MEMORANDUM |
To:
Michael Trepanier
Project Manager
Date:
January 26, 2016
From:
Nick Gross
Howard Stein Hudson
HSH Project No.:
2013061.03
Subject:
MassDOT Highway Division
McGrath Boulevard Project Development
Working Group Session 6
Meeting Notes of January 21, 2016
Overview
On January 21, 2016, the McGrath Boulevard Project Development team held its sixth 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.
Between the conclusion of the previous working group meeting and the meeting summarized herein, the
LivableStreets Alliance (LSA) submitted a conceptual design for the intersection of Medford Street and
McGrath Boulevard for consideration by the project team. The key feature of this intersection concept
suggested aligning McGrath Boulevard with Medford Street to allow a free-flowing through movement to
Medford Street rather than a left-turn. After further evaluating the intersection concept, a number of key
challenges arose, primarily the introduction of a left-turn movement in the AM peak hour for traffic
traveling south on McGrath Boulevard. This dominant flow is currently handled as a maximally efficient
through movement. While the project team agreed that the geometry of the intersection concept had a
clean look to it, and had even explored a similar concept independently early in the study process, it was
determined not to further pursue this option due to the lack of functionality and high volume-capacity (VC)
ratio.
Two design concepts were presented associated with the segment of the corridor between the Squires
Bridge and the Poplar Street, Medford Street, and Somerville Avenue intersection. The first concept
proposed straightening the alignment of the corridor to provide additional development opportunity on the
Brickbottom side to the east. The second concept proposed maintaining the “S” curve that exists currently
11 Beacon Street, Suite 1010 | Boston, Massachusetts 02108 | 617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
with the goal of reducing the overall cost and serving as a traffic calming element within the corridor. Both
concepts maintain access to Brickbottom via Somerville Avenue Extension, known locally as Scary Way.
Further treatments for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations at the entrance of Scary Way were
discussed and noted by the project team. In response to a request by the working group, the individual
traffic movements associated with the dual intersection concepts (G1 & G2) of Somerville Avenue, Medford
Street, and Poplar Street were highlighted and shown in detail. It should be noted that members of the
Somerville Bicycle Committee requested that the project team further analyze and accommodate the
multimodal connection from Medford Street to Somerville Avenue traveling north due to its strong desire
line and existing connection for cyclists. The project team agreed to undertake this work.
The bulk of the working group session summarized herein included the breakout exercise focused on the
section of the corridor between Washington Street and Somerville Avenue. This segment of the McGrath
Boulevard includes the widest cross section and a proposed access road on the western edge of the corridor.
In framing the discussion points for the breakout exercise, certain elements of the cross section such as
travel lanes and parking were determined to be fixed, while other element such as planting strips,
separated bike lanes, and pedestrian accommodations were noted as flexible. At the conclusion of the
breakout exercise, there were a number of common themes that were reflected between each of the groups.
These included the desire to have a two-way separated bike lane on both sides of the corridor which was
largely supported by the idea that a one-way separated bike lane will function bi-directionally anyway,
even if not technically correctly, based on the common desire line. The other major theme that came out of
the breakout exercise was related to the access road. Each group proposed an access road that functioned
more or less as a shared-street, at sidewalk level, with bollards separating pedestrians from traffic.
Thinking more broadly of the corridor, several group members expressed an interest in using curves,
particularly at the Squires Bridge end of the project in conjunction with trees, as a way to create viewsheds which would cue drivers to reduce speed when entering the McGrath Boulevard.
At the end of the meeting, Project Manager, Michael Trepanier outlined the projects next steps including
the major milestone of an environmental filing with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
Office. As it is currently planned, at the conclusion of the subsequent working group session, the project
team will work to consolidate the work associated with the working group and outline a preferred
alternative for the job. This documentation will result in a Project Development Report (PDR) which will
be used as a tool to support the environmental filing with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
(MEPA) Office. With a preferred alternative and certificate from the Secretary of Environmental Affairs,
the project would then move into a preliminary design phase.
Page 2
Detailed Meeting Minutes1
C: Michael Trepanier (MT): Good evening everyone and welcome to the sixth working group session for
the McGrath Boulevard Project. We have a packed agenda tonight starting with an overview of the
LivableStreets Alliance (LSA) concept for the intersection of Medford Street and McGrath Boulevard.
We‟ll then have a larger discussion regarding our design concept development followed by a breakout
exercise similar to our April 16, 2015 session. At our last working group session we introduced a
concept for the Squires Bridge connection and two alternatives for the Somerville Avenue intersection.
The two Somerville Avenue intersection alternatives prioritize specific movements over others and we‟ll
be looking to hear your feedback on that tonight. A large part of tonight‟s agenda, including the
breakout session, will focus on the cross section options between Washington Street and Somerville
Avenue. This section of the corridor has the largest right-of-way (ROW) and will likely be the easiest to
determine. We‟ll eventually move to the narrower cross sections and tie it all together.
The breakout session we had back on April 16, 2015 was very constructive and we received a lot of good
direction from this group. We built some consensus, heard some similar themes throughout the groups,
and were able to dismiss the idea of having a multimodal connection in the median throughout the
corridor. Our goal tonight is to go from a thematic approach to a schematic approach. The goal with
the breakout session is to reach a point of consensus in the way the excess space will be used within the
ROW. You‟ll notice that there is a number on your agenda sheet; this will be used to place you in a
designated group. We‟ll wrap up the breakout session with a report back and I‟ll ask that each group
elect a spokesperson to summarize the groups‟ conversation. We have a quick update on the Cross
Street and Prospect Hill Avenue connection. We‟ve been showing this connection as a pedestrian
crossing but we also wanted to look at it from the perspective of a vehicular crossing as well. We also
have a few updates on the Medford Street intersection that Pete Stidman has been working on so we‟ll
finish with that. In terms of next steps, we‟re tentatively thinking of holding our next meeting in the
first week of March.
LivableStreets Alliance Concept
C: Gary McNaughton (GM): Hi everyone, I‟m Gary McNaughton with McMahon Associates. At the last
working group session we mentioned that we received a conceptual design for the Medford Street
intersection from the LSA. It‟s a very interesting idea; it takes McGrath Boulevard and aligns it with
Somerville Avenue. The geometry looks nice because everything lines up, but the primary challenge is
that the movement to and from McGrath Boulevard is now a turning movement rather than a through
movement. We looked at how it would function from a traffic perspective and the weekday morning is
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.
1
Page 3
the most challenging. The issue ends up being a very heavy left-turn volume capacity (VC) ratio of
1.7:1. The alternatives we‟ve developed show a VC ration of 1.2:1.
C: MT: For those of you who are not traffic engineers, a VC is a capacity ratio. Theoretically, a ratio of
1:1 is at capacity.
Q: Alyson Schultz (AS): What about the existing turning movement at Highland Avenue and Medford
Street? How do the two alternatives compare in relation to that movement?
A: GM: The difference ends up being the traffic that splits at Highland Avenue and Medford Street.
Medford Street ends up receiving more traffic, whereas in our concept, the turn onto Highland Avenue
is still the dominate move. The other difference is that our concept is showing two intersections;
Somerville Avenue and Medford Street. Separating these two intersections allows us to better
maximize the use of the space. With the LSA concept, the southbound movement is coming to a stop
which requires an extra traffic signal phase. We agree that it has a nice clean look to it but from our
perspective it doesn‟t function as well as what we are proposing. I have a detailed analysis that we can
share with anyone who is interested afterwards.
Q: MT: Does anyone have any questions? Tom?
A: Tom Bertulis (TB): No, I‟m good.
Design Concept Development – Squires Bridge Connection Concepts
C: Bob Smith (BS): Hi everyone, my name is Bob Smith. The focus of tonight‟s session is going to be the
area between the MBTA Railroad Bridge to the north and the Squires Bridge to the south. The Squires
Bridge is a fixed point of our design and we are going to show you two alternatives that tie into the
Squires Bridge to the north. The first alternative keeps the “S” curve and generally aligns the roadway
with the existing walls. There will be two lanes in each direction as well as bicycle accommodations on
both sides of the roadway. The second alternative shifts the roadway alignment to the south which
opens up a significant amount of land on the northern side of the bridge. Poplar Street remains aligned
with Medford Street in both alternatives and bicycle connections to Brickbottom are present in both
alternatives as well. Keeping the “S” curve from a highway engineer standpoint is not desirable due to
the geometry of the roadway. With that said, we believe the “S” curve will act as a traffic calming
measure in addition to a tree lined median. The main idea in keeping the “S” curve is to retain the
slope and keep the existing lanes in their place to reduce the overall cost. There are advantages and
disadvantages to both alternatives.
C: Don Kinsvatter (DK): Hi everyone, my name is Don Kinsvatter and I am an urban designer with
Kleinfelder. With regards to urban design and context, there are two key opportunities with the
Squires Bridge alternatives. The first is that when you remove the viaduct, you gain enough space to
put in a row of trees to continue the boulevard feeling all the way to the Squires Bridge. It also creates
the opportunity for additional green space along the edges of the corridor. As you travel from Lechmere
Page 4
over the Squires Bridge, it would then feel like you are transitioning into a new place. One of my
thoughts to increase the feeling of transition is to build an additional row of trees to increase the lush
vegetation feeling. The alternative to straighten out the roadway creates a larger parcel on the
Brickbottom side and a smaller area for development on the opposite side. The main advantage to
leaving the curve is based on construction and cost. The concept of a tree lined boulevard will work for
either alternative.
C: BS: The development of Scary Way also has two different configurations based on these alternatives.
With the “S” alignment, we have more room to the south to introduce a larger curve to so it doesn‟t feel
like you are coming off a highway ramp. We believe this will better accommodate bicycles and
pedestrians in slowing traffic speeds. The alternative that shifts the roadway alignment south keeps a
similar Scary Way configuration to what exist today. I should note that both Scary Way configurations
can work with either roadway align alternative.
Q: Wig Zamore (WZ): Would it be possible to take the bulk out entirely and create a walled landscape
feature?
A: BS: It‟s certainly an option.
C: WZ: This would also help reduce the amount of land takings in the parcel.
A: BS: Both options depart from the road on the same type of alignment. We‟ll look into it.
Q: AS: Are the sidewalks and pedestrian stairways still there? We use them all the time. There is
enough room on Scary Way to design the space with sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides.
A: DK: The stairway will remain. If we keep the ramps as they are, we will keep the stairway.
Q: Daniela Cardenas (DC): Am I correct in thinking that there would be a low cost in keeping the curb?
A: DK: Yes.
Q: Ken Carlson (KC): What is the design speed limit? Has there been thought given to the maximum lane
width in this section or the angle of the off-ramp?
A: Pete Stidman (PS): This is an early concept; we haven‟t developed the bikeways very much. Our plan
is to develop a separated bike lane facility over the Squires Bridge. With regards to traffic exiting onto
Scary Way, we have been considering the bicycle and pedestrian crossing. If we keep the ramp closer to
the bridge, it will allow traffic to maintain a higher speed when making the exit onto Scary Way.
C: GM: Our preliminary plans are based on what exists today. The question comes down to keeping the
alignment tight to the parcel space or creating an angle to slow traffic speeds. This could all end up
looking entirely different once we get to construction.
Page 5
C: WZ: If you brought the alignment of Scary Way down all the way to the railroad tracks, it would create
more space for future opportunities.
C: TB: I like the curves and I would like to recommend more curves wherever possible. As Bob
mentioned, curves serve as a traffic calming measure.
C: BS: After our initial survey, we believe we have enough space to have two traffic lanes in each
direction with plenty of space for separated bike lanes on both sides.
C: KC: That would be preferred.
C: Heather Van Aelst (HVA): I‟d like to second what Alyson said with regard to the Brickbottom
stairways. The stairways get a fair amount of use for people traveling to Lechmere. It would be great
if there was a bike lane out of Brickbottom; right now there is no good way out.
A: BS: We could create a two-way separated bike lane with the amount of space on Scary Way. We don‟t
need a survey to confirm that it could fit.
C: PS: You‟re looking for a way out of Brickbottom for bikes?
C: HVA: Yes but even more so for pedestrians. Right now we have to go up the stairway on Linwood
Street and down the ramp on the McGrath Highway. We‟re looking for a bike connection to Union
Square as well.
C: AS: The City of Somerville is also proposing new zoning for Brickbottom with 10 story buildings.
Design Concept Development – Somerville Avenue Intersection Alternatives
C: BS: At this point I‟d like to run through the movements for each of the dual intersection alternatives.
The first intersection alternative is called G1. In this alternative, Medford Street lines up with Poplar
Street and Somerville Avenue is on its own. The second alternative is called G2. This is the jug handle
alternative we have referred to in the past. It‟s a little trickier from an operational standpoint but it
allows us to pull one lane off of the McGrath Boulevard mainline. In this alternative, Poplar Street
lines up with Somerville Avenue and Medford Street is on its own.
C: MT: With both of these alternatives there are a lot more connections from a roadway network
perspective to Brickbottom.2
Q: AS: What about the local movements? Local traffic has to go through two sets of lights and in some
cases is making four turns.
2
Specific intersection movements are visually represented on slides 16-23 of the PowerPoint presentation.
Page 6
A: GM: The heaviest movement is along the mainline. We know a lot of people live in Brickbottom but it
needs to be a balance of all users.
Q: HVA: How would one head south on McGrath Boulevard from Poplar Street?
A: GM: It‟s actually pretty simple; you would come out of Poplar Street and turn left.
C: BS: We created a comparison summary that describes the two intersection alternatives from a traffic
operations and urban design standpoint. Alternative G1 is simpler mainly due to the configuration of
not having the jug handle. It does show an additional travel lane on the mainline but has one less
intersection on Poplar Street compared to G2. The jug handle in alternative G2 allows for three
southbound and two northbound travel lanes on the mainline.
Q: KC: The biggest bicycle movement right now is traveling north on Medford Street and turning left on
Somerville Avenue. That movement becomes a lot more complicated when a cyclist has to pass through
multiple intersections. Would it be possible to create a two-way separated bike lane to bypass the
intersections along the surface road you are showing?
A: PS: We are showing bicycle facilities in purple but we haven‟t developed them enough to know exactly
what type of facility they are going to be. I think it‟s a good point and we can probably accommodate
that movement.
C: KC: Both of the proposed intersections make the movement from Medford Street to Somerville Avenue
a lot more complicated.
C: PS: It‟s a great comment. I think we can make it work but you‟ll still have to cross the road as a
cyclist. I‟ll look into it.
C: TB: It would be great if there was a two-way cyclist track on both sides of the street. There is a lot of
ROW.
C: KC: The movement from Medford Street to Somerville Avenue is definitely a PM rush hour move.
C: BS: I should note that these plans were plotted assuming the “S” curve was maintained. Removing the
“S” curve may create some new opportunities and new space for bicycle accommodations.
C: WZ: It looks like the triangle that has been created with the jug handle alternative has no utility. You
wouldn‟t want to be there as a pedestrian.
A: DK: You‟re right; you would be surrounded by roadway.
C: WZ: Would it be possible to remove the one-way section of Somerville Avenue and push it up against
the mainline of the McGrath Boulevard? Hub Glass doesn‟t seem as valuable to the scope of this
project as future development potential.
Page 7
A: MT: The owner of Hub Glass is here tonight and he may disagree with you. This is about balancing
needs.
C: WZ: It‟s an isolated business. There is a significant potential for future land use and shops in that
parcel.
A: GM: If we were to push the Somerville Avenue extension up against the mainline it would be
essentially adding another lane to McGrath Boulevard.
C: WZ: I agree.
A: GM: The reason we are showing this configuration is to pull traffic volume out of the intersection. We
tried it both ways and the way we are showing improves the operations overall. We‟re looking for your
feedback. Is saving a lane worth complicating the movements?
Q: AS: Where are you considering bus stops? There is currently one in front of Hub Glass.
A: GM: We haven‟t located specific bus stop locations yet but typically they are on the far side of an
intersection, downstream of traffic signals.
Design Concept Development – Cross Section Options – Washington Street and Somerville Avenue
C: DK: At this point we‟re going to move on to the cross section between Washington Street and
Somerville Avenue. This is the largest cross section in the corridor with a width of approximately 177‟.
It‟s important for us to determine what goes here and how it transitions to the narrower section to the
north at the Medford Street intersection. By the time we get up to Medford Street, the cross section
width goes down to 116‟. It‟s also important for us to determine which items within the cross section
are fixed and which items are flexible. For this section we are going to assume that there are three, 11‟
lanes in each direction include 2‟ shoulders on each side. Another fixed element is a 12‟ two-way
separated bike lane. The last fixed element is parking shown at 8‟. The total amount of fixed elements
adds up to 94‟ leaving 83‟ of flexibility to play with. The most flexible elements within this cross section
are the sidewalks. At a minimum we would like to show 8‟ sidewalks. We also need to consider a
planting strip and the shy zone. Ideally we want this to end up looking like a boulevard so we‟ll have a
wider section for trees next to parking and potentially a space for sidewalk cafes. In total, we‟re looking
at an 18‟ section for these elements. In the breakout sections we‟ll be looking for your feedback.
One of the questions that we want to put forward is whether or not we want to have wide sidewalks on
both sides of the street. It would seem desirable due to the amount of ROW. In terms of medians, we
would like to see somewhere between 8‟ to 10‟. If we remove the median and designate that space for
the sidewalks we may end up losing the sense of a boulevard. Medians help breakup the corridor as
your eye runs across it. Cambridge Street in downtown Boston has a six-lane cross section in some
places and most people seem to agree they like the aesthetics of the street. Medians also provide an
Page 8
interesting opportunity to integrate stormwater management techniques. Pete Stidman is now going
to talk to you a bit more about the alternatives we‟ve developed for the access road.
C: PS: Hi everyone, I‟m Pete Stidman with Howard Stein Hudson. I‟ve been working on the bicycle,
pedestrian, and urban design elements for this job. At our last working group session we had some
comments about the access road. We also heard the idea to place parking on the mainline of McGrath
as a traffic calming technique with bike lanes or sharrows on the access road. The minimum width for
the access road without parking is 18‟. If we add parking it brings the width up to approximately 20‟ to
22‟. Since our conversation last time we met and based off of the comments we received from this
group, we have developed three concepts for the access road. The first concept proposes an access road
with sharrows for bicycles and parking on the right side. The second concept proposes an access road
with separated bike lanes. This is the preferred method by MassDOT. The last concept we are
proposing is a shared street alternative. This concept uses bollards to create separation between
pedestrians and the access road with the same dimensions. An example of a shared street in Boston is
parallel to Cross Street in the North End.
Q: TB: Will there be added roadway capacity on the shared street?
A: PS: The access road would be used for residents and local businesses only; it‟s not about creating
additional roadway capacity.
C: GM: The biggest benefit with the proposed access road is the parking maneuvers. We decided to keep
parking on the access road because of the dangerous situation of backing out onto the McGrath
mainline. It‟s not a capacity issue; it‟s a safer way for residents and local businesses to park and
maneuver in and out of their spots.
C: PS: As we continued looking at the access road concepts we began looking at how it affects the rest of
the cross section. We looked at maximizing trees along the corridor.
C: WZ: If in addition or instead of trees, I‟d like to suggest a solid hedge to reduce exposure. Tree lined
medians is a great start but a solid vegetated hedge is much better. The more solid the hedge, the more
you are able to control the air pollution to drive it up and out.
C: PS: It‟s a good point; we‟re also considering the prevailing winds and exposure to pollution.
C: WZ: A lot of people don‟t know but pollution and exposure is most prevalent when you are parallel to
it.
A: DK: Thank you for your comments Wig. We‟re going to move to the breakout exercise.
Page 9
Breakout Results – Group 1
C: TB: The first thing we did was reduced the shoulder widths from 2‟ to 1‟. We gained 4‟ from this and
added it to the tree and median widths. We are showing 14‟ sidewalks on both sides of the street in
addition to two-way separated bike lanes on both sides as well. We shrank the two-way separated bike
lanes a little bit to 10‟ each. It may be substandard but we believe the tradeoff is worth it. We are
showing 12‟ medians between the separated bike lanes as well as a 12‟ median in the middle of the
corridor. We are also showing the access road as a shared street with bollards at 20‟. We also
considered the pinch points with a two-way separated bike lane running continuously along the
corridor. We‟re proposing to cantilever the bike facility off of the Squires Bridge as this is a key pinch
point.3
C: MT: Thank you Tom.
Breakout Results – Group 2
C: KC: We are showing a 10‟ sidewalk with a 6‟ vegetated buffer next to a 12‟ two-way cycle track. We
then have another tree zone at 7‟ between the two-way separated bike lane and vehicular mainline. I
thought Wig‟s suggestion of a vegetated hedge was a good idea but we didn‟t have a cross section piece
for that so we‟ll just pretend. We‟re showing an 8‟ tree lined median between the east and westbound
mainline, followed by a 9‟ tree buffer between the eastbound mainline and an 8‟ one-way separated bike
lane. We‟re showing an 8‟ one-way bike facility instead of 6‟ because we know that people will use it bidirectionally either way. We have an access road and a 10‟ tree zone next to the sidewalk. We took a
couple of notes and there are still a couple of items we‟re concerned about. The first is the area near
Herb Chambers. Our concern is the potential conflict point between cars coming off McGrath and nonmotorized users both on and off the separated bike lane. We thought that one-way in and one-way out
access to some of the adjacent parcels may help reduce that risk.
C: JB: The other suggestion was to reduce the number of access points into Herb Chambers. We‟d like to
cut it down from three to two.
C: MT: That‟s a great question for Brad Rawson.
A: Brad Rawson (BR): It‟s a great point and I would say all of those ideas are on the table. There has
been talk of studio and art space development on the site of the old waste transfer station on Poplar
Street. It‟s important for us to consider access with regards to the City of Somerville and MassDOT‟s
plans for this corridor.
C: MT: I believe the Herb Chambers access points are MassDOT curb cuts.
3
It was also suggested that reverse angled parking be considered along the proposed access road.
Page 10
Breakout Results – Group 3
C: Katrina Crocker (KC): Our first decision was to move the bike facility from the far side of the access
road to the driveway side. We did this because we were concerned about the high speed of cars
entering the access road. Even though there are more conflict points next to the driveways we
ultimately decided that it is still preferred over a shared space on the street with higher vehicular
speeds. We‟re showing a 10‟ sidewalk followed by a 5‟ tree zone buffer. We thought it would be
beneficial to keep the separated bike lane straight and in alignment with the intersection so it remains
as a straight shot without curves. On the southbound side, we didn‟t think a third lane was necessary
since the main purpose of the outside lane is to serve the upcoming section with Somerville Avenue.
We are showing a 12‟ two-way separated bike lane but we would like it to be even wider so cyclists can
conveniently pass each other without having to enter in the oncoming lane.
C: MT: Great, thank you Katrina. I think that was a great exercise. We received similar results between
each group which is what we were hoping for. We‟re going to move back to the presentation now so feel
free to find your original seat.
C: PS: As I was walking around between groups it sounded like there was a strong support for the access
road. I noticed two groups had the sidewalk level treatment with bollards. Is there a consensus on
what type of facility is preferred?
A: Bill Conroy (BC): Our group was considering an access road as an interim condition and as future
development occurs it would become tabled to create more or less a shared street.
C: PS: It sounds like most people like the idea of having the bicycle facility separated from the access
road.
C: Bill Deignan (BD): I liked the last group‟s idea of moving the bicycle facility away from the traffic.
C: MT: I do too.
Q: AS: Won‟t you still have to cross at the intersection with traffic?
A: PS: The proposed intersection is a protected intersection. We don‟t have anything like this in Boston
today. There is a similar treatment on Western Avenue in Cambridge.
C: MT: There will be protected intersections as part of the redesign of Commonwealth Avenue.
C: KC: One of our concerns is that the two-way separated bike lane is on the Herb Chambers side. Cars
coming off of McGrath and using any of the access points to the adjacent parcel on Linwood Street may
not be aware of the increased bicycle use.
Page 11
C: DC: The turn onto Linwood Street would require a car to slow down a lot. However I agree that there
is a conflict point. Cyclists along the Minuteman Bikeway are encouraged to slow down at specific
intersections to avoid conflicts.
C: AS: If I was leaving Brickbottom on Linwood Street and I stopped at the stop line, I would then move
up and stop again to allow pedestrians to cross. The issue is that I would then be stopped in the
separated bike lane.
C: MT: Right now there are only three or four crossings on the Brickbottom side of the corridor. I like the
idea of the sensation that you are approaching a cross street.
C: DC: One accommodation that may be beneficial from a bicycle perspective would be to curve the
separated bike lane in so that the approach for a car would have to wait in order to merge onto the
mainline.
C: PS: That makes a lot of sense.
C: TB: The design consideration you are referencing is often called a bend-in or bend-out design. In the
urban areas of the Netherlands it is extremely common to see a bend-out intersection design approach.
Progress Updates – Cross Street/Prospect Hill Update
C: PS: We‟ll take a look at it. I want to move on to the last item on our agenda. You may remember my
presentation last time on the history of this area. I talked briefly about the history of Central Square
in Somerville and tonight I would like to wrap up that conversation. We took a quick look at the
intersection of Cross Street and McGrath Boulevard and came up with a few ideas. The key objective is
to bring people back to hangout and socialize by making it a place again. Benches are nice. San
Francisco has public posts that serve as informational points for posting public notices. Another item
we looked at was the bicycle and pedestrian crossings. We‟re wondering if there is a desire for
vehicular traffic to cross at this location or if we can remove one of the crossings.
C: Bill Gage (BG): Right now there are signs posted for „residential access only‟ between peak hours. The
issue is that no one wants traffic in the neighborhood traveling to Union Square.
C: GM: That‟s exactly what we wanted to hear. With a controlled pedestrian crossing, traffic will also be
slowed. Do you think there is a desire for vehicles to cross from Cross Street to Prospect Hill Avenue?
C: BG: The Hill would go crazy.
C: JB: I don‟t live on the Hill and therefore I don‟t agree [laughs].
C: GM: We wanted to hear your thoughts regarding this connection before determining if it would be
worth investigating this connection.
Page 12
C: AS: It‟s been a mandate since the beginning of the project to not have the highway divide the
neighborhood.
C: BG: The neighborhood is going to oppose it because of the cut-through traffic to Union Square. Police
don‟t enforce the „residential access only‟ signs.
C: AS: If you add a traffic signal at that intersection it will help slow traffic.
C: MT: Gary brought this idea to my attention and I think we‟ve got what we wanted from you. It sounds
like it could potentially be a great multimodal connection. In general, it sounds like it is not a desired
connection for vehicles.
C: WZ: I live right at the intersection of Highland Avenue and Medford Street. I think the purpose of the
restricted access is to keep people from driving through on McGrath and cutting over to Prospect Hill.
If we‟re talking about connecting the two neighborhoods, my thought is that this will create additional
local cut-through traffic that is undesirable.
C: BG: It‟s going to be hard to convince the neighborhood that this cut-through is a positive.
C: BR: I have a quick comment; most of you know that the traffic dynamic existing along Washington
Street doesn‟t work well. Hopefully folks know that Prospect Street and Webster Street will be
converted to two-way traffic in the near future. Construction is going to start this spring; in 8 to 10
months we may have a stronger functioning Washington Street again.
Progress Updates – Medford Street Intersection Update
C: PS: Moving on to Medford Street, we‟re looking to incorporate a fully protected intersection design for
bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles. After discussions with MassDOT, we‟ve continued to look at the
possibility of a bike lane on the western side of the corridor near the MBTA Railroad Bridge. We‟ve
also added an outlet to get onto Medford Street for bicycles traveling south on McGrath Boulevard.
C: WZ: There are 30,000 vehicles a day that travel through this intersection and up Medford Street. It‟s
the only diagonal route that takes people from the north to Kendall Square.
C: JB: I‟m concerned about the location of the two-way separated bike lane on the eastern edge of the
corridor. It seems like a disadvantage to remove the surface road between Broadway and Pearl Street.
Ideally, the western side of the corridor is where cyclists want to be riding.
A: PS: We‟ll continue thinking and looking at a bicycle accommodation on the western side of the MBTA
Railroad Bridge.
C: MT: As we know, the northern segment of the corridor necks down a lot more than the southern
segment. We need to think of some opportunities that make the entire corridor feel as comfortable as
the carriage road between Broadway and Pearl Street.
Page 13
C: BR: The Green Line Extension Station was shown on the previous plan. I want to note that the Mayor
is 100% confident in the success of that project.
Q: AS: Are you showing a designated right-turn out of Joy Street?
A: GM: That is what the plan shows but we haven‟t confirmed that. We know there are not a lot of leftturns made from that location.
C: AS: I would say that there are as many left-turns as right-turns exiting Joy Street.
C: MT: That is something that can be further addressed as part of the regional context and modeling
effort that CTPS is undertaking. Those types of conversations are going to be critical.
C: PS: When we first introduced the idea of a crossing at Bonair Street, we showed two separated
crossings. We think that we‟ll eventually end up with one and we‟re looking on your feedback to which
one that will be. From an operational perspective we believe that Otis Street will work better. Unless
there is strong opposition, that is what we are going to carry forward.
Q: BD: Why can‟t you do both crossings?
A: GM: It‟s a proximity issue relating to the traffic signals; they would end up being too close to each
other to work effectively.
C: MT: Thanks Gary. We are saving March 3, 2016 as the date for our next working group session. We‟re
going to take the work that you‟ve provided us with tonight and synthesize it. We‟ll come back in
March and work out a final preferred solution for the corridor. With that said, there is some
uncertainty regionally in how we proceed in the immediate term on the chronological steps that this
project will take.
The next big milestone is to initiate the Environmental Review Process; most notably with the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office. We‟ll then use that as a tool to scope the
Federal Environmental Review Process with our partners at the Federal Highway Administration.
With a preferred alternative and a certificate from the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, we would
then proceed into preliminary design.
I want to be open and transparent with everybody; I anticipate our March working group session being
our last for this phase. I intend to have a preferred alternative developed at the conclusion of that
session and then bring it to the general public. At that time we‟ll be lobbying all of you, your friends,
and neighbors to come out and join us. If the Regional Working Group‟s path is clear, then perhaps we
will double up our efforts and proceed in preparing our environmental filing with a combined MEPA
consultation and public information meeting where we roll out the preferred alternative. What I don‟t
want to happen is for us to lose our momentum and the value of all the hard work you have contributed
to us.
Page 14
This process has been extremely valuable to us and it‟s the right approach to address large decisions in
transportation like this. After our session in March the team will go full speed in developing a
document which we are referring to as a Project Development Report. This report will be used to
support our environmental filing. If the Regional Working Group is giving us a strong output and I get
the direction from the Administration to proceed, we‟ll proceed. There is a parallel track right now and
at some point they may split apart. I want to thank you all for the work you have contributed to us
over the last year and a half4.
Next Steps
The next working group session will take place on March 24, 2016 at the East Somerville Community
School located at 50 Cross Street, Somerville.
4
Here it is worth noting that Michael Trepanier received a sustained round of applause.
Page 15
Appendix 1: Meeting Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
George
Batchelor
MassDOT
Joel
Bennet
Working Group Member
Tom
Bertulis
Working Group Member
Jeremy
Bowman
Working Group Member
Rob
Buchanan
Working Group Member
Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis
Howard Stein Hudson
Daniela
Cardenas
Boston Cyclist Union
Ken
Carlson
Working Group Member
Richard
Carver
Working Group Member
Bill
Conroy
Working Group Member
Katrina
Crocker
CTPS
Andrea
d’Amato
Kleinfelder
Bill
Deignan
Working Group Member
Bill
Gage
Working Group Member
Nick
Gross
Howard Stein Hudson
Phil
Groth
Working Group Member
Joann
Haracz
McMahon Associates
Don
Kindsvatter
Kleinfelder
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Peter
Missouri
Working Group Member
Scott
Peterson
Working Group Member
Warren
Randle
Kleinfelder
Brad
Rawson
Working Group Member
Carlos
Robles
MassDOT
Manuel
Rodriguez
Working Group Member
Margaret
Round
Working Group Member
Alyson
Schultz
Working Group Member
Bob
Smith
McMahon Associates
Matt
Starkey
McMahon Associates
Pete
Stidman
Howard Stein Hudson
Frank
Suszynski
MassDOT D4
Page 16
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Pete
Sutton
MassDOT
Michael
Trepanier
MassDOT
Heather
Van Aelst
Working Group Member
Wig
Zamore
Working Group Member
Page 17