Category: Comment Letter

Comment on Mount Auburn Corridor Study

Comment on Mount Auburn Corridor Study

September 27, 2017

RE: Mount Auburn Corridor Study – Comments on Concepts Presented on August 18, 2016

WalkBoston would like to submit the following comments on the draft concepts for the Mount Auburn Corridor Study presented on August 18, 2016. We understand that the concepts may have changed since the presentation, but we feel it is valuable for these comments to be captured. We have organized our comments according to specific intersections.

While we appreciate the detail with which the consultants have addressed road crossings for people walking, we feel that the overall pedestrian pathway network has not been adequately addressed. Overall, there needs to be more attention paid to the areas of overlap where people walking and people biking intersect.

Intersection of Mt Auburn Street at Brattle Street

Under the assumption that vehicular traffic volumes at this intersection warrant a traffic signal, the plan diagram (shown on slide 9 of the August 18 presentation) shows both a crosswalk and bike crossing at the east side of the intersection. At the southern end of this dual use crossing, the sidewalk appears to narrow and there is limited (if any) area for people walking to wait for the signal. We would like some assurance that there is a continuous sidewalk and adequate space for pedestrians waiting to cross.

The northern end of the dual use crossing appears to require pedestrians to cross the bike lane to reach the sidewalk running east on Brattle Street and to use the crosswalk when walking west along Mount Auburn Street. There is also no delineated path for people walking west along Mt Auburn Street to safely cross the proposed driveway connections or the proposed bike path leading west from Brattle Street. While we realize this diagram is preliminary, we would like to see that people walking are given the same connected network as people biking and driving.

Gerrys Landing, Memorial Drive, Eliot Bridge, Greenough Blvd

The shortened crossing distances and single-phase crossings in the Two-T Alternative concept are significant improvements to the pedestrian infrastructure that exists today (shown on slide 46 of the August 18 presentation). Our concerns in this area lie in the interactions between cyclists and pedestrians at the crossing locations. The diagrams indicate that cyclists and pedestrians will be sharing waiting areas and in some cases crossing paths to reach destinations. We would like to see a finer grained delineation of space for each user group. Furthermore, the bike paths appear connected, but the sidewalk network is either disjointed or not present.

Intersection of Fresh Pond Parkway at Huron Ave

The plan diagram (shown on slide 52 of the August 18 presentation) shows a raised intersection at Fresh Pond Parkway and Huron Avenue. Given the vehicular traffic volumes in this location and the allowance of trucks, we were surprised to see this proposal. Furthermore, the pedestrian refuge island at the intersection’s southeastern corner seems to interrupt the bike lane without providing benefit to walkers. If there is extra room at this location, we would rather see a curb bump-out or wider sidewalk.

Mid-block Crossing on Fresh Pond Parkway at Larch Street

The mid-block crossing proposed across Fresh Pond Parkway near the Larch Street intersection (shown on slide 55 of the August 18 presentation) seems dangerous even with the introduction of a raised crossing and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). Pedestrians using this crossing may presume cars will stop once the beacons (RRFBs) are flashing which could lead to tragic consequences. The sight lines along this curvy section of Fresh Pond Parkway and the traffic speeds make this proposal inadvisable. We would suggest that more study be done to substantiate the need for the crossing, and for a safer location to be identified should the need be justified.

Intersection of Fresh Pond Parkway and Brattle Street

The proposed tightening of curb radii at this intersection is welcomed, but we question the proposed raised intersection once again given traffic volumes.

At the August 18 presentation, the guardrail along the western edge of Fresh Pond Parkway was discussed. Some people in the Stakeholders Meeting felt that the “highway scale” guardrail may make drivers feel that they can speed. Furthermore, the railing is not in character with the “park-like and historic” space adjacent to it. Neighborhood residents advocated for the guardrail to be installed to protect children and other pedestrians walking along Fresh Pond Parkway. Several harrowing stories were told about high traffic speeds and erratic drivers. If there is a solution that protects walkers and is more in character with the surroundings, then it could be considered. However, safety must be prioritized in this location given its proximity to Shady Hill School and Buckingham Browne and Nichols School.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments and for inviting us to be a member of the stakeholder group. We welcome any questions you may have about these comments and look forward to your response.

Comments on Policy of Guidelines for Outdoor Café within Public Ways

Comments on Policy of Guidelines for Outdoor Café within Public Ways

WalkBoston comments to the Boston Public Improvement Commission regarding:

“A Policy of Guidelines for Outdoor Café within Public Ways, Effective: September 1, 2017”

Submitted August 24, 2017

We would be happy to meet with PIC or other City staff to review and discuss our comments.

1. Pleased that new regulations will allow alcohol to be served on the “far side” of the sidewalk– a good change for the liveliness of the City.

2. Interesting and good to allow the expansion onto the curb and street areas—Curbline and Roadway seating. Again this creates new opportunities.

3. Technical issue: 2f should refer to the seating located within the restaurant’s property, not only that located within the City’s sidewalks. I think they have to approve both.

4. Technical issue: 14 should say “planters and their contents” because a lot of cafes have plant material hanging out far—even up to a foot. That subtracts that distance from the walking right of way.

5. Regulations should provide a simple table that indicates which department is responsible for different elements of the regulations – it might clarify that there are still many, many actors in the process.

6. Minimum dimension for path of travel 4 feet, preferred minimum is 6 feet – exclusive of street furniture or any other obstructions. Minimum should be 5 feet unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

7. Minimum sidewalk dimension to allow any cafe should be at least XXX feet – to ensure adequate POT plus dimension for café. The City should make this determination before finalizing the guidelines.

8. Modify the rule that the café should not occupy more than 50% of the sidewalk because that may not be appropriate for wide areas and may be insufficient for narrow sidewalks where there should be no café at al (see #2 above).

9. Require a minimum of 15 business days of notice for review by the public, and require that the plans available electronically so that upon request they can be reviewed by the public (much as the way in which BPDA now posts filings on line).

10. The cafe must be removed from the sidewalk when not in continuous use. The season can extend beyond May-September, but the cafe equipment and furnishings must be removed from the sidewalk if they are not used for more than ten days.

11. Set a schedule for fees and permitting costs – may be based on size, location, restaurant revenues, etc. but should be transparent.

12. Provide opportunities for pop up cafes for short-term (1-5 days) use.

13. Set a schedule and program for enforcement, including a point person for responding to public complaints when cafes are not following the rules (see attached photo).

Café of Restaurant XXXX on Tremont Street in the South End, little action taken after reported earlier this summer. We include this as one example where encroachment is taking place without being addressed.
Vision Zero Letter to Mayor Walsh

Vision Zero Letter to Mayor Walsh

August 15, 2017

Mayor Marty Walsh
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201

Dear Mayor Walsh -­

Thank you for meeting with us last week to discuss Vision Zero and how we can work together to make our streets better for everyone.

We look forward to continuing the conversation with you on a walk, a bike ride and a bus ride in the coming months. In the meantime, we’ve outlined next steps discussed in the meeting:

1. Confirm your availability for World Day of Remembrance (WDR) on November 19, 2017. WDR is an international day of remembrance for victims of traffic violence. In Massachusetts WDR is organized by the Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition and includes a rally with speaking program on the steps of the State House, usually including families or victims of traffic violence and others. We hope you will join us at the event and give brief remarks. We are happy to work with your scheduling team on logistical details.

2. Work with Chief Osgood to schedule a walk and a bike ride with you. These will be informative, small group (3 -­ 5 people) opportunities so that you can experience a few places where we most need to improve walking and biking in the City. It would be ideal for both the ride and walk to take place before the end of the year.

3. Explore the possibility of supporting automated enforcement legislation. Passage of this legislation would be a huge win for the City of Boston, providing the police department with a new, proven tool to ensure more equitable enforcement of traffic violations. Wendy has already reached out to Katie King and both she and Katie will be back in touch with you once they have made a plan about next steps including reaching out to the ACLU and the Boston legislative delegation.

4. Reinstate State of the Hub as an annual event. The State of the Hub served as a valuable platform for sharing the City’s progress on the bike network and other street projects. We are happy to co-­host and help with this event as we have in years past.

5. Finding a solution for Sullivan Square/Rutherford Ave. Thank you for being open to learning more about this large, important and complicated project. Wendy has already reached out to Chief Osgood to continue the conversation and will get back to you once the community is able to review the complete traffic and transportation modeling information.

6. Support a successful Washington Street Bus priority pilot. LivableStreets is already coordinating with BTD to bolster support and excitement for the planned bus priority pilot between Roslindale and Forest Hills this fall. If your schedule allows, we hope you will ride the pilot with advocates to demonstrate your leadership and support for improved transit options in the City of Boston.

7. Work with Commissioner Fiandaca and others in BTD to update the City of Boston’s parking policies. This could include charging a modest fee for residential parking permits much like Boston’s neighboring municipalities and has the potential to be an important revenue source for furthering your Go Boston 2030 goals.

To help track the progress the City is making around these issues, the Vision Zero Coalition will be releasing its next Vision Zero Progress Report for the City of Boston in early 2018. We are happy to work with BTD to assess progress to-­‐date and to identify areas where the city can make additional progress before the end of the year.

Over the next few weeks, we would like to firm up some of the details around World Day of Remembrance, schedule the walk and bike ride, work with your staff regarding automated enforcement, and set a time for the next State of the Hub so that we can send an update to our various networks.

Thank you for your leadership and continued partnership.

Wendy Landman
Executive Director, WalkBoston

Stacy Thompson
Executive Director, LivableStreets Alliance

Becca Wolfson
Executive Director, Boston Cyclists Union

CC: Dan Koh
Chris Osgood
Gina Fiandaca
Vineet Gupta
Charlotte
Fleetwood
Stefanie Seskin

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 MassDOT Snow and Ice Control Program 2017 EEA# 11202

Comments on MassDOT Snow and Ice Control Program 2017 EEA# 11202

August 9, 2017

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

RE: Comments on MassDOT Snow and Ice Control Program 2017 Environmental Status and Planning Report EEA# 11202

Dear Secretary Beaton:

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Snow and Ice Control Program of MassDOT. We are commenting because pedestrian issues are not addressed in the Report. We provided similar comments in 2006, to the then Mass Highway Department.

While MassDOT has made significant strides to incorporate the needs of pedestrians into many of their project designs and safety programs, we are disappointed that the important accessibility, safety and mobility issues that un-­‐shoveled sidewalks, crosswalks and safety islands pose for pedestrians has still not been addressed in this document.

The Report covers many of the steps that the MassDOT will take to deal with the impacts of its application of chemicals on roadways. It discusses in detail the impacts that these materials have on pavement and the relative degree of effectiveness that the materials exhibit when removing snow and ice. It describes procedures that snow plow operators (whether state employees or service-­‐providers hired by the state) must follow, along with ways that the state will oversee the operations associated with snow plowing. In several of these discussions MassDOT comes tantalizingly close to describing potential impacts on pedestrian movement, yet there is no explicit acknowledgement that pedestrians have a stake in the way the state removes ice and snow from roadways and to the relationship between roadway and sidewalk snow and ice clearance. The only mention of pedestrians in the document is where MassDOT indicates that DCR has retained responsibility for sidewalks adjacent to a number of roadways where MassDOT has assumed responsibility for the vehicular travel way and that the MBTA has a plan for its facilities.

The impact of roadway snow and ice clearance on pedestrians
Pedestrians are clearly affected by the removal of snow from roadways and sidewalks and the effects of inadequate clearance that results in unsafe conditions for walking. After a snowfall in Massachusetts, it is possible to view city or town streets where the roadways are well plowed, but the sidewalks are impassable. Common public services such as postal deliveries or meals on wheels can be disrupted. Commuters and school children find their routes blocked. Un-­‐cleared sidewalks parallel to snow mounds can force pedestrians onto the street where pedestrian-­‐ automobile crashes are far more likely to occur. Even where sidewalks are cleared, pedestrian access at intersections is frequently blocked by roadway-­‐related snow mounds that impede safe walking through the intersection and un-­‐cleared snow mounds can prevent pedestrians and drivers from seeing each other clearly at intersection approaches.

The simple activity of walking is dramatically altered by the presence of snow. Snow mounds present a physical challenge to pedestrians, and walkers who are trying to cross mounds of snow to get to a safe walking route may have their attention diverted away from oncoming traffic. Intersections clogged with snow or snowmelt can challenge pedestrians trying to cross, again causing temporary diversion of attention from oncoming traffic. Drivers may not be able to see pedestrians forced onto roadways.

Sidewalks are found along many state roads throughout the Commonwealth, and some roads that were originally constructed without sidewalks now have them as a result of the continuing urbanization and suburbanization of the state. Adding sidewalks is now required for state roads as they are rebuilt and they are thus a standard element of the MassDOT roadway network.

The importance of providing safe pedestrian access in all seasons cannot be taken lightly. It is a matter of public safety, adequate transportation, social justice (many of our citizens who are pedestrian and transit-­‐dependent are lower income or elderly), and economic well being (we discourage elders and the disabled from staying in Massachusetts if they feel isolated and home-­‐ bound by wintry conditions).

The lack of sidewalk guidance does not seem to conform to the MHD Project Development and Design Guide, 2006 edition, which states:

“MassHighway, in its role as steward of our roadways, must consider a broad range of factors in maintaining (emphasis added) or improving this system, including:
• Safety for all users
• Functionality – the need for access and mobility
• Accessibility for people with disabilities…
• Input and participation from local constituents …”

The manual quotes state law:

“Chapter 87 of the Acts of 1996 requires MassHighway to ‘make all reasonable provisions for the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic…’”

(Section 1.2.1, p. 1-­‐3) The manual continues with this Guiding Principle:

“Multimodal consideration – to ensure that the safety and mobility of all users of the transportation system (pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers) are considered equally through all phases of a project so that even the most vulnerable (e.g., children and the elderly) can feel and be safe within the public right of way….”

Section 1.2 Guiding Principles of the Guidebook, detailed in Section 1.2.1, p. 1-­‐3. Citing MassDOT’s 2017 policies as reflected on the current website,

“MassDOT is updating the Massachusetts Pedestrian Transportation Plan to improve conditions for walking throughout the Commonwealth.”

One of the core goals noted is to

“Identify policies and model practices to improve maintenance, year-­‐round usability and state of good repair of existing and planned pedestrian infrastructure.”

We urge MEPA to require MassDOT to explicitly incorporate policies and practices related to sidewalk, curb ramp and crossing island snow clearance in its Snow and Ice Control Program. The Program should address the issues noted below (much of the text is copied largely verbatim from WalkBoston’s 2006 comment letter).

Safety for both drivers and pedestrians
The state has determined that highway safety and vehicle mobility are high priority reasons for snow and ice removal. Clearing only the road is insufficient as a method for providing safety. Pedestrians crossing roadways or walking within the roadway constitute significant dangers for both drivers and themselves. The extent to which pedestrians use roadway pavements for walking is greatly expanded when sidewalks are left un-­‐cleared or when roadside snow mounds force people to clamber over them to cross streets. Many miles of MHD (now MassDOT in each instance below) roadways are paralleled by sidewalks and are thus critical components of the pedestrian (and transit) transportation networks.

Development of a protocol for determining who will be responsible for sidewalk snow clearance on MassDOT roadways
Sidewalk clearance responsibilities may well fall to several different parties including MassDOT, local municipalities, other state or local agencies, or private abutters. In order to “ensure the safety and mobility of all users of the transportation system,” this responsibility must be assigned, managed and enforced throughout the state. As the owner and operator of this transportation network, MHD should assume the job of leading the effort to determine how and by whom the sidewalks will be cleared.

The right of way as a basis for snow and ice removal
Municipalities throughout Massachusetts remove snow and ice from local roadways and establish methods for removing snow and ice from sidewalks. Yet the state does not take on the same responsibility for its roadways. Thus, local jurisdictions must provide for snow and ice removal from sidewalks along state roadways without substantial state assistance. Without coordination between the state and the municipalities, several issues emerge:

  1.  Intersections. The maintenance of a safe pedestrian passageway is critical at street crossings. The crossings are often blocked by snow plowing procedures that simply pile up snow evenly along the road, covering sidewalks, handicapped ramps and street corners, and forcing pedestrians to walk in the roadways. The responsibilities of the state and its agents in clearing intersections – including pedestrian access through the intersection – should be spelled out. Attention to this issue can help municipalities cope with comprehensive snow removal for sidewalks.
  2. Roadway use by walkers. When the state or its agents clear roadways of snow, safe pedestrian passage must be maintained. If the roadway is temporarily used as a substitute sidewalk because sidewalks have not been cleared pedestrian and vehicular safety is compromised. Snow removal frequently results in substantial mounds of snow paralleling the state highway that, in many cases, block the sidewalks and driveways connected to the roadway. Snow mounding as a method of disposal may exacerbate the problem of clearing sidewalks because of the sheer volume of the snow plowed onto the sidewalks.
  3. Planning. Streets can be designed to make plowing easier. Sidewalks might be placed at a distance from the roadway that is sufficient to accommodate snow plowed from the street. Snow fences could be located to control snow buildup on pedestrian facilities and help reduce 4 removal costs. The state should establish guidelines for improved design. Pedestrian safety islands should be designed to remain snow-­‐free after plowing operations.
  4. Research. The Report contains documentation of lane-­‐miles plowed under state responsibility. Perhaps research is necessary to document pedestrian miles on sidewalks along state highways and to show how state snow plowing policies affect pedestrians and how those policies need to be amended or supplemented. In addition to providing a plan for ensuring the clearance of sidewalks, It would be useful to know what financial and technical assistance the state might provide for communities and pedestrians during snowy conditions along state roads through a variety of funding sources such as CMAQ, safety funds or hazard elimination funds.

Coordination of local and state efforts
The method by which state and local coordination takes place is described briefly in the 2006 GEIR. This issue has not been addressed in the 2017 report, but remains an important issue for pedestrian safety.

  1. Division of responsibilities. As noted above, MassDOT should determine sidewalk snow-­‐ clearing responsibilities and how state, local and private entities will divide the work. A detailed plan for coordination is essential to determine precisely how the responsibilities will be divided, especially at locations where different responsibilities will abut or overlap. For example, at intersections where there are sidewalk connections into intersections, pedestrian crossings through intersections, and sidewalks along the roadways and across driveways. It is important for MassDOT to include information about pedestrian issues for inclusion in the plow route schedule each fall and for information to be disseminated by the MassDOT Districts.
  2. Sidewalk snow removal procedures. Written procedures can help clarify how snow is to be removed from sidewalks along state roads by agents other than the MassDOT. The state, municipalities or other state agencies can establish priority sidewalks that must be maintained for walkers right from the start of a snow emergency. One model has been prepared by the DCR, which works with the MassDOT to clear certain of its roadways. The state clears curb-­‐to-­‐ curb, and the DCR clears the sidewalks according to a predetermined priority rating assigned to each sidewalk. Some communities (e.g. Concord) clear snow from sidewalks along state roads according to a plan that has been developed in conjunction with the school department to facilitate safe access to schools. Priorities may need to be established for sidewalks leading to schools, transit, hospitals and clinics, business concentrations, and public services such as police and fire stations, as well as based on the density of pedestrian use.
  3. Bartering. A bartering process was described in the 2006 GEIR (Section 2.5.3, p. 29) as an informal method of coordinating operations, with the state taking on some municipal responsibilities. This method of coordination could be used to establish procedures for local communities. Coordination might be embedded in written agreements between the state and the cities and towns that define responsibilities for the details of snow removal. This process is no longer included in the Guide and we are curious how it has been replaced.
  4. Communication with the public. The public should be informed of policy decisions concerning snow removal on sidewalks, streets and at intersections, so that individuals can plan routes to work or school or for other purposes. One method is to place information delineating responsibilities on-­‐line so that can be widely distributed. A good example of delineating agency responsibilities for snow removal is laid out in the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s website at: http://eoeea.maps.arcgis.com/apps/SimpleViewer/index.html?appid=4a64ec9cf8ac4bb5a5bc 97e5e443e798 By laying out snow removal intentions, it may be possible to avert tragedies involving pedestrians walking in roadways.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Report. Please feel free to contact us for clarification or additional comments. We would be very pleased to work with MHD on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc:   Stephanie Pollack, MassDOT Secretary
Sam Salfity Director of SICP Operations
Jonathan Gulliver, Acting Highway Commissioner
Kate Fichter, MassDOT Assistant Secretary for Policy Coordination
Jackie DeWolfe, MassDOT Director of Sustainable Mobility
Pete Sutton, MassDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Coordinator