Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Home , School Street

Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 10/15/2015 Myriam Diaz Thank you for your time at the meeting at the Faulkner Hospital 68 Prince Street Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 13:34:00 Auditorium. My name is Myriam Diaz and I live on Prince Street, I would like to see the access to Prince Street on the new wonderful plan, coming north from Murray Circle, a little before or a little after the opening to enter Prince Street. As to not have a straight visual to the opening of the street, as not to encourage people from trying to take a short cut. I would also encourage you to take a second look at another possible access from Francis Parkman Dr that would avoid going through the Kelly Circle and back to Murray to almost reach again the Kelly Circle to then go into Prince. I would take it like that compare to what we have but should someone take a fresh look and figure something out would be super. My first request on slightly moving the entry point on Prince St. forward or a little backwards should be possible. Sincerely, Myriam Diaz 617-459-8688 --- Great Plan! Can't wait to see it done! Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 10/15/2015 Clayton Harper Many thanks to DCR, the Emerald Necklace Conservancy, Toole Design 44 Hampstead Rd Jamaica Plaina MA 02130 [email protected] X 14:13:00 Group, elected officials and the many engaged advocates and citizens who have been participating in this process since February. I'm very much in favor of this project and believe most refinements to it are a strong and necessary improvement over current conditions.

It seems to me that parking needs on the carriage roads are minimal since most homes there have driveways. I suggest widening the median so that the bike lanes between Kelley and Murray could become protected, off-street, grade-separated bike paths rather than just paint.

I am disappointed that the raised crosswalks for the Arborway Frontage Rd at Hunnewell Gate and St. Rose have been pushed off until Phase 2. I understand the challenges of the grade separations on the mainline south of Murray, but I'm exasperated that no traffic calming efforts are planned on the Frontage Rd which has no such difficulty.

Sincerely, Clayton Harper Jamaica Plain Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 10/18/2015 Andy Tsai 1) The people that are effected the most by this redesign are the 57 Prince Street Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] 19:59:00 residents of this area. Many in the meeting mention that they drive/bike through the area. They are superficially/transiently effected by these changes, and they have a CHOICE of not traveling through this area. However, the residents in this area have no choice and their daily lives will be significantly and permanently effected by the redesign. The squeaky wheel (passer-byes) should not get all the attention. Residents living in this area should have more voice/weight to the redesign.

2) To get into Prince St., there is a bit of detour (circle down to Kelly Circle and back up). All the other side streets have easy assess via Murray Circle. Is there a way to add in a "cut-through" for access into Prince street? Seems like the families living on Prince St. are being short changed.

3) Many opinions were voiced by the cyclists (great minority). How about the opinions of the 50,000+ motorists/day traveling through? Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 10/19/2015 Andrew Can the meeting handout be made available online? It is missing from 11 Eugenia Rd Roslindale MA 02131 [email protected] X 6:53:00 Schwartz this meeting, but present for other meetings including the Oct 15 one, so I wonder if that upload slipped through the cracks somehow.

Excellent meeting, and the plan was very clearly well thought out! The roundabouts and improved biking access will be a welcome improvement that I think will prove to pay off very quickly. I would reiterate a desire for protected / physically separated bike lanes, though. I understand that it will be local / abutters road with low speeds and traffic, but as usage of the carriage roads figures itself out, I think setting the bike lanes up a little proactively, anticipating misuse, growth, and change, will pan out to be the right call.

Thank you again for all the great work you all are doing on this project.

10/19/2015 Joshua Jacober This plan looks great! I think the Toole design group has done a 7 Alveston St. Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] 21:41:00 thorough job and they have taken into account a lot of the concerns of the neighborhood. My one concern is intersections between the cycle tracks and the roadways. I know the narrowed and raised crossings will improve yielding but I wonder if separate signaling, including bicycle signals would be safer. I see the modern roundabouts should decrease speeding at these intersections but what about for the roadway in general? Thank you. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 10/20/2015 Erza Pincus-Roth I'm writing this comment in my capacity as a current resident of Greater 233 Pleasant Watertown MA 02472 [email protected] see attached 12:56:46 Boston, and a former Jamaica Plain resident (specifically of 16 Lakeville Street #109 File#1 Road). While I appreciate the effort going into this particular plan for the Arborway, I am requesting that physical protections and separations for people who are bicycling are a tangible component of the final plan. If you consult the attached photograph I took in April this year, you will see a telling example of multiple bicyclists who opted to bike on the sidewalk instead of the painted bicycle lane that was intended for their use. As vehicle traffic moves down the Arborway at (or above) the posted speed of 30 miles per hour, these bicyclists would rather use the sidewalk. The current bicycle lanes provide insufficient protection on such a road, and do not fit DCR's mission to promote and enhance recreational resources. Any plan for an Arborway bicycle facility should include physical protections (bollards or a second curb). Thanks.

10/20/2015 Ajay I could not make it to the meeting but I wanted to add my voice to those [email protected] 16:36:46 supporting the new design. Crossing the Arborway on foot or on bike, especially at the rotaries, is a game of Russian roulette. Thank you for trying to make the road safer. I didn't see cycletracks in the design, but I encourage you to add those to the road as well. Please also do something to reduce car speeds. Finally, I would love to see this road closed to car traffic every Sunday as Cambridge does with Memorial Drive. Let us pretend we live in a civilized place at least one day a week. Thank you. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 10/21/2015 David Fingerman Hi, I would just like to make one minor comment about the timing of the 362 Arborway Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 18:24:38 proposed changes for the Multi-Modal projects. If I understand correctly, you are proposing to start these changes about the same time that the Casey Overpass project is planning to finish (assuming it finishes on time). As a member of the community, could you please give us a breather between finishing the Casey Overpass project and starting this new set of projects? We would really like to have some normalcy after the Casey Overpass project finishes. Your goals are admirable, but please remember that we in the community need to live through all of the construction and inconveniences that go along with it. Please don't start this new project until after the Casey Overpass project is fully completed and the community has some time to return to normalcy before you start another major project. (perhaps 12-18 months after the Casey Overpass project is fully completed?) Thank you for considering!

10/21/2015 Carol Carveth I wish I could have gone to the meeting, but I was out of town. This one 10 Perkins Sq, Apt Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 20:21:11 was the third of the 3 meetings about Emerald Necklace Multi-Modal 9 safety access and probably the most thoroughly researched. The plans all look very pretty, but the modern traffic circles don't, at first glance, seem to offer much of a difference from a rotary. I am not a civil engineer, though, so maybe they'll be brilliant. Also, the biking access looks substantially better. The pedestrian access may be better? Again, not a civil engineer, but that's the area I'd personally like to see the most progress in. I love the Emerald Necklace string of parks as a concept, but it feels like the strand is broken between Jamaica Pond and the Arboretum at the moment, and I'd love to see it fixed. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 10/23/2015 Feeney I am a long-time resident of May St. I really like the plan and think the Toole 31 May St Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 17:47:53 Group did an excellent job of responding to the feedback to the Starter Plan. This is comment 1 of 2: I do believe that modern roundabouts and combining traffic onto the mainline will calm traffic under the new plan, but I also encourage interim traffic calming measures. I frequently cross Centre St at the crosswalk right beyond Murray Circle by the Poor Clare nuns. I have observed that it is MUCH easier to cross when traffic is heavy because folks are traveling at slower speeds and have time to react to me and my dog. In the near term I think DCR is missing an opportunity to do more traffic calming and enforcement with the current roads. As suggested by others, posting speed limits, monitoring speeds, issuing tickets, and having "barrels" or other crosswalk markers could have an immediate effect. 10/23/2015 Feeney I am a long-time resident of May St. I really like the plan and think the Toole 31 May St Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 17:53:54 Group did an excellent job of responding to the feedback to the Starter Plan. This is comment 2 of 2: There should not be a row of parking on the carriage roads as currently drawn. It's unsightly and would really only be used by Arborway residents who have not previously had street parking (the "privatizing public space" issue that was brought up in the meeting). These carriage roads, especially on the May St side, are a really important link between the Pond and Arboretum in the Emerald Necklace. I'd like to see more than a standard two-way bike here. Something that accommodates kids on trikes or scooters, skateboarders, ski-skaters, rollerbladers, dogwalkers, etc. I'm not a transportation designer, but I think there's an opportunity for a more "park-like" solution here. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 10/24/2015 We were promised at the public meeting that the video traffic simulation 10:21:42 presented at this meeting would be posted. The presentation didn't go up until 5 or 6 days after the public meeting. The video is still not there. There's just a page titled Traffic Model with the sentence See external links for traffic model videos. No links are provided. This is essential information for the public to be able to evaluate the proposed changes. The comment period should be extended until at least three weeks after the simulation is available, especially considering the delay in posting the presentation itself.

10/25/2015 Becker-Birck Dear Sir or Madam, please find attached my document "Comments 40 Orchard St, Apt MA 02111 [email protected] see attached 10:31:36 Arborway GBB 14 Oct 2015.pdf" addressing comments to the revised 2 m File#18 concept, especially bicycle lanes and the removed access from Kelley Circle to Prince and Orchard streets. Thank you Georg Becker-Birck

10/26/2015 Jean Weinshel I want to echo a neighbor's comment here: We were promised at the public 35 May Street Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 8:06:51 meeting that the video traffic simulation presented at this meeting would be posted. The presentation didn't go up until 5 or 6 days after the public meeting. The video is still not there. There's just a page titled Traffic Model with the sentence See external links for traffic model videos. No links are provided. This is essential information for the public to be able to evaluate the proposed changes. The comment period should be extended until at least three weeks after the simulation is available, especially considering the delay in posting the presentation itself. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 10/26/2015 Maureen Please let us know where to find the video that was briefly shown at the 4 May St Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 9:27:21 meeting. I need to see moving cars in order to see the new traffic patterns. m The diagrams are not clear enough. For example, when I exit May St. to Center, will I be able to turn left onto the "local" roadway. Or will I still need to turn right and travel up Center until I can make a U-turn? I live on May St. just off Murray Circle and the angry horn honking is extremely unpleasant. With the currently unmarked lanes in the rotary, traffic gets gridlocked in the lanes exiting the arborway to head south on Center St. The whole rotary on this side gets jammed up frequently during rush hours. I wanted to add the horn noise to the list of concerns. 10/27/2015 Lisa Koch I live at 18 Arborway (in a house that I own), in the affected block of the 18 Arborway Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] 15:30:51 Arborway. I own and drive a car, and I commute to work by bicycle and on foot. Overall, I think this plan is wonderful. The Arborway has long been dangerous for all its users -- cars, pedestrians, and cyclists -- dating back to a redesign in the 1950's which turned the original Olmsted parkway into a "double-barreled" quasi-highway. It is high time to undo the mistakes of that era and restore the Arborway as a multi-modal PARKway. Specific comments: It will be harder to get to my house in this design, but I will gladly put up with that minor inconvenience. I don't have a strong opinion about whether parking should be allowed on the "carriageways" -- but people might appreciate more public parking near the Pond and Arboretum. A physically separated bike lane is not at all necessary in this redesign, as the side lanes will be so quiet. Thank you for working to make this plan a reality! Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 10/28/2015 Jeff Perrin Hi, Thank you for holding these important meetings. In reviewing the [email protected] 13:12:26 presentation for access to the Parks along the Arborway I noticed that the area between the Murray Circle and Forest Hills will be Phase 2 of the project. I'm wondering if there is a timeline for Phase 2. I live on the Arborway frontage road and am increasingly concerned about the alarming speed of cars on the Arborway and the accompanying frontage road. I've seen countless examples where pedestrians have almost been struck by cars while in the crosswalk on the frontage road and the Arborway. I see that raised crosswalks are part of the plan and I think that is great idea for the frontage road as well as Arborway but am concerned that this will not happen anytime soon. The speed of the vehicles passing through our neighborhood is a serious concern and I hope this is seen as a priority by the DCR. The other day I saw a car swerve at the last moment to avoid a women and her baby crossing the frontage road. Tkx!

10/29/2015 Amiel Cooper Our home (116 Prince St-- the "little Prince St on the north side of 116 Prince St Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 10:26:00 Jamaicaway) is the first house next to Murray Circle and faces the beautiful and historic Olmsted wall with a view to the Jamaica Pond. We adamantly support the revised plan, keeping our Prince St and the wall intact and are equally opposed to diversion of Prince/Cataumet traffic through a break in the wall into Parkman Drive! Thank you, Drs Amiel Cooper & Lori Adcock 10/29/2015 Mary Hickie 125 The Fenway Boston MA 02115 mhickie@emeraldnecklac see attached 13:47:00 e.org File#17 Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 10/31/2015 Amy Bland Pedestrian Crossing at Pond (near Cataumet): There used to be a right 7 Cataumet Street Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 7:18:01 turn on red at the light coming out of Kelly Circle and turning right onto Pond, and with that it was scary to cross Pond Street. This is an important pedestrian crossing for those walking from the Jamaica Pond to the Arboretum. It was changed to a no turn on red (perhaps you can look back at this change to see why) and life has changed drastically for the better. As the plans are now, walking to the Arboretum (especially with kids) from Jamaica Pond or from Cataumet, we would not feel safe. Without anything to have cars stop when turning right onto Pond makes that a dangerous intersection. Add to that there would also be nothing to stop the cars turning left off of Pond. The light should remain or at the very least the crosswalk should be raised and lit, and there should be clear signage for drivers to yield to pedestrians from all directions. Please reexamine that crosswalk for safety. 10/31/2015 Jeff Hesselbein The proposed plans make exiting Cataumet Street by car daunting. When 7 Cataumet Street Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] 7:23:51 turning right out of our street we would have to wait for a break in traffic and also focus on the pedestrian crossing. Turning left would be even more difficult. We would have to be focused on traffic coming from Kelly Circle turning right on Pond, from Pond turning left, and from the Arborway turning left onto Pond, as well as potential pedestrians/bikers crossing our street. We would suggest a measure to stop traffic from all sides to let us exit safely, such as the current traffic light. We have a small street, so any light would only have to be green very infrequently through the day. Also the light could remain on motion detector and would only be green when cars are exiting the street. The light could also restore a safe pedestrian crossway. Further because there will be a lot less traffic on these roads under the proposed design, one would think the light would not disrupt the flow of traffic too much Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 10/31/2015 Amy Bland Pedestrian Crossing at Cataumet: The cross walk on Cataumet too has 7 Cataumet Street Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 7:25:49 always been rather difficult. It is hard for us to tell if people are coming down Pond street and crossing over Cataumet Street because the current angle and shrubbery. It will be even harder for us to focus on paying close attention to the potential pedestrians with the planned changes because we also have to watch for a break in cars from multiple directions before exiting our street. Again, our concern is safety. Residents of our street would greatly appreciate you taking a look at this crosswalk as part of the overall redesign. 11/2/2015 chris scales I would like to acknowledge my support for the Arborway plan presented 26 may street jamaica plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 6:56:53 on October 14th at Faulkner Hospital auditorium. As a resident of May m Street, I believe that the modifications described during the meeting will result in a much safer pedestrian access system between May Street and Arnold Arboretum, Jamaica Pond, and JP Center, all of which we walk to on a daily basis. My only concern is that the crossing lights which currently exist at Pond Street will be removed, and pedestrians will need to navigate the smaller round-abouts to cross the Arborway. I hope that works. I understand that vehicles should be traveling at a slower rate of speed, so crossing without lights should be manageable, however, I need to see it to believe it. I suggest that the design team maintain an option to add a crossing light in the system at some strategic point(s) in case the Boston drivers using the roadways do not adhere to the speed limits and traffic calming measures. 11/2/2015 David Wean 19 CONGREVE ST Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] see attached 10:25:52 File#19 Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/2/2015 Don Haber At the DCR's 3rd public meeting re: Improved Multi-modal Access to 32 Avon St ROSLINDALE MA 02131 [email protected] see attached X 10:42:46 Emerald Necklace Parks in JP held on October 14, 2015, I suggested that the File#20 proposed parking lane along both of the frontage/carriage lanes be converted into public green space and used to add more trees. Many people in attendance endorsed this change and nobody stated any opposition. This is the same suggestion I made in comments I submitted to DCR on February 25, 2015, a copy of which I have attached. To summarize, adding parking lanes goes against the stated principles for this project and against the whole idea of what a road labeled the Arborway should be. Remember that "arbor" means tree in Latin, not parking! 11/2/2015 Bill Shaevel 241 Perkins Street Boston MA 02130 [email protected] see attached X 16:33:43 File#21 11/2/2015 SusanWhite Arborway Project I am against this project. I have used modern 60 Rockwood Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 18:44:39 roundabouts. They are still unsafe and unfriendly. I want the lights at Pond street street and the Arborway to remain for safety. I do not want the parking of cars on the carriage lanes. Looks awful in the pictures. They distract from the beauty of the Arborway. The speaker kept pointing to Parkman when talking about Pond. My question about the traffic going to the residential side streets was never answered. The traffic on the Arborway will be less because it will be going on the side neighborhood streets. Why not try using proper signage and painting arrows on the street before embarking on this very expensive project which may not work and will definitely impact the neighborhoods. Traffic has increased everywhere. This project will create other problems. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/3/2015 Dear DCR, 8:52:00 Although the proposal for redesigning the Arborway between Kelley and Murray Circles clearly reflects much thought and seens to be a good- faith effort to meet residents' desires, I believe it is seriously flawed. The traffic that will leave the Arborway will have to go elsewhere. I live between two of the alternate routes: Goddard Avenue/Perkins Street and Newton/Pond Streets. Both roadways are already seriously congested and dangerous (especially in winter) for cyclists and pedestrians. The addition of a lot of Arborway traffic will make matters worse. For the Arborway I urge you to consider traffic-calming and safety- promoting measures instead: stop lights, speed humps, raised crosswalks, and so on. Thank you for your consideration. Jessie Howland, Rockwood Street Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/3/2015 claire barker I live on Orchard St off the Arborway. As the outside lanes are 32 orchard st jamaica plain MA 02130 [email protected] 10:21:00 reconfigured, I strongly support 2 way bike lanes protected by barriers, rather than relying on painted lines. Every day I see drivers run the red lights at the Murray Circle, weave in and out of lanes, and exceed the speed limit. As drivers get used to the new traffic patterns, it will be especially important to protect bikers.

I recognize the need for additional parking for abutters, but am concerned about taking away from greenspace along the Arborway and that commuters would use it for day long parking. Perhaps any additional parking could be available only for JP residents.

Thanks for taking my comments, Claire Barker 32 Orchard St. 11/3/2015 Diane Pierce- Overall, this plan is a wonderful improvement. 71 Arborway Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] 10:26:00 Williams To increase safety, I agree with the idea of a physical separation between bikes and cars. Surely there is a solution that will address snow removal needs.

I am not in support of adding a parking lane on the carriage road. In my experience, visitors want to park at the Pond or Arboretum, not in the long block between them. On Perkins St. along the perimeter of the Pond, many cars stay parked 24/7 which reduces the spaces available for recreational and short-term users of the Pond. It would be a shame for the carriage road to become a parking lot when it could be used to supplement the greenspace. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/3/2015 Clayton Harper I'm disappointed that the current Phase 1 and 2 timeline sets aside for a 44 Hampstead Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] 11:46:00 later date the important traffic calming, enhanced safety and Rd connectivity between Centre Street and South Street.

For the carriage roads between the rotaries, with the directions reversed traffic will be decreasing dramatically. Most homes there have driveways aso it's rare for on-street parking to take place. Removing car parking opens possibility:

Expand the tree-lined medians towards the homes and create 2-way off- street bike paths in the medians that are grade-separated from the carriage roads by the height of the curb. They would have to be plowed, but plowing removes the paint from on-street bike paths. This off-street option is being built now throughout the Casey Arborway project and already exists along the Jamaicaway. Recreational and bike-commuting continuity throughout the Emerald Necklace corridor would be a very good and foresighted thing to achieve, and enhance the safety for all.

11/3/2015 Jean Weinshel Please see uploaded document! I understand the need for brevity on 35 May Street Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] see attached X 15:55:00 this form, but want my entire comments to be part of the public record. File#2

11/3/2015 Rosemary Jones The Jamaica Pond Association supports the revised plan, dated October 36 Moraine Street Jamaica Plain ME 02130 [email protected] 16:11:00 14, 2015, for multi-modal safety and access to the Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain, and urges the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation to further develop the design leading to actual construction. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/3/2015 Dorothy Farrell Looks pretty good. Would be better if bicycles could have protected 345 Pond Street Boston MA 02130 [email protected] X 18:10:00 access.

also, can you please number the slides for presentations for ease of recall- such as "on slide # 34, I don't understand...... "

Thank you for all the hard work..... now the $ 11/3/2015 Vickie Henry 1: Why change Kelley Circle when it works well as modified? 83 May Street Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] see attached X 21:55:00 2: Why not do more to preserve trees and increase park space? File#3 3: Why is DCR giving away public land to abutters? 4: Access from Moss Hill going to Forrest Hills is still too burdened (but is better than the last design) 5: Please re-think raised crosswalks without lights 6: What is the back-up plan if this design does not work with out lights? DCR needs one. 7: Why wait on easy measures DCR could do immediately? 8: Can DCR really cut the Arborway in half and accommodate current traffic? 9: Wait and/or change the order Details in the attached - please review that. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/3/2015 Patricia Synan My first comment is if it ain't broken don't fix it! I refer to Kelly Circle. 57 May Street Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 23:35:00 There is no problem with the traffic flow. People are courteous, obey the rotary rules & there are NO accidents. What more doyou want? Now, Murray circle needs help. The fender benders, screeching tires to avoid an accident, the number of accidents, including people hurt and some fatalities have occurred. What about the 60 trees you want to cut down. They are beautiful trees which have been there for so many years & make the Arborway a lovely road. I am also very concerned about where the traffic will filter to. With all your changes people will be impatient & come up Pond St & go to the side streets. That would not be ok with neighbors!!! So please listen to us & hear us & address these issues we are talking about!!!!

11/4/2015 Joyce Kauffman Please see attached comments. 67 Clarendon Roslindale MA 02131 [email protected] see attached 9:55:00 Park m File#4 Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/4/2015 Christina Shea No case has been made for changes at Kelley. Since DCR added 33 Fairview Street Roslindale MA 02131 [email protected] 10:28:00 traffic-calming measures recently, Kelley works well. Drivers are quite courteous to stop for pedestrians crossing Francis Parkman Drive. Why spend millions of dollars and clear-cut beautiful trees for what is working? Also, the current configuration feeds traffic into the center lanes so no change is needed.

· Also, the proposed plan does not have a cross walk at Pond Street (off of Moss Hill). You have to know that people will just cross there any way (just like they persistently crossed at Eliot St.) It seems odd that a plan to increase park space will kill 60 mature healthy trees. This will not recover in the lifetimes of the adult residents in the area. The new trees that have been planted are not faring well.)

· The proposed design does not increase and maximize park space! Why not? The best way to do that would be to fill in the middle lanes and hold traffic to the outer lanes.

11/4/2015 Don Eunson See attached comment letter as pdf 34 Jamaica Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] see attached 11:18:00 Street File#5 Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/4/2015 Dorothea Hass WalkBoston feels the proposed re-design will increase the safety of 45 School Street Boston MA 02108 [email protected] see attached X 13:10:00 bicyclists and vehicle drivers, but questions whether the multi-lane File#6 roundabouts with the multiple crossings will increase safety for walkers. Certainly, the roundabouts will substantially increase crossing times.

As indicated in the attached letter WalkBoston is withholding support for the re-design until our concerns about the safety of the roundabouts for walkers are adequately addressed. We are requesting a meeting with DCR and their consultants, O'Toole Design to discuss the safety implications of the roundabouts for walkers. We would also like to visit a multi-lane roundabout that safely facilitates pedestrian movement.

Please see attached letter. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/4/2015 Ann Finnerty Hi, 72 Prince St Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 16:13:00 As a resident of Prince Street in Jamaica Plain, I have a couple comments regarding your last design presentation.

Firstly, it is a fabulous collection of solutions - your designers/engineers have obviously listened carefully and have come up with a creative, well- resolved, multi-faceted concept. Thank you!

One question from me is - the proposed access to Prince Street is not so convenient. And, maybe you have already considered this, but to offer a bit of flexibility, could there be access from Dunster Rd southwest to Prince Street (passing Orchard Street) - on a segment of local access- way that looks to be one-way northeast? Unless I am reading it incorrectly, it seems no traffic would be allowed on this particular segment - would it work in the larger picture for all neighbors to designate this segment two-way?? Thank you for your attention to my comments.

11/4/2015 David Friedman Am I reading the project correctly? It looks to me that anyone 76 Prince St JP [email protected] 17:39:00 approaching Prince St or the northern half of Orchard St. from Boston, Brookline, or Newton (Arborway, Parkman Drive, or Pond St) will drive around Kelley Circle, then to and around Murray Circle, back to Kelley Circle and finally right onto Prince or Orchard. A long, awkward, and time and fuel consuming route, especially during rush hour. Is it necessary? Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/4/2015 Dorothea Hass WalkBoston is submitting a comment letter on the Re-Design of the 45 School Street Boston MA 02108 [email protected] see attached X 18:55:00 Arborway. While we applaud DCR's effort to improve safety for File#6 bicyclists and vehicle drivers we are concerned that the multiple crossings for pedestrians at the roundabouts will not improve safety and will certainly increase trip times.

WalkBoston is requesting a meeting with DCR and its consultants, O'Toole Design before we can support this project.

Our concerns are presented in the attached letter. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/4/2015 Lucy Humphrey I live on May St. I walk, bike & travel this area by car daily. (I’m 14.) 83 May Street Jamaica Plain MA 02130 21:06:00 Why change Kelley Circle? I don’t have any trouble crossing the Arborway by foot or bike w/ the crosswalks & lights. Why cut down all these trees? Sad face.

If DCR has to do something between Kelley & Murray, increase green space! If cars can be limited to 2 lanes each way, why not use the rest of the lanes for green space? Why give 2 lanes to those who live on the Arborway. Plus put the bike paths in the park like much of the Emerald Necklace.

Add public transportation. Seems like you want to get rid of cars. Fine. But you need public transportation. I would take it to school.

I’m not sure crosswalks without lights will work. It is too dangerous to cross the Arborway at Murray - the parts w/o stoplights. I would not trust cars to stop.

Let’s wait until Forrest Hills is done. DCR has its hands full with Forrest Hills (where all trees were cut down). Could we please see how that goes and learn from Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/4/2015 Helen Raizen I'm an abutter at 75 Arborway. I would urge you to use RRFB at all 75 Arborway Jamaica Plan MA 02130 [email protected] X 23:24:00 pedestrian crossings in this plan area. It's not sufficient to slow traffic down to 20 MPH to make the pedestrian crossings safe. We support the current proposals bikeways at street level without barriers. Makes it easier for Arborway residents to get on/off bikepaths and snow plowing, as said at the meeting. We are concerned about traffic backing up at rush hour times and whether the traffic will flow adequately with so few traffic signals. We support the idea of parking and reverse direction on the carriage roads, even though this means more driving around for us. We have some concern about the hairpin turn from the carriage road onto the SB Arborway. We are also concerned about loss of existing trees and about construction noise, especially at night. As we said in previous comments, you need to make access to our neighbors' driveway, which is missing from the current plan. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/5/2015 Mark Tedrow Please find attached Adobe PDF document. 169 Sycamore St Roslindale MA 02131 [email protected] see attached 1:51:00 If you have any problems opening it or would like further clarification of File#7 our comments, please don't hesitate to call or email.

Sincerely,

Mark Tedrow Member, LivableStreets Alliance Advocacy Committee

P: 857.719.7143 E: [email protected]

You can also reach me through the LivableStreets office: P: 617,621.1746 E: [email protected]

11/5/2015 Susan Warne My comments are in the attached Word doc. 65 Prince St. Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] see attached X 10:53:00 m File#8 Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/5/2015 Andrea Howley The original plan was to make a safer road for residents on foot, cycle 329 Pond St Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] 11:22:00 and vehicle. This included controlling the speed of the vehicles all times of day and evening. A good and affordable start would be to post speed limits and raise crosswalks. The design removes the crossing from the bottom on Pond St which serves an entire neighborhood and forces people to walk around the Pond to the Elliot St light, crossing the one major intersection it created at Parkman Drive. That does not seem prudent as drivers and cyclist tend not to obey stop lights which is part of the current problem. This design is going to force the traffic off of route 203 and onto the neighborhood streets which were not built for traffic. Lastly addressing the reduction of pavement, this design is not addressing this at all. In fact it will cause the removing of many healthy mature trees and large green-spaces which help mitigate the pollution. The Green-space should be net plus not minus. Disapointing!

11/5/2015 Scott Englander I am submitting the comments in the attached letter with regard to 26 Elm St. Brookline MA 02445 [email protected] see attached X 11:40:00 Improved Safety and Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain, File#9 Arborway.

Sincerely,

Scott Englander

11/5/2015 Lorna Gibson I like the new plan with the smaller roundabouts and restricted access 56 Prince St JP MA 02130 [email protected] 13:31:00 to the outer Arborway lanes to local traffic. I also ride my bike in this area and commute to work on my bike so I like the new bike lanes. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/5/2015 Nathan Hall Hi, 13 Marmion St. Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] 14:03:00 I wanted to write with generally strong support for the proposed plans for improvements to the Arborway in Jamaica Plain. The proposed changes would do much to improve access and the ability to traverse the area for people walking and on bicycles. I was also pleased to see that there has been significant attention paid to travel times for people in cars, including the addition of bypass lanes to ensure that the design can handle anticipated volumes.

While the design is laudable, I am concerned about the lack of separation between motor vehicles and cyclists on the carriage ways. With the current design cars will be traveling in the opposite direction of the cyclists closest to the car lanes. This means that closing velocities could easily top 45mph (15mph bike + 30 mph car). At these speeds more than paint is necessary to ensure the safety of all users. Please consider adding flex-posts or other vertical barriers to these sections.

Nathan Hall Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/5/2015 Sarah Freeman Dear DCR, 22 Arborway Jamaica Plain MA 02130 freemansherwood@hotma see attached X 14:17:00 il.com File#10 The attached comments are submitted on behalf of the Arborway Coalition.

Thank you for your commitment to improving multi-modal safety & access to the Emerald Necklace Parks in JP.

Best regards, Sarah Freeman

11/5/2015 Martin Thomson Dear DCR, 60 Prince St. Jamaica Plain MA 02130 martinthomson@comcast. X 14:33:00 net Thanks for your efforts in addressing public concerns with your latest proposal. You have made a good and creative solution all that much better. (As a Prince St. resident, I share - although to a lesser extent, it would appear - my neighbors' interest in more convenient access onto the street from the north and west, but I also understand that with access comes the far, far worse problem of rush-hour traffic on our tiny street, so the minor access inconvenience is something I am happy to put up with.) I drive, bike and walk along this interchange every day and know that the next fatal accident could happen at any time. I can't wait for this plan to be realized. Please do not slow this project down for unnecessary complications regarding protected vs. unprotected bike lanes or grass in the parking lanes. Please simply develop the final plan (modifying as necessary), obtain funding and move to construction as quickly, cheaply and efficiently as possible. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/5/2015 Emy Chen Dear Sir or Madam: 57 Prince Street Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] see attached X 15:16:00 I am a long time resident of Jamaica Plain and have lived on Prince File#11 Street for the past five years. I attended the Multi-Modal Safety and Access to Emerald Necklace Parks meeting on October 14, 2015 regarding the part of the Arborway dealing with Murray and Kelley Circles. I had submitted some comments back in March regarding the initial plans and appreciate that your team has clearly spent time reading comments from the abutting neighbors and addressing our concerns. Thank you for doing this. Specifically, thank you for renaming the project to encompass all modalities, not just bike paths, and addressing the concerns of Prince and Orchard Street residents who did not want to change their streets to two-ways. Also, thank you for doing better outreach to the residents directly impacted by this project. Because I submitted comments previously, I received an email about the meetings directly from you, but I did received emails from my community listserv as well. My 11/5/2015 Emy Chen Hi, The character limit is too low for my comments. Please see the 57 Prince Street Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] see attached 15:20:00 attached Word document for my comments. Thank you. File#11 11/5/2015 Sarah Swartz I am concerned about how one would drive from Jamaicaway to Orchard 58 Orchard St #2 Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 16:33:00 St. It is already sufficiently complex. This new plan seems to suggest an even more convoluted route.

How will traffic on Orchard St be affected by this new plan? Orchard has parking on both sides of the street (which is needed since there are many condos and few driveways) and there is very little space for large vehicles to come through. Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/5/2015 Meira Levinson I think this is a massive improvement over current traffic patterns and 54 Arborway Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] X 16:35:00 improves safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. I would m encourage the use of some kind of physical barrier between bicyclists and drivers. I know there's concern about cost, and about snow plowing in the winter. Something like flower pots would be great (since they're removable in the winter) -- just enough to ensure that drivers truly stay in their own lane and do not put bicyclists at risk.

11/5/2015 Joanne Bucilla I attended the DCR meeting on Arborway Project on Oct.14. I have been 291 Pond St. Jamaica Plain MA 02130 16:59:00 a resident of Pond St for 35 years.

I am strongly opposed to the project as described.

1.It seems evident this project will most likely push traffic onto adjacent sts., particularly POND, MAY, ROCKWOOD, CEDARWOOD, PRINCE, AND AVON.

2.I strongly object to closing the outside lanes, which are public streets.

3.I find it curious such a disruptive project is undertaken with no prior remedial measures such as speed signs, raised crosswalks, increased police presence, etc.etc.

4.This complicated, confusing, and potentially catastrophic project should be reconsidered.

5.Thank you.

11/5/2015 Clare Humphrey see attached 17:16:00 File#12 Improved Multi-Modal Safety Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) Public Comments Submitted Online by Deadline November 30, 2015

Comment I would like to Date and Uploaded receive Name Address City State Zip Email Time Document future DCR Updates 11/5/2015 Chuck Anastas I'd like to commend the DCR for its excellent plan and presentation 75 SOUTH Jamaica Plain MA 02130 [email protected] 18:19:00 made on October 14th of the latest draft of improvements to the STREET, Unit 1 m Arborway. The following comments are made with the understanding that any further revisions to the plan not delay the work on these important improvements. There are two changes/additions I'd like to suggest for your further consideration: that there be no additional on street parking provided; and that the bike lanes be separated by a physical barrier from vehicular traffic. Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment.

11/5/2015 Stephen please see attached 125 Arborway Boston MA 02130 stephen_schneider@harv see attached 18:41:00 Schneider ard.edu File#13

The Arborway plan as presented on October 14th is almost overwhelming in scope, and requires an enormous leap of faith that it will actually work. The replacement of the existing Murray Circle rotary and Kelley Circle with three roundabouts, the elimination of three major traffic lights, the semi- privatization of the carriageways and the funneling of all through traffic onto the existing four middle lanes of the Arborway – we are told that the commute will take only seconds longer and that traffic will naturally calm and slow itself to allow other cars access, and to make it easier for pedestrians to cross. That’s a lot to take on faith!

In the process, approximately 60 trees (on the Arborway – how ironic) will need to be cut down, and we will gain more cement rather than green in the form of various cut-throughs to side streets and the carriageway, as well as roundabouts that circle back on themselves. And none of the proposed changes will actually cut back on overall traffic – they will simply route it in different directions.

There are definitely existing traffic problems and accidents in the area, and many pass through at too great a speed. But perhaps some less disruptive, less destructive and less dramatic measures can be implemented to help with these issues? Perhaps we need to remember some history, that of the failed Southwest Expressway which left a nasty scar in Jamaica Plain that took years to heal.

Why can’t some changes be implemented more immediately, to allow us time to assess their value?

Please add those raised sidewalks now!

Please try to enforce the law – stop and ticket those who speed (and if the state police feel it is beyond their capacity to do so, then we need to consider having the road policed by another force).

Why not add a new traffic light at the intersection of the Arborway and Centre Street, traveling toward the Arboretum? Move the existing light on Centre at Hillside closer to Centre at the Arborway. There are already lights on Centre at the Arborway, traveling from JP Centre, as well as on the Arborway at Centre traveling toward downtown. Time the lights to allow one at a time to be green – that should surely help cut down on accidents at Murray Circle, and will also slow traffic going onto the Arborway.

Don’t touch Kelley Circle – it works! Traffic from the Jamaicaway flows onto the Arborway and is slowed by the existing light at Pond Street. Drivers on Prince and Parkman have little problem getting onto the Arborway there. Those coming down Pond can easily turn and proceed either way on the Arborway. (It’s also a lovely green space, with some beautiful full-growth trees)

And do not eliminate the light at Pond Street! It’s a blind corner, for pedestrians, drivers and bicyclists. Without it, the area would be more hazardous. And it helps slow traffic flowing from the Jamaicaway onto the Arborway.

Couldn’t we try some of these measures before resorting to this proposed plan, which fails to provide us with the needed amount of construction time and says nothing about where traffic will go and how it will be diverted during construction? (Another frightening thought) The difficult-to-read, out-of-focus drawings of the proposed changes, the late posting of the promised video enactments three weeks later rather than right after the October meeting, as well as the privatization of the existing carriageways that would serve only a privileged few in the grand scope of things, the lack of planning for emergency vehicles throughout the revised roadways – these have all left a bad taste and an inauspicious phase of plans here. Jamaica Plain can’t afford another Southwest Expressway-type debacle.

To: DCR From: Vickie L. Henry Date: November 3, 2015 Re: Re-design of Arborway from Kelley Circle through Murray Circle

I live on May Street. I drive, walk, and bike this area daily, as do my spouse and my children.

Point 1: Why change Kelley Circle when it works well as modified?

· No case has been made for changes at Kelley. Since DCR added traffic-calming measures recently, Kelley works well. Drivers are quite courteous to stop for pedestrians crossing Francis Parkman Drive. Why spend millions of dollars and clear-cut beautiful trees for what is working? Also, the current configuration feeds traffic into the center lanes so no change is needed.

· Also, the proposed plan does not have a cross walk at Pond Street (off of Moss Hill). You have to know that people will just cross there any way (just like they persistently crossed at Eliot St.) Better to put the cross-walk there and a little farther from the rotary so the cars can see people and have less of a straight-away to speed. It is a big deal to walk an extra 1/10th of a mile to cross.

Point 2: Why not do more to preserve trees and increase park space?

· The proposals mark some trees to be saved between the rotaries – is the implication that DCR plans to clear-cut Kelley & Murray Circles? (It seems odd that a plan to increase park space will kill 60 mature healthy trees. This will not recover in the lifetimes of the adult residents in the area. The new trees that have been planted are not faring well.)

· The proposed design does not increase and maximize park space! Why not? The best way to do that would be to fill in the middle lanes and hold traffic to the outer lanes – that would significantly increase green space and be much more like Commonwealth Ave. and true to the Emerald Necklace It would be BETTER for bicyclists and pedestrians who could be in that middle green space and away from cars.

· Is DCR planning to cut down the absolutely stunning tree just off Murray Circle at Hillcroft heading towards the Faulkner? That would be a horrible mistake.

Point 3: Why is DCR giving away public land to abutters?

· This plan privatizes 25% of the Arborway between Kelley & Murray Circles by giving 2 of 8 traffic lanes to abutting homeowners for a carriage lane. Why?

· Giving invaluable land to abutters when DCR could make it park space is wrong and conflicts with DCR’s mission.

· There are betters ways to serve all, especially bicyclists & pedestrians.

Example: Convert the middle lanes of the Arborway to park – just like Commonwealth Ave. starting at Arlington Street through Back Bay, & put the pedestrians & bikes in that park space. (Turn the existing sidewalks into a carriage lane for abutters or make those green space, too.)

No parking is needed between the 2 rotaries. People coming to this area to walk at the Pond or Arboretum. So put the parking there (ironically, DCR has been removing parking from the Pond.) People also can & do park on May St. and other neighborhood streets and that is fine. They do not need parking in this busy area!

Point 4: Access from Moss Hill going to Forrest Hills is still too burdened (but is better than the last design)

· You are focused on traveling the Arborway but please remember that many of us CROSS the Arborway. Make sure you take that into account.

· The proposed plan does not explain why it is a necessary advisable to make all cars from Pond Street/Moss Hill/Brookline travel an extra ¼ a mile every single trip towards Forrest Hills (at least 1/8 of a mile the wrong way and then 1/8 of a mile to get back to where we are now). The cut through could be right where Pond is now. You can’t be worried about forcing traffic on the Arborway for traffic coming from Pond because you want that anyway.

· Why do pedestrians from Moss Hill have to go to the Pond to cross the street on that end of the project? That is a long way to walk.

Point 5: Please re-think raised crosswalks without lights

· If raised sidewalks work so well, why wasn’t one used at Eliot instead of a light? Try one there now & see how it works before spending millions of dollars the state does not have to experiment on a crucial route?

· A raised sidewalk is meaningless to SUVs. People routinely, deliberately run the red light at Murray (coming from Forrest Hills). What is a raised crosswalk to them?

· Having a raised crosswalk to cross the J Way in the proposed smaller Kelley seems far less safe than putting one at Pond St or just adding one to Kelley as it is currently designed. Pedestrians going from Moss Hill to JP Center will cross at Pond anyway. Right now, drivers know where pedestrians will be. In the proposed design, the raised crosswalk is just after the rotary. A car coming around the rotary has to be looking ahead to see the pedestrian (this already fails at Murray going to FH). Plus if a car stops, traffic backs up into the rotary - a bad design. Just stand at Murray and see if traffic stops for a pedestrian from the war memorial crossing the Arborway as it heads to FH. They don’t – because they can’t. They are too busy negotiating the rotary to see a pedestrian.

Point 6: What is the back-up plan if this design does not work with out lights? DCR needs one.

· The video simulations show that it will be very difficult from traffic coming from the Monument (Centre Street) to get into the Murray Circle rotaries – at one point it takes 50 seconds for the first row of cars to move! Then suddenly traffic from Forrest Hills stops – and why would that happen without a light? If DCR installed a flashing yellow for traffic coming from Forrest Hills that gets triggered when 5 cars back up on Centre, that would ease my concern.

· Similarly, if traffic backs up too far on Parkman Drive, the light at Eliot should get triggered.

Point 7: Why wait on easy measures DCR could do immediately?

· Why can DCR not get a barrel or sign in Murray Circle from the end of May Street to the island on the rotary exit towards the Faulkner? How much is a sign? I may be willing to pay for it myself.

· Why can’t you paint some lines on Murray now? Point 8: Can DCR really cut the Arborway in half and accommodate current traffic?

I am skeptical about the idea that the Arborway really own needs two lanes between Kelley and Murray rather than four. Think about traffic in and out to understand. At Kelley: two lanes come from Boston, one to two lanes gets added from Parkman Drive, a bit of traffic gets added from Prince, a bunch of traffic gets added from Pond Street, and traffic is coming around from Murray to access Moss Hill – in other words, about 5 lanes of traffic are coming into Kelley Circle. So 4 lanes to go out makes sense.

The same is true at Murray. Two lanes of traffic enter from Centre Street (from the Faulkner). Two more very busy lanes come from Forrest Hills. Another lane or two enter from Centre Street from the Monument. So 5-6 lanes enter and it is good that five lanes exit.

Again, could you please try an experiment to make sure this will work? All you have to do is close the carriage ways to through traffic for a week and see what happens. If you are concerned about flow, just try it exiting Kelley, where traffic is directed towards the middle.

Point 9: Wait and/or change the order DCR is in an ongoing and massive project removing the Casey Overpass. Could we please see how that goes before designing the next phase or, in the alternative, could DCR design from Forrest Hills to Murray next? That way, DCR can connect to the existing project and build on what it is learning.

This is too much, too soon.

Sincerely,

Vickie Henry I live in Roslindale and commute on this road to Cambridge every day.

Point 1: Why change Kelley Circle when it works well as modified?

No case has been made for changes at Kelley. Since DCR added traffic-calming measures recently, Kelley works well. Drivers are quite courteous to stop for pedestrians crossing Francis Parkman Drive. Why spend millions of dollars and clear-cut beautiful trees when this is already working? The current configuration feeds traffic into the center lanes so no change is needed.

The proposed plan does not have a cross walk at Pond Street (off of Moss Hill). People will cross there any way (just like they persistently crossed at Eliot St.) when there was no cross-walk there. Better to put the cross-walk there and a little farther from the rotary so the cars can see people and have less of a straight-away to speed. It is a big deal to walk an extra 1/10th of a mile to cross.

Point 2: Why not do more to preserve trees and increase park space?

The proposals mark some trees to be saved between the rotaries – is the implication that DCR plans to clear-cut Kelley & Murray Circles? (It seems odd that a plan to increase park space will kill 60 mature healthy trees. This will not recover in the lifetimes of the adult residents in the area. The new trees that have been planted are not faring well.)

Is DCR planning to cut down the absolutely stunning tree just off Murray Circle at Hillcroft heading towards the Faulkner? That would be a horrible mistake.

Point 3: Why is DCR giving away public land to abutters?

This plan privatizes 25% of the Arborway between Kelley & Murray Circles by giving 2 of 8 traffic lanes to abutting homeowners for a carriage lane. Why?

· Giving invaluable land to abutters when DCR could make it park space is wrong and conflicts with DCR’s mission.

· There are betters ways to serve all, especially bicyclists & pedestrians.

Point 4: Access from Moss Hill going to Forest Hills is still too burdened (but is better than the last design)

· You are focused on traveling the Arborway but please remember that many of us CROSS the Arborway. Make sure you take that into account.

· Why do pedestrians from Moss Hill have to go to the Pond to cross the street on that end of the project? That is a long way to walk.

Point 5: Please re-think raised crosswalks without lights

· A raised sidewalk is meaningless to SUVs. People routinely, deliberately run the red light at Murray (coming from Forrest Hills). What is a raised crosswalk to them?

Point 6: What is the back-up plan if this design does not work with out lights? DCR needs one.

· Similarly, if traffic backs up too far on Parkman Drive, the light at Eliot should get triggered.

Point 7: Why wait on easy measures DCR could do immediately?

· Why can DCR not get a barrel or sign in Murray Circle from the end of May Street to the island on the rotary exit towards the Faulkner? How much is a sign? I may be willing to pay for it myself.

· Why can’t you paint some lines on Murray now? Point 8: Can DCR really cut the Arborway in half and accommodate current traffic?

I am skeptical about the idea that the Arborway really only needs two lanes between Kelley and Murray rather than four. Think about traffic in and out to understand. At Kelley: two lanes come from Boston, one to two lanes gets added from Parkman Drive, a bit of traffic gets added from Prince, a bunch of traffic gets added from Pond Street, and traffic is coming around from Murray to access Moss Hill – in other words, about 5 lanes of traffic are coming into Kelley Circle. So 4 lanes to go out makes sense.

Sincerely,

Joyce Kauffman November 4, 2015

Don Eunson 34 Jamaica Street Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

Department of Conservation and Recreation Ofﬁce of Public Outreach 251 Causeway Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02114

Re: “Improving the Arborway” — Public Meeting October 14, 2015

Comments on the presentation itself.

- The red laser pointers simply don’t work. In a room like the Faulkner auditorium, an old-fashioned wood pointer would be vastly superior; perhaps one presenter talking, one presenter pointing.

- Toole presenters did not do a consistently good job of orienting the audience to the visuals. Not just simply “north”, “south” but also street names and large orientation points like the Arboretum to the left and Jamaica Pond to the right. I know this project area intimately, and even so I found it hard to understand some of the visuals.

- For details like the Kelley roundabout, please Zoom In for a closer view. It was very hard to see details like the “Kelley bypass” and I didn’t get that until very late in the presentation.

- The vehicle speed table from February presentation is clearer than the percentile curve

Page 1 - Crash data is so important that I think every presentation should include crash data statistics

- somewhere on the cross-sections the words “Existing” and “Proposed” should be LARGE and prominent. On October 14 both diagrams have the word “existing” in multiple places, and nowhere does the second visual say “Proposed”. Furthermore, on the proposed drawing, the word “Existing” appears under the outer edge of the carriageway. I suppose it means that the curb is existing — but the carriageway itself is redesigned. Nonetheless, it is confusing.

- Toole’s presentation language. Two comments: - Instead of saying, for example, “The direction of traffic will be reversed” please say, “The direction of traffic would be reversed” - If the presenters can use less jargon and more everyday language it would be helpful. Patrick used a number of engineers’ terms that were probably difficult for the average listener. The more conversational this can be, the better.

- Can Toole please put a legend somewhere on every slide that shows the public what color represents bike paths and what color represents pedestrian paths? And can the summary slides for bike /pedestrian routes conform to this color key, but with thick lines and/or arrows?

Thank you for your continued dedication to improving safety and connections along the historic Arborway parkway.

Sincerely,

— Jamaica Plain resident since 1990

Page 2

November 5, 2015

Patrice Kish, Director Office of Cultural Resources Department of Conservation and Recreation 251 Causeway Street – Suite 700 Boston, MA 02114 P: 617.626.1378 E: [email protected]

Subject: Improved Multi-Modal Safety and Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain- Arborway

Dear Ms. Kish, LivableStreets Alliance is pleased to submit comments for the Arborway Project, part of the effort for improved multi-modal safety and access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain. We support the communities’ goals to address problems along the Arborway that include speed reduction, tree preservation, reconnecting open space, preserving neighborhood access, making navigation easier, reducing weaving in circles, improving yielding at crosswalks, providing continuous bike connections, and making the carriageway comfortable for all by diverting traffic to the mainline. Directly connected to these community goals is LivableStreet’s Emerald Network- a vision for 200 miles of seamless greenways in Boston’s urban core. The Arborway project is a key component of this non-motorized transportation and recreation system that will connect neighborhoods and people of all ages and abilities to transit, jobs, and open space. We strongly support this project and hope that it becomes a model for parkways throughout the Boston region. Providing separate facilities for walking and bicycling will encourage more people of all ages and abilities to walk and bike and will create connections that are difficult if not impossible to make today. The design of the roadway and intersections for slow (but steady) speeds creates a safer environment for everyone while still handling a lot of traffic We support the presented design including the modern roundabouts, reduced traffic signals, raised crosswalks, and reversed direction carriageways to stop cut-through traffic. We acknowledge that local residents concerns must be met regarding access to adjacent neighborhood streets and carriageways. We recommend that the buffered bi-directional bike lanes along the carriageways be changed to separated (protected) lanes. This will reduce vehicle-cyclist conflicts and increase comfort for many people on bikes allowing people with a greater age and skill range to bike along the Arborway. The separation could be as simple as flex-posts or a slightly raised biking surface. Both would help to reduce vehicle encroachment in the bike lanes. We recommend that a detailed existing conditions survey, including tree location, be included as part of the next step. An arborist should examine all trees within the project area to

determine their health and recommend future steps needed to preserve them if possible. We also note that the revised design has bypass lanes at two of the roundabouts, we have two questions: What is the projected traffic growth rate for this project? Does the projected growth increase traffic to such an extent that the bypass lanes around the roundabouts are required? We do not think that design should anticipate much traffic growth (perhaps zero) in our opinion, since traffic volumes have been trending down regionally and statewide goals are to shift more trips to walking, bicycling and transit. We appreciate this opportunity to publicly comment on this very important project and hope to be part of the continuing discussions. Feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have.

Sincerely,

Mark Tedrow On behalf of the LivableStreets Alliance Advocacy Committee

2 Dear DCR: I strongly support your plan for the section of the Arborway between and including Kelly and Murray circles. Thank you for the well-thought-out plan and for incorporating changes based on the feedback you got from neighbors in February. I think the plan will lower the speed of cars along this stretch of road and greatly improve pedestrian and bike safety. A couple of comments: 1. I encourage you to go ahead with this plan. Its cost is relatively modest. I urge you not to make changes that would add to the cost unless absolutely necessary. That way, we have a better chance of this proposal actually coming to fruition. 2. As a resident of the east side of Prince St., I’m concerned about our ability to exit the street during morning rush hour. At that hour, few north-bound cars turn from the Arborway right on to Centre St., so I fear there will be an unbroken stream of cars and it will be difficult for Prince St. traffic to merge into Murray Circle. That said, if this is a problem, I suppose the Arboretum walk light could be made into a timed light to create gaps. 3. I’m also disappointed that traffic trying to get to Prince from the north or west will have to go around Murray Circle and then head back north to enter Prince. I do appreciate that this will prevent people cutting through Prince, and if this is the only way to prevent cut-throughs, I support it. But do consider again whether there are other options that might both prevent cut-throughs and allow Prince (and Orchard and Arborway) residents to avoid the Murray Circle loop. 4. While separated bike lanes on the Arborway carriage roads would be nice, I think the traffic will be light enough that they are not necessary. 5. Adding more green space instead of parking on the carriage roads would be a plus if it doesn't add significantly to costs. Again thank you for this plan that brings this stretch of road into the 21st century! Susan Warne 65 Prince St. Scott L. Englander 26 Elm St. Brookline MA 02445

November 5, 2015 Patrice Kish, Director Office of Cultural Resources Department of Conservation and Recreation 251 Causeway Street – Suite 700 Boston, MA 02114 Via Email: [email protected] Re: Improved Multimodal Safety and Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain Arborway

Dear Ms. Kish, I am writing to submit comments for the Arborway Project, which I understand is part of the Commonwealth’s effort to improve multi-modal safety and access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain. My family and I frequently travel along the Arborway and enjoy the parks there, by bike or walking, and at times by car. Although I’m a member of the Brookline Transportation Board and Chairman of the Brookline Complete Streets Study Committee, these comments are my own. I support the goals neighboring communities and advocates have expressed to address problems along the Arborway—goals that include speed reduction, tree preservation, reconnecting open space, preserving neighborhood access, making navigation easier, reducing weaving in circles, improving yielding at crosswalks, providing continuous bike connections, and making the carriageway comfortable for all by diverting traffic to the mainline. These goals are consistent with Brookline’s Green Routes Bicycle Network Plan1 and other Brookline efforts to make it easier and safer for Brookline residents and visitors of all ages and abilities to access our region’s parks and open space, transit, and jobs. The Arborway project addresses these goals. I strongly support this project and hope that it becomes a model for parkways throughout the Boston region. Providing separate facilities for walking and bicycling will encourage more people of all ages and abilities to walk and bike and will create connections that are difficult if not impossible to make today. The design of the roadway and intersections for slow (but steady) speeds creates a safer environment for everyone while still handling a lot of traffic. I support the presented design including the modern roundabouts, reduced traffic signals, raised crosswalks, reversed direction carriageways to stop cut-through traffic, and crossings that enable those on foot to avoid having to cross more than one lane at a time.

1 http://brooklinebikes.org/files/Green_Routes_Network_Plan_2015_Revision.pdf I concur with others that the buffered bi-directional bike lanes along the carriageways be changed to separated (protected) lanes. By reducing the possibility of vehicle encroachment in bike lanes and vehicle-cyclist conflicts, protected bike lanes will not only reduce crashes, but will also make it possible for people in a much wider range of age and skill to be comfortable biking along the Arborway. Protected bikelanes will make it possible to travel by bike from Brookline to the Arnold Arboretum and beyond, separated from traffic the entire way (except for intersections). I also question the need for bypass lanes at two of the roundabouts. A design that anticipates traffic growth (e.g., by including the bypass lanes) is inconsistent both with recent trends—traffic volumes have been trending down regionally—and with the Commonwealth’s statewide goal to shift more trips to walking, bicycling and transit. Designs that anticipate traffic growth induce demand, and are therefore at odds with the mode-shift goal. I appreciate this opportunity to comment on this very important project and hope to be part of the continuing discussions.

Sincerely,

Scott Englander Dear DCR,

The Arborway Coalition enthusiastically supports the ongoing planning for improved multi-modal access to the Emerald Necklace parks in Jamaica Plain. Thank you to the agency for addressing the 3 locations comprehensively. The comments below pertain to the Oct. 14, 2015 public meeting addressing the Arborway between Eliot Street & South St. including Kelley Circle & Murray Circle.

We strongly support & encourage DCR to move forward with the planning that was presented in Oct. and develop safety improvements that can be implemented to benefit all users.

We appreciate the efforts to preserve mature trees and historic stone walls and to expand the green space as much as possible. We look forward to seeing more detail re: specific trees that will be impacted and a tree replacement plan as the design evolves.

The proposed bicycle facilities & traffic calming are welcome additions & long overdue.

The following questions and comments have been raised during our discussions:

 If traffic signals are removed: - Raised crosswalks will be a key component for pedestrian safety. - Crossing locations will need to be well-lit so that pedestrians & cyclists will be visible to motorists. - Residents of Upper Arborway & Orchard St. are concerned about exiting onto Centre St., especially left turns. Residents of Prince St. have a similar concern re: opportunities to exit into Murray Circle.

 Any well-designed bike facility creating a continuous path between the existing Jamaicaway path & the future Casey Arborway paths would be a major improvement and an important addition to the ongoing Green Routes, Emerald Network & Landline efforts to create a meaningful bike network. If separated lanes are feasible, they would be greatly appreciated. On Nov. 4, 2015 at the “Moving Together Conference 2015”, MassDOT unveiled a separated bike lane design guide, making Massachusetts the first state to issue its own guide.

 Murray Circle: Hillcroft Rd.: Due to proximity to Murray Circle & relatively infrequent use, would DCR consider a sensor/loop & pedestrian push button that would stop thru traffic only for a motorist exiting onto Centre from Hilcroft or for a pedestrian crossing. For general traffic calming, a raised crosswalk would be self-enforcing without causing a back-up of traffic exiting Murray Circle to Centre St.

We look forward to working together to make the Arborway safe for all users,

Sarah Freeman, 22 Arborway, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

Submitted on behalf of the Arborway Coalition

November 5, 2015

RE: Multi-Modal Safety and Access to Emerald Necklace Parks meeting on October 14, 2015 regarding the part of the Arborway dealing with Murray and Kelley Circles

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am a long time resident of Jamaica Plain and have lived on Prince Street for the past five years. I attended the Multi-Modal Safety and Access to Emerald Necklace Parks meeting on October 14, 2015 regarding the part of the Arborway dealing with Murray and Kelley Circles.

I had submitted some comments back in March regarding the initial plans and appreciate that your team has clearly spent time reading comments from the abutting neighbors and addressing our concerns. Thank you for doing this. Specifically, thank you for renaming the project to encompass all modalities, not just bike paths, and addressing the concerns of Prince and Orchard Street residents who did not want to change their streets to two-ways. Also, thank you for doing better outreach to the residents directly impacted by this project. Because I submitted comments previously, I received an email about the meetings directly from you, but I did received emails from my community listserv as well.

My comments regarding the current proposal:

1. As a resident of Prince Street, I find it absolutely frustrating that if I am approaching Kelley Circle from the north (from the boathouse), that I will have to go down to Murray Circle to enter my street. Will you please do a simulation to estimate the amount of time that it would require for me to make this trip during peak times? I have small children and have to drive to Brookline and toward the Longwood area on a daily basis. Seeing the new plan makes me extremely unhappy. I would love to talk with the architects about this and see if we can come up with some alternatives. 2. I know that the traffic specialist said that the timing of going through the circles is shorter by a few seconds in the simulations. I am thinking about this as a resident who sees this traffic on a daily basis. I really don’t think that the traffic timing is going to be improved. Was he comparing current time with the simulated time? Or was it simulated current compared to the simulated proposed plan? a. What about traffic coming from Brookline on Francis Parkman Drive to Kelley Circle? How far will that back up? b. What about traffic exiting Kelley Circle to Francis Parkman Drive? In the morning, traffic is often backed up on Francis Parkman Drive all the way until Kelley Circle. How will drivers navigate this? 3. You spent a great deal of time both in this presentation and the previous one discussing traffic circles and specifically show the one in Worcester. Has any one done analysis regarding the one in Worcester and has it improved traffic time? I don’t doubt that it is safer for cyclists, but increasing time spent in a car has consequences too. These consequences overall may not be better for the community. 4. What happens when there is an accident on the Arborway in the proposed plans? I imagine that traffic is going to turn to a standstill given we plan to take away the carriage lanes.

Thank you again for the improved outreach for the October meeting. Please continue to do so for future meetings so my neighbors and I can attend, and have a voice in this process that directly impacts us. Thank you for your efforts in putting this proposal together and for soliciting feedback.

Sincerely yours,

Emy Chen 57 Prince Street Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Email: [email protected] Home tel: 617.524.6963

COMMENTS ON 10/14/15 DCR ARBORWAY MEETING, KELLEY TO MURRAY

After digging into this, my main conclusion is that there is less urgent need and fewer benefits from the redesign of Kelley that don't outweigh its costs. My primary concerns are the imbalance of need for extensive redesign at Kelley compared to Murray, the net loss of open/green space at Kelley, clearcutting trees there for a generation, adding 2-3 minutes to pedestrians' journey from Pond St across Arborway, danger created by the loss of natural crossing points, eliminating rather than reducing carriageway traffic and community uses of carriageways, insufficient modeling & delayed availability.

I've organized my comments into sections on usability at each rotary, trees & open space, lost crosswalks, carriageways, signals removed, bicycles, traffic simulation, and the presentation. I spent little time on Murray changes, as I believe overall the design as proposed is warranted there and will work. I cannot say the same at Kelley for reasons below.

Similarly, I have commented mostly on issues I have with the proposal rather than aspects I like. Those are needed to push a good design to be a better design and to consider less expensive and complicated and disruptive alternatives by offering negatives to be weighed in the balance. By adding local ground experience, I hope to make it better. Let's sharpen our pencils.

KELLEY v MURRAY USABILITY

At the October meeting at Faulkner, I asked why no peanut (double roundabout) was proposed at Kelley like Murray. The answer was it didn't fit into available space, not that it wasn't needed there. The result is awkward entrances & exits in the Kelley design, like all pedestrians & bikes from Pond St being shunted to Parkman Drive to cross A-Way. And, an awkward left turn to right turn from Pond St for cars (though this is an improvement from merging up little Prince into Parkman in the original proposal). Design benefits are thus far fewer for Kelley than for Murray. And, Kelley is less problematic to start with. The proposal creates new problems while seeking to solve some old ones. Weighing remaining concerns at Kelley: trees clearcut, open space reduced, crosswalks lost, awkward approaches & turns, access to bike path from Pond St, I'm just not seeing the design for Kelley up to the caliber of that for Murray for sure-fire improvement. Seems like an extreme solution when less extreme or extensive options have not been tried. This proposal will be very expensive and disruptive. What else might we do with that money? What other options might we try?

Slide 16 Improve yielding at crosswalks shows all crosswalks. At present at Kelley, only the Parkman crosswalk is unmanageable for bikes & pedestrians. Other crosswalks work well for both. There are multiple problems at Murray crosswalks. Arboretum crosswalks are not a problem. Expansion to 2 lanes at Parkman into Kelley is good for cars, but doubles the distance for pedestrians & bikes to cross.

Car speeds of 45 mph were reported at the presentation, but not where such speeds were measured. Speeds vary widely on the A-way. In my experience of driving this stretch for 20 years, Murray speeds are way higher than Kelley, due to multiple signals & northbound constriction at Kelley, and signal lights & curves southbound . After Kelley, speeds increase, and there are limited signals. More accidents there bear this out. Kelley problems are not as severe.

TREES/OPEN SPACE

I overlaid proposed and existing open space from slide 55 and compared green space. Open space would increase at Murray, remain about the same between rotaries,and decrease significantly at Kelley.

Of the 60 trees to be cut as stated at the October meeting, I assume Murray & Kelley would be clearcut, a la Casey, and the bulk of trees would be cut at Kelley. Kelley is much more heavily wooded with much less open space than Murray. Cutting down the tree canopy at Kelley will have a much bigger impact for a generation, certainly for the rest of my lifetime.

In comments on the February presentation, I asked which trees would be cut. Given the distillation of comments offered at the October presentation, this was a chief concern of the public. Slide 28 shows concerns heard, but only the first three were marked as addressed. No further details of tree impacts among other issues are offered. There's still only a vague oval on slide 53, which is considerably smaller than a similar oval shown in the February Arborway Bike Facilities presentation, part 3, which is worrisome.

Take a look at the little trees along the black median fence to the side on the A-Way across from the Arboretum. That's what it would look like for years. And young trees around here aren't doing that well with our harsher weather lately. We should be asking what alternatives there are and which have been tried. We'd better be pretty sure there aren't other, less disruptive measures that could be taken before clearcutting big sections of a road called ARBORway, (emphasis intentional).

CROSSWALKS LOST

It is very obvious Pond St is not improved by having no crosswalks such as presently exist, looking at slide 49 of pedestrian paths. Pedestrians & bikes from Pond St are diverted to Parkman to cross. This is too out of the way (see calculation below) & thus unlikely to succeed. Pond St is where pedestrians want to cross, not at Parkman, as the existing infrastructure allows them to do. People will dash across like they used to at Eliot, rather than walk 2-3 minutes out of their way.

Lacking a scale on the presentation map, I tinkered with Google maps. The corner of PondSt to the corner of Parkman is about 160 yards, estimated at an additional 2-3 minutes walking. That's a long way to take people out of their way. People will dash across instead which adds danger.

The design for the Kelley area was constricted by limitations on space, according to a comment by the Toole presenter at the October meeting, not because this is the best design here, not because it makes sense in the natural flow (i.e, how we live our lives). Crosswalks are present at far less traversed intersections like both ends of Prince and Orchard based on what fits in the design, not where most needed. We should be balancing whether the change is worth it at Kelley for something that works better as it exists now.

At Murray, we are losing the crosswalk at Hillcroft. That's ok for pedestrians coming from May, but Hillcroft & all the Moss Hill residents who come down that way & Centre St residents have to go back to May if they want to get to the bus stop on the other side of Centre.

CARRIAGEWAYS

Slide 18 says Make carriageway comfortable for all. Oddly, “All” seems to exclude anyone except abuttors. Slide 43 refers to local traffic. “Local” implies that it serves a purpose for the local neighborhood. Much more restricted use is accorded than that. “Abuttors” is less misleading language than either term. Essentially, this proposal grants a private road and parking from what is now very valuable public land, for the exclusive use of only 28 households. Many times more would be impacted and not served at all.

I agree with greatly reducing and calming traffic in the carriageways. It is disturbing that slide 46 shows cars in carriageways exceeding traffic in center lanes at points of the day. You shouldn't have to risk your life to exit your driveway. But, greatly reducing is different than totally eliminating and preventing any other use of a major public roadway.

I live on May St, on the other half of the block. Currently, May St is used for emergency traffic; fire & ambulances use it as a cut-through from the Murray rotary. We get increased traffic in the morning and some in the afternoon from cars cutting through to westbound Centre St. We also serve as a detour whenever there's road repair on Pond St. or events like road races on the A-way. Under the proposed plan, May St will have more traffic & serve more community purposes than A-way abuttors who knowingly bought homes on a major thoroughfare. The proposal seems unfair to the public, including local residents, and disproportionate to the problem.

Perhaps this could be developed like the carriage lanes on Comm Ave in Brookline and Newton where traffic is directed to center lanes, but still accessible by everyone. I am opposed to the proposed carriage lanes going in the opposite direction from all central travel lanes, closing all access and other uses to the public. Could sharper angles, narrower ingress and egress or other design features discourage traffic to carriageways? Reduced traffic would be accomplished and other purposes preserved. Could something be done promply without involving or waiting for a redesign and renovation of the whole Kelley area?

The last thing I want this space used for is two lanes of parked cars, one on either side. Parking is not needed there; this is not a good use of our public space. Every house except the house on the corner at May has a driveway. That house has a garage on May St. People who want to access the area park on Cataubet, May or Pond Circle.

Public transport in carriageways is an option that should be preserved. I know this is currently and understandably anathema to abuttors. But I'm not talking about noisy, diesel fume- spewing double buses. Better quiet, clean electric options are becoming available. Getting people out of cars going to Longwood Medical Center or BU seems like a sensible option to reduce traffic that everyone finds so objectionable. This is an option for carriageways that should be preserved for future public use.

SIGNALS REMOVED

Slide 21 refers to removing 3 traffic signals. Aren't there more than 3? I assume Pond, Prince & Hillcroft are the signals referred to. But on presentation maps, signals at Centre on the east (Monument) side & on A-way coming from the Arboretum are also missing. Only one traffic light at Eliot St is clearly marked on any Phase 1 map (see slide 42 & others). If raised crosswalks & yield signs are going to banish all problems at all the rest of these intersections, why do we need the traffic light at Eliot by the same argument? If we're supposed to believe it'll work at all these other points, why preseve it at Eliot?

Losing these signals has a big impact for my family every time we bike or walk across A-way. We cross at Pond St to Prince daily. My daughter would cross Centre to get the school bus without benefit of the light at Hillcroft. My experience is that cars ignore yield signs for pedestrians, even parents w/strollers, and especially bikes. Not sure I'm willling to risk my children for this.

BIKES

A continuous bike trail (which I favor) is a major point of the project, yet there's no modelling of its use available. PM Kelley video doesn't have a single bicyclist using bike infrastructure on the right side of the screen. Parkman is shown backing up somewhat without any interaction with bicyclists coming up or down the bike path. It's currently the worst intersection in the area for bikes and pedestrians, yet isn't modelled.

A big plus of this plan is continuous bike paths. I'm a 4 season bicyclist who crosses the A- way multiple times a day. I'll have to take it on faith that cars will stop for pedestrians (probably) and bicyclists (possibly) under this design. That's not my experience on this road. Not much bike or pedestrian traffic is shown on either video, so it's hard to judge.

A yield sign already exists at Parkman for drivers coming from the Arborway. It is widely ignored, even for parents with strollers. The current stop sign from Parkman into A-way would be replaced with a yield. This seems like a step backward.

I am a bicyclist, a pedestrian and a driver. Currently, in my experience, Kelley works well except for the crosswalk at Parkman. Perhaps we could save terrific expense and clearcutting by just working on that.

TRAFFIC SIMULATION

Not a single bicyclist is shown coming from what must be Pond St on the bike path in AM Kelley video. Indeed, not a single cyclist is shown on any bike path other than the eastside going north, crossing and contining north on the Pondside path. Only 2 cyclists are in the entire 2 minutes, 20 seconds. This does not match reality or give much of a picture for a project whose original name was Arborway Bicycle Facilities.

Apparently in the video, to assist such smooth traffic flow, all residents of Hillcroft, Cedarwood and connecting streets, and May St residents have given up driving in the morning as well as all the cars that cut through on May from Pond St, since not a single car came down either Hillcroft or May in the simulation. And, not a single car was seen to use the access to Prince & Orchard from Kelley.

Pond St is not even shown in the Kelley videos. This is an area of great concern to the neighborhood and other communities not included in the discussion so far who traverse this way. Only Arborway is labelled in the video. Other missing street labels impedes viewing clarity. Trees are shown more distinctly than vehicles, pedestrians or bikes. (I assume these are memorial drawings of trees since actual trees will be clearcut.) In the traffic video, pedestrians and bicyclists are microscopic and difficult to distinguish from each other. Microscopic pedestrians appear at the edge of crosswalks and then disappear once across, making them hard to spot. It's hard to estimate real-time progress for them. PM video quality is often poor which makes tracking micro-bikes & pedestrians very difficult.

Traffic actually arrives at Kelley in waves coming from traffic signals at Moss Hill Road, & Eliot St, not in an even flow as shown.

I'm not putting a lot of faith in this without seeing much more of my reality reflected. Explanation of inputs, goals and limits of modelling might have helped but I'm reacting to what was presented.

PRESENTATION ISSUES

The presentation was not available online at the DCR website for at least 5-6 days after the meeting. Simulation videos were loaded even later. Requests to extend the comment period as a result were not answered. This is not fair to the public and belies the interest in transparency & valuing of public input touted.

I didn't hear any comments at any of the 3 meetings from people from other towns/neighborhoods who will be impacted. This was a problem with Casey, & will be a problem here if there's been insufficient outreach.

It's very hard to understand the map drawings with no legend, nothing to distinguish bike lanes from sidewalks or bypass lanes for cars. Many aspects could be made less artsy & more clear.

Slide 45 appears to mistakenly say “existing” where it should say proposed or revised or something to distinguish it from previous slide.

Claire E. Humphrey

125 Arborway Boston, MA 02130-3500 tel: 617.524.1718 fax: 617.524.1418 www.arboretum.harvard.edu

DCR Office of Public Outreach, 251 Causeway Street, 6th Floor Boston, MA. 02114

November 5, 2015

Re: Arborway and Centre Street Corridor Study

Dear DCR staff,

We very much appreciate the DCR’s efforts to address important roadway issues on the Arborway and Centre Street corridor and would like to submit the following comments on information presented at the October 7th and 14th public meetings:

 Arborway: The Arboretum attracts over a quarter of a million visitors each year. A majority of those visitors primarily use the Arborway to access our collections. Parking along the westbound side of the Arborway is a critical component to providing such access. That said, equally important is the safe passage of pedestrians and cyclists who visit us. Some areas to consider for improvement include the pedestrian crosswalk across the Arborway service road (installing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons to work in conjunction with the existing pedestrian crossing currently servicing the Arborway). Also, one might consider changing the double-wide sidewalk that runs parallel to the Arboretum perimeter walls along the Arborway to a multi-use path that would provide separate surfaces for pedestrians and cyclists.  Centre St. Corridor: Any improvements to this area that would result in the calming of traffic and increased safety for pedestrians and cyclists are welcome. Of particular interest to the Arboretum is the treatment of the intersection of Walter and Centre Streets. Of the three options presented, “Traffic Signal 1” appears to provide the best case scenario for pedestrians and cyclists to navigate this interstation with the least amount of confusion for drivers and non-drivers alike. Additionally, it presents an opportunity to reduce existing pavement and create additional greenspace adjacent to the intersection.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these important projects.

Sincerely,

Stephen Schneider Director of Operations

Thank you for your proposal to protect us from the perilous Arborway. I believe that most of your recommendations are thorough, well founded and necessary. As the owner of a home located at 79 Arborway, active community member who enjoys our natural and recreational resources by foot, bike and car, and mother to an active toddler who I hope to ensure can continue to safely enjoy our home, I can speak with many hats to this proposal. To be clear the aspects of the concept that I endorse are as follow:

1. As the owner of 79 Arboway it was mentioned during the hearing that these changes would affect our driveway. We MUST be consulted regarding any changes, by no means consent to any adverse possession and will oppose any plan that has a negative effect on our access, safety and property. 2. We whole heartedly support reversing the traffic direction on the Arborway carriage lanes. We must slow the speed. It was no surprise to hear of the excessive speeds. The road is dangerous enough; we watch accidents almost weekly outside of our home. These changes are needed to protect drivers as well. 3. I do NOT think that dedicated parking lanes should be made, but that parking can be permitted and if no cars are there than the lanes can be used for travel. As a safety point from experience if there is a car parked on the side of the road now we are unable to exit out driveway and encouraging parking would add to this unsafe situation. 4. There needs to be some additional attention paid to the crosswalk at Murray Circle crossing the Arboway. It is unsafe, ignored and impossible to cross. If able please add immediate signs reminding of pedestrian priority; a cone as an immediate solution was mentioned during the hearing. Even though it is a crosswalk we are unable to ever safely cross. This is a bridge between the community and we need to be able to ensure access. 5. I agree that a dedicated bike lane on the right with lines and not raised markers would be reasonable.

I would move for immediate implementation of the above identified aspects of the concept. Thank you kindly for your time and consideration. Improved Inter-Modal Safety and Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway)

I live on Lila Road in the Jamaica Hills neighborhood of Jamaica Plain (JP). My husband and I purchased our home specifically for its proximity to parks, public transit, and a walkable business district. We walk to and from our home frequently whether to do errands in central JP, to enjoy the Emerald Necklace parks, or to reach public transit.

As both a pedestrian and driver, I feel that getting in and out of my neighborhood is very unsafe. Drivers routinely drive on the Arborway significantly over the speed limit making crossing at the Murray Circle extremely frustrating and unsafe. Cars come so quickly around the circle and change lanes swiftly. I cannot cross quickly enough to be assured that a car on the other side of the circle will not be threatening my life by the time I get into the middle of the crosswalk.

I am appalled at the amount of time I must wait to make safe crossing because almost no drivers stop for pedestrians in the crosswalks at Murray Circle. I have tried various paths around the circle to no avail; they are all bad. When cars do stop for pedestrians, they are often almost rear-ended by other drivers who don’t seem to think anyone should stop for pedestrians. (Believe me, the amount of honking and yelling makes this clear.) Also, when I try to cross in front of a car that has stopped for me, I have to be very cautious about crossing the second lane, because many drivers swerve around the car that has stopped for me.

I support the changes to Murray Circle. They seem to provide improvement for pedestrians and drivers like me who try to drive safely.

Also, in general, pedestrians need better lighting for safe crossings after dark. For many months of the year, the evening commute takes place after dark. My husband and I have resorted to wearing flashing lights normally used by bicyclists for our walk home after dark. Please include plenty of lighting for pedestrian safety.

I am also concerned that these proposals may not be implemented for a couple of years or longer. In the meantime, the DCR should immediately start interim traffic calming measures, repaint traffic lines, etc., to protect pedestrians right away.

DCR Office of Public Outreach, 251 Causeway Street, 6th Floor Boston, MA. 02114

October 28th, 2015

Re: Arborway Improvements from Jamaica Pond to Casey Arborway

To DCR staff:

We are writing to submit our comments on the above public meeting that took place on October 14th. We are pleased that the DCR has undertaken this series of public meetings and would like to submit the following comments:

 We attended the meetings that took place earlier in the year for this project and were impressed with the creative solution that the team presented on Feb. 2nd. We were also pleased to hear in this presentation that the team was able to respond to the comments it received without losing the intent of the original proposal. The idea of breaking the project into two phases seems to make sense given the Casey Arborway schedule.

 We think that the team responded well to all of the issues raised at the meeting and did an excellent job of answering such concerns as an uptick of traffic in local neighborhoods and the absence of traffic lights to control traffic.

 We thought the suggestion of having some form of illumination for crosswalks an interesting one. The issue of the trees preventing adequate street lighting from getting to the crosswalks is probably not uncommon but we are not aware of a satisfactory answer.

 In comparison to the existing Kelley and Murray Circles the proposed roundabouts seem quite unconventional to the untrained eye but the team made a persuasive argument that they will allow for both better movement of vehicle traffic and safer access for bicycles and pedestrians. We are convinced that further refinement of the design is a good next step.

 A suggestion was made in the meeting that the row of parking between the Circles that would be adjacent to the houses be eliminated in favor of additional green space. As much as we always welcome more green space, we think that the ability to park in that zone would be useful to both residents and park visitors.

 We noted a question about whether the new bike lanes proposed between Kelley and Murray Circles should be physically separated from vehicle traffic. The proposed plans showed a 3’ wide buffer and given that the adjacent traffic would be local and relatively slow-moving we believe that the buffer would be sufficient.

 We heard two specific requests for immediate actions and would support both. One was to add speed limit signs along the Arborway and the other was to provide some additional signage or other means at the crossing between May St and the Arboretum to encourage drivers to stop for pedestrians. Other questions were also raised about traffic calming that could be implemented more immediately, such as raised crosswalks but we assume that would have to be investigated further.

We appreciate that the DCR is moving forward with plans to upgrade this section of the Arborway. Thank you for the presentation and for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Julie Crockford President

Comments to Improved Multi-Modal Safety & Access to Emerald Necklace Parks in Jamaica Plain (Arborway) October 14, 2015

Dear Sir or Madam,

As a resident of Orchard St Jamaica Plain, I would like to submit my comments and concerns regarding the planned “Arborway bicycle facilities” project that was presented in its updated form on October 14, 2015.

I appreciate the inclusion of previous comments, e.g. keeping Orchard Street as a one way street. I have reviewed the revised concept presented on October 14, 2015 and have the following comments to it:

Bike lanes on carriage way:

- The bicycle lanes on the carriage way between Murray and Kelly circle are only painted on the street. My experience as a frequent cyclist in Boston tells me that the painted lanes will get ignored by drivers or parking cars. They do not offer the same protection as a separated lane. I see the following options addressing snow cleaning concerns: o physical separator between driving and bicycle lane would allow a plow to clean on both sides o the bike lane could be elevated which would prevent cars from driving on it. This would give plows the option to clean the bike lane and subsequently the street.

Kelley circle access The revised concept eliminated access from Kelley Circle to Orchard and Prince Streets. While I understand the conservation of a historic wall, the elimination of the traffic circle access has worsened access to Orchard and Prince Streets and will create dangerous and hazardous road conditions, leading to accidents and injuries, if left unchanged: - There is no access from Kelley circle to Orchard and Prince Streets for either cars, pedestrians and bicyclists, forcing everyone to go around via newly created access road. - Driving from Boston city, residents would have to go all the way to Murray circle, turn around and go back to access the small road leading to Orchard and Prince streets - In practice, this “official route” would get ignored and drivers would try to take a left turn after Kelly circle into the Orchard/ Prince access road, likely leading to accidents or injury when turning into traffic. - Likewise, the missing access could lead to increased illegal left turns from the Jamaica way to Eliot Street to access the neighborhood - The missing access from Kelley circle makes the current complicated access to Orchard Street more confusing for non residents, e.g. Taxis, Uber drivers, deliveries, contractors etc. when wanting to access Orchard and Prince streets. - Even with a direct access from Kelley circle large parts of the historic wall could be preserved. E.g. a wall breakthrough can be established, leaving the rest of the wall intact. I thus urge the DCR to reconsider a direct Kelley circle access road again. Thank you for your consideration.

Georg Becker-Birck

40 Orchard St, Jamaica Plain MA 02130 Improving the Arborway

Comments on the proposed changes described at the meeting on October 14 at the Faulkner Hospital

First, I'd like to applaud the DCR and Toole for an innovative concept, which attempts to at least partially tilt the Emerald Necklace back toward park and people usage and away from highway usage.

Though the presentation claimed that from all approaches, the model shows that the level of service is similar or better, that should NOT be a litmus test for the project or any specific aspect. It is ok if in some instances, the redesign results in LESS service - it should not be a requirement to maintain the current level of motor vehicle service when that is in conflict with other considerations, such as noise level, pedestrian access, egress from the surrounding neighborhoods, etc.

Many of the comments at the meeting were along the lines of "How do I get from my house to X?" It would be useful to prepare a listing of common movements. For example, show how someone who lives on the western carriageway would get to the Jamaica Plain Library. The route is a little circuitous, but if I lived there, I'd be happy to accept the trade-off for a quieter front yard. I think there were other specific examples that residents brought up, which should be addressed. Even "what's the most extreme change?"

It would also be useful to have a higher-resolution map of the proposal - currently all I see are versions of slide 32, and some of it is hard to parse.

Wayfinding will be a challenge - I can imagine southbound Jamaicaway traffic finding its way onto Pond Street rather than the Arborway. This needs to be balanced against the number of signs that would be necessary.

There are at least a couple of places where there are two ways to get where you're going because of slip lanes that have been added: southbound Arborway to southbound Centre, eastern Murray roundabout to northbound Arborway. This may be confusing, though there is probably a good reason for this.

People at the companies that provide navigation software (Waze, Apple and Google Maps, Garmin, etc.) will need to think the routing through once this is built. There may be an opportunity to work with them in advance. Has this ever been done when traffic patterns are changed?

At the meeting someone labeled the changes for the carriageways as "privatization"? I think that is a false characterization. The roads are being restored to their original purpose, which was not high-speed through-traffic, and at least a little bit of quiet is being restored to the residents there.

I agree with another commenter at the meeting who suggested that adding on-street parking to the carriage roads is a bad idea. Instead, convert the street-level bike lanes to park-level cycle tracks. This continues the look and feel of the bike and pedestrian facilities, and reduces the asphalt. Leaving the bike lanes painted on the street invites people to park there - throughout the city this is very common.

Since "police enforcement" is not part of the design (and can't be), as much as possible the engineering should direct the users' behavior. I see this in several aspects: tighter radii, narrower lanes help to self-enforce the speed limit. Raised crosswalks and road markings help enforce the yielding rules. At one of the earlier meetings, a consultant defended 12-foot lanes on Perkins Street, saying that enforcement was not his problem. This is NOT the attitude I would expect from our traffic engineers.

The raised crosswalks will help to encourage motor traffic to yield to pedestrians and cyclists. I am concerned about night time, however. Button activated flashing lights in the crosswalks would help to alert drivers that someone is crossing. I prefer this to Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (which were described at the Centre Street meeting) which would clutter up the streetscape.

Why have a two lane approach from Parkman Drive to Kelley Circle? It makes the crossings for pedestrians and cyclists more difficult. At least as drawn, the turn from Parkman Drive into the circle is pretty sharp, and I don't see how two lanes of traffic would enter the roundabout at the same time. I also don't see a need for storage of waiting cars there - looking at the PM video the traffic does back up, but Parkman Drive is nearly a half mile long, with plenty of room to store waiting cars. I think that much of the traffic that uses it is doing so to avoid the Jamaicaway, and if it gets unpleasant enough, they'll use the Jamaicaway as intended.

Someone suggested contra-flow bike lanes for Prince and Orchard streets, and I believe that the response was that those are controlled by the City of Boston so this project can't address them. (Personally, I don't think that they're necessary - the carriageway lanes (maybe cycle tracks!) serve the same purpose, and both streets look from the satellite view to have parking on both sides.) However, having the plan include changes to City of Boston facilities should not be off the table just because they're Boston's. I'm sure that, where necessary, BTD and Public Works will be willing to work with this project, since many aspects of it further Boston's goals of improving pedestrian and bike access, reducing crashes, etc. And the original plan had Prince Street two-way, so the designers at least at one point were willing to think outside the DCR footprint.

Snow removal on the bike and pedestrian facilities is important. Is there commitment from the DCR to actually maintain these once they're built, including the additional staff and equipment? Will the paths be salted, and how will this affect the vegetation? On the roadways, the salt water typically drains off to the harbor (a separate issue) but on the paths, it will drain onto the grass. Without salt, it is much more labor intensive to provide safe pathways. There are safer alternatives available but my understanding is that they're not in common use by the DCR.

Thanks for considering these comments.

David Wean 19 Congreve St. Roslindale, MA 02131 [email protected] 617.327.2813 Public comment 2015-11-2-haber

To: [email protected]

February 25, 2015

I live in Jamaica Plain and drive along the Arborway almost every day entering and exiting at Pond Street. It is my understanding that the two current lanes of pavement that comprise the service/frontage/carriage roads that run closest to the houses along the Arborway between Kelley and Murray circles would become bike lanes, one lane of traffic for locals and for people who live along the Arborway to get to their houses, and one lane of newly created street parking.

On the slide labeled “Principles” presented at the community meeting on February 5, 2015, “Park experience” and “Add to the green” are listed as two of the principles guiding this project. The creation of new street parking along the service/frontage/carriage roads does not further those goals. New parking areas would not “Add to the green” or make it a “Park experience” but rather would add a lot of car clutter to the Arborway that doesn’t exist now. Creating parking along those roads goes in the opposite direction of the stated principles and goals for the project and would make the area more parking lot-like instead of park-like. I recommend transforming the proposed lanes of new parking into new green space with added trees in order to enhance the parkway/park-like experience.

Finally, creating more green space along the service/frontage/carriage roads would not take away parking from the current homeowners. The service/frontage/carriage roads do not currently have a shoulder for parking and all the houses along that part of the Arborway have driveways for parking cars. CABOT ESTATE CONDOMINIUM 241 Perkins Street Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 (617) 277-2311

November 2, 2015

VIA EMAIL Department of Conservation and Recreation Office of Public Outreach 251 Causeway Street-6th Fl. Boston, MA 02114

Re: Perkins Street and Parkman Drive Access/Crosswalk/Traffic Signal

Dear DCR:

Please be advised that the Board of Trustees of the Cabot Estate Condominium at 241 Perkins Street is in support of the present DCR proposal for a crosswalk and signal on Perkins Street.

The condominium is composed of 148 units with over 300 people living there. The residents have lobbied for a safe crossing for over twenty years. In the recent past, a condo resident has been injured trying to cross Perkins Street and reach the pond. There are blind spots in the road and fast moving traffic at all hours making access to the pond dangerous for people of all ages.

We are satisfied that the DCR staff has done a thorough and complete job in planning and dealing with the competing interests.

THERE COMES A TIME IN ANY PROJECT TO STOP PLANNING AND TAKE ACTION. NOW IS THE TIME TO TAKE ACTION!

Sincerely yours, CABOT ESTATE CONDOMINIUM

By: ______William H. Shaevel, Treasurer

LIVABLE STREETS, DANGEROUS ROADS regional brief No. 5

Livable Streets, Dangerous Roads Traffic Calming Endangers the Lives of Those in Need of Emergency Services

Jenna Ashley Robinson November 2006

for200 W. Morgan, #200 Truth Raleigh, NC 27601

phone: 919-828-3876

fax: 919-821-5117 www.johnlocke.org

The John Locke Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute dedicated to improving public policy debate in North Carolina. Viewpoints expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect those of the staff or board of the Locke Foundation.

regional brie f livable streets , dangerous roads

Executive Summary As the Triangle grows, motorists face and neighboring cities have fallen victim significant increases in traffic congestion. to the latest planning fad: traffic calming. City and county planners are hired, in This seemingly worthwhile goal has signif- part, to suggest plans that will alleviate icant detrimental consequences, including this congestion. Unfortunately, they are increased traffic congestion, more deaths doing the opposite. Based on city staff due to slower emergency vehicle response recommendations, city councils in Raleigh times, and unnecessary costs to taxpayers.

What Is Traffic Calming? Coast in the late 1960s, and have remained The Institute of Transportation Engineers common in cities in Washington, Oregon defines traffic calming as “changes in street and California. In 1980, the first national alignment, installation of barriers, and study of traffic calming explored residen- other physical measures to reduce traffic tial preferences related to traffic, collected speeds and/or cut-through volumes, in the performance data on speed humps, and interest of street safety, livability, and other reviewed legal issues.5 public purposes.”1 The City of Raleigh In North Carolina, traffic-calming mea- defines traffic calming as “the combination sures have already been implemented in of mainly physical measures that reduce Asheville, Charlotte, Hickory and Winston negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter Salem. The Town of Cary has conducted a driver behavior and improve conditions for pilot study and will likely implement traf- non-motorized street users.”2 Taken at face fic-calming measures in the near future. value, implementation of these definitions will increase traffic congestion, not allevi- Raleigh Is Implementing Traffic ate it. Calming In Raleigh, the city’s traffic-calming Raleigh’s official Traffic Calming Program is “toolbox” includes education and enforce- limited to residential/local access and col- ment and familiar measures such as road- lector streets; 73 streets have been studied way striping, pavement markings, speed and are included on its traffic-calming humps and bumps and raised crosswalks. priority list (see Appendix). Streets on the The plan also includes bulb-outs (intersec- list are ranked based on speed, pedestrian tion curb extensions that reduce roadway activity, crash history and traffic volume. width), raised median islands, mini-traffic Construction has begun on the first three circles, larger roundabouts, and mid-block projects on the list: Ashe Avenue between street narrowings.3 Hillsborough Street and Western Bou- levard, Plaza Place between Millbrook A Short History of Traffic Calming Avenue and Creedmoor Road, and Eagle Traffic calming began as a grassroots move- Trace Drive in the Hedingham subdivision. ment in 1960s Europe, when woonerven, or “living yards” replaced streets in Delft. Traffic Calming Is Dangerous European “slow streets,” designed for 20 Raleigh’s traffic-calming devices are built in mph traffic, emerged in the late 1970s. In order to slow traffic. Curb bulb-outs, raised Germany and Denmark, suburban slow medians, and roundabouts are designed streets were followed by traffic-calming to slow passenger vehicles. For example, measures on intercity highways in the passenger vehicles on Plaza Way are forced 1980s.4 In the United States, versions of into the center of the roadway by curb traffic calming emerged along the West bulb-outs and then immediately forced to

J o h n lo c k e f oundation LIVABLE STREETS, DANGEROUS ROADS

the curb by a raised median. Negotiating Three Common Forms of this zigzag slalom course forces motorists Traffic Calming to slow down. But these devices create even greater delays to emergency vehicles. Emergency vehicles’ longer wheel-bases, 1. Traffic Circle or Roundabout stiff suspension, and high vehicle weights require their drivers to slow almost to a stop to negotiate the devices safely. Scientific analysis predicts that deaths in a community rise due to delays of emergency vehicles caused by traffic-calming measures. Even minor delays to emergency vehicles caused by delay-inducing traffic- calming devices create far more risk to a community than speeding vehicles. Researcher Ronald Bowman’s analy- sis6 shows that if Boulder, Colorado implemented its plans for traffic-calming devices, they would increase emergency vehicle response times. Bowman predicts that patients needing emergency treatment would incur an increased risk to their 2. Bulb-Out survivability of 85 to 1 for every one minute of additional delay to response times due to planned traffic calming. In other words, if emergency medical technicians were delayed one additional minute by traffic-calming devices, a heart attack patient would be 85 times more likely to die. Assistant Fire Chief of Austin, Texas, Les Bunte applied the Bowman analyti- cal techniques to the City of Austin.7 His results predicted a risk factor of 35 to 1 for an additional increased delay of 30 seconds to Austin response times caused by deflection devices such as speed bumps and 3. Mid-Block Street Narrowing roundabouts. The Austin figures take into account only victims of Sudden Cardiac Arrest (heart attacks). Thus Bunte’s analysis predicts that for every 30 seconds additional delay for emergency medical technicians caused by traffic-calming devices, a heart attack victim is 35 times more likely to die. Because of delays and the risk to human life, firefighters and emergency service personnel across the country oppose traffic calming.8 Bunte’s study also showed that

regional brie f livable streets , dangerous roads

Table 1: Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Emergency Response Times

Community Traffic Calming Measure Delay at Slow Point (in Seconds) Austin, TX 12-foot speed humps 2.8 (fire engine) 3.0 (ladder truck) 2.3 (ambulance w/o patient) 9.7 (ambulance w/ patient) Berkeley, CA 12-foot speed humps 10.7 (fire engine) 9.2 (ladder truck) 22-foot speed tables 3.0 (fire engine) 13.5 (ladder truck) Boulder, CO 8-foot speed hump 4.7 (fire engine) 12-foot speed humps 2.8 (fire engine) 37-foot speed table 3.8 (fire engine) 40-foot speed table 3.8 (fire engine) 25-foot diameter traffic circle 7.5 (fire engine) Montgomery 12-foot speed humps 2.8 (ladder truck) County, MD 3.8 (ambulance) 4.2 (fire engine) 7.3 (pumper truck) 18-foot diameter traffic circle 5.4 (ladder truck) 3.2 (ambulance) 5.0 (fire engine) 7.0 (pumper truck) Portland, OR 14-foot speed humps 5.2 (fire engine) 2.9 (custom rescue vehicle) 6.6 (ladder truck) 22-foot speed tables 3.0 (fire truck) 0.3 (custom rescue vehicle) 3.0 (ladder truck) 16-24 foot oblong traffic 6.1 (fire engine) circles 3.1 (custom rescue vehicle) 8.4 (ladder truck) Sarasota, FL 12-foot speed humps 9.5 (ambulance)

Source: Traffic Calming: The State of the Practice.

in some cases, travel time of ambulances emergency response routes. transporting heart attack victims doubled Studies performed by seven American due to traffic calming.9 Because of these cities and assembled by the Institute of risks, the Institute of Transportation Engi- Transportation Engineers show that speed neers’ (ITE) “Guidelines for the Design humps, speed tables, and traffic circles and Application of Speed Humps”10 (1997) (roundabouts) have negative effects on states humps should never be placed on emergency response times11 (see Table 1).

J o h n lo c k e f oundation LIVABLE STREETS, DANGEROUS ROADS

Table 2: Costs and Effects of Various Traffic Calming Measures

Measure Speed Accidents Capacity Cost One-Way Streets +37% -38% +19% Variable 12’ Speed Hump -22% -11% -18% $2000 14’ Speed Hump -23% -41% -18% $2000 22’ Speed Table -18% -45% -12% $2000 Longer Speed Table -9% - - $2500 Raised Intersection -1% - - $12,500 Traffic Circle -11% -29% - $3500-$15000 Narrowing -7% - - $8000 Choker -14% - -20% $7,000-$10,000 Half Choker -19% - -42% $3500-$5000 Diagonal Diverter 0% - -35% $85,000 Source: Trafficcalming.org and the Institute of Traffic Engineers.

Moreover, it isn’t clear that traffic-calming Two of the measures the City of devices effectively combat safety hazards Raleigh will use — narrowings and chokers or protect pedestrians. While calming — have no measurable effect on accidents devices are built on the premise they will but reduce capacity considerably and cost reduce accidents, a comprehensive study $7,000 to $10,000 apiece. commissioned by the ITE and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on traf- Raleigh’s Roundabouts and Two-Way fic-calming projects in the United States Street Conversions concludes: Two other city programs are designed to slow traffic and increase traffic congestion, Traffic calming in the U.S. is largely but they do not meet the city’s narrow restricted to low volume residential definition of traffic calming. The construc- streets. Collisions occur infrequently tion of roundabouts on Hillsborough Street on such streets to begin with, and any near the campus of North Carolina State systematic change in collision rates University and the conversion of downtown tends to get lost in the random varia- streets from one-way to two-way near the tion from year to year. This limits state capitol will aggravate the city’s traffic- our confidence in drawing inferences congestion problem and slow emergency about safety impacts of traffic calm- vehicles, posing a threat to human life. ing.12 The city plans a return to two-way When traffic-calming devices do reduce operation for several sets of one-way accidents, it is at considerable cost in time, streets in downtown as part of Raleigh’s money and emergency response. Table 2 “Livable Streets” plan. Martin and Hargett shows costs and benefits of various traffic- Streets, main corridors that cross through calming measures, some of which create the city’s new Fayetteville Street, have problems and costs for municipalities with already been converted. As Raleigh con- little effect on pedestrian and motorist verts one-way pairs to two-way travel, each safety. will be re-designed “emphasizing the com-

regional brie f livable streets , dangerous roads

fort and convenience of the pedestrian.”13 between Oberlin Road and Gorman Street With this conversion from one-way and four in the surrounding neighborhood to two-way streets, Raleigh residents can will cost citizens at least $17 million and expect more congestion, higher drive times do little to relieve congestion. As part of through downtown and a higher frequency the Hillsborough Street redesign, the first of accidents. Studies show that two-way roundabout was built in 2002 on Pullen streets with the same number of lanes as Road next to N.C. State’s campus. Bonds one-way streets move 20 to 50 percent approved in 2005 will pay for most of the fewer cars because of increased turn delays. second stage of the project; city planners According to the Center for the American are deciding between two roundabouts Dream, seven lanes of a two-way street are near North Hall or roundabouts and a needed to move as many vehicles as four roadway extension connecting Pullen Road lanes on a one-way grid because people to Oberlin Road. The first option would turning left or right impose fewer delays on cost $3.7 million if the work includes bury- people behind them.14 ing utility lines. Alternate plans have the Secondly, returning Raleigh streets to city spending up to $7 million to complete two-way operation will increase commuting two to four roundabouts. The cost for the time. Traffic signals on a one-way grid can whole project is currently estimated at $17 easily be coordinated so drivers can pro- million. ceed at a continuous speed without stop- The Hillsborough project calls for ping frequently for red lights. One study seven roundabouts in only 1.2 miles, or a found that converting two-way streets to roundabout every 900 feet. Because of one-way led to a 19-percent increase in these changes, planners predict that 30 traffic at speeds that averaged 37-percent percent of the 19,000 cars a day currently faster. This wasn’t because the maximum traveling on Hillsborough (mostly through speed limit on the one-way streets was traffic) will redirect to Western Boule- any greater than on two-way streets, but vard and Wade Avenue – streets that are because drivers experienced 60 percent already congested. Traffic on Hillsborough fewer stops.15 is already far less than the 26,000 vehicles Most importantly, one-way streets are per day at its peak. safer for both drivers and pedestrians. Other cities in the triangle are calming One study in the Transportation and Traffic their streets as well. Chapel Hill is calm- Engineering Handbook found that converting ing streets in its Oaks neighborhood. As two-way streets to one-way caused a 38- part of the effort, the town is conducting percent decrease in accidents.16 Pedestrians a study of effectiveness of its program; benefit particularly from one-way streets. results should be released in mid-Novem- Two-way streets produced 163 percent ber. In Wake Forest, the town opened its more pedestrian accidents in Sacramento, first roundabout in May at the intersection and 100 percent more pedestrian accidents of Highway 1A and Highway 98 at South- in Portland, Ore., Hollywood, Fla., and eastern Seminary, resulting in confusion Raleigh, N.C. A study by the Research Tri- and increased congestion.18 Despite public angle Institute called one-way streets “the reaction, the town plans to install three most effective urban counter-measure” to more roundabouts in the near future. pedestrian accidents.17 The Cost of Calming Raleigh’s Roundabout Craze According to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Raleigh’s plan to construct up to seven Inc., the group that provided a background roundabouts on Hillsborough Street report on the city’s traffic-calming plans,

J o h n lo c k e f oundation LIVABLE STREETS, DANGEROUS ROADS

the costs of calming could be consider- traffic enforcement must become the num- able. Based on “starter ideas” sketched by ber one priority …. Police must be visible study consultants for one neighborhood and active in problem areas.”21 Effective in Raleigh, it is estimated that the cost of speed enforcement is also possible via red- a “typical” neighborhood traffic-calming light cameras. The city could also consider project may total $2 million.19 This figure is using roadway striping and pavement mark- likely to change (higher or lower) based on ing, stop signs, signal coordination, yield the type of measures selected and the num- signs, turning and parking restrictions, or ber of locations identified. Additionally, better illumination to increase pedestrian there is no reasonable method for estimat- and motorist safety. ing the latent demand citywide for traf- In Raleigh’s growing downtown, the fic calming; that is, how many additional City should create as many one-way paired neighborhoods will want to be added to the streets as possible. One-way pairs are safer list once they hear about the program? The for drivers and pedestrians and minimize city has already identified 73 streets based congestion for commuters. on its 2004 survey. Raleigh’s traffic-calming plan would also Conclusion include yearly maintenance costs. The cost Planning fads come and go, but planners to maintain landscaping is estimated at are seldom held responsible for the harm $4,000 per year per mile of traffic-calmed they cause. Once again, city government roadway, assuming ten measures per mile.20 falls victim to myth vs. reality. Planners and This includes watering (needed for the their supporters deluge the city council first two years until plants are established), with information about what traffic calm- pruning, mulching, fertilizing, weeding, and ing is supposed to accomplish. Rarely do plant replacement. city council members receive information Given the anticipated mixed results regarding the reality of traffic calming, even of Raleigh’s traffic-calming plan, the city though studies of the unintended conse- would be better off spending its money on quences and disastrous results from other proven solutions. cities are readily available. Perhaps the city council should hire Smart Alternatives a person whose full-time job is to throw The City of Raleigh should consider some cold water on every fantastic fad that the less costly and more effective alternatives city staff supports. Then and only then will to protect pedestrians and drivers. The the council be able to make truly informed Canada Safety Council suggests “preventive judgments.

Jenna Ashley Robinson is program assistant at the John Locke Foundation.

regional brie f livable streets , dangerous roads

Appendix: The City of Raleigh’s 2004 Traffic Calming Priority List22

Total Points Ranking Street Name From To Classification (max.: 100) 1 Ashe Ave. Western Blvd. Hillsborough St. Collector 83.69 2 Eagle Trace Dr. Grand Traverse Dr. Southall Rd. Collector 82.01 3 Plaza Place Creedmoor Rd. West Millbrook Rd. Collector 77.90 4 Mourning Dove Rd. Heathfield Dr. Six Forks Rd. Collector 73.80 5 Rainwater Rd. Harps Mill Rd. Spring Forest Rd. Collector 72.70 6 Anderson Dr. Glenwood Ave. Six Forks Rd. Collector 70.37 7 Lake Boone Trail Cambridge Rd. Dixie Trail Collector 70.35 8 Shelley Rd. North Hills Dr. Six Forks Rd. Collector 68.67 9 Harps Mill Rd. Falls of Neuse Rd. Gresham Lake Rd. Collector 68.58 10 North Bend Dr. Falls of Neuse Rd. Spring Forest Rd. Collector 66.29 11 Wimbleton Dr. Dixon Dr. Shelley Rd. Residential / Local Access 62.23 12 Lord Berkeley Rd. New Bern Ave. Lord Ashley Rd. Residential / Local Access 60.25 13 Hedingham Blvd. Southall Rd. New Bern Ave. Collector 59.42 14 Nazareth St. Centennial Parkway Western Blvd. Residential / Local Access 58.27 15 Johnsdale Rd. Litchford Rd. Litchford Residential / Local Access 58.10 16 Grove Barton Rd. Doie Cope Rd. Pinecrest Rd. Collector 56.55 17 Baugh St. Buffaloe Rd. Starmount Dr. Collector 55.33 18 Delany Dr. Milburnie Rd. Glascock St. Residential / Local Access 53.26 19 Dartmouth Rd. Converse Dr. Six Forks Rd. Residential / Local Access 51.38 20 Lord Ashley Rd. New Bern Ave. Lord Berkeley Rd. Residential / Local Access 50.25 21 Yadkin Dr. Alleghany Dr. Inglewood Dr. Collector 48.75 22 Waterbury Rd. Deana Lane Green Rd. Residential / Local Access 46.11 23 Deblyn Ave. Glenwood Ave. Pleasant Valley Rd. Residential / Local Access 45.35 24 Brentwood Rd. Capital Blvd. New Hope Church Rd. Collector 45.32 25 Huntleigh Dr. Capital Blvd. New Hope Church Rd. Collector 45.02 26 Pineview Dr. Swift Dr. Avent Ferry Rd. Residential / Local Access 44.62 27 Dennis Ave. Bennett St. Timber Dr. Collector 43.85 28 Shelley Rd. Forest Lawn Ct. North Hills Dr. Residential / Local Access 43.60 29 Hilburn Rd. Lynn Rd. Pike Rd. Collector 43.12 30 King William Rd. New Bern Ave. Peartree Lane Residential / Local Access 41.94 31 Dennis Ave. Capital Blvd. Bennett St. Residential / Local Access 40.50 32 Fairview Rd. Glenwood Ave. Oberlin Rd. Collector 38.78 33 Summerton Dr. Falls River Ave. Whittington Dr. Residential / Local Access 38.69 34 Thorpshire Dr. Colesbury Dr. Falls of Neuse Rd. Residential / Local Access 38.69 35 Jacqueline Lane Archibald Way- Capital Blvd. Collector 35.10 City L 36 Timber Ridge Dr. Forest Oak Dr. Spring Forest Rd. Residential / Local Access 33.73 37 Winthrop Dr. Ray Rd. Rembert Dr. Collector 32.69 38 Lord Ashley Rd. Lord Berkeley Rd. Bertie Dr. Collector 32.20 39 Ingram Dr. Atlantic Ave. New Hope Church Rd. Residential / Local Access 31.97 40 Pineview Dr. Swift Dr. Kaplan Dr. Residential / Local Access 31.08 41 Sussex Rd. Glen Eden Dr. Lake Boone Trail Residential / Local Access 30.95

J o h n lo c k e f oundation LIVABLE STREETS, DANGEROUS ROADS

Total Points Ranking Street Name From To Classification (max.: 100) 42 Lake Forest Dr. Van Thomas Dr. Falls of Neuse Rd. Residential / Local Access 29.65 43 Sutton Dr. Cameron St. Nichols Dr. Collector 29.26 44 Dennis Ave. Timber Dr. Mossbank Rd. Residential / Local Access 29.20 45 Nichols Dr. Sutton Dr. Washington St. Collector 29.08 46 Tarboro Rd. Edenton St. Oakwood Ave. Residential / Local Access 29.04 47 Deboy St. I-440/US-1 Ramp Western Blvd. Collector 28.64 48 Cameron St. Oberlin Rd. Smallwood Dr. Residential / Local Access 28.05 49 Coley Forest Dr. Glen Eden Dr. Yarmouth Rd. Residential / Local Access 27.50 50 Cub Trail Durant Rd. Hiking Trail Residential / Local Access 27.37 51 Cox Ave. Hillsborough St. Park Ave. Residential / Local Access 27.05 52 Chaney Rd.-south Western Blvd. Onslow Rd. Residential / Local Access 27.00 53 Sue Ellen Dr. Meadow Ridge Dr. New Hope Rd. Residential / Local Access 26.85 54 Park Dr. Oberlin Rd. Saint Mary’s St. Residential / Local Access 26.20 55 Hill St. New Bern Ave. Milburnie Rd. Collector 26.14 58 Wimbleton Dr. Dixon Dr. Manchester Dr. Collector 25.00 59 Boyer St. N. Tarboro St. Hill St. Residential / Local Access 24.08 60 Maple St. Boyer St. Oakwood Ave. Residential / Local Access 24.00 61 Lewis Farm Rd. Brooks Ave. Ridge Rd. Collector 24.00 62 Deanwood Dr. Cub Trail Wildercliff St. Residential / Local Access 23.49 63 Aycock St. Fairview Rd. Reaves Dr. Collector 23.47 64 Greywood Dr. Capital Blvd. Huntleigh Dr. Residential / Local Access 23.31 65 Falls River Ave. Southwalk Lane Dunn Rd. Collector 22.42 66 Sutton Dr. Daniels St. Nichols Dr. Residential / Local Access 22.25 67 Kilcullen Dr. Hoyle Dr. New Hope Church Rd. Residential / Local Access 22.00 68 Lord Berkeley Rd. Lord Ashley Rd. Traffic Circle Collector 21.70 69 Chaney Rd.—North Reavis Rd. Western Blvd. Residential / Local Access 21.04 70 Westbrook Dr. Brookhollow Dr. Six Forks Rd. Residential / Local Access 20.38 75 Leslieshire Dr. Durant Rd. Hawksmoor Dr. Residential / Local Access 20.00 76 Mills St. Bellaire Ave. Wiggs St. Residential / Local Access 20.00 80 Harvey St. Aycock St. Saint Mary’s St. Collector 20.00 81 Sprague Rd. Hilburn Rd. Leesville Rd. Residential / Local Access 18.51 82 Hillandale Dr. Stonehaven Dr. Spring Valley Dr. Residential / Local Access 17.00 84 Lewis Farm Rd. Brooks Ave. Canterbury Rd. Residential / Local Access 16.18 85 Old Deer Trail Mourning Dove Rd. Strickland Rd. Collector 16.00 86 Thoreau Dr. Quail Hollow Dr. Wingate Dr. Residential / Local Access 15.00 87 Hilburn Rd. Pike Rd. Mayapple Place Collector 13.64 88 Aaron Dr. Dandridge Dr. Keith Dr. Residential / Local Access 10.00 91 Chatmoss Dr. Barwell Rd. Continental Way Residential / Local Access 5.00

regional brie f 10 livable streets , dangerous roads

Notes 11. Ewing, Reid, Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 1999. 1. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 12. Ibid., p. 123 2. Traffic Calming Residential Area Presentation, www.raleigh-nc.org/portal/server.pt?space=Dir&spac 13. See www.raleighnc.org/portal/server.pt/gateway/ eID=0&in_hi_userid=2&control=OpenSubFolder&s PTARGS_0_2_306_203_0_43/http%3B/pt03/DIG_ ubfolderID=2539&DirMode=1#. Web _Content/project/public/livable_streets/ Pedestrian.htm. 3. Raleigh Traffic Calming, Prepared for the City of Raleigh, North Carolina, by Kimley-Horn and 14. Michael Cunneen and Randal O’Toole, “No Associates Inc., April 2003 Draft Report — Raleigh Two Ways About It: One-Way Streets Are Better Traffic Calming Study April, www.raleighnc.gov/ Than Two-Way,” Issue Paper 2-2005, Center for portal/server.pt?space=Dir&spaceID=0&in_hi_user the American Dream, February 2005, www. id=2&control=OpenSubFolder&subfolderID=2539& independenceinstitute.org/articles/2-2005.pdf. DirMode=1. 15. W. S. Homburger, Transportation and Traffic 4. See Trafficcalming.org. Engineering Handbook 2nd Edition (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1982). 5. Smith, D.T. and D. Appleyard, State-of-the-Art: Residential Traffic Management, Federal Highway 16. Ibid. Administration, Washington, D.C., 1980. 17. Research Triangle Institute, National Highway 6. Bowman, Ray, “Deaths Expected from Delays Safety Needs Study (Chapel Hill, NC: RTI, 1976). to Emergency Response Due to Neighborhood 18. See “New Wake Forest Roundabout Causes Traffic Mitigation,” submitted to the City Council Traffic Confusion,” WRAL News online, May 5, of Boulder, Colorado, April 3, 1997, members.aol. 2006, www.wral.com/news/9170019/detail.html. com/raybowman/risk97/eval1.html. 19. Op. cit. at note 3. 7. Bunte, Les, “Traffic Calming Programs and Emergency Response: A Competition of Two 20. Ibid. Public Goods,” May 2000, home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/ 21. See www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/trafcalm. texts/tfc_calm.pdf. htm. 8. “Traffic Calming: The State of the Practice,” 22. City of Raleigh, “2004 Traffic Calming Priority Institute of Transportation Engineers/FHWA, 1999. List.doc, www.raleigh-nc.org/portal/server.pt?space= 9. Op. cit. at note 7. Dir&spaceID=0&in_hi_userid=2&control=OpenSub Folder&subfolderID=2539&DirMode=1#. 10. See www.ite.org/traffic.

J o h n lo c k e f oundation