Tag: sidewalks

Chestnut Hill Square Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report

January 5, 2007

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

Attn: Bill Gage

RE: Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report
Chestnut Hill Square
200 Boylston Street, Newton, MA
EOEA # 12928

Dear Mr. Bowles:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Chestnut Hill Square in Newton, MA. The proposal will have significant impacts on future circulation in and near several malls and residential towers on Route 9, an essential regional artery. We conclude that the pedestrian aspects of the proposal may play an extremely important role in alleviating congestion.

We are pleased that the project proponent has made so many substantial efforts to integrate pedestrian facilities into the project. In general, we think it is a promising basis for a more complete pedestrian network on the site – one that draws its neighbors together. In addition, we have several concerns about the project which are described below:

• Assessing the market for walking in the area

• Encouraging nearby residents to walk

• Providing a comprehensive network of pedestrian pathways

o The Florence Street frontage

o The west boundary of the property

o The east boundary of the property

o The Route 9 frontage

o Interior walkways

• Integrating access to public transit

• Assuring construction of pedestrian bridge over Route 9

• Establishing sidewalk construction standards

Potential Walkers In The Area

The site of Chestnut Hill Square is one with substantial potential for walk-in customers from nearby residential districts (within a 1000’ radius or 2-3 city blocks). Transportation policy and wise management would suggest that local residents should be encouraged to walk these short distances, rather than being required to drive such short distances because pedestrian infrastructure is lacking. Short very local trips add to the total number of vehicles on-street, exacerbating congestion that could instead be alleviated by pedestrian connections to nearby sites.

Within a 1000-foot radius of the site (less than . mile!), are high-density residential towers, townhouse developments and single-family homes accounting for more than 1,700 units.

Collectively, these units have a population of about 2,600 people (assuming an average occupancy of 1.5 persons/unit). These potential customers are within very convenient walking distance of the proposed retail development, and may readily be interested in walking access if it is encouraged. Assuming .5 trips/day/unit, if only half of these trips were made on foot, it could mean a reduction of more than 850 daily vehicle trips.

Attracting Walkers to The Site

For the many nearby residents to walk to the site, a network of pedestrian facilities is essential, as is pointed out in the FEIR. Even with the infrastructure in place, these potential customers will need persuasion to walk to the center – to overcome ingrained driving habits and to be persuaded to try out the new walking routes. Specific walking encouragement could take the form of publicity about the site’s walkability, offers of free delivery services (for people who purchase more than they can comfortably carry), sales of grocery carts, walking clubs based at the grocery store (or other retailers), or the provision of walking maps showing the pedestrian routes. Not only will walking help alleviate congestion, it may be an important marketing tool highlighting the convenience of the site.

A Comprehensive Network of Walkways

The FEIR states that sidewalks and pedestrian promenade areas will be provided along all roadways within the site. (p. I-13, Section 6.2.1. and IV-24, Section 5.2.4.2.) Yet the Illustrative Site Plan (Fig. I.1-2) and the Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation Diagram (Fig. II.1-7) show sidewalks only in certain areas: along Boylston Street, along Florence Street, and in front of the entrances to the retail areas on both sides of the central east-west street. In addition a second-level walkway is proposed, (as diagrammed in Figs. I.1-2 and II.1-7) to supplement access from sidewalks at the lower level.

The on-site pedestrian network should include sidewalks along all roadways within the site, and all of the sidewalks should be of adequate widths. The widths may vary, depending ontheir intended uses. Considerable thought has been given to the retail-pedestrian precinct, where sidewalks are wide, reflecting the greatest concentration of outdoor pedestrian traffic on the site. Elsewhere it is unclear what sidewalk standards can or will be met.

Sidewalks are to be constructed so as to be flush with all garage entrances (p. I-13, section 6.2.1). We are pleased that this standard will be followed in the project.

The following sidewalks should be added to the site design:

• West boundary road (abutting the Capitol Grille and the rear parking lot.) A proposed roadway provides access between Route 9, the garages and the loading areas, but does not extend all the way from Boylston Street to Florence Street (a paved area is provided for emergency access only). A missing pedestrian link along the west boundary is a full connection between Florence Street and Route 9. This would be a convenient way for pedestrians to reach Route 9 if there is to be a pedestrian crossing at the at-grade signalized intersection between this site and the Mall at Chestnut Hill.

• Sidewalks on the east side of the site facing Milton’s, Barnes & Noble, and Avalon Bay. A roadway is proposed here, to extend from Route 9 to Florence Street, but part of it is to be used only for emergency access. Only a very short segment of sidewalk along it is diagrammed in Fig. 1.1-2 or Fig. II.1-7, yet a sidewalk here would form a major element of a full pedestrian network. It could serve people walking to the lifestyle food center and other retailers from Florence Street, as well as residents of Avalon Bay and residential areas near Hammond Pond Parkway and Heath Street. A gracious touch would be to provide abutting properties such as Avalon Bay Residences and Milton’s direct pedestrian access to this walkway. The Milton’s building is clearly visible from the site (it forms a visual terminus of the central plaza access to the retail areas), and a fence between properties without pedestrian access seems inappropriate.

• Sidewalks on the north boundary of the site along Route 9. This is potentially the most difficult area for pedestrians. Sidewalks are in place along the Route 9 frontage between Hammond Pond Parkway and Florence Street. But, the heavy traffic on the roadway and the turning movements at numerous curb cuts make the environment unpleasant and threateningly dangerous.

• The entrances and exits for Chestnut Hill Square pose potential conflicts with pedestrians. The one-way inbound west entrance will serve significant traffic volumes into the site. Pedestrians following Route 9 should be able to cross when turning movements into the site are not permitted by the signal.

• The east entrance and exit location is somewhat more difficult, as it is presently proposed to be unsignalized. Eastbound entering and exiting traffic may not be able to see pedestrians on the Route 9 sidewalks.

• The mid-site exit onto Route 9 (abutting David & Co.) is one-way outbound to the highway, incorporating both a truck loading zone and vehicles exiting the site from the west parking garage access points. This exit has pedestrian connections on the west side with the potential for significant conflict with pedestrians. It is not shown to have any signalized intersections.

• There is a proposed new on-site lane parallel to Route 9 for a bus lane/stop for the project (Fig. II.1-7). This lane may have a conflict of uses – a bus lane/bus stop serving the site and an acceleration lane for traffic entering Route 9. Pedestrian access to the bus lane and stop appears to be by way of the mid-site exit described above.

• In summary, the difficulties facing pedestrians on Route 9 sidewalks support the concept of constructing the central plaza as an attractive alternative route for pedestrians.

• Sidewalk along Florence Street. Sidewalks are clearly included along Florence Street. They are interrupted by three driveways into the site, but seem appropriate for the setting. The Florence Street sidewalks connect to residences along the length of Florence Street (Heath Street in Brookline) from Hammond Pond Pkwy to Route 9. The street may become less safe and attractive for pedestrians if it becomes a bypass for Route 9.

Internal Walkways

The retail center of the site is the focus of proposed internal pedestrian ways. The internal walkways at the central plaza look potentially interesting and lively, connecting numerous retail outlets, and both the east and west residences. The buildings are not isolated from the world by vast parking lots, and the central plaza is about 500 feet long – slightly longer than a city block – walkable and easily comprehended by pedestrians. The space is complemented by existing buildings at either end, with the Milton’s store, backed by the Avalon Bay tower to the east, and the Capital Grille, backed by the high-rise Imperial Towers at the west.

This central space cries out for physical connections to the off-site buildings at either end. The proponent has indicated that conversations are underway with abutters to provide pedestrian links. (see p. II-6, section 1.4.3) We hope that this happens in conjunction with careful traffic controls on-site to ensure that the significant amount of site-generated traffic that may pass through the heart of the central plaza does not impede pedestrian travel. All traffic entering the site at the new signalized intersection from an eastbound direction and via the new turn lanes on westbound Route 9 will pass through the retail area eventually –primarily to and from parking areas. Traffic entering the site at the eastbound driveway from Route 9 can avoid passing directly through the pedestrian precinct.

In the DEIR, inhabitants of the Florence Street Residences appeared to have additional access through the interior of the adjacent parking garage into the retail areas via a second floor arcade. This connection is not shown on Fig. 1.1-2, and we hope that it will be provided. If available, this route would also be attractive to off-site residents coming to the retail areas, as a weather-protected walkway.

Integrating Public Transit Access

The addition of a bus stop at the site is very useful. As proposed, MBTA Route 60 would continue its present route to Langley Road, just past the new Chestnut Hill Square/Mall to the Chestnut Hill intersection on Route 9, and use the jughandle and signal as a u-turn location. The new bus stop should be coordinated with the bus stop on the opposite side of Route 9 (in front of the Mall at Chestnut Hill). This would help alleviate the need for transit riders to walk across Route 9 to reach either site.

The proposed shuttle service from the Green Line Station at Chestnut Hill is a valuable addition. This station is more than a mile away, and a shuttle would provide access for both employees and customers if provided on frequent headways. We hope that the proponent will work with area retailers to make the shuttle service a success.

Pedestrian Bridge Over Route 9

Since it was suggested by the proponent, the possible pedestrian bridge over Route 9 between this site and the Mall at Chestnut Hill has engendered great interest. The proposal was made to provide a thorough integration of the two malls on opposite sides of Route 9. It would expand the shopping opportunities available, in much the same way that Copley Plaza and Prudential Center malls are related via the pedestrian connection over Huntington Avenue. The combination of retail opportunities at the two malls would create a significant concentration of shopping to attract both regional and local residents. The bridge would eliminate the difficulties inherent in pedestrian at-grade crossings on Route 9. Even with a signalized intersection, this will not be a pedestrian-friendly location due to the speed and volume of traffic, and the width of the roadway. Getting the bridge built may be difficult. There seems to be little likelihood that public agencies will fund the construction. Therefore, the proponent should pursue the steps outlined and make efforts to ensure that the bridge is constructed.

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

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Comments on Cambridge Discovery Park EOEA #13312 Final Environmental Impact Report

November 7, 2005

Secretary Steve Pritchard
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

RE: Cambridge Discovery Park, EOEA #13312 Final Environmental Impact Report

Dear Secretary Pritchard,

We were pleased to review the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Cambridge Discovery Park. It is gratifying when a project proponent makes considerable effort to comply with EOEA’s certificate.

EOEA’s DEIR certificate called for identification of pedestrian sidewalks, footpaths and bicycle facilities for the proposed development. As shown in the plans provided in the FEIR, the proponent indicates that they will construct all of their off-site pedestrian improvements as part of Phase I of the project, thus making these facilities available to help set non-auto commuting patterns.

The Proponent has agreed to take on significant responsibilities for constructing pedestrian pathways in and near the site. Especially noteworthy is the commitment by the proponent to construct and maintain a path through DCR’s Alewife Reservation on land lying between the proponent’s project and Alewife Station. This path will be wide, well-lighted for pedestrian safety, and maintained in all weather by the proponent.

The proponent has also agreed to take responsibility for improvements to the intersection of the EB Route 2 off-ramp and the entrances to the MBTA’s Alewife Garage. This intersection is of critical importance to pedestrians because several pedestrian pathways – both existing and proposed – will intersect: the Minuteman Bicycle and Pedestrian Path, the new pedestrian path from the proponent’s site through DCR’s Reservation, and the proposed Fitchburg cut-off pathway from Belmont. All three of these routes currently lead pedestrians through an unsignalized intersection that has heavy peak-hour traffic adjacent to the MBTA station. The improvements to be provided by the proponent are a major step in making the intersection safe for pedestrian access to the MBTA Alewife Station.

We remain concerned about maintenance of the sidewalks from the proponent’s site to the Alewife MBTA Station via the Route 2 off-ramp. Although sidewalks exist and may be improved by the proponent, WalkBoston is concerned that this pedestrian route may not be adequately maintained because of the overlapping responsibilities of governmental organizations and the proponent’s position that future developments by abutting landowners should bear incremental or additional costs for maintenance of this walkway. The lack of existing development on abutting land should not relieve the proponent of responsibility for maintaining the sidewalk until such time that another developer is on the scene and an agreement for sharing responsibility is reached.

The DEIR Certificate called for the creation of a pedestrian access master plan that takes a longer-range look at the area and develops a future pedestrian path network. The FEIR does not include this long- range plan. We request that it be added, and that it include three elements that would improve pedestrian access this site:

The proponent has agreed to make a contribution of $400,000 toward the design and construction of a footbridge (which would be constructed by others) over the Little River to the south bank multi- use paths. Since a plan for this footbridge is being actively pursued, it would be useful to know how paths from the proponent’s property would access it, even if the information must be tentative or diagrammatic. Possible locations for the bridge or paths are not shown on the maps.
The existing footbridge over Route 2 is not included or discussed in the planning for the site, even though it is noted on FEIR maps. All of the FEIR pedestrian facility maps (Exhibits 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, and 5-11) show the existing footbridge over Route 2. In addition, one of the maps (Exhibit 5-13) shows a bus stop on the north side of Route 2 that will require connection via the footbridge to the site. We wonder whether there are other pedestrian connections to the footbridge that should also be shown on a long-term plan for the area, such as through Thorndike Field in Arlington; or paths connecting the footbridge over Route 2 with the Minute Man Bike/Pedestrian Path. If such paths exist or are planned, it would be useful to show them on a long-term plan for the area to indicate options for people walking to the site from the Arlington side of Route 2. Again, the connections could be tentative or diagrammatic. The benefit of an Arlington footpath to the bridge would be to provide a shorter route to get to the proponent’s site and avoid a route that requires walking to the Alewife MBTA Station and backtracking to get to the site.
A pedestrian connection to the site from the west through Belmont via Frontage Road and Acorn Park Drive has been briefly mentioned as a longer-term goal. This should also be a part of the master plan for pedestrian facilities in the area. As part of this investigation, consideration might also be given to a sidewalk parallel to the south side of Route 2.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Target Distribution Center Westfield Comment Letter

November 7, 2005

Secretary Steven Pritchard
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Attn: MEPA office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: Target Distribution Center Westfield, MA Final Environmental Impact Report EOEA No. 13361

Dear Secretary Pritchard:

WalkBoston advocates for pedestrian safety, improved facilities, and programs to encourage walking throughout Greater Boston, and takes an active role in promoting pedestrian interests statewide. We offer our comments on the proposed Target Distribution Center in Westfield, MA that is projected to have approximately 860 employees and to generate 6,460 vehicle trips/day. The project site is located on Route 202 and just off Routes 10/202 approximately 4 miles from the city’s center.

Providing access for all modes is now a requirement in state law for new and reconstructed state roads and is being fully incorporated in the new MassHighway Design Manual to be published in January 2006. Access by foot and by bicycle is fundamental to the state’s smart growth policies and programs. We are also concerned Westfield may not address the needs of pedestrians, even when these needs could logically be part of the transportation mitigation of local commercial development.

In examining this FEIR, WalkBoston finds that pedestrian access and its relationship to transit and transportation demand management is given little consideration by the proponent, despite MEPA’s clear guidelines in the February 14, 2005 Certificate on the proponent’s DEIR. The Certificate reads as follows:

Transit: The FEIR should update its inventory of public transit bus services in the project area. The proponent should work with local officials to identify bus connections and potential shuttle bus services from activity nodes and residential areas to the project site.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: The DEIR described where sidewalks currently exist in the area. The FEIR should identify the proposed pedestrian (sidewalk) and bicycle facility improvements included with this project. Unless the proponent can obtain a letter from the City of Westfield or MHD stating that a sidewalk is unnecessary, I recommend a sidewalk along the site frontage on North Road (Route 202) and Falcon Drive. 2

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies: The FEIR should examine the full range of potential TDM strategies.

Comments offered by the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) also express the need to address bus service and pedestrian facilities:

EOT – The site design should include transit amenities including a bus turnout and bus shelters to further encourage transit usage. The site design should identify sidewalk and/or pedestrian access between the building and the PVTA drop-off area. Bicycle and pedestrian routes in the vicinity of the site should be identified as well. And bicycle lockers and shower facilities should be provided to encourage pedestrians and bicyclists.

PVPC – The DEIR acknowledges the potential for public transit service serving the proposed development using the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) Blue 23 bus route. While the proponent has committed to work with the PVTA to develop transit service for the site, no information was provided in the DEIR on how pedestrians would access the proposed new on site bus shelter. Consequently we’d urge that the FEIR provide additional information addressing the actual location of the proposed bus stop as well as depict and explain and show how pedestrian access will be provided from the Target development to this new bus stop.

The FEIR does not respond adequately to these requests. No details are provided on proposed pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements for the project, either in the plan or in the text. It says only: “The appropriate and safe pedestrian amenities on site, including necessary parking lot crosswalks, lighted pedestrian travel ways, and the like are being considered for the final design of the site.” (from Section 2.8.2, p. 2-48; repeated in Response EOT .08, Appendix B, p. 8-4 and Response PVPC.03, Appendix B, p. 8-9). This is not a sufficient commitment to pedestrian access.

WalkBoston believes that policy direction is needed to determine how pedestrian access should be addressed by this (and other) project(s). The absence of existing pedestrian facilities is not an indication that they are not needed. WalkBoston suggests clear and careful consideration to determine an appropriate approach. Among the possible choices are the following:

a. Over time, perhaps with state EOEA or MHD assistance, the city will provide sidewalks on at least one side of all major roads that provide access to employment.

b. Over time, working with local municipalities and EOEA, MHD will provide sidewalks on at least one side of major state highways near urban and suburban employers.

c. The city or MHD will request all major employers to construct sidewalks from their building’s employee entrances to the sidewalks that parallel major local roads or state highways. The city, MHD or the employer will then construct bus stops and sidewalks to connect to employer-constructed on-site sidewalks.

d. In the vicinity of new development, the city or MHD will require project proponents to construct sidewalks along roadways connecting to transit and schools.

e. The city or MHD will leave most, if not all, of the decisions regarding sidewalks along state highways or local roads near new development to project proponents.

WalkBoston believes that MHD and the City of Westfield should provide clear policy direction to the project proponent about their responsibilities for pedestrian access. At that point, a variety of options exist for pedestrian accommodation. EOEA, in its DEIR Certificate, has taken a position that sidewalks should be provided along North Road (Route 202) and Falcon Drive, unless the City or MHD waives the requirement. The certificate also calls for public transit bus services to the project site, and for the identification of nearby bus stop locations and their relationship to sidewalks providing access to the employee entrance to the site. Since many of the vehicular improvements to be provided as mitigation measures for the project are off-site, it is reasonable to also require off-site pedestrian mitigation measures. Among the options for pedestrian access are the following:

1. A sidewalk along North Road (Route 202) – From the FEIR, it appears that the proponent has designed an auto access road that parallels North Road (Route 202) through most of the site. A sidewalk could be constructed along this road. To avoid security problems, the sidewalk could be located outside the perimeter fencing and adjacent to North Road (Route 202). This sidewalk would provide the first step toward EOEA’s ultimate goal of providing a sidewalk along the full length of North Road (Route 202) in the city.

2. A sidewalk along Falcon Drive – From the FEIR, it appears that the proponent owns very little property along Falcon Drive. However, placing a sidewalk within its property could become part of EOEA’s long-range vision for sidewalks along the full length of Falcon Drive.

3. A sidewalk from the site to North Road (Route 202) – From the FEIR, a pedestrian sidewalk to North Road (Route 202) seems possible along the side of the building adjacent to employee parking, presumably connecting to the employee entrance to the distribution center building. Figure 1-3 FEIR Proposed Conditions Plan (p. 1-6) and Figure 1-5 FEIR Operations Plan (p. 1-10) show auto access directly from North Road (Route 202) This access gate is approximately 2000 feet from the intersection of North and Southampton Roads. It is labeled “emergency vehicle access and gate.” This access gate could also serve pedestrians.

4. A sidewalk from the site to a bus stop – Bus travel to the site should be encouraged through clear routes and signage and direct, well-marked paths for pedestrians between transit stops and the pedestrian entrance to the proponent’s building. The FEIR notes that the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority Blue 23 weekday and Saturday bus routes pass the site on North Road (Route 202) and also on Southampton Road (Routes 10 and 202). Yet the FEIR contains no indication that workers may arrive by transit or estimates of transit’s potential for serving employees coming to or leaving the site. Nor does the FEIR specify where transit stops and sidewalks might be best located to serve employees, or even from which direction or gate the riders would come.

The bus rider’s pedestrian access from Southampton Road is particularly daunting. If bus-riding employees must access the site from a bus stop on Southampton Road and walk via Southampton Road/Falcon Drive to the Target Warehouse employee entrance, they must walk over 4,000 feet. In addition, without sidewalks, walking along these routes is potentially dangerous. This would deter even the most dogged bus-rider/pedestrian.

By contrast, a bus stop near the North Road emergency access/gate that is connected via sidewalk to the employee entrance to the distribution center could be less than 400 away from the entrance. With this option, bus stops for riders coming from either direction could be established on the two sides of North Road, with a walkway from the bus stops through the North Road emergency vehicle access/gate and up to the employee entrance. For security purposes, access for people on foot through the North Road emergency vehicle access/gate could be provided by electronic gate control mechanisms. Analysis of this possibility has not been included in the FEIR and should be provided during the next steps of the environmental permitting process. In addition to a bus stop and appropriate sidewalks, a protected pedestrian crossing of North Road should be reviewed. Such review should include the examination of a pedestrian-activated signal.

5. Improvements along Southampton Road (Routes 10/202) – Local comments mentioned the need for sidewalks for school and day care students attending classes in three buildings located along Southampton Road. It seems appropriate to provide new sidewalks along those portions of Southampton Road that are to be improved as part of the project’s mitigation program.

In the long run, sidewalks will need to be constructed wherever there are students who could walk to their schools from homes or bus stops. Indeed, the state is now involved in an extensive Safe Routes to Schools program that will lead to a greater demand for new or improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities for children to use in going on foot or by bike to their school buildings. They should be included in this project.

Finally, WalkBoston suggests that draft commitments for the Section 61 findings (Section 7.0 of the FEIR) should contain pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FEIR for the Target Distribution Center in Westfield. We hope that our concerns about pedestrians can be addressed as you examine the proposal and as it moves toward implementation.

Sincerely,

Ann Hershfang Wendy Landman
Advocacy Committee Chair Executive Director

Cc Astrid Glynn, Office of Commonwealth Development Tom Cahir, Executive Office of Transportation Tim Brennan, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission

Lowe’s of Hadley Comment Letter

The Lowe’s of Hadley project is a proposal to add a significant retail facility situated on Route 9 in a suburban setting that is typical of those found throughout the state. We have reviewed the proposal and commented on it because of the importance of its planning concepts to pedestrians and to all of us who live and work in Massachusetts.

Read the full letter here:
WalkBoston-CommentENF-Lowes-Hadley