fbpx

Tag: South End

Comments on the FEIR for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project MEPA: #15502

Comments on the FEIR for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project MEPA: #15502

August 11, 2017

Matthew Beaton, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
ATTN: Alex Strysky, MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

Brian Golden, Director
Boston Planning and Development Agency
ATTN: Michael Rooney
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201-1007

RE: Comments on the FEIR for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project
MEPA: #15502

Dear Sirs:

WalkBoston has reviewed the FEIR for Back Bay/South End Gateway Project. While we appreciate the proponent’s efforts to address some of the issues we raised in our DEIR/DPIR comments, we continue to have concerns about the project impacts to the extremely busy pedestrian environment around the project area, and to several of the design elements suggested by the proponent.

We have reviewed the letter submitted by South End resident Ken Kruckemeyer and would like to concur with his comments and his very thoughtful suggestions about how to remedy some of the problems that he describes.

Per our own quick review of MBTA data, Back Bay Station Orange Line, Commuter Rail and Amtrak service presently serves approximately 64,000 passenger trips (alighting and boarding) each day. Many more pedestrians are simply walking by the site, arriving on buses, via cabs and in automobiles. The MBTA, MassDOT, and all people concerned with the continued economic vitality of the Boston area and a more sustainable transportation system, hope that this number will rise significantly over the coming decades. The Back Bay/South End Gateway Project must be designed and managed in such a way that the transit and transportation functions of the station are enhanced.

Our key comments and concerns are as follows.

1. Possible garage exit ramp across the Dartmouth Street sidewalk adjacent to the Station
The project proponent and MassDOT support, and are eagerly awaiting, the decision of the FHWA about the closing of an I-90 on-ramp which would allow the project to locate the garage exit elsewhere.

WalkBoston does not think that a project design that includes a garage exit ramp across the Dartmouth Street sidewalk is acceptable. Putting the interests of drivers above those of the tens-of-thousands of pedestrians who use this sidewalk is not an appropriate use of public space. Given the intensity of sidewalk use, and the overlap of peak transit and garage use, we do not believe that the ramp can be designed and/or managed acceptably. Asking pedestrians to wait while single cars exit the garage is not a reasonable solution.

We urge MEPA to recommend that further consideration of the project as presently designed be delayed until this issue is resolved favorably with no garage ramp exiting across the Dartmouth Street sidewalk.

2. Route and layover location for Bus 39
The proponent seems to have reached a reasonable set of recommendations for much of the routing of Bus 39. However, in order to provide accessible and weather protected transfers for people wishing to use the Orange Line, Commuter rail or Amtrak services, the route should include a stop at Back Bay Station on both its inbound and outbound routes. This is particularly important because the Green Line is not fully accessible for people with disabilities and people with strollers.

The FEIR does not provide any details about layover for the Route 39 buses, a critical issue to keep this very busy route operating with reasonable service levels.

Until these questions are resolved, we do not believe that the transportation planning for the project has been adequately addressed and request that the proponent be directed to work
with the MBTA and the City of Boston to find fully workable solutions.

3. Dartmouth Street Sidewalk
The width of this critical sidewalk – critical because of its role as a major element of the Back Bay transportation system that serves well in excess of 70,000 pedestrian trips/day – is
constrained by the introduction of a wide furnishing zone and the filling in of the walking area in the weather-protected arcade beneath the station arcade and the existing garage overhang.
We urge the proponent to continue to modify the sidewalk plan so as to maximize the walking area. A 13-foot sidewalk (at the station) and a 17-foot sidewalk at the new commercial frontage (where the existing garage is located) are each narrower than the existing sidewalk and are not adequate in this location. The arcade could be kept open to walkers, the first floor of new commercial building could be set back, and the large planters shown should be removed (especially important along this street frontage where people will be getting picked up and dropped off).

 4. Pedestrian Bridges across Stuart Street and Trinity Place (outside the project site)
We urge the proponent to delete the pedestrian bridges (other than the one internal to their site) as unnecessary and deleterious to the active street life that makes Boston a walkable and lively City. We disagree with the proponent’s contention that “the pedestrian bridge(s) will …further enhance transit access, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood connectivity.” In fact we believe that such bridges diminish all of these characteristics.

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
Executive Director

Cc Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack
Laura Brelsford, MBTA Assistant General Manager, System-Wide Accessibility
City Council President Michelle Wu
City Councilor Josh Zakim
Ellis South End Neighborhood Association
Bay Village Neighborhood Association
Neighborhood Association of Back Bay
Ken Kruckemeyer

————————————————————————————————
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

Comments on the DEIR/DPIR for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project

Comments on the DEIR/DPIR for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project

April 18, 2017

Matthew Beaton, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
ATTN: Alex Strysky, MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

Brian Golden, Director
Boston Planning and Development Agency
ATTN: Michael Rooney
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201-­‐1007

RE: Comments on the DEIR/DPIR for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project
MEPA: #15502

Dear Sirs:

WalkBoston has reviewed the DEIR/DPIR for Back Bay/South End Gateway Project. We are concerned about this project because of its impacts on rail and bus transportation, walking and biking. With the latest submission of plans for the project, we continue to see serious issues with pedestrian access into, through and around the site. These are described below.

  1. Inappropriate relocation of the layover site for the Route 39 bus
    The proposal states that the layover site for the Route 39 bus will be located “off-­‐site.” Back Bay Station is one end of this bus route, which is one of the busiest in the MBTA system, serving Back Bay, the Fenway and Jamaica Plain. Buses congregate here and wait until schedules require them to return to the main route.The proposal for Route 39 is to remove it entirely from the streets directly connected to Back Bay Station, and to truncate the route before it connects with the Orange Line or the commuter rail/Amtrak services. Reducing the convenience of connections between Route 39 and other portions of the MBTA system will result in negative impacts on transit riders that should be avoided. We urge the City and MEPA to require the proponent to bring Route 39 back to the station. A possible layover site is Trinity Place (between Stuart and St. James Streets). The re-­‐routing of the 39 bus route to this layover location could provide a reasonable drop-­‐off and pick-­‐up solution on Stuart Street, which will have direct pedestrian access in Back Bay Station for bus riders.
  2. Sidewalks that surround the site
    Sidewalks along the Dartmouth Street side of the project, where foot traffic is already heavy and likely to increase due to the new development, have been widened to a minimum of 13 feet, as shown in Fig, 3.8b. Sidewalks along Stuart Street are to be a minimum of 11 feet, as shown in Fig, 3.8c, perhaps reflecting the proponent’s projection of likely foot traffic on this side of the site. Along Clarendon Street, sidewalks range from 9 to 15 feet, as shown in Fig. 3.8d; it is not entirely clear if the 9’ width is a result of the footprint of the proposed residential building.Sidewalks may not be sufficiently wide, especially if street trees, planters or bicycle parking are also accommodated in the width otherwise available for pedestrians.A large public plaza is proposed at the Clarendon Street intersection to replace the existing forecourt to the east entrance to the station. Here sidewalks are very wide and the plaza offers generous open space. Much of this plaza appears to be for passive use to people walking by, although there is a retail space provided in one corner that, if used as a restaurant, might result in tables on the outdoor plaza.We are pleased to see that the principal entrance to Back Bay Station on Dartmouth Street is enhanced by the addition of major new entrances framed by the arch and a design that focuses on providing continuity of the sidewalk and interior surfaces to unite them and welcome users. An enlarged Dartmouth Street crosswalk that is 60 feet wide along the site’s frontage will be centered on the new entrance. Taxi zones are provided both north and south of the main entrance.We are pleased that the proponents have increased sidewalk widths by comparison to the earlier proposals.
  3. Movement on sidewalks around the perimeter of the project
    The project site is in a pedestrian-­friendly portion of the city. There are more people walking along and crossing the perimeter streets than there are drivers using these same streets. For example, looking at the existing condition pedestrian volumes counted between 8:00 and 9:00 AM in 2016 in Figure 4.6a, we note that there are 2,253 people crossing Dartmouth in front of Back Bay Station, 1,264 walkers crossing on the east walk of the Stuart Street/Dartmouth Street intersection, 1,098 pedestrians crossing Stuart Street at Trinity Place, and 1,646 pedestrians crossing Stuart Street at Clarendon Street. A total of 1,071 pedestrians crossed the garage driveway on Clarendon Street during this period.Meanwhile, in the same period, Dartmouth Street handles 486 cars northbound and 703 cars southbound. Stuart Street handled 784-­1,057 vehicles in this period and Clarendon Street handled 503-­625 vehicles.Although there are 15 different projections of vehicular traffic under alternative futures, there are no projections at all of pedestrian traffic. There are, however, projections of pedestrian level of service at selected intersections. See Table 4.12.3 page 4-­126. The accompanying text states that PLOS doesn’t change between Existing, No-­build and Build Conditions because walk times and cycle lengths will not change. Is this a valid conclusion without he benefit of projecting future pedestrian volumes?Based on the data that was provided, it appears that there are about three times as many pedestrians as there are cars during peak hours.
  4. Movement across the sidewalk – Dartmouth Street
    In order to improve access to the proposed parking garage, the proponent has proposed changing Turnpike access patterns and partially shifted vehicle access and egress away from Stuart and Clarendon Streets and provided a new exit onto Dartmouth Street. These changes directly affect pedestrian safety at the principal pedestrian access to Back Bay Station.As shown on the proponent’s plans, the proposed vehicular exit from the garage is in an inappropriate location on Dartmouth Street. The exit ramp will pose a hazard for pedestrians on this portion of Dartmouth Street, where thousands of people (see numbers in Section 3 above) are walking during peak hours. This location is an especially busy and important place for pedestrians walking to, through and making connections to transit.Shifting the location of Turnpike access so significantly by removing a major access point to the westbound Turnpike in the midst of Back Bay and requiring all drivers to use alternative access on Huntington Avenue does not make sense for this part of the City. This does not seem an appropriate choice in the context of Boston’s adoption of Vision Zero and the City’s declaration in GoBoston 2030 that Boston will “prioritize the movement of people over cars.”
    WalkBoston does not believe that it is in the interest of public safety and convenience to shift existing vehicular access so that it results in a garage exit ramp in a congested pedestrian zone. An alternative to this garage exit ramp should be developed.
  5. Movement across the sidewalk -­Clarendon Street
    On the Clarendon Street side of the property, there are multiple garage entrances and exits as there are today, and the sidewalk needs very careful treatment to protect pedestrians. The proposal to add a bulb out to shorten the Clarendon mid-­‐block pedestrian crossing is a good idea. As noted above, WalkBoston believes that Clarendon Street is a better location for garage and Turnpike access than the proposed Dartmouth Street garage exit and circuitous Turnpike access.The new plaza on the Clarendon Street side of the property has been designed with a drop-­‐off lane that doubles as a route for delivery and service vehicles for the residential and retail occupants of the structure. The drop-­‐off lane occupies what appears to be about 40% of the plaza, and raises the question of whether it needs to be this size.If the space is being used primarily for vehicular needs – drop-­offs, taxis, deliveries, service, and potential bus storage – that colors the manner that the design might take for the plaza. If, on the other hand, some of the vehicular needs could be transferred to the street – perhaps with some widening to accommodate the intended use. Getting rid of the drop-­off lane would considerably improve the potential for this plaza to be genuinely pedestrian-­friendly, and open it to other retail uses that would enhance the productivity and attractiveness of this end of the property.
  6. The station area concourse
    We are gratified that the proponent enlarged the proposed waiting area, rather than transforming it into a retail facility. However, we continue to be concerned about the redesign 4 of the concourses to narrower passageways lined by many retail facilities. New retail activity will increase in the number of pedestrians to accommodate on the narrowed concourses. The relocation of the commuter rail and Amtrak ticket offices to a new location at a substantial distance from either the waiting area or the entrances to the rail platforms seems ill-­‐advised. The proposed new location is deeper within the station area, much closer to the east entrances than to the likely more important west entrances. It is also indistinguishable from adjacent retail stalls that may or may not have relevance for rail travelers. The proposed layout is occurring during a period of reduction in the number of small retail businesses in many locations, including central Boston and the Back Bay. Active ticket offices in a central location may be more important to bolster other retail outlets, and benefit the management and rental of retail stalls throughout the station area.
  7. Construction on the rail station platforms
    The proposal calls for use of the station platforms for supports for the new high-­‐rise building being built in the Station East portion of the project. These new obstructions narrow the platforms for waiting or alighting passengers and add complexity in an environment where moving to or from access points is already complicated. This is true of both the Orange line platform, serving both directions for subway passengers and the southernmost railway platform serving commuter rail passengers to and from the south and southwest, including Providence, New York, Washington and the entire eastern seaboard.Using the existing rail platforms for construction of these supports will obstruct passenger traffic during construction as well as after completion. Designs should be carefully integrated with existing obstructions such as columns to minimize interference with passenger traffic flow.

We are very concerned about the changes proposed for the station, the bus layover facility, the vehicle circulation, sidewalks and interior passageways. We would 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 City Council President Michelle Wu
City Councilor Josh Zakim
Ellis South End Neighborhood Association
Bay Village Neighborhood Association
Neighborhood Association of Back Bay

South End Neighborhood Evening Walk Assessment Springfield

South End Neighborhood Evening Walk Assessment Springfield

Springfield’s South End neighborhood residents, business owners and other stakeholders have been working to improve safety and to increase investment in the South End for many years. Organizations, such as the Urban Land Institute, and federal programs such as Choice Neighborhoods and the Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program (BCJI), have funded efforts to engage community members, work with police, and improve the built environment.

Read the full report here:
WalkBoston-SouthEndEveningWalkAssessment-Springfield

Comment Letter: ENF and the PNF for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project MEPA: #15502

Comment Letter: ENF and the PNF for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project MEPA: #15502

June 17, 2016

Matthew Beaton, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
ATTN: MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

Brian Golden, Director
Boston Redevelopment Authority
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201-1007

RE:  Comments on the ENF and the PNF for the Back Bay/South End Gateway Project MEPA: #15502

Dear Sirs:

WalkBoston reviewed the ENF and PNF for Back Bay/South End Gateway Project.

We are very interested in this project, which is superbly located to be served by public transportation, walking and biking. However, we have concerns about pedestrian access into, through and around the site which we would like to see addressed in the next project submissions. These are:

1. Relocation of the layover site for the Route 39 bus
The proposal states that the layover site for the Route 39 bus will be located “off-site.” Back Bay Station is one end of this bus route, which is one of the busiest in the MBTA system, serving Back Bay, the Fenway and Jamaica Plain. Buses congregate here and wait until schedules require them to return to the main route.This bus route is too important to the MBTA system and its many riders to shift the layover site to another location which could lead to a major change in the frequency of bus service. A layover location must be found nearby.

2. Sidewalks that surround the site
Sidewalks along Stuart and Clarendon Streets have been designed at minimum widths for their functions. The MassDOT Design Guide calls for sidewalks in busy downtown areas of cities to be between 12 and 20 feet in width. These guidelines should be generously incorporated into the planning for this project.  The City’s Complete Streets Guideline Manual suggests that 8 feet is a minimum but prefers a width of ten feet.

This is particularly important for the Dartmouth Street side of the project. Foot traffic on Dartmouth Street is already heavy and likely to increase, due to the new development and to moving the principal entrance to the station to the center of this frontage. The plan calls for a portion of the Dartmouth Street frontage to be as narrow as 8 feet at one point, and 13 feet otherwise. The 8’ foot width, which appears along a planned ADA ramp into the first-floor retail area, is not adequate for this location. Perhaps this width could be expanded by moving the ADA ramp into the retail area of the building or by selectively eliminating portions of the drop-off/taxi lane which extends from the station entrance to Stuart Street. Alternatively, perhaps a thoughtful reduction of the number of trees and their placement might be appropriate to widen the clear width of the walkway.

3. Garage exit on Dartmouth Street
One of the unfortunate consequences of the design for re-use of the Garage East and West portions of this project is the potential use of Dartmouth Street as one of the exits from the on-site garage. This appears to result from redesign of the existing garage which currently has two entrance and exit ramps.

The proposed new parking facility removes two the existing garage access ways – those leading in and out of the garage in drums connecting with Trinity Place. It retains the existing entrance and exit ramps on Clarendon Street. The design calls for no new entrance ramps. However, it calls for a new exit ramp that requires removal of the Turnpike on-ramp. If the Turnpike ramp is retained, the proponent maintains that there is a need for a replacement exit onto Dartmouth Street.

The proposed exit ramp onto Dartmouth Street is deeply consequential for pedestrian traffic. It is difficult to imagine a more inappropriate design than the insertion of a major vehicular exit from the garage onto the Dartmouth Street sidewalk, the primary pedestrian access route to and from Back Bay Station. Certainly there must be a better place to provide a garage exit than this, possibly by retaining one of the drums could be retained for exiting traffic directly onto Trinity Place.

4. The station area concourse
Back Bay Station was designed as a large arched hall, flanked on both sides by hallways leading to ticket and waiting areas. Each platform has its own stairways, escalators and /or elevators connecting the platform to the station concourse. Train platforms are split, with the Worcester/Amtrak Chicago line platforms near the north edge of the station concourse, and the New York/Amtrak Washington platforms near the south edge. Access to the Orange Line platform is directly in the center of the station, under the arched portion of the station structure. On either side, outside the arched hall, two wide concourses connect through the block between Dartmouth and Clarendon Streets.

Within the large arched hall, pedestrian movement is presently blocked for concourse movement by a fence that surrounds the major access stairways and escalators to and from the Orange Line. The proposal calls for a removal of some of this blockage and relocation of the two principal concourse pathways between Dartmouth and Clarendon Streets into the arched hall. The present concourses, outside the arched hall, are then repurposed for retail and other facilities.

The relocation or shrinking of the passenger concourses and repurposing the space occupied by the old ones raises a concern as to whether the new routes are sufficiently wide to handle projected growth in passenger volumes. Although it is uncertain what projections of passenger volumes might show, according to the project proponent, the station already handles 30,000 passengers per day. The MBTA currently maintains there are 36,000 Orange Line passengers here, plus 17,000 commuter rail passengers. Amtrak may constitute an additional 2000 passengers. New projections of traffic should be undertaken to determine likely future volumes of people using the station.

With the knowledge of the likely future traffic of patrons of the Orange Line, the commuter rail lines and Amtrak, the plan must provide good access to and egress from the following locations:

– The Dartmouth Street entrance
– The Orange Line station (two stairways, escalators, one elevator)
– The underpass beneath Dartmouth Street to the Copley Place mall (one stairway)
– The commuter and Amtrak rail lines west toward Worcester and ultimately Chicago (two stairways, one elevator) serving 15 stations and communities
– The commuter and Amtrak rail lines that generally go south and follow the east coast to Providence, New York and Washington D.C. (two stairways, two escalators, one elevator) serving 47 stations and communities
– The proposed new passageway to Stuart Street and into the Garage West office structure
– Ticket machines for passes and Charlie cards for the subway lines.
– Amtrak ticket offices
– Commuter rail ticket offices
– Restrooms for the entire station concourse area
– Food and retail outlets proposed for the concourse level
– Food and retail proposed for the second level
– Food and retail outlets proposed for the third level
– Waiting areas including seating for passengers traveling by rail
– The existing and new parking garages in the Garage West/East areas
– The new residential building in the Station East area at the Clarendon Street end of the project

All but the last two of these movements take place primarily in a compressed space that extends about 100’ from the main entrance on Dartmouth Street into the station. The proposal significantly diminishes this portion of the existing concourse, serving the movements listed above and lowering the space of the waiting area from 9,225 square feet (41 bays each roughly 15 feet square) to 6,075 square feet (27 bays, each roughly 15 feet square. It calls for eliminating the principal existing waiting area and replacing it with a large food service facility. All waiting passengers will be moved to backless benches located in busy pedestrian passageways, including the major entrance to the building. The proposal also calls for diminishing the size of the concourse by narrowing the existing passageways between Dartmouth and Clarendon Street and replacing them with retail space. It calls for new entrances to the proposed second and third levels in the midst of the existing waiting area. The proposal moves the ticketing area away from the waiting area and into new space along the proposed new passageway, where queuing to purchase tickets (now possible in the waiting area) will compete with pedestrian movement. It is hard to imagine that all these activities can be accommodated in the space planned.

A new design should be undertaken to accommodate the growing number of pedestrians and waiting passengers as well as patrons of food and retail outlets who may choose to sit in this busy space. The existing waiting area should not be removed but instead enlarged to accommodate anticipated future use. Ticketing space should be provided close to passenger access areas. Access to and from the second and third levels should be moved away from the waiting area and into the space that is gained by closing the existing concourse passageways. Retail areas adjacent to the passenger waiting area should be scaled back to remove potential blockage of clear and very visible access to and from the stairways leading to transportation facilities below the concourse. Benches for rail passengers should not be relegated to busy portions of the concourse, especially where they might interfere with pedestrian traffic through the concourse.

5. Construction on the rail station platforms
The proposal calls for use of the station platforms for supports for the new high-rise building being built in the Station East portion of the project. These new obstructions narrow the platforms for waiting or alighting passengers and add complexity in an environment where moving to or from access points is already complicated. This true of both the Orange line platform, serving both directions for subway passengers and the southernmost railway platform serving commuter rail passengers to and from the south and southwest, including Providence, New York, Washington and the entire eastern seaboard.

Using the existing rail platforms for construction of these supports will obstruct passenger traffic during construction as well as after completion. Designs should be carefully integrated with existing obstructions such as columns to minimize interference with passenger traffic flow.

We are very concerned about the changes proposed for the station, the bus layover and the sidewalks and interior passageways. We would 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
Executive Director

Blind man walking (and running)!

Blind man walking (and running)!

image

Kyle Robidoux is the Director of  Volunteer & Support Group Services at the Mass. Assoc. for the Blind & Visually Impaired.

I walk everywhere. As a marathoner, I also run all throughout Boston and neighboring cities.

I’m also legally blind so walking, along with public  transit, is my main mode of transportation. Therefore,  walkability is very important to me and my family.

The walkability of the city and its public infrastructure impacts me every day. It impacts where I walk, how quickly I can get to where I need to be, and most importantly how safely I can get there.

As someone with low vision (I have very restricted central vision, similar to looking through a toilet paper roll), I rely on sidewalks, curb cuts and ramps, and crosswalks to get me safely to where I need to be. I use a white cane most of the time so the quality of sidewalks and streets is very important.

Brick sidewalks are one of the most unfriendly surfaces for me and most folks with limited mobility (I assume most sighted walkers, too). My cane tip frequently gets stuck in a missing brick or I trip because of the unevenness of the sidewalk. Old (some say historic) sidewalks are very common in the South End, where I spend a good majority of my time. If I have a choice, I will avoid going down a street if I know it has terrible brick sidewalks. I’m thankful that the city has set a new policy limiting the amount of brick in the walk path when repairing/installing new sidewalks.

As my eyesight decreases, I am becoming more reliant on audible street crossings. Otherwise, I have to ask someone to help me find the push button. It would be wonderful if more street crossings had regular intervals in which to cross or a “walk signal” triggered by a sensor on the closest curb ramp.

My relationship to the built environment in my neighborhood plays a large factor as my eyesight decreases, especially during the winter. Trying to navigate unshoveled sidewalks and curb cuts blocked by snowbanks is physically and mentally exhausting. I walk my daughter to school along the South Bay Harbor Trail. Sections of the trail were not plowed this winter days after a snowstorm. Some days my daughter and I, along with other students, were forced to walk in the street because the unplowed path was too difficult to walk.

As our communities continue to develop, I hope less time and energy is spent on talking about parking and traffic and more on creating accessible public spaces.

Creating accessible spaces is not only good public policy but will also ensure that they flourish and reach their greatest potential.

This article was featured in our Spring 2014 newsletter. See the full newsletter & past editions here.

——————————————————————————————————————-
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