to recognize Representative Liz Malia who has just arrived.
C: PK: Thank you, John, welcome Representative Malia. Earlier, Steve introduced some our agency partners: DCR,
MBTA, and we consider you a big partner as well. Remember, we are tasked with the planning part of the study. We
will not have a design at the end of six months, but we will have determined what to take forward into design and if we
can get there, that’s a very significant milestone we will be happy to achieve. The planning study will be done in
October. From there we would go into design and permitting which would need to be done by 2013 so we can get into
construction in time for the project to end on June 30th, 2016 when the Accelerated Bridge Program ends and the
funding sunsets. The construction, depending on what we choose to build, may not take three years, but we don’t know
yet.
Q: MH: Do you see sustained public input into the process.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: PK: Certainly. There will be opportunities for the public to provide us with input in the 25% design phase and in the
construction phase, but for the moment, I want everyone to stay focused on the next six months during which we have a
lot to do.
Q: CM: Do you anticipate the bridge being open until construction?
A: PK: Yes, with what you see out there now, the single lane narrowing the bridge and getting the load down, should keep
it open through construction. That’s a good exercise because it shows us how the bridge works with only one lane.
C: CM: I’m a resident of Rossmore Road and I know that between demolition and construction there will be a need to
reroute traffic. I want to make sure that’s covered because I don’t want 30,000 cars down my street. I want to make
sure alternative traffic patterns are discussed.
A: PK: That’s a great point. We’re not going to demolish the bridge and then figure out what to do. Right now the bridge
is safe to carry the vehicle load it needs to carry. What we know is that more money we put into that bridge, the less
we get out in terms of life expectancy. The structure won’t come down until 2014.
C: Paul Nelson (PN): I think she wanted to express concern regarding detour routes during construction.
A: PK: Oh, O.K. that’s still two or three years away, but construction staging and traffic management will be a part of the
process. That’s one of the reasons we will keep the public involved all the way through. Let me tell you: we’ll be very
happy to get to the point of discussions over traffic management, it will mean we’ve cleared the most important hurdle
of figuring out what to build to replace the overpass.
Q: MH: Can you through what you have to cover so people will know when you’re going to bring something up so they
can know when to give their comments?
A: JR: For future meetings we will put agendas at the back of the room so people can pick them up as they come in.
C: JR: One thing we need to talk about tonight is our rules. We also want to talk about whether this is the right place and
right time for these committee meetings. So let’s allow Paul to cover those items. I’d like to just underscore that
committee members can comment any time. Public comment should be held until the end since this meeting is for the
WAG. At the community meeting in April, the WAG members will be there listening to you. The agenda for the
April 6th meeting is up on the website yet, but we will make it available shortly.
C: Wendy Landman (WL): And I notice tonight we’ll be going through that. I assume substantive materials like data will
also be made available through the website?
A: JR: We will put up as much as we can and if we are missing something please call or email us and ask for it to be put
up. We’re here to help you help us.
Q: David Hannon (DH): Do you have the web address for the project site?
A: SM: It’s www.mass.gov/massdot/caseyoverpass.
C: Sarah Freeman (SF): On the question of time and location, I like the time and I like the location, but I don’t love
Wednesdays, but if it works for everyone else I will make it. Does anyone else have trouble with Wednesdays?
C: PK: It’s a diverse group here; I think it’s going to be hard to pick a day that’s perfect for everyone. Would Tuesdays be
better?
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: JR: Is there a day that already has a lot of meetings on it that we should avoid?
A: Liz Malia (LM): Tuesdays are generally difficult days. There are some standing meetings there already.
A: Julieanne Doherty (JD): I know that you are trying to base your future meetings on the schedules of working group
members, but please feel free to use me as a resource. I can let you know if there are specific conflicts for the city.
A: JR: I do this kind of thing all the time. Something is going to need to give somewhere and we hope you can commit to
occasionally miss something else for this committee. We’re never going to find a time that’s perfect for everyone, but
if Representative Malia says Tuesdays are bad we will steer away from them.
C: LM: The first Wednesday of the month is generally hard for me as well, but I will be at the April 6th meeting.
C: Mike Epp (ME): The 6:00 p.m. start time is difficult for me. I would prefer 6:30 p.m.
C: VG: The 6:00 p.m. start time is better for me. I would like to keep it there if we can.4
A: JR: O.K. we’ll stick Wednesdays from 6:00-8:00 p.m. for WAG meetings. For the public meetings, please note that
we’ll open the doors at 6:00 p.m. for an open house where people can come in, look at the materials and boards we
have for them and ask us questions informally. We’ll start the presentation at 6:30 so that will give people some
flexibility.
C: PK: Let me get us back to our presentation since I’m cognizant of the time. We’ll have roughly two meetings per
month if you attend both the public and working group sessions. If we can, I’d like to run through some of the aspects
of the bridge and project.
A: Joe Orfant (JO): I work for DCR, but I’m also a JP resident and I want to speak in that capacity for a moment. I need
to run because I have board meeting to attend in a few minutes. For those of you in the audience from Summer Hill,
Mike Epp will be representing us. What I want to do is point out that this is an extraordinary opportunity and applaud
to DOT for approaching it in the right way. When Steve and Paul contacted me a few months ago about this I was
surprised and pleased. This is a new world and new DOT. This is a sincere opportunity for us as a park agency and
community. I want to encourage everyone here to work with DOT to create something great. All of us, cyclists,
pedestrians and motorists have had a bad experience with the Casey Overpass. Think big, think bold and make a major
positive change in our lives. I’m excited about this as a park guy and as a resident. I think counter intuitively about
this bridge which is great for drivers on top of it, but lousy on the bottom. This used to be Route 3, but it isn’t any
more. In part, the network on the ground is so lousy because the bridge is there. It seems overwhelming, but think of
the opportunities. I’ll be here, DCR staff will be here, and Samantha Overton from our urban parks section will be
joining you soon. I want to express real gratitude to DOT and say how much credit they deserve for their approach to
this.
C: LM: I want to clarify for the record that the community didn’t know about this process until the end of October last
year. There’s a lot of concern and interest on the part of the community. Even my own office had some difficulty
getting good information. The beginning of this process did not go well, but the people who caused those issues are not
in this room tonight. The community has a right to a process like this. Amongst the audience here tonight and DCR
are five state agencies and three public safety organizations. The community being at the table is important and so we
don’t get down the road to a bad place, we have Andrea here who I have confidence in, we appreciate the work. This is
what we should be offering to our community members. I anticipate that future WAG meetings will not have this sort
of attendance since some of the curiosity and concern will have been settled. Hopefully if we do this process right, it
will go well.
4
At this point a consensus was reached by show of hands and nodding of heads that WAG meetings should remain on
Wednesdays from 6:00-8:00 p.m.
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: WL: I have a process question: it’s unusual to have task force and community meetings paired intensely like this and I
want to hear about why the process is running that way. I’m concerned that there will be second guessing back and
forth and I worry that not everyone will want to attend everything.
A: Andrea D’Amato (AD): There’s been a lot of conversation about what the working group and public meetings are for.
This is a working group: we want your help to assist the design team and MassDOT in getting through the planning
process and the details associated with it of which there are many. That’s why it can’t be too large. The public
meetings will be on a similar schedule but those will be wide open and anyone can bring their ideas to those. It’s an
accelerated schedule for this project and so thinking strategically, to make that schedule work, we want a working
group to develop every aspect of this and then bring it back to the community. It’s an iterative process. It might feel a
bit odd, but the schedule is tight and this is a constructive way to move ahead.
C: PK: It’s also worth noting that the working group’s efforts will be informed by what happens in the community
meetings. The idea is for the community to be able to see their fingerprints on the process. You are the community’s
eyes and ears on the project and we want you to be out there getting their input.
C: JR: Also, if we as a group need an extra meeting before the public session, keep it in mind that while October is the
hard end date, we can move things around in between. That is something we can do.
A: DH: In addition, beyond the relationship between the working group and the public meetings, I think it is incumbent on
us at working group members to go out and gather input from the groups we represent.
A: PK: Yes, please do. That’s just what we want from you. We want you to be active and participate.
Q: DH: How much lead time do you need when advertising the public information meetings?
A: JR: At least two weeks before the meeting.
C: CM: I really appreciate you letting community members into this process. I have a suggestion: you might want to
remind everyone that they can go to the committee person that represents their group or neighborhood. That the
committee members can bring those concerns to you and not have everyone here bogging down your meeting.
A: JR: Yes, that’s what we’ll be doing in the future. As I said, tonight we’re a little looser because this is a getting-toknow-you kind of meeting, but in the future we will have to run it tighter because of the time constrains. With that, I
want to give this back to Paul because we only have about 52 minutes left.
C: BD: We are playing an important role. We are getting information out to the community and gathering its input. The
community will be asking pointed questions about construction. They will be thinking about the time between 2013
and 2016. They will want to know if we did a master traffic study, about construction and demolition, about where the
debris from demolition will go. We shouldn’t be concerned about what night we’re meeting, if we’re really committed
to this, we should be willing to make time. I think we need to move on and hear the information we are going to bring
back to our community groups.
A: PK: I’d agree with that. Let’s get the next WAG meeting set and move on. We had tentatively selected April 21st
which is a Thursday during school vacation. Is that a problem for anyone?
Q: JR: We could also April 14th or the 20th. Do either of those work any better?
A: JR: By the show of hands we will go with April 20th from 6:00-8:00 p.m. right here in this room.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Discussion of the Draft Presentation
C: AD: In the spirit of Bernie’s comment we are counting on you. We want to hear from you, both your instincts and your
knowledge of the neighborhood so we are well prepared and don’t leave any stone unturned. I think when people hear
about this bring coming down their first response will be concern. Right now I want to take you through what we will
present at the public meeting and tell us your advice and comments about what should be added, subtracted or changed.
We will begin the meeting with an open hour where people will have an opportunity to ask questions of members of the
design team informally. People will be able to speak to Dennis about the bridge’s status, or Vineet about how the City
is approaching this or someone from DCR about their point of view. We hope to do that at all of the meetings and give
people an opportunity for that casual conversation. At the first meeting we will have four stations with boards for the
open house part of the meeting: the project overview, what’s the ABP, why do we have this schedule and where can I
comment? That station will be covered by DOT staff. The next one is about the status of the bridge and how it is now
safe. Dennis Baker of HNTB will cover that. Then we’ll have the “imagine the possibilities” station. We’ll have some
images there to help people envision what life could be like without an overpass. The last station, which is the one
everyone will want to visit, will be the traffic station. We have done all the traffic analysis including bikes, peds,
transit and vehicles and Gary from McMahon and Scott from CTPS will be there.
Here is the project area. You will notice we didn’t draw a big red line around the project site because we’re looking at
all the resources holistically. We have a little narration up in the corner which you can’t see, but when these boards go
out to the public they will be quite large.
C: JR: Andrea, let me interrupt for a moment to recognize Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz.
A: AD: Thank you, John, now please take a look at this graphic. This is also on the website. We want to make sure the
graphic is right. We used pretty generic labels to avoid cluttering it.
A: WL: I would label the Southwest Corridor Park.
A: CM: You should label what DOT owns.
A: AD: DOT, DCR, MBTA and the City all own a lot of assets out here in close proximity. It may be useful to generate
an ownership map, so just hold onto that thought for now.
C: AD: So, here is the schedule. You’ve seen this, but we’ll have this at every meeting. Here are the topics. Tonight’s
meeting is really what will be discussed at the first meeting with the public. We rapidly jump to future conditions:
traffic and potential development in 2030. Part of what we really need to do is develop some criteria to evaluate
alternatives. We really need your input on this. The broad headings for our evaluation criteria will be mobility and
livability and we will spend the next meeting on that. And we’ll give you a framework for the different alternatives
because we need to eventually come up with three. At meeting three we will come up with alternatives and you’ll have
big sharpies and get to mark everything up. We want some real good alternatives that balance mobility and livability.
Then we’ll refine the criteria and start applying them. It will be very dynamic. At the last meeting we’ll address
selection and be ready to move into the 25% design phase.
Q: Elizabeth Wylie (EW): Is environmental sustainability somewhere in the evaluation criteria under livability or
mobility?
A: AD: Those are just the big top level headings, but if we get to the meeting on evaluation criteria and sustainability calls
out to you to have its own category, we can do that.
C: BD: I think it’s imperative on April 6th that you don’t refer to it as construction. You should call it demolition and
construction since it’s a two phase process and each phase means something different for residents.
C: MH: One thing you want to have on the poster with the timeline is a statement distinguishing this process from other JP
public processes. You need to say there’s a hard deadline and if the community doesn’t come to a consensus DOT will
just put something in that it sees as appropriate because it has to. We should be able to build something better with
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
input than without, but if we don’t provide it to you in the timeframe allotted, then we should understand that we’ve
missed our opportunity.
A: JR: That is an excellent point and I think we all need to get used to the phrase “reasonable consensus.” To think we’ll
raise our hand and say “yes, this is perfect,” is very unlikely, but there’s no more patching this bridge, that’s coming to
an end.
C: Karen Schneiderman (KS): I know that various organizations I’ve interacted with, let’s use the example of trying to
shovel snow which we’re hopefully done with for a while, as the disability community calling on the MBTA or DCR to
shovel something and the agency saying “it’s not ours to shovel” and not being able to tell me who is responsible for
shoveling. I’m not asking you to explain the snow, but relevant to this project can you talk about how these
organizations are working together when we’re not in the room.
A: AD: I would invite our organization partners to speak on that.
A: SM: We are talking with the MBTA on a daily basis, hence Joe Cosgrove’s presence, we’re looking at buses, the vent
stack, head-houses, the courthouse parking – we’re learning a lot.
A: AD: Internally we’re working with the state agencies and John Romano is your point of contact with the team.
A: VG: The City is totally engaged: BRA, BTD, DPW, the Parks Department and the Mayor’s Office are all involved.
We’ve met with the state to discuss timeline and goals. I will be the point person for all City Hall questions you might
have and we are looking forward to working with you.
C: DH: So I think it would be good to have a point of contact listed when you get to the community meeting.
A: JR: We will have a poster up there with my name and contact information on it. I might not be able to answer
everything, but I will get you an answer from one of my great team members. I will never tell you “sorry, it’s not my
responsibility.”
C: DH: I think it would also be useful to have an educational poster discussing why the Casey Overpass exists in the first
place. That will help us understand why we are replacing it and why we have some options with regard to how we
replace it.
A: AD: That’s a good segue. Let me invite Dennis Baker up here to address bridge status.
C: Dennis Baker (DB): We started working on the Casey Overpass about a year ago when we did an inspection of the
bridge that found some serious problems. I want to underscore that the bridge is safe right now thanks to DOT’s
efforts, but essentially the bridge has been a problem since it was built and many of those problems go back to the
original design which was flawed. The big problem we discovered this year was the concrete pedestals were severely
cracked and the beams were in danger of falling off them. The work to repair that problem is now complete, but there
are remaining corrosion issues at the curb lines. The narrowing to a single lane you see up there now helps to protect
those areas. The bridge is regularly inspected to avoid surprises, the state has been very responsible, and I could talk
for hours about this bridge, but this year we came to the conclusion that the bridge isn’t worth saving. It will need so
much regular and expensive work to keep it going that it should be replaced either with a new bridge or an at grade
solution.
C: CM: To add some history, this bridge was worked on twice in the 1990’s. One of those changes was to add sidewalks
because when the bridge was built there were no sidewalks and I liked to cycle in the right hand lane because the cars
kept the lane nice and clean. Then the sidewalks were added and they are pretty lousy sidewalks that seem like an
afterthought because they are. Those sidewalks are there to push cars away from the edge of the bridge and relieve
some of the pressure on the outside of those hammerhead piers.
C: DB: That is true. There was a problem with the hammerhead piers. Each one of those has a flawed design and in the
early 1990’s work was undertaken to strengthen them. Those steel boxes you see at the top of those piers hold the
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
hammerheads together. The change that got rid of the outside lanes was to reduce the load on the ends of the
hammerheads.
Q: CM: Was the condition of the piers caused by design or construction flaws?
A: DB: It’s a design flaw. The company that designed the bridge has gone out of business so you really can’t go after
them.
C: MH: I think the bridge’s safety is a good headline for your poster.
Q: SF: Will you talk about the current size and shape of the bridge with regard to the elevated Orange Line?
A: AD: We had not thought to put that in, but we certainly can.
C: CM: If you ask the community for comments and then only call on your chosen committee that’s not a good way for
you to start a community process in Jamaica Plain.
A: LM: Let me jump in for a second to answer that. There was a lot of confusion when this process got started. Tonight’s
meeting is the beginning for lack of a better beginning. The design group and DOT selected this working group, my
office added some people. If people want to be involved then they can get involved, but this is just a starting point.
There will be community meetings alternating with the working group meetings.
C: CM: I’m glad you’re doing this, but basically you’re saying I’m wasting my time here.
A: LM: No, not at all, please sit down you’re too valuable a person to have in the room for you to leave. The decision was
made to have an advisory group and we asked DOT to open it up a little more. People came tonight because they heard
about it, but after this we will have several community meetings where you can provide input. I know a lot of people
showed up tonight because of interest and angst that’s built up since September last year. DOT stumbled out of the
gate on this one, but nobody who caused that problem is here tonight, and hopefully things are going to get better from
here.
A: AD: And those meetings will be public, so please just indulge us at this session because we still have a lot to cover with
our WAG. It’s great to see so much public interest and we want to hear from you either through the public meetings or
through your WAG member.
Let me turn to the slide on recent projects and studies around the Casey Overpass. We have identified and mapped
them and this is important for a couple of reasons: we are building off your hard work and these are the issues and ideas
that have been worked out thus far. Please do a little reading and familiarize yourself with these studies because they
will help you think about the evaluation criteria. Do we have the right list of projects? Are we missing any?
Q: CM: Are all those studies up on the website?
A: AD: Yes they are.
C: CM: Don’t forget the Franklin Park Access Study. That was by Howard/Stein-Hudson.
C: ME: There’s also the 39 Bus Improvement Study.
C: DH: What about the Design Group for Centre Street.
A: AD: That’s the one in yellow up here at the top of the slide.
C: AD: So here is our existing conditions slide, this is the base we’ll work from. Anything shown in red is considered a
fixed asset, such as the courthouse, that is non-negotiable; we cannot move it. Things not shown in red we should feel
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
free to think about moving. We have vetted this with the City and State and are comfortable with it, but have we
missed anything?
C: CM: This is a DOT project and highlighting what DOT owns and doesn’t would be useful since they would have
maximum control over what they own. Who owns Shea Circle?
A: AD: I think we can prepare a representational ownership map since I don’t think we can get survey between now and
April 6th.
A: SM: Shea Circle is a DCR property.
Q: CM: So is it fair to say that the surface roads are DCR and the bridge belongs to MassDOT?
A: LM: Not entirely, the City of Boston also owns some surface roadways.
C: Gary McNaughton (GM): We want to show at the first community meeting that we’ve done our homework to
understand current conditions. We want to make sure that as we project forward we have correct baseline conditions.
We will be as accurate as possible with CTPS going forward so we address both current and future needs. At the first
meeting we want to talk about the initial data collection and we have lots and lots of details we can share with people,
but let me boil it down a bit. The a.m. and p.m. volumes are very directional: in the morning the flow is north and east
and in the evening it is south and west. The maximum load on the bridge during the peak hour is 1,350 vehicles. The
1,700 you see beyond that on the Arborway is when the ramps coming up from the surface streets merge in. Bridge
traffic, as you can see, can be accommodated in a single lane. This bridge was overbuilt from the beginning.
Q: CM: When was the peak hour?
A: GM: The a.m. peak hour falls between 7:00-9:00 and the p.m. peak hour falls between 4:00-6:00. As to the exact hour
for this location, we know it, but I’d rather reflect my notes than just guess. We can get that for you.
Q: EW: So there are 450 cars from surface streets joining those coming over the Casey Overpass? I live on Asticou Road
and I see those volumes every day. It does make it difficult to get out of our street in the morning when the traffic
backs up.
A: GM: Correct, that 450 figure represents cars that come from the surface network and join 203 to the west of the
overpass from the ramps from the street level.
Q: CM: Can you talk about your license plate study a bit? Do you think an improved bridge or at-grade solution will
contribute to induced demand?
A: GM: We really did our license plate study to help validate Scott’s CTPS model. Fortunately the two support each other
nicely. Really the bridge is being used by regional traffic. I think we want to reduce demand if possible, certainly not
induce it. Scott will be involved in all of that assessing and modeling work. Until we start developing concepts we
won’t have much to say about future conditions, but we will be getting into it.
C: AD: Bear in mind when the community sees these boards they will be labeled clearly with a.m. and p.m. and will be
quite large.
C: GM: Another thing we’re looking at is pedestrians because we’re not back 50 years when the Casey Overpass was put
in and everything was for cars. We took 11-hour pedestrian counts at 17 locations around the bridge. We also counted
bikes. We are still collecting data on transit usage. These locations are where the high pedestrian volumes are. They
where you would expect, focused on the station, but we will make sure to keep those pedestrian desire lines in mind as
we move forward.
Q: KS: When you did your counts, did you include people with mobility aids?
A: GM: We counted people in wheelchairs as pedestrians, we didn’t segregate them out, but we can certainly observe that
going forward.
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: CM: Did you do your counts when the repair work was going on?
A: GM: We did our counts in June of 2010, but prior to school letting out. At the time, this project was just in its infancy.
Q: BD: Will that slide or some future slide show the daily traffic over the bridge?
A: GM: Yes, that was actually on the slide we just saw prior to this one.
Q: BD: And does that mocha color stand for anything?
A: GM: No, not really, that’s just where the line ended. We’ll clean up that piece of Asticou Road so people know it
doesn’t mean anything.
Q: WL: In places where you have more than 50 pedestrians crossing, could you put that up?
A: GM: We went without showing any volume numbers because while pedestrians are very important – please don’t
misunderstand me here – pedestrian volumes are a lot less sensitive than car volumes. 10 people or 50 people can
easily share the same crosswalk.
C: VG: Maybe you can just has thicker arrows where there are more pedestrians and continue to not show numbers.
A: SM: We do have those volumes are happy to make them available over the website.
C: GM: I think we can definitely make the arrows wider where there are more pedestrians.
C: VG: Just a word on these volumes: the City has been very strict about double-checking DOT’s numbers for existing
conditions and thus far we agree with everything they have shown us.
C: WL: I think the reason to know the numbers isn’t so much about capacity, but how many people you are asking to wait
when you get into signal timing and phasing. As you get into refinement it will make a big difference.
C: CM: There’s also the Emerald Necklace and Franklin Park. You don’t see volumes moving back and forth between
them like you do on the Minute Man Trail, but that is in part because the linear connection is weak for bicyclists and
pedestrians. Those volumes could go up significantly if we make the right changes.
C: MH: Do you have a desire line from the South Street neighborhood to Forest Hills? That is going to get more
important especially if the Route 39 stop on the South Street side of the intersection is removed. On the other side of
the bridge, pedestrian volumes are low because it’s such a nasty place to cross, but the demand should be there so
please keep that in mind.
Q: CM: Are you looking at the possibility of improving the access for kiss-and-ride transportation to help avoid the need
for so many people to drive?
A: AD: Yes, we’ll be keeping that in mind as we get into criteria. We’ll be looking at the taxi stand lineup, the school
buses, the Asticou bottleneck and more.
Q: CM: I always find that its been my experience that in June, the traffic flows better because people are more willing to
bicycle or take the train and there are no school buses. Will you look at traffic in the winter months?
A: GM: Our June traffic counts were done while school was still in session. What we find is that no matter when we count
the traffic there are always challenges. Winter time means that bike and pedestrian volumes are low. Summer vacation
means lower vehicle volumes. We do apply season adjustment factors to address those issues.
Q: MH: Can you provide us with the through pedestrian volumes on the sidewalks?
A: GM: We have those and we have bicycle crossings as well. We can provide those through the website. I want to show
you our transit slide as well. We have 150 bus trips moving through this area in the commuter peaks. Some of the
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
possible alternatives could have negative impacts on transit operations which we do not want. We are carefully
collecting bus data and we have this graphic which we will show at the community meeting.
Q: CM: I was wondering about the bypass streets: Rossmore Road and in the other direction, McBride Street. Have you
thought about how they will be impacts?
A: GM: Your feedback is very important and will get more important as we get into construction staging. Certainly, after
we decide what solution we want, figuring out how to build it with minimal disruptions to the community from
detoured traffic will be a very important next step.
C: Scott Peterson (SP): CTPS is the support staff for the Boston MPO. We maintain the regional model for eastern
Massachusetts. This is a multi-modal model so it’s a good tool for this analysis. You can change an intersection or
remove a bridge and the model can cope with it and show you what happens. The model is driven by the count data
provided by the consulting team. We did a license plate survey to understand where people are coming from and where
they are going, show where people in the trip in the morning and end in the afternoon. If you look at this graphic, the
Casey Overpass is in the middle and the darker the green, the higher the number of trips. We have traffic that stretches
into Quincy and goes all the way over to Route 9. We have also highlighted the roadways used by vehicles to get to the
overpass and the roads they go to after leaving it. Was this too light, too heavy? We can say more or less.
Q: CM: Do you think there are a lot of regional questions we might not be answering with this?
A: SP: We have done a survey that identifies where people with various different types of demographic characteristics
want to go. We know if people from this neighborhood, with this ethnic make-up, with this number of vehicles
available to them, with this number of people in the house, making this much money per year, we know a lot about
where they are going and how many trips per year they will make so we can estimate it pretty well. It’s not pure
science, but it’s a good estimate.
C: MH: I think you should present this as a tool we have and something we’ll use to evaluate our options. There’s a lot of
information here and it’s not immediate clear what someone is supposed to pull out.
C: VG: You may also want to say that the model confirms your thinking to date on the project.
C: MH: Pull out the message you want to convey and put it as a bullet at the top of the poster.
Q: CM: Are there street names on the map?
A: AD: Yes we have the names for the larger regional streets. We want to give people a sense of where they are without
cluttering the picture.
C: WL: It would be good to say what percentages of the cars are coming from what distance away.
A: AD: Yes, that’s on there now, I think you just can’t see it on account of the size.
C: AD: Let’s take a look at our “imagine the possibilities” slide. This is an aerial view of the Casey Overpass and this is
the same shot with the bridge removed. What you see is how much right-of-way there is. It’s a huge amount of space.
When we think of improving bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in Boston it’s always an issue of space. This is a
hard old city and typically getting right-of-way is a huge challenge, but here there is some space to play. It’s really
intriguing to say we might be able to accommodate everything.
C: MH: I think there’s a risk in showing this particular slide. This could people the wrong impression that you’re going to
take away the bridge and then leave the existing network of surface streets. You need to somehow show that the
roadway network under the bridge isn’t fixed.
C: EW: Make it more abstract somehow.
A: JR: Certainly that’s not hard. We could cover it over with some purple hatching.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: AD: This is the original Olmstead Plan from 1892. We have a visual laid out that shows what things were like before
the overpass and how much pavement was here. This is to help people see what was there and envision what could be.
We also have this graphic of the project area in case someone really needs it. One more thing and then I need to go
over the WAG’s homework assignment. I want to present Don Kindsvatter and the Forest Hills Timeline. This was his
idea and I want to invite you to take a look at it and help us make it wonderful.
A: Don Kindsvatter (DK): We have collected some very interesting photos that span from the late 1800’s to today. We
don’t have, and we keep hoping someone will bring us one, a specific picture of Olmstead’s Roadway. We have
photos, Sanborn maps, and aerial views. On our timeline we have both Forest Hills-specific and world events.
C: EW: I think if you are going to show the Olmstead Plan, you need to balance it with some pictures of beautiful bridges
with great pedestrian connections and accommodations. You don’t want people thinking you have a foregone
conclusion.
A: AD: That’s a great idea. We can do that.
Q: Samantha Overton (SO): Is the section underneath the bridge considered historic because the Arborway is on the
historic register? Is MHC part of your conversation? We have definitely had moments where we want to try something
and we run into issues because MHC says we have adverse historical impacts.
A: SM: With MHC, we’ll find out what is on the register and what could go into the register, but we need to come up with
ideas to bring to them first. It is on our radar screen.
C: SF: Just a heads-up for April 6th. A number of people are going to ask you about a tunnel.
A: AD: We are aware of that and can answer their comment. As an aside, I would urge everyone to go check out the
MassDOT GreenDOT principles and the BTD complete streets principles. We will make those available through our
website.
Q: BD: Can you define for me what the designation of being the project area entails? I appreciate this graphic, but it sort
of looks like where the bomb hit.
A: AD: We have wrestled whether this is a graphic we need and every time we take it out we decide it has to go back in. I
think this validates our first instinct – we’ll take it out.
Q: Chris Porter (CP): But don’t you need that to cover how far out we can go as we think about this project?
A: AD: The redesign concepts should be framed by Shea Circle and where the overpass meets the Arborway. We have a
little bit of South Street and it does get a bit fuzzy I’ll admit. Of course for traffic we are looking at a much broader
area.
C: CM: I think one thing you will hear at the meeting is that 20 years ago, the state stopped the trolleys temporarily and
they’re still not back. We have an MOU with the state about Arborway Yards, but there’s no cash to build it. I want to
know the state’s commitment to this.
A: SM: We have a significant funding source for this, the ABP, the money is there, but it means we have to be done by
June 30th, 2016. ABP projects are built with a combination of state and federal money though in the case of the Casey
Overpass it is all state money. We have to arrive at a solution. I can put a new bridge in for about $70 million, but an
at grade solution I don’t know. We’re not there yet. This is why we’re all here together.
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: EW: I would caution you to say that you can install an at-grade solution or a greatly improved overpass that’s much
better than what we have today. Don’t make people leap to an at-grade solution.
A: JR: Duly noted. We are here because there are no preordained solutions.
A: SM: The replacement is a new bridge, an at-grade solution or some combination. That’s why we’re here. We don’t
know yet.
Q: DH: What happens if the project isn’t done by 2016?
A: SM: We need to go into construction so that we are done by 2016.
Q: DH: Is there a potential for us to miss the deadline?
A: SM: We all need to work together to make sure it doesn’t happen.
C: CM: In “imagine the possibilities” you showed us a green corridor without a bridge. We could have a cable stayed
bridge. Cambridge demanded it and it made all the difference on the Big Dig. European cities have beautiful bridges
that enhance the area around them, there’s no reason we can’t do the same. It’s not realistic for this not to be a bridge.
We need to see a beautiful bridge as well.
A: AD: O.K. we can play with the “imagine the possibilities” section.
Note: the meeting ended with an explanation of the WAG homework assignment by Andrea D’Amato. WAG members
have been given disposable cameras and worksheets called “photo logs.” Members are responsible for using all 27 pictures
in the camera and are supposed to take pictures of things they feel are representative of good and bad transportation in the
area surrounding the bridge. Cameras and logs are due back to the project by March 26th, 2011.
Next Steps
The next major public involvement milestone in the process will be the initial public information session for all members of
the community on April 6, 2011 at the Agassiz School. The meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. with a half hour open house,
followed by a presentation and facilitated discussion to run from 6:30 to 8:30. The Agassiz School is located at 20 Child
Street in Jamaica Plain. The WAG will next meet on April 20th at 6:00 PM in Room 133 of the State Laboratory.
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Rod
[illegible]
JPNDC
Rick
Ahlberg
Resident
Marc
Almanzan
Resident
Dennis
Baker
HNTB
Genie
Beal
WAG
Stephanie
Boundy
MassDOT
Kathleen
Coffey
WAG
Brad
Cohen
Stony Brook Neighborhood Association
Joe
Cosgrove
MBTA
Julie
Andrea
Crockford
D’Amato
WAG
HNTB
Laurenco
Dantas
Greening Rozzie
Bob
Dizon
Boston Cyclists’ Union/JP Bikes
Bernard
Doherty
WAG
Julieanne
Doherty
Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services
Maribil
Duprey
Resident
Mike
Epp
WAG
Ron
Eunson
WalkBoston
Jeffrey
Ferris
Southwest Corridor PMAC
Robin
Fisher
Resident
Michael
Frank
Jamaica Pond Association
Sarah
Valerie
Freeman
Frias
WAG
Office of Councilor Matt O’Malley
Janine
Gropp
Stony Brook Neighborhood Association
Michael
Halle
WAG
David
Hannon
WAG
Mary
Hickie
Resident
Nate
Hinchliffe
Resident
Phil
Holox
Resident
Melanie
Howard
Resident
Caryn
Kaufman
Resident
Grace
Paul
King
King
CTPS
MassDOT
Wendy
Landman
WAG
Tim
Lindgren
Stony Brook Neighborhood Association
Carl
Lowenberg
Stony Brook Neighborhood Association
George
Marsh
Resident
Steve
McLaughlin
MassDOT
Greg
McNaughton
McMahon Transportation
Suzanne
Monk
Stony Brook Neighborhood Association
Lisa
Murray
Resident
Paul
Nelson
MassDOT
Joe
Orfant
DCR
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
5
Scott
Peterson
CPTS
Joanne
Pokaski
Resident
Chris
Porter
MassBike
Melinda
Power
Stony Brook Neighborhood Association
Richard
Power
Stony Brook Neighborhood Association
Leah
Rainis-Almanzan
Resident
John
Romano
MassDOT
John
Ruch
Jamaica Plain Gazette
Karen
Schneiderman
WAG
[illegible]
Simon
Resident
Amy
Smith
Stony Brook Neighborhood Association
David
Watson5
WAG
Elizabeth
Wylie
WAG
Patrica
Yehle
Stony Brook Neighborhood Association
David Watson was represented at this session by another member of the MassBike staff, Chris Porter
Page 16