MEMORANDUM |
To:
Michael Trepanier
Project Manager
Date:
September 3, 2015
From:
Nick Gross
Howard Stein Hudson
HSH Project No.:
2013061.03
Subject:
MassDOT Highway Division
McGrath Boulevard Project Development
Working Group Session 4
Meeting Notes of August 5, 2015
Overview
On August 5, 2015 the McGrath Boulevard Project Development team held its fourth 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 address the structurally deficient McCarthy viaduct 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 was kicked off with a fly-through rendering of the Casey Arborway Project
produced in Google SketchUp. The Casey Arborway Project has often been referred as an analog by the
project team for working group members to refer to in order to gain a stronger understanding and visual
aesthetic for the McGrath Boulevard Project. Following the fly-through rendering, MassDOT staff
provided an overview of the ongoing interim improvements for McGrath Highway including the Medford
Street priority bicycle lane, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements at key intersections, and
the Somerville Avenue “Punch Through,” as well as the potential for a paint-based bicycle lane solution
south of the Squires Bridge.
Since the working group last met in April, the McGrath Boulevard Project Development team held a public
information meeting at the East Somerville Community School on May 28, 2015, a targeted briefing for the
Brickbottom Artist Association on June 4, 2015, and participated with the Somerville Equity
Transportation Partnership (STEP) to educate community members and patrons at the annual ArtBeat
festival in Davis Square on July 18, 2015. The bulk of the meeting involved a discussion on the traffic
projection screening criteria, consideration of “evaporated traffic”, and preliminary conceptual schemes of
11 Beacon Street, Suite 1010 | Boston, Massachusetts 02108 | 617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
the projects three key intersections including McGrath Boulevard at Medford Street, McGrath Boulevard
at Washington Street, and McGrath Boulevard at Poplar Street.
At the request of the working group, the project team was asked to look into a number of case studies
involving “evaporated traffic” in order to reduce the cross-section width needed on McGrath Boulevard.
The project team looked at a number of case studies including Vauxhall Cross in London, England and
Nuremberg, Germany. Both projects had a reduction in peak hour volumes during the with Vauxhall Cross
around 7% and Nuremberg around 23%. While these numbers represent a relative significant traffic
volume reduction, the McGrath Boulevard Project team is designing for a 30% reduction in peak hour
volumes along the projects main corridor which has never been done in MassDOT history. The project
team remains committed in working towards the smallest cross-section possible and will continue
evaluating the idea of evaporated traffic to achieve this goal. The idea of evaporated traffic will be
balanced and thoroughly looked at in order to not produce harmful congestion.
The working group session wrapped up by looking at each of the key intersections along McGrath Highway.
It was noted by the project team that the intersection of Washington Street and McGrath Highway will be
the most difficult to reduce the cross-section from an operational point of view. For this reason the project
team considered looking at a continuous flow intersection configuration which would reduce the crosssection to four lanes while negatively impacting the pedestrian and bicycle operations. At the conclusion of
the session, working group members were assigned intersection analysis “homework” and were asked to
submit comments within two weeks.
Detailed Meeting Minutes 1
C: Michael Trepanier (MT): Good evening everyone and welcome back. I want to thank you all for coming
out on such a nice summer night. I’ve been telling you that if you are interested in an analog for this
project to look at the Casey Arborway Project. Up until recently, all we’ve had was an aerial plan.
Tonight I want to show you a fly-through rendering of the completed Casey Arborway Project that was
created in Google SketchUp 2. The Casey Arborway was a large overpass and once the project is
complete it will be an at-grade boulevard. One of the reasons I wanted to show you this video was
because at some intersections there are 7 lanes. I’m not saying we are going to have 7 lanes but on
Casey, we do and we were still able to have a 12 foot planted median with separated bicycle facilities.
Tonight I want to start by giving you an update on the interim improvements. Since we last met in
April there has been a lot of talk about the roadway design approach. We’ll also cover several design
options at the key intersections, and if there’s time, we will have a working group activity.
We are now underway with the work of the interim improvements which includes rebuilding sidewalks
and bringing additional features up to the ADA accessibility standards. As it currently stands we are
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.
2 The Casey Arborway SketchUp file exceeds the file limit size in order to be posted to the web.
Page 2
on schedule to complete the interim improvements by the end of the construction season of this year.
Some of the ongoing work includes the installation of new signal conduit, accessibility improvements
including the tactile warning ramps, ADA pedestrian signals, the expansion of the Washington Street
pedestrian island, and the Somerville “Punch Through.” There will be new bicycle facilities including
the priority bicycle lanes along Medford Street between Washington Street and Somerville Avenue. At
the conclusion of the interim improvements the tunnel underneath the McCarthy Overpass as well as
the Somerville Avenue down-ramp will be closed. This will serve as a test pilot of what happens when
we make the Overpass less desirable to use. These changes will force folks to get off at Washington
Street who would typically be using the Overpass to get down to Somerville Avenue.
Q: Ken Carlson (KC): It’s my understanding that there has been some push back regarding the interim
improvements from businesses on Medford Street. How are you addressing that?
A: Brad Rawson (BR): I can speak to that. I’m Brad Rawson with the City of Somerville. As many of you
know, part of the reason MassDOT is making this interim investment is because many community
members and many of you in this room have been advocating for it. We’re excited because we realize
that we can test this idea by closing the northbound tunnel section and the dangerous maneuver from
the southbound down-ramp. As things have become more real, folks who were not participating in the
conversations over the past few years have realized that there are going to be parking losses on
Medford Street. Some residents and business owners have been advocating against the improvements.
I would encourage you all to attend our community meeting next Tuesday night at the public safety
building in Union Square at 7:00pm. The City of Somerville’s office of community development will be
speaking in partnership with the project team from the MassDOT to address any concerns regarding
the removal of parking.
C: MT: Thank you Brad.
Q: Ellin Reisner (ER): Is the Somerville “Punch Through” going to be a one-way or a two-way?
A: MT: It will be a one-way with two lanes. Once the tunnel gets closed the “Punch Through” will replace
that movement.
A: Frank Suszynski (FS): There will be two lanes heading northbound on the “Punch Through.” The left
lane will be used to take the on-ramp onto McGrath Highway heading northbound and the right lane
will be used to bear east onto Washington Street.
A: MT: Thank you Frank. This graphic will be made available on the project website as part of tonight’s
presentation.
Q: Rob Buchanan (RB): My name’s Rob Buchanan. I see that there is a bicycle lane heading north on
McGrath Highway coming from the Boston. Does that connect to anything?
Page 3
A: FS: It will connect up to Washington Street where the railroad bridge is.
C: MT: I think Rob is asking if it connects to anything from the south.
A: FS: There is no connection from the south. There is nothing past the Squires Bridge.
C: RB: I brought this up because I just had the pleasure of riding that route. It is extremely terrifying
and there is so much road space. If there is anything you could do to help, even on an interim basis, it
was be great.
A: MT: Frank, Gary, and I have been working to come up with a paint-base alternative for that section of
McGrath Highway. We recognize that there is a lot of excess capacity south of the Squires Bridge. It’s
an analysis we need to do and we are looking into its feasibility. It is clear to us that it is possible but
we need to find a way to justify it and get it done.
Q: Andreas Wolfe (AW): My name is Andreas Wolfe and I am representing MassBike. I’d like to follow up
on that point. I know there have been discussions regarding bicycle lanes on the O’Brien Highway near
the Museum of Science. Is the goal to connect those two facilities together?
A: MT: Yes it is. Bill Deignan from the City of Cambridge and I were talking about that earlier. That
connection is something that will be happening in a much more immediate term.
C: AW: Thanks, that’s great to hear.
C: MT: I want to tell everyone that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) voted last Thursday
on the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This project is now listed in the 2026-2030 time-band.
This project was slated within the fiscally constrained portion of the LRTP and programmed to receive
funding in 2026-2030. This is great news for us in terms of keeping momentum and allowing us to
initiate conversations with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The City of Boston was able
to secure programming for the Rutherford Avenue reconstruction project within the 2021-2025 timeband.
C: Jim Gillooly (JG): The beginning of the construction funds for Rutherford Avenue are available in the
2016-2020 time-band.
C: MT: Thanks for the clarification Jim. I know you had talked about lobbying for that but I wasn’t sure
if it had been confirmed. The point is that we don’t have funds yet. This is still at a planning status.
We will continue moving forward with our project development and alternative analysis with a higher
level of certainty now that Rutherford Avenue will be completed first. As I’ve mentioned in the past,
these two corridors function as dependents of one another.
Page 4
Q: Mark Chase (MC): How soon do you expect this would be shovel-ready?
A: MT: That’s a good question. We can’t physically demolish the Overpass until 2021 because of the
Green Line Extension (GLX). Depending on how hard we push and how well the environmental review
process goes all matters. Having these conversations now and doing our homework upfront will make
it much easier for us down the road. I am uncertain about when this project would be shovel ready.
C: MC: Okay, thanks Michael.
C: MT: Since we last met, Nick and I went out to the ArtBeat festival in Davis Square. I want to thank
the Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership (STEP) for hosting us. We had a great time, met a
lot of people, and were able to reach many folks who were unfamiliar with the project. Between Nick
and I we probably talked to over 250 people. Since our last working group session we also held a public
information on May 28, 2015 and a targeted briefing for the Brickbottom Artist Association on June 4,
2015. In terms of key themes, we have a strong consensus of the projects shared priorities. We know
there is a desire for additional connections and place-making features. We are aware of the concerns
over air quality and public health and we share an appreciation for separated bicycle facilities.
In April we had an activity that looked at key connections across the corridor followed by the crosssection exercise. We heard that there is a major need to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians along
Washington Street and to account for bus transit. As we’ve heard from day one, you would like us to
keep the cross-section as thin as possible. Everyone agrees that separated bicycle lanes are desired.
One of the common themes that came out of the cross-section exercise was to create a Greenway with a
“Comm Ave” type configuration. One of the things that was dismissed was pedestrian and bicycle
facilities in the middle of the corridor. We also heard there was a desire for on-street parking on the
west side of the corridor and the need to provide turning lanes at the McGrath Highway and Medford
Street intersection. In terms of the roadway design approach I’ll have Gary walk you through that. In
general, we are looking at all roadway users, how we can best accommodate these users, and how to do
so in the safest way.
C: Gary McNaughton (GM): Thanks Michael. A little bit of this will be a reminder for some of you
regarding the traffic projections. As Michael mentioned, on every project MassDOT has ever done, they
look out and make projections for traffic volumes. We are looking out to the year 2040 and working in
partnership with the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS). The CTPS model includes the
GLX Project, the Union Square Project, as well as Rutherford Avenue, and Sullivan Square
improvements. The model looks at mode choice and projections forward to the year 2040. In 2040 the
auto mode is still the biggest slice right around 50%. With that said, we don’t necessarily think the
CTPS model is aggressive as it could be in terms of mode shift choices.
Q: Alyson Shultz (AS): Does the model take into account the new technology of smart cars?
A: GM: No, not yet. That is an interesting point though.
Page 5
A: MT: Last month I was in Salt Lake City for the Conference on 21st Century Mobility. There was a
daylong session on automated vehicles and it’s an exciting topic. With that said, there are many
obstacles and real life limitations with self-driving vehicles. For example, one of the big obstacles is
that self-driving vehicles recognize rain as objects.
C: GM: As far as our screening analysis we are using the 4-lane volumes. If we can’t make the 4-lane
work we know the 6-lane isn’t going to work. When we start to take the highway down to 4 or 6-lanes
and remove the Overpass, traffic begins to divert. As you can see in the diverted traffic slide, the red
lines represent negative or decreased growth whereas the green lines represent positive or increased
growth. Diverted traffic is accounting for a lot of the reductions that you will see as we reduce the
capacity in this corridor. In places where we’ve grown traffic by 7% we are now taking that and
dropping it down by 30%. This is quite a flip from the traditional approach from MassDOT.
In the morning peak if nothing changed we are looking at approximately 2,800 vehicles traveling
southbound along McGrath Highway. In our design we are planning to accommodate 2,300 vehicles
which is approximately a 19% reduction. When we look at the traffic volumes in the afternoon
traveling northbound we see volumes changing from 2,800 to 2,100. This ends up being approximately
a 9% reduction in volume. The point here is that we are not just taking the numbers based on the
CTPS model; we are actually dropping them down. The traffic projections are based on the
transportation projects, planned developments, and mode shift. We have been asked by you to look into
some of the other projects around the world where projects have reduced capacity and traffic has
evaporated. I’ll go over this and I’ll also talk a little bit about traffic condensation as well.
The concept of evaporated traffic is that when you reduce capacity, traffic disperses. When you reduce
capacity you are reducing volumes on a specific roadway. Volume reduction is going to be
accommodated by a number of factors including diverted trips. For this project we are looking at 30%
diverted trips. When you compare that to existing volumes it is actually 20% less than what is out
there today. There are a number of other factors that aren’t as well captured in the evaporated traffic
studies that have been done. These include spreading the peak hours, looking at mode shift, and more
efficient trips. The most problematic factor is reduced visitation to an area. As a business owner this is
certainly something that you are not in favor of.
In terms of peak hour spread we looked at I-93 (southeast expressway) given that it is the most
congested roadway in the state. Starting at 5:00 AM the southeast expressway is starting to get busy
and it stays busy all the way until 9:00 AM. The AM peak is the limitation on spreading the peak hour.
We looked at the McGrath Highway and the existing volumes while considering the theoretical capacity
of a 4-lane roadway. Our goal was to look into spreading the peak hour out and when we did that, the
Washington Street intersection became the most difficult to handle from an operational standpoint.
When we do that we end up with 2500 vehicles in the morning peak period that won’t fit through the
system. When we look at spreading the peak period it stretches out to 6 hours.
Page 6
Q: Mark Chase (MC): Why would you just look at spreading when there are other ways people can divert?
You’re never going to spread all of that traffic.
A: GM: You’re right and I’ll get it that. The point is that we can’t make this work just by spreading the
peak hour. There have been a couple of recent studies that looked at projects around the world. We’ve
gone through and looked at them. Specifically we looked at Disappearing Traffic? The Story So Far.
This document showed 60 case studies primarily in Europe and how different changes or natural
disasters affected these projects. The main take away was that it is impractical to capture all means of
diverted traffic from a single study. Each roadway has a number of different choices and diversion
options compared to any other roadway. We also looked at Reclaiming City Streets for People. This was
another document that looked at 12 locations in Europe including the Vauxhall Cross in London which
is similar to this project. The Vauxhall Cross project had a reduction of road capacity around 15%.
When we look at these documents and their outcomes we see a median reduction in capacity around
11% and an average reduction of about 22%. One of the examples that closely resembled this project
was the Octavia Boulevard in San Francisco. This was an elevated highway that was taken down to an
at-grade boulevard solution. The Octavia Boulevard Project had a 52% reduction in vehicles. When we
looked at where the vehicles diverted to, 77% of them diverted to another freeway. Approximately 9295% of the trips ended up being diverted trips. About 3% of people no longer make that trip anymore.
This was a comprehensive study that looked at what happens when you reduce capacity. What we see
is that most people find another roadway. As I mentioned earlier the median reduction of these case
studies was 11%. When we look at the weekday critical peak hour we are designing for a 30%
reduction. We are well above the averages and medians of those other studies.
We wanted to take a test run of the Washington Street intersection. We said what if there were 4-lanes
and we reduced the traffic volumes that we are already reducing by 30% by 20% more. This is beyond
what we realistically think is possible but we wanted to look at it anyway. The existing volume north
of Washington Street is approximately 2700, the 2040 no-build is approximately 3300, and the 2040 4lane alternative is approximately 2300. We looked at taking another 20% off of that which brought us
down to approximately 1850. When we have 4-lanes on McGrath Boulevard, the Washington Street
intersection is barley working. Air quality, excessive queueing, transit delays, and negative bicycle and
pedestrian impacts all begin occurring.
We are working hard on this and we are going to continue
pushing it. We want to remind you that we are already reducing capacity by 30%. This is really
pushing the envelope for MassDOT. In order to make 4-lanes work we are going to need a lot more
evaporation.
Q: Jason Stockman (JS): If the Washington Street intersection is the choke point, would right turn lanes
off of McGrath solve the problem?
A: MT: You’ll see that shortly.
Q: AW: When you say congestion, what exactly are we talking about? Is that like 5:30 PM on the
southeast expressway or is that 5 minutes of delay?
Page 7
A: MT: We’re talking about gridlock. We’re talking about cars occupying intersections, negative impacts
of air quality, road rage, and excessive minutes of delay. This would not be a comfortable experience.
These impacts are not just effecting vehicle users; these impacts are effecting all roadway users. When
you drive down McGrath Highway today in the morning peak hour we’re seeing queues extending from
Pearl Street to Broadway. All of these negative factors combined start to degrade the experience for all
users.
C: GM: In the MassDOT model we would typically be saying we are targeting a level of service (LOS) D;
we’re not. LOS F can be okay in the right locations.
Q: Ken Carlson (KC): Hi my name is Ken Carlson and I am representing the Somerville Bicycle
Committee. Have you modeled or thought about bus rapid transit (BRT) to force mode shift? If there
was a designated lane for BRT maybe people would be more likely to shift.
A: MT: The short answer to that is no. Brad Rawson mentioned at our public information meeting that
the City of Somerville will be kicking off a city wide mobility planning process. BRT is challenging in
an environment like this because it requires dedicated a lot of space for that use. One of the first
guiding principles I received from Frank DePoala was that we can’t take away highway capacity
without an increase in transit capacity. The GLX will hopefully provide a lot of the capacity that is
current needed. The origin and destination along this corridor is very sub regional. Land uses and
residential patterns are going to continue to shift. We’re going to have an opportunity over the next 5
years to reevaluate this based on the changes from the GLX, the City of Somerville mobility plan, and
additional ongoing planning efforts within the City of Somerville. I love the idea of BRT but I think we
are pretty far away from that right now.
C: BR: For folks who are interested in that specifically I would refer you to look at the Inner Belt/
Brickbottom planning process that was completed a couple of years ago. We looked at BRT across a
bridge that MassDOT was kind enough to adjust the piers and realign the viaducts near the
Brickbottom building to help in that effort. We’re looking at that corridor as a potential as well.
Q: Richard Carver (RC): Hi, I’m Richard Carver from Hub Glass Services. I appreciate the transparency
and I have an obvious vested interest in this project. This is my first meeting and I’m trying to
understand what the ultimate objective is here. We currently have an overpass that is taking the
traffic off of the city streets above where we are working and living. We are coming up with ways to
bring it down which means traffic will be on our city streets. Gary mentioned that some people may
decide that they simply don’t want to go to this area any more as a result of this. I’m not sure what we
are accomplishing here. Can someone please educate me?
A: MT: It is our belief that highway overpass structures tear the urban fabric, cut off neighborhoods, and
represent an overall inequality to the communities they isolate. In this case, East Somerville is
Page 8
completely cut off by the McGrath Highway infrastructure. It’s our intention to reknit the
neighborhoods and active the full potential of the GLX to provide infrastructure that is responsive to
the community that currently exist here today. We’re not trying to move traffic; we’re trying to slow
traffic down. There will be impacts to the network and ultimately that is what all of this work is about.
We are working to balance the impacts to the regional network while capitalizing on the strategic
investments including the GLX, the economic potential of the Inner Belt/Brickbottom neighborhoods,
and balancing that with the benefits associated with a multimodal at-grade boulevard on McGrath
Highway.
C: Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis (NCC): I’ll just add one thing and say we have project website where
everything we’ve done is heavily documented and posted to.
C: MT: Thanks Nate. When highway infrastructure like this is not managed appropriately it can cause
some real problems. It started with the community and MassDOT recognizes that this highway should
not be here. It’s a relic from a part of history that is no longer relevant to the community that exists
here today. Highway overpasses are places where people look away from and we’re trying to creating
new places and destinations for people to visit.
C: RC: Thank you Michael.
C: Tom Bertulis (TB): Richard, I think it is a good question. You’re not the first person to think that this
is counter intuitive. This is not just a local idea; this is happening dozens of cities. The problem with
infrastructure like this is that it creates economic voids. There is a famous study in Hartford,
Connecticut that shows about $50-70 million per year was left on the table by creating an economic
void caused by highway infrastructure. When we remove these freeways it creates new economic
development opportunities.
C: MT: There is a great article I would recommend you all read. It’s call Overpasses: A Love Story. If you
read it, it will help inspire you in understanding and believing in what we are doing here.
C: RC: I get that. You’ve probably heard the saying, all politics are local. When I think local, this project
will have impacts that will have some ramifications that aren’t pleasant. There is a potential that I
lose my business and that is why I am emotional about this. I wish you all the best of luck.
C: ER: Traffic already exists in our neighborhoods with an overpass. Hopefully the new road system will
create better flow and people will be less likely to divert into the neighborhoods. If you drive up
McGrath Highway at 5:00 PM it’s gridlock.
C: GM: Thank you Ellin. Bob Smith is going to talk about some of the design options we are looking at
for the key intersections along McGrath Highway. None of the concepts that will be shown are
anywhere near final. We have some illustrations that show this is not a well-organized or wellPage 9
functioning roadway network. We think there are ways to better organize the roads and come up with
a system that works for all users.
C: Bob Smith (BS): Hi everyone, my name is Bob Smith. Given the traffic analysis and our starting point,
these key intersections are going to really govern our design. I’m going to talk about the 3 major
intersections as part of this project. I’ll start in the north with the Medford Street intersection, I’ll then
move to the Washington Street intersection, and eventually get to the Somerville Avenue and Poplar
Street intersection. I want to remind everyone that the intersection drawings are graphical
representations.
C: AS: I want to point out that this doesn’t show the challenge of Cross Street.
C: BS: There are a lot of issues like that throughout the design here. We are trying to focus on making
the intersections work and then bring the other elements in.
C: MT: I think this is a key consideration and I’m not sure if that was on our radar. It sounds like Alyson
is referring to a heavy movement from Cross Street onto Medford Street.
C: AS: It is a very difficult cross-weave from Chester Avenue to Medford Street.
C: BS: As you can see, traffic volumes work reasonably well in the AM and PM peak hours with this
intersection configuration. The orange color represents the right-of-way (ROW) or ownership of the
state highway. As you can see, this intersection configuration fits pretty well. You’ll see that there are
some LOS F turning movements on a two turns in the Am peak hour. For this project and considering
this intersection, we think this is okay.
C: MT: I’m not sure we have given much background to the working group regarding LOS. Generally
speaking, A is the best and F is the worst. There is such thing as a small F and a big F.
C: GM: LOS is all about seconds and timings of delay. When a side street only gets 10 seconds of a 120
second signal it is going to receive a LOS F. That isn’t actually very bad considering the volume and
turning movements.
Q: AS: Could you please pay close attention to when the F’s are local movements compared to regional
movements. As a Somerville resident the LOS F turn from McGrath Highway to Medford Street would
be our turn to head to Davis Square.
A: MT: It’s a good point Alyson and we will definitely take it into consideration.
Page 10
C: GM: There is a lot more detail that goes into the intersection analysis that we’ll be getting into. The
point of this presentation is to give you an idea of where we are at and show a possible intersection
configuration that we believe works.
C: BS: With regards to the preliminary findings we discovered an overall LOS D or better during the AM
and PM peak hours. We found that the geometric configuration works with two through lanes on
McGrath Boulevard which is the cross-section recommended by the working group. This graphic is
here to remind you what it looks like underneath the McCarthy Overpass. For the McGrath Boulevard
at Washington Street intersection we took the convention intersection approach with 6-lanes. We have
three through lanes on McGrath Boulevard and two through lanes on Washington Street. As you can
see there is a historic building right behind the existing ROW which is a major constraint. There may
be some ROW impacts near Mansfield Street but we can always look at that a bit more closely.
C: MT: All of the orange ROW color you see today is highway infrastructure. It’s all pavement, islands,
and roadway. Bob is about to show you that this intersection works really well even when we use 4lane volumes. We aren’t showing design elements. I want to reiterate that these are simply schematics
and not designs.
C: BS: In the context of how we are looking at traffic on this project it works. There are a few LOS F
turns but overall the intersection operations well. With the conventional 6-lane intersection our
preliminary findings are that the McGrath Boulevard movements are expected to operate at an LOS E
or better.
I’ve been to a number of public meetings and I’ve often been told to think outside the box. With that
thought process we looked into the possibility of making 4-lanes work. We found an idea called a
continuous flow intersection. They are mostly used out west and that’s because they take up a lot of
space. To put it in simple terms, the idea is to move the left-turn prior to the intersection in order to
have it crossover to prevent conflict. The advantages are that it improves capacity between 15 and
30%, it reduces delay and travel time between 20 and 90%, it eliminates the left-turn arrow phase, and
it prevents the need to add lanes. The disadvantages are that it cost 25-50% more than a traditional
intersection, it is less pedestrian friendly, it has strict access control, and it is tends to have initial
confusion for drivers.
Q: JS: Could you clarify where the signals are?
A: BS: I’m glad you brought that up. The signals would be near Mansfield Street and Joy Street.
Q: AS: Where is Medford Street?
A: BS: In this schematic Medford Street is combined with the McGrath Boulevard.
Page 11
C: GM: The goal of showing you the continuous flow intersection is to show that this is one way we can
get 4-lanes to work.
C: MT: With that said it doesn’t work from a bicycle or pedestrian point of view. It makes crossing the
corridor a nightmare. For east to west bicycle and pedestrian connections it makes it even more
difficult. This is the type of trade off we would have to make for a good LOS for cars with 4-lanes.
We’ve stretched as far as we can in terms of using a design volume that is incredibly reduced. A 33%
reduction for a design volume is unheard of. There would also be significant ROW impacts but we
wanted to show you this option. Does anyone like this idea?
A: TB: I lived in Mexico City for some time and there were several continuous flow intersections there. I
don’t think you should take this off of the table. I use to commute by bicycle through these types of
intersection although I am the 1% of cyclist who feels comfortable riding in any conditions. I would
have to take the entire travel lane because there was no bicycle infrastructure. I’m not in favor of a 6lane cross-section; it’s nice to have this as part of the discussion. I prefer this concept over 6-lanes.
C: MC: I don’t like the way this looks. You’re showing the car LOS but I don’t think the pedestrian LOS
would work very well. The other element to this is the economic development potential based on the
ROW widths.
C: AS: Something that isn’t shown on this map is the fact that the new GLX stop is right on the other side
of Joy Street. This intersection configuration is going to restrict pedestrian access to the new station.
I’m confused why something as big as the GLX station is now being considered.
A: MT: It is being considered.
C: AS: I suggest that you put the T logo on the map to represent the location of the GLX station.
C: MT: We know it’s there. Maureen hasn’t done the pedestrian LOS analysis yet. This was more to
illustrate that we are looking into outside of the box ideas to minimize the cross-section on McGrath
Boulevard. With a minimized cross-section on McGrath Boulevard we’ve maximized the cross-section
on Washington Street. It’s all about balancing the benefits with the perceived impacts.
C: GM: We’re going to continue to work on this. We’re looking at other intersection designs and trying to
figure out ways that we can further reduce the cross-section. There are a number of vehicles that will
be traveling through this area but there are also a lot of folks who have destinations within the project
area. This was just one idea on how we can reduce the cross-section.
C: AS: I also want to point out that a pedestrian would still have to cross a 6-lane highway.
Page 12
C: MT: What we have today is a 6-lane highway. We’re designing will be a 6-lane boulevard. It will
never be a 6-lane cross-section without refuge. I want to remind all of you that these are lane
schematics not designs.
C: GM: We’re still working on the Washington Street intersection. At the end of the day we may have a
6-lane cross-section there. We are struggling to get it down to 4-lanes but we are trying our best.
C: BS: The last intersection is at Somerville Avenue, Medford Street, and Poplar Street. We looked at
three intersection configurations including the Somerville Avenue-Poplar Street connection, Medford
Street-Poplar Street connection, and a Poplar Street jug handle connection. We also looked at dual
intersection alternatives. The first is Medford Street and Poplar Street with a 4-way intersection. The
second was Somerville Avenue and Poplar Street with a 4-way intersection. The preliminary findings
with the five leg intersection alternative were the following. Traffic operations overall were a LOS F
during the am peak hour which requires many signal phases. Geometric configuration required a 6lane cross-section at the Somerville Avenue, Medford Street, and Poplar Street intersection. There are
several geometric constraints including the MBTA underpass, existing buildings and land use, as well
as the historic building and pump station. In terms of the dual intersection alternative the preliminary
findings were as follows. Traffic operations functioned at a LOS D or better during the AM and PM
peak hours. The side street movements operated at a LOS F which requires queue management. In
regards to geometric configuration we are able to provide a 5-lane McGrath Boulevard cross-section.
C: AS: It looks like the LOS F’s are in locations for local abutters. I think you should consider
maximizing the efficiency of the corridor for local users. The LOS F’s are where the Brickbottom
residents are entering and leaving our neighborhood.
C: BS: I think that goes back to the balance of side street movements and McGrath Highway through put.
C: MT: Thank you Bob and I’m sorry we had to rush through that. It’s getting late so I think we will
email this to everyone and assign it as homework. We don’t expect everyone to fill out everything in
detail but I would ask that you provide input in the areas you feel strongly about. I’d like to hear more
about how we can incorporate transit operations into the overall scheme of things. In terms of our next
meeting I think you can expect to see us in a month or two. We have committed to the coming back to
the public in the fall. At the next meeting we will have advanced the intersection designs much
further. We will be working to develop bicycle and pedestrian options based on the LOS analysis. We
are excited to hear from all of you and if you have any questions or comments please feel free to email
us. Thank you all for coming out, I think we are making great progress.
Q: TB: I want to thank you all for the presentation tonight. For the next meeting could you have the 50%
and 95% queues?
Page 13
A: Yes. That will be part of the next level of analysis. For this step we are really relying on all of you for
input on the schematic intersection concepts you’ve seen. At the next working group session we’ll come
with conceptual designs and queue graphics. Eventually we will knit the intersections together with
the corridor and show how those connections will look.
Q: TB: Okay great. Has there been any consideration for alternative ideas such as a roundabout?
A: GM: There was roundabout analysis in the previous study. None of the roundabout configurations fit
very well.
Q: TB: geometrically or operationally?
A: GM: Operationally.
C: MT: Thanks again everyone. If you could get back to us with your feedback and inputs by two weeks it
would be much appreciated. You can send us a picture, scan it, or send it via email. Thanks everyone.
Next Steps
It is anticipated that the next working group session will take place sometime in late October, 2015 while the
next public information meeting will likely take place in late September, 2015.
Appendix 1: Meeting Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Tom
Bertulis
Working Group Member
Wade
Blackman
Working Group Member
Jeremy
Bowman
Working Group Member
Rob
Buchanan
Working Group Member
Nathainel
Cabral-Curtis
Howard Stein Hudson
Ken
Carlson
Somerville Bicycle Committee
Richard
Carver
Working Group Member
Maureen
Chlebek
McMahon Associates
Katrina
Crocker
CTPS
Bill
Deignan
Working Group Member
Melissa
Dullea
MBTA
James
Gillooly
Working Group Member
Page 14
Nick
Gross
Howard Stein Hudson
Wallace
Jenison
East Cambridge Savings Bank
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Peter
Missouri
Working Group Member
Brad
Rawson
Working Group Member
Ellin
Reisner
Working Group Member
Alyson
Shultz
Working Group Member
Bob
Smith
McMahon Associates
Matt
Starkey
McMahon Associates
Jason
Stockman
Working Group Member
Frank
Syszynski
MassDOT
Michael
Trepanier
MassDOT
Heather
Van Aelst
Brickbottom Artist Association
Andreas
Wolfe
Working Group Member
Page 15
Appendix 2: Meeting Flipcharts
Chart 1:
C: There has been pushback from the Medford Street businesses regarding the interim improvements and
loss of parking.
A: The City of Somerville asked for this to eliminate a dangerous weave. Some people who did not
participate previous are now coming forward. There will be a citywide meeting on this next week so we
all understand what’s going on.
Q: Will the Somerville Avenue “Punch Through” be one or two-way?
A: It will be two-way. One lane will head northbound onto McGrath Highway and one lane will head east
onto Washington Street.
Q: There’s a northbound bicycle lane coming from Boston onto McGrath. Where does it start?
A: There is no bicycle lane south of the Squires Bridge.
C: It is really scary to ride there, if there is anything you can do it would be appreciated.
A: Frank, Gary, and I are working on a paint-based interim option.
Q: Would this bicycle connection link up with the bicycle lanes at the Museum of Science?
A: Yes, we are working on that. The MPO has programmed this for fiscally constrained portion of 20262030. This is great news for the project and keeping the momentum going. The City of Boston has the
Rutherford Avenue improvements in the 2021-2025 time-band beginning in 2016-2020.
Chart 2:
Q: If we assume everything is in place including funding, how fast until construction?
A: We can’t demolish the bridge until the 2021 because of the GLX. We can keep pushing and doing out
homework to help the time-band.
Q: Does your model account for self-driving cars?
A: There is not enough data to factor self-driving cars in yet. They may eventually lead to less congestion
and efficiencies.
Q: Why would you just look at spreading the peak if you aren’t looking at diversions?
A: You can’t do it by peak hour and spreading alone. We’ll get to diversions in a moment.
Q: If the Washington Street intersection is the choke point, would right-turn lanes help?
A: You’re good at this; that’s the group exercise.
Q: Is the congestion you reference just a few minutes or is it really bad?
Page 16
A: It’s really bad. It will be cars backing through queues, road rage, congestion, and stress for bicycles
and pedestrians.
Chart 3:
Q: Have you modeled and thought of BRT to drive mode shift?
A: No but Somerville is looking at a citywide mobility plan. BRT would be difficult to have here because
we are constrained by the amount of space and the GLX being so close.
A: For anyone interested in BRT I suggest you take a look at the Inner Belt/Brickbottom Study.
MassDOT has adjusted piers on the bridge to accommodate the future of BRT.
Q: What is the future and objective here? Why are we brining traffic into the neighborhoods where we live
and work?
A: In a sentence, it’s our collective belief that these viaducts wreck and cut off urban neighborhoods. We
want to reknit this community. We’re willing to slow traffic. We want to capitalize on the GLX and
create a multimodal corridor.
C: It’s a good question. Taking this overpass down may sound counter-intuitive but this type of
infrastructure create economic voids. The goal is to disperse traffic efficiently.
Chart 4:
C: When McGrath Highway and Rutherford Avenue back up we already receive traffic in the
neighborhood. If we can do this and make the road work better we’ll all benefit.
C: There are some limitations with these graphics. Some lanes and streets are missing.
A: Some things were left off on purpose. We need to get these intersections to work first.
Q: DO you differentiate between a local F and a regional F?
A: No, not really. There aren’t F’s will dread. You will wait a little while but you won’t be unable to clear
them.
Q: Where would the signals be in the continuous flow intersection?
A: One west of Mansfield Street, one at McGrath Highway, and one at Joy Street.
Q: Where at Medford Street?
A: Right now we’re merging Medford Street and McGrath Highway as one.
Chart 5:
C: If we want 4-lanes on McGrath at Washington Street a continuous flow intersection with some bad
tradeoffs for bicycles and pedestrians is an option.
C: Several continuous flow intersections I’ve used so do not take it off the table.
A: Please show us one with bicycle and pedestrian intersection treatments that works.
Page 17
C: We would like to see pedestrian LOS on these intersections and real estate development potential.
A: We will be getting to these things.
C: GLX station is right on the other side of Joy Street. Don’t restrict pedestrian access.
A: That’s why continuous flow intersections have some challenges. McMahon will do a pedestrian
analysis. The purpose of showing this is to show the tradeoffs for a skinny cross-section on McGrath
Boulevard.
A: This is also to show that we are looking at other intersection designs beyond traditional ones.
Q: Does this continuous flow intersection have right turn slip lanes?
A: That is typically how they’re done. If you like it we can keep going with it.
Chart 6:
Q: Is this with your proposed reductions in volumes?
A: Yes.
C: Washington Street may be the 6-lane point. We’re still working on it but this one is the most difficult.
Q: The same railroad track goes under McGrath Highway. Do you still have to go over that?
A: Yes. That bridge has to stay up. Our design ends at that point.
C: I’m concerned over the local LOS F’s.
A: Remember there are smaller volumes and most small side streets are manageable F’s.
Q: Great presentation. Thank you. Can you show 50% and 95% queues next time?
A: We’re going to get into that. For now, we’d like you to give us feedback on what we presented thus far.
Page 18