path Archives - WalkMassachusetts

WalkBoston Comments on the GLX and the Community Path – March 15, 2016

March 15, 2016
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
10 Park Plaza, Room 4150
Boston, MA 02116

Attention: MassDOT Board of Directors
MBTA Fiscal Management and Control Board
GLX Interim Project Manager Jack Wright
Assistant Secretary for Policy Coordination Katherine Fichter

RE: GLX and the Community Path

WalkBoston has worked for over 25 years to promote improvements to pedestrian facilities throughout the state and region. We strongly believe that the proposed Community Path adjacent to the Green Line Extension in Somerville and Medford is an essential element to the successful operation of the extension. The path through this corridor is an integral part of the project that will help it to prosper and serve its riders well, especially when the need is reinforced by the lack of parking at the stations.

The Community Path is essential for the GLX to fully meet its potential in serving the residents of this corridor. It will function as the principal access route to and from the stations for walkers and cyclists, as it will be a safe and protected means of access between residences and the doors of the light rail vehicles. The same levels of access cannot be provided solely by relying on existing streets, which are frequently less direct for users. The safety of walkers is also improved by using routes that are not shared with vehicles.

We urge consideration all possible ways to fund the path and include it an integral part of the construction of this extension. Joint construction is the most cost-effective approach to construction, as the transit project and the Community Path share a common right-of-way and many elements of infrastructure, Cutbacks in the GLX project should not include reducing the number or safety of available routes of access for transit patrons going to or from the stations.

Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on this project.

Sincerely.

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

————————————————————————————————
Join WalkBoston’s Mailing List to keep up to date on advocacy issues.

Like our work? Support WalkBoston – Donate Now!
Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook

Path Repaving Input List for DCR

We have it on good authority that Massachusetts will one day emerge from winter. The Boston Cyclists Union has been working with the DCR on a great opportunity to give feedback on their path repaving work. This is a chance for runners and walkers to help target repair work. With spring marathons around the corner, runners cover many miles and know the pain points!

Please use the form below to point out opportunities for repair in your area and PLEASE BE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE. You can submit sections separately; if you ask for the “Charles River Paths” we are far less likely to get action than if you call out the worst sections. When in doubt, submit. If it’s in a different jurisdiction they will let you know after sorting through the data. (Your name and number is attached so that they can get back to you if need be.)

For reference, DCR owned paths: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dcr/massparks/recreational-activities/biking-paths-and-trails.html

DCR snow management plan http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/dcr_snow_priority.php

Thank you for your help. Please share this with other walkers, runners and cyclists that may have feedback to offer!

Loading…

Comments on the Single Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver Line Gateway Proposal – MEPA# 15124

May 9, 2014

Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Rick Bourre’
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Single Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver Line Gateway Proposal – MEPA# 15124

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Single Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver Line Gateway Bus Rapid Transit proposal. The new MBTA service, which will run on a separate right-of-way between Everett Avenue and Eastern Avenue with connections through East Boston, will provide access between Chelsea and South Station and the Seaport District of Boston.

The proposal includes very positive improvements for the City of Chelsea, with significantly improved transit connections to downtown and the airport. Stations are pleasantly and attractively designed, with raised platform floors that align with the floors of the Silver Line Gateway buses, thus providing easily accessible service. Landscaping is to be added along the shared use path and the BRT where feasible, improving the route as a pleasant walking facility. The MBTA has planned for off-bus fare collection to speed the boarding of buses and reduce fare collection procedures on-board each bus.

Overall, the proposal is a very positive addition to the MBTA network of high-capacity services. However, some questions need to be addressed based on our review of the current plan:

1. The discontinuity of the shared use path may affect good pedestrian access to each of the stations. The proposed shared use path parallels the route of the BRT buses between Eastern Avenue up to Broadway. West of Broadway, there are some parallel sidewalks, but the path itself is not continuous. It would be useful for the MBTA and the City to consider longer-range goals for the planned walkway and not preclude future extensions to the walking route. For instance, the walkway might be extended from Arlington Street to Everett Avenue. Such a continuation of the path would provide direct access by foot to the commuter rail station at Everett Avenue. A continuation of the path would also afford some recreational uses of the path by both pedestrians and bicyclists.

2. At the Everett Avenue terminus of the BRT, pedestrian connections are provided to both the BRT terminal station and the new commuter rail station. However, there are presently no nearby crosswalks to help pedestrians cross Everett Avenue near the turnaround loop of the BRT. The proposed narrowing of Everett Avenue at this location would be a good location for a crosswalk. Otherwise, the nearest crosswalks appear at Spruce Street – 400 feet to the south, and Carter Street – 400 feet to the north. These distances are excessive for most pedestrians. An Everett Avenue crosswalk at the entrance to the BRT and commuter rail stations would be appropriate and useful, and should include a pedestrian phase of the proposed traffic signal at this location.

3. A similar crosswalk protected by a proposed signal would be appropriate at the crossing of the rail line and the BRT on Spruce Street. A pedestrian phase should be added to this signal.

4. At the Arlington/6th Street crossing, which is called the Downtown Chelsea station, the proposal calls for narrowing streets and instituting a one-way pattern on two of those streets going away from the rail tracks and the BRT route. The narrower streets will make pedestrian crossings safer. The proposed traffic signal should include a pedestrian phase to assure safe crossings to get to the station.

5. Figure 2.2-13, which details the Arlington/6th Street crossing, shows a concrete sidewalk on the south side of the BRT station platform. Figure 2.2-14 indicates that the sidewalk reaches the Washington Street Station, which is about 150 feet away. Completing this connection would be useful for full pedestrian access through the corridor, and should include wayfinding signs to help pedestrians reach the station.

6. Lighting the way for pedestrians is important. Many riders will be using the BRT service after dark, particularly in the winter. If the walking route is not well lit riders may be discouraged from using the stations because of safety concerns, especially for people traveling alone during the times of day when there may be few other people nearby.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please feel free to contact us with questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

——————————————————————————————————————-
Join our Mailing List to keep up to date on advocacy issues.

Like our work? Support WalkBoston – Donate Now!
Connect with us on Twitter and Facebook

Comments on Charles River Basin Connectivity Study

December 16, 2013

Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: Dan Driscoll
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Charles River Basin Connectivity Study

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Charles River Basin Pedestrian and Bicycle Study for Pathways and Bridges, the so-called Connectivity Study. Our comments arise from the document and from the recent presentation of the study to the public.

The Connectivity Study is very exciting work, as it assembles the issues of movement along the basin very effectively, and points out the possibilities for positive changes in the paths, walkways and running facilities along the River. DCR should be very proud of this feat, and should proceed into implementation of priority aspects of the planning effort as soon as possible.

We were particularly heartened by the Study’s general recommendations for the Basin: “DCR should strive to develop a 10’-wide paved path with a parallel soft-surface trail or shoulder for runners (emphasis added) where possible….. In “pinch point” conditions, a minimum 8’ paved path, with 3’ shoulder on one side, should be incorporated.”

This acceptance of separate paths for runners and joggers – and also pedestrians – is a very important aspect of the planning and represents continuity with past planning efforts.

In the 2002 Master Plan for the Basin a stated goal was to provide safe and continuous bicycle, skating, and pedestrian access along the entire length of the Basin, with a “separation of footpaths and bike paths where doing so will not create excessive pavement near the shoreline.” The master plan also called for reducing congestion and minimizing conflicts on the paths (presumably conflicts between bicycles and pedestrians).

In 2005, users were surveyed to discern attitudes about the river facilities. The survey asked respondents to list and rank how they used the Basin. The top twelve responses were, in order of frequency:
• Walking for pleasure
• Attending concerts or events
• Relaxing in the park
• Driving on the parkways
• Running or walking for exercise
• Biking
• Using Riverbend Park in summer
• Picnicking
• Enjoying the outdoors with children
• Inline skating
• Walkathons
• Informal sports

More than sixty percent of those surveyed used the Basin more than once a week for strolling, relaxing, attending concerts or attending special events. Eighty-six percent asked for easier and safer pedestrian access to the Basin, and an equal proportion recommended separating pathways by user types. Users also frequently called for more benches and places to sit, more wildlife areas, more park rangers, and more convenient parking.

If the Continuity Study can be regarded as an update to the Master Plan, we think it may be leaving out some of the emphasis that the authors of the two planning documents clearly stated. In particular, the separation of bicycle and pedestrian paths does not seem to be as important an aspect of the plan as the users of the park suggested to be of high importance. WalkBoston believes that path separation should be integral to all elements of the plan, as it will help deal with the many problems inherent in an area that is so heavily used with so many potential conflicts between users.

We urge consideration of the following:
1. The elimination of conflicts between users of the paths should be uppermost as a safety precaution. Conflicts arise where bicycle traffic is moving rapidly through areas where pedestrians are strolling, causing dangerous situations for all. The conflicts are particularly difficult for commuting cyclists, some of whom are loath to slow down.

2. An expansion of the definition of ‘multi-use path’ would open options that are not clearly included at the moment. Multi-use pathways in the Basin should have an element – probably a parallel, separate path – that would cater to slow-moving walkers, runners and joggers. The foot traffic path could be built entirely separated from the paved path or built as a non-cambered shoulder.

3. Multi-use paths are appropriate for areas where there is low density of use by walkers, runners and cyclists, but should not dominate planning for the heart of the very heavily used park system in the center of Boston. Instead, the overriding goal should be provision of facilities in which space is plentiful for all park users and potential conflicts between users are minimized using methods that are appropriate to each location.

4. Existing multi-use paths should be expanded all along the river to meet the definition of separation between paths based on user needs.

5. Recognition of what runners and joggers show about their desires for facilities would help in planning new paths. Narrow dirt paths that exist informally alongside many of the paved paths in the Basin demonstrate a clear desire for a softer surface preferred by runners. The softer surfaces can also be used by pedestrians and will clearly help separate cyclists from people on foot.

6. A demonstration of the path separation is included in the proposal for the Greenough Boulevard narrowing. The effects on users would be an important element to explore.

7. Path separation in the near term may only be possible on one side of the river. The Greenough Boulevard proposal and the Memorial Drive narrowing between the Eliot and Anderson Bridges point in the direction of path separation as a major feature on the north bank. Continuation of path separation both west and east of these two segments would be a next logical step. Except at intersections, parkland seems to be available for new or modified paths.

8. An unfortunate aspect of all path planning along the river is the intersections with streets at the bridges. The narrow paths that exist at many of the bridges will be a major feature of riverfront paths for a long time, but should not preclude path separation away from the bridge intersections.

9. As long-term improvements, underpasses at bridge intersections are appropriate and important options that will enhance the recreational and transportation options for many Basin users.

We appreciate your consideration of our comments and look forward to your responses to them. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman Bob Sloane
Executive Director Senior Project Manager

Cc Nicole Freedman, Boston Bikes
Cara Seiderman, City of Cambridge
Steve McLaughlin, MassDOT
Margo Levine Newman, The Esplanade Association
Renata von Tscharner, Charles River Conservancy
Herb Nolan, Solomon Fund
Jackie Douglas, LivableStreets Alliance
Pete Stidman, Boston Cyclists Union
David Watson, MassBike
Tom Grilk, Boston Athletic Association