Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
February 12, 2015
To:
Michael Trepanier
McGrath Boulevard Project Development
Project Manager
From:
Nick Gross
Howard Stein Hudson
Public Involvement Specialist
RE:
MassDOT Highway Division
McGrath Boulevard Project Development
2nd Working Group Session
Meeting Notes of February 5, 2014
Overview
On February 5, 2015 the McGrath Boulevard Project Development project team held its second
working group meeting. 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 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 purpose of the meeting summarized herein was to introduce the working group members to the
traffic demand model (TDM) maintained by the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) for
eastern Massachusetts. The TDM uses a host of factors including vehicle ownership, planned
development, and demographic data to generate and distribute future trips while assigning them to a
mode of travel. For this project, the model is being used to project traffic volumes in the year 2040.
The model’s outputs will be further adjusted by the project team’s traffic consultants using both their
professional judgment and input from the working group. A major finding of the TDM run for both
the 2040 no-build and various build scenarios described in detail herein is a connection between
conditions in the McGrath Highway corridor and those in the Rutherford Avenue corridor.
In the initial working group session MassDOT presented the project teams priorities and requested
input from the working group on their priorities. As part of the meeting summarized herein, the
project team combined both the MassDOT priorities and working group priorities into a list of shared
11 Beacon Street Suite 1010 Floor  Boston, Massachusetts 02108  617.482.7080
www.hshassoc.com
Page 1
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
priorities. The listing of shared priorities will be used to further guide the projects character and
direction into the design phase and eventually into construction 1.
The tone of this meeting was broadly positive with working group members acknowledging that the
CTPS TDM model is not perfect however it is the best tool used to make educated predictions for
future traffic projections. As further information is released regarding the Wynn Casino development
and the Rutherford Avenue project, the McGrath Boulevard Project Development team will further
adjust its projected traffic numbers to reflect the most up-to-date conditions. The larger discussion
during the meeting included the comparison of four alternatives:
-
Rutherford Avenue no-build; McGrath Highway no-build;
-
Ruther Avenue modified; McGrath Highway no-build;
-
Rutherford Avenue no-build; McGrath Highway modified;
-
Rutherford Avenue modified; McGrath Highway modified.
Detailed Meeting Minutes2
Opening Remarks
C: Michael Trepanier (MT): Good evening everyone. My name is Michael Trepanier and I am the
project manager for the McGrath Boulevard Project Development. I would like to welcome you all
to our second working group meeting. Tonight we are going to dig into the meat of the first half
of our traffic analysis. We have expanded on the initial Grounding McGrath planning study as part
of our traffic analysis. Before we get started I would like to reintroduce our team. We have Nate
Curtis and Nick Gross with Howard Stein Hudson and we also have Maureen Chlebek and Gary
McNaughton with McMahon Associates. Tonight we are going to go through a recap of our
November working group meeting that was held at the Holiday Inn.
Before we go any further, I was just informed that Brian Murphy, Deputy City Manager from the
City of Cambridge has passed away. Let us please have a moment of silence for him .
Thank you. For our agenda, we’ll be reviewing our November meeting where we focused primarily
on MassDOT’s priorities for the corridor. Much of the discussion focused on the objectives and
goals that came out of the planning study. We then reached out to the entire working group
membership and asked what your priorities are for the project. Nate is going to give you a
rundown of our shared-priorities. We can have a further discussion if folks think we missed
1
The listing of shared priorities is provided on slide 13 of the working group presentation which can be found at:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/McCarthyOverpassMcGrathHighway/Documentsa
ndMeetingMaterials.aspx.
2
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.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
something or misinterpreted their statement. After the shared-priorities we are going to get into
a heavy discussion on 2040 traffic projections. We’ll talk about the outputs from the CTPS
regional model in terms of several different contexts. We have the no-build scenario that simply
means nothing happens in the corridor. We also have the build conditions which we have been
discussing since our first public information meeting that was held in July. With the build
conditions we have a 4-lane alternative and a 6-lane alternative. The real goal is to determine
where traffic is going once we take the McCarthy viaduct down compared to the scenario of
leaving it. You’re going see a lot of information tonight.
I want to note the point that part of the reason we really like this room is because we’re a lot
closer to all of you and we wanted the meeting to be much more informal. If you have a question
as we are going through the presentation, please just raised your hand. We want to have an
informal back and forth discussion with as much dialog as possible. Once we get through the
meat of the presentation we’ll continue describing the evolving bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations. We’ll also look into some of the existing infrastructure in the City of Somerville
and what is planned for the future. We want to improve the connectivity for all non-motorized
transportation. After that we’ll have a quick discussion regarding next steps and when you will
see us again. With that, I am now going to turn it over to Nate.
Discussion of Shared Priorities
C: Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis (NCC): Thank you very much Michael. I am Nate Curtis with Howard Stein
Hudson. I want to take us through a quick review of the November meeting. I’ll then talk about
our shared priorities. All of you should have received a preview of the shared priorities on the
first email inviting you to tonight’s meeting. I requested comments in that email and didn’t
receive any. I may have hit a homerun but I have a feeling that is not the case. If I have hit a
homerun, I invite you to tell my wife. I am happy to take your comments or emails subsequent to
this meeting.
In terms of some of the things we talked about at the last meeting, MassDOT is entering this
project with a commitment to the remove the viaduct. The process we are engaged in starts with
the Grounding McGrath study. At this point we have gone on a great bit further from where we
started with the study. There are some substantial opportunities with the removal of the viaduct
including improving safety for all modes of transportation, calming traffic, providing east-to-west
connections, improving and creating bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, and taking full
advantage of the benefits conferred upon us by the Green Line Extension Project (GLX).
We also talked about the role of the working group and why you are all here. The purpose of the
working group is to inform and advise the agency with your local knowledge and to help the
agency team to develop a preferred alternative to take into the environmental process. We talked
about the study area, we talked about existing traffic conditions, and we talked a lot about the
bicycle and pedestrian methodologies that Gary and Maureen will be starting to analyze. People
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
love to see these schedule charts to know where we are in the project process. This is where we
are now; we are in the project development period. This column represents the old planning
study. We started our efforts for this phase in May of 2014 and we met first with you all at the
Argenziano School for a public information meeting in July. We held our first working group
session in November and as you can see we are still at the beginning of the project process.
We have a long way ahead of us and there will be community involvement throughout. You will all
remember this slide from the last working group session; it is a listing of the MassDOT priorities.
I’m not going to spend time reading all of them but the bottom line is to achieve a reasonable
consensus on a concept design. This really means, what kind of at-grade solution is going to
replace the viaduct once it comes down.
The next slide shows the working group priorities which I developed based on all of the wonderful
input you gave me back in November. What we’ve done is we’ve categorized all of the same main
priorities including; improve access and mobility, promote connectivity, improve balance and
functionality, and provide accountability. You can see we’ve worked for parallel construction.
What we’ve heard from you in terms of your bottom line is, remove the viaduct to improve safety,
reconnect the neighborhood, and create additional green space. As a friendly reminder, you all
have these in your inbox and we can make amendments after tonight if you find that appropriate.
C: Wig Zamore (WZ): I want to make a couple comments. I thought you did a great job with this. My
first comment relates to minimizing cut through traffic. There is a tradeoff to having full access
to all streets. Where you get in trouble is with one or two cut through streets. If you increase the
connectivity across the entire area less cut through routes occur. My second comment relates to
roadway exposure. Where the exposure hits the road is in active transportation and active green
space. It may be worth thinking about a reasonable corridor of 15 feet on both sides and some
kind of buffer between the pedestrians and bicycles and the cars. If there is no traffic and it’s not
rush hour it doesn’t matter. Having cyclist and pedestrians right up against the arterial at rush
hour is your single worst exposure. Having a hedge or anything that is safe and looks nice is
worth thinking about. You have a lot of green space in the corner and you may want to trade that
with some interior green space along the corridor. You may want to consider putting any extra
green space in a planned area or abutting parcel which could be part of the land-use features of
this project.
A: NCC: Those are all good. I want to ask you one thing. I was thinking specifically of your
exposure issue with the following bullet: “reduce environmental impacts and roadway exposures.”
One thing that isn’t necessarily there is improving access to green space and a bullet point of how
the green space is shaped. Does that sound right to you?
C: WZ: The main point is if you put the green space and the active transportation next to the
roadway you’ve maximized the exposure and the negative health impacts. Whatever you can do
to resolve those two things you need to do. We need to do, collectively.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: NCC: I’d like to show you one more slide before I hand it off to Gary and Maureen. These are the
shared priorities. One of the things I was happy about when I went through the effort of
generating the shared priorities was that while there is a language that the community uses and
there is a language that the agency uses, there was a lot of overlap. For example, improving
safety for all modes is something we all agree on. Everybody says, let’s remove this viaduct. If
you can believe it, on some of the other projects I’ve been on, that is not as easy as you may
think.
Regarding context sensitive design and increasing the connectivity of the entire corridor. One of
the things that I want to underscore that you all gave us and Wig, I think this goes to your point a
bit is to increase the connectivity of the entire corridor. It’s not just the east-west connections
that are somewhat problematic; it’s also the north-south connections. It’s really up down and
side-to-side. The whole corridor needs to be pulled together and feel like a single unit. Another
shared-priority is to use complete street guidelines to create inviting bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure. One of the ideas you gave us at the last meeting was that right now as a
pedestrian or a cyclist you feel that this is a zone that is unsafe and a place you would typically
avoid. Reversing that feeling is something we see as a shared-priority. Coordinating with the
abutting projects is something that we have done and will continue to do. Another bullet point
was to create new green space and a landscaped boulevard. The consideration of overall public
health in a conceptual design is something that will be considered throughout the development of
any alternative. The next bullet is to calm traffic without inducing harmful local or regional
congestion.
One of the things that Scott Peterson mentioned to me was that this project will still have to work
in a regional context. Greg Strangeways was talking about buses at the initial working group
session and that is certainly something we will be thinking about moving forward. Protecting the
neighborhood during construction is certainly something that we will consider as well as
maintaining the unique neighborhood vibrancy after construction. We want to make sure that the
good features of the neighborhood are not removed and continue to be good following
construction.
C: Alyson Schultz (AS): I’m curious how you define harmful local and regional congestion.
Congestion can lead to better traffic behavior and cause people to think twice about driving.
Congestion can lead to more people walking, cycling, or hopping on the T. I feel that a lot of the
current issues have been focusing on reducing regional congestion but really, we should be
focusing on local traffic. Reducing congestion may not be the best way to approach this.
A: MT: What we are thinking of is not to induce so much congestion that it creates negative air
impacts. There has to be a balance between congestion and air quality. The more congestion you
have the more idling you have and therefore the more pollution you create. We need to determine
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
where those locations are, identify how we can make those upgrades to support and calm traffic
through the McGrath corridor. We also want to avoid a harmfully congested Somerville.
A: NCC: No one is looking to manufacture the old model that stated throughput is king. No one is
looking to move traffic through quickly, but the road still has to perform. We want to hit that
balance and that is why we have experts here to help reach that balance with help from all of you.
C: Tom Bertulis (TB): I’m Tom Bertulis sitting in for Mark Chase. I want to pick up on the last
comment. I think we should define what harmful regional congestion is. It would be useful if we
could define Level of Service (LOS) D, E, or F. It would also be help to determine if an F is a small F
or a big F.
A: NCC: Gary is very good a being able to tell us the difference between a good F and a bad F,
whether queues are being processed, and whether boxes are getting blocked. I don’t want to
populate the shared-priorities with too many sub-bullets but we understand that is certainly a
point.
A: MT: That is the kind of performance criteria we are going to continue to develop. Tonight our
focus is on where the traffic is going and at the next meeting we will have a much better
understanding of where it went and how bad it is. At that point we can start to develop some of
those metrics.
C: NCC: With that said, I am going to pass it off to Gary who has a lot of great information to share
with you all. Thanks.
Discussion of the 2040 Traffic Projections
C: Gary McNaughton (GM): Thank you Nate and Michael. Again, I am Gary McNaughton with
McMahon Associates. I want to quickly follow up on that last point and say we will define what is
harmful. Anyone who has been in downtown Boston over the last week knows what harmful
congestion is. Harmful isn’t always LOS F, sometimes you want LOS F. That has various degrees
and when the queue spills back into intersections it can really harm the quality of life. Those are
some of the things we are going to work through; it is certainly not a black or white answer. I
want to apologize in advance; we have a lot of information to go through tonight. There will be a
lot covered and we will send the presentation around to you after tonight’s meeting so you can
provide us with some of your local knowledge and determine if it all makes sense. If something
doesn’t seem right we want to hear from you about it. We’re going to talk about where people
travel with less capacity and we want to hear your local knowledge.
Everything we are talking about now is the 2040 no-build scenario. We have a couple people from
CTPS with us here tonight. They’ve been working long and hard to bring together these numbers
and run the models. I’m standing up here presenting a lot of the work they have done but they
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
really deserve all the credit for pulling this together. What we have so far and what we’ve built off
of is all based on the regional model.
When we project to 2040 we use the Travel Demand Model (TDM) from CTPS and then we typically
do local adjustments on projects similar to this one. The reason for this is because the CTPS
model is regional and covers a broad area. The model is meant to look at overall demographics,
land use, and how that shapes transportation in the area on much more of a macro scale. What
we need to do is break down the model on a micro level and those are the types of adjustments
we will do.
I’m going to go through the information relatively quickly but CTPS is here to answer any
questions I cannot. The CTPS TDM is a 5-step model based on vehicle ownership, trip generation,
trip distribution, mode choice, and then assigning them to individual transit modes. All of that is
done through an extensive computer model which takes days to run. The model then exports
numbers that we use to further advance the model on a local basis. There are a number of
development areas listed around the McGrath corridor area that are included in the model and
listed here. All of the major development projects are factored into the model and look at what
the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) has identified as development areas that will occur
over the next 25 years. They have also looked at major transportation projects in this area
including the GLX, Rutherford Avenue, and the Sullivan Square project.
Q: AS: Was the casino project on that list?
A: GM: The casino project is not and we are working out how to deal with that. We will be making
specific adjustments as the project continues to evolve.
C: Scott Peterson (SP): I’m Scott Peterson from CTPS. We are currently looking at the casino impact
on traffic patterns and a lot of data has just been made available over the last few months. Our
initial observation is that most of the trip activity occurs on a Friday or weekend night. There isn’t
a lot of activity during a typical weekday. Our model is primarily setup for a typical weekday.
C: Bill Conroy (BC): Bill Conroy, City of Boston. We would obviously like to see that and we should be
looking at how to incorporate it. We have our own issues with Rutherford Avenue and we know
this [the casino] is now a true reality. When we are looking at all the numbers and talking about
connectivity we need to make sure we are making the correct decisions. We have serious
concerns.
A: GM: Understood, and it complicates this project with the moving parts of Rutherford Avenue and
the casino. As things evolve we will react to those to ensure we are presenting the best
information and making the best informed decisions possible.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: WZ: People may want to know that a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is expected
soon. I think that information will be out soon for the public to dive into soon.
C: GM: Those do create some variables that we will be reacting to. When you think of how traffic is
generated it may seem that the increase of traffic comes from more people living in a given area.
If you build a new supermarket in eastern Massachusetts it doesn’t make more people go grocery
shopping, it makes more people go to that particular store. The trips generated by the model are
home based so trips would shift to the closer store which doesn’t result in an overall increase in
traffic. When look at the study area, all of the residential developments that have been identified
in those areas are included in the model. The model however does not fully incorporate the
employment developments. The model is constrained because on a large scale, developments
(employment centers) are constrained by predicted population growth in the model. On the
smaller scale, more development could happen, shifting more trips into our study area.
In terms of this area we see that about 60% of the employment is accounted for in terms of
specific trips made on the roadways. At this point what we typically do is look at the specific local
developments, identify a trip generation for them, and add them on top of the CTPS numbers.
We’ll come back to that point but keep it in mind.
The other thing we looked at and that is considered in the model is mode choice. On this slide,
the blue represents auto trips, red represents bicycle and pedestrian trips and the green
represents transit trips. What you are seeing here is about 47% of mode share trips in the
morning being made by autos. In the afternoon it is about a 51% autos. That’s a pretty good
split. You don’t see these numbers anywhere else in the Commonwealth. We also see these
numbers remaining pretty constant in terms of 2040 projections. There isn’t a big increase in
transit mode share. That doesn’t necessarily align with the goals of the City of Somerville or the
GreenDOT goals. At this point I’m going to let Maureen talk about some of the methods and
other factors that come into play on mode shift.
C: Maureen Chlebek (MC): Thank you, I’m Maureen Chlebek. As Gary was saying we get the
numbers from CTPS and then sift through them. One of the factors that we have been considering
is development and the other is mode choice. As you may know there are statewide initiatives
and there’s City initiatives that are pretty ambitious in terms of mode shift. The State or
GreenDOT is looking to triple trips made by non-motorized transit and the City of Somerville is
hoping to get to 10% bicycle share by 2020. Somerville is also looking to reach 50% nonmotorized trips for all transportation created by any new development.
At this point we thought it was worthwhile to look at the network for all non-motorized trips.
When you look at what is out there in terms of pedestrian and bicycle accommodations there is
already a good list started. There are actually things happening now and things planned for the
future. We will walk through some of those in tonight’s presentation. The community path is the
first thing that most people think of. There is also momentum in terms of education, increasing
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
bicycle parking, and the expansion of the Hubway are all factors that change the attitude of nonmotorized trips in Somerville.
What we are showing on this slide is everything that has been put on the ground since 2009. We
have to thank the City of Somerville because this data came off of their website. Anything shown
in red is prior to 2009 and all of other colors come after 2009. As you can see a lot has been
added since 2009 and although it is not all connected, this is often how bicycle networks are
created bit by bit.
When we breakdown the amenities we consider a sharrow at the bottom of the list and an off-road
bicycle path as the prime. Lime green represents sharrows and yellow represents planned
sharrows.
C: WZ: You’re missing the bicycle path from Assembly Square to the Mystic River.
C: AS: You may want to mention that many of those paths are actually shared with pedestrians.
They’re not just bicycle paths.
A: MC: That is a good point. The green color is where we have bicycle lanes and the planned bicycle
lanes are highlighted in light blue. When we look at off road bicycle paths we have the greenway
but we also have the community bicycle path. Right now the community path doesn’t make a full
connection but with the GLX project it will make a full east-west connection across Somerville.
Again, if you look at the broad picture here there is a lot out there.
This next slide shows that some of the sharrows are becoming bicycle lanes and bicycle lanes to
cycle tracks. It’s interesting to note that when we pull out our corridor we see a great opportunity
to bring a high-level bicycle facility in the north-south direction and to fill in the gap of a large
piece of the bicycle network in Somerville. You may remember this slide from the last
presentation and the point of showing it again is to say although we would love to get tons of
bicycle riders out here we are really aiming to engage with the 60% of folks who are interested but
concerned.
The next item I would like to talk about is transit. In talking about transit and what’s planned for
the future the focus often always goes towards the GLX. Relative to this project and what we felt
that we needed to do was study the projection of trips from the GLX, study it, and figure out how
it relates to this project. We sat down with the folks who created the projections, looked through
a number of charts and really dug into the data. When they did the projections they had to do
them based on the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) regulations. There were some constraints to
what they could project and most notably was a lot of the planned development in Somerville. A
good side of that is that the GLX is justified based on today’s needs but it also makes you wonder
what will happen when that planned development does occur. What we’re talking about now are
38,000 riders per day. When you first hear that number you may think that’s a lot of people
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
transitioning to non-motorized transit but really it’s people switching from a bus to the green
line. The take away point is that it’s about 9,000 new trips per day.
The next thing to look at is if there is enough capacity based on the planned development for that
increase in transit use. When you look at capacity you switch from daily numbers to peak hour
numbers. When they did the projections for the green line most of the projections were based on
two-car trains. The capacity for the peak hour is about 2,500 riders and there is room for roughly
an additional 800 riders. If all the development in the area produces even more transit riders,
there is the ability to switch the green line to a three-car train system. Our take away point from
this is that there is room on the transit front to provide some relief for the corridor and the
development that’s planned.
C: GM: As I had mentioned earlier, local development would typically increase traffic and therefore
we would add that onto our model. The model that we received from CTPS doesn’t show a
dramatic increase in transit use, bicycle use or walking however there is available transit capacity
in the corridor. There is also a significant improving bicycle and pedestrian network. Given the
regional model and what we’ve received from it, we’re estimating that the additional mode shift
and the additional transit use will offset that local development potential. It also gives us a
validation on the regional level of what the CTPS model is saying. We may increase it a little bit
but give the less aggressive natures of some of the other factors of the model that we’re
comfortable going forward with the model without making significant adjustments to it.
Q: AS: Does the model consider the shifting of demographics? For example a 65 year old is more
likely to get in a car than to ride a bicycle.
A: GM: Yes, that is certainly in their model. I was curious to know if by having rapid transit planned
in the area if that would cause more people to move into the area. There is certainly some reason
to conclude that transit and bicycle share will increase more than cars.
In terms of the numbers, on the right are the projected 2040 volumes and on the left are the
existing volumes. The numbers on the north end are fairly constant, the numbers in the middle
are a slightly bigger jump and at the south you are seeing the largest growth. A lot of that is
driven by the developments that are happening. In the afternoon you are seeing similar numbers
and similar growth from what we had seen in the previous study. What this is showing is about
500 additional cars northbound in the morning and about 400 additional cars heading
southbound in the afternoon.
Q: Jason Stockman (JS): It says per hour, is that correct?
A: GM: It is peak hour. We’ll always talk about peak hour. On a rare occasion we will talk about
daily volumes.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: David Loutenheizer (DL): Could you give us an idea of 20 years ago? Have the volumes generally
be going up or down?
A: GM: I’ll have to look that one up and get back to you.
A: Sarah Spicer (SS): They’ve decreased slightly and have been flat lining. I have a chart that I can
make available.
A: GM: Yes, regionally you are seeing a bit of a drop off.
C: Hayes Morrison (HM): There hasn’t been significant growth in this area either.
A: MT: That’s a good point, thank you.
C: GM: We’ve expanded out our model a bit further west to determine the east-west movements.
The east-west growth is not as significant as the north-south corridor. When you look at it
graphically the green represents the increase in traffic volumes, the weight of the line is related to
the volume and the amount of increased volume. We are aware that the thickness of the line
doesn’t represent the exact volumes but it allows you to ask the question, does that make sense?
C: MT: When I look at this map there are some big takeaways from where we expect the growth.
From the MassDOT perspective I expect our regional roadways to continue to see more traffic.
We’re looking to all of you to provide feedback and fact-check our graphs with your local
knowledge. We’re seeing growth on McGrath Highway and Rutherford Avenue. There’s a lot
happening within the Washington Street area. These are the kinds of things we want you to start
thinking about. Some other areas we would like feedback on are Somerville Avenue and Medford
Street. We would have expected to see growth for a no-build alternative along those roads.
Q: Rob Buchanan (RB): It sounds like the CTPS model has been around for a while. What is the track
record in terms of accuracy? You’re showing us a lot of data and a lot of projections. If we went
back 10 years and you made similar predictions, how much would be accurate?
C: GM: It’s a good question and we got the same question on the Casey Arborway Project.
A: SP: The Central Artery was a big project in terms of its historical nature and we discussed that on
Casey quite a bit. A recent project that we have done and I typically like to showcase is the
Callahan tunnel. Major roadways were shut down and we made predictions on where the traffic
volumes would increase and decrease. Based on our observations the model was reflected reality
very well. It was within a couple of percent.
C: RB: A 30-year time frame is very different.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: SP: Yes. As Gary said, our model is based off of long range transportation planning and Gary will
add on the additional growth. Growth is speculative.
C: MT: I think we all acknowledge that the model is speculative. We are using it as a tool to make
predictions. It is the best prediction tool we have today.
Q: AS: Does the model consider the change of age for licenses. I know that a lot of 21 year old kids
are going to college without licenses now.
A: GM: The model does consider car ownership.
Q: AS: Does it consider social change?
A: SP: The trends we’ve seen from the MAPC data contain a lot of demographic data. The number of
student drivers comes and goes. There is a lot of documentation stating that the younger
population isn’t sticking around as long as they use to do. The overall population is aging faster.
The overall labor force is aging faster too.
A: GM: The model may not be perfect but as Michael said, it is the best tool we have. It’s proven to
be pretty accurate over the years. We’ve gone through an extensive effort sifting through the data
and we will continue that effort. Is the model going to be right on? Only time will tell; we don’t
have a crystal ball to tell us, but historically it has done a solid job.
In terms of the build traffic projects there are a couple of variables, the biggest being Rutherford
Avenue. In the previous go around Rutherford Avenue wasn’t considered. We know Rutherford
Avenue has had a lot of discussion regarding changes to it and we need to factor those changes
into our effort. The major changes on Rutherford Avenue involve removing grade separations, in
the case of Rutherford underpasses, and going to a boulevard treatment like we are proposing at
McGrath. We don’t want to preclude anything from happening. We will be looking into Rutherford
Avenue existing and modified compared to McGrath with 4 lanes versus 6 lanes. Those are the 4
alternatives we are working with right now. The way we are going to look at it this evening is
from the most regional perspective.
C: RB: It seems that with every new slide the project area is getting small.
A: GM: That’s a graphic issue with this particular slide. We are not making the project area any
smaller.
A: MT: You’ll see shortly that we are expanding the project area by an additional 6 intersections.
C: GM: I now want to show you some of the more interesting graphics. On the left side is the 2040
no-build alternative. This represents nothing happening on McGrath or Rutherford Avenue.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Roughly speaking, you are seeing about 1000 cars southbound and 400 northbound at the peak.
In the PM the numbers are very similar. We talked about the maps and this slide is a different
version of the same volumes. You’ll need to take some time to look at these slides after tonight.
The green lines represent increased traffic volumes, the red are volumes that have decreased
volumes. As you can expect, if we were to take the McCarthy viaduct down cars are diverting off
of the McGrath corridor and there going off to a number of local streets including Rutherford
Avenue. That was weekday morning. In the weekday afternoon you see a similar pattern. It’s not
as you may have thought one big green band here and one big red band there.
C: Ellin Reisner (ER): I’m surprised that there isn’t a significant change on Washington Street.
A: GM: Those are the types of comments we want to hear from you. You’re right; we don’t see a
significant traffic volume going through there. I think what is happening is that people are
diverting before they get that far through the corridor.
Q: AS: Is the increase on Joy Street caused by a new exit on the corridor?
A: GM: No. We didn’t make any modifications to the roadway. That is just one of the streets people
are diverting to. Within the model, people are finding Joy Street as a viable alternative.
C: AS: It’s hard for me to believe. The first part of Joy Street is actually Chestnut Street from the
Brickbottom area and it looks like there is increased traffic on it.
A: GM: That’s the type of feedback we want.
Q: BC: Do you go as far as Leverett Circle?
A: GM: We have the roadways leading into it. You’re actually seeing less of a volume on the Leveret
Connector. Not every green line is a dramatic change some of them are very thin.
C: SS: I’m having a hard time seeing what’s happening on I-93.
A: GM: I-93 actually gets slightly less.
C: SS: Thank you.
C: GM: The next step is looking at Rutherford Avenue modified in comparison to this project. On
the left is the 6-lane alternative without changes to Rutherford Avenue. On the right is the 6-lane
alternative with changes made to Rutherford Avenue. As we expected these two are
interdependent. That is weekday morning and weekday afternoon. The next thing we looked at
was a 4-lane alternative on McGrath without Rutherford Avenue Modified. You’ll see that the 4-
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
lane alternative does cause a decrease in volume but not significant; it’s less than 300 cars that
are diverting.
The most constrained scenario is Rutherford Avenue modified with the 4-lane alternative on
McGrath. We’re seeing a number of vehicles staying in the corridor because of the overlapping
alternative routes including Rutherford and including roadways that abut Rutherford Avenue.
Q: BC: On the previous slide, why do you think that is happening?
A: GM: I think some of the people are diverting to Rutherford Avenue and some are diverting to
roadways that folks from McGrath are diverting to.
Q: BC: You’re not implying that the modifications made to Rutherford Avenue are delaying traffic
compared to staying on McGrath?
A: GM: What we’re saying is that they are related.
C: BC: I can tell that but you’re not really digging into the details.
A: GM: It’s a very complicated network and we are trying to lay the groundwork for it. The take
away is that they are related and when capacity is reduced on either corridor it has an effect on
the other corridor.
C: BC: I see that area as being one of the most critical aspects.
C: AS: I think it’s important to have the arrows reflective of the numbers. Some of the arrows seem
off.
A: GM: You caught us. That was a mistake on that slide and we will make that amendment before
we distribute the presentation.3
C: HM: You could just put percentages rather than volumes.
A: GM: We had percentages at one point and then numbers and then flipped back to percentages
again. The issue with percentages is that you lose absolute values. A big percentage increase can
only mean a few cars on a road with low volumes.
Q: Greg Bowne (GB): You called the 4-lane alternative on McGrath with Rutherford Avenue modified
the most restricted alternative. I’m not familiar with the Rutherford project. Is that project
planning to have lane reductions?
3
This amendment was made on the copy which was provided to the working group on the morning of February
th
6 , 2015.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: GM: There are two intersections that are grade separated. Through movements pass below, as
opposed to above as they do here, and only turning movements go through a signal. The planned
changes on Rutherford Avenue would remove those grade separations and move the road towards
a complete streets boulevard.
A: MT: It’s similar to what we are going here.
C: GB: It sounds like what you are saying is that some improvements would actually slow traffic.
C: MT: It’s similar to what we are talking about on the McGrath corridor in terms of a 4-lane crosssection. I keep having a mental image of a water balloon. The point is if you squeeze one end the
other end fills up. What you’ll see shortly is that if both ends are squeezed the balloon might
burst.
Q: AS: What happened when Rutherford Avenue lost the overpass at Sullivan Square? Did McGrath
gain all of the traffic?
A: That’s a historical view that we haven’t looked at yet.
Q: AS: I think it’s really important. When Rutherford Avenue got squeezed did people shift or did
they continue doing the same thing?
A: GM: A little of both is my initial guess. When we squeeze people off a route, they find a lot of
different alternative routes. We’ve seen it on a number of different roadways. On projects that
constrain traffic volumes the result is often a large dispersal rather than diverting to one specific
roadway.
C: SP: Going back to the comment about a slight reduction on I-93. As you reduce capacity, people
are diverting further up and it becomes almost more saturated.
Q: AS: Is I-93 at full capacity?
A: SP: It is close to capacity right now. If you look at 2040 it’s one of the biggest increases.
Q: RB: I’m not familiar with this, is Rutherford Avenue and McGrath a 50-50 thing?
C: MT: I’m not sure; maybe Bill can give us an answer. A lot of what is happening is dependent
upon Wynn Casino. I’m not sure if that project is at the design stage yet or conceptual build.
A: BC: Wynn is at the conceptual design. At the time of the Rutherford redesign the casino was not
an option. At this point in time we are waiting. We have the funding for the design of the
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Rutherford Project. I don’t know if the original conceptual plan will change because this was all
prior to the casino being built in Everett. We need to look at all aspects. I commend Gary and the
team because they are looking at Rutherford modified and not modified. We could get an answer
in the next month, weeks or hours.
C: MT: The Rutherford Avenue project is on the Boston Region’s Long Range Transportation Plan for
2025 and comes in right around $100 million. It is within the Boston’s MPO fiscal constrain plan.
What you’re doing to see from us is a continuation of juggling Rutherford Avenue modified or
Rutherford Avenue not modified. Hopefully we can continue to advance our project at a quicker
speed once we have an answer from the City of Boston.
C: GM: We would love an answer because it cuts our workload in half since we’d be able to drop half
of our model cases.
Q: ER: Do the changes on Rutherford take into consideration the City’s plan for development?
A: GM: Yes.
Q: AS: If Rutherford Avenue goes through with development will it have bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations incorporated into it? It’s the worst place to ride. There should be a trade-off for
the mobility of cars.
A: GM: Yes. It is a very similar project to this one.
C: HM: The City of Somerville is part of the Boston MPO. This project is included in that and the City
of Somerville is very supportive of the City of Boston’s efforts to connect Somerville to
Charlestown.
C: MT: Since you mentioned that I’m now compelled to say that MassDOT is not trying to pit
Somerville against Boston. We own this corridor and Boston owns Rutherford Avenue. I think that
we want to be clear that what happens on either end of the regional transportation spine impacts
the other. As we continue to move forward with our hopes and dreams there may be impacts to
Charlestown, Somerville and other local neighborhoods.
C: GM: It’s important to note that the 6-lane McGrath configuration without any changes to
Rutherford Avenue still has cars staying in the corridor however it’s not doubling the volume. The
cars that go away aren’t all coming back. The two projects are definitely related but we don’t see
that one precludes the other. These are two projects that can proceed together.
To summarize what you’re seeing with Rutherford Avenue, the folks that are choosing to divert
from that route are primarily going to Broadway, I-93, and Charlestown. The McGrath Highway
diversions are primarily going onto School Street, Beacon Street, and Somerville Avenue. You’ll
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
recall the original study that looked at the corridor. We’ve expanded the study area to look at 6
additional intersections. There is a little bit more diversion further to the west than we originally
expected.
Discussion of Next Steps
C: GM: This brings us into the next steps of what we will be doing. There’s been a lot of work that
has been done to get to this point. We’re now going to be taking all of the information,
expanding the study area, doing the complete analysis, and refining the alternatives. You’ve seen
cartoonish pictures of 6-lane and 4-lane alternatives. We’ll be refining those and putting them on
real base maps with survey information. We’ll be looking a bit closer at what a 4-lane alternative
means. We’ll come back next time with a lot more information after we look and sift through the
divert routes. We’ll be looking into the impacts from the GLX project and of course looking at the
bicycle and pedestrian operations.
C: MT: Thanks Gary. Nate and I were just talking and we thought we would initial see you in April. I
want to take the temperature of how you feel about that date other than the fact that it’s freezing
in this room. You’ll get a copy of the presentation and we want you to go home and do some
homework reviewing it. If we are getting the sense that there are more questions than we thought
we can have a more facilitated discussion on it. If we get the feeling that it was pretty well
covered we can continue to further analysis it and start discussing the LOS types.
A: WZ: I don’t want to preclude anyone’s opinions however my feeling is that the longer we wait
until we meet the more definition we will have on the casino numbers. I think we’ll have more
information in April and it would be helpful to discuss it then. It’s been well stated that this
project as well as Rutherford Avenue are aimed to provide community enhancements.
C: JL: I’m curious. What happens to poor old Medford Street that runs parallel to McGrath? Can you
study that a bit more to see if there is actually a diversion? When you are heading east you have
the opportunity to travel parallel to McGrath on Medford Street.
C: MT: It is dependent on the given scenario.
C: JL: None of the alternatives you showed anything happening.
A: GM: There is actually a slight decrease in traffic on Medford Street.
Q: JS: When is the closing of the Medford Street exit expected and, could it be tested as part of the
diversion models?
A: Frank Suszynski (FS): We’ve done a similar link analysis with CTPS. They’re going to be going
forward sometime in the spring with that analysis.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: MT: We’ve got a long way to go and those are the sorts of things that we can make observations
about. Similar to what we are doing now in evaluating the 2-lane cross-section on the bridge
crossing for the railroad. Looking at the impacts from that on the McGrath corridor is something
we are looking into as well. There are lots of observational opportunities.
I’m getting the feeling that perhaps you would like us to continue working. It sounds like you
want us to come back in April with our intersection analysis and some more fine-tuned on the
ground analysis.
C: NCC: One thing I would encourage all of you to do while you look through the presentation is
communicate with us. There is no need to sit in silence until April. Send us your questions and
comments. If it’s straight forward we will provide a response in timely fashion. If it is something
more technical or heavier Gary will get back to you at the meeting in April.
C: AS: it would be helpful to have similar maps for bicycle and pedestrians as you do for cars.
A: GM: I think we’ll be able to do that once we start taking a finer look into things.
C: DL: We’ve been spending a lot of time on the traffic analysis and I want to make sure that the
traffic is not the trunk part of the process. I want to make sure we are going to have discussions
on streetscape elements. There needs to be a balance.
A: MT: I appreciate the point but the whole purpose behind the analysis is driven by traffic volumes.
We have to question if we make changes here how it is impacting other neighborhoods. We are
using traffic and diversions to determine air quality impacts. Exposure to emissions is just as
much a public health concern as bicycle and pedestrian accommodations.
C: DL: If you create a roadway system that makes it harder to cross the street you are increasing the
rate of through-fares. It decreases the chance of people shifting their ideas about using that
space.
A: MT: It will always be a balance. Hopefully we can all find it favorable.
Q: AS: It there a way to break out local trips versus regional trips? How do you make the decision on
who should benefit? If my city is more livable isn’t that a plus?
A: GM: We do have a good amount of data determining regional trips. The factor that comes into
play is the person from Melrose driving through Cambridge.
C: AS: Cambridge as systematically figured it out. They have narrower streets and they are forcing
the cars on our streets.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: TB: I think LOS should be king. My request would be to quantify that balance. I don’t see a
health impact assessment. If you could quantify that and put it into the LOS matrix it would be
helpful.
A: GM: There was a health impact assessment done in the first phase of the project.
A: MT: The health impact assessment said that all the build alternatives resulted in benefits rather
than disadvantages. It was done by the Department of Public Health.
C: TB: I would recommend an economic assessment sometime down the pipeline.
C: HM: I think we should go back to the Boston MPO and get a bit more scope.
Q: Jeremy Bowman (JB): If the focus on Rutherford Avenue decreases the throughput it looks like that
will overall be decreased. How does that get framed? Do we just accept the fact that people are
moving closer to McGrath? Is the model diminishing too much of the volume?
A:
GM: The model accounts for all of the trips. The model doesn’t remove trips, all of the trips are
still happening.
A: MT: I’m not sure what the CTPS team expected to see but I can see say certainly didn’t expect to
see such a wide spread of diversions. We also didn’t expect to see diversions as far west as what
we are seeing.
Q: WZ: One last quick question. Are you doing LOS for pedestrians and bicycles?
A: GM: Yes.
C: MT: Thank you everyone for coming out tonight. We will see you in April.
Next Steps
It is anticipated that the next working group session will take place sometime in mid-April, 2015.
The meeting will take place at the East Somerville Community School from 6:30-8:30PM
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Meeting Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Affiliation
Mary
Ainsley
Working Group Member
Joel
Bennet
Working Group Member
Wade
Blackman
Working Group Member
Jeremy
Bowman
Working Group Member
Greg
Bowne
Resident
Robert
Buchanan
Working Group Member
Kevin
Byrne
Working Group Member
Nathaniel
Cabral-Curtis
Howard Stein Hudson
Mark
Chase
Working Group Member
Maureen
Chlebek
McMahon Associates
William
Conroy
Working Group Member
Nick
Gross
Howard Stein Hudson
Drashi
Joshi
CTPS
Bruce
Kaplan
CTPS
David
Loutzenheiser
Working Group Member
Joe
Lynch
Working Group Member
Gary
McNaughton
McMahon Associates
Hayes
Morrison
Working Group Member
Marc
Nascarella
MDPH
Kelsey
Perkins
Working Group Member
Ellin
Reisner
Working Group Member
Manuel
Rodriguez
Working Group Member
Alyson
Schultz
Working Group Member
Sarah
Spicer
Working Group Member
Matt
Starkey
McMahon Associates
Jason
Stockman
Working Group Member
Frank
Suszynski
MassDOT
Michael
Trepanier
MassDOT
Rebecca
Wolfson
Boston Cyclist Union
Wig
Zamore
Working Group Member
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Meeting Flipcharts4
Chart 1
C: Issue of seeking to define “handful congestion”. Not a big throughput.
C: Minimizing exposure of active transportation uses to emissions at peak hours especially.
C: Green space should run along the corridor, not just be in a block.
Q: Is the Wynn Casino project on the list?
A: No, it is not in the CTPS model, but we will make specific inputs on it.
A: Data from the casino coming in which occurs mostly on Fridays and weekends.
C: Bill Conroy (BOS) wants the casino to be integrated to ensure that the right decisions will be made
along Rutherford Avenue.
A: We will add data as it comes in.
C: Supplemental SFEIR will be out soon.
Chart 2
C: Missing Sullivan Square to Mystic River bicycle path.
A: Graphics are from 2013.
C: Many bicycle paths are actually shared use paths.
A: Yes, that is a good observation.
C: Bicycle infrastructure on Broadway Street has also been added.
Q: Does the CTPS model incorporate demographics? For example, a 65 year old will drive not bike.
4
To increase accessibility to this document for the visually impaired, transcriptions of the meeting flipcharts have
been presented rather than photographs of the charts produced at the meeting. Images of these charts have
been made and may be had upon request.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: Things like age are in the there. Moving to a place that has transit on purpose may not be in there
as well. This is why we thinking pedestrian counts and bicycle counts may grow more than usual.
Chart 3
Q: Is this for multiple hours?
A: This is for the peak hour.
Q: What was the traffic trend here 20 to 30 years ago?
A: Not sure but I can look. It has been roughly flat since 2004 but no significant population growth
as is projected.
Q: What is the track record on the accuracy of the CTPS model?
A: A recent project we did was the Callahan Tunnel. A lot of modeling work has been done. The
model did very well, a couple percentages of observation. The model does the federal planning
for the area. Growth is speculative and won’t be even. The model is a best guess tool.
Chart 4
Q: Does the model include social dynamics, like getting licensed later?
A: MAPC has done a lot of work on demographics. The population here is getting older. Students
are not sticking.
A: The model is a good, proven tool. Simpler projects are done with guesstimates. This is an
extensive modeling effort. The next best thing to a Crystal Ball.
Q: With each successive meeting the project getting smaller?
A: No, just the graphic. We will make it bigger.
C: Surprised that Washington Street didn’t grow more.
A: I think diversion is before there, but we want your input on whether it makes sense.
Chart 5
Q: What does this do to Leverett Circle?
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: There is a minimal volume drop on Leverett Connector. Not every change is dramatic.
Q: Why do you think the AM 4 lane design is happening? You’re not saying that Rutherford Avenue
improvements mean there will be congestion.
A: We are saying it’s related. We need more work to understand the exact relationship.
Q: Would like consistency in arrow sizes.
A: We are trying and will fix them.
Q: Would like these as percentages.
A: Percentages can be misleading. A big percentage can mean a minimal number of cars.
C: Called 4 lane with Rutherford improvements most restrictive.
A: Just saying it loses some loss of throughput.
Chart 6
Q: What happened when Rutherford Avenue lost its overpass? Stay or leave?
A: A little of both. People find a lot of different routes. It’s not usually a 1:1 move.
C: Some people may leave I-93 earlier as well. I-93 is very close to capacity now.
Q: On Rutherford Avenue improvements, is it 50/50? I thought it was happening.
A: Based on the Wynn Casino and City agencies. Casino is valid, sort of in a holiday pattern. Design
is funded. Continuing to double analysis due to uncertainty.
Q: Do the Rutherford Avenue projections include housing?
A: Yes.
C: The Rutherford Avenue plan will benefit pedestrians and bicyclists.
C: City of Somerville (Hayes Morrison) supports Rutherford Avenue design.
Chart 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: MassDOT is not seeking to put Boston versus Somerville, just want to show they are connected.
C: As a member of Somerville, I think of Sullivan Station as part of my neighborhood. It’s all
connected.
C: April is nice due to the Wynn Casino and you will have more data. This project and Rutherford
Avenue corridor mitigation. Knowing that helps too.
Q: Curious about Medford Street. Can you study that a little more at Prospect Hill Avenue?
A: It mostly seems to decrease in volume.
Q: Could an exit closure be a good test?
A: Short-term improvements come this spring.
A: We have a long way to go. We will observe this.
Chart 8
C: It would be helpful to have similar walking maps.
A: We will make some estimations in fine grain analysis.
C: Want to make sure we don’t frontload traffic. Want to discuss streetscape early on as well.
A: Good point, but we want to make sure we’re not negatively impacting other places. That’s why
we’re doing this analysis.
C: The more this becomes a thoroughfare, the less it encourages mode shift.
A: It will be a balance. We need to do the homework.
Q: Can you break out the local trips versus the regional trips? Is my city being more humanized
worth hurting Melrose?
A: We do know some of that data.
Chart 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: Would like to have Health Impact Assessment and economic benefits weighed with against LOS.
A: We will do this. This is the first step.
A: The Health Impact Assessment is already done. All build alternatives have positives and a few
negatives.
C: It seems like there will be an overall decrease in traffic throughput, how is that framed in terms of
being a problem?
A: Trips still happen, there are just elsewhere in the network.
Q: Will you do a pedestrian and bicycle LOS?
A: Yes, we will.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 3: Received Emails – Please See the Following Page
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Nate & Nick,
My apologies for lack of response – I was out on maternity leave and left before I could put an out of office!
I’m not sure if you were able to find someone else from our office to include in the working group, but if you
have not I would love to participate in any future meetings.
Thanks,
Erica
Erica Kreuter
Director, MassWorks Infrastructure Program
Executive Office of Housing & Economic Development
One Ashburton Place, Suite 2101 | Boston, MA 02108
O: (617)788-3631 | Email: Erica.Kreuter@state.ma.us
www.mass.gov/mpro | @massworks
From: Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis [mailto:ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 2:31 PM
To: Kreuter, Erica (EOHED)
Cc: Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis; Nick Gross
Subject: McGrath Boulevard Next Steps
Good Afternoon Erica,
I hope this note finds you well and having a good day. I am pleased to announce that you have been
invited to participate on the Working Group for the McGrath Boulevard Development Project! Please
see attachment for further details. The purpose of the Working Group is to inform and advise
MassDOT on important community and stakeholder issues affecting the development of an
implementable design for McGrath Boulevard. The initial Working Group session will take place
during the week of October 27, 2014 or November 3, 2014. It is anticipated that the Working Group
sessions will take place on Wednesday or Thursday night of those weeks so we ask that you save the
dates.
If you have further questions please contact Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis at ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com
or by calling (617) 482-7080.
Regards & Good Wishes,
-Nate
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Transportation Planner, Public Involvement Specialist, Associate
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
11 Beacon Street, Suite 1010
Boston, MA 02108
direct: 617.348.3336 main: 617-482-7080
www.hshassoc.com
•
•
•
•
Transportation Planning
Traffic Engineering
Civil Engineering
Public Involvement/Strategic Planning
Please Note Our New Address
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Good Afternoon Erica,
I hope this note finds you well and having a good day. Congratulations to you on your new arrival.
We had sent invitations to both you and Laurence Field, however, he does not appear to have made it
to our first working group session. If you want to participate in subsequent sessions, we would be
happy to have you. If you would like to catch up on the initial meeting, you can see the presentation
and meeting minutes here:
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/HighlightedProjects/McCarthyOverpassMcGrathHighway/D
ocumentsandMeetingMaterials.aspx. If you want to get really ambitious, I’d be happy to have your
answers to the questions we asked of all our working group members at the initial session, but please
don’t feel compelled.
Lastly, if you’d like to join up, please just respond to this email and let me know. We’ll amend our
attendance sheet and look forward to seeing you in January.
Regards & Good Wishes,
-Nate
Nate,
When is the January meeting? I would like to be involved – or at least make sure someone from our office
can attend.
Thanks,
Erica
Erica Kreuter
Director, MassWorks Infrastructure Program
Executive Office of Housing & Economic Development
One Ashburton Place, Suite 2101 | Boston, MA 02108
O: (617)788-3631 | Email: Erica.Kreuter@state.ma.us
www.mass.gov/mpro | @massworks
Good Afternoon Erica,
I hope all is continuing well for you since we last talked. Been a while. The January meeting isn’t set
yet, but I will let you know as soon as we do. In all likelihood, we will ship a date notification right
after New Year. Right now we are passing into a time of year wherein folks just seem to have their
attention elsewhere and can miss important emails. Until then, I will assume you are joining us.
Regards & Good Wishes,
-Nate
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Hi Nate,
It is indeed a mystery, and I appreciate your work to solve it. The individual notification should in principle make
sure future emails come through. If you send out the same message via the bulk bcc as well, that should
diagnose whether I am still not receiving (because I'll only receive one not two copies) I did check my Gmail
spam folder and there are no notifications there, so that was not the issue.
I look forward to the slide deck and minutes from last night's meeting once available and hope to make the next
one.
Best,
Alex
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis <ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com> wrote:
Good Morning Alex,
I hope this note finds you well and having a good day. Well, this is indeed a mystery. I have your email address
in my database and have had it since the project’s inception back last summer. We sent out several emails in
st
advance of this most recent session, the earliest should have arrived in your inbox on January 21 . I apologize if
for whatever the mass email did not arrive in your in-box. It’s possible that for some reason google is treating
my email as spam and shuttling away to some filter. This seems to happen to at least one person on each of my
many projects.
Today, I am going to send out a copy of last night’s presentation to the working group and will send you yours
individually as opposed to with the bulk bcc. I’ve made a note in the stakeholder database that you need
individual notifications of meetings as well. As always, we will generate a detailed set of meeting minutes to go
along with the presentation so you can read up on what transpired. The presentation last night was very heavy
on traffic data projections and we are encouraging working group members to read though the materials and
send us questions about them so we can appropriately tailor our next presentation which will be sometime in
April of this year.
Regards & Good Wishes,
-Nate
From: Alex Epstein
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 8:17 AM
To: Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Subject: Add me to the McGrath working group list
Nate,
Please add me to the mailing list. I am a member of the working group but continue to not receive email
notifications. As a result I was not alerted to last night's meeting and missed it. I nearly missed November's
meeting as well due to this same lack of notification. This is most disappointing for what is supposed to be a
public, participatory process. Please confirm that I am now definitely on the list for future meetings.
Regards,
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Alex
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Hi Nate,
I did receive both emails, so the prognosis is promising for being (and staying) subscribed. Thank you again for
checking!
All best,
Alex
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis <ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com> wrote:
Good Afternoon Alex,
I hope this note finds you well and having a good day. Below is a copy of the note which just went out to the
whole group. You were included as a BCC in that one and I hope you received it. If you didn’t, here is your
personalized version.
Have a good weekend,
-Nate
Dear Friends,
Thank you all for a good meeting last night. I hope this note finds you all well and having a smooth conclusion
to your respective weeks.
Attached, for your records and review, please find a PDF of the presentation offered at last night’s meeting. We
hope that you will all look carefully at it over the coming weeks and share any questions, suggestions, or
thoughts with us. As I mentioned last night, if the questions you have are related to helping you understand
what you are reviewing we will provide you an answer as soon as possible. Broader, deeper questions can be
addressed at our next working group session, which as Michael noted last night, will likely be in early April when
we all hope to be much warmer.
Regards & Good Wishes,
-Nate
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Hi Nate,
Very sorry that I was unable to attend last night. I’ll be at the next one.
Tim
_________________________
Tim W. Snyder
Chief of Staff
Office of Senator Patricia D. Jehlen
Second Middlesex District
State House, Room 513
Tel: (617) 722-1578
From: Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis [mailto:ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 1:50 PM
To: Trepanier, Michael (DOT)
Cc: Nick Gross; george.batchelor@state.ma.us; robbin.bergfors@state.ma.us; donny.dailey@state.ma.us;
james.danila@state.ma.us; mark.kolonoski@state.ma.us; hasmykh.patel@state.ma.us;
frank.suszynski@state.ma.us; michael.trepanier@state.ma.us; gmcnaughton@mcmahonassociates.com;
mchlebek@mcmahonassociates.com; donny.dailey@state.ma.us
Subject: McGrath Boulevard Working Group Meeting Presentation
Dear Friends,
Thank you all for a good meeting last night. I hope this note finds you all well and having a smooth
conclusion to your respective weeks.
Attached, for your records and review, please find a PDF of the presentation offered at last night’s
meeting. We hope that you will all look carefully at it over the coming weeks and share any questions,
suggestions, or thoughts with us. As I mentioned last night, if the questions you have are related to
helping you understand what you are reviewing we will provide you an answer as soon as possible.
Broader, deeper questions can be addressed at our next working group session, which as Michael noted
last night, will likely be in early April when we all hope to be much warmer.
Regards & Good Wishes,
-Nate
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Transportation Planner, Public Involvement Specialist, Associate
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
11 Beacon Street, Suite 1010
Boston, MA 02108
direct: 617.348.3336 main: 617-482-7080
www.hshassoc.com
•
•
•
•
Transportation Planning
Traffic Engineering
Civil Engineering
Public Involvement/Strategic Planning
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Please Note Our New Address
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Thank you for sharing the slides. As I continue to look over them, in addition to the omission of the Everett casino
discussed in the meeting, I also wonder why the ongoing development in Kendall Square isn’t included on page 14.
The number of cars departing McGrath at Medford St. or turning on 3rd and Memorial Drive, and the models of
anticipated diversions suggest that Kendall development certainly will have impact.
In the estimates, is there a reason why the Highland Avenue traffic (to Davis Square) isn’t included in addition to
Medford St. Highland is as heavily travelled as Medford, Somerville Ave and Beacon St.
On pages 42, 46, 50, 51, 54 I’d like an explanation for the increase in traffic on Fitchburg St (a private way) and
Chestnut St. There is no access to anywhere except Lynwood which shows a decrease. Or is there a suggestion that
the Brickbottom residents are causing this increase — that rather than driving down Linwood as in the past,
we would be switching our driving to Chestnut and Joy. Is this due to a change in the traffic patterns on Linwood
and McGrath? Will we be able to access McGrath Highway via Lynnwood and Poplar Streets, or is our access to the
main roads diminished to solely exiting onto Washington St. at the intersection with Joy — the siting of the T stop?
It is frustrating to see the modeling for cars only. In the Next Steps, I would suggest that similar analysis of bike
and pedestrian infrastructure be presented before “Fully analyze each build scenarios” and “Quantify impacts of
Diversions” . With the modeling focused solely on auto rather than the desired multi-mode that should exist within
the Boulevard, it is a challenge to be able to digest this data with any perspective. Additionally, it would be
interesting to see a matrix of the weight different factors are given — for example, the reknitting of Somerville and
east west traffic patterns vs. regional flow and the desire for streets scaled to pedestrians vs the increased
automotive needs fueled by the numerous developments in the area.
Regards,
Alyson
Good Afternoon Alyson,
I hope this note finds you well and having a good day. How are the snow conditions for you in
Somerville? I hope you have no ice dams, leaking walls, buried cars of any of the other winter
miseries that make up the bulk of the news these days. In Jamaica Plain, over the past two days, I paid
one batch of guys $800 to clean off my roof and another contractor $400 to remove the huge snow
bank from my driveway that I’d made with my snow blower. That $400 was, I think, spent to make
room for the next huge snow bank I will make with my snow blower.
I wanted to start the serious part of my response to you by thank you for your contributions on the 5th
and for “doing your homework” with the presentation. This is just what we wanted you to do. It
participants like you that put the work in working group. With that done, let me provide you with a
reply for your questions:

Slide 14 is intended to illustrate the identified development projects within the study area for
this project. The Kendall Square area is not within the limits of our study area and we therefore
didn’t identify that specific development area. The CTPS model incorporates data from the
regional plan, which is established by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC).
MAPC works with the member communities to identify development potential and establish an
accepted projection for growth in the region. The development within Kendall Square is
included in the regional model and the information provided by CTPS, but as it’s exterior to our
study area, we didn’t specifically identify it on this graphic. This is to say that projected future
Kendall Square traffic is in the model, and in our calculations, the development area is just not
called out as being within our study area on that graphic.
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.

Highland Avenue is an important connection to Davis Square and is accounted for in the CTPS
model and all of our analyses, just not specifically shown in these graphics. The maps for the
various build alternatives show a decrease in traffic along Highland Avenue within the study
area limits and therefore we wouldn’t anticipate an increase in traffic to and from Davis Square.
We are proposing an additional study area intersection at Washington and Beacon which better
help measure impacts of McGrath west of the corridor on roadways where the modeling
projects increases in traffic volume

With regard to the private way, thank you for pointing out this inaccuracy. We have followed
up with CTPS and there was a graphical error for those streets. We are working with CTPS to
update the graphics for that area and will provide those updates as they become available.

We agree with you that the overall project must consider all modes and cannot be auto-centric.
However, from a modeling perspective, we need to begin with the auto trips as that informs and
even drives (no pun intended) the shift to transit, walking, and biking. We did discuss the mode
share within the model results and will continue to refine that information to present potential
bicycle and pedestrian volumes as the project advances. Additionally, infrastructure for
bicycles and pedestrian is not as capacity sensitive as vehicle infrastructure, but may influence
widths of sidewalks or bike paths, etc. We will also be working with you as a group to develop
measures of effectiveness to evaluate each alternative against the project goals. While we
won’t get to the point of weighting each measure as that becomes a very subjective and
individual decision, it is often obvious which measures are more important to the overall project
and the group’s input will be critical in that assessment. The measures of effectiveness will be
quantifiable and will be applied to each scenario as the project heads toward a preferred
alternative.
I hope this is helpful. If you have any further questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to be in touch
by telephone or email.
Regards & Good Wishes,
-Nate
Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Transportation Planner, Public Involvement Specialist, Associate
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
11 Beacon Street, Suite 1010
Boston, MA 02108
direct: 617.348.3336 main: 617-482-7080
www.hshassoc.com
•
•
•
•
Transportation Planning
Traffic Engineering
Civil Engineering
Public Involvement/Strategic Planning
Please Note Our New Address