FW: Task Force Recommendations

[Bill Logue]

Some notes from Kelley Brown for tomorrow.

 

Bill

 

From: Kelley Brown [mailto:kbr...@PLANT.MIT.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:49 PM
To: Bill Logue
Subject: Task Force Recommendations

 

Bill:

 

Attached are a couple of comments about the pinch points and the movement of the abutment and bridge walls, as well as a fact check question on ADA requirements.

 

Based on the comments I have heard and read from Task Force members, it is my understanding that there is broad agreement – perhaps even unanimous agreement – that the contemplated moves of the inbound and Outbound bridge abutment walls and the move of the Inbound bridge wall are needed and are recommended by the Task Force to permit sufficiently wide cross-sections to allow all modes of travel on the bridge to have sufficient travel room.  Further, that the Task Force agrees that the wall moves can and will meet the so--called 4(f) parkland and Section 106 historic preservation tests, in the context of the set of alternatives being recommended by the Task Force. 

 

I would like to confirm this agreement tomorrow as part of finalizing our recommendations. 

 

-          Kelley Brown

 

Kelley Brown

Senior Campus Planner

Campus Planning + Design

MIT Department of Facilities

77 Massachusetts Avenue, NE49-2100

Cambridge, MA  02139

 

T) 617-452-2410

kbr...@mit.edu

 

[Margaret Vandeusen]

While I support moving the walls, I remained concerned about mitigation for this.  EOEEA has a “no net loss policy” of Article 97 (public trust) lands.  Additionally, stormwater management of contaminated bridge runoff is a significant problem that has yet to be solved and which may require subsurface use of parkland in this vicinity, or perhaps use of surface low impact development techniques.  

 

Margaret Van Deusen

Charles River Watershed Association      

 

---

[Steven Miller]

I agree with Margaret's concerns...it's not moving the walls but what guarenttees we can be given that all the issues around the area will be properly mitigated that matters.

Steve

Steven E. Miller
Executive Director, Healthy Weight Initiative, HSPH, Dept. of Nutrition
Board of Directors, LivableStreets Alliance
cell:  617-686-1050
Blog:  "Transportation, Health, and Livable Communities" -- http://blog.livablestreets.info/

[Sarah Kelly]

I would like to make two points:

 

1)      Bridge Widening and Historic Reviews

 

The Boston Preservation Alliance’s support for moving the walls is dependent on the provision of appropriate mitigation relating to public access and improvements to the Esplanade connections. We are not yet convinced that we have achieved an acceptable mitigation package. Furthermore, I do believe that moving the walls may, indeed, trigger 4f and impact the MHC’s conditional no adverse effect finding due to the fact that Task Force has during the past several months explored new “prudent and feasible alternatives” that were not previously presented to the relevant historic preservation regulatory agencies.

 

I also think it is important to clearly distinguish between the impact of moving the cantilevered portion of the wall and the proposed graduated 0-4 foot widening the of the next section. The former is a previously altered portion of the historic resource; the latter has until this point been undisturbed and retains its historic integrity. I believe that moving either section may at this stage, and given some of the new information and alternatives that are now on the table, trigger additional historic reviews, but for different reasons. Moving the first section may result in an improved condition for the wall,  but could trigger additional reviews due to its impact on the Esplanade; moving the second section could trigger reviews due to the impact on the bridge itself.

 

2)      Project Phasing

 

The Alliance believes that the Task Force should do all that it can to expedite the rehabilitation of the bridge structure for public safety reasons. The Task Force is closer to a consensus on the cross sections than we are on the approaches. For this reason, the Task Force should prioritize agreeing as fully as we can on cross section alternatives and then immediately turn our focus back to the equally important question of the approaches. This in no way diminishes the Alliance’s unwavering belief that improving the approaches and the pedestrian connection to the Esplanade with a new bridge is critical to the success of the overall project, and it does not reduce our firm commitment to seeing these issues fully resolved. However, coming to a consensus on the major issues relating to the cross section will permit structural work to move forward in the timely fashion that is demanded by the urgent needs of this structure.

 

 

Sarah D. Kelly

Executive Director

Boston Preservation Alliance

Old City Hall

45 School Street

Boston, MA  02108

ph: 617-367-2458

f: 617-227-1886

 

Become a member today! 

www.bostonpreservation.org/join_us.html

 

twitter: BOSPreservation

facebook: Boston Preservation Alliance

 

[steve...@hklaw.com]

Hi Bill:

Nice job on the redraft of the Task Force final recommendations.  I do think that you "captured" the comments Task Force members made at the final meeting and incorporated them well into the body of the recommendations.

I am writing to you now as The Beacon Hill Civic Association's Task Force representative after talking to several people, including Sarah Kelly (Boston Preservation Alliance), about the comments in the recommendations regarding bridge widening and historic reviews. As a result of those discussions, Sarah and I want to strongly echo and support a cautionary comment that both John Messervy ( Partners/Massachusetts General Hospital) and Bob O'Brien (Downtown North Association) conveyed to you and the Task Force orally and in writing. The cautionary comment we wish to stress is that the Mass DOT advance the Longfellow Bridge project as expeditiously as possible based on the present available bridge platform dimensions without any delay while either funding or design issues involving either an Esplanade foot bridge or widening of the bridge at the Charles Circle approaches are pursued.  While we recognize Dot's optimism regarding obtaining the necessary Section 4(f) approvals and funding for an Esplanade foot bridge and widened approaches at Charles Circle, resolution of those issues may require substantial time and the resolutions are not certain. Accordingly, the project should not be delayed while those issues are pursued.

Once again, many thanks for the patience and good work you, Lorraine, and Don gave to herding the Task Force to its final recommendations.

 

Steve and Sarah

 

 

Stephen Young | Holland & Knight

Partner

10 St. James Avenue, 11th Floor | Boston MA 02116

Phone 617.573.5833 | Fax 617.523.6850

steve...@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com

 

 

 

  ________________________________  

To ensure compliance with Treasury Regulations (31 CFR Part 10, Sec. 10.35), we inform you that any tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written by us to be used, and cannot be used by you or anyone else, for the purpose of avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.

  ________________________________  

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.

[Herb Nolan]

Steve and Sarah,

 

How often does the Massachusetts Department of Transportation get accused of being overly optimistic?  We should take that as a sign of how far we have all come in six months.    No one, and most especially the MassDOT leadership, wants to delay the Longfellow Bridge project from moving forward efficiently.   However we at the Esplanade Association are reasonably confident that the design issues around widening the approach and improving access to parkland can be resolved in a way that solves pedestrian and bicycle circulation, reinforces the historic character of both the Longfellow Bridge and the Esplanade, and restores some long lost parkland.  Members of the task force made the case time and again that the design of the bridge and the approaches should be fully integrated.   We continue to believe that this should be included as an alternative for further study in the Environmental Assessment which is due out this winter.  Let’s give the DOT design team a chance.    

 

Herb