Looks like the #60 bus has been extended (PDF) to add a new stop at the Mall at Chestnut Hill, just west of the new Bloomingdale's women's store. The new route eliminates the stop under the Route 9 overpass. (Tip from Adam Peller.)
I'm not a transit-junkie and don't pretend to have a grasp on the nuances of individual bus routes. It appears to me that the change corresponds to the Bloomingdale's women's store move. It used to stop near Bloomingdale's. Bloomingdale's moved. Now it stops near Bloomingdale's new location. Maybe it's just coincidence.
But, it does have some interesting implications for the Chestnut Hill Square project. One of the changes New England Development promised in the Final Environmental Impact Report was to work with the MBTA and the Mall at Chestnut Hill to extend the route. Check that one off the list.
The route change also bears on the pedestrian bridge. One possible use case supporting the bridge was people working or shopping at the Mall at Chestnut Hill and using the pedestrian bridge to get to the Chestnut Hill Square bus stop. This assumes that the bus would not stop on the north side of Route 9.
Unless the MBTA eliminates this new stop, that use case vanishes. And, there's nothing about the bus route, the proposed changes to Route 9, or the pedestrian bridge that suggests that the MBTA would or should change the route.
It doesn't make sense to me that they would eliminate a stop at the Mall at Chestnut Hill in favor of the proposed Chestnut Hill Square stop when getting from the Mall to the CHS stop would involve crossing the parking lot and the pedestrian bridge and then getting down a flight of steps or an elevator. Especially when eliminating the Mall stop only saves the loop through the Mall parking lot.
But, what do I know?
Note: Adam wonders why the bus, having negotiated the Langley jug-handle, doesn't stop at the Atrium. I suspect because they don't have the space in the driveway. Also, Simon has a new shuttle between the Atrium and the Mall at Chestnut Hill, making it possible for Atrium shoppers and workers to use the bus. (I wrote "shoppers and workers" because it seems proper to do so. But, seriously, who's taking the bus and a shuttle to shop at Tiffany's or get a Greta Cole manicure?)
Friday, February 9, 2007
Extension of the MBTA #60 bus
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
When's mitigation mitigation?
On the Tab's blog, Christopher Loh commendably noted my skepticism with New England Development's claim that they have committed $13.5 million to mitigation. (Mr. Loh's Tab article with the New England Development claim. My original entry questioning the mitigation.)
Mr. Loh, appropriately, turned my skepticism back on me, asking the basis for my conclusion that some claimed mitigation should not be considered mitigation. Herewith a summary of my reply ...
The key question is whether or not New England Development will realize a direct and substantial benefit from a proposed measure. If so, then it seems a bit much to suggest that it is a mitigation measure.
Looking at the signalized cut in Route 9 and the widening of Route 9 to 8 lanes, it seems pretty clear that the key beneficiary is Chestnut Hill Square. Without the cut in Route 9, some potential Chestnut Hill Square visitors will pass on a visit rather than deal with an already overloaded Langley Road turnaround. And, if you have a cut in Route 9 and lights, without the road widening you'll have congestion at the intersection from the undifferentiated mix of Chestnut Hill Square traffic and through traffic. CHS-bound cars stopped at a green light waiting to turn left will back up through traffic, which will back up CHS-bound traffic, which will ... you get the point. More disincentive to shop at CHS.
A counterfactual hypothetical might help. If the city (with the commonwealth's blessing) were to say, "We need the tax revenue so badly, we don't even care if you mitigate," would New England Development make the signalized cut in Route 9 and widen Route 9?
For $3.5 million or so, they'd be foolish not to.
Previously: NED's Overstated mitigation commitment
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
NED's Overstated mitigation commitment
From the Chestnut Hill Square article in today's Tab:
The developer has also offered to pay nearly $13 million for improvements to Route 9 to help ease the expected traffic increase.No! No! No!
I don't know where the $13 million figure comes from. But, New England Development's response to the city's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report contains a table summarizing New England Development's commitment to mitigation (FEIR, VIII-51). Of the $10.5 million committed as of the 11/15/06 date of the FEIR, over $6.5 million was allocated to two line items:
- Provide traffic signalization and median break with two left-turn lanes on Route 9 Westbound at The Mall at Chestnut Hill Drive and at the Capital Grille Drive. ($660,000)
- Widen Route 9 east and westbound ($5.85 million)
Without those two changes to Route 9 (improvements strikes me as debatable, at least), New England Development won't be able to attract as many
New England Development is entitled to propose changes to Route 9 that will enhance the value of its property. But, let's not mistake self-interested investment with mitigation.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Transperancy -- Commonwealth edition
I'll have something soon about transperancy in the city processes, but I was stunned by the Department of Environmental Affair's response to my request for a copy of comments on the Chestnut Hill Square Final Environmental Impact Report. If I want the comments, and there were 81 comments submitted by my count from the Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on the Final Environmental Impact Report, I have to go downtown and copy the comments at a dime a page.
When I asked if I could get copies of those submitted electronically, I was told that they were already printed and deleted. I would have to copy those, too.
Aaaaaaargh.
There is simply no excuse, in 2007, that all documents submitted to the commonwealth for approval of a several hundred million dollar project are not available online. None.
But a process that takes easily shared electronic files and throws them away is unforgiveable. (I am not moved by the suggestion that it would be a distortion to provide only a segment of the comments. I'm sure that if I decide to go to the MEPA offices, no one is going to force me to copy all the documents or none.)
If you submitted your comments electronically, please forward them to me and I'll put them on the wiki.
According to Deerin Babb-Brott, MEPA Director, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, there are requests for the next two fiscal years to upgrade the systems to manage documents electronically. As they say, contact your local representatives.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Grocery shopping by bike or foot
One thing that occurred to me after I submitted my comments to the Chestnut Hill Square (CHS) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR): Has New England Development (NED) factored the likely travel plans of the lifestyle grocery customers into its 10% transit reduction calculation? Nobody's going to bike or walk to get groceries (except CHS residents).
Let me back up.
In order to gain approval for their plans, NED has assumed a 10% transit reduction during peak hours. That means that NED expects that their efforts to promote travel to the site by other than private car -- private shuttle, MBTA bus stop, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations -- will reduce traffic by 10%.
A significant chunk of the traffic to CHS will be to and from Whole Foods the not-as-yet-identified lifestyle grocer. With the exception of a very few, very near neighbors, everybody's taking their groceries home in the car. So, if there's going to be a 10% transit reduction in the aggregate, the non-grocery travel has to have a much higher transit reduction.
Color me skeptical.
