DAG Welcome Meeting

7/31/2019 DAG Welcome Meeting

1/74

Welcome New DAG Members

May 15, 2012

CASEY ARBORWAY PROJECT


2/74

1. Overview of the Planning Phase

2. Project Web Site

3. Casey Project Schedule

4. DAG Design Phase

Todays Agenda


3/74

Overview of thePlanning Phase


4/74

The Partnership Continues

MassDOT highway & transit

DCR owner of surface roadway andsignals

City of Boston owner of adjacent

roadways, parks and maintains signals

The Public Agency Process


5/74

Casey Overpass - Historic Overview

1990 Rehabilitation

4 lanes + sidewalk

1955 Original Construction6 lanes

2010 Bridge Restrictions2 lanes

6 4 2


6/74

Bridge Condition - Design Flaws

Photos from 2010 Inspection - BRIDGE IS SAFE TODAY!


7/74

ABP Funding

Budgeted $25M to re-deck bridge bridge

deemed beyond useful life.

Original Cost to replace in kind =approximately $52 million with no surface

street improvements

MassDOT once in a lifetime opportunityengage community and stakeholders to

explore solution that met mobility and

livability goals.


8/74

The Challenges Address a deteriorated bridge explore viable

options for a solution that meets mobility and

livability objectives

Address the current surface street issues:

confusing, complicated and unsupportive for allmodes Asticou, New Washington, Shea Circle

Utilize existing roadway area address MBTA

infrastructure


9/74

Commuter Rail Vent GrateOrange Line Vent Stack

Orange Line Exit Stair Route 39 Bus Loop


10/74

The Challenges

Hold transit harmless, improve bike and pedestrianaccess and circulation

Restore Emerald Necklace connection

Create gateway opportunities to celebrate historicopen space and transportation assets Develop and

test designs

and trafficsolutions that

address local

and regional

needs


11/74

Confusing and Overly Complicated Street Network


12/74

Replace Critical Missing Link


13/74

Address Safety, Mobility & Livability Goalsin all Designs

Improve Mobility: connections, circulation and access for all modesand users

Enhance Livability:manage vehicular traffic flow; improve the Emerald

Necklace connection; improve pedestrian and bicycle access


14/74

Working Group Contributions


15/74

Safety

Goal: Address structurallydeficient bridge

Community Directive:

Address confusing surface streetnetwork

Accommodate all modes crossings,intersections, circulation

Hold MBTA transit operations harmless

Include Shea Circle and improve safetyat that location


16/74

The Public Process 9 Month Planning Phase

13 Working AdvisoryGroup Meetings

5 WAG Assignments

Completed

6 Public Meetings &5 Open Houses

Full documentationof process andprogress on Website


17/74

WAG Accomplishments

Established guiding principles, goalsand objectives

Continued to balance mobility needs

with livability opportunities

Challenged the design team to

incorporate new ideas based on local

concerns

Integral to developing methodology

(MOEs, traffic models, design ideas)


18/74

Traffic Discussions and Products

Discussed at 11 WAG meetings and 5 PublicMeetings

Existing conditions analysis all modes

Traffic and parking counts, license plate survey

Developed local and regional model inputs

Traffic simulations for all modes

Developed 2035 projections

Regional and local traffic model tested against

the two conceptual alternatives


19/74

Urban Design Discussion and Products

Discussed at 12 WAG meetings and 5 publicmeetings

Reviewed and evaluated past studies

Developed 25 concepts tested with fatal flaw,14 concepts tested with WAG for each sub area

Developed pedestrian and bike circulation plan

Developed 3 at grade alternatives with 7

iterations, 3 bridge alternatives, narrowed to 2

at-grade and 2 bridge alternatives


20/74

Measures of Evaluation (MOEs)

Discussed at 11 WAG meetings and all publicmeetings

Documented every comment by WAG

Additional Research Requested

Additional traffic analysis and counts

Comparable local medians, crosswalks, traffic

Review of other cities experience removing

viaducts


21/74

Previous Analyses & Studies


22/74

2010 City of Boston: Centre and South Streets Streetscape and Transportation

Action Plan (prepared by Mcmahon Associates)

2008 MBTA Parcels V and W Solicitations and Request For Proposal

2008 BRA: Forest Hills Improvement Initiative: Use and Design Guidelines andTransportation Action Plan (prepared by Traffic Solutions LLC)

2008 BPRD: Franklin Park Transportation and Access Study (prepared byHoward/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.)

2008 DCR: Structural Condition Investigation and Traffic Study (prepared by SGH)

2007 DCR: Arborway Traffic Review (prepared by Stantec)

2004 BPRD: Arborway Master Plan (prepared by Rizzo Associates, Inc.)

2001 MOA between City of Boston and MBTA on Arborway Yard

2000 Green Triangle Study

Built On Past Work

Studies and Plans Compiled Since 2000


23/74

Focus Areas of Past

Studies


24/74

Project Principles


25/74

Project Principles Improve Safety

Improve quality of life

Address structurally deficient bridge

Ensure inclusive public process

Integrate artistic elements in designs

Adopt the principles of Universal Design

Respect the design for Arborway Yard

Meet ABP budget and schedule


26/74

Traffic AnalysisExisting and 2035


27/74

Traffic Study Area


28/74

Surface Streets Designed Around the Overpass


29/74

Top 5 Areas of Concern Today


30/74

Traffic 2035 All Modes

Address local surface system New WashingtonStreet and intersections at Hyde Park and South in

both alternatives

Address pedestrian, bicycle and transit access,

circulation and crossings

Accommodate regional traffic without adversely

impacting local conditions

Allow for a local network to support future

development and integration with abutting

neighborhoods


31/74

Forest Hills Area - Estimated Actual Build-out FHII Final


32/74

Arborway Yards

3615 Washington St(former Hughes Oil)

Fitzgerald Parking Lot(New owner is LAZ Parking)

MBTA Parking Lot

3521 Washington St(former Flanagan & Seaton)

MBTA Parcel W

MBTA Parcel V

MBTA Parcel U

Forest Hills Area - Estimated Actual Build-out Eight Parcels


33/74

Forest Hills Area - Estimated Actual Build-out 2011 UpdatesBUILDOUT DETAILS

Base Information: September 23, 2008 Final

Community Recommendationsestimated the following:

375 to 461 Housing Units

98,000 to 118,000 Retail SF

145,000 to 356,000 Office SF

Proposed development of 3529Washington Street

2011 Updates: Actual Buildout of Parcels V & W

LAZ Parking envisions buildingon the front / corner of the parcel

Minor expansion of bus facility &new retail across Washington St.

= reduced retail at Arborway Yard Estimated Actual reflects 80% of

aggregate Buildout of the 2011Update/Upper

Summary: 310 to 390 Housing Units 132,000 to 165,000 Retail SF

332,000 to 416,000 Office SF

Forest Hills Improvement Initiative Parcels

Site Buildout RangeHousing

UnitsRetail/Service

Area (sf)Office/Comm

Area (sf)Total Bldg

Area (sf)

MBTA Parcel UNote 1

FHII Final

120 4,000 - 143,0002011 Update /Upper 120 4,000 - 143,000

MBTA Parcel VFHII Final 8 4,000 - 12,800

(Per Approved Plans)

Actual /Permitted - 4,011 8,022 12,033

MBTA Parcel WFHII Final 40 10,000 2,000 56,000

(Per Approved Plans)Actual /

Permitted - 12,983 19,286 32,269

MBTA Parcel SStation Parking Lot FHII Final - 42,000 169,000 211,000

2011 Update /Upper - 42,000 169,000 210,000

Fitzgerald ParkingLot (now LAZ) Note 2 FHII Final 135 15,000 - 163,000

2011 Update /Upper 80 15,000 - 125,000

Arborway YardParcel Note 3 FHII Final 160 45,000 128,000 348,000

2011 Update /

Upper 160 35,000 125,000 330,000Washington St. Parcels (New)

3615 Wash. St.(Huges Oil) Upper - 30,000 60,000 90,000

3529 Wash. St.(Flan. & Seaton) Upper 30 22,000 35,000 90,000

All Parcels

Buildout Range Housing Retail/Service Office/Comm Total Area

Totals 2011 Update /Upper 390 165,000 416,000 1,032,000

EstimatedActual 310 132,000 332,000 826,000


34/74

2035 Regional Model (CTPS)

Local Development Parcels (City)

2035 No Build Traffic Volumes

2035 No Build Traffic Volumes


35/74

2035 No Build Growth Summary

Assuming NO change to local roadways, travelpatterns, etc

Vehicular Volumes:Casey Overpass (Regional): + 5%Surface Roads (Regional & Local): + 12%

Non-Motorized (Peds & Bikes): + 13%

Transit Ridership: + 10%


36/74

How the Analysis was Performed

1. Base Year Calibrated - 2010

2. Forecast Year No-build 2035

3. Alternatives developed CTPS performed

regional analysis Overall volumes

Travel times

Air Quality

4. Regional analysis results provided to projectteam

5. Project team examined local traffic operations


37/74

Design


38/74

The Path of Design


39/74

Design

Identified Ideas to:

Address local concerns around the MBTA

station for drop off, taxi, and bus stops

Protect local neighbors from cut throughtraffic (Asticou, New Washington)

Allow for off- and on-street bicycle circulation

for recreation users and commuters Integrate sustainable design concepts


40/74

Design

Identified alternatives to:

Remove barriers that impede connections to abutting JP areas,

block vistas of open space and historic architectural resources

Create Gateways for Southwest Corridor Park, FranklinPark at

Shea Circle and the Arboretum

FRANKLINPARK

SOUTHWESTCORRIDOR

PARK

ARNOLDARBORETUM


41/74

Restore Parkway in the Spirit of Olmsted

Utilize full width of corridor toseparate modes withgenerous planted medians

Olmsteds 1892 Plan for the Arborway


42/74

Conceptual AlternativesDESIGN


43/74

At-Grade Conceptual Alternative

DESIGNER GENERALS WARNING: THE DESIGN SHOWNHERE IS PRELIMINARY AND CONCEPTUAL, DESPITE THE

HARD LINE FINISHED STYLE RESULTING FROM THESOFTWARE PROGRAMS USED


44/74

Off street bike lanes connectto and cross at intersections

Landscaped medianallows for minimalplantings in this section

Area for crossingsapprox 20wide for bikes and pedestrians

Olmsted tree lineboulevard

Area for communitygathering

The Experience - New Washington Street

On street bike lanes

Relocated OrangeLine Head house Bus #39 remains

at current locationpassenger loadingat intersection


45/74

Bridge Conceptual Alternative

DESIGNER GENERALS WARNING: THE DESIGN SHOWNHERE IS PRELIMINARY AND CONCEPTUAL, DESPITE THE

HARD LINE FINISHED STYLE RESULTING FROM THESOFTWARE PROGRAMS USED


46/74

The Experience - New Washington Street

Area for crossingsapprox 20wide for bikes and pedestrians

Off street Bike lanes

connect to and crossat intersections

On street bike lanes

Bus #39 remainsat current locationpassenger loadingat intersection

Regional vehiculartraffic located above

Area for communitygathering

Usable contiguousopen spaceconnections


47/74

Measure of Evaluation (MOEs)


48/74

The Measures of Evaluation (MOEs)

Approach Taken to Caseys MOEs All modes, livability objectives, new measures

WAG Integral to the formation and evolution of the

MOEs developed over the 9 months Principles (fatal flaw), Goals, Objectives and Measures

MOEs used throughout the process and to evaluate

alternatives on their own merits MOEs shaped the alternatives (i.e., surface streets re-

designed for all alternatives rendering some MOEs

obsolete)


49/74

MOEs The Distribution

MOEs Mobility Livability

Goals 3 3

Objectives 9 7

Measures 16 15

Applied to Existing Conditions andboth Conceptual Alternatives


50/74

MOEs The Results

MOEsExisting

ConditionsBridge At-Grade

Mobility -10 3 7

Livability -10 0 13

Total -20 3 20


51/74

Conceptual AlternativesTRAFFIC


52/74

How can traffic operations be similar?

North-south traffic volumes unchanged betweenalternatives

At-grade offers additional improvements to critical north-

south link on South Street

Removal of Bridge only adds east-west through traffic tosurface streets (additional thru lanes provided at-grade)

All turning movements happen at grade regardless


53/74

East West

Regional Travel

Regional travel times relatively unchanged for

overall trip Any in-bound delays at grade on New Washington

are offset by existing delays at Murray Circle

In fact, the new design of New Washington maymeter the travel times, providing more

systematic processing of traffic


54/74

Local Diversions (cut-through)

Concerns on cut through focused on east/west

travel.

The At-Grade Alternative increases east/west

travel by only 30 to 90 seconds.

The travel times along alternate routes

(potential cut-through routes) are greater than

the proposed at-grade network


55/74

Future Traffic Conditions: Summary

Improved over existing conditions andminimal difference between the alternatives for:

Pedestrian/Bike/Transit Operations

Overall Vehicle Capacity

No Added or Diverted Traffic

Overall Travel Times Remain Constant

Traffic is not a differentiatorbetween alternatives


56/74

The Selected AlternativeAt-Grade


57/74

Safety and Benefits Extensive Community

Involvement (6 public meetingsand 13 working group meetings in 9

months)

Removing visual barriers to

connect neighborhoods

Restoring the EmeraldNecklace and connecting

open space areas

Traffic not a differentiator


58/74

Advanced bike and pedestrian connections(north/south and east/west)

Improved bus operations in and around the area

Measures of Evaluation

Cost Estimates design, construction and life-

cycle


59/74

Estimated Cost of Conceptual Alternatives

Item Bridge At-Grade

Demolition

Construction Bridge replacement

$30.2 Million

New Washington Corridor

$31.1 Million

New Washington & Shea

$36.3 Million

Asticou and Shea

$9.1 Million

MBTA

$12.2 million Improvements

Maintenance

Total +$73 Million $53 Million

Both alternatives include costs for Shea at $6 million as each design is interchangeable


60/74

Project Web SiteFor Detailed Results


61/74

Casey Project Web Site Documentshttp://www.massdot.state.ma.us/caseyoverpass/


62/74

Traffic

Documents Traffic flow maps

by mode

Level of Serviceby Mode

CTPS graphics

Travel TimeAnalysis


63/74

Meetings

Notices

Presentations Graphics

Minutes


64/74

Casey Arborway ProjectSchedule


65/74

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

PLANNINGSTUDY

25% DESIGN DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION

Construction Staging & TrafficManagement

25% To Final Design Review

Select

Alternative

Construction Management Meetings

Community Involvement Throughout Project

Planning and Phasing

TO FINAL DESIGN

25% Design Submissionby September 2012 75% Design Submissionby March 2013

Final Design July 2013

Advertise September 2013Construction Completion

September 2016

Accelerated Bridge Program Opportunity

Project Schedule


66/74

Planning Stage - COMPLETED 25% Design Identifies design parameters:

Horizontal and vertical alignments

Signal phasing Urban design and landscaping

File the environmental notification form (ENF)

75% Design Includes additional design detail(plans/specifications) based on 25% review

Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PSE) Finalizes

all construction-related documents

Design Process


67/74

Design Advisory Group

Technical FocusDesign Phase


68/74

Casey Arborway Project 2012-2013

Community Participation DRAFT Design Schedule

MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECWAG

PUBMTG

DAG

25% Design

Begins

DAG DAG DAG MEPA

SITE

MTG

File

ENF*

Submit

25% Design

Receive All

Comments

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCTDAGDAG DAG

Submit

75% Design Receive AllComments

75%

DESIGN

PUBLIC

MEETING

PS&E**

DESIGN

PUBLIC

MEETING

25%

DESIGN

PUBLICHEARING

Submit

PS&E**Design

Advertise

2013

2012

*ENF=Environmental Notification Form **PS&E=Plans, Specifications, and Estimates

WAG = Working Advisory Group DAG = Design Advisory GroupMEPA = Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act

h h


69/74

The Community Partnership: WAG DAG

Next Phase: Design

Maintain guiding principles, goals andobjectives

Integral to developing designs and

addressing operational issues

Continue to balance mobility needs with

livability opportunities

Continue to challenge the design team to

incorporate new ideas based on local

concerns


70/74

Construction Management

Logistics, traffic

management, protection of

neighborhoods, commuters,business and transit

Strategies to protect

neighborhoods from cutthrough traffic

Community Concerns


71/74

Community Concerns - Continued

MBTA bus trips traveltime during and post

construction

Coordination with smallbusinesses before and

during demolition and

construction

Arborway Yard and the

ABP program


72/74

Construction Management

Logistics and plans

Traffic plans and management for all modes,

Cut through traffic, business access

Livability

Urban Design gateways

Landscaping and open space Mobility

Roadway and intersection design, signalization, medians

and non-peak hour designs

25% Design Phase - Meeting Topics

Proposed DAG Meetings


73/74

MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT

25% Design

Begins

DAG 2

File ENF

D

E

S

I

G

N

ME

E

T

I

N

GS

Submit 25%

Design for

Review

Receive All

25% Design

Comments

MEPASite

Meeting

Meeting Topics

Casey Arborway Project 2012

Community Participation - DRAFT Schedule

Public

Meeting

DAG 1 DAG 3 DAG4

Design: (Shea Circle & Asticou Rd/Washington St)

Design Charrette: (SWCP, MBTA Plaza & Franklin Park)

Design: Traffic (roadway cross sections & operations)

Construction and Traffic Management

DAG1DAG2

DAG3DAG4

25%Design

Public

Hearing

DAG 1WAG


74/74

Casey Arborway Project

Discussion