MEMORANDUM |
To:
Michael Trepanier
Project Manager
Date:
April 1, 2016
From:
Nick Gross
Howard Stein Hudson
HSH Project No.:
2013061.03
Subject:
MassDOT Highway Division
McGrath Boulevard Project Development
Working Group Session 7
Meeting Notes of March 24, 2016
Overview
On March 24, 2016, the McGrath Boulevard Project Development team held its seventh working group
session. The working group is composed of local residents, business owners, transportation and green
space advocates, as well as representatives of local, State, and Federal Governments. The purpose of the
working group is, through the application of its members’ in depth local knowledge, to assist and advise the
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) in developing an implementable design that will
ultimately transform the McGrath Highway into an at-grade urban boulevard. MassDOT sees the project
not only as an opportunity to reknit the neighborhoods of Somerville that are currently divided by the
McGrath Highway but also to improve safety and connections for all modes of transportation in the project
area specifically at the intersection of Washington Street and McGrath Highway.
The meeting summarized herein served as the final working group session associated with the Project
Development Phase. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the conceptual design for the McGrath
corridor that has been achieved through the process and contributions of the working group. As explained
by Project Manager, Michael Trepainer, the presented concept is at a level of approximately 10% design
and will be filed in an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) with the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA) in early summer 2016. While most working group members were familiar with the
conceptual design, the meeting allowed for the project team to walk working group members through the
elements of the design in a manner which addresses the McGrath corridor as a contiguous whole.
Specific highlights of the presentation included the explanation of transitioning a highway to a boulevard, a
3D rendering showing the existing and the proposed at-grade Washington Street intersection, level of
service (LOS) comparisons between existing and proposed conditions for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles,
as well as the non-motorized accommodations such as protected intersection, separated bike lanes, and
improved pedestrian crossings. It should be noted that as part of the pedestrian LOS and bicycle level of
traffic stress (LTS) analysis all ratings are substantially improved.
11 Beacon Street, Suite 1010 | Boston, Massachusetts 02108 | 617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Continued support from the working group, Somerville community members, City of Somerville staff, as
well as State Representative Tim Toomey, who attended the meeting in person with staff member Peter
Missouri, was reiterated to the project team for their development of the preferred alternative, willingness
to push the envelope relative to reductions in traffic capacity, and for the transparent public involvement
process. While most of the large ticket items such as the 4 versus 6 lanes debate have received general
consensus, smaller, more local issues were raised by members of the working group and were suggested to
be looked into further as the design progresses. These suggested improvements include the following:
-
Do not preclude sight lines from Brickbottom to Union Square.
-
Looking at the possibility to reduce median widths at intersections to create shorter crossing
distances for pedestrians.
-
Provide primary access to Brickbottom via. Washington and Poplar Street.
-
Research mechanisms to allow potential access across Prospect Hill for residents only.
-
Incorporate shared-street elements on Dana Street similar to proposed frontage road adjacent to
the Washington Street intersection.
Detailed Meeting Minutes1
C: Michael Trepanier (MT): Good evening everyone and thank you for joining us tonight for our last
working group session. The goal of tonight is to discuss the conceptual design we have reached for the
McGrath Boulevard and walk you through it from end to end. The conceptual design we have is
roughly a 10% design. This is the preferred alternative that we will be filing as part of the
environmental process with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). Frank Suszynski
from MassDOT District 4 is here tonight and can help provide an overview of the changes coming to the
corridor in the near future. These include the closure of the Somerville Avenue down ramp as well as
the opening of the punch through at the Medford and Poplar Street intersection. As I understand it,
these two changes are currently scheduled for April 11, 2016.
We have been meeting for close to 2 years and tonight marks our 7th working group session together. I
am extremely proud of the work we’ve done together and the comments you’ve contributed to our team.
I’d like to recognize State Representation Tim Toomey for being so closely involved in this effort and his
Legislative Liaison, Peter Missouri for attending close to every working group session. This has been a
very collaborative project on all ends. I want to thank all of you again for being so closely plugged into
this project. It really takes a visionary approach to participate in something like this when it is so far
out into the future.
C: State Representation Tim Toomey (TT): Thank you Michael and thank you to the project team as well
as all of the community members in the room who have been participating in this process. Your
1 Herein “C” stands for comment, “Q” for question and “A” for answer. For a list of attendees, please see
Appendix 1. For copies of meeting flipcharts, please see Appendix 2.
Page 2
participation over the past 2 years really shows your commitment in this project and shows how
strongly the Somerville community is engaged. It’s been a difficult and long process to get to where we
are now in Somerville. I want to thank you all again for participating and supporting this process for
the McGrath Boulevard Project. This is a great milestone that we’ve reached and I look forward to
continuing to participate in this process as we move forward. Thank you.
C: MT: Thank you Representative.
Q: Heather Van Aelst (HVA): How will we receive the notifications about the traffic patterns associated
with the closure of the down ramp and the opening of the punch through? Also, is there a way of
studying what happens at Washington Street to compare the changes?
A: MT: Dan Fielding is here from our MassDOT Legislative Office and will be sending out an email blast
to the City of Somerville and your local Elected Officials. Our typical approach is to use the newspaper
but we all know it is better distributed through Facebook, Twitter, etc.
C: Dan Fielding (DF): As Michael mentioned, I will be contacting all of the areas Elected Officials as well
as providing alerts via Facebook and Twitter. We will be utilizing all of the resources that are
available to us. Please contact Michael if you have specific request and we will communicate.
C: Frank Suszynski (FS): There will also be a variable message sign (VMS) that will indicate where you
are supposed to go. The City is aware of this and they will be blasting out those documents internally
for distribution as well as the City of Cambridge.
C: MT: One of the things we’ve committed at MassDOT is to evaluate the before and after comparison of
the closure of the down ramp and opening of the punch through. These changes are of strong interest
to MassDOT and the Secretary. I think there is some expectation that over time, travel behaviors will
change and the community will adjust.
C: HVA: This will be a good chance to see how much reality is reflected in the model.
A: MT: Indeed it is.
Q: Ellin Reisner (ER): Will these notifications be sent out through MassDOT news?
A: MT: Yes.
A: Brad Rawson (BR): The City of Somerville will also be working with the Somerville Police Department
and coordinating the VMS.
C: MT: Thank you Brad. Tonight I’ve asked the team to print off a number of 24x36 copies of the concept
for the McGrath Boulevard. You’ll see those plans in front of you and we are happy to provide them to
you electronically as well. Eventually the plans will find their way onto the project website but they
Page 3
are extremely large files and we will need to compliant with the typical MassDOT accessibility
standards.
Tonight we’re going to walk you through the entire corridor from a relatively high level perspective.
We’ll cover why we this this concept is considered a boulevard, the road geometry, our sensitivity to the
urban context, and the pedestrian as well as the bicycle accommodations throughout the project. We
will also briefly touch on the various transit elements including the bus stops and pull outs. Last but
not least, we know a lot of you aren’t interested in vehicles but Gary will come up to quickly cover the
corridor from a vehicular perspective. We’ll wrap up with a discussion of next steps and answer any
questions you may have.
As we look back on the work we’ve accomplished we 6 working group sessions; tonight marks our 7 th.
We have held 3 targeted stakeholder briefings, 2 public information meetings, and 2 municipal
coordination sessions. We have also made appearances at the Union Square Farmers Market and the
ArtBeat Festival in Davis Square; both in partnership with the Somerville Transportation Equity
Partnership (STEP). As you can see there has been a lot of public involvement throughout our project
development process. Not everyone is going to get everything they want but we still have a long way to
go. We have seen a lot of change over the last 5 to 10 years in transportation. I want to let you know
that as we move forward, we are open to continued refinement what is on the table today with the
changes in the future brings.
We are at the point of roughly a 10% design. We are going to continue to dig into the details of the
timings and signals as well as the pedestrian crossing improvements. When we put a conceptual
design like this on the table people often get nervous that this is a final design. I want to reassure
everyone that we still have a long way to go until we reach a final design. All of this will still need to be
vetted through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA) processes. After we hold our Public Information Meeting and MEPA Public Hearing
we will eventually move to the design process. This is something you may be familiar with or heard
before. The design process has a 25% design public hearing, and a 75% public information meeting
associated with it. There is often a meeting to discuss the final design and other outreach when
construction begins.
Next I want to talk about how we are defining the concept of a boulevard. We spent a lot of time
looking at a number of cross sections throughout the corridor. Don Kindsvatter has broken down the
corridor into 6 segments in order to make it easier to talk about connectivity. We have had
conversations about open space as well as how to plan for the design of landscape architecture. We will
continue these conversations by wrapping up with a comprehensive balance of all modes and
accommodations. At this point I’m going to turn it over to Don Kindsvatter to walk you through the
corridor plan.
Page 4
Design Concept Development
C: Don Kindsvatter (DK): Hi everyone I’m Don Kindsvatter. Pete Stidman and Bob Smith are going to
assist me in walking you through the corridor plan. The purpose of this exercise is to describe how we
plan on moving from a highway to a boulevard and explain the change in character as well as
aesthetics. There are a number of ways this transition happens. We can reduce the number of lanes
where possible. Reduce the overall corridor width and simplify the intersections. We can create
planted medians with trees separating modes and/or direction. A boulevard is not just defined by a
roadway. The buildings that line the edges of a boulevard provide the context and shape how the
boulevard feels. Future and proposed development is an important characteristic to this project in
providing a sense of enclosure.
C: Pete Stidman (PS): We are also going to be removing the pedestrian bridge adjacent to Otis Street. I
want to note that we will be designing for protected intersections at each key intersection along the
corridor with protected island medians. These will require bike signals and allow for cyclists to have a
lead start before the vehicles.
C: DK: Thank you Pete. We are planning to replace the pedestrian bridge with an at-grade signalized
crossing at Otis Street.
Q: David Loutzenheiser (DL): What is the width of the planted medians?
A: DK: It’s approximately 12’.
C: DL: Okay, that sounds wide enough.
C: DK: At Pearl Street there are left-turn median drops. The stretch between Pearl Street and the bridge
to the south at Medford Street is our most significant constrained right-of-way (ROW). There is a slight
change in elevation but we are able to maintain a planted median down the center of the corridor. We
also have a two-way separated bike lane that continues down the eastern side of the corridor.
C: PS: We are still working to determine if this separated bike lane should be raised or installed at-grade
with a buffer. This facility also abuts Chester Avenue which would create a connection to the originally
proposed location of the Green Line Extension (GLX) Station.
C: DK: The ahead immediately south of the intersection is constrained as well. We have a 6 lane cross
section and we haven’t been able to find a way to fit a planted median or buffer to the bike facility on
the eastern side. As we begin traveling south from that point the constraint begins to ease out and we
gain more space. We are able to start adding features back in as we move south such as buffers and
planted medians. We are showing an at-grade pedestrian crossing at Cross Street. This area used to
be called Central Square and we believe there is an opportunity to bring that sense of place back to the
community.
Page 5
C: Bob Smith (BS): The cross section is a 4 lane section at the pedestrian crossing. This allows for a
shorter distance and reduced crossing length.
C: PS: We are also proposing to move the bus stop down to Cross Street. One of the reasons for this is
that the relocation allows for the best view of the entire corridor when standing at the bus stop. We
think it would be a nice place to wait for the bus.
Q: Tom Bertulis (TB): Is there going to be a high-intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) signal at that
crossing?
A: PS: It will likely be a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB).
Q: Alan Moore (AM): I’ve noticed that you’re sorting the cars further back in the boulevard scenario which
allows them to be more organized when traveling through the corridor. Would this enable you to cut
down the number of lanes?
A: BS: The number of lanes is driven on the volume of cars making left turns at the intersections so
movement of the weave wouldn’t address the need for turning lanes.
C: DK: The section south of Washington Street was the area we spent the most time on as a group. We
worked on the cross section at the last working group and the plan you see in front of you reflects that
discussion. This is the section with the frontage road which will serve the residential along that stretch
as well as the businesses.
C: PS: The treatment for this stretch will be something similar to a shared street. The shared street will
feel like a sidewalk, not a road.
C: DK: As we continue south the two-way separated bike lane continues on the eastern side. We also
have a one-way separated bike facility on the western side and we are proposing this to be
approximately 8’ wide. The reason for this is because we expect people to use the facility bidirectionally even if it is designed to be a one-way.
C: PS: One of the nice things about this section is the amount of space we have in the cross section. We
are able to create 4 to 5 rows of trees from building face to building face. This is really going to change
the nature of the corridor and how it feels.
C: DK: As we look closer at the cross section we can look into more details such as the center median. We
are proposing the center median to be slightly raised to create a break in the pavement within the cross
section. The buffers on the sides of the roadway can be used for storm water run-off. I think there is a
better term for that?
C: Robbin Bergfors (RB): We like to call it integrated storm water management.
C: DK: Thanks Robbin.
Page 6
Q: HVA: Are all of the blue bike facilities two-way?
A: PS: No. The two-way bike facilities are on the eastern side and the one-way facilities are on the
western side. They are both colored blue.
Q: DL: Would it be possible to show the connection to the GLX Station as a dashed green line?
A: MT: Let’s pause for a second. I don’t want to show something on our plans that is uncertain. The GLX
is unclear and I don’t feel comfortable putting graphics on our plans that indicate something that is
uncertain.
C: DL: My point is that it is showing a connection.
A: MT: I know but you must understand my concern. I don’t want to make promises to you that another
project may not be in a position to deliver.
C: DL: I’m not saying it because the GLX is up in the air. I’m saying it because it’s a connectivity issue.
C: DK: We’ve been showing a lot of 2D plans. Now I want to show you a 3D rendering. This image is
looking south from Washington Street. As you can see from the before and after images, it is a pretty
dramatic change. This is really going to be an incredible project.
C: PS: The white boxes are representative of potential future developments.
C: DK: When we think about a boulevard concept there is a sense of built form from edge to edge. This is
created by development at the back edge of the sidewalks. If development takes a while this space
could be used as open space. That’s why we are showing it as white boxes.
C: BS: At our last working group session we heard some comments about the bicycle maneuver at the
Somerville Avenue and Medford Street intersection.
C: PS: We don’t have enough room to have a separated two-way bike lane which is why we added the
funny curve to prevent people from cutting the corner while driving.
Q: DL: What’s the width of the two-way facility?
A: PS: I believe it is 12’.
C: DL: There may be an opportunity to have bicycles and pedestrians share the space to create a larger
place for those modes.
A: PS: We’re trying to follow the idea of separating modes. It’s come up a lot in other projects as a conflict
when pedestrians and bicycles are mixed.
C: DL: I would encourage you to think about it when you have an active street space.
Page 7
C: PS: Joel Bennet made a nice comment at one of the previous meetings supporting the idea of having
less organized space and how it gives the area character. I personally am in favor of separating modes.
Q: Jason Stockmann (JS): Are the bike facilities you’re showing a mixture of bike lanes and separated
bike lanes?
A: PS: Essentially they could all be separated bike lanes. The only major constrained section is to the
north. That could end up being a raised two-way facility or maybe a buffered facility. The bridge over
the Commuter Line is also constrained.
C: MT: For now you can consider that space as dedicated to bicycles only. In other places we have
proposed vertical elements for separation. Some of these things become bigger issues when it comes to
maintenance. We want to design a facility that is effective throughout the 4 seasons. We know
separation is preferred.
C: PS: We want to keep the idea of a great urban street going. We may end up using different pavement
techniques to highlight the separated bike lanes. I want to remind you all that we are designing
protected intersections throughout the entire length of the corridor.
C: BR: At the last couple of sessions we heard some questions regarding access to the Brickbottom area
from Alyson and Heather. Do you have any more on that?
C: HVA: I think there is a missing opportunity for an entrance to Brickbottom. You’re showing the main
entrance to Brickbottom as Scary Way. I think a better place to put the main entrance would be off
Poplar Street.
A: BS: If you’re coming up from Medford Street there is only one lane to get to Poplar Street. There are
no lefts.
Q: Wig Zamore (WZ): What about from the north?
A: BS: Both of the intersections work together. We are introducing left-turns for access. That is why we
ended up with the two intersections.
C: HVA: The way you are showing it doesn’t allow for me to get home any earlier. My concern is new
traffic coming in at Linwood and the Fitchburg intersection. I’m not sure why you are showing this as
the main entrance. It is also more difficult to get there from Union Square.
Q: BR: Was there any study analysis done that looked at punching a new local road, approximately 20’
wide, to gain access to the Brickbottom area south of Washington Street? There has been some talk
about a future study and access in that area.
A: GM: We did look at some east-west connections near Poplar Street. If you’re in Union Square and
want to access Brickbottom you can turn right off of Washington Street. The only folks using Scary
Page 8
Way to access Brickbottom would be coming from the north. The volumes on Scary Way never become
large. Poplar and Washington Street will be the primary entrances to Brickbottom.
Q: WZ: If you’re heading north on McGrath, the view corridor into Union Square looks obstructed, is that
true?
A: BS: I don’t think you would be able to see into Union Square from McGrath because of the bend in the
road. That bend is intentional and was supported by the working group as a traffic calming measure.
A: PS: It’s somewhat of a double edged sword. We could design it without the bend for a better view
corridor but then people would likely increase speeds on McGrath because the S Curve would be
eliminated.
C: WZ: If you look down Somerville Avenue from Brickbottom the view looks obstructed. We thought it
would be a nicer connection from Brickbottom to Union Square.
A: PS: It depends on what ends up being placed in those parcels. We are showing it as a white box
because in the interim it may be a park and as the area develops it may turn into a large development.
C: WZ: As an urban district, I think we should be looking to create a strong view corridor and connection
from Union Square to Brickbottom along Somerville Avenue.
A: DK: There is still going to be an obstruction either way as you come off the bridge. These parcels are
going to develop into buildings.
C: WZ: If you look towards Union Square from Brickbottom there are no buildings in the way.
A: BR: Pat’s Towing may turn into a 12 story building.
A: MT: These are all good points. We’ll think about it.
C: WZ: I just thought it would be something different.
C: DK: I want to touch on the stair and pedestrian access to the Brickbottom area. The plan is to keep
the structure as much as possible. We are keeping the S Curve with the idea of having a strong tree
presence on both sides of the corridor. The last section of the boulevard concept is the Squires Bridge
and points south. We are able to put a one-way separated bike lane on both sides of the corridor all the
way to the Somerville and Cambridge border as Rufo Road. The reason for this is to have the
Northpoint Project link up to our project without a gap in-between. We want to merge these projects
continuously.
C: PS: We are actually extending the border even further south to Third Street. There will effectively be
separated bike lanes all the way down to the Craigie Bridge, though the southern portion would be part
of the North Point project.
Page 9
Q: Bill Deignan (BD): I have two comments. The first is that this is truly an amazing transformation
project. I will say that some intersections such as the Washington and Poplar Street intersection seem
wide for pedestrian crossings. My thought would be that as you refine the concept moving forward you
could minimize the width of the median to allow for shorter crossing distances for pedestrians. I don’t
think you need to carry the median all the way to the intersection. My second comment relates to the
access road. Are you showing that as a shared street?
A: DK: Yes. The street would be at sidewalk level. The only people using the street from a vehicular
perspective would be the people who live there.
A: PS: To your comment about the median widths. I think the vision is to have the medians serve as a
pedestrian refuge.2 We could remove them and narrow the crossing distance but people may feel more
comfortable waiting in the middle.
C: BD: Some of the medians have a double row of trees. Maybe you could just reduce those sections down
to a single row of trees at the intersections.
C: DL: I’d like you to think about connection this project to the Grand Junction Line. If you could connect
the last 2 blocks on Medford Street to the future Grand Junction Path it would make a great
connection.
A: DK: One of the proposals follows Rufo Road and goes through the Department of Conservation and
Recreation (DCR) facility. It would link very well with our alternative.
C: TB: I’d like to go back to the conversation of medians and their tradeoffs. For the record, at the
LivableStreets Alliance (LSA), we like medians with refuge islands.
Pedestrian Evaluation
C: Maureen Chlebek (MC): Hi everyone, I’m Maureen Chlebek with McMahon Associates. I’m going to
bring us full circle from where we were about a year ago and cover our evaluation for pedestrians and
bicycles. Tonight I’d like to show you what we’ve achieved since you last saw this evaluation. First I
want to talk about the big picture and the surrounding network. You probably recall the
SomervilleWalks Map we showed early on in the process. As you can see we are achieving a number of
improved and new crossings as part of this project. Some of these crossings are concurrent and some
are exclusive. We are adding two completely new pedestrian crossings as Prospect Hill Avenue and
Otis Street.
In terms of the scoring mechanism for pedestrians we are using a point system that looks are 6
different categories. There is a ton of detail that we went through for each including the facility,
2 The project team’s traffic consultant, McMahon Associates, has been planning light cycles which will
allow pedestrians to cross the McGrath Boulevard in a single movement walking at 3.5 feet per second.
Nonetheless, the refuge is provided as a “just in case” measure for added pedestrian comfort.
Page 10
conflicts, amenities, motor vehicle level of service (LOS) maintenance, and the transportation demand
model (TDM)/ multimodal. I want to show you an example of how we scored the intersection of
McGrath and Medford Street in the northern section. This intersection currently scored 10 points.
There is no separation, 8 travel lanes, and the quality of the sidewalk is poor. Our conclusion was that
this scored a LOS D for pedestrians. As you can see, most of the existing pedestrian conditions along
the corridor scored LOS C and D. Now let’s look at the build scenario. For that same intersection we
were able to bring the pedestrian LOS up to level B. Throughout the entire corridor we are at
pedestrian LOS A and B.
Bicycle Evaluation
C: PS: We also did the same exercise for bicycles. First we looked at the big picture to determine how this
all fits in from a network perspective. This next slide shows the Somerville Bicycle Facility Map. If we
focus on the project area you can see that there are very limited existing facilities. There is a big gap
along McGrath Highway.
C: BD: I don’t know if it was mentioned earlier but the plan for the Craigie Bridge is DCR, not the City of
Cambridge.
C: PS: Thank you for the clarification.
C: WZ: The map is missing a new path from Sullivan Square to the Orange Line. It’s behind the Partners
Building and runs along the Orange Line corridor. It’s all built except for the last 50’.
C: MC: Thanks Wig we can add that. Similar to the pedestrian analysis we went through the entire
corridor and all of the intersections for the bicycle analysis. Pete mentioned it earlier but our design
calls for protected intersections and separated bike lanes throughout the entire corridor. You’ll recall
the level of traffic stress (LTS) graphic we’ve showed in the past. The proposed LTS along the corridor
is primarily LTS 1 and 2. There is one section where we have a LTS 3.
Q: BD: Was delay incorporated into your pedestrian score?
A: MC: Yes as well as crossing distance and time.
Vehicle Operations
C: GM: Hi everyone, I’m Gary McNaughton with McMahon Associates. I’m going to quickly cover the
vehicle operations by comparing the existing and build volumes. I want to remind you all that we are
looking at decreasing volumes as low as 30% throughout the McGrath corridor. Some of that reduction
will be traffic diversion. The other portion will likely be mode shift. We think the mode shift numbers
are conservation but we off set that with the future development. We want to make sure we are getting
a representative picture. We talked about operational bench marks and I want to mention again that
we are not striving to hit the typical MassDOT bench mark of LOS D or better. We are designing this
Page 11
to be a busy urban roadway however we are not planning to spill queues back from intersection to
intersection.
You’ll all remember our conversations of the build year of 2024 with and without Rutherford modified.
The fact of the matter is that we are looking at a lot of traffic diversion with a 4 lane cross section. All
of this will be further outlined in the environmental filing. Operationally we didn’t want to talk about
LOS but the quick message is that we are still looking at LOS F at Broadway and Washington Street.
The Medford Street and Highland Avenue intersection is LOS E in the morning and D in the afternoon.
We have similar LOS ratings at the intersection of Somerville Avenue and Poplar Street. From a
volume capacity ratio perspective we are really pushing the envelope.
C: MT: I want to emphasize that this is really unusual for us at MassDOT. We don’t typically do this.
This is going to not only be a transformational project but it’s going to be ground breaking for the
agency. I’m pretty nervous to show FHWA that the central intersection of Washington Street is a LOS
F. This really is the best compromise we could reach. You should all be very proud to be a part of this
project. It is certainly the first of its kind here in the Commonwealth.
C: BR: I want to give you and your team a lot of credit for doing this. One of the things we’ve noticed
throughout the Commonwealth and the region is that there isn’t a lot of talent to resolve some of these
issues and your team is clearly that talent. Thank you.
C: MT: Thank you Brad.
C: TB: I want to thank all of you for this great work as well. This is the best team I’ve ever worked with
and I’ve been in this business for 20 years.
C: MT: Thank you Tom.
Q: AM: Are you going to present the detailed LOS data at the public information meeting?
A: GM: Yes and we will compare the existing to the proposed. We did it earlier in the process but I
wanted to quickly cover it tonight. We can spend more time on it in a bigger meeting.
Environmental Notification Filing (ENF)
C: MT: We have been asked, “Why are you fixing the viaduct when money was just invested into it?” The
answer to that this process has been driven at the request of the community. We wouldn’t be doing any
of this if it wasn’t for you. With that said we’re going away tonight and new thoughts may come up. If
you have new ideas please email us. For those less familiar with the ENF process there is a comment
period associated with it. We’re hoping to file in late spring early summer. The comment period will
last 30 days. We expect to receive scoping results as part of the environmental certificate.
Page 12
If we covered all of the air quality, traffic analysis, outreach to environmental justice communities, etc.
which we think we have we should receive the environmental certificate. That’s our hope but we’re not
exactly sure how that’s going to turn out. We hope to receive positive and continued support from all of
you. After the MEPA environmental process we would then look to take this to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FHWA. FHWA has a different set of criteria and Joanne Haracz
with McMahon who has been paying close attention to this process with us will help us navigate that.
FHWA is going to be interested in how this affects regional traffic patterns. After these conversations
the next major milestone will be a 25% Design Public Hearing. It would then advance to a 75% Design
and eventually to a Final Design.
This process could be shorter or could be longer than what we currently expect. I’ve been saying that
this is a 10 year project. We are currently programmed as part of the Long Range Transportation Plan
for 2026. I would encourage you to let the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) know that you
support this project if you do. We have always envisioned the process going GLX, Rutherford Avenue,
and then McGrath. As May approaches we should gain a better sense of where GLX stands. We are
going to continue to work independently of that project. I want to keep this going and take advantage
of the momentum we have and the hard work we have all done together. With that I would like to
thank you all. Are there any questions?
Q: Joel Bennett (JB): I have 3 comments. You talked about the service road of Dana Street. It would be
great if it was treated like the frontage road you are proposing in front of the Portuguese Club. I think
the Otis Street crossing could be a real bicycle and pedestrian friendly crossing. My last comment is to
think about allowing vehicles to use Otis, Cross, and Prospect Street for residents only but not as a cut
through.
A: MT: We’ve talked about that vehicular connection and I really don’t want to open that can of worms.
Prospect Hill has had a long history of cut through traffic and we heard last time from the residents of
Prospect Hill that they were not in favor of that connection.
Q: JB: Is there a mechanism that exists to only allow cars to using that a connection for certain hours?
A: MT: Not really, certainly not a successful one. It is a good thought though. Thank you all again for
coming out tonight. We look forward to seeing you at the public information meeting. Nate will send
you all an email with the details once it is finalized.
Next Steps
As mentioned in the executive summary, the meeting summarized herein was the final working group
session associated with the Project Development Phase for the McGrath Boulevard Project. At present, the
project team anticipates holding a public information meeting sometime in late spring to present the work
Page 13
accomplished to-date to the general public. A notification of this public information meeting will be sent
out to all stakeholders that have signed-up for the projects stakeholder database. Advertisements will also
be placed in local newspapers.
Page 14
Appendix 1: Meeting Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
George
Batchelor
MassDOT
Joel
Bennet
Working Group Member
Robbin
Bergfors
MassDOT
Tom
Bertulis
Working Group Member
Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis
Howard Stein Hudson
Maureen
Chlebek
McMahon Associates
Bill
Conroy
Working Group Member
Bill
Deignan
Working Group Member
Dan
Fielding
MassDOT
Jim
Gascoigne
Working Group Member
Nick
Gross
Howard Stein Hudson
Philip
Groth
Working Group Member
Don
Kindsvatter
Kleinfelder
David
Loutzenheiser
Working Group Member
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Peter
Missouri
Working Group Member
Alan
Moore
Somerville Bicycle Committee
Brad
Rawson
Working Group Member
Ellin
Reisner
Working Group Member
Manuel
Rodriguez
Working Group Member
Bob
Smith
McMahon Associates
Matt
Starkey
McMahon Associates
Pete
Stidman
Howard Stein Hudson
Jason
Stockmann
Working Group Member
Frank
Suszynski
MassDOT
Sharon
Tankel
Working Group Member
Timothy
Toomey
Working Group Member
Michael
Trepanier
MassDOT
Heather
Van Aelst
Working Group Member
Wig
Zamore
Working Group Member
Page 15