Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
June 22nd, 2015
To:
Michael Trepanier
McGrath Boulevard Design Development Project
Project Manager
From:
Nathaniel Curtis
Howard/Stein-Hudson
Public Involvement Specialist
RE:
MassDOT Highway Division
The McGrath Highway/McCarthy Boulevard
Second Public Information Meeting
Meeting Notes of May 28, 2015
Overview
On May 28, 2015 MassDOT held the second public information meeting for the McGrath Boulevard Project.
The McGrath Boulevard Project is currently in the project development phase which builds on the 2011-2012
Grounding McGrath Planning Study. The goal of the current phase is to take the concept of an at-grade
boulevard replacement for the McCarthy Overpass and bring it to a preliminary stage of design. A key
component of this effort will be the completion of environmental documentation through the Massachusetts
Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) process for the conversion of the viaduct into an at-grade boulevard. A
central question to be addressed through this process is whether the new, at-grade boulevard should have a
six lane cross-section as recommended in the initial Grounding McGrath Planning Study or a four lane crosssection as it is strongly desired by the Somerville community and local government. MassDOT and its project
team are committed to analyzing fully and without bias the viability of narrower alternative.
As part of MassDOT’s commitment to facilitate a transparent public involvement process, a working group
consisting of over forty members was established to help the agency and project team address significant
design questions as well as work through the details associated with the current phase. 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 working group has met three times since
November, 2015 and has received positive feedback from its members. The agency and project team have
also met several times with local Elected Officials, abutting projects, and neighborhood groups at the request
of targeted briefings and with the goal to ensure a mutual ongoing coordination. These groups include
Congressman Michael Capuano’s Office, LiveableStreets Alliance; the Brickbottom Artists’ Association, the
City of Cambridge; the City of Somerville, and the Green Line Extension Project.
The meeting summarized herein served to brief the broader community on what has been achieved to date
regarding the ongoing efforts of the project’s working group process in developing a conceptual alternative
for an at-grade McGrath Boulevard. The meeting also provided the project team the opportunity to bring
community members up to speed with the interim improvements along McGrath Highway including the
Somerville Avenue “punch-through.” The tone of the meeting was strongly positive with many attendees
praising MassDOT for its commitment to not only removing the McCarthy Overpass but the agency’s
willingness to consider a four lane alternative and reduce highway capacity.
38 Chauncy Street, 9th Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02111  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Meeting Minutes1
Opening Remarks
C: Michael Trepanier (MT): Good evening everyone and welcome to the second public information meeting
for the McGrath Boulevard Project. My name is Michael Trepanier and I am the project manager with
the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). With me tonight is the project team and
additional staff from MassDOT. From McMahon Associates we have Gary McNaughton, Maureen
Chlebek, and Bob Smith. McMahon Associates are the lead engineers for this project. We also have
Nick Gross and Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis with Howard Stein Hudson. Howard Stein Hudson is leading
the public involvement effort for this project. From MassDOT we have Frank Suszynski from the District 4
office and Robbin Bergfors who is in our landscape architecture department. I would also like to
recognize the project’s working group members who are in attendance. Thank you all for being here.
I would like to start by providing a recap since the last public information meeting we held in July, 2014.
In July we announced that the initial Grounding McGrath Planning Study would be transitioning into the
McGrath Boulevard Project Development effort with the goal to advance a design for an at-grade urban
boulevard along the McGrath corridor. For those of you who were at the initial public information
meeting you’ll see that we have responded to that effort. Tonight we’re going to walk you through the
general overview of the project. I’ll talk about where we are and where we are going. We’ll provide
you with an overview of the project context. I’ll talk about the current interim construction improvements
and we’ll wrap up discussing the next steps. I want to start off by saying that this project is really a
partnership between MassDOT, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), the Green Line
Extension Project, and the City of Somerville. This image shows a snapshot of our working group
membership. If you’re interested in joining us, please sign up at the sign in table. We tend to meet
every couple of months and I anticipate meeting will take place in July.
I’m sure most of you are familiar with the project area. The project limits essentially run from Third
Street in the City of Cambridge northbound all the way to the intersection at Broadway. I should note
that our intention is to keep both the Squires Bridge and the bridge over the Fitchburg Line elevated
while de-elevating the McCarthy Overpass. The Grounding McGrath Planning Study identified that both
the Squires Bridge and the Railroad Bridge were fixed and unable to be de-elevated. The Grounding
McGrath Planning Study focused on the McCarthy Overpass and it was clear that there was an
opportunity to eliminate the Overpass, reconnect the neighborhoods, and provide an enhanced
multimodal facility. We know that there are issues in de-elevating the Overpass. The most obvious issue
is traffic diversions from the Route 28 corridor onto local streets. Our effort now is very much focused on
figuring out where the traffic goes with a future at-grade McGrath corridor. Before I go further into the
details of the project development I would like to do a quick overview of the current interim
improvements.
Most of you are probably aware of the Gilman Street Bridge Project. We are still in phase one of that
effort. We expect to transition to phase two soon. In phase two we will be adjusting the lane
assignments which will include a reduced two lane cross-section in either direction between Medford
Street and Broadway. We’ve found that there is about a ten to fifteen percent decrease in peak hour
volumes at the intersections of Broadway, Pearl Street, and Medford Street. McMahon Associates are
looking at the timing of the traffic signals at the Pearl Street intersection. We have a technical analysis
and we are working with the MassDOT district office to reallocate the time of those signals to allow for
more through movement on the southbound phase to relieve some of the congestion.
Many of you may also be familiar with the Somerville Avenue “punch through.” This idea arose several
years ago when we were first talking about rehabilitating the McCarthy Overpass. The contractor for
that job is Barletta Heavy Division. They are also working on the Gilman Street Bridge Project as well.
1
Herein “C” stands for comment, “Q” for question and “A” for answer. For a list of attendees, please see
Appendix 1.
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
They have received a work order and notice to proceed (NTP) to begin that work. There are several
steps before construction begins such as modifying signals at Washington Street and Somerville Avenue,
resurfacing Medford Street, and the installation of new pavement markings. The last thing you will see is
the closure of the Somerville Avenue down ramp. There are a lot of things going on while we are
working on this larger project.
Tonight we are here to discuss the progress we’ve made on the development of a boulevard alternative.
As many of you probably know the McCarthy Overpass has been determined structurally deficient. The
repairs we implemented are believed to be good for about ten to twenty years. With the removal of the
Overpass we can accommodate all modes of transportation but more specifically we can significantly
improve conditions for pedestrians and bicycles. With an at-grade solution we also have the opportunity
to significantly improve the east to west connections that are currently prohibited due to the Overpass
structure. The project development effort started with the recommendation of a six lane, at-grade
McGrath Boulevard which came out of the Grounding McGrath Planning Study. We heard from the
community immediately that a six lane cross-section was too big and that there was a strong desire for a
four lane cross-section. In July, you may recall me explaining that it’s not about four or six lanes; it may
be four, five, or six depending on the specific location. For our current phase we’ve been working
through, analyzing, and sharing all of the traffic data with our working group. The working group has
been an excellent resource for us. Thank you again for those of you who have been participating. It’s
been great to have the professional expertise from people like Scott Peterson and Wig Zamore to help
inform us so that we are not making decisions on our own in a vacuum.
Since we last went to the public in July we have held a number of coordination meetings in addition to
the working group meetings. As you can see we’ve held meetings with the City of Cambridge, the City
of Somerville, and the Green Line Extension. We’ve also held targeted briefings to groups such as
Congressman Capuano’s Office and the LivableStreets Alliance. This next image is a stylized graphic
highlighting the fact that there are many phases to a MassDOT project and we are still very early on in
the project development phase. Right now we are looking to analyze the conceptual alternatives and
reach a preferred alternative that we can take into the design phase. As always, we plan to have
community involvement through the project. At this point I’m going to hand it over to Gary McNaughton
to walk you through the traffic analysis.
Traffic Analysis
C: Gary McNaughton (GM): Good evening. As Michael indicated my name is Gary McNaughton. Since
we last saw you in July we have been working through a large and detailed traffic study. The working
group is familiar with this but tonight I want to walk you all through the traffic study. This way you know
where we are, the assumptions we are making, and how we came to those assumptions. If you look
back to the Grounding McGrath Planning Study it really focused on the Route 28 McGrath corridor.
When we started this phase of the project we expanded the traffic study area to include all the locations
that we thought traffic may divert to. We determined this by working through the computer modeling
and estimating where we thought people would divert to. Based on community input in addition to the
traffic model we’ve added even more intersections to our traffic study area. As traffic engineers we are
typically looking at peak hour traffic volumes. We have volumes for every intersection but tonight we
thought we would simplify the graphic and show you the key volumes along McGrath Highway and
Rutherford Avenue. This traffic data was collected about a year ago and we compared it to the 2010
traffic volumes. There wasn’t a lot of difference however we saw some east to west increases in traffic
volumes along Broadway and Washington Street.
For the future traffic projections we are looking to expand off of the existing counts. The traffic model
projects out twenty-five years to the year 2040. We are also incorporating all of the developments and
transportation projects in the area into the model. We’ve been working very closely with Scott Peterson
and the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS). The CTPS traffic demand model (TDM) is a very
robust tool that we have for looking into future traffic predictions and assessing some of the changes for
this project. The model is a regional tool and therefore we make some local adjustments to better
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
define the micro area we are concentrated with. The CTPS model covers most of eastern Massachusetts
including 164 towns. The model looks as demographic and land-use projections in addition to planned
transportation improvements. When we look forward twenty years we’re seeing an approximate five to
twenty-three percent increase in traffic volumes. Along the McGrath corridor is averages out to about a
fifteen percent traffic volume increase.
Q: Ellen Band (EB): I’m not sure if you’ve factored it in but there has been a lot of talk about the Wynn
Casino. Have you considered how traffic will increase if and when the Wynn Casino comes and messes
up Sullivan Square?
A: GM: Yes, it is number twelve on our list of local developments. We actually added it to the list because
it was not initially considered by the model.
C: EB: Okay.
C: GM: I’ve talked a lot about vehicles but we know the primary focus of this project is not only about
traffic. There is a big component regarding pedestrians, bicycles, and transit.
Q: EB: Could you explain how the model is verified across time?
A: Scott Peterson (SP): We update the model on a regular basis. I typically use the Central Artery Project as
an example that demonstrates the models success. In the long term it is difficult to factor in land-use
changes but we feel that is has a strong track record.
C: GM: Thanks Scott. I’m going to turn it over to Maureen to discuss the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
analysis.
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Analysis
C: Maureen Chlebek (MC): Thank you Gary. My name is Maureen Chlebek. Tonight I’m going to talk
about non-motorized transportation modes. I’ll first talk about the existing conditions in the study area
for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. I’ll then cover the connections and opportunities to enhance these
modes. I’ll finish up by describing how we plan to analyze each of these modes as we move forward in
the study expansion. When we look at these modes we start off with the model from CTPS. You’ll see
on this slide the 2040 projections regarding mode choice during the AM and PM peak hours. About half
of the mode choice is vehicles, one-fourth pedestrians and bicycles, and another one-fourth is transit.
There are some incentives in place to encourage non-motorized mode choice such as the MassDOTGreenDOT policy to promote healthy transportation. The City of Somerville also has some incentives to
increase active and alternative transportation options including a ten percent increase in bicycle mode
share by 2020. All of the planned development in Somerville is aiming to reach fifty percent of trips
made by transit, bicycle, or pedestrians.
Let’s start off with transit. This first slide shows a graphical representation of the bus system around
Somerville. Next we looked at subway routes including the proposed Green Line Extension and
Commuter Rail Service. We met with the folks who did the Green Line Extension projections in order to
better understand what was behind those numbers. Most of you probably know that the Green Line
Extension is projecting approximately 38,000 trips per day. Of those trips, only 9,000 are new transit
trips. The majority of those trips are people who are already taking the bus and transitioning to the
train. The takeaway here is that there is reserved capacity so as new development occurs there is still
room to expand the Green Line.
We started our pedestrian analysis by taking counts. This slide shows the pedestrian volumes and you
can see the largest crossing is at Washington Street. When we look at the existing infrastructure for
pedestrians it’s pretty standard. SomervilleWalks produced a map highlighting walking routes through
the City of Somerville and when you focus on the McGrath corridor it only recommends one existing
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
crossing. This takes us back to what Michael was touching on earlier. The McCarthy Overpass really
acts as a barrier for pedestrians and prevents the east and west connections. In terms of how we plan to
analyze pedestrian standards we are going to do a pedestrian performance measurement. Our goal is
to promote walking and to develop an atmosphere that is comfortable for pedestrians.
We also want to do the same for bicycles. Similar to our pedestrian analysis, we started by counting
bicycles along the McGrath corridor and Rutherford Avenue. This slide shows the peak hour bicycle
volumes along those two roadways. It is probably no surprise that the volumes are low. We don’t credit
that to a lack of interest but rather a lack in bicycle amenities. This image shows a bicycle network map
produced by the City of Somerville. The map shows everything from sharrows to off-road bicycle
facilities. When we focus in on the corridor you can see that there is a great opportunity to make some
much needed connections. We also looked into the locations of the Hubway Stations. Again, when we
focus in on the McGrath corridor it highlights that there are a very limited amount of Hubway Stations.
When we look at the different types of cyclist we want to attract, one-third will simply not ride no matter
what. We’re looking to target the sixty percent of folks who are interested but concerned. We are
approaching this design with that in mind. In terms of our analysis we plan to use for bicycle amenities,
we are looking to apply a level of traffic stress for all roads and facilities. The level of traffic stress
considers facilities, traffic mix, speed, right-turn treatments, and crossings. There is a list of about twenty
different attributes that the analysis considers and the scale is based from one to four. Level of traffic
stress one would be the best and level of traffic stress four is the most dangerous. Our goal for this
project is to achieve level of traffic stress two or better for our entire design. At this point I am going to
hand it over to Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis to talk about the public involvement effort and measures of
effectiveness (MOE).
Shared Priorities
C: Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis (NCC): Thank you Maureen. For those of you who haven’t seen me before my
name is Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis. I will start by saying that if you arrived late, please sign in. At the very
first working group session we talked about MassDOT’s priorities for the job. We then spent some time
going around the room listening to each working group member’s goals and priorities for the job. We
compiled all of those ideas and put together a list of shared priorities which is reflective of both
MassDOT and the working group’s goals. When we look a design option or conceptual idea, it must
achieve all of our shared priorities or it is dismissed.
I’ll quickly walk you through the shared priorities we’ve come up with. The first is to improve safety for
all modes including walking, cycling, driving, and transit users. The second shared priority is the
removal of the McCarthy Overpass. You may hear us toss around the term, context sensitive design. In
other words our design needs to increase the connectivity of the entire corridor; both north to south and
east to west. We are going to use Complete Streets guidelines to create an inviting place for bicycles
and pedestrians. We are and will continue to coordinate with abutting projects. The last point regarding
a context sensitive design is to create new, evenly distributed green space with a landscaped boulevard.
The next major shared priority is to consider overall public health in the planning process and the
development of a conceptual design. This focuses on separating active transportation and vehicles to
the fullest extent practical. We also want to calm traffic without inducing harmful congestion, protect the
neighborhood during construction, and maintain the unique neighborhood vibrancy after construction.
If a conceptual design makes it through the first cut of the shared priorities it then reaches the MOE’s.
The guiding principle of the MOE’s is to improve safety, access, and connections for all modes of travel
using context sensitive design. The MOE’s are very important to us because they were created during
the Grounding McGrath Planning Study. We feel that they are very good and we would prefer not to
change them because of all the work on the part of this community that went into them. With that said,
if you feel like something should be adjusted, please write us and we will incorporated it if it is practical.
To give an example of how the MOE’s work it starts with a goal. The goal is described and it is
determined what kind of mitigating measure would be applied. The last step is to determine what kind
of data we are using to make our measurement. I’m going to hand it back off to Gary now.
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Traffic Projections
C: GM: Thanks Nate. I want to talk a bit more about traffic projections over the next twenty five years.
What makes this even more complicated is the nearby project of Rutherford Avenue. We have been
looking at a four lane versus six lane alternative for McGrath with modifications or no modifications
made to Rutherford Avenue. This has given us four different scenarios we have had to analyze. The
Rutherford Avenue Project is not dissimilar to what we are trying to do on McGrath. CTPS has played a
critical role in developing the projections on where traffic is diverted to based on each of the four
scenarios. This image shows diversions based on a six lane McGrath Boulevard with modifications made
to Rutherford Avenue. The red lines show negative and decrease volumes. The green lines how positive
and increase volumes. When you boil it down and look at the six lane alternative for McGrath there is
an eleven percent increase in diverted traffic when improvements are made to Rutherford Avenue and a
twenty-four percent increase in diverted traffic when improvements are not made to Rutherford Avenue.
When you look at a four lane alternative for McGrath with Rutherford Avenue improvements there is
about a thirty percent increase in traffic diversions compared to a thirty-four percent increase when
improvements are not made to Rutherford Avenue.
The takeaway here is that traffic isn’t all diverting to a single roadway. Diverted Rutherford Avenue
traffic is going to Broadway, I-93, and Charlestown. Diverted McGrath Highway traffic is going to School
Street, Beacon Street, and Somerville Avenue. At this point in the project development we are digging
deeper into the details of where that traffic goes with reduced capacity on McGrath. We have learned
that McGrath Highway and Rutherford Avenue are very much connected. When you reduce capacity on
one, the other corridor received more. We’re going to start looking into what the intersections will look
like not just for vehicle modes but for pedestrians and bicycles as well. We plan to come back to the
public and share all of that information with you. At this point I’m going to turn it over to Bob Smith to
talk a bit about some of the exercises we have done with the working group.
Working Group Exercise
C: Bob Smith (BS): Thank you Gary. My name is Bob Smith and I work for McMahon Associates. I want
discuss some of the exercises the working group participated in at our last session in mid-April. The
exercise was split into two tasks. The first task was determining the desired connections across the
McGrath corridor. The second task was to determine the appropriate cross-section of the roadway. For
the connectivity exercise working group members determined the existing and future desire lines for
pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. For the cross-section exercise, working group members looked at
four different sections along the corridor with varying roadway widths. Working group members were
given puzzle pieces which included varying widths of sidewalks, green space buffers, driving lanes, and
separated bicycle lanes.
The key takeaways from the connectivity exercise were desired crossings at Washington Street and
Prospect Street once the Overpass is removed. The working group also emphasized the importance of
accounting for bus transit along McGrath and Washington Street. For the cross-section exercise there
were a few common themes. All of the groups wanted to develop a greenway type configuration similar
to Commonwealth Avenue but with more landscaping. All of the groups also wanted to include bicycle
facilities on both sides of the corridor and on-street parking on the west side of McGrath. It was agreed
that turning lanes would be required at the intersection of McGrath and Medford Street. Something that
was dismissed was pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the middle of the corridor.
Next Steps
C: MT: Thanks Bob. I want to wrap things up by talking about our next steps. We’ve shown you and talked
a lot about vehicle diversions. We explained how we expanded the traffic study from the initial
Grounding McGrath Planning Study to include a number of new intersections. The next step for us is to
continue analyzing the vehicle operations as a whole network. The working group has been extremely
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
helpful and we’ve taken a lot away from the group. I was very happy to see that all four groups during
our breakout exercise came up independently with greenway alternatives. I expect that our next working
group meeting will be sometime in July and the next time we come back to the public will be in
September. There are four sets of meeting minutes and PowerPoint presentations posted to the project
website. I want to be clear that we are still very much developing the conceptual alternatives. We are
going to continue to work with Brad Rawson at the City of Somerville to help tackle some of the more
complicated aspect of this project.
Gary alluded to it but I’m sure a lot of you are interested in when all of this is actually going to happen.
We met with GLX in October of last year and they told us that they plan to wrap up the Green Line
Extension Project by 2021. We can’t start any work until they are finished. Once the Green Line
Extension is complete the McGrath corridor will no longer be used as a detour route. The next big step
for us is to get this project listed on the long range plan as part of the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO). Last month the MPO listed the project in a draft form which puts the project on the
2026 to 2030 time band. Thanks to the effort by the City of Somerville and Mayor Curtatone the MPO
voted to place this project on the long range plan in a draft form. As long as the project stays there we
can count of it being funded by the MPO. We are acknowledging that the Rutherford Avenue Project is
probably going to go ahead of this project and I’d like to thank Bill Conroy for being here tonight from
the City of Boston. We are excited to continue working with the community and working group to
advance the conceptual alternatives for the McGrath Boulevard. With that said I am going to open up
the discussion to questions and comments. Thank you everyone.
Question & Answer Session
Q: Andrew Morrison (AM): If we assume you’re able to start construction in 2021, what is the anticipated
timeframe of construction duration?
A: MT: If all funding is in place and the stars align we could be looking at the beginning of construction in
2021. Speaking generally, a project like this would take several years to complete. The Casey Arborway
Project in Jamaica Plain has a construction schedule of two years and it is a similar project in scope.
There are very different conditions there with the Forest Hills Station but I would imagine it would be
something similar.
Q: Tom Lamar (TL): Hi my name’s Tom and I live in Winter Hill. I’m interested to know a bit more about
the anticipated traffic diversions. Did you consider traffic diversions outside of the peak hour?
A: GM: The model that CTPS uses bases traffic diversions on a three hour window. We further boil that
down to look at the peak hour. The model keeps all of those trips within three hours and makes the
system accommodate the trips. We make manual adjustments based on the anticipated mode shift
through the MassDOT and City of Somerville transportation goals. Both MassDOT and Somerville are
looking to shift people away from vehicles and place them on bicycles or accommodate them as
pedestrians. We’re trying to push the envelope with our design to show those desires. Twenty years ago
there would have only been one person in the room that came by bicycle. Bicycles as transportation are
becoming a reality.
A: MT: I’d like to expand on that a little bit. We’ve acknowledge that the CTPS model is based on a
regional scale. It represents travel patterns for the majority of Massachusetts. Somerville is a unique
place and progressive one at that. We’re trying to be a little more liberal in assigning mode shift.
Vehicles are still very much of a reality. We need to provide a design that accommodates vehicles while
significantly improving the bicycle environment. I’ve always envisioned us mimicking the design of the
Casey Arborway Project. If we can fit two-way separated bicycle lanes on both side of the corridor we
are going to do it. An excellent bicycle and pedestrian environment has always been my vision but we
have to remember that cars will be a reality for this project.
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: Dan Sedgwick (DS): Hi everyone. My name is Dan Sedgwick. I am very excited about the improvements
I’m hearing tonight. You’ve talked about how the McCarthy Overpass separates the neighborhoods but
have you considered that the MBTA Commuter Rail also does the same thing? The Washington Street
underpass is not a very pleasant place either.
A: MT: In terms of alleviating the barriers created by the Commuter Rail there are two main points. The
Green Line Extension Project is working to improve the Washington Street underpass. In terms of what
we can do, we are planning to significantly improve access over the Commuter Rail on the truss bridge
and the Squires Bridge. I think it was mentioned earlier but we are looking to implement temporary
bicycle lanes on the Squires Bridge. We’ve heard from the working group and we are aware that the
Commuter Rail passes through Somerville and it doesn’t stop. Unfortunately we are not able to move
the Commuter Rail.
Q: Steve Delani (SD): Right now with construction, the corridor is down to four lanes. Aren’t you getting a
good sense of traffic diverting into the City of Somerville? If you have the same amount of traffic in the
future and it is at-grade, won’t adding more stop lights cause more congestion?
A: GM: The current construction reduces McGrath down to two lanes in each direction and to some extent
it is helping us determine traffic diversions. It’s been proving our theory is correct. We’re seeing about a
ten to fifteen percent reduction of traffic in the peak hours. When you look at specific intersections it
isn’t a direct relation between traffic volumes and more congestion. That is part of what we are looking
further into with the traffic diversions. When we reduce capacity we are seeing a vehicle diversion rate
between the ten to fifteen percent range.
C: MT: The construction is an interesting pilot to follow.
Q: SD: The Medford Street volumes are going to be constrained because the bridge will be closed, correct?
A: MT: To some extent, yes. We’re seeing a travel time of about ninety seconds from Broadway to the
McCarthy Overpass. That isn’t really a huge delay. We have travel time data before construction started
that we can compare it to. It is an interesting experiment.
C: SD: You’re travel timing doesn’t take into account the additional stops for traffic signals. Most people
who use McGrath Highway don’t live in Somerville.
A: GM: If you’ve heard us talk at the previous public meeting I mentioned that we don’t like to use level of
service which is strange to hear coming from a traffic engineer. I think travel times and other metrics
convey a much clearer message to the public. It’s easier to understand. That’s what we plan to use
going forward.
Q: Andreas Wolfe (AW): Hi my name is Andreas Wolfe, I live on Central Street, and I’m also project
manager for MassBike. Is it true that there has been some analysis done to determine where traffic is
starting from?
A: MT: That is true. During the Grounding McGrath Planning Study there was an origin and destination
study done. A lot of the local belief is that McGrath Highway serves as an overflow to I-93 and
Rutherford Avenue. To some extent that does happen. The origin and destination study suggested that
ten to twenty percent of the total traffic originating at Broadway traveled all the way through the
corridor. We expected it to be a much higher number like sixty percent. We found that McGrath
Highway actually functions as a sub-regional roadway. It’s encouraging to us because those are short
trips that could be encouraged to shift to a different mode. I’ll tell everyone now: I’ve been encouraged
to pick up the helmet. Nick’s been on my case for a while and I was riding around this past weekend in
Somerville. It’s more convenient to ride to Assembly Square from Winter Hill than it is to take the bus to
Davis Square.
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: AW: As someone who works in bicycle advocacy I want to thank you. It’s wonderful to hear that you are
considering bicycle facilities the way you are and I feel confident that this project is in good hands.
C: MT: Thank you very much.
Q: Heather Van Aelst (HVA): Hi my name is Heather Van Aelst and I live in Brickbottom. Is it true that the
2015 construction is planning to close the down ramp and not do the punch through?
A: MT: No. That is all planned to be implemented sometime this summer or early fall.
C: Steve Miller (SM): Hi I’m Steve Miller with the LivableStreets Alliance. You guys are really doing a great
job. I am really pushing for the four lane approach and the reasons for it are exactly what you said. The
potential for mode shift is much higher in this area compared to other areas or what the model is
suggesting. The pressure from the model is going to tell you that you need more lanes. You’ve received
positive feedback from the City of Somerville and the regional policies is going to augment some of the
natural growth of vehicular traffic. The model doesn’t know how to handle that. The culture, the
pressure, the desire, and the demographics are all tending towards that. I really think that you should
have some large ranges of flexibility in terms of what the model is able to show. A four lane alternative
will be feasible. We know there is a lot of data proving that if you build a highway more vehicles come.
The same however is for removing highways; cars are disappearing and there is a lot of research behind
this. No one knows where they’re going but there are a lot of case study’s and data proving that this is
happening. It’s not diverted. Some of it is mode shift and some of it is time shift. There are a lot of trips
that people take that they don’t have to. That is something that is difficult to factor in. When you factor
it in emotionally and mentally, at some point there are going to be more cars and there will be more
congestion. At some point, and the City of Somerville has already done this, we need to make a value
decision in order to bring up the other modes for public health or mobility reasons. We need to say that
we are going to accept that car traffic is not going to be as privileged as it used to be. That’s a tough
political choice and Somerville has made that choice. As planners we need to respect that. It takes
some courage but I think you guys are ready for that.
C: MT: It is a great point. I’ve been struggling with this a lot lately. Gary talked about the preliminary
outputs from the Synchro model analysis and the queue lengths. That is our traditional approach. There
is going to be a big discussion when this happens because this project is unprecedented in terms of the
willingness to potentially reduce highway capacity by the Commonwealth. As far as I know it’s only
happened in a few places. I think we are going to learn some interesting lessons from the Casey
Arborway Project. It’s in all of our minds. Thank you for your comments.
Q: Colin: Hi my name is Colin. I am a citizen of Somerville and a cyclist. It looks like the model is showing
traffic diversions on a number of local streets including School Street. Is there any consideration for
bicycle stress levels for the smaller side streets where accommodations are weaker?
A: GM: Yes. As we look into those side streets some have minimal changes in traffic volumes where others
have larger impacts. We will be spending more time on the streets with larger traffic impacts and we
will of course be considering all modes.
A: MT: One thing I always like to talk about is that once we are in demolition there will be a number of
mitigation incentives to reduce the impacts on local streets and the neighborhood. In terms of the traffic
diversions we expanded the model west of the McCarthy Overpass from the initial scope. Gary and I
were amazed when we found out that the traffic was diverting west. Before demolition there will be a
number of improvements we can do to increase capacity for all modes of transportation. We have a
great opportunity here in that there is the potential for the system to accommodate more capacity. This
project is not just the McGrath Highway. It is all the areas relating to McGrath Highway and the
neighborhoods that are impacted by the traffic.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Christopher Ferry (CF): My name is Christopher. I have a nine year old daughter and we walk a mile
from the Somerville Hospital to Union Square. Our route is going to shift next year when she changes
schools and we’re going to have to figure out how to get across McGrath Highway. I wanted to bring up
the fact that people are willing to walk with their kids for miles. It’s a healthy option and no one wants
to wait for the bus because it is inconsistent. My other point is that you mentioned only twenty percent
of the traffic on the McGrath Highway is traveling all the way through. I’m wondering if you’re sharing
that data with the MBTA. There are a lot of bus routes that are remains of the old trolley lines. Those
lines made sense 120 years ago but now people are living in new places. A lot of people are going to
Kendal Square every forty-five minutes. It sounds like a lot of the data you’ve complied could be useful
for the MBTA to re-orientate where the buses are going.
A: MT: The MBTA is engaged and we have representatives on our working group. There may be an
opportunity to redirect some of the bus routes. There will be some changes in how the service planning
happens at the MBTA soon. We spoke with some MBTA staff and they had some radical ideas about
how to improve bus service. It’s on their radar.
C: Brad Rawson (BR): For folks interested in those types of questions collaborate projects are the brains of
the City of Somerville. We have recently been working on a number of initiatives in Union Square and
that is where a lot of those types of questions are useful. Mayor Curtatone has asked us to launch a city
wide mobility plan for the first time in the City of Somerville’s history. That is going to be another
opportunity to have these conversations and we hope to launch that this fall.
C: CF: Thank you. The last thing I want to mention is that it would be nice to have a little bit more
outreach to minority groups.
A: MT: We’re trying and we’ve heard that. One of the things we have at our MassDOT civil rights office is
the Title VI tool which helps us engage with environmental justice communities.
A: NCC: We advertise these public information meetings in multiple languages and in multiple
newspapers. The Title VI tool helps us figure out where and in what languages we should advertise. We
have been working with Elected Official staffs and we are always keeping our ears open. We sent a
number of working group invitations to environmental justice groups suggested by the Title VI tool and
no one accepted. Some said “thanks, but no thanks.” We are always happy to do targeted briefings
upon request and if we need to do one in a language that is not English we will find the people to make
that happen. It is important to all of us.
C: Ellen Band (EB): Hi my name is Ellen Band and I am a resident of the Brickbottom Artist Association. I
am extremely concerned about air quality and congestion with an at-grade boulevard. It is lovely in
terms of visibility but I cannot picture the McCarthy Overpass being removed. It is there for a reason and
that is to prevent people from driving through our neighborhoods. You are going to be implementing
more intersections and that means more traffic signals. Once the Somerville Avenue “punch through”
happens we are going to have more traffic in our neighborhood. It is going to make our neighborhood
far more congestion and create poorer air quality. We have been living with construction for many years
and de-elevating the McCarthy Overpass is going to cause us to deal with construction for many more
years.
A: MT: You raise a good point. I thought about talking about it this earlier. We are striving to achieve a
balance between the highway needs and the desires of the community. We have heard from the very
beginning that there is a unanimous desire to remove the McCarthy Overpass. We will be analyzing the
air quality impacts both regionally and locally for each intersection that is impacted. The department of
public health will be keeping a close eye on this project. There is a significant benefit for the community
by creating an urban boulevard.
A: GM: The prior Grounding McGrath Planning Study included a health impact assessment and design
elements to offset the potential impacts. Some of these offsets include a significant amount of new trees
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
and sidewalks separated further away from vehicular traffic than their current location. Air quality is
certainly something that we will be looking into.
C: ER: How would this be any different compared to the stretch between Twin City Plaza and Lechmere?
When I walk along that stretch it’s hard to breath. I understand this project is proposing more than that
but I don’t understand how it would be any different.
C: MT: Our goal is not to reproduce that stretch of roadway along the McGrath corridor. Our goal is to
convert the entire corridor that currently functions as a highway to something that functions as an urban
boulevard with plantings and a soft landscape. The wide lanes that exist out there today promote higher
speeds. There is hardly any separation between pedestrians and vehicles.
Q: ER: Could you give me an example of a similar project?
A: MT: The first one that comes to mind is the Casey Arborway Project in Forest Hills. That project is in
construction now and once it is complete it will be very similar to how I envision this project looking.
There are a few additional projects that will be happening such as the Commonwealth Avenue Project in
front of Boston University and the Causeway Street Project in front of North Station. The Casey
Arborway Project is very much an analog for the McGrath Boulevard Project.
C: Wig Zamore (WZ): Hi I’m Wig Zamore with the Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership (STEP). I
teach at Harvard Medical and we at STEP work a lot with universities all around the Commonwealth. I
work specifically looking at transportation pollution which is not the same as climate science. I would be
happy to talk to Ellen offline. We have some of the best specialists in the world at your disposal. A lot
of the project team including the project manager, Michael Trepanier came to my class I taught this year.
I would be happy to talk to you more about transportation pollution.
C: MT: Thank you Wig.
Q: Sharon Tankel (ST): There has been no mention of eminent domain or property takings. Do you
anticipate that happening?
A: MT: I think the previous Grounding McGrath Planning Study looked at realigning the corridor and it was
dismissed because of the cost of right-of-way takings and eminent domain. I’m not going to say that we
aren’t going to use it because there may come a time where we have to meet certain challenges. If we
get to that point it will be worked out with the City of Somerville. That is a long term vision and this is a
long term project. I don’t have a yes or no answer for you right now.
C: ST: I ask because my property is abutting the corridor.
C: MT: Right now we are working within the right-of-way and do not plan to use eminent domain.
C: GM: As we move forward in developing design alternatives you will hear about any eminent domain
takings well in advance. You’ll also have plenty of opportunity to provide feedback.
C: Jim McGinnis (JM): Hi my name is Jim McGinnis and I am a resident of Somerville. I am wondering if
some of the problems such as traffic capacity are the makings of Somerville itself. As a historical note,
North Somerville is restricted based on topography compared to east and west Somerville. When
Somerville was originally laid out it was set up in a way to have major through streets every quarter mile.
These streets are School Street, Walnut Street, Central Street, Lowell Street, and Cedar Street. As
automobiles became popular we lost capacity and it became very difficult to more north and south in
Somerville. This is a discussion I envision happening with the City of Somerville. I am suggesting that
you bring up the idea of opening up some of the north and south connections. It would require no
property takings and it would be a creative solution. By doing this we could remove a lot of the local
demand and it would make a much less stressful place for bicycles. It would be great if you could work
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
with this City of Somerville on this because the north to south connections is something we have lost
within the last 100 years.
C: MT: That’s an interesting point. We have Brad Rawson here from the City of Somerville tonight and I
can assure you he is listening in.
A: BR: The City of Somerville led a neighborhood planning process in East Somerville about a year ago.
One of the things we heard from residents and merchants around the neighborhoods near Pearl Street
and Cross Street was the north and south connectivity issue. We’ve heard it is a limiting factor because
most of those streets are one-way streets running south towards Washington Street. You’re absolutely
right Jim.
C: Alyson Schultz (AS): Hi, my name is Alyson Schultz and I am a resident of the Brickbottom Artist
Association. I want to make the point that the McGrath Highway is our local connection into our
neighborhood. Without the McGrath Highway it would be impossible for us to leave our neighborhood.
The only other connection is Joy Street. We use McGrath Highway to get to Highland Avenue. One of
the things I’ve noticed in my thirty years of being a resident of Somerville is that people drive around fifty
miles per hour over the Squires Bridge. The McGrath Highway gives motorist the mental idea that cars
can drive that fast. It is also a well-known drag strip. There is no policing of cars who are breaking the
law and who impede my ability to get onto the street. The State should have the responsibility of
policing the corridor. The fact here is that Somerville is a tight community and we don’t have easy or
safe access to our neighborhood.
C: MT: Thank you Alyson and thank you for your strong support as well as your consistent participation in
the working group.
C: Jeremy Bowman (JB): Hi my name is Jeremy Bowman. Regardless of the posted speed limit people are
going to drive faster. Creating an urban boulevard with tress will restrict the vision of motorist causing
them to reduce their speeds. I think this is great. I also think on-street parking will make it feel less safe
to drive as fast.
Q: SD: I keep hearing the project team refer to the corridor as McGrath Boulevard. When does it change
from a highway to a boulevard?
A: MT: We call it McGrath Highway now because that is how we have it classified. There are no features
that make you slow down. The intent is to transform it the highway to a boulevard by narrowing the
lanes and creating shorter pedestrian crossing distances.
C: SD: Okay, thanks.
C: MT: I think at this point if there are no further questions we are going to wrap things up. Next week we
are going to the Brickbottom Artist Association to provide them with a targeted briefing. If any of you
are part of a neighborhood group or are interested in a targeted briefing we are happy to do that. Feel
free to reach out to us directly and request a date. Tonight’s presentation will go up on the project
website within the next week or so. The working group membership is also posted on the project
website. If you know anyone that is a member on our working group I would encourage you to talk with
them. I want to thank you all for coming out tonight and please get home safe.
Next Steps
The project team will provide a briefing to the Brickbottom Artists’ Association on June 4th. It is currently
anticipated that the next working group session will be in July.
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Meeting Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Will
Allen
HNTB
Ellen
Band
Brickbottom Artist Association
Joel
Bennett
FTCP
Robbin
Bergfors
MassDOT
Tom
Bertulis
LSA
Wade
Blackman
Congresswoman Clark’s Office
Moses
Blumenstiel
Resident
Jeremy
Bowman
ESMS
Jeremy
Bowman
Resident
Greg
Bowne
Resident
Rob
Buchanan
USN
Rachel
Burckard
PB World
Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis
Howard Stein Hudson
Mark
Chase
CISA
Maureen
Chlebek
McMahon Associates
Katrina
Crocker
Resident
Jason
DeGray
GPI
Bill
Deignan
City of Cambridge
Steve
Delani
Resident
Paolo
DiFabio
Resident
David
Farmer
GLX
Christopher
Ferry
Resident
Jeremy
Gorczynski
Resident
Nick
Gross
Howard Stein Hudson
Tom
Lamar
Resident
Karen
Malloy
STEP
Jim
McGinnis
Resident
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Steve
Miller
LSA
Peter
Missouri
Representative Toomey’s Office
Paul
Morgan
Resident
Andrew
Morrison
Resident
Alex
Oberg
Resident
Kelsey
Perkins
Congresswoman Clark’s Office
Robin
Perry
Resident
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Scott
Peterson
CTPS
Ryan
Pollin
Resident
Brad
Rawson
City of Somerville
Dan
Sedgwick
Resident
Alyson
Shultz
Brickbottom Artist Association
Adelaide
Smith
Brickbottom Artist Association
Bob
Smith
McMahon Associates
Frank
Suszynski
MassDOT
Sharon
Tankel
Hub Glass
Randal
Thurston
Brickbottom Artist Association
Corinne
Tobias
Resident
Michael
Trepanier
MassDOT
Heather
VanAelst
Brickbottom Artist Association
Ben
Weiner
Sav-Mor Liquors
Andreas
Wolfe
MassBike
Becca
Wolfson
BCU
Wig
Zamore
Resident
Page 14