Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS • EFFECTIVE PARTNERING ®
MEMORANDUM
July 31, 2014
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
Public Information Meeting
Meeting Notes of July 17, 2014
Overview
On July 17, 2014 MassDOT held the first public information meeting of the McGrath Highway/McCarthy
Boulevard Design Development Project. The Project Development begins where the 2011-2012 “Grounding
McGrath” planning study ended. The goal of the current project is to take the concept of an at-grade
replacement for the current McCarthy Overpass, which carries the McGrath Highway near Union Square and
Brickbottom in Somerville, and bring it to an early 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 roadway should have a six lane cross-section as
recommended in the Grounding McGrath report or a four lane cross-section as is strongly favored by the
Somerville community and local government. MassDOT is committed to a serious and thorough analysis of
the four lane alternative. Additional development of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are also part
of the current process. Beginning October of 2014, MassDOT will reconvene the Grounding McGrath
Working Group to work through the details associated with the current phase. Additional public information
meetings will be held to keep the community abreast of the developing project and a new project website
will be launched during the next several weeks.
The meeting summarized herein served to brief attendees on what has been achieved to date regarding the
McCarthy Overpass, short-term improvements to the existing viaduct, and provide an overview on the
upcoming phase of work. A significant element of this meeting was a public commitment by MassDOT to
thoroughly study the four lane alternative favored by many audience members. The tone of the meeting was
strongly positive with many attendees praising MassDOT for its commitment to removing the viaduct and the
agency’s willingness to consider the four lane alternative. Also of significant importance to those in
attendance is the idea that bicycle and pedestrian accommodations along the corridor be first rate and that
green space be used to help insulate walkers and cyclists from vehicle emissions. Many audience members
also requested that MassDOT take a broad perspective of the project’s scope and look both north, towards
the Mystic River and I-93 and south, towards Cambridge, along the length of the McGrath Highway rather
than focusing tightly on the McCarthy Overpass itself when thinking about the viaduct’s removal and
replacement.
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, my name is Michael Trepanier. I am an
environmental planner for MassDOT’s Highway Division and am here to announce the transition from
the planning process to project development for the McGrath Highway/McCarthy Boulevard Project.
Before we get started I’d like to introduce the Administrator of the Highway Division, Frank DePaola who
will start us off this evening with some opening remarks.
C: Frank DePaola (FD): Thank you. As Michael said I’m Frank DePaola. I’m the Administrator of the
MassDOT Highway Division. I’m excited to kick off the next phase by addressing issues of the McCarthy
Overpass. I spoke with the Mayor of Somerville and he will get here as soon as possible. The Mayor
would like to pass on his thanks to the community and MassDOT for supporting and participating in the
development of this project. Joining us tonight is State Representative Denise Provost, Somerville
Alderman Maryann Heuston, Mary Jo Rosetti, Bill Deignan from the City of Cambridge’s Planning
Department, Jay Bennet from Somerville and also Jared Rose representing Senator Patricia D. Jehlen.
I’m going to turn it over to the project team. Over a year ago MassDOT was wrapping up an intense
planning study about this corridor with significant community input. Going back further, we started doing
some repair work to the existing structure. Members of the community expressed interest in a more
permanent solution for the McCarthy Overpass. Through a long process the conclusion was that we can
do something dramatic that will change the nature and the face of this part of Somerville. In a
combination of the MBTA improvements and the Green Line Extension there is opportunity to reshape
this section of Somerville and change the community through pedestrian, bicycle, and multi-modal use.
We’re hoping that we can work together and turn this into a great community addition to a metropolitan
area. I’m now going to turn it back to Michael Trepanier.
C: MT: Thank you Frank. I’d like to begin by introducing the project team. I will be the lead Project
Manager under Frank’s direction. Our consultant will be McMahon with assistance from Howard/SteinHudson for public involvement. The next phase of the project, like the previous one, will be a partnership
between MassDOT and the City of Somerville. We always need to involve the community and keep a
good relationship between the project and its host community. We will also be reconvening the Working
Group put together from the planning study. We will continue to develop the project through to design.
To familiarize you with the location of the project, the McGrath Highway runs from roughly I-93 in the
north down to the Somerville-Cambridge line. The section we’re addressing tonight is the portion which
runs over the McCarthy Overpass. We do have a program of short-term improvements for the structure,
but we want to look at the longer term as well. That process begins tonight. This evening, our intention
is to look at what has been done, where we are today, and where we’ll go in the future. At this point,
I’d like to hand it off to Gary McNaughton from McMahon Associates.
Presentation
C: Gary McNaughton (GM): Good evening everyone. My name is Gary McNaughton and I’m with
McMahon Associates. We will lead this next phase of project design. The Grounding McGrath study was
launched in 2011 and concluded in mid-2012 with the Grounding McGrath report. Our goal is to take
what was in that report and advance the project to a conceptual design. There is a lot potential with the
alternatives from the report to tweak and make adjustments as we move through the current phase. The
prior project looked at potential overpass removal and decided that doing so would be the right course
of action. The community has supported this decision and has encouraged multimodal “complete streets”
enhancements to the corridor. The decision to bring down the overpass resulted in three alternatives
that were discussed in the Working Group and public meetings. Out of the three at-grade approaches,
the boulevard alternative was selected as being preferred. The recommended boulevard alternative
1
Herein “C” stands for comment, “Q” for question and “A” for answer. For a list of attendees, please see
Appendix 1. For a listing of comments received, please see Appendix 2.
Page 2
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
gives us the opportunity to implement better pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, an intuitive area
to navigate, and better connects the two sections of the community to either side of Route 28.
An issue with the boulevard alternative that we have heard about are capacity of the existing
infrastructure will not be supported with the boulevard alternative. There’s also the issue of connectivity.
We are focusing on interaction between the roadway and its abutting community, specific details and
looking at what’s on the ground in order for the puzzle to fit. Other things to take into consideration are
queuing between intersections and getting the intersections correctly spaced to accommodate the
queues. Behind me, you can see the graphics of the proposed roadway from the planning study. They
show something of how the roadway might look, but they are at a conceptual level. Engineered
graphics show how it would look backed up with engineering detail which will advance as part of project
development.
The outcome from the prior study is that the six lane alternative was recommended. We know there is
substantial community support for a four lane alternative and it’s our goal to investigate thoroughly
whether we can make that work. We will take a look at the four lane alternative, short term
improvements, vehicles, pedestrians, bicycle lanes, and bicycle boxes. Throughout project development
we will be refining alternatives, doing detailed analysis, and going through Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA) review process which will look at both the four and six lane alternatives. We will be
looking at an expanded study area, taking the prior effort and adding on to it as things pop up. We’ll
look at the whole picture rather than focusing on one single area. We will be looking into technical
work and the next steps are to coordinate with the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) of the
Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) updated projections while identifying how many
vehicles remain in the corridor and how they will fit into the four or six lane alternatives. We will look
beyond this immediate area to see where those cars are going, what they are doing, and what can be
done about them. To help us get through this work, we’re going to reconvene our Working Group with
the goal of reaching a preferred solution. Our goal is to reconvene the Working Group by October.
C: MT: Thank you Gary. To reiterate what Gary said, MassDOT is in support of the road diet alternative
provided we can find a way to make it work in a manner which is both, and I emphasize both, in
alignment with the wishes of Somerville and equitable to travelers from other communities. We are
taking a serious look at the Grounding McGrath study. We want to pick up where the study left off and
not lose sight of that. I want to caution everyone here; if our analysis turns out that there is not an
acceptable Level of Service (LOS) to the regional network, we may not be able to advance the four lane
alternative. At this point in MassDOT’s project development stage we are at 0-5% in defining the scope
and taking into account air quality impacts and regional context. We will bring in the help of our
transportation and environmental planners. We will study lanes widths and signal timing. We want to be
clear this is a milestone of transition and as Gary mentioned, the Working Group will be reconvened
sometime in October or November. We need to give CTPS and McMahon time to do their traffic
analysis. We will use this opportunity to inform everyone that this milestone has occurred and that we
are moving into development. With that I would like to open the discussion up to the question and
answer session.
Question & Answer Session
Q: Alderman Maryann Heuston (MH): I’m very happy to hear that the area and scope have been
expanded. Now that you have your eye on it I’m hoping you’ll get down into more detail. I am worried
about Union Square. Many people participated in traffic studies for Union Square with Parsons
Brinckerhoff. I feel better than I did before knowing that you’re going to take what’s going on in the
Square into consideration like the downstream impact and vice versa. It’s important to look at the
McGrath Highway/Union Square relationship for traffic. I encourage you to stay on track with timing in
mind. When will traffic patterns change? We have to live with the traffic in Union Square and Sullivan
Square right now and nobody warned or told us about it. I think we need continue working with Parsons
Brinckerhoff and keep that in mind. I don’t want this to just be a good thing that’s happening and then
we get stuck with traffic in the end.
Page 3
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
A: Frank Suszynski (FS): I’ve been working this past year with the stakeholders and we are looking for a
contract to be able to do the implementation of the short-term improvements. Negotiation on that
started in May and we’re still getting a handle on cost-effective pricing. I don’t have a definitive answer
but we are looking at alternatives to implement as quickly as possible in a cost-effective manner.
Q: MH: Is this for 2015?
A: FS: Yes. Hopefully the contractor can do some work this year and finish it next year. There are about
three to four months of work but right now we’re looking at other alternatives. We will work as quickly
as we can.
C: MT: I apologize for not being clearer; our slideshow says, “Hopefully 2015,” but we are very optimistic
that can happen. To respond to your concern, is it clear to everybody that we are taking a regional
approach? The success of this project is based on other projects in the abutting areas. One of the more
important points that the Administrator has communicated to me is that this project needs to work
closely with and be supported by the Green Line Extension project. We see this project as creating major
potential for this neighborhood and sub-region. Our level of analysis has expanded to twenty additional
intersections and we will possibly add up to another ten as is needed and appropriate. We are flexible
and understand the regional factors in Cambridge, Charlestown and beyond.
Q: Steve Mulder (SM): I have a couple questions about the four lane and six lane alternatives. Most people
are in favor of the four lane alternative but it seems like your study is just about the space between the
Squires Bridge and the other bridge up at Medford Street? Would that be the only portion that is four
lanes? If you were looking at it through a corridor perspective then you would want the four lanes to go
from the Museum of Science to Route 16. There are projects at Assembly Square and Lechmere Station
that are not four lanes. Are you able to inform those other projects? I’m concerned about how traffic
would squeeze from six lanes to four lanes and then back again.
A: MT: The items we are discussing are the scope of work and the limits of work. We are identifying what
is going to work and where the appropriate place to stop is. The focus today is on grounding the viaduct
and creating a more livable context in place of the structure. We recognize that there are other issues
and we will continue to identify them and will have to make some decisions on how we address this.
Focusing on the overpass is the top priority. We are also prioritizing funding for the corridor and issues
associated with it during later phases. The scope of the project in relation to I-93 is something of which
we are not currently sure, but we are working on it. This is something I’ve been thinking about and we
recognize it as an issue. For now, the geographic scope of the project is not fully defined and we are
trying to identify the most cost-effective way to resolve this issue.
Q: Name Not Given (NNG): Why is McGrath Highway being redone now? It seems that money is being
invested in repairing the structure currently.
A: MT: The overpass was in need of repair simply to keep it safely open to traffic. Through the public
involvement process associated with those repairs it became clear that the community was interested in
a longer term solution.
C: NNG: The first community meeting for Grounding McGrath study was to repair the overpass.
A: MT: Thank you for the clarification. I am still getting up to speed with the history and volumes of
information. The way I understand it, the Administrator can chime in if I’m wrong, there were necessary
repairs that had to be made immediately.
A: FS: The overpass is deficient and we are responsible for public safety. Public safety is a necessity and
these short-term improvements are more costly than the savings but we need these improvements on the
structure.
Page 4
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
C: MT: That is exactly what I had in mind; thank you Frank.
Q: Ellen Riser (ER): I’m very happy the project is moving forward and I want to say that there is another
study going on about the Inner Belt and Brickbottom which has the idea of redoing the street grid. I live
in Somerville and cut through Joy Street to avoid Washington Street as much as possible. I think this
project will create new traffic patterns.
A: MT: That’s good information for us to have. As I just mentioned, I’m still familiarizing myself with all of
the work that’s been done before my coming to this project, but a big part of this new phase of the work
is addressing these issues adjacent to and further from the corridor. Thank you.
Q: Mark Chase (MC): I am a Somerville resident and lecturer at Tufts. I am excited you’re considering the
four lane option. My one concern is the reliance on models and I’m afraid you’re going to try and
allocate all the existing traffic to other streets in the area. There’s a lot of literature on “disappearing
traffic.” Currently the Longfellow is one lane. You don’t have to reallocate all of the existing traffic. Use
existing data from the Longfellow Bridge. Where did all those cars go? We managed to get down to
one lane. You can experiment on McGrath Highway by selectively removing lanes and converting space
into bicycle lanes. I’m a little worried that the fix is in and that the discussion of four lanes is just about
placating the community before you come back and say six lanes are needed.
A: GM: On any project we do, we go beyond the regional model and pure computer predictions. We don’t
just take those things at face value. We always double check to see if the scenario the machinery
presents us with actually makes sense in terms of our own experience and professional judgment. We
will check to see if there is a potential for the “disappearing traffic” phenomenon here, however, I would
caution you that there is a difference between a construction project like the Longfellow which changes
conditions for a defined period and planning for a long-term change to commuting patterns as we are in
this case.
Q: Tegin Teich (TT): I am a resident and member of Somerville Bicycle Committee and a transportation
planner. I strongly believe in the improvement and support of bicycle facilities and I’m glad to follow
Mark because I saw that analysis mentioned multi-modal portion. I was wondering if you could talk
about the process and degree of emphasis in addition to the traffic aspects of it.
A: GM: The multi-modal analysis is always changing and is somewhat controversial. We recently did a
project in Forest Hills where we spent a lot of time looking at bicycle and pedestrian level of service and
really trying to measure it from the human perspective. We spent time on questions like how close to
bicycle lanes or sidewalk to traffic and what does that mean as a bicyclist or pedestrian? You get credit
for being on a separate bicycle facility versus an on-road facility. So, in addition to our standard traffic
analysis, we’ll also be looking at LOS for other modes.
Q: Steve Bersu (SB): I’m on the Board of Directors of the Boston Cyclists Union and a Cambridge resident.
Relating to the bicycle aspect, there is exciting potential for an excellent bicycle corridor. Traffic can be
calmed and slowed down. The character can change from industrial in-between zones to a destination
that people want to be. The bicycle-share could be a healthy part of the traffic mix. I hope the Working
Group will represent bicycle advocacy groups and also public interconnections. I hope that you take the
future Grand Junction Path, Green Line Extension and community path into account.
A: GM: We plan to coordinate with those groups.
C: MT: MassDOT believes that it is important to have a Working Group that represents all stakeholders in
the area. We hope this will be a heavily used bicycle and pedestrian corridor so we would definitely
want to have bicycle advocates as part of our Working Group. Are there Working Group members
Page 5
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
here?2 You will receive a letter about participation in the renewed group later this summer. We expect
there to be three or four meetings.
Q: Lynn Weissman (LW): Hi my name is Lynn Weissman. I’m from Friends of the Community Path. It’s
exciting to see the overpass coming down. It’s also exciting to see that you’re upholding values of
Complete Streets, community improvement and continuity. I wanted to particularly talk about continuity,
LOS, vehicular measures, criteria and scoring systems. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
has scoring criteria for helping to decide which projects go through and LOS is a very tiny piece of that.
What sort of scoring systems are there? What would it take to continue this project all the way to I-93
and even just with an adjacent project? We wrote letters to MassDOT about the Gilman Street Project.
I’ve biked over this whole corridor with my family and we want it to be more accessible, walkable and
bikable. We want MassDOT to work directly with MassDOT projects, one of which is at 100%. We sent
comments about looking at cycletracks and non-cost prohibiting improvements. We were told, “No” and
“this wasn’t the time.” Now the project has expanded but nobody wrote back and told us. The public
comment period didn’t change with the change of scope. The projects are continuous and the Gilman
Street Project will be built sometime in the fall but contracts can be amended or changed. We want
better communication on the project and to be in the loop. We put effort in comment letters and want
responses. What would it take to expand project to I-93 including Gilman Street Project?
A: MT: I’m really not familiar with the Gillman Street project and I’d have to consult with the Project
Manager. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that their concern was about continuity of facility and the
short section of the bicycle accommodation and how that would work with the traffic present. This is an
assumption and I will look into it and follow-up. In terms of extending project limits I understand your
concern. We need to look at the highest priorities and the most cost-effective ways that we can stay
within the funds. You can do a lot of great things with just paint but we still need to look at it. There will
be a decision point when that occurs. In terms of multi-modal analysis, there are methodologies for
pedestrian and bicycle LOS. I’ve been making this a national issue with the American Association of
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). We’ve been having a dialogue about how to measure
and quantify good to great and how to represent that mode shift. I think this is something we’ll be
pioneering in Massachusetts.
A: GM: There are better ways to assess it. As an engineer and planner I’ve got myself in trouble with LOS
because it’s over simplified. We may say LOS but we’re trying to explain it beyond that for any given
mode.
Q: Jason Stockmann (JS): I am a board member of Boston Cyclists Union and live in East Cambridge. I
commend MassDOT for bringing the overpass down. You are fulfilling the commitment you made to
tripling biking and pedestrian mode share. We would love to see a four lane design moving forward
with cycle track infrastructure, turning lanes at Washington Street and keeping four lanes everywhere
else. We urge Somerville and MassDOT to work with groups like The HYM Investment Group, LLC (HYM).
At North Point they’re about to make a massive investment in the entire bicycle, pedestrian and motorist
experience. It would be a shame if it proceeded without being concurrent with the grounding project.
The missing link is the Squires Bridge. Livable Streets are working on low-cost proposal improvements
road diets, widening sidewalks, adding bollards and painted cycletracks. How do road diets cause
queuing? My final question is, does calling for a road diet mean residential streets would see traffic
diversions?
A: MT: Thank you again. You covered a lot in your question and we have a lot to cover in our own
research. Capacity is really the issue between four lanes and six lanes. Right now we are talking four
lanes versus six lanes as sort of an absolute, but there may be a mix where we have a five lane profile or
four lanes here and six lanes there. In this corridor, we have a lot of movements to accommodate and a
lot of other moving parts like the bicycles, pedestrians, and access to transit. This is a moving target,
and we have that in mind.
2
Here, several members of the audience raised their hands.
Page 6
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Q: Wig Zamore (WZ): Thank you for coming back so quickly. I took the photos that showed DCR and Mass
Highway and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that the overpass was in much worse shape
than the database suggested. This is the third patching since ten years ago. I feared that bringing this
to the public’s attention would cause deficiencies in community capable solution. Following that point,
Somerville can’t do a great job in community planning and redevelopment unless they’re at ground
level. This is what gives us the power to evolve the community in a sustainable manner. In regard to the
planning scope, it really should be river to river, in Cambridge and Somerville. We probably can’t cross
jurisdictions but thinking of the corridor between both rivers is a great way to think. A comment on
bicycle lanes; Ellen and I saw a lot of environmental epidemiology. I’m concerned about transportation
pollution and cardiovascular inflammation and health defects and it’s a really good idea to separate
bicycle lanes from travel lanes. It doesn’t matter if the roads are populated by cars or not, it’s still a bad
idea to combine them from a pollution standpoint. More separation helps and research was done at
Tufts about differences of exposure on Charles River path versus arterial paths in Boston. If you are able
to, then you should offer cyclist a healthy alternative. On that point, Grand Junction’s diesel trains
coupled with the proposed bicycle path is a really bad idea. This leads to lung cancer, class one
carcinogens, and black carbon, which is the second most potent greenhouse gas. Preserve the light-rail
along Grand Junction that can work with walking and bicycling.
A: MT: These are very important considerations. This is the early stage analysis of roadway capacity. Gary
and I have the outcome of the Health Impact assessment in mind. We agree that it’s important to
consider moving folks away from vehicular pollution. Another notable overpass de-elevation project that
MassDOT recently completed worked closely through the design with advisory group and similar issues
came up. There, we moved vehicles as far away from people as we could and created a vegetated
buffer between the modes. I’m excited about seeing this on the plan and we anticipate usable open
space with a multi-modal corridor. We are excited to advance the four lane alternative and like I said
before we are doing our best to incorporate the recommendations of the Health Impact Assessment to
provide a vegetated buffer and civic spaces to give you that sense of arrival.
Q: Tom Lamar (TL): Hi, I live in Winter Hill. I want to say that I appreciate you looking at the four lane
boulevard. Well-designed left-turn lanes can handle the traffic volume, even additional traffic in the
neighborhood. Personally, if it’s a choice between six lanes and more local traffic, I’ll take more traffic
on my street. Thank you for your consideration.
Q: Heather VanAllst (HV): I am happy to see that the four lane option is advancing. I wanted to make a
suggestion on the Working Group membership. There are a lot of great knowledgeable activists already
on that group, but we are still light on abutters and we can bring a different perspective. Please
consider recruiting additional abutters.
A: MT: Thank you for that comment. I’m not familiar with how the working group was composed during
the prior process or exactly who was on it, but we will be working with our public involvement
consultants, Nate Curtis and his team from Howard/Stein-Hudson, to reconstitute the working group
with both the former participants and new members to plug any holes that we see. Please do give Nate
your contact information before you leave tonight.
Q: Alyson Schultz (AS): Hi my name is Alyson Schultz and I am a Brickbottom resident. Are you using the
MBTA air studies from their environmental impact report? It seems like the data is already there, we
don’t need to reinvent it. I know this is a project that isn’t happening tomorrow but we are still currently
living with McGrath Highway and it’s lawless right now. There are speed limit issues, cars running red
lights, glass on sidewalks, horrible pedestrian access, and systematic neglect of the area that I would like
to make sure stays on the table. Even before it’s depressed, traffic calming would be terrific because
people drive too fast. I would recommend the four lane diet. Currently as a highway precedence is
given to cars going through Somerville. The lights are timed to move the traffic through which makes it
difficult for me to use it as a pedestrian. I use it as a local road, I have to enter McGrath, go over three
Page 7
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
lanes of traffic to come out to my destination. My son is learning how to drive and this is not a safe
place. I am for livable streets and a road diet.
A: MT: You have made some great points. In terms of air quality there is some information we can use but
it’s not necessarily applicable. We would use the CTPS regional air quality model and look at high
priority areas. The MBTA study may be informative but there needs to be new analysis. In terms of
existing conditions, the interim improvements should help a lot of the issues you raised. A lot of paint
and corridor reconstruction preservation that will improve these things. Lastly, the four lane alternative
is a serious topic for our discussion and we will place a priority on making it work. Saying that is a big
move for MassDOT. I’ve been with MassDOT for seven years and I’ve never heard us talk about
diversion. Before today, diversion, or negative growth, has only been an advocacy position. We’re
going to continue to look at it and are very serious about it.
C: GM: In terms of safety and project scope we will be looking at high crash locations and the types of
crashes we see there. We will be doing a three location Roadway Safety Audit (RSA) which will include a
multi-disciplinary team including local representatives. This team will look at the locations and help
inform the design. The team will also identify low-cost safety improvements, and signal timing focused
on improving safety.
Q: Robert McKinnon (RM): I’m resident of Walnut Street and a member of Union Square Neighbors.
MassDOT hasn’t always been well received around here and I appreciate you showing up. One
comment echoing others is, I think the success of the road diet will be driven by the comprehensiveness
of the scope people talked about river to river and I know this is echoing other comments but the true
success of the road diet will be driven by comprehensiveness. I have also written many comments to
MassDOT about the Gilman Street Project and I heard nothing back until the project was at 100%
design. The comments weren’t taken into consideration. Connectivity is so important. In terms of the
Gilman Street Project, the rationale was given as “we can’t do that here because it won’t connect to the
existing infrastructure.” Sooner or later you have to put the horse before the cart and the stake in the
ground. We have yet to see a McGrath Highway master plan. How are we going to align all these
projects?
Q: Debby Galef (DG): Hi I’m Debby Galef and I’m the Chair of the Cambridge Pedestrian Committee. I
attended the RSA for the O’Brien highway. I’m concerned about connectivity but mostly I’m concerned
about not that you’re not listening to others but that they’re not listening to you. They didn’t show any
interest in talking to Somerville. Obviously, MassDOT knows about that because there are
representatives there but they’re more advanced in their planning. It’s further along with North Point
and HYM and I’m concerned that whatever they do, and it’s not that the improvements aren’t wonderful,
but it’s not shrinking the growth very much and it’s horrible by the boulevard. I’m concerned that they
are going to do what they’re doing sooner than you get around to it and it’s going to be much bigger,
like eight lanes wide. Cycletracks may or may not be in their plan.
A: MT: I appreciate the input and will talk with Cambridge about this. I agree and think the success of our
project is that it integrates everything in a well-knit fashion. If there are no more comments then I’d like
to express my appreciation to everyone for coming out tonight. This was a very productive meeting.
Moving forward, I want to remind you that I am the Project Manager. You can contact me directly and
you can also contact Nathaniel Curtis. We are working on the website and are currently trying to
develop it. We will have a new source of information for people to go to and then we will have an
automated email stakeholder system. We have our sign-up sheets and by October we will have a
website up. If you are getting emails from the Grounding McGrath study, your emails will rollover and
you will continue to be in the loop. I’m looking forward to the next meeting and thank you all for
coming out this evening
Page 8
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Next Steps
During the summer and early fall, MassDOT will work with its project team to develop an initial set of traffic
projections related to the four and six lane alternatives for the proposed McCarthy Boulevard from both a
local and regional perspective. In terms of public involvement, the agency will work with its public
involvement consultant to reconstitute the working group and address any gaps in its composition. An initial
meeting of the working group is currently projected to take place in late October or early November of
2014.
Page 9
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 1: Meeting Attendees
First Name
Anne
Dennis
Joel
Steve
Ethan
Rob
Rachel
Teresa
Stephin
Matt
Mark
Ruani
Donny
Jason
Bill
Frank
Last Name
Arrowsmith
Baker
Bennett
Bercu
Britland
Buchanan
Burckart
Cardoso
Carrabino
Carty
Chase
Collins
Dailey
Debray
Deigan
DePaola
Sam
Debby
Tom
Natasha
Nick
Maryann
Karen
Elijah
Alex
Tom
JM
Benjamin
Lisa
David
Jim
Mark
Chris
Karen
Hayes
Steve
Steve
Justin
Gaver?
Denise
Elli
Jared
Mary
Alyson
Sarah
Jason
Pete
Elsa
Enyelstad
Galed
Garson
Gayl
Gross
Heuston
Holtman
Kaplan
Laffey
Lamar
Lambert
Leng
Lizard
Marcus
McGinnis
Mearchen
Mesarch
Molloy
Morrison
Mulder
Nutta
Page
Palmer
Provost
Reinese
Rose
Rosetti
Schultz
Spicer
Stockman
Sutton
Sze
Affiliation
Community resident
HNTB
Community resident
Boston Cyclists’ Union
MassDOT
Union Square Neighbors
Parsons Brinkerhoff
Community resident
Community resident
Community resident
Livable Streets
Community resident
MassDOT
GPI
City of Cambridge
MassDOT
Administrator – Highway Division
Community resident
Community resident
Community resident
Howard/Stein-Hudson
Howard/Stein-Hudson
Ward 2 Alderman
Community resident
SCATV
HYM
Community resident
Community resident
Community resident
Community resident
Community resident
Community resident
Community resident
Community resident
STEP
City of Somerville
Community resident
Livable Streets
SCATV
Community resident
State Representative
STEP
Office of Senator Jehlen
Community resident
Brickbottom/Artist
City of Somerville
Boston Cyclists’ Union
MassDOT
Agora
Page 10
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Tegin
Michael
Heather
Natalie
Lynn
Wig
Teich
Trepanier
VanAllt
Viena
Weissman
Zamore
Community resident
MassDOT
Community resident
Community resident
Friends of the Community Path
STEP
Page 11
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 2: Meeting Flip Charts – See Following Page
Page 12
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Page 13
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Page 14
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Page 15
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Page 16
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Page 17
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Appendix 3: Comments Received – See Following Page
Page 18
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Thank you, Nate, for offering to meet up before the meeting. I will try to come at around 6 pm to speak with
you.
I very much appreciate your offer to look at our proposal and try to integrate it into future design space for the
Squires Bridge and McGrath Boulevard.
-- Jason
On Jul 16, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis <ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com> wrote:
Good Afternoon Jason,
I hope this note finds you well and having a good day. Thank you so much for your inquiry. Your thoughts and
creativity regarding the Squires Bridge are definitely appreciated.
The goal of tomorrow night’s is to introduce the community to the next phase of the McCarthy/McGrath project.
We will have a lot of material to cover and the goal is to talk about what has been done to date, the mechanics of
the new project, what we want to accomplish and how we intend to accomplish it. After that, we want to give
maximum air time for community questions and comments about the new process so that everyone can develop a
full understanding of it since it is different than what has gone on thus far.
So, in light of all that, I’m going to respectfully decline your request to be placed on the agenda, not because your
input is not welcome, indeed it is, but because it’s at a more detailed level than where we will be tomorrow
evening. That said, if you can, please come to tomorrow night’s meeting a little early and find me. Most likely, I
will be working the sign-in desk. Bring your concept and we can take it directly to our engineering team so they
can work it into their thinking about the project.
Regards & Good Wishes,
-Nate
From: Jason Stockmann
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:57 PM
To: Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis
Subject: July 17 Grounding McGrath public meeting
Hello,
Is it possible to project Powerpoint slides to show visuals during public testimony at the MassDOT meeting
tomorrow? I have an alternative lane striping proposal for the Squires Bridge that I'd like to show the community
while I speak.
-- Jason
Thank you for your reply Nathaniel. I'm not sure if it will be me (I own a home on Boston Street a few hundred
feet from the overpass) or someone else representing Union Square Neighbors. We will be discussing and
recommending a representative at our next monthly meeting. It will likely be someone who also lives on Prospect
Hill.
Please let me know if we can provide any further information.
Page 19
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Best,
Tim Talun
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Nathaniel Cabral-Curtis <ncabral-curtis@hshassoc.com> wrote:
Good Morning Tim,
I hope this note finds you well and having a good start to your week. Thank you for your inquiry regarding the
McGrath Design working group. MassDOT is currently working to reconstitute this group out of a combination of
original participants and potentially some new members. As we think about new members, representation for
abutting neighborhoods is a logical direction for us to go. That said, we expect our first working group session in
October and we have some work to complete before we make final pronouncements as to the group’s exact
composition.
For now, I will thank you for contacting us and as we launch our discussions of group composition will note that
Union Square Neighbors has made a formal request to be on the taskforce. If your group were to be added,
would you be willing to commit to the meetings or would you recommend someone else?
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
Hello Nathaniel,
I'm writing on behalf of Union Square Neighbors, the recently formed neighborhood association in Union Square,
to request that you include a representative from our group on the Grounding McGrath Working Group. Many of
the members of Union Square Neighbors live on the streets immediately around the McGrath Highway and will be
directly and personally affected by what happens here. Neighbors are very interested in the Grounding McGrath
project, but with all that is underway in Union Square it is difficult for all who are interested to actively participate
and stay on top of the process. Our hope is to have a representative on the working group who can help keep
Page 20
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
neighbors up to date on what is happening as the project enters it's next phase, and also bring neighbors' input
back to the Working Group to help guide the transformation of the highway in the years to come.
Thank you for your consideration, and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like
to talk further.
Best,
Tim Talun
Chair, Union Square Neighbors
Page 21
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
From: Rob Buchanan [
]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 4:20 PM
To: Davey, Richard (DOT); DePaola, Frank (DOT)
Cc: Alex Epstein; Jackie Douglas; p
; Steven Nutter;
Britland, Ethan (DOT); Osimboni, Tracy (DOT); Frank.Susynski@state.ma.us; Trepanier, Michael (DOT);
Patricia.Jehlen@masenate.gov; Tim.Snyder@masenate.gov; Denise.Provost@mahouse.gov;
Timothy.Toomey@mahouse.gov; Pooja.Phaltankar@mahouse.gov; O'Dowd, Michael (DOT); Verseckes, Michael
(DOT); hmorrison@somervillema.gov; sspicer@somervillema.gov; m
; Sutton, Peter
(DOT)
Subject: Bike/Pedestrian Accommodations for Gilman Street Bridge project and adjacent McCarthy Overpass
project
August 22, 2014
Richard A. Davey, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer
Frank DePaola, Administrator, Highway Division
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Suite 3170
Boston, MA 02116
Re: Bike/Pedestrian Accommodations for Gilman Street Bridge project and the adjacent McCarthy Overpass project
Dear Secretary Davey and Administrator DePaola,
We are delighted to see MassDOT taking an active approach to the planning and design of the grounding of the McCarthy
Overpass. The agency’s early commitment to a McGrath corridor that is focused on the communities through which the
route passes is commendable and aligns well with its GreenDOT goals.
However, that same commitment has not been present in the adjacent Gilman Street bridge project. As advocates for the
community representing over 25,000 constituents, we are writing to request a revised lane marking design for the Gilman
Street Bridge project entailing four automobile travel lanes at 10.5 feet and protected cycle tracks. Because traffic here
regularly meets and exceeds 35 mph, it is imperative that bicyclists have protected bike lanes to protect them from
potential injuries and worse.
The MassDOT Project Development and Design Guide explicitly allows lane widths as narrow as 10 feet, which can be
readily seen on the BU Bridge and other recent projects. Our suggested revision for the Gilman Street Bridge project is
inexpensive, not particularly complicated, and can still be done within project construction timelines.
During construction, the Gilman Street bridge project will force the McGrath to be four lanes along the project scope. A
similar lane configuration will be implemented on the O’Brien Highway section at the new HYM developments and
Lechmere Station stops. The McCarthy Overpass grounding is also likely to be a four-lane configuration, which makes
sense, financially and from a contextual-design and engineering view.
Page 22
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Traffic volumes have continued to decrease over the past decade, and are projected to drop further with the soon to open
adjacent Green Line Extension stations and complementary Community Path. Four lanes are far more compatible for an
area with one of the highest residential densities in the country at more than 30,000 people per square mile -- twice the
average for Somerville. The McGrath corridor deeply affects the quality of life of children and families living next to a sixlane highway with little to no active-transportation opportunities in its design, even though GreenDOT goals specifically
call out for this in all MassDOT projects.
We believe there is an opportunity to modify plans to be more consistent with the MassDOT Project Development and
Design Guide, Somerville’s Complete Streets policy, and the GreenDOT mode shift goals. We request that you seriously
evaluate alternatives to the existing design. A four-lane configuration would provide much needed space for a protected
cycle track, an improved pedestrian experience by widening sidewalks, reducing crossing widths, and allow trees to be
planted along the route to reduce noise and mitigate emissions.
The new expanded scope of the Gilman Street bridge project (to Pearl Street on one end, and Medford Street on the other
end,) renders these proposed changes even more valuable to the community and the road users. This is especially
important since without notice to the public or further opportunity for public input, MassDOT expanded the scope of the
Gilman Street Bridge project some months after the June 2013 comment period for the initial 100 percent design, and
then advanced the Gilman Street Bridge project from the design phase to the construction phase. Because of this
expanded scope, now is the time to implement a cycle-track along McGrath within the project boundaries.
Our concerns with the Gilman Street Bridge project and the McGrath Highway/Boulevard corridor more generally is that
the planned roadway uses continue to prioritize the convenience and speed of people traveling by motor vehicle over the
safety and lives of roadway users traveling by foot or bicycle. This motor vehicle orientation is particularly problematic as
the corridor is wonderfully poised for significant mode shifts in the near future as people of all ages and abilities seek to
walk and bike to nearby connections of the planned Green Line and Community Path Extensions (GLX and CPX). In fact,
the intersection of McGrath and Medford Streets, which directly abuts the scope of the Gilman Street Bridge project, will
be the location of a major access point to the CPX.
Given these changing use patterns and MassDOT mode shift goals, we request improvements to the design plans for the
Gilman Street Bridge project, which currently include no formal bicycle infrastructure other than an unprotected road
shoulder. Additionally, there is no plan to provide any buffer between motor vehicles and people who are traveling by
bicycle. This perpetuates a dangerous roadway design that puts the safety of the non-motorized users at serious risk.
In our advocacy for improved bicycle infrastructure along this segment of McGrath, we have heard several reasons from
MassDOT for not providing safe, cost-effective accommodation to McGrath users on bicycle. However, we offer
compelling responses to those reasons:
1. MassDOT representatives have stated that installation of bike infrastructure along this segment of
McGrath would be non-continuous with segments of McGrath to the north and south and bicycle users
would be left confused by the inconsistent roadway accommodation. We believe this rationale is not
grounded in the practical realities of implementing roadway improvements in a corridor. Change has to
begin somewhere, and this is the immediate project opportunity before us. We therefore urge
MassDOT to leverage this first re-construction initiative to set the precedent and begin transforming
McGrath from an outdated urban highway to a street that serves the whole community. There are
examples of non-continuous bicycle infrastructure throughout the metro region, and we do not see
this as a reason or a barrier to begin moving forward with these investments now. In fact, some people
travel by bike on McGrath today because it is a key north-south corridor. The existing infrastructure
and current design invites serious personal injury and should be addressed under any circumstance.
2. MassDOT has indicated that implementing bike infrastructure improvements along the segment of
McGrath is not feasible because safety concerns dictate that vehicle lane widths cannot be narrower
Page 23
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
than 11 feet. This logic lacks merit for two reasons. One, it prioritizes the safety of individuals traveling
in vehicles over individuals who are not traveling within the protective layer a vehicle provides. Nonmotorized roadway users merit enhanced -- not lesser -- protections. Second, narrower lane widths
have been shown to increase safety for all roadway users, particularly in corridors of relatively straightline travel. Vehicles travel more slowly because the roadway is engineered for safer speeds. Narrower
vehicle lanes, which have been implemented on other major roadways in Massachusetts, can and do
provide both the safety and vehicle throughput that engineers seek on McGrath.
3. MassDOT has indicated a reluctance to implement bicycle infrastructure along this segment of
McGrath out of concern that it will not align with the eventual outcome of the McGrath Boulevard
project. The Boulevard planning effort has yet to establish a firm project scope area. We see either of
two possible outcomes occurring from this situation: 1) the Boulevard planning effort will include the
McGrath segment from Medford to Pearl Streets, in which case the roadway design will have to be
revisited sooner or later; or, 2) this segment will not be included in the Boulevard planning effort, in
which case the Gilman Street Bridge project may be the only opportunity to implement bike
infrastructure in the near future.
Thank you for your ongoing attention to this matter and your continued commitment to MassDOT’s
Healthy Transportation Policy Directive. We would be pleased to meet with you and your staff to
discuss our concerns and this alternative, and we invite you to contact us to schedule such a meeting
at your earliest convenience. You may reach out to Rob Buchanan
) to
help find a time that works for our schedules.
Sincerely,
Rob Buchanan, Somerville Resident
Jackie Douglas, Executive Director, Livable Streets Alliance
Alex Epstein, Somerville Resident
Lynn Weissman, Co-President, Friends of the Community Path
Alan Moore, Co-President, Friends of the Community Path
Pete Stidman, Boston Cyclists Union
CC:
Ethan.britland@state.ma.us
Tracy.Osimboni@state.ma.us
Frank.Susynski@state.ma.us
Page 24
Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.
Michael.Trepanier@state.ma.us
Patricia.Jehlen@masenate.gov
Tim.Snyder@masenate.gov
Denise.Provost@mahouse.gov
Timothy.Toomey@mahouse.gov
Pooja.Phaltankar@mahouse.gov
michael.o'dowd@state.ma.us
michael.verseckes@state.ma.us
hmorrison@somervillema.gov
sspicer@somervillema.gov
Peter.Sutton@dot.state.ma.us
Page 25