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