MassDCR Archives - Page 2 of 5

MassDCR Birmingham Parkway Comment Letter

April 7, 2021

Jeff Parenti
Deputy Chief Engineer, Division of Planning and Engineering
Department of Conservation and Recreation

Re: DCR Birmingham Parkway

Dear Jeff:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments at this early stage of project development. We are very excited to see DCR’s approach that improves safety for people walking and biking, that repurposes significant areas of pavement into enlarged parklands, and that is designed to slow and tame traffic.

We have several overall observations about the designs, as well as more detailed comments organized into three areas as they were presented during the March 25th public meeting.

Overall comments

As we have commented during several DCR design processes, we believe that multilane, relatively high speed traffic roundabouts are less safe for people walking than signalized intersections. We are especially wary of multilane roundabouts where pedestrians can face a double threat when crossing the approaches and exits. People with low or no vision are particularly disadvantaged at these uncontrolled crossings. In this location, less than a mile from the Perkins School for the Blind, this is a specially cogent issue. We urge DCR to refrain from considering multilane roundabouts. Tight, traffic calming mini-roundabouts (see MassDOT Guidelines for the Planning and Design of Roundabouts page 11) on VERY low volume, low speed neighborhood streets where sharp turning angles are maintained (primary vehicle movement is not essentially a straight-through path) may be safe.
We urge DCR to provide separate walking and bicycling paths wherever there is the space to do so. The speeds of walkers and bicyclists are quite different, and as the number of cycling commuters increases, the conflicts between these two modes are becoming more and more pronounced. In particular, the Birmingham Parkway project area presents ample space for separate paths. This project area includes the Dr. Paul Dudley White Bike Path which is a heavily used bike commuter route so separation is even more important.

The “Eye”

Alternative 1A is our preferred approach in this area because it:

Simplifies, rationalizes and signalizes the intersections (and does not use a multilane roundabout).
Returns significant usable square footage to the parkland along the river.
If better access to the recreation area at the old pool site is deemed to be important for its future use, Alternative 1D could be a reasonable approach.

We suggest considering several design details as the project advances:

Add pedestrian safety refuge islands where the crossing distances are long.
Tighten up turning radii wherever possible, particularly on those approaches where trucks and buses are not permitted to travel.
Ensure that the signal timing is set to allow fully adequate crossings times for walkers of all ages.

Parkway

Alternative 2B is our preferred approach in this area because it:

Maximizes the amount of land returned to park and active transportation use.
Re-uses the existing pavement in an efficient manner.
Will help to calm traffic by having two-way traffic.

We suggest considering several design details as the project advances.

Reduce the pavement and lane width of the roadway to help calm traffic.
As noted above, provide separate walking and biking paths.

Secondary Intersections

The approach described at the meeting of calming traffic, providing signalized intersections that will provide WALK phases for pedestrians, and reducing the amount of paving all seem appropriate. We look forward to seeing the design concepts as they are developed later in the project.

We look forward to seeing the next iteration of the project concept.

Best regards,

Stacey Beuttell, Executive Director
Wendy Landman, Senior Policy Advisor

Hammond Pond Parkway Comment Letter

February 28, 2021

Jeffrey R. Parenti, Program Manager
Department of Conservation and Recreation
251 Causeway St.
Boston, MA 02114

Re: Hammond Pond Parkway

Dear Mr. Parenti:

WalkBoston reviews public and private projects for their potential impacts on pedestrian activity throughout the region and much of Massachusetts.

Hammond Pond Parkway is an approximately two-mile long corridor that connects Beacon Street at its northern end to Horace James Circle near Route 9 at its southern end. It is presently a multi-lane roadway serving the commercial area around the Chestnut Hill Mall at Route 9 and bisects conservation areas for much of its route. Existing pedestrian access is limited to the Route 9 area and there are no bicycle accommodations.

The proposal is to reduce travel lanes from four to two lanes above the shopping mall and to create a shared use path for bicycles and pedestrians constructed to provide ADA compliant access, built on the west side of the roadway. We applaud the reduction of pavement, the use of narrower lanes for traffic and the construction of a facility that will enhance pedestrian access.

We are concerned that the proposed 12’ path is too narrow for shared use by pedestrians and cyclists, and may be somewhat hazardous – especially for pedestrians. If the path is too narrow, cyclists on the downhill slope may reach speeds that would conflict with the safety of pedestrians on the path. To correct this difficulty, it would be appropriate to consider separate paths for bikes and pedestrians, with a narrower pedestrian path designed to be unattractive to cyclists, perhaps by using a stone dust surface.

Our opinion is that separate lanes for bikes and pedestrians are appropriate to accommodate anticipated high volumes and to assure the safety of people walking and people biking. If such separate lanes are infeasible, the proposed path should be as wide as possible, with pavement paint and signs alerting bicyclists that there are slower moving pedestrians on the single shared use path. At a minimum, a shared use path would need to be at least 14 feet wide.

In addition, there should be careful consideration of any unsignalized crossings for pedestrians in this new plan for the area.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the project. If you have questions do not hesitate to call us.

Sincerely,

Stacey Beuttell Bob Sloane
Executive Director Senior Planner

Dorchester Bay City Comment Letter

December 10, 2020
Director Brian Golden
Boston Planning and Development Agency
Attn via email: Aisling Kerr

Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn via email: Erin Flaherty

Re: Dorchester Bay City (EEA# 16277)

Dear Secretary Theoharides and Director Golden:

Dorchester Bay City has the potential to transform a significant site from a largely vacant expanse of asphalt into a vibrant place that draws people from across Boston and the region. Because the ground lease for the property will provide funding for UMass Boston, the site also carries with it an opportunity to strengthen the City’s most important public university.

WalkBoston has reviewed the ENF and PNF with the knowledge that there is a great deal more planning and design to come. We hope that our comments and questions will help to ensure that the scope for the EIR and PIR will help to make the project truly walkable for all.

We also hope that our comments will help to ensure that the proponents, other nearby development teams, and City and State public agencies come together to design and execute the on and off-site infrastructure needed to bring the site’s promise to fruition. The fact that the City’s CAC has been charged with thinking about the benefits, impacts and public infrastructure needs of a collection of projects is a hopeful sign that this bigger picture planning and investment will occur.

Our comments are focused on four key questions:

How will Dorchester Bay City (DBC) achieve the walking connections to the Red Line needed to achieve the mode split envisioned – with relatively low levels of vehicle use and high levels of walking and transit use?
How can DBC be more robustly connected to its immediate and more distant Dorchester neighbors?
What role and responsibility should DBC take in resolving the significant transportation needs that the project’s success is contingent on?
How can some of the site’s more detailed designs ensure that people walking are comfortable, safe and well served by the project itself.

JFK/UMass Station Walking Connections

The documents describe the poor and unsafe walking connection between the site and the Red Line Station, but level of intervention described to improve the connection is not commensurate with mode share projection and the need of DBC’s occupants. The walking time estimates (shown with concentric circles) do not reflect the actual routes or the psychological barriers posed by the very busy roads and intersections that must be navigated. Notwithstanding the improvements proposed for Mt. Vernon Street, WalkBoston remains concerned that the quality of the walking environment between the site and the MBTA station will not be attractive enough to generate the substantial transit and pedestrian mode splits that are projected (and which are needed to meet the City’s and State’s GHG targets as well as to prevent ever worsening congestion).

We urge the proponent (along with DCR and other public agencies) to think very creatively about this issue and to develop design interventions for the Mt. Vernon Street/Morrissey Boulevard at-grade and underpass intersections that are transformative.
We urge DBC to also look at possible walking connections via K Circle and Columbia Road which may be a shorter and more direct walk for some DBC users. The plans being developed for Day Boulevard Extension and for access to the Boston Teacher’s Union Building (5^th Street on Figure 1-32 in the PNF) might serve as a starting point for that investigation.
As the project plans move ahead, the proponent should also provide a detailed marketing and program plan that will help to achieve the mode splits that have been shown in the ENF and PNF, including a reduction in the number of parking spaces proposed.

Neighborhood Connections

DBC should be connected to its neighbors and to Dorchester. WalkBoston is concerned that DBC will create an island of shiny buildings not connected to their neighbors or the rest of the City.

Harbor Point Walking Connection – The grading plans that are proposed to achieve the needed resiliency to ocean level rise will create a grade separation between Harbor Point and DBC. We request that the proponent provide more design details to describe how the physical and neighborly connection will be made between the sites.
UMass Walking Connection – UMass is only a five -minute walk from many parts of the DBC site. We ask that the project design team explore ways in which this connection can be made attractive and explicitly help to build a connection between the two.
Dorchester, Moakley Park, Carson Beach Connections –We understand that resolution of the design for Morrissey Boulevard and K Circle lies in the hands of state agencies and will be enormously important to these connection issues. But we urge the proponent to delve deeply into design ideas that could help make the walking connections robust. For example:
- What wonderful walking path and Day Boulevard crossing could connect DBC to Moakley Park?
- Are there improvements to walking connections via K Circle and Columbia Road that would also continue under the Southeast Expressway to make the walk to Dorchester Ave and beyond significantly more pleasant and fully accessible?

Role and responsibility of DBC in resolving the significant transportation projects

There are very big off site issues that need to be addressed to make this project really work. The proponent acknowledges that the infrastructure needs to match climate resiliency and the scale of the development that is coming on this site and nearby. The projects include JFK/UMass station and service; Morrissey Boulevard, K Circle and Day Boulevard that are re-built as a climate-resilient gateways that serve all modes.

We ask that DBC describe the level of commitment that they will provide to get these projects to successful implementation that goes beyond promises to collaborate and includes firmer commitments in terms of timing, leadership in bringing all parties to the table and funding.

Design Details

We understand that the PNF and ENF show very early stages of design, and ask that the following walking and walkability questions be addressed in greater detail in the DEIR and DPIR.

Provide separated walking and biking routes.
De-emphasize vehicles throughout the project site – slow them down, make them feel like intruders who have been granted access on good behavior.
Provide active places for playing, basketball etc. not just landscaping as a forecourt to buildings. DBC should achieve the lived-in, well-used feel of a neighborhood that feels like a place for everyone.
Re-examine the proximity of Building A to Carson Beach, which is public open space and should not feel privatized in any way.
Look in a very fine grained way at garage entries and exits, service and loading areas etc. to ensure that they are safe and gracious for people walking.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this significant and important development which will occupy on of Boston’s most wonderful sites.

We look forward to working with the DBC Team, the community and City and State agencies to help ensure that a wonderful project is built.

Sincerely,

Stacey Beuttell Wendy Landman
Executive Director Senior Policy Advisor

WalkBoston Comments on DCR Arborway Parkways Improvement Project

November 6, 2020

Jeffrey R. Parenti, Program Manager
DCR
Division of Planning and Engineering
251 Causeway St.
Boston, MA 02114

Re: WalkBoston Comments on the DCR Arborway Parkways Improvement Project

Dear Jeff:

WalkBoston is enthusiastic about the direction that DCR is taking for the Arborway Improvement Project, both the range of choices that you have shown and the approach of providing opportunities for extensive public comments and input well before any decisions have been made about the project design. We look forward to working with you and the design team to arrive at a truly transformative design for this beautiful but dangerous piece of the Emerald Necklace.

Our comments are framed from the standpoint of design options and operations and are therefore not focused on the specific concepts that have been illustrated to date. As you and the designers have noted, the drawings are indicative of design approaches rather than design specifics.

We applaud the Common Features proposed in all three alternatives as outlined on the project website, including: the focus on safety for all modes, vehicle speed reduction throughout, increase in the amount of parkland and reduction in the amount of pavement, and special care given to the landscape design and trees along the corridor.
We understand that the project is still in its early phases of planning and design, but echo the comments at the public meeting that the travel data for all modes is needed to better understand the pros and cons of each option. We caution that pedestrian and bike volumes will likely be understated if existing conditions are the baseline because so many walkers and cyclists avoid this portion of the Arborway in its present configuration. We hope that DCR and the consultant team can provide some understanding of how future conditions might reflect the likely increase in pedestrian and cyclist use of the project area.
We believe that separate walking and biking paths must be provided throughout the project area. The Arborway is an important bike commuting corridor, and mixing pedestrians and commuting (higher speed) bicyclists reduces the safety and comfort for both groups. Once the improvements to the Arborway are made, we believe that the corridor will see significant increases in both pedestrian and bike usage.
We like the introduction of a signalized pedestrian crossing between Kelley and Murray Circles in Alternatives B and C, and think it is an effective way of slowing traffic and making it clear to drivers that this is an area where there will be many pedestrians and cyclists.
We believe that eliminating the traffic circles at Murray and Kelley Circle will provide significant safety improvements for both pedestrians and bicyclists. As noted in MassDOT’s September 2020 Guidelines for the Planning and Design of Roundabouts, locations specifically called out as places where “roundabouts may not be advantageous” include those with “intersections with a heavy concentration of pedestrians and bicyclists,” and “intersections with acute angles between approaches.” Since the Arborway project is being specifically designed to address pedestrian and bicycle safety, and because its geometry may pose problems, we believe that the elimination of the traffic circles is an important element of project design.
While the different concepts show improved pedestrian crossings in many locations, we are concerned that there are still quite a few unsignalized slip lane crossings that remain in each of the alternatives. Significant design features, and possibly signals, will be needed to make these crossings safe for walkers and bicyclists.

In addition to our comments on the concepts and the broad conversation that DCR is undertaking, we also urge DCR to engage in more detailed conversations and outreach with the neighbors directly adjacent to the project whose travel patterns will be affected by the changes to the Arborway. We know that there is a long history of high concern by neighbors, and hope that intensive outreach can both answer questions and reduce anxiety about potential changes.

WalkBoston looks forward to continuing to work with you on this exciting project, and we also look forward to walking safely along a rejuvenated part of the Emerald Necklace from Jamaica Pond to Forest Hills in the (relatively) near future.

Sincerely,

Stacey Beuttell, Executive Director

Wendy Landman, Senior Policy Advisor

Cc: Nate Lash, nlash@hshassoc.com

Joint comment letter regarding Arborway Parkways Improvement Project

Department of Conservation and Recreation
Office of Public Outreach
251 Causeway St 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02114

CC: Senator Chang-Diaz, Representative Nika Elugardo, Representative Liz Malia, City Councilor Matt O’Malley, Chief of Streets Chris Osgood

July 10, 2020

Dear Mr. Jeff Parenti and DCR staff,

Thank you for hosting another meeting concerning the Arborway Parkway Improvements Project We are glad that DCR is prioritizing this project and dedicating time and money to implementing short-term improvements and embarking on a rapid “long-term” process to dramatically improve the way the Arborway functions for vulnerable road users, especially in Murray Circle and improve park access for all.

In addition to the comments we provided in December 2019 and this spring, we propose the following suggestions to the short-term improvements and overall planning process from the meeting on June 24:

1) Changes to the proposed short-term improvements

We are pleased to see an aggressive timeline to have a design by the start of 2021 and construction to begin in 2021 — don’t let up! However, we are concerned about short-term bike accommodations not being implemented this year. We want to be sure this opportunity is used to create a safe, connected route to and through the Emerald Necklace Parks. As stated in our previous letter last December, short-term improvements should calm traffic and reduce crashes while also encouraging greater usage by people walking and biking. Toward that end, we reiterate our request for short-term improvements to include a lane removal on the carriage roads between Murray and Kelley Circles to accommodate a physically separated bike lane in the reclaimed space. We also remain concerned about the lack of a plan to improve safety for people biking through Murray Circle. Murray Circle is a critical gap in the network, and is plagued by crashes that impact safety of all road users.

2) Concern About CTPS Modeling Projections

We are concerned that this project is planning to accommodate an increase in vehicular traffic despite a 2019 study showing a decrease in daily traffic volumes since 2014, and despite Boston and Massachusetts’ goals to shift mode share away from personal vehicles.

In last month’s meeting about this project, DCR cited a CTPS study showing a slight increase in morning traffic. However, that same study found a decrease in evening traffic. As a result, we are deeply skeptical of the CTPS model projecting an increase in overall volume from 2020-2030. We would like to remind you that traffic models have again and again overestimated future volume. In one notable example, in 2018 CTPS projected that inbound traffic on the Longfellow Bridge would double from pre-construction levels once the bridge fully reopened that year; in reality, traffic volumes fell by almost 30% during the morning rush hour relative to 2008. The projection for outbound traffic was even further off-base. CTPS estimated a morning rush of 2,121 vehicles — nearly five times more than the actual peak of 442 measured in September 2018. We also would like to remind you that we must build for the future we want to see! Designing this road to accommodate more traffic will only create more induced demand for driving at a time when that’s the last thing needed on Boston’s already congested roadways.

As you move forward conducting traffic studies, we encourage you and the consultant team to not only consider current vehicle demand to predict future behavior, but to take into consideration that a design that encourages walking/biking can actually get people out of their cars. Both the Commonwealth, under the Global Warming Solutions Act, and the City of Boston have ambitious goals (e.g., Boston reducing emissions and car traffic in half by 2030) that relate to reducing the number of cars on the roads. Emissions from the transportation sector have stayed steady in the state and are not meeting the reduction goals set; as a State agency who has custody and control of the roadways, DCR must be a critical partner in meeting these goals.

3) A robust public engagement process

Especially given the history of previous planning processes for the Arborway and the frustrations expressed by the public at the first meeting, we suggest extra communication and time with the public and believe that this will lead to the most successful process and outcome. We appreciate, for example, the robust public comment period held during the first meeting and are glad to hear that there is a communications and facilitation team for meetings moving forward.

We ask for a publication of a timeline for the project that outlines expected meetings, other public engagement opportunities and milestones (25% design, construction, etc) as soon as possible and for you to stick to the promised dates and timelines. We strongly feel that this will go a long way in building trust and transparency with area-residents. We hope the process is as concise as possible and includes regular communication so residents continue to engage productively in the planning and discussion.

Finally, we suggest including walks — which can be planned in a way to allow for safe social distancing — as a public engagement tool. We have seen that people who currently only drive through the area have a very different understanding of the safety and connectivity needs when walking or riding a bike there.

4) Coordination

a. Given resident concerns about traffic being diverted to side streets, we suggest including those neighborhood side streets in Jamaica Hills and the Jamaica Pond neighborhood in traffic studies and projected traffic patterns to demonstrate to residents the hopefully minimal impact it will have on their streets.

b. Thank you for the coordination and communication you have had with the City of Boston around this project. We hope this will continue so the City can partner around implementing some traffic calming at intersections or side streets that will be impacted.

c. We understand that Centre/Walter St and Arborway are proceeding at the same time. We ask that DCR consider the impact one project will have on the other and ensure that both consultant teams are sharing information and plans. We ask that public meetings on either project share consolidated updates on the other related process.

5) Other overall comments

We are glad to see one of the goals of this project is to “Create a continuous and comfortable bicycle and pedestrian connection between the Arboretum and Pond”. We ask that the bicycle facilities be physically separated the entire length, regardless of whether they are a shared-use path, off-road or on-road facility. Protected or physically separated bike lanes have been shown to improve safety for not only people who bike, but for all road users. A 2019 study by researchers at the University of Colorado Denver and the University of New Mexico found protected bike lanes reduced injury risk to cyclists by 90%, while reducing fatal crashes overall by 44%. Moreover, countless studies have found that a majority of Americans are interested in biking, yet the primary reason why people don’t bike is the fear of being hit by a car. To create a truly “comfortable” bike route that encourages many more people to ride bikes, you must implement protected/separated bike lanes.

Thank you for your consideration of our suggestions. We look forward to continuing to work together around our shared goals for this project.

Becca Wolfson Boston Cyclists Union
Ambar Johnson, LivableStreets Alliance
Brendan Kearney, WalkBoston