Tag: MBTA

Comments on ENF for Caesars Resort at Suffolk Downs

March 26, 2013

Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on ENF for Caesars Resort at Suffolk Downs – EEA #15006

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the ENF for Caesars Resort at Suffolk Downs. We find agreement with the general design, as it seems directed toward providing safe facilities for pedestrians. A number of design details should be more closely investigated as part of the DEIR. Our comments about those details follow.

Underlying Assumptions
Many of the patrons and staff of the casino complex and racetrack will arrive on foot from transit stations or parking lots. Thus walking should be a significant element of the project design, coordinated with vehicular routes to minimize potential conflicts. Walking, transit and bike use should be maximize d in keeping with the Commonwealth’s goal of tripling the share of walking, biking and transit use. Access to and from the two MBTA stations and the Route 1A bus lines, and access between distant parking locations and the casinos and the racetrack are the primary routes to be addressed. Walking access between the site and adjacent residential areas should also be addressed.

Good information about the projected volumes of pedestrians (and bicycles) should inform the design and size of facilities.
For example, the ENF states that most employees will come to the site via public transportation. While not explicitly stated, we would anticipate that nearly all would walk from the MBTA stations into the site (unless shuttle service is provided). Because the Suffolk Downs Station is considerably closer to the proposed buildings than Beachmont Station, it will likely attract more users. The walkway from the station into the site should be designed to accommodate the anticipated volume of walkers (and bicyclists if they will use the same route) and the projected volumes should be included in the DEIR.

Overall Design Issues to be addressed
• The design of walkways and walk routes should be attractive, include high quality landscaping, and feel inviting both day and night, winter and summer. Designs should include:
– A network of short distance walkways to encourage people to walk on site.
– Lighting for safety, using designs that do not spill into residential areas or obscure the night sky
– Safety and security especially given late night operations for employees and patrons, where there are fairly long walks such as the one to the Suffolk Downs MBTA station
– Benches
– Smooth surfaces on all walkways
– Year round maintenance including snow shoveling
– Shade while walking to the casinos and hotels
– In New England, inclement weather is inevitable, suggesting the possibility of providing shelters or coverings along walkways, or alternative means of reaching destinations, such as a shuttle bus service
– Wayfinding for pedestrians – Signage should be employed as fully as possible to help pedestrians find their routes within this very large site. Signs would also encourage the use of MBTA bus routes and subway facilities, and should be used to designate access points in the event an on-site bus shuttle service is provided. Other off-site locations of interest should be included, such as the Belle Isle Marsh Reservation, Revere Beach and potentially the Target/Super Stop and Shop complex , the racetrack’s horse barns and other sites that might improve the experience of nearby residents as well as patrons of the casinos, the racetrack, and the hotels.
– Parking lots should be designed attractively, with trees and with defined walking paths that are separated from moving vehicle areas within the lots

• Multi-use path design.
The paths on the site that are walking/biking multi-use paths should provide appropriate widths to allow for safe shared use. MassDOT standards (Mass Highway Department Project Development and Design Guide, 2006), call for multi-use paths to be 10—14 feet wide to accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles, and for wider facilities if substantial volumes of foot and bike traffic are anticipated.

Tomasello Way/Rte 1A intersection and Tomasello Way Design
• Bus service
Bus service along Rte 1A is already substantial. Routes along the roadway connect Salem Center, Marblehead and Peabody Square to Haymarket and Downtown Crossing – 6 bus routes in total. Well-designed and highly-visible bus stops, along with weather-protecting shelters, should be included in the revamping of the intersection of the Tomasello Way/Rte 1A intersection.
• Signals and crosswalks
In keeping with the intersection’s importance as the front door of the proposed development, the intersection will need to be fully signalized for safety for all users, including pedestrians who will be crossing Rte 1A to and from the new bus stops and shelters. In the re-signalization of the intersection, pedestrian count-down signals should be employed.
• Access between the intersection and the on-site facilities
The proposal includes a major pedestrian way leading from the intersection of Tomasello Way and Rte 1A into the main entrance to the casinos, the racetrack and the hotels. It appears to be useful and attractive, but it must be made safe for walkers and is worthy of significant improvements to make it safe. According to the preliminary drawings, the walkway will be located in the median strip of the rebuilt south portion of Tomasello Way. This is a formal design that could be handsome, but it results in a strip of walkway in the median that could be difficult for walkers to access, because it requires them to cross roadways on both ends of the walkway – near Rte 1A and at the casino/racetrack entrances, as well as at intermediate locations in between – five crosswalks in all. A better solution might be to have the pedestrian way located on the south side of Tomasello Way, with more direct access across the street at a point where the walkway is closest to the casino. This would reduce potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts along the full length of this stretch of Tomasello Way.
• Amenities along Tomasello Way
Pedestrians walking via Tomasello Way have a relatively long walk between Rte 1A and the site (roughly equivalent to 3-4 city blocks). The preliminary drawings show lines of trees that will be very appropriate to make a pleasant walk. Seating along the way would also make the route more attractive and allow people to rest as they make their way to the casinos or the racetrack.
• A sidewalk connecting Tomasello Way and Waldemar Avenue in Orient Heights
A wholly new but short on-site sidewalk connecting Tomasello Way and Waldemar Avenue would allow Orients Heights residents to reach the bus stops at the intersection of Rte 1A and Tomasello Way, and to be able to walk to the casinos or the racetrack.
• A roadway connecting Tomasello Way to Waldemar Avenue in Orient Heights
Consideration of a sidewalk connecting Tomasello Way and Waldemar Avenue should include examination of a future road connection as well. A new, relatively short street to link Tomasello Way to Waldemar Avenue could reduce problems at the intersection of Waldemar Avenue and Route 1A near the Tomasello Way entrance to the site because it would allow Orient Heights access to be diverted to the Tomasello Way entrance to the site. The connection could include options for improving the safety of nearby residents:
– Waldemar Avenue could become a dead-end street before reaching Rte 1A; or
– It could be made one-way inbound toward the residences; or
– It might be connected to Vallar Road if gradients are favorable.

The continuation of Tomasello Way to the Suffolk Downs MBTA station
A driveway currently exists along the proponent’s property line between the Rte 1A entrance to the site and the small turnaround space in front of Suffolk Downs T station. The west half of this route has been covered above. However, the future of the east half of the driveway is unclear, even though it could be used for vehicular and pedestrian traffic as part of the larger plan. An explanation should be provided as to:
– Whether this driveway will become an access roadway providing service both to the south entrance to the casino, and to the Suffolk Downs MBTA Station.
– Whether this driveway will be extended to connect into the local roadways of Orient Heights, such as Waldemar Avenue, Walley Street and Bonito Square. This connection could relatively easily reach Bennington Street as well, and could become a major route for vehicles entering or leaving the site.
– Whether an improvement is planned for the pedestrian component of the service plaza at the MBTA Station.
– What the pedestrian connections along this roadway will become, as it provides a major walkway between the MBTA station and the casinos and hotels. This connection might also be used to enhance direct access from neighborhood walkways into the station.

Pedestrian access from off-site locations
• Pedestrian access between Orient Heights and a potential Route 1A bus stop at Boardman Avenue.
A partial interchange is proposed for the intersection of Boardman Avenue (Route 145) and Route 1A. The proposal calls for a northbound overpass above Rte 1A to pass over the turning between Rte 1A and Boardman Avenue. The overpass design and focus of turning traffic at the intersection suggests some difficult crossings for pedestrians from Orient Heights. Bus stop access for pedestrians should be explored as part of the proposed partial interchange. It may be possible to link Boardman Street access to the bus stop at Tomasello Way.
• Pedestrian access between Orient Heights and the Target/Super Stop and Shop complex
The ENF notes that walkers from Orient Heights need to cross the Suffolk Downs site to get to the shopping complex located near the intersection of Tomasello Way and Furlong Drive, which are important businesses for Orient Heights residents to use. Data support-ing this suggestion would be useful. The multi-use path along Tomasello Way will improve this walk. From a pedestrian point-of-view, the suggested location of the walkway on the east side of Tomasello Way results in pedestrians from Orient Heights crossing at least 6 streets on route to the shopping complex, unless they follow the alternative walking route that hugs the buildings. The proponent should examine whether the walkway could be moved to the west side of Tomasello Way to reduce the number of crossings. Pedestrians walking along Tomasello Way should also be protected from walking through either of the two roundabouts at the approach to the hotels and casinos. Roundabouts are not very safe for pedestrian because of the potential conflicts with turning vehicles.
• Pedestrian access between Crescent Heights and the Target/Super Stop and Shop complex
Residents of the Crescent Heights neighborhood at the north edge of the site could also reach the shopping area via the Tomasello Way walkway.
• Racetrack walkway to the Target/Super Stop and Shop complex
The plan includes a walkway between the racetrack and the Target/Super Stop and Shop via the edge of the northern parking lots. The intersection of this walkway and Tomasello Way should be moved slightly to align with the front entrance to the shopping complex. The volume of foot traffic at this intersection may be low, but further exploration may suggest the need for a traffic signal with WALK signals.

Potential shuttle bus service
Shuttle buses should be considered to help people get around and to provide options during inclement weather. Options for shuttle bus stops include main entrances to the casino and race track, the Suffolk Downs and Beachmont MBTA stations, bus stops on Route 1A at Tomasello Way, the bus stop on Winthrop Avenue, and for access to the more remote parking areas. Facilities to support shuttle bus service may include the addition of a turnaround area in front of Suffolk Downs MBTA Station and a u-turn on Tomasello Way just short of Route 1A. Shuttles may also be useful to serve future night transit service on the Blue Line and elsewhere.

Local Community Benefits – pedestrian improvements at other locations
The ENF includes suggestions that certain improvements outlined by the Lower North Shore Traffic Study of 2000 could be included as part of the mitigation for the construction of this facility. Although no detail has been supplied on these locations, they appear to include intersections at Route 16 at Winthrop Avenue/Harris Street, the vicinity of the Beachmont MBTA Station in Revere, in the vicinity of Route 16/Route 1A/Bell Circle in Revere, and, in East Boston, at Bennington & Saratoga Streets at Orient Heights MBTA station and Boardman St. in East Boston. Many of these improvements have been requested by the affected communities and will need to be detailed in further submittals to show potential impacts on pedestrians.

We appreciate your consideration of our comments and your responses to them. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Mystic River Recreational Trail Comment Letter

March 22, 2011

Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

Attn: MEPA Office, Deirdre Buckley

RE: Comments on the Environmental Notification Form, EEA No. 14718 Mystic River Recreational Trail

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Environmental Notification Form for the Mystic River Recreational Trail in Somerville. The project has grown out of the analysis of the Assembly Square development project, which will enlarge and improve the riverside park along the Mystic River. The completion of the new riverside park will result in trails along the south bank of the Mystic for about one mile, reaching from the MBTA rail overpass near the Mystic River Dam to the network of paths that outline part of the Ten Hills neighborhood and along the river to Mystic Valley Parkway (Route 16) in Medford. However, these trails are divided into two discontinuous parts on either side of the Fellsway (Route 28), a heavily traveled roadway which is difficult for pedestrians to cross safely.

The proposal calls for construction of an underpass to accommodate a recreational trail beneath the Mystic River Bridge (Fellsway, Route 28). This underpass would link the Assembly Square development with the Ten Hills neighborhood in Somerville and provide a continuous walkway along the Mystic River. Construction of the underpass will also include some improvements to pathway connections to it on both sides of the Fellsway (Route 28).

WalkBoston fully supports construction of the underpass and welcomes the connections it will provide for walking and bicycling along the Mystic River. The facility will strengthen the Assembly Square development and add a new amenity to other areas near the river. The trail will ultimately be an element in a larger network of trails into and through Assembly Square, and will connect with the proposed station on the Orange Line.

WalkBoston continues to support smooth surfaces on walking routes and in public spaces that serve as pedestrian gathering places and plazas. Brick, granite or concrete pavers create a visually distinctive space but without very careful maintenance these surfaces can quickly become uneven, making for treacherous walking. Such materials are also often difficult to clear of snow during the winter months. Specifications for this project should call for smooth materials leading from both sides onto the wooden deck that constitutes the trail under the bridge. We encourage the selection of smooth walking surfaces wherever possible.

The Assembly Square development is described as a transit-oriented development and we understand that the transit station is being constructed early in the development sequence. The proposed underpass is an integral part of providing good pedestrian connections to the Assembly Square transit station from the Ten Hills neighborhood, and will help to draw pedestrians to the new station.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Please contact us if you have questions. Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc Monica R. Lamboy, Executive Director, Somerville Strategic Planning and Community Development,
Jaime Corliss, Director, Shape Up Somerville

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