Tag: Boston

Comments on Dorchester Ave Planning Study

June 22, 2016

Lara Merida

Director of Neighborhood Planning

Boston Redevelopment Authority

Boston City Hall

1 City Hall Square

Boston, MA 02201

Re: The South Boston Dorchester Ave Planning Study

As the city and state’s principal advocate for pedestrian safety, access, and utility in improving individuals’ health, WalkBoston thanks you for the opportunity to comment on this planning study.

It is unusual when a municipality is able to consider preparation for so massive a prospective change for an existing neighborhood. The area served by Dorchester and Old Colony Avenues appears to be a prime candidate for such change. This corridor has direct links to Downtown Boston and to the close-knit neighborhood of South Boston, where the market for new housing is strong.

The plan will form the basis for proposed rezoning of the 144-acre site between Dorchester Avenue and Old Colony Avenue, reaching nearly a mile between the Broadway and Andrews MBTA stations, and could prepare for an influx of between 14,000 and 16,000 new residents. Because there are few existing streets within the study area other than the two well-known arteries, it is critical that the plan address the movement needs of drivers, bicyclists and walkers to prevent the crowding of streets and sidewalks.

Circulation planning

• The plan proposes creation of a network of streets with sidewalks, midblock walkways, bike lanes, and vehicular ways that may double the amount of space currently provided for all kinds of circulation. Except for the existing streets, the network will be created through a zoning process that requires developers to include streets, sidewalks and midblock walkways as parts of their proposed developments. With the exception of the midblock walkways, the new circulation facilities may be required through zoning to be primarily on the periphery of a site that is proposed for development. With small block frontage this may be adequate for walkers. With larger sites, it may not suffice, as pedestrians may be faced with longer, perhaps inconvenient walking routes.

• The historical nature of this space as industrial has created a layout that is not conducive to walking. Distances are relatively long for access to the subway. In addition, walkers are confronted by four intersections that pose a major barrier to pedestrian access to and from the redevelopment zone:

1. Old Colony Avenue and Columbia Road

2. Dorchester Avenue, Dorchester St, Preble St, and Boston St.

3. Dorchester Avenue, Damrell St, and D Street

4. Dorchester Avenue, Old Colony Avenue, W. 7th St, and B St.

The use of Complete Streets circulation principles

Boston and the state agencies both espouse Complete Streets principles in designs for streets. Application of these principles to existing facilities may bring challenges. For example, the principles applied to Dorchester Avenue may change the character of the street considerably. As a two-lane facility with parking on both sides of the street, change may be essential to incorporate safe bicycle lanes and sidewalks, along with landscaping treatment that may involve a row of new street trees within the study area.

However, the street’s right-of-way may not be sufficient to incorporate all of these competing uses unless care is taken in the design. To maintain continuity of design and treatment, this suggests a very strong role for the city in overseeing or providing facilities for private landowners.

By contrast, with 4 lanes, Old Colony Avenue provides more space for incorporation of changes in movement patterns and in redesign to add amenities that can support the extensive development anticipated here.

Park planning

• The thoroughfare called Ellery Street is planned to be extended as a street with a contiguous greenway through much of the study area. The greenway would be constructed on land adjacent to a street and to buildable parcels created in specific locations. There are several questions that come from this proposal: Will the greenway be designed and constructed by the businesses? What role will the city play? Who will be responsible for maintenance of the greenway?

• For the proposed pedestrian/bike way running along the frontage road/train tracks, where will the funds for construction and maintenance come from? Can this path and bikeway be constructed as part of the street proposed for the edge of parcels that abut the rail yards?

• The plan calls for the creation of a 1-2 acre park by asking developers to consolidate their open space requirements into a single area. We are concerned that businesses may not want to consolidate their open space requirements. In that instance, where would the funds come for the construction and maintenance of this space?

• The creation of a park and pedestrian greenway requires the commitment of businesses willing to participate in density bonus measures that provide the city with open space. If businesses opt out of those density bonus plans then this area is reduced to 45-foot tall buildings with no parks, no open spaces, and no network of connectivity.

The pedestrian experience

• Retail amenities encourage walking. Much of the frontage of both Old Colony and Dorchester Avenue is planned to be retail – a very good idea if the demand for the space remains solid. However, there are clear indications that sales of goods in massive quantities on the internet are drying up many of the opportunities for brick-and-mortar sites for retail activities. It seems doubtful that the current market for goods will change significantly.

• Services such as dry cleaners, restaurants, banks, etc. are, of course, likely to require physical operating space. It is possible that projections of space needs specifically for services may be required to more closely balance space allocations with likely demand. However, many services do not require physical space adjacent to a sidewalk. To the extent that proposed zoning can be tailored, services might be used to occupy the space that may be zoned for retail activities. Restaurants immediately come to mind as an opportunity area. Perhaps a focus on food services may be an appropriate alternative that should be nurtured.

• It is important to note that a positive pedestrian experience requires a seamless network of spaces and attractions. If in the process of constructing on sites in this large area, businesses are filing commercial spaces at large physical intervals, it deters walking, while simultaneously promoting driving and crime by creating dead zones of activity.

While there are many admirable aspects of this plan including potential pedestrian networks and implementation of Boston’s Complete Streets Guidelines, much remains vague. Rezoning can allow for certain types of redevelopment, but in no way ensures the creation of those possibilities. If rezoning does occur as planned, we suggest that the developer guidelines and site plan review process be rigorous and keep walkability at the forefront of the development goals.

This rezoning plan allows for the creation of many great things for pedestrians, but in no way ensures those aspects of the plan will be implemented in the long run.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this emerging plan.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane

Senior Planner

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

Comments on ENF for 33-61 Temple Street, Beacon Hill

May 31, 2016

Christopher Tracy
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Boston City Hall
1 City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201

Re: Expanded Project Notification Form for 33‐61 Temple Street, Beacon Hill

Dear Mr. Tracy,

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Expanded Project Notification Form for 33-61 Temple Street in Beacon Hill. We are commenting because of concern about pedestrian issues associated with this project.

We appreciate that the project will add residential units that meet ADA standards for accessible buildings. We also agree that replacing the non-conforming academic use of the structures will improve the neighborhood by reducing street activities related to the arrival and departure of students. We anticipate that the new residents will enjoy the environmental benefits of the shared street that services their building.

In addition, replacing the façade of the more modern Donahue Building will clearly benefit the historic appearance of the Beacon Hill neighborhood and mesh the project more closely with the architecturally‐significant structures that surround it. Wind and shadow impacts appear to be minimal.

This proposal capitalizes on a very centrally‐located site. The existing buildings to be redeveloped are located at the edge of historic Beacon Hill, across the street from the Massachusetts State House, and just a few minutes walking distance from the center of downtown Boston. The area is well-served by public transportation – indeed, stations on all four of the MBTA’s subway lines are within a walking distance of 10‐15 minutes. Six bus lines are nearby. As a result, many future residents will be able to commute to work and walk to many neighborhood destinations without the need for public transportation or motor vehicles.

Notwithstanding the transit-served and walkable setting of the site, the project is quite auto-centric. In a densely built downtown neighborhood that is one of the premier walking neighborhoods in the United States, the project proposes adding 60 parking spaces for the proposed 75 units in the two buildings. As a result of this project, 60 parking spaces will be added to a street where there are none at all at present. These parked vehicles will require access via Temple Street, which was formally designated a pedestrian street in 1970 by Mayor Kevin White and Governor Michael Dukakis, with an added designation as Temple Walk in 1977. Since its designation as a pedestrian street, parking on the street has been removed, sidewalks have been widened, alternating sides of the street have a flush curb between the sidewalk and roadway. Landscaping has been added, and residents have enjoyed the environmental benefits of a prescient plan for what is now called a shared street. On shared streets, pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles all have equal rights to the street space. Vehicles must proceed slowly, parking is nonexistent or very limited, and walking or biking on the street is very pleasurable and deemed to be safe for all.

WalkBoston recommends significantly reducing the number of on-site parking spaces
The principal concern is that the addition of these spaces will tip the current carefully balanced pedestrian-vehicle use of the street and make the space less pleasant for walkers. On-site parking is an expectation that has been challenged successfully elsewhere in the city and should be challenged here.

WalkBoston suggests that the planned number of parking spaces should be reduced. Several options should be explored:

Eliminate all parking within the building. The development of Lovejoy Wharf in the North End of downtown Boston pioneered the elimination of on-site parking for residential development with close and excellent mass transit and with nearby garages for off-site parking.

Reduce the presumed demand for parking by reducing the number of residential units in the building or simply reduce the ratio of parking spaces/unit.

Improve services for residents and thus reduce any residual demand for vehicles. An extensive row of bicycle racks are proposed for the building and bike-sharing appears to be a real possibility. Car-sharing providers such as Zipcar or Enterprise Rent-A-Car space should be included within the garage.

Work with the owners of nearby garages to arrange for the rental or purchase of parking spaces for those residents who determine that they need to own a car.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

RFP for 872 Morton Street and Rear Parcel

April 4, 2016

Christopher Rooney, Project Manager
Department of Neighborhood Development
Boston City Hall
City Hall Plaza
Boston, MA 02201

Re: RFP for 872 Morton Street and Rear Parcel

Dear Mr. Rooney:

WalkBoston is very pleased that the 872 Morton Street parcel is being developed with strong community input. From your presentations, we understand that the goal of the development will be to enhance the social and aesthetic character of the neighborhood.

WalkBoston requests that the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the development site include the following items:
• A vegetative buffer around the Steven P. Tranquility Garden that will enhance its serenity and sense of healing. As noted in the several Renew Our Community (ROC) meetings, the 5,000 s.f. dedicated to the Garden should not be adjacent to access roadways or development that would detract from its restorative atmosphere of peace.
• Separation between access to the development site and residences on Hopkins Street. Current plans call for an access road between 21 and 27 Hopkins Street. Because of the small house lots, the roadway would be virtually next to the houses, especially 21 Hopkins and might necessitate the taking of mature trees. As discussed at the neighborhood meetings and also brought up at the public hearing on March 24, the neighborhood would like to see every effort made to create an access/egress directly off of Evans Road that would be further away from the Hopkins residences. Furthermore, an access off Hopkins Street would be very close to the Steven P. Odom Tranquility Garden and detract from the sanctuary nature of the Park.

Sincerely,
Dorothea Hass

cc: Trena Ambroise
Daniel Ayala
Frederick Paulsen
Johnathan Kitchen
Councilor Andrea Campbell

Comments on Old Northern Ave Bridge 2/24/16

February 24, 2016

Kevin Kotelly, P.E.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England District
696 Virginia Road
Concord, MA 01742-2751

Brona Simon
Massachusetts Historical Commission
220 William T Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA 02125

Re: Old Northern Avenue Bridge

Dear Mr. Kotelly and Ms. Simon:

WalkBoston has been engaged in discussions about the Old Northern Avenue Bridge for more than 15 years – a remarkably long time for action to be taken on one of the City’s iconic and important pieces of infrastructure.

As a participant in the City’s informal review process during spring 2015, WalkBoston was one of the eleven groups1 that voted to support the rehabilitation of the bridge (two groups supported a new bridge). After being asked by the City to participate in an in-depth review and discussion process, we feel that this strong support for rehabilitation should weigh heavily in the City’s final decision about the future of the Bridge.

WalkBoston is a strong supporter of rehabilitating the existing bridge and doing so immediately to restore an important element of the City’s pedestrian network, end the endless debate, and maintain a piece of the city’s character. Specifically, rehabilitating this bridge, rather than replacing it with a new structure is important for the following reasons:

• The ONAB was, and should again be, the route of daily walking for thousands of Bostonians. Maintaining a level crossing for pedestrians between the waterfront and the seaport significantly enhances the walking experience by being easy, allowing walkers to have full views as they walk between the districts, and giving walkers the experience of being close to
the water and the harbor. The arched Moakley Bridge is less comfortable and less attractive for walkers than the Old Northern Avenue Bridge (and used less by walkers when the ONAB was open to pedestrians). This is the opposite of what we should be thinking about for the future of this important connection.

• The industrial character of the Bridge is an enormous part of its charm, and creates an everyday link to Boston’s working and seafaring past – we should not lose this important part of our personality. Perhaps the bridge also presents an opportunity to link our old technology with the arrival of GE and its focus on new technology. New York’s High Line is a wonderful and evocative example of how old industrial infrastructure can be a source of joy and economic development – the ONAB should be thought of in that same creative way. A “Friends of the Old Northern Avenue Bridge” group should be formed to immediately and creatively raise funds and develop a plan for rehabilitating and re-using the Bridge.

• The ONAB is an important element of the Harbor Walk, and in its existing place and configuration is one of its most interesting spots.

• WalkBoston does not oppose allowing emergency and high occupancy vehicles to use the Bridge, but we are skeptical that allowing general vehicle use of the Bridge will do anything to alleviate the transportation problems of the Seaport, and will only result in more cars jammed into a portion of Atlantic Avenue that cannot accommodate them. In fact the opposite may occur. As a very attractive and pleasant way for walkers to get around the City, the ONAB will encourage walking, biking and transit use – exactly what we need to be doing for the future of the Seaport and all of Boston.

• While WalkBoston strongly and emphatically supports the rehabilitation of the ONAB, we believe that this may not necessarily entail a full and meticulous restoration of every element of the structure. We think that it is important to capture the functionality, spirit and identity of the bridge, while also acknowledging that timely and cost-effective implementation is of great importance.

We hope that the ACOE and MHC will support the rehabilitation of the Old Northern Avenue Bridge and we would be pleased to answer any questions you might have about our position.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director
WalkBoston

Want to submit your own comments? Here are some tips from the Boston Preservation Alliance:
http://www.bostonpreservation.org/allianceviews/2016/02/urge-city-hall-key-agencies-to-preserve-the-northern-avenue-bridge/