McGrath Boulevard Project Development
Working Group Meeting #1
November 19th, 2014 – Holiday Inn Bunker Hill
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Welcome
Team Introductions
Project Background – “How We Got Here”
Working Group Administration
Project Goals
Transportation Analysis Update
Adjourn
Project Team
Project Partners
Project Area - General
Project Area – Route 28
Reasons for the Project
•
•
•
McCarthy Viaduct structurally deficient.
Viaduct seen as dividing the community.
Removal offers opportunities:
–
–
–
–
–
Improve safety for all modes of transportation.
Calm traffic.
Provide east to west connections.
Improve/create pedestrian and bicycle conditions.
Take full advantage of benefits conferred by GLX.
Grounding McGrath - 2011
•
•
MassDOT study to determine the future of Somerville Route 28 corridor.
Report recommended:
– Long term removal of the viaduct and replacement with a 6-lane, at-grade boulevard.
Our Starting Point
• “Grounding McGrath” recommended
a 6-lane, at-grade boulevard.
• MassDOT has heard this community’s
strong desire for a 4-lane alternative.
• Our goal in the current phase is to:
– Fully, and without bias, investigate
whether a 4-lane cross-section is possible.
– Know fully the impacts of changes in
Somerville on abutting communities.
– Not an “either/or” issue.
– We may come to a 5-lane cross section or
some other hybrid solution.
Project Meetings to Date
• Public Information Meeting
– 7/19/14
• City of Somerville
– 8/7/14
• City of Cambridge
– 9/11/14
• Green Line Extension
– 10/24/14
Working Group Statement of Purpose
• Convened by MassDOT.
• Inform and advise the agency with local knowledge.
• Help the agency team develop a preferred alternative to take
into the environmental process.
– Also called a “conceptual design”
• Help develop design details for future discussion in 25% the
design process.
Overview of Ground Rules
• Not an imposition:
– Let others finish their sentences
– Arrive on time
• The ground rules are designed to:
– Ensure a decorous process
– Maintain a productive relationship between working group members and
project team.
• The ground rules are not meant to restrict free discussion.
• Both the MassDOT team and working group members have ground
rules to which they are expected to adhere.
McGrath Boulevard Working Group Membership
MassDOT Priorities
Improve Safety, Access & Connections for All Modes
Working Group Member Priorities
• Our goal:
– A set of shared values from both working group and project team
members to share at the next meeting
• A few ideas to get you going:
– 10 years after construction – what would success look like?
– If there’s one thing about this area to keep, what is it?
– If there’s one thing to change about this area, what is it?
Big Picture Time Line – McGrath/McCarthy
Project Development Time Line – McGrath/McCarthy
STUDY AREA
EXISTING TRAFFIC
Study Area
Updated Data Collection
• Expanded Study Area
• New 2014 Traffic Counts
• Traffic Counts from
Nearby Studies
2014 Existing Traffic Volumes - 1
2014 Existing Traffic Volumes - 2
2014 Existing Bicycle Volumes - 1
2014 Existing Bicycle Volumes - 2
2014 Existing Pedestrian Volumes
Regional Transit
Bus Routes and Stops
Subway Routes
Hubway Stations
Since 2010…
• Increase in Traffic Volume
– McGrath Northbound AM
– Broadway AM & PM
– Washington Street AM & PM
– Somerville Avenue AM
• Decrease in Traffic Volume
– McGrath Southbound AM & PM
– Somerville Avenue AM
TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
Traffic Projections - 1
• Planned Developments
• CTPS Model for:
– Regional growth
– Mode shifts
– Effects of nearby transportation projects
MAPC Development Areas
1a. Green Line Extension:
Magoun Square
1b. Green Line Extension:
Gilman Square
1c. Green Line Extension:
Ball Square
2. Sullivan Square
3. River Green
4. Assembly Square
5. Beacon Street
6. Boynton Yards
7. Brickbottom/Inner Belt
8. East Somerville
Gateway
9. Fabrication District
10. Union Square
Transportation Improvements
1. Rutherford Avenue/
Sullivan Square
2. Russia Wharf Ferry
Terminal
3. Green Line
Extension/Union
Square
2040 CTPS Model
Mode Share
2014 Existing
2040 No Build
UPDATE WITH 2040
MODE SHARE
CTPS
Neighborhoods Included
Inner Belt/Brickbottom
East Cambridge
East Somerville
Kendall/MIT
Spring Hill
Union Square
Winter Hill
BUILD TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTS
Boulevard Alternatives
• 4 Lane Alternative
• 6 Lane Alternative
• Trip Diversions
– Where do they go?
– Review capacity
TRAFFIC EVALUATIONS
Vehicles-Pedestrians-Bicycles-Transit Users
2014 Existing Vehicle Capacity Analysis
2014 Existing Capacity Analysis
Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Options
• Highway Capacity Manual
– Pedestrian Mode
– Bicycle Mode
• Alternative Analysis Options
Highway Capacity Manual
• Non-automobile Modes Level-of-Service (LOS)
– “The association between LOS score and LOS is
based on traveler perception research.” (HCM
2010: Page 16-9)
– Best fit equations determine score
– Pedestrian LOS
• Segment, Intersection, Midblock Crossing Factor
– Bicycle LOS
• Segment, Intersection
Alternative Analysis Options
• Pedestrian Analysis
– Pedestrian Performance Measures
• Models a more robust pedestrian environment that
includes trees, benches, and lighting.
• Points could be adjusted to fit project needs
• Bicycle Analysis
– Level of Traffic Stress
• Can evaluate cycle tracks and mixed use paths
2014 Pedestrian Facilities
2014 Pedestrian Analysis
Category
Points
LOS
Points
Description
Facility
10
LOS A
> 17
Highly pedestrian orientated
Conflicts
4
LOS B
14-17
Attractive to pedestrians
Amenities
2
LOS C
11-14
Adequate but not attractive
Motor Vehicle LOS
2
LOS D
7-11
Adequate with deficiencies
Maintenance
2
LOS E
3-7
Inadequate for pedestrians
TDM/Multi Modal
1
LOS F
<3
Hazardous for pedestrians
SOURCE: “Bicycle and Pedestrian Level‐of‐Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems” Linda B. Dixon
Transportation Research Record 1538
2014 Pedestrian Analysis: Facility
Sub Category
Points
Possible
Points
Earned
Continuous
Non-Continuous
6
4
4
Width 5 ft
1
0
Width > 5 ft.
2
0
Parallel Parking
1
0
Max: 10
4
Total
2014 Pedestrian Analysis: Conflicts
Sub Category
Observed
Possible
Points
Points
Earned
16.76
1
1
0
0.5
0.5
Reduced Conflict Implementation
None
0.5
0
(Max) Crossing Width < 60 ft
135 ft
0.5
0
(Max) Posted Speed < 35 mph
30
0.5
0.5
Median Present
Yes
1
1
Max: 4
3
<22 Driveways per mile (Max)
Ped. Signal Delay < 40*
Total
*Unsignalized Intersection: Ped Delay = 0
2014 Pedestrian Analysis: Amenities
Sub Category
Point
Possible
Points
Earned
Buffer > 3’5”
1
0
Benches or Pedestrian
Lighting (Both Sides)
0.5
0
Shade Trees
0.5
0
Max: 2
0
Total
2014 Pedestrian Analysis:
Motor Vehicle LOS
Sub Category
Points
Possible
Points
Earned
E, F* or >6 Travel Lanes
0
0
D* and <6 Travel Lanes
1
0
A, B or C* and <6 Travel
Lanes
2
0
Max: 2
0
Total
*Unsignalized Intersection: LOS=A
2014 Pedestrian Analysis: Maintenance
Sub Category
Possible
Points
Points
Earned
Major or Frequent
Problems
-1
0
Minor or Infrequent
Problems
0
0
No Problems
2
0
Max: 2
0
Total
2014 Pedestrian Analysis:
TDM/Multi Modal
Sub Category
Points
Possible
Points
Earned
No Support
0
0
Support Exists
1
1
Max: 1
1
Total
2014 Pedestrian Analysis
2014 Bicycle Facilities
2014 Bicycle Analysis: Types of Cyclists
2014 Bicycle Analysis:
Levels of Traffic Stress
LTS 1
Suitable for a relaxing bike ride with
little cyclist attention required.
Children may need to be supervised
at intersections.
LTS 2
Suitable to most adults, but more
demanding than what a child may be
expected to handle.
LTS 3
More traffic stress than LTS 2,
acceptable for most cyclists currently
riding in the US.
LTS 4
A level of stress beyond LTS 3.
Source: Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity Maaza C. Mekuria, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE,
Peter G. Furth, Ph.D. and Hilary Nixon, Ph.D.
2014 Bicycle Analysis:
Segment/Facility Score
• Physically Separated
• LTS 1
• Mixed Traffic
• Through Lanes
• Speed Limit
• Bike Lanes
• Parking
• Through Lanes
• Lane Width
• Speed Limit
• Blockage
2014 Bicycle Analysis:
Right Turn Consideration
•
•
•
•
Turn lane length
Bike lane alignment
Corner Radius
Turning Speed
2014 Bicycle Analysis:
Unsignalized Crossings
• Street Width
• Median Presence
• Speed Limit
2014 Bicycle Analysis:
Signalized Crossings
•
•
•
•
Bicycle Delay
Clearance Interval
Crossing Time
Crossing Distance
2014 Bicycle Analysis: Example
Criteria
Observed
LTS
Facility
Mixed Traffic, >35
mph
4
Right Turn
No Lane, high turning
speed
4
Unsignalized 2-3 Lanes, <25 mph
Crossing
(Driveway)
1
Overall
4
The worst LTS is 4,
therefore the
segment is a 4.
2014 Bicycle Analysis
Bicycle Scoring Elements:
Levels of Traffic Stress Factors
• Segment/Facility Score
• Bicycle Lane Consideration
• Right Turn Consideration
• Intersection Crossing
• Intersection Treatments
2014 Existing LTS
• Mixed traffic with speeds
greater than 35 miles per
hour
• No Right turn
accommodations
Next Meeting
• Expected in late January