walkboston

Boston Globe – “Some city councilors want a 20 mph speed limit in Boston”

Boston Globe: “Some city councilors want a 20 mph speed limit in Boston”

Even supporters of a change to 20 miles per hour argue a speed limit change is not by itself enough to protect pedestrians. Cities and towns must also design streets to encourage slower driving, said Wendy Landman, executive director of the pedestrian advocacy group WalkBoston.
“Simply changing the speed limit without doing anything about the built environment does a little, but not nearly enough,” she said.
Bike lanes, raised crosswalks, streetside landscaping, and thinner travel lanes are among the traffic-calming measures that actually influence drivers to go slower, Landman said.

Posted August 28, 2018

Letter to Review Team on Restoration of the River Edge

From: WalkBoston, Charles River Conservancy, Charles River Watershed Association

To: MassDOT – officials, staff, consultants Review Team on the I-90 Allston Interchange Improvement Project

Date: August 15, 2018

Re: Charles River – Restoration of the River Edge

On behalf of three organizations committed to the protection of the Charles River and its parklands, public access and pathways, and environmental health we jointly request that MassDOT fulfill its responsibilities to this invaluable resource by analyzing and developing options for the ecological restoration of the severely degraded and eroded riverbank in the I-90 Interchange Project area – from the BU Bridge to the River Street Bridge. This Project directly impacts the Charles River Basin , its parkland, ecology, water quality, and overall resiliency; dealing with those impacts is integral to the Project.

A study by MassDOT in advance of the FEIR should include re-establishment of a more natural edge, bank restoration, stormwater management, and increased floodplain connectivity and storage for resiliency. It should explore at least one alternative that creates better habitat and provides flood storage through the use of fill material in the river to accomplish these objectives. We ask that between now and when the FEIR is produced, a detailed analysis of alternatives, carried out in a collaborative manner, be developed so that results can be incorporated in the FEIR.

The DEIR did not adequately consider the need to restore the river bank, improve the park, and improve water quality. The DEIR has chiefly dealt with these impacts by trying to avoid them on the theory that permitting for the Project would be more difficult if river edge improvements are included. We are convinced that the contrary is true: a serious examination of these improvements would enlist substantial support from organizations, municipalities, and agencies committed to restoring environmental quality in this area – support that will be important to obtaining required approvals.

Restoration of this area requires attention to a number of issues and several important state and federal requirements, including:

1. Protect the river bank from further degradation and restore aquatic and riparian habitat. Much of the existing bank is degraded and eroding, eliminating fish habitat. The Charles is an important fish run for alewives, blueback herring and American shad, migratory fish that return to the river each year to spawn.

2. Provide parkland and improve safe walking and biking conditions as part of multi-modal improvement called for in MassDOT’s Project “purpose and need” statement and under Article 97.

3. Reduce stormwater runoff discharging to the river via overland flows and outfalls, including the 13 outfalls along Soldiers Field Road in the Throat Area. Both MassDOT and DCR have regulatory obligations to comply with phosphorus limits established in the state’s Lower Charles River Basin Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (2007).

4. Provide flood resilience, control and storage capacity for precipitation-based inland flooding within the context of current and expected climate change impacts.

5. Develop landscape strategies and designs that provide Section 4(f) mitigation. Removing invasive species, dead trees and replanting with native vegetation, in addition to incorporating green infrastructure, should be integral to the study.

6. Plan for the riverfront parkland, which is a water-dependent use under Chapter 91.

7. Meet historic requirements for the Charles River Reservation in the Charles River Basin Historic District included in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Massachusetts Historical Commission review.

8. Comply with the Article 97 no net loss policy that requires replacement of parkland that is to be taken by the Project.

One example of how an alternatives analysis could address these issues is the environmental assessment and recommendations prepared for the North Shore Riverfront Ecosystem Restoration Project in Pittsburgh, PA. It provides extensive river edge improvements, including a natural bank, new pathways, landscaped parklands, connected floodplain, and wetlands. It was developed jointly by local environmental organizations and local, state and federal agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers. (https://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/Portals/72/docs/ProjectReviewPlans/N%20Shore%20Riverfront%20DP R%20MSC%20Approved%20for%20Release.pdf?ver=20160524161651743)

We are committed to working cooperatively with you in this process in order to evaluate the options and to achieve results in an expedited and cost-effective manner to restore and enhance this area of the Charles River and the Basin parklands.

We look forward to your response.

Wendy Landman, Executive Director, WalkBoston
Laura Jasinski, Executive Director, Charles River Conservancy
Margaret VanDusen, Deputy Director and General Counsel, Charles River Watershed Association

Please join WalkBoston, the Charles River Conservancy and the Charles River Watershed Association at a “Throat” Walk, September 12, 5:30 PM. We will meet at “BU Beach” behind the Marsh Chapel.

Images from Environmental Assessment of North Shore Riverfront, Pittsburgh

Comment Letter Re: Union Square Redevelopment 15889

August 21, 2018

Matthew Beaton, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA Office, Analyst Alex Strysky
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

Re: Union Square Redevelopment 15889

Dear Secretary Beaton,

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposal for Phase I of the Union Square Redevelopment in Somerville. We offer our comments on the pedestrian issues associated with this project.

Our comments focus on the general approach, open space in the initial development and the pedestrian connections between the new station and the older portions of Union Square.

The project in general
WalkBoston is excited about the generous inclusion of elements in this project that will enhance and encourage pedestrian movement throughout the area. In addition, the process leading to this proposal seems to have been handled well by the city, its residents and the proponent. We enthusiastically support the request for a Phase I waiver.

This proposal is exciting, as it marks the beginning of a larger project that will transform Union Square. The 3.5 acre site with the proposed initial buildings will be the beginning of a concentration of development around the upcoming Union Square Green Line station which it directly abuts. The buildings are intended to be the first link between the new transit station and the existing intensive uses in what is traditionally known as Union Square, which begins at the intersection of Somerville Avenue and Prospect Street and extends toward Bow Street.

Open Space
Although the initial pedestrian connections are located on only one side of Prospect Street, they will bring about extensive change to this appearance of this old industrial street. The open space lining the east side of Prospect Street is an elongated triangle, the base of which is a wide entrance to the new transit station. The triangle extends north, narrowing to become a traditional sidewalk as it nears Somerville Avenue. The promise of this space lies in the proponent’s encouraging intentions to add extensive plantings and large trees in 15,000 square feet of open, publicly accessible civic space with 500 linear feet of seating options. The design of the space could result in pedestrians being enveloped in the space and not noticing that the other side of the street is not quite as handsome – an effective way to energize the space until development occurs around it.

The space is to be available to be programmed for a variety of activities. Transit connections from the Green Line Extension as well as a dedicated bus lane on Prospect Street will lead to substantial pedestrian density and transit interactions to support the beginning of prosperity for this new development district.

Pedestrian connections
The proposal calls for two tall buildings at each end of the site: a 25-story building marking the portion of the site closest to the transit station and a 10-story building marking the end of the site at Somerville Avenue. A six-story link between the two taller buildings will include a parking garage plus residences. A total of 450 residences will be included.

The northernmost building at the corner of Somerville Avenue and Prospect Street will be primarily commercial office or lab units located above first-floor retail spaces. Retail spaces continue along Prospect Street, lining the pedestrian way between the transit station and Somerville Avenue. A unique feature is the intention of the proponent to provide 13,000 square feet of space for Arts and Creative Enterprise (ACE) space, defined as live/work units, fabrication or maker space, co-working or other arts programming. The proponent’s intention is based on encouraging a creative economy to thrive in the midst of an embryonic urban employment center. ACE space can be especially attractive to pedestrians, and enliven the ground-floor uses of the proposed new buildings.

Of particular interest to pedestrian advocates, and not fully explained in the documentation on Phase I of the project, is the intention of the developer for the space that separates the 10-story building at the north end of the site and the remainder of the structures to the south. This looks on the plan like a street, but is quite narrow. No intersection for vehicular traffic is indicated by the plan to allow a physical roadway between this street and Prospect Street; such a connection would cross the wide pedestrian spaces lining Prospect Street and would seem to be potentially annoying and disruptive to pedestrian flows along Prospect Street. This street contrasts with others intended to serve vehicles, which are clearly aligned to the rear of the proposed buildings and do not interfere with the proposed pedestrian way along Prospect Street. The proponent should clarify the purpose and potential uses of this thoroughfare.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Charlestown – Medford Street Walk Audit

With the sponsorship of the Mystic River Watershed Association, WalkBoston recently conducted a walk audit of Medford Street to identify opportunities and challenges to creating stronger connections between the Charlestown community and the Mystic River waterfront and Harborwalk.

Read the full report here:
WalkBoston-CharlestownMedfordStreetWalkAudit

Congrats to Fall River and the Quequechan River Rail Trail

Congrats to Fall River – the Quequechan River Rail Trail was selected as one of five finalists for the Urban Land Institute’s Urban Open Space Award! Read the ULI announcement and the local coverage from The Herald News: “What does Fall River have in common with China and Spain? A great park“!

In 2016, through a grant from the Department of Public Health, WalkBoston worked with 5 communities on wayfinding programs. In Fall River, over 130 wayfinding signs were installed connecting downtown, the newly opened Quequechan River Rail Trail and neighborhood destinations. You can learn more about the wayfinding project below.

Wayfinding