Tag: FEIR

Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Wynn Everett Development, MEPA# 15060

August 8, 2014

Secretary Maeve Vallely Bartlett
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
Attn: Anne Canaday
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Wynn Everett Development MEPA# 15060

Dear Secretary Vallely Bartlett:

WalkBoston has reviewed this document, in keeping with what we have done for other projects across the state, looking for potential mplications for pedestrians as a result of the proposal. We offer the following comments.

Access to the site as a pedestrian
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Wynn Everett Development includes changes in the program between the DEIR and the FEIR. Changes that were introduced reduce the square footage devoted to the hotel, retail space, and convention services and enlarge the gaming areas, food/beverage service areas, entertainment/nightclub areas and support areas. Total square footage of the development has risen from 2,619,234 to 3,038,695 square feet. A total of 3,200 slot machines and 160 gaming tables are proposed, along with a 504-room hotel. The number of parking spaces under the complex has been increased and will house 3,700 cars on-site and 800 off-site.

• The use of public transportation is not encouraged by the present plan. Arrivals by vehicle are emphasized. The project is estimated to generate 9,424 vehicle trips on a Friday. Fewer people will arrive by public transportation – estimate at 3,265 public transportation person trips and 1,454 additional trips if water transportation is provided. (it is unclear where the water transportation riders go if water transportation is not provided, and this analysis should be provided if the proponent does not contractually commit to providing water transportation service.)

• Estimates of the use of public transportation conclude that capacity on public transportation is available, suggesting that more use of public transportation could be encouraged. Bus routes that serve the site generally have excess capacity (although estimates are that use will exceed capacity of Routes 104 and 109 outbound at certain times. Given the capacity available, there are no suggestions of making greater use of bus services on Alford Street at the site entrance or of enhancing capacity on Routes 104 and 109. Orange Line riders are also projected to be accommodated by available capacity. Shuttle service to the site from the Orange Line Sullivan Square Station is proposed, and, if adequately promoted, may at some point in the future result in more patrons arriving by public transportation.

• Walk-in traffic is not encouraged by the present plan. Walk-ins to the site include public transportation riders as well as nearby residents or employees. We are concerned that the pedestrian access may be unattractive to walkers. Sidewalks along both sides of the entrance drive are not afforded the lavish landscaping and improvements that surround paths along the water. Walk-in customers are not anticipated from the west side of the tracks, though a potential route is to be provided.

• A portion of the riverside might be used for additional pedestrian access. Immediately adjacent to this property, and also along the Mystic River, are lands owned and occupied in part by public agencies that front on Route 99. The proponent should explore with these agencies the potential for riverside access for pedestrians, in effect extending the Mystic River pathway network closer to Sullivan Square and making the walking routes much more attractive. The riverside route could be an attractive alternative for walkers to reach the proponent’s property away from the heavy traffic on Route 99.

The on-site paths are major links in the East Coast Greenway/Northern Strand/Bike to the Sea rail trail.
Although the proposal does not encourage access by pedestrians, it does include a very good proposal to extend the on-site walkways into the adjacent Gateway Park. Plans are in place for a regional multi-purpose path between downtown Boston and the New Hampshire state line. Called the Borders to Boston Trail, this route is 28 miles long and traverses 8 communities. Everett has constructed a portion of the path that is currently the southern end of the trail. A link across the Mystic River is required to access Boston. One proposal was to construct a pedestrian bridge over the Mystic River between Everett and Somerville. The engineering study done for this connection resulted in a finding that there was no feasible crossing at this location at an acceptable cost.

The alternative to a new and costly bridge is a connection directly through the proponent’s site. The route would connect Gateway Park’s riverside paths through the proponent’s site, where the route would link with bike paths and sidewalks along Alford Street to gain access into Boston. As it becomes a link in a major-north-south bicycle and pedestrian route, it will need careful attention to design details in the path proposed by the proponent. For a multipurpose path of this importance, a clear width of 10’ may be inadequate to accommodate likely numbers of walkers, joggers and cyclists. The route across the site should be investigated to assure that potential users of the site’s waterfront will not be adversely affected by the multi-purpose path. Access at the Alford Street intersection should also be investigated to assure safety for pedestrians and cyclists who may be crossing to get to the site.

Off-site improvements
The proponent has committed to improve several roadways near the site. Alford Street will clearly be in need of improvements because of impacts from this proposal. Alford Street will also need appropriate pedestrian signal equipment (automatic WALK signals during times of day when pedestrians will be present, countdown signals, leading pedestrian indicators, and signal heads at each intersection). Refuge islands at the street centerline should be considered. Crosswalks will need fresh zebra striping, possible curb extensions and potential addition of in-street crosswalk “yield to pedestrian” signs.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman Robert Sloane
Executive Director Senior Planner

—————————————————————————————————

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

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

Waterfront Square at Revere Beach Comment Letter

May 8, 2009

Secretary Ian Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Waterfront Square at Revere Beach, EOEA #14080

Dear Mr. Bowles:

WalkBoston is happy to submit comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Waterfront Square at Revere Beach. This project is a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) that embodies many of the precepts of concentrated development and pedestrian improvements that the state and region have been working toward. For this reason, our comments focus on whether the TOD elements will work well for pedestrians using the MBTA Wonderland Station, the new uses to be built on the site and people accessing Revere Beach and adjacent properties. We are pleased that many of the concerns we raised in our previous comments have been addressed by the FEIR, however (as discussed below) we continue to have some specific concerns.

We continue to be impressed that the project is being made possible by the joint efforts of the proponent and several public agencies owning property within the site. The public agencies – the MBTA and the Department of Conservation and Recreation have agreed to become part of the project to further the development goals of better, more intensive uses of their lands and increased use of the existing MBTA Blue Line terminus at Wonderland Station. Unfortunately, one site – the Seaside Site – has not been included in the development, even though it stands at the mid-point of the site and thus prevents contiguous development.

Summary of comments:

• Pedestrian connections to adjacent parcels should be explored.
• All crosswalks should have pedestrian signals timed to afford safe crossings.
• Pedestrian access on the ground level of the South Parking Garage seems to include potential hazards for pedestrians due to the need to cross bus lanes to reach the rail station
• Pedestrian crosswalks are sparse along Ocean Avenue.
• Pedestrian ramps at the Wonderland Station seem to be replaced by elevators and a stair. Does the new plan still include ramps?
• The Transit Plaza may have significant use by pedestrians linking train and bus trips, and should include generous walkways covered for weather protection.
• All bus-rail riders are required to cross above the rail tracks on one leg of their journey. Is there a way to explore all at-grade access between buses and trains on only one side of Wonderland Station?

Many WalkBoston concerns have been addressed by the FEIR. These include:

• Pedestrian access to the Transit Plaza above the roof level of the Wonderland Transit Station will be accomplished as part of the South Garage construction in Phase I. These elevators will be available for movement between the rail and bus stations and each level of the parking garage. A similar elevator will be added in Phase II between the east side of the rail station and the Transit Plaza level.
• The proponent is committed to constructing a pedestrian bridge connecting the site to the beachfront, and has committed to long-term maintenance and repair of the bridge.
• Sidewalks located along Route 1A on both sides of the street will be retained and improved as routes for local residents to walk to the station and the businesses or offices on the site.
• Sight lines and pedestrian connections pass through the proposed Transit Plaza and the pedestrian bridge from the site to the beachfront.
• These sight lines and pedestrian connections also reach to the future Revere stop on the commuter rail line west of Route 1A, through the large parking lot at Wonderland Park, now used for daytime commuter parking (and a future development site).
• The site has connections to regional trails and paths – beachfront and the north-south Border to Boston trail which connects to the Northern Strand Community Trail (aka Bike to the Sea Trail).
• The crosswalk at Route 1A and the access to the MBTA South Parking Garage is moved to the north side of the intersection. Nearly 400 people cross here daily according to August 2008 counts. At the north side of the intersection, pedestrians will be able to have a traffic signal cycle and not be at risk to the many right turning vehicles entering the South Garage site.

There are certain remaining concerns that are raised by our review of the FEIR:

• Alternatives should be explored to connect the Transit Plaza with adjacent parcels such as the Water’s Edge Apartments south of the Transit Plaza. Such a connection might be beneficial to this project because it could attract additional walkers to and through the site, either to the MBTA station or the beachfront.
• The Seaside Site, a parcel surrounded by this project but not included in these plans, is largely ignored. Pedestrian connections between this site and the north and south parts of this project and to the MBTA station and parking garages seem sketchy at best.
• A new crosswalk is planned at the intersection of Shawmut Street and the vehicular connection to the MBTA North Parking Garage. When the crosswalk is constructed, pedestrians should be provided with an adequate traffic signal interval to cross the street safely.
• Pedestrian circulation on the west side of the Transit Plaza at the entrance to the Blue Line station is shown in some detail in Figure F-2. The proposed Phase I South Parking Garage on MBTA property has a covered bus terminal directly adjacent to the Blue Line platform for easy pedestrian transfer between bus and rail services. The first floor of the Garage also houses kiss-and-ride and garage ramps. Pedestrian access between the drop-off lanes and the rail station appear to require crossing the bus lanes, and may be unsafe.
• Improvement of the pedestrian environment along Ocean Avenue is needed. Curb cuts for parking access along Ocean Avenue dominate the environment and only 6 widely separated crosswalks connect the site and the beachfront park.
• Existing pedestrian ramps at Wonderland Station provide pedestrian access up and over the station, independent of elevators. However, the ramps appear to be removed as part of the Phase II construction of the Transit Plaza and replaced by a monumental stairway. Will new construction include a physical replacement of the pedestrian ramps? If so, where will they be located in respect to the Transit Plaza, the MBTA train station and the MBTA bus station?
• The plan calls for elevators to be constructed on both sides of Wonderland Station to allow alighting riders to go up and over the station to reach either connecting buses or parking facilities. At the Transit Plaza level, peak period pedestrian movements may be significant, and may require generous connections between elevators, stairs and ramps. Perhaps these Transit Plaza pedestrian connections could be covered to protect transit riders from severe weather conditions? How many elevators are planned to accommodate peak hour pedestrian traffic between travel modes and the Transit Plaza? What volume of peak hour pedestrian traffic is expected?
• Can MBTA operating plans for arriving Blue Line trains at Wonderland Station be modified to reflect access to connecting buses? Currently, both inbound and outbound bus access takes place on the outbound side of the transit station, giving a direct at-grade route for alighting passengers to walk to buses, but requiring inbound pedestrians to climb up and over the station to the inbound tracks. In this proposal, future inbound access to rail from arriving buses will be at-grade on the inbound side of the transit station, and require outbound passengers to cross up and over the tracks to the outbound buses. Is it possible that arriving trains could be routed to the inbound side of the station, where they would have the same cross-platform access to buses without using stairs, ramps or elevators? Is it possible that this change in train routing could obviate the need to construct a Transit Plaza elevator on the east side of the tracks?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Waterfront Square at Revere Beach. We hope our comments on the FEIR are incorporated into your requirements for the next phase of design and permitting documents. Please contact us for any clarification or additional comments that would be useful.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

The Commons at Prospect Hill FEIR Comment Letter

April 10, 2009

Secretary Ian Bowles Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
The Commons at Prospect Hill
MEPA # 13952

Dear Secretary Bowles:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FEIR for The Commons at Prospect Hill in Waltham.

This plan is a roll-over from the SDEIR on which we commented in February, 2009. We note, since this is simply the roll-over of that document, changes have not been incorporated in the plan since that time. Thus, our comments on the SDEIR remain the same as when they were written.

We hope that the final design of the project will incorporate a greater measure of concern about the facilities that pedestrians need throughout the project, and that sufficient safety measures will be put into place to assure that pedestrians crossing streets or parking lots will be protected from the flood of autos that will be attracted by the project.

As you may know, we met with the proponent and had the opportunity of presenting our comments directly to the designers. It is entirely possible that we did not present our case understandably or make our suggestion sufficiently attractive to persuade the development team to place a greater emphasis on pedestrian activities throughout the site. However, we would also point out that 21st century standards of development are rapidly evolving toward greater emphasis on pedestrian-friendly and transit-accessible designs in all parts of the country. We find it disappointing that that is not the case with this project.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Please let us know if you would like further clarification of our comments.

Sincerely,
Wendy Landman Robert Sloane
Executive Director Senior Planner

The Commons at Prospect Hill SDEIR Comment Letter

February 18, 2009

Secretary Ian Bowles
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR)
The Commons at Prospect Hill
MEPA # 13952

Dear Secretary Bowles:

Thank you much for the opportunity to comment on the evolving plan represented in the SDEIR for The Commons at Prospect Hill in Waltham.

We are commenting this time to underscore our feeling that opportunities are being lost to create a development that could be a model for the 21st c. We are certain that proponents for The Commons at Prospect Hill could go further toward ensuring that walking (and bicycling and transit use) can be supported by the new development.

Summary of Comments
We note that the SDEIR has incorporated few, if any, adjustments to the proponent’s DEIR plan that reflect the comments raised by WalkBoston about that plan’s pedestrian circulation and safety needs and possible modifications to the physical layout of the project to encourage walking.

The following comments relate to pedestrian safety and circulation throughout the site. We have added suggestions that we think should be considered to make the development more attractive to pedestrians.

1. Pedestrian safety along the rail trail

Access to adjacent buildings. We continue to be concerned that there do not seem to be any places where pedestrians can access new buildings from the trail without crossing driveways or parking lots. A more extensive effort should provide routes that are safe for pedestrians moving within parts of the project. For example, access to Buildings 10 and 11, immediately adjacent to the rail trail, could be included and made attractive.
Trail/site driveway crossings. Unprotected pedestrian crossings along the rail trail are not safe for walkers. The crossing of the rail trail at the East Driveway has the potential for being difficult to use and unsafe for each crossing. It seems insufficient to state that safety issues related to crossings will be dealt with at a later date. At the Central Driveway and at the Primary Driveway, crossings will be signalized, but extremely heavy site traffic is anticipated, and pedestrian phases must be built into the signalization of both intersections.

2. Pedestrians in the Main Street corridor

The relatively high density of development proposed for the entrance areas near Main Street would suggest that a pedestrian-friendly precinct is especially important in this part of the site. However, the sidewalk along Main Street remains cramped and narrow, with insufficient space to accommodate both walking and bicycling.
Snow storage in winter will further complicate pedestrian movement along this frontage. No provision is evident for snow storage along this perimeter.
Extending the sidewalk partially u n der Building No. 9 would make it more useful as the major entry to the site that also must accommodate MBTA transit access and the rail-trail as it crosses the site. As the front door of the site, it should be extremely welcoming to all who arrive on foot, by transit and bike.

3. Pedestrians in the Lifestyle Center
The layout of the Lifestyle Center, comprised of Buildings 5,6,7,8 and 9, is unchanged from the DEIR. It remains a problem area that is largely unsupportive of safe and attractive pedestrian activity. About 180 parking spaces are planned to be the focus of the pedestrian-oriented Lifestyle Center area, and they separate all the buildings with double rows of parking and a traffic circle. These concessions to cars are made despite the existence of a very large parking garage, which will abut the parking lots at the heart of the Lifestyle Center – the traffic circle – adjacent to Building 6. To cope with these liabilities, we suggest:

Limiting parking on both sides of Lifestyle Center streets to parallel curb parking rather than diagonal parking, and narrowing the street in the regained space.
Reserving a portion of the wide sidewalks on the Lifestyle Center streets solely for pedestrians, with outdoor cafes and other attractions to make it lively.
Adding retail spaces on the ground level of the garage to enlarge the variety of business options in the Lifestyle Center and attract more pedestrian/customers.
Connecting Building 9 more directly with the Lifestyle Center by providing sidewalks on both sides of the building all the way to Main Street, and by including retail facilities on the ground floor to attract more pedestrians and to make the walk more interesting.
Connecting Building 3 more directly to the Lifestyle Center. Presently located immediately behind the parking garage, Building 3 is indirectly connected to the pedestrian network via walkways that wind between Building 6 and the parking garage. Whether Building 3 has retail, office or other occupants, it can be directly connected to the Lifestyle Center.
Connecting Building 4 more directly to the Lifestyle Center. It is not far from Building 6 in the present plan, but inexplicably unconnected to the Lifestyle Center.

4. Pedestrians in the big box areas
The scale of the remaining development remains sprawling, with large 1-2 story retail structures surrounded by parking. This layout is not conducive to encouraging pedestrian trips. If buildings are to be so widely separated by parking lots, the proponent should make additional efforts to assure that these very lengthy walkways are pedestrian-friendly. Buildings 1, 2 and 11 are so large and so distant from the Lifestyle Center pedestrian ways that they may never become pedestrian destinations.

Redesign sidewalks in the outlying areas to make them more direct. Navigating the sidewalks from the Lifestyle Center to Building 11, for example, requires following a formidable, very indirect route that few will follow.
Redesign sidewalks leading to outlying large retail buildings to make them landscaped, green corridors with shelters, lights and wayfinding signs added. • Incorporate green walking corridors alongside partially open, functional drainageways inside the parking lots (also useable for snow storage).

5. Walkways in and connecting to the adjacent parks
The abutting Prospect Hill Park and the 20-acre Berry Farm parcel offer opportunities for recreational walkways linked to the development on this site.

Connections between Prospect Hill Park, the Berry Farm and the Wayside Rail Trail should be added, perhaps at the east boundary of this site, where parking lots could be skirted.
Hillside Road, an existing roadway through land owned by the city in Prospect Hill Park, will be abandoned and truncated as a result of this project. Hillside Road might become the corridor for a walkway within the park along the east side of the site – readily useable by all site occupants. An extension of Hillside Road further north on the site could be located within the buried power line corridor and could eventually extend to Third Street north of the site.
Connecting a Hillside Road walkway with the rail trail would apparently involve using the sidewalk along the East Driveway. As an alternative, the City of Waltham might be interested in a Prospect Park corridor between Hillside Road and a yet-to-be planned trail system within the Berry Farm – ultimately connecting with the rail trail.

6. Intersections and the rail trail
The statewide rail trail through the site involves passage through very high density land uses and traffic. Because of this, considerable effort must be made to assure that children and others walking or riding along the rail trail are safe. Three difficult intersections on the site will be crossed by the trail at Primary Driveway, Central Driveway and East Driveway. Additional intersection crossings will be required within the new interchange to be constructed above Route 95/128. All intersections will be very heavily traveled. An extraordinary amount of effort will be required to assure that pedestrian safety at all of these intersections is made secure and convenient.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Please feel free to contact us for clarification or additional comments.

Sincerely,
Wendy Landman Robert Sloane
Executive Director Senior Planner

Olde Sibley Farm Comment Letter

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the FEIR for the proposed Reserve and Crossing at Olde Sibley Farm in Spencer. The document details a decision by the Massachusetts Highway Department and officials of the town to forego construction of sidewalks along the Route 9 frontage of the site, notwithstanding the state’s legal commitment under MGL 90E 2A (1996) and MHD’s 2006 Project Design and Development Guide to accommodate pedestrians. This portion of Route 9 is within 500 feet of existing sidewalks and is directly adjacent to the community’s high school.

Read the full letter here:
WalkBoston-CommentFEIR-OldeSibleyFarm-Spencer