20220103 Longwood Place PDA

Planned Development Area No. __ Submitted Pursuant to Article 80C of the Boston Zoning Code

Longwood Place Street Addresses: 259, 275, 291, 305, 321 Brookline Avenue & 38, 46, 62 Pilgrim Road Submitted to: Boston Redevelopment Authority d/b/a the Boston Planning & Development Agency Submitted by: SCD Pilgrim Road Master Planner LLC c/o Skanska USA Commercial Development Inc With Assistance From: Sullivan & Worcester Sasaki VHB ARUP BR+A

January 3, 2022

1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2. PDA Area Description 3. The Proposed Project 4. Planning Objectives and Character of Redevelopment 5. Project Benefits 6. Technical Studies Performed in Support of Development of the PDA 7. Effect of PDA

EXHIBITS A:

LOCATION OF PDA AREA

B:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION & SURVEY PLAN

C:

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

D:

CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS

E:

ALLOWED USES TABLE

F:

PHASING DIAGRAM

APPENDIX A:

TRAFFIC STUDY

APPENDIX B:

SHADOW STUDY

2

1.0 Introduction In accordance with Sections 3-1A and 80C-3 of the Boston Zoning Code (the “Zoning Code”), This plan constitutes the Development Plan for Planned Development Area No. [*] (the “PDA”) for the development of the parcels located at 259, 275, 291, 305, 321 Brookline Avenue & 38, 46, 62 Pilgrim Road in the Fenway/Longwood Medical Area (“LMA”) neighborhoods of Boston (currently known as the Simmons University Residential Campus). As more particularly described below, the PDA contemplates the construction of multiple buildings and public realm (the “Proposed Project”, a/k/a 305 Brookline, a/k/a “Longwood Place”), which are currently expected to be constructed in phases over an approximately 10 to 15 year period. The PDA covers an approximately 5.89 acre (approximately 256,455 square-foot) area of land referred to as the “PDA Area.” A figure depicting the location of the PDA Area is included as Exhibit A. The legal description and survey plan of the PDA Area are included as Exhibit B. The PDA Area is comprised entirely of land owned by Simmons University subject to a longterm ground lease with SCD Pilgrim Road Master Planer LLC (the “Proponent”).

The Proposed Project will include approximately 2.3 acres of public open space and up to 1.75 million gross square feet1 of mixed-use development spread over four buildings including residential, community space, retail, laboratory/office uses, and accessory parking. The Proposed Project will be a stark contrast to the private, insular residential campus that exists today; because of the need for security and privacy on the existing campus, this land has been gated off from the community for decades. The Proposed Project, by contrast, will not only open up the Site to the neighborhood, but by featuring 2.3 acres of public open space, it will also invite the public in to experience the site likely for the first time for most. The Proposed Project will provide a community gathering place and public amenities, which are severely lacking in the neighborhood.

Overall, the Proposed Project’s development aims to create a vibrant nucleus of innovative workspaces, active community amenities, and additional housing and public realm in the LMA. It will reinvigorate a long, dormant stretch of Brookline Avenue with retail, exterior and interior public open space, streetscape improvements, wider sidewalks and bike accessibility, and improved circulation for all modes of movement in the neighborhood. The proposed interior and exterior public spaces are designed with a mix of passive and active programming in mind that are intended to be welcoming to all from the Fenway/LMA neighborhoods and beyond. It will draw people onto, into, and through the Site, forge a better connection with the Emerald Necklace, expand on existing relationships with neighboring institutions, and add more cohesiveness to the Site and surrounding context.

This PDA sets forth a statement of the development concept for the PDA Area, including the planning objectives and character of the development, the proposed uses of the area, the range of dimensional requirements contemplated for the Proposed Project, and the proposed phasing of construction.

1

All references to gross square feet or GSF or gross floor area or GFA in this PDA have the meaning of “Floor Area, Gross” as defined in Article 2 of the Boston Zoning Code, which excludes certain areas including, but not limited to, parking, mechanicals, and areas serving the operation of a building.

3

The PDA consists of 17 pages of text plus attachments designated Exhibits A through F. All references to this PDA contained herein will pertain only to these 17 pages and Exhibits. This PDA shall be governed by the Zoning Code in effect as of the date hereof and unless otherwise set forth herein, all references to terms defined by the Zoning Code will have the meanings set forth in Section 2A of the Zoning Code, as amended to the effective date hereof, and not as amended hereafter.

2.0 PDA Area Description The PDA Area is comprised of seven parcels with the following street addresses: 259-275, 291, 305, 321 Brookline Avenue & 38, 46, 62 Pilgrim Road (the “Site”). The Site is bounded generally by Brookline Avenue, Pilgrim Road, and Short Street. Collectively, this Site is the PDA Area.

The legal description and survey plan of the PDA Area are attached as Exhibit B. 3.0 The Proposed Project The Proposed Project reimagines the Site as a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood addition, opening significant opportunities to infuse the Fenway/LMA with a variety of offerings for both public and private uses. As illustrated in the conceptual site plan at Exhibit C, this PDA proposes (4) new buildings on the site, housing a multitude of programs at the upper levels while also creating abundant interior and exterior public spaces at the ground level that welcome the local community and Boston as a whole. These conceptual building footprints create flexible sites where building footprints may evolve as design moves forward. This allows for a mix of building types and scales to coexist in the PDA Development Plan. Over time, as program uses evolve, the plan and thus building footprints may need to be adjusted to meet changes in the tenancy marketplace.

The Proposed Project engages with visitors, residents, and a new, strong workforce, in an inclusive and inviting manner, promoting health, wellness, and vibrant life throughout the entirety of the site. Further, the Proposed Project is a unique development in this area where the great majority of surrounding development is occurring on smaller lots with full building coverage. New development of public realm and open space is few and far between in the Fenway/LMA. It is therefore particularly noteworthy that the Proposed Project plans for 40% open space. See Conceptual Renderings at Exhibit D. 3.1 Building Program The PDA proposes the construction of four buildings on the project Site. The Proposed Project’s building program will consist of a mix of commercial and residential uses with a base of retail and community spaces at the ground floor. The Site will have a maximum gross floor area of

4

1.75 million square feet that results in an FAR of 6.82. The program is currently envisioned, approximately, as follows:     

approximately 1,516,000 gross square feet of office/research laboratory and accessory use space; approximately 175,000 gross square feet of residential space with approximately 200 units; approximately 47,000 gross square feet of retail space; approximately 12,000 gross square feet of civic/cultural/community space; and a total of up to 1,039 parking spaces in a below-grade parking structure to serve the full Project.

The buildings themselves will be categorized as either commercial or residential with retail and community spaces existing at the ground floor of each building. The current vision is as follows: Building 1 – Research Laboratory; Office; Retail; Community Space Building 2 – Research Laboratory; Office; Retail; Community Space Building 3 – Research Laboratory; Office; Retail; Community Space Building 4 – Residential; Retail The Proposed Project will also create new exterior public spaces in addition to those outlined above. A conceptual site plan showing the components of the Proposed Project is included as Exhibit C; see also Exhibit D. 3.2 Proposed Uses of the Area and Structures The proposed uses of the buildings will support the overall building program listed above. All uses allowed in the PDA Area are set forth in the table provided in Exhibit E. Allowed uses include, among others, commercial office, lab/research and development, prototype/light manufacturing, residential, retail/restaurant, and civic/cultural/community space.

The Proposed Project will also include below-grade parking and service. Roadways constructed as part of this PDA are expected to serve the Proposed Project’s uses and adjacent uses.

Other than as specified in Exhibit E of the PDA, and notwithstanding the anticipated building program allocations described within this Section 3, the only use regulations applicable to the PDA Area are those set forth in this section and further defined within Exhibit E. 3.3 Parking and Loading The proposed buildings on the site will connect to a sitewide, below-grade parking structure that will house up to 1,039 parking spaces to serve the Proposed Project, consistent with the new 5

Maximum Parking Ratios (dated September 2021), and will support all service and loading programs. The specific design of the parking spaces and loading facilities will be determined as part of the Article 80B Large Project Review process for each individual building or Project component. These future filings may provide for shared parking among the buildings, provided that the overall parking serving the Proposed Project does not total more than the maximum number of parking spaces allowed herein.

This parking garage will have entrances along a new proposed private midblock driveway and the vehicular expansion of the existing Short Street, creating multiple opportunities for dispersion of traffic from the site, and multiple locations for access to the site. More information can be found within the Traffic Study, Appendix A. The Proposed Project will satisfy all transportation demand management (TDM) rules and regulations in place at the time of each respective 80B filing.

3.4 Range of Dimensional Requirements Gross Floor Area The PDA allows for a total redevelopment program of up to 1.75M GFA. The specific GFA of each building within the Proposed Project will be presented in the 80B filing for each building or Project phase. The information below describes the approximate Gross Floor Areas that are currently conceptualized for each building: Building 1 – 622,000 gsf Building 2 – 519,000 gsf Building 3 – 424,000 gsf Building 4 – 185,000 gsf Notwithstanding the foregoing, without requiring any amendment to this PDA, the Proponent may increase or decrease the GFA applicable to any building by up to 15% of the anticipated GFA set forth above without requiring any amendment to this PDA provided the total GFA under this PDA shall not exceed 1.75M square feet.

Height The specific height (as defined in the Zoning Code) for each building within the Proposed Project will be presented in the 80B filing for each specific building or Project phase. Height will be calculated from the average mean grade as defined in the Zoning Code, but, notwithstanding the definition of Building Height in Article 2 of the Code, no rooftop mechanicals or penthouses or other structures set atop or projecting from a rooftop shall be counted towards the overall Height of that building. The maximum Height of the Proposed Project shall be 300 feet.

6

The information below describes the maximum Height that is anticipated to apply for each building.

Building 1 – 300’-0” Building 2 – 200’-0” Building 3 – 230’-0” Building 4 – 160’-0” Other than as specified in this PDA, the sole dimensional regulations applicable to the PDA Area are those of building Height and total Gross Floor Area for the Proposed Project.

3.5 Proposed Phasing of Construction The Proposed Project will be constructed over the course of the next approximately 3 to 15 years. The initial phase of construction for the Proposed Project will begin upon the completion and occupancy of the new Simmons Living and Learning Center on the Simmons Academic Campus, which allows the existing uses on the project site to be relocated.

Each building construction phase will include portions of the exterior public realm to ensure community space and exterior amenities are accessible to the neighborhood throughout the development and duration of construction. The anticipated order of construction is as shown in Exhibit F and follows: Phase 1: Building 2; Phase 2: Buildings 1 & 4; Phase 3: Building 3.

As more precise construction sequencing and phasing plans are developed, they shall be submitted as part of the 80B filings for the individual buildings. The foregoing conceptual phasing of the Proposed Project shall not limit or restrict any phasing that may be proposed as such plans are developed, and changes to the phasing of the construction of the Proposed Project shall not require an amendment to this PDA. 4.0 Planning Objectives and Character of Redevelopment The Proposed Project’s design aims to create a vibrant nucleus of innovative workspace, active community amenities, and public realm in the Fenway/LMA neighborhoods. It will reinvigorate a long, dormant stretch of Brookline Avenue with retail, exterior and interior public open space, streetscaping, and improved circulation for all modes of movement and circulation in the neighborhood. It will draw people onto, into, and through the site, forging a better connection with the Emerald Necklace, capitalizing and expanding on existing relationships with neighboring institutions, and adding more cohesiveness to the site and surrounding context.

7

4.1 Land Use The design reimagines the currently private, insular site into an accessible, welcoming, and inclusive mixed-use development. The Proposed Project is currently anticipated to include up to 1.75M GFA situated and composed on the site to maximize open space and provide as much public realm as possible around the buildings’ footprints and within their ground floors.

Approximately 40% of the Site is proposed as public realm/open space.

The design incorporates the historic, natural character of the nearby Emerald Necklace into the exterior public realm and landscaping, creating spaces for both active public programming and passive relaxation and recreation. The design also draws inspiration from the vibrancy of the Fenway/LMA neighborhoods by providing robust retail and community space offerings at the ground floor, bringing much needed services to this corner of the LMA. The Proposed Project also seeks to add innovative and contextually based design to the PDA Area by complementing high demand office and lab programs, that enable more collaboration and innovation within the LMA, with much needed residential and public open spaces.

4.2 Urban Design The Site is currently occupied by Simmons University dormitories and sports facilities, and is a compilation of low-rise brick buildings that encircle private, secured, green open spaces, all of which is surrounded by a tall locked fence. This acts to limit physical access to the interior open spaces, and extends a statement of private property that is prevalent throughout the LMA. The Proposed Project intends to contrast this decades’ old insular campus with a new approach to welcoming and inclusive public realm, a vibrant new workplace hub for the life sciences industry, additional housing, and much needed community spaces for the neighborhood.

This effort begins by taking down the fence, and activating Brookline Avenue, a stretch of road seen in the current condition as dormant and unfriendly to pedestrians and cyclists. The Proposed Project breaks down the existing barriers of the site today and creates seamless thresholds along the street’s edge with a mix of local, small business retail and thoughtfully designed landscaping.

Street trees, street furnishings and generous sidewalks all aid in creating a more pedestrianfriendly experience along the Brookline Avenue edge.

The design effort continues with the shaping of the buildings, calling upon contextual references and setbacks to maintain alignments that both reinforce existing sightlines and view corridors, and also enhance ground floor connections across the site that do not exist today. The proposed massings and Heights seek to meet and complement other buildings more central to the LMA and to provide a project that fits within the existing urban fabric while also promoting a more robust heart for all to occupy and enjoy. The massings of the buildings also take into consideration the effects of shadow and sunlight on the thermal comfort of the exterior spaces,

8

promoting heartily designed landscapes and public realm that offer opportunities for use yearround with seasonal activities and spaces.

A new midblock private driveway is proposed on the Site to improve access to the new buildings while also limiting the impact of traffic on the existing Pilgrim Road. This new road will serve as the main access point for service vehicles, cars entering the parking garage, and drop-off for two of the buildings in the Proposed Project.

See Conceptual site plan and renderings at Exhibits C-D. 4.3 Public Realm 4.3.1

Open Space

The main design goal of the public realm for the Proposed Project is to maximize open space.

This includes both interior and exterior spaces designed with a mix of passive and active programming in mind. The design of the landscape draws from the rich history of the Emerald Necklace, bringing lush greenery across the Riverway and through the site, forging a strong connection to the neighborhood’s natural elements and bringing more life to the Brookline Avenue streetscape.

Smaller, intimate spaces within those green zones allow locals and visitors alike to stop and rest for a short moment or a longer span, creating accessible places of respite and quiet that do not exist in the LMA today.

Complementing those smaller scale elements are larger, flexible landscaped zones designed for significant active public programming as well as passive use. A main heart within the core of the Proposed Project provides ample opportunity for local activities while also creating an anchoring element with which the interior public spaces connect and engage. See Conceptual Site Plan at Exhibit C. In addition to exterior spaces, the accessible public open space extends into the ground floor interiors of the buildings within the Proposed Project. Community spaces are located adjacent to the exterior public realm to extend the use of the Site and the public programming opportunities beyond the nicer months of the year and allow for occupancy and use all year round. Operable walls and large doors allow for the seamless passage of people and activities between the interior and exterior public realm, removing boundaries and welcoming the public deeper into the site and the buildings.

4.3.2

Programming

A mix of active and passive programming is a vital part of the public realm experience in the Proposed Project. Opportunities for events like farmer’s markets, outdoor fitness and recreation, 9

concerts and arts and culture activities can be supported in spaces throughout the landscape as well as those interior spaces that abut the outdoor open space. Opportunities for community programs like workforce training centers and coworking incubators are also possible in the Community Space included in the Proposed Project. The Proponent has allocated spaces within the buildings to support these kinds of events like storage, public bathrooms, and the appropriate infrastructure for vendors to set up temporary structures for the public. In addition, operational funds are being incorporated to support these programs in the space for years to come.

In addition to providing places for active programming, calm zones within the Proposed Project are meant for quiet rest and relaxation. Areas of the site are specifically not intended for events and activities and are instead reserved for passive use by locals and visitors alike.

Retail is a major component of a robust public realm. The Proposed Project will aim to support local small businesses and prioritize W/MBE shops to bring a rich and diverse mix of food and beverage offerings to the site, along with other retail needs.

A conceptual site plan showing the above-mentioned elements of the Proposed Project is included as Exhibit C. 4.3.3

Streets

The Proposed Project takes advantage of the contiguous nearly 6-acre site by maintaining a pedestrian-friendly core across the property, promoting ease and safety of circulation onto, into, and through the site. At the south end of the Proposed Project, Short Street will be extended from Pilgrim Road to Brookline Avenue, creating a vital multimodal connection between Brookline Avenue and The Riverway. This newly extended street will include a strong urban pedestrian connection with street trees and furnishings, a protected bicycle lane, and vehicular traffic. It is not intended that vehicles can directly connect from Brookline Avenue to the Riverway in either direction but is instead intended to allow for maximum dispersion of traffic from the project and the below-grade garage.

In addition to the extended Short Street, the Proposed Project will widen the existing Pilgrim Road to provide added space for the vehicular traffic and operational needs of the Site’s abutters in an effort to alleviate backups that exist today and eliminate challenges of access around the site for the future development. The widening of Pilgrim Road will include space for existing street parking, a generous drive lane moving in the southerly direction, and the introduction of a landscaped hybrid lane on the project Site side of the road. The landscaped hybrid lane will support intermittent standing of vehicles during times of pick-up and drop-off for Winsor School as well as various programming opportunities such as food trucks and other mobile service vehicles like blood donation centers.

10

Improvements will also be made to the existing Brookline Avenue streetscape, including improvement to and construction of an additional sheltered bus stop, robust landscaping and street trees, and integrated bike lanes as further described in section 4.3.4.

The Proposed Project is also introducing a new two-way road at the midpoint of the Site, aligning with the existing pedestrian corridor at the Emmanuel College campus. This road will be a private way serving as the main point of access for service vehicles and two of three main points of access to the below-grade parking garage. Vehicular drop-offs will be provided on either side of the new road to support the new buildings. A new signal will be installed at the Brookline Avenue intersection to control entering and exiting traffic, while also providing a safe, signalized crossing for pedestrians looking to continue the path from Emmanuel across Brookline Avenue and into the Project Site. This new road serves as a gateway into the Site and a front door for the new buildings, creating an open, urban street that welcomes building users as well as the general public and provides a missing pedestrian link to and from the Emerald Necklace.

All streets, new and existing, will add to the robust public realm planned for the Proposed Project, as noted in the following section.

4.3.4

Sidewalks/Bicycle Lanes

The current Site is surrounded on all sides by existing sidewalks, many of which are minimal in width and do not contribute to a positive pedestrian experience. The Proposed Project will enhance these sidewalks, meeting or exceeding the requirements of the City of Boston’s Complete Streets guidelines. Street trees and furnishings will adorn all sides of the Site along with generous street frontages beyond the sidewalk minimums, creating plentiful open and welcoming edges that promote safe and comfortable circulation throughout.

A signalized pedestrian crossing will be included at the midpoint of the site, paired with the new midblock road intersection at Brookline Avenue, to allow the safe passage of those utilizing the circulation corridor at Emmanuel College across Brookline Avenue to the Proposed Project.

A new protected multi-modal pedestrian and bicycle lane will be added to Short Street from Pilgrim Road, creating a much-needed bike connection from Brookline Avenue to The Riverway and Emerald Necklace. In addition, a new protected bicycle lane will be constructed along Brookline Avenue for the extent of the site, with a raised curb and planting buffer to provide a safer cycling experience along this stretch of the Longwood Medical Area.

4.4 Sustainability The Proposed Project will demonstrate practices that promote sustainability, including measures to increase energy efficiency and approach carbon neutrality, with electrification of all building systems for normal operation. In addition to complying with the requirements of Article 37 11

(Green Buildings) of the Zoning Code, the Proposed Project will be based on a series of sustainability principles, including:  



        

Design to LEED Gold Certifiable standards for all buildings within the Proposed Project; Plan for all-electric systems during normal operation of commercial lab, office, and residential uses, including consideration of the following heating and cooling systems: o Air source heat pumps o Exhaust source heat pumps o Ground source heat pumps (with geoexchange bore field, see District Energy) Complete a District Energy Feasibility Study in accordance with the City of Boston Smart Utilities plan, to include study of: o Geoexchange (“geothermal”) applications o Peak load shaving strategy o District energy loop Design of a high-performance building envelope to reduce energy consumption; Design for high indoor air quality (IAQ) and daylit interior spaces; Create density within an urban core to reduce suburban sprawl; Maximize open space and an accessible public realm, both outdoors and indoors; Enhance access to existing neighborhood pedestrian and bicycle networks (including access to the Emerald Necklace multi-use path); Promote access to outdoor space for building occupants; Promote walkable retail for residents and users of the neighborhood; Enhance access to nearby public transit infrastructure to reduce the trip generation of cars to the site; Provide on-site stormwater retention and groundwater recharge in accordance with City of Boston requirements.

5.0 Project Benefits The development of the Proposed Project contemplated by this PDA will provide a range of public benefits, including: 5.1 Urban Design and Public Realm  



Delivery of an open, welcoming, and inclusive mixed-use development on an existing Site that has been closed off and privatized for many decades; Maximizing the public realm on Site with a pairing of exterior and interior publicly accessible spaces at the ground floor, totaling approximately 100,000 square feet of exterior public realm and an additional approximately 12,000 GFA of interior public realm/community space (approximately 40% of the Site area); Including an all-season Interior Garden open and accessible by the public throughout the year; 12





  

Allocating spaces within the buildings to support public programming on site, including temporary secure storage rooms, public bathrooms, and the appropriate infrastructure for vendors to set up temporary structures for the public; Improving the porosity and permeability of the existing Site with cross-site pedestrian and bicycle connections from Brookline Avenue to Pilgrim Road, the Riverway, and the Emerald Necklace; Enhancing the streetscape around all sides of the Site, creating a safer, more welcoming pedestrian and cycling experience; Forging a direct connection at the south end of the site with an expanded Short Street for pedestrian and cycling access to the Emerald Necklace; and Phase-specific contribution plans for improvement projects in the Emerald Necklace, which may include, but not limited to, access improvement, wayfinding systems, and muddy river cleaning and restoration.

5.2 Transportation

  



The proponent will work with the Boston Transportation Department (BTD) to improve pedestrian connections, traffic signals and a bicycle lane on Brookline Ave; Locating service and loading below grade to minimize any potential impact to Pilgrim Road and abutting neighbors; Improving bus and bike infrastructure and connection to encourage alternative modes of transportation; o The Project will design and construct a 6’ grade-separated bicycle lane with 2’ buffer between Longwood Avenue and Fenway/Riverway on the north side of Brookline Avenue; o Reconstructing the pedestrian ramps and crossing at the Brookline Avenue and Pilgrim Road intersection; o Providing a bus shelter for the Brookline Ave at Pilgrim Road bus stop; o Constructing floating bus stops at the Brookline Ave at Pilgrim Road and Brookline Avenue at Short Street stops; o Constructing ADA accessible directional pedestrian ramps at the northeast corner of the Brookline Avenue and BIDMC driveway intersection; o Constructing new sidewalk where none exists along the west side of Park Drive within the Justine Mee Liff Park (former Sears Rotary); o Constructing an accessible ramp alternative to the Short Street Stairs between Riverway and the Emerald Necklace Path; Implementing transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs with each phase to minimize the impact to local infrastructure and traffic.

5.3 Sustainability



Each building of the proposed project will, at a minimum, be certifiable to LEED Gold standards; 13



Pursue significant sustainability goals with a focus on carbon footprint and energy load reductions, and will consider Smart Utilities and a responsible district energy approach; Adhere to sensible stormwater management practices as required by the City of Boston; Run all-electric heating and cooling systems during normal building operation.

 

5.4 Community  

 

New affordable housing units in connection with any residential development in compliance with the City’s Inclusionary Development Policy; New community benefits and amenities including interior community space to accommodate public programs and job and technical training specifically geared toward the businesses and tenants that will occupy the Project; The proposed project will provide much needed retail and service establishments within the LMA and will attract and support local retailers and businesses; Create a fund and partner with local community groups to support the operation of public programming for years to come.

5.5 Financial and Economic Development 





The proposed project is expected to create substantial economic benefits for the City of Boston: o The Proponent will contribute millions of dollars in housing and jobs linkage payments to the City’s Housing and Jobs Trusts; the Proponent is committed to working with local elected officials and community stakeholders to direct the linkage payments to local, Fenway/LMA, housing and jobs needs. o The proposed project will generate new annual real estate tax revenues for the City of Boston with the delivery of each phase.

The proposed project is expected to create both construction period and permanent jobs relating to life sciences, restaurant, residential administration and retail; the Proposed Project will create the opportunity for a pipeline of locally sourced jobs and careers.

The proposed project will support local and regional economy by providing additional life science and office space to meet the increasing demand in the LMA.

The specific project benefits associated with each component of the Proposed Project shall be included in the 80B filing for such building or Project phase.

6.0 Technical Studies Performed in Support of Development of the PDA 6.1 Traffic Following is a summary of the transportation impacts of the Proposed Project presented in this PDA. A more detailed analysis is included in the Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”) that is included as Appendix A.

14

A transportation study has been developed to understand and mitigate the transportation impacts associated with the Project and to devise a comprehensive transportation mitigation and improvement plan in the vicinity of the Project that supports future operations of the Project and provides area-wide transportation improvements to the Longwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA) of Boston. A major emphasis of this proposed redevelopment effort focuses on area mobility, including improved access and circulation to support the site and abutting properties and institutions, access to key transit nodes, and significant network pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements. These elements are at the forefront of the analysis and future planning.

The following are key mobility strategies to be incorporated into the Project:  

            

The Project will implement a new mid-block driveway that will be signalized, providing primary access and egress for vehicles (both passenger cars and service vehicles) to and from the Project; This location has been conceptualized to also support protected, signalized pedestrian movements across Brookline Avenue, lining up with the Colleges of the Fenway path connecting to Emmanuel College and onto Simmons University, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, the Massachusetts College of Art, and Wentworth Institute of Technology; Short Street will be widened to provide for a generous shared pedestrian-bicycle path connection to the Emerald Necklace; Where the Project abuts Brookline Avenue, the existing curb will be relocated providing for opportunity to replace existing buffered bicycle lanes, with separated bicycle lanes; Existing MBTA/LMA Shuttle bus stops will also be reconstructed to be floating bus stops with dedicated shelters; Short Street / Short Street Extension will be designed to physically restrict through traffic between the Riverway and Brookline Avenue (in both directions); Left turns onto Short Street and Pilgrim Road will be restricted from Brookline Avenue; Pilgrim Road will be widened slightly to support improved access by residents and parent drop-off operations for the Winsor School; On-street resident parking along Pilgrim Road will be maintained; All commercial drop-off needs for the Project will be accommodated in dedicated locations off of Short Street and the new mid-block driveway. Residential drop-off will be accommodated by a designated pullout bay on Pilgrim Road; All loading/service will be accommodated in below grade loading docks and their access/egress has been conceptualized to eliminate any overlap with adjacent residential uses along Pilgrim Road and the Winsor School; Parking supply and EV provisions will all be implemented consistent with BTD Guidelines; Bicycle Parking will be implemented consistent with BTD Guidelines; A Bluebikes station will be sponsored and accommodated on site; and The Project will incorporate Transportation Demand Management principles as defined in the new BTD TDM Points System.

15

6.2 Shadow Following is a summary of the shadow impacts of the Proposed Project presented in this PDA. A more detailed visual analysis is shown in the Shadow Study that is included as Appendix B. The Proponent has carefully considered the massing and Heights of the Proposed Project to provide thermal comfort in the public spaces on site, as well as limit the effect of new shadows on important resources like the Emerald Necklace parkland. The Proposed Project does not cast more than one hour of shadow in the same location on the Emerald Necklace between 10:00am5:00pm on the Spring Equinox of March 21, with the exception of three small areas along the south edge of the Emerald Necklace. Each of these areas is within 50’ of the Riverway and is shaded for less than 1.5 hours. One of these areas occurs in the paved area where Brookline Avenue crosses the Emerald Necklace at the Fenway. The other two areas occur in the wooded area buffering the park from the Riverway. There are no new shadows during midday hours. The shadows that are cast on the Emerald Necklace are in the morning and afternoon windows, moving quickly across the landscape in the early and late parts of the day.

The 10:00am-5:00pm window covers most of the daylight hours on March 21st, with the Proposed Project having minimal impact on the comfort and use of the Emerald Necklace for the majority of that day.

7.0 Effect of PDA 7.1 Zoning The Project is located in an HR-1 and HR-2 zoning district within Boston’s underlying zoning.

As shown on the Survey, Exhibit B, the PDA Area contains more than one acre of land, and therefore, treating this submission as a PDA is authorized by Article 3-1A.a of the Zoning Code.

This PDA sets forth the zoning regulations for all elements of the Project for the PDA Area.

Upon approval by the Boston Planning and Development Agency and the Boston Zoning Commission, any 80B filing relating to a building or Project phase within the PDA Area that is consistent with this PDA will be presumed to be consistent with the Zoning Code.

7.2 Parcels The PDA Area is an assemblage of various legal lots which are all owned in fee by Simmons and subject to the long-term ground lease to be held by the Proponent as Lessee. In order to implement the Project, it is contemplated that new legal lots will be created and one or more may be leased or conveyed to third parties.

Notwithstanding that lots may be in separate legal ownership and separated by streets, the Height and Gross Floor Area maximums set forth in this PDA shall apply to the PDA Area as a whole and not to each individual lot, and a Certification of Consistency may be issued for each separate building; provided that non-compliance by a particular building shall not affect compliance by any other currently existing building or a building for which a Certification of Consistency has been issued.

16

7.3 Development Review Each building component of the Proposed Project within the PDA Area will be required to undergo design review subsequent to the submission of one or more Project Notification Forms for the Project (“80B Review). In addition, review of environmental impacts will be studied during the 80B Review process, taking into account any technical studies already performed.

The Proposed Project will also be subject to review under Articles 28 (Boston Civic Design Commission review) and 37 (Green Buildings) of the Zoning Code.

17

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

E X H I B I T A

L O C AT I O N O F P D A A R E A

EXHIBIT B

L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N A N D S U RV E Y P L A N

EXHIBIT C

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

EXHIBIT D

CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS

EXHIBIT E

A L L O W E D U S E S TA B L E

EXHIBIT F

PHASING DIAGRAM

A P P E N D I X A T R A F F I C S T U D Y APPENDIX B SHADOW STUDY

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

EXHIBITS

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

PAC KAR D’ S C OR N E R BOSTON UNI VERSI TY C OP LEY S QUAR E KENMORE SQUARE

FENWAY PARK A M O RY PLAY G R O U N D

VI CTORY GARDENS

LANDMARK CENTER

SYMPHONY HALL

B U - FEN WAY C A M PU S

C OOL ID G E C O R N E R

SI TE W IN SO R SC H O O L

EMMANUEL COLLEGE

CLEMENTE FI ELD

MUSEUM OF FI NE ARTS

BI DMC SI MMONS UNI VERSI TY

PA R SO N S FIELD

NORTHEASTERN UNI VERSI TY

B R IG H A M & W O M EN’ S HOSPI TAL

B R IGHAM CI RCLE

BR O O K L IN E VILLA G E

EXHIBIT A L O C AT I O N O F P D A A R E A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

2 Center Plaza, Suite 430

Civil Engineering

PREPARED FOR:

GIS

PROJECT # FILE: SCALE: DATE: DES./COMP: FIELD BOOK: DRAFTED BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET: 1

OF 2

REV.

EXHIBIT B L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N A N D S U RV E Y P L A N PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

2 Center Plaza, Suite 430

Civil Engineering

PREPARED FOR:

GIS

PROJECT # FILE: SCALE: DATE: DES./COMP: FIELD BOOK: DRAFTED BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET: 2

OF 2

REV.

EXHIBIT B L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N A N D S U RV E Y P L A N PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

EXHIBIT B – LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts shown on a plan entitled “Simmons College Plan of Land in Boston, MA Roxbury District Suffolk County Back Bay” Scale 1:480, dated 18 March, 1987 prepared by William S. Crocker Co. - Survey Engineers and recorded in the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds in Book 13883, Page 93 (the “Plan”), being bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point at the northwesterly side of Brookline Avenue, said point being the southeasterly corner of land belonging to The Winsor School, and the southwesterly corner of the herein described parcel.

THENCE running by said land of the Winsor School N 51° 52' 22" W, 300 feet to the southeasterly side of Pilgrim Road; THENCE turning and running along said Pilgrim Road by a course of N37° 44' 48" E for a distance of 533.29 feet, to a point of curvature; THENCE along said Pilgrim Road by two curves, the first having a radius of 471.69 feet and a length of 320.89 feet and the second having a radius of 567.22 feet and a length of 212.46 feet; THENCE running along said Pilgrim Road S81° 48' 52" E a distance of 1.66 feet to a point of curvature; THENCE along said Pilgrim Road by a curve having a radius of 21.72 feet and a length of 45.32' to the northwesterly side of Brookline Avenue: THENCE running along said Brookline Avenue S37° 44' 48" W a distance of 950.50 feet, to the point of the beginning.

Said parcel containing approximately 256,457 square feet according to said plan.

The above-described premises include the area located within Short Street, as shown on the Plan.

Being the same premises granted to Simmons College by deeds recorded with the Suffolk County Registry of Deeds at Book 2971, Page 82; Book 2971, Page 83; Book 2971, Page 85; Book 2971, Page 87; Book 2971, Page 88; Book 3132, Page 34; Book 3359, Page 458; Book 3433, Page 193; Book 3469, Page 365; Book 4206, Page 360; Book 4691, Page 605; Book 5678, Page 121; Book 5911, Page 24; Book 5911, Page 25; Book 5911, Page 26.

4862-0926-0296, v.2

4

3

2

1

EXHIBIT C CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

EXHIBIT D CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

EXHIBIT D CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

EXHIBIT D CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

EXHIBIT E (Allowed Uses)

1. Residential 2. Laboratory/Research & Development and all accessory uses/incidental thereto, including, but not limited to the keeping of animals incidental to research & development 3. Clinic 4. Manufacturing 5. Office 6. Retail 7. Service 8. Restaurant 9. Hotel 10. Conference Center 11. Community Center 12. Recreational Open Space 13. Institutional 14. All uses accessory to those allowed pursuant to 1-13 above

EXHIBIT E A L L O W E D U S E S TA B L E PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

2

PHASE 1

1

4

PHASE 2

3

PHASE 3

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

EXHIBIT F PHASING DIAGRAM 01 03 2022

Appendix A: Transportation Longwood Place Project

PREPARED FOR

Skanska 101 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA, 02210 617.574.1400 PREPARED BY

99 High Street, 10th Floor Boston, MA 02110 617.728.7777 12/15/2021

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table of Contents A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4

A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8

A.9 A.10 A.11 A.12 A.13

Project and Program Overview ................................................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Findings and Transportation Mitigation ....................................................................................... 4 Study Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 A.3.1 Project Study Area .......................................................................................................................................... 8 A.3.2 Analysis Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Existing Transportation Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 9 A.4.1 Roadway Network .......................................................................................................................................... 9 A.4.2 Intersections ................................................................................................................................................... 11 A.4.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................. 11 A.4.4 Pedestrian Environment + Accessibility .............................................................................................. 14 A.4.5 Bicycle Environment + Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 14 A.4.6 Public Transportation ................................................................................................................................. 14 A.4.7 Parking and Carshare Locations ............................................................................................................. 15 A.4.8 Crash Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 16 A.4.9 Winsor School Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 22 Future Transportation Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 23 A.5.1 2028 No-Build Condition .......................................................................................................................... 23 A.5.2 2028 Build Condition .................................................................................................................................. 25 Proposed Parking .......................................................................................................................................................... 30 A.6.1 Vehicle Parking ............................................................................................................................................. 30 A.6.2 Bicycle Parking .............................................................................................................................................. 32 Proposed Service and Loading ................................................................................................................................ 32 A.7.1 Truck Access and Routing ........................................................................................................................ 32 Transit Assessment ....................................................................................................................................................... 33 A.8.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 33 A.8.2 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 34 A.8.3 Future Conditions: Transit Ridership and Service Levels .............................................................. 38 A.8.4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 44 A.8.5 Bus Routing .................................................................................................................................................... 44 A.8.6 Traffic Delay ................................................................................................................................................... 45 A.8.7 Opportunities for Transit Priority........................................................................................................... 49 Transit Accessibility Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 49 A.9.1 Existing Transit Access and Access Challenges ................................................................................ 49 A.9.2 Mitigation Opportunities .......................................................................................................................... 50 Pedestrian Operations Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 51 Bicycle Impacts Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 54 A.11.1 Bicycle Level of Comfort Analysis .......................................................................................................... 54 Traffic Operations Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 56 A.12.1 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis .......................................................................................... 57 A.12.2 Unsignalized Capacity Analysis .............................................................................................................. 66 Transportation Mitigation and Improvements .................................................................................................. 68 A.13.1 Enhanced Pedestrian/Bicycle Access .................................................................................................... 68 A.13.2 Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) ........................................................................ 69 A.13.3 Transit Improvements ................................................................................................................................ 71

Appendix A – Transportation A-2

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

List of Tables Table A.1 Table A.2 Table A.3 Table A.4 Table A.5 Table A.6 Table A.7 Table A.8 Table A.9 Table A.10 Table A.11 Table A.12 Table A.13 Table A.14 Table A.15 Table A.17 Table A.18 Table A.19 Table A.20 Table A.21 Table A.22 Table A.23 Table A.24

Project Program Summary .................................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Existing Traffic Count Data Sources...................................................................... 13 MBTA Public Transportation Services ............................................................................................ 15 Carsharing Locations (Zipcar - November 2021) ...................................................................... 16 Vehicular Crash Summary (2014 – 2018)...................................................................................... 18 Vision Zero Crash Summary (2014 – 2018) ................................................................................. 21 Future Mode Share ............................................................................................................................... 27 Project Trip Generation – Site-Generated Vehicle Trips......................................................... 28 Parking Zoning Maximums ................................................................................................................ 31 Proposed Bicycle Parking ................................................................................................................... 32 Route-Level Summary of Passenger Crowding (Weekday Bus Service) .......................... 35 MBTA Green Line Capacity by Service Period ............................................................................ 37 Project-generated Transit Trips ...................................................................................................... 39 Assignment of Project Transit Ridership to Bus Services ....................................................... 40 Route-Level Summary of Passenger Crowding (Weekday Bus Service) .......................... 41 Summary of Existing Count Data Sources ................................................................................... 51 Signalized Intersection Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) .................................................. 52 Unsignalized Intersection Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) ............................................. 54 Definition of Each Level of Traffic Stress Score.......................................................................... 55 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress............................................................................................................. 55 Level-of-Service Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 56 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis .................................................................................... 58 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis ............................................................................... 67

Appendix A – Transportation A-3

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

A Transportation This chapter presents an evaluation and summary of the existing and future transportation conditions within the Project Study Area. The transportation study has been developed to understand and mitigate the transportation impacts associated with the Project and to devise a comprehensive transportation mitigation and improvement plan in the vicinity of the Project that supports future operations of the Project and provides area-wide transportation improvements to the Longwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA) of Boston. A major emphasis of this proposed redevelopment effort focuses on area mobility, including improved access and circulation to support the site and abutting properties and institutions, access to key transit nodes, and significant network pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements. These elements are at the forefront of our analysis and future planning.

The purpose of these analyses is to:

›

Define and quantify existing transportation conditions in the Project Study Area;

›

Estimate the transportation impacts that will be generated under future conditions based on the anticipated program for the Project;

›

Develop a set of mitigation strategies and improvement measures which will help lessen the transportation demand effects of the Project;

›

Demonstrate that these improvement measures and transportation mitigation efforts will meet or exceed BPDA and BTD requirements and will serve as exceptional public benefits; and

›

Illustrate the Project’s prioritization of pedestrian and bicycle modes as part of the overall TDM strategy and commitment to modern mobility.

Recognizing that transportation is a key policy priority at both the city and state levels, this study has been conducted in conformance with both MassDOT and BTD guidelines and uses standard methodologies, including the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition paired with local empirical trip rates, and local travel characteristics as defined in Access Boston 2000-2010 and the Go Boston 2030 Action Plan.

The study analyzes the following as part of the evaluation of 2021 Existing Conditions (which are based on data collected prior to the ongoing COVID-19

Appendix A – Transportation A-1

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

pandemic and adjusted to reflect 2021 conditions per BTD directives, and per MassDOT’s Guidance on Traffic Count data published in April 20201):

› ›

Pedestrian and bicycle operations;

› › › ›

Vehicle traffic on Project Study Area roadways and intersections;

Public transportation services, including service accessibility, capacities, reliability and demand; Vehicular level of service (LOS) analysis; Parking conditions; and Loading and service activities.

Additionally, this study quantifies and assesses the transportation impacts that are anticipated under future conditions.

The sections below provide an overview of the Project and a summary of findings of the transportation analyses, including anticipated impacts, proposed mitigation, a discussion of the study methodology, and a description of the Project Study Area.

Subsequent sections provide detailed discussions of existing and future conditions expected both with and without the Project.

A.1 Project and Program Overview The proposed Project includes the entire property historically known as the Simmons University Residential Campus. Simmons looks to employ a master plan strategy that would include the consolidation of all academic functions, including student dormitory and athletic uses onto its Main Campus. The disposition of its Residential Campus via a long-term ground lease is a critically important element to the implementation of this strategy. The proposed development program is detailed in Table A-1.

1

Note that new peak period vehicle volume, pedestrian and bicycle counts were also conducted in the study area in September 2021. Those new counts indicated that recent traffic activity has still not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Detailed discussion on how these data were used is described later in the chapter.

Appendix A – Transportation A-2

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.1

Project Program Summary

Project Component/Land Use

Project Program (SF)

R&D/Office

1,516,000

Residential

175,0001

Retail

47,000

Community Space

12,000

Total

1,750,000

Parking Spaces 1

1,0392 (1,011 net-new)

# of units is approximately 200 based on 875 sf per unit and is subject to change; unit count is separate and distinct from GFA. Determined based upon review of and compliance with BTD Parking Guidelines.

2

Note that while not specifically included in the program summary summarized in Table A.1, the Project will also include the demolition of all existing residential and athletic facilities that are on the Residential campus (approximately 334,200 sf in total) and 28 surface parking spaces. The site location map is shown in Figure A.1.

Figures A.2.a through A.2.e provide and illustrate key access/circulation and overall mobility strategies to be put in place in connection with the Project. As illustrated in Figure A.2a, and summarized in greater detail in the PDA submission, the Project program will be implemented in four buildings along Brookline Avenue with access provided via new driveway connections to Pilgrim Road.

The following are key mobility strategies to be incorporated into the Project:

›

The Project will implement a new mid-block driveway that will be signalized, providing primary access and egress for vehicles (both passenger cars and service vehicles) to and from the Project.

›

This location has been conceptualized to also support protected, signalized pedestrian movements across Brookline Avenue, lining up with the Colleges of the Fenway path connecting to Emmanuel College and onto Simmons University, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, the Massachusetts College of Art, and Wentworth Institute of Technology.

›

Short Street will be widened to provide for a generous shared pedestrianbicycle path connection to the Emerald Necklace.

›

Where the Project abuts Brookline Avenue, the existing curb will be relocated providing for opportunity to replace existing buffered bicycle lanes with separated bicycle lanes.

›

Existing MBTA/LMA Shuttle bus stops will also be reconstructed to be floating bus stops with dedicated shelters.

Appendix A – Transportation A-3

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

›

Short Street / Short Street Extension will be designed to physically restrict through traffic between the Riverway and Brookline Avenue (in both directions).

›

Left turns onto Short Street and Pilgrim Road will be restricted from Brookline Avenue.

›

Pilgrim Road will be widened slightly to support improved access by residents and parent drop-off operations for the Winsor School.

›

On-street resident parking along Pilgrim Road will be maintained.

›

All commercial drop-off needs for the Project will be accommodated in dedicated locations off of Pilgrim Road. Residential drop-off will be accommodated by a designated pullout bay on Pilgrim Road.

›

All loading/service will be accommodated in below grade loading docks and their access/egress has been conceptualized to eliminate any overlap with adjacent residential uses along Pilgrim Road and the Winsor School.

Access/egress by all larger service vehicles will be limited to the new midblock driveway, Short Street, and below grade portal(s) along these driveway segments.

›

Parking supply and EV provisions will all be implemented consistent with BTD Guidelines.

›

Bicycle Parking will be implemented consistent with BTD Guidelines.

›

A Bluebikes station will be sponsored and accommodated on site.

›

The Project will incorporate Transportation Demand Management principles as defined in the new BTD TDM Points System.

A.2 Summary of Findings and Transportation Mitigation The Project will result in additional trips generated by all modes to and from the Project Site. These new trips can be expected to produce some localized impacts to the surrounding transportation infrastructure. However, the Proponent has developed a comprehensive series of improvement actions to both address existing operating conditions and constraints and help mitigate future new impacts. The improvements and the proposed mitigation program are intended to offset the impact of the Project and, most importantly, provide improved transportation infrastructure to the surrounding area for all users supporting significantly improved area mobility. The Proponent is also committed to implementing an extensive travel demand management (TDM) program in connection with the Project’s development and

Appendix A – Transportation A-4

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

operation. A summary of key findings and mitigation and improvement actions are described below:

›

The Project will include the implementation of very significant pedestrian and bicycle improvements that will be transformative to the LMA neighborhood’s public realm:

›

Short Street Improvements: The Project proposes access for all modes throughout Short Street between Riverway and Brookline Ave with the Project in place requiring that Short Street be integrated into the traffic signal at Brookline Ave at BIDMC Main Entrance. The change involves the reconstruction of the existing brick pedestrian pathway between Pilgrim Road and Brookline Ave but replacing it with a proposed cross-section including an ADA-compliant grade-separated 12’ multi-use path with 2’ buffer on each side and two 11’ vehicle travel lanes to and from the proposed site driveway. All roadway improvements will be consistent with the objectives of BTD’s Complete Street Guidelines. This new driveway will be designed to provide access from Brookline Avenue (right-turn in only) and egress from the Project site via an adjacent garage portal and via Pilgrim Road. The inbound driveway will physically terminate at the garage entry, thereby restricting through traffic access to the Riverway. Similarly, Short Street Extension will remain one-way from Pilgrim Road to the Riverway, thereby eliminating any opportunity for unintended through traffic in either travel direction on Short Street between the Riverway and Brookline Avenue. At Brookline Avenue, the existing traffic signal will be reconstructed to support access and egress from Short Street. Note, however, that left turns into the site will be restricted due to the offset Short Street and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) East Campus driveways.

›

Brookline Ave Improvements: The Project will design and construct a 6’ grade-separated bicycle lane with 2’ buffer between Longwood Avenue and Fenway/Riverway on the north side of Brookline Avenue. Existing MBTA/LMA Shuttle bus stops adjacent to the Project on the north side of Brookline Avenue will also be reconstructed to be floating bus stops with shelters. The Project will implement a new mid-block driveway that will be signalized, providing primary access and egress for vehicles to and from the Project. This location has been conceptualized to also support protected, signalized pedestrian movements across Brookline Avenue, lining up with the Colleges of the Fenway path connecting to Emmanuel College and onto Simmons University, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, the Massachusetts College of Art, and Wentworth Institute of Technology. All roadway improvements will be consistent with the objectives of BTD’s Complete Street Guidelines and support the goals to create corridors that are comfortable for all ages and abilities including children (as noted in Section A.9.1).

›

Pilgrim Road Improvements: The Proponent has worked closely and collaboratively with the Winsor School to understand school drop-off and Appendix A – Transportation A-5

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

pick-up operations and to incorporate improvements to support that adjacent use and improve safety for students. Pilgrim Road will be widened slightly (within the Project site property) to support more efficient vehicle access during school drop-off and pick-up periods. Between the new midblock driveway and Short Street, a landscaped hybrid lane will be constructed to better support this operation, but also provide opportunity for Project needs outside of these critically important school operations windows. Existing Resident Permit Parking will be maintained, and primary Project loading/service activity will be limited to the mid-block driveway only.

›

The Proponent will provide covered bicycle storage/long-term parking onsite in accordance with the City of Boston Bicycle Guidelines for each respective building that makes up the Project. The Project will also include outdoor public bike racks/short-term parking in accordance with the City of Boston Bicycle Guidelines.

›

The Project will improve public transportation access and accessibility to the LMA neighborhood and suggests several opportunities for transit priority discussed later in Sections A.8.7 and A.9.2

›

The Project is expected to generate approximately 394 entering and 28 exiting vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak hour and approximately 51 entering and 383 exiting vehicle trips during the evening peak hour.

›

The results of the traffic operations analysis indicate that there are only minor impacts to study area intersections as a result of the project.

›

A total of approximately 1,039 total (1,011 net-new) below-grade garage parking spaces will be provided in the development area. This equates to an aggregate ratio of approximately 0.58 newly constructed spaces per 1,000 SF of new uses.

›

The future parking that is proposed is intended to adequately support the uses proposed in connection with the Project.

›

Future parking facilities will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Boston’s Electric Vehicle Readiness Policy, provided sufficient utility-level electrical infrastructure is available serving the Project Site.

›

The Project will include dedicated off-street, below grade, loading docks at each respective block to ensure that loading and service operations are handled internal to the building sites and will not impact traffic operations or pedestrian flow on adjacent streets.

›

The Proponent will implement a proactive transportation demand management plan to encourage tenants and residents to use transit and other alternative forms of transportation. As noted below in Section A.13.2, the Project will comply with the new BTD TDM Points System. The Proponent will require all tenants to implement proactive TDM plans in accordance with the agreed upon Transportation Access Plan Agreement (“TAPA”) with the City of Boston for the Project.

Appendix A – Transportation A-6

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

A.3 Study Methodology The transportation analysis has been performed in conformance with both BTD and MassDOT Transportation Access Plan Guidelines. It also has been prepared to be consistent with the goals and overall vision of Go Boston 2030.2 The transportation assessment was prepared in three stages. The first stage involved an assessment of existing transportation conditions within the Project Study Area, including:

›

Pedestrian activity along Project Study Area roadways, and at Project Study Area intersections.

› ›

Bicycle activity and accommodations.

›

An inventory of the transportation infrastructure within the Project Study Area, including its geometric and operational characteristics.

›

Geometric and operational characteristics of Project Study Area roadways and intersections.

›

Existing traffic control at Project Study Area intersections (i.e., traffic signalization, stop signs, one-way streets, etc.).

›

Transportation characteristics of current weekday operations at the Project Site and abutters (including the Winsor School).

›

Area off-street and on-street parking supply.

Public transportation options within the Project Study Area, including the Green Line, Commuter Rail, and multiple bus options.

In the second stage of the study (Evaluation of Long-Term Transportation Impacts), future transportation conditions were projected within the Project Study Area. The future No-Build condition includes an assessment of future transportation including planned transportation infrastructure improvements and growth related to other proposed projects within the Project Study Area (without consideration of the Project).

The future No-Build Condition takes into consideration many of the projects that are planned and/or under construction within the area including those listed in Section A.5.1. The future Build Condition assesses the No-Build Condition plus estimated traffic generated by the Project. The year 2028 was selected as the design year for analysis for the preparation of this study to reflect completion of the Project, providing a seven-year time horizon in accordance with the standard MassDOT guidelines.

The third and final stage of the study discusses potential measures to improve existing and future transportation operations in the area and to offset the transportation-related impacts associated with the development of the Project.

2

Go Boston 2030 – City of Boston’s Transportation Plan (Boston, Massachusetts)

Appendix A – Transportation A-7

Longwood Place

A.3.1

PDA Submission

Project Study Area To ensure a broad understanding of the area’s transportation network and the operational characteristics of the Project, a comprehensive Study Area was included in this assessment. The Study Area and its key intersections listed below, and shown in Figure A.3, reflects the Proponent’s desire to approach the Project’s study scope in a holistic, area-wide manner, consistent with input from the City and the community: 1.

Park Drive at Riverway

2.

Park Drive at Riverway Eastbound

3.

Brookline Avenue at Riverway / Fenway

4.

Brookline Avenue at Boylston Street / Park Drive

5.

Park Drive at Landmark Center South Drive

6.

Park Drive at Landmark Center Entrance North Drive

7.

Brookline Avenue at Pilgrim Road

8.

Brookline Avenue at BIDMC Main Entrance / Short Street

9.

Brookline Avenue at Longwood Avenue

10.

Brookline Avenue at Deaconess Road / Jimmy Fund Way

11.

Brookline Avenue at Francis Street

12.

Brookline Avenue at Riverway

13.

Riverway at Pilgrim Road / Netherlands Road

14.

Riverway at Longwood Avenue

15.

Riverway at Short Street Extension

Appendix A – Transportation A-8

Longwood Place

A.3.2

PDA Submission

Analysis Conditions The transportation analysis considers the following analysis scenarios:

›

2021 Existing Condition – Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the use of new traffic counts has not been actively employed as traffic patterns are currently not a typical representation of baseline analysis conditions3.

Turning Movement Counts (TMCs) were compiled from nearby, published traffic studies and adjusted to represent the existing/baseline year using MassDOT yearly growth rates. MassDOT considers 2019 data to represent existing conditions. The traffic study was conducted in conformance with both BTD and MassDOT guidelines in anticipation of the state MEPA process and, as such, follows the same methodology for the local submittal process.

Details on the existing traffic volumes that were used for the study are provided later in Section A.4.3: Data Collection.

›

2028 No-Build Condition – Future conditions for a seven-year time horizon that are expected to occur if the Project was not constructed. This time period was deemed acceptable to the BTD and conforms to MassDOT guidelines.

›

2028 Build Condition – Future conditions for a seven-year time horizon assuming construction and full occupancy of the Project, and that the identified mitigation is implemented.

A.4 Existing Transportation Conditions The Project Site (which is the existing Simmons University Residential Campus) is bounded by Brookline Ave (in the southeast), Pilgrim Road (in the north and west) and Short Street / Short Street Extension (in the south) (the “Project”). Many of the roadways in the area serve a local/district level collector/distributor function. There are some residential uses to the east near the intersection of Pilgrim Road and the Riverway, as well as many major hospital and other institutional uses throughout the LMA, including Boston University (north of Pilgrim Rd), Emmanuel College (south of Brookline Ave), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center East Campus (also south of Brookline Ave) and the Winsor School (adjacent to the site on Short Street and Short Street Extension).

A.4.1

Roadway Network Brookline Avenue Brookline Ave provides two-way travel from Washington Street in the south (Brookline Village) to Kenmore Square in the north. There is no parking on both sides of the street near the project site. Between Longwood Avenue and the

3

New peak period vehicle volume, pedestrian and bicycle counts were conducted in the study area in September 2021. Those new counts indicated that recent traffic activity has still not returned to pre-pandemic levels.

Appendix A – Transportation A-9

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Riverway, Brookline Avenue has buffered bicycle lanes on both sides of the street.

Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street and crosswalks are provided at critical intersection locations.

Pilgrim Road Pilgrim Rd (north of Longwood Avenue) provides a single lane, one-way westbound travel lane from Brookline Ave in the northeast to Short Street in the south. Though Pilgrim Rd is a single lane, it functions as an ad hoc two-lane roadway particularly during Winsor School pick-up and drop-off activity peak periods during which time some queueing activity of parents’ vehicles extends down Pilgrim Road. There is resident permit parking on the north side of the street. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street and crosswalks are provided at all critical intersections.

Short Street/Short Street Extension Short Street Extension provides vehicular access via a single lane, one-way westbound roadway from Pilgrim Road to Riverway. This segment is owned in fee by the Winsor School and operates as a Private Way opened for Public Access.

Short Street between Pilgrim Road and Brookline Avenue is a brick pathway with use for pedestrians only. The pathway abuts buildings along both of its sides.

Riverway / Fenway Riverway travels bordering the south side of the Emerald Necklace providing twoway travel from Jamaicaway in the south to Justine Mee Liff Park in the north at which point it becomes Fenway. Fenway travels bordering the south side of the Back Bay Fens providing predominately one-way eastbound travel from Justine Mee Liff Park in the west to Boylston St in the east. There is some unregulated and handicapped parking located on the south side of Riverway nearby the project site.

Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street and crosswalks are provided at all critical intersections.

Park Drive Park Drive provides two-way travel from Mountfort St in the north to Riverway in the south at Justine Mee Liff Park. It also provides one-way westbound travel from the Riverway at the Justine Mee Liff Park to Boylston Street. This one-way portion of Park Dr borders the north side of the Back Bay Fens. There is no parking on both sides of the street. Sidewalks are provided along most segments on both sides of the street and crosswalks are provided at all critical intersections.

Longwood Avenue Longwood Avenue provides two-way travel from Harvard Street in the west to St Alphonsus Street in the east. There is no parking on both sides of the street nearby the project site. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street and crosswalks are provided at all critical intersections.

Appendix A – Transportation A-10

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Boylston Street Boylston Street provides two-way travel from Park Drive in the west (Justine Mee Liff Park) to Washington Street in the east in Chinatown. There is occasional parking on both sides of the street but no parking adjacent to its intersection at Justine Mee Liff Park. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street and crosswalks are provided at all critical intersections.

Francis Street Francis Street provides two-way travel from Riverway in the west to Huntington Avenue in the east. There is no parking on both sides of the street nearby the project site. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street and crosswalks are provided at all critical intersections.

Netherlands Road Netherlands Road provides one-way northbound travel from Aspinwall Avenue in the south to Parkway Road and two-way travel between Parkway Road and Riverway in the north. There is parking provided on the east side of the one-way portion of the street. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street and crosswalks are provided at all critical intersections.

Deaconess Road Deaconess Road provides one-way travel from Pilgrim Road in the west to Brookline Ave in the east. There is zero parking on both sides of the street; however, there are cab stand parking spots. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street and crosswalks are provided at all critical intersections.

Jimmy Fund Way Jimmy Fund Way provides two-way travel from Brookline Ave in the west to Binney St in the east. There is zero parking on both sides of the street. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street and crosswalks are provided at all critical intersections.

A.4.2

Intersections Detailed descriptions of each of the 15 Project Study Area intersections are included in The Appendix for reference. Traffic operations and LOS analysis are presented later in this chapter.

A.4.3

Data Collection Conducting new traffic counts has its limitations due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has impacted typical travel behavior and existing traffic patterns.

For a typical representation of existing/baseline conditions to apply to the transportation analysis, VHB reviewed and utilized compiled traffic counts (wherever possible) from other published traffic studies in the area. MassDOT’s Engineering Appendix A – Transportation A-11

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Directive (published on May 11, 2020) included guidance on the use of traffic count data, indicating that historical traffic data may be used on any project to supplement and/or replace existing traffic counts as long as it conforms to the latest version of the MassDOT guidance. The directive applies to all projects that have not obtained count data prior to March 13, 2020. We have adopted this guidance and applied it to the City of Boston review process of which this report is a part.

TMCs from the traffic count data sources are adjusted to the current year (2021) using MassDOT Yearly Growth Rates. MassDOT considers 2019 to be existing and no growth rate is applied to counts from 2019.

Since there were a few locations which did not have historical counts available, counts were conducted at these locations on Wednesday, September 29, 2021 as well as a spot check which indicated that the 2021 traffic volumes on these local streets are still about 9% lower on average as compared to MassDOT grown historical counts. Since no historical counts were available at these locations, the data was used as a basis and the counts were increased along the main roadways (Brookline Ave and Riverway) to balance with the adjacent historical counts (which were greater).

Table A.2 below summarizes the sources of the existing count data for each of the respective Project Study Area intersections. The TMCs are also provided in The Appendix for reference.

Appendix A – Transportation A-12

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.2

Summary of Existing Traffic Count Data Sources

Project Study Area Intersection

Count Date

1.

Park Drive at Riverway

October 12, 2017

2.

Park Drive at Riverway Eastbound

October 12, 2017

3.

Brookline Ave at Riverway / Fenway

October 12, 2017

4.

Brookline Ave at Boylston Street/Park Drive

October 12, 2017

5.

Park Drive at Landmark Center South Drive

October 12, 2017

6.

Park Drive at Landmark Center Entrance North Drive

October 12, 2017

7.

Brookline Avenue at Pilgrim Road

September 29, 2021

8.

Brookline Avenue at BIDMC Main Entrance/Short Street

September 29, 2021

9.

Brookline Avenue at Longwood Ave

February 13, 2018

10. Brookline Avenue at Deaconess Road/Jimmy Fund Way

February 13, 2018

11. Brookline Ave at Francis Street

February 13, 2018

12. Brookline Ave at Riverway

February 13, 2018

13. Riverway at Pilgrim Road/Netherlands Road

February 13, 2018

14. Riverway at Longwood Ave

February 13, 2018

15. Riverway at Short Street Extension

September 29, 2021

The TMCs from the sources above were used to establish the Project Study Area network peak hour volumes for the 2021 Existing Condition analysis. The weekday morning peak hour was determined to be 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM and the weekday evening peak hour from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM. The existing morning and evening peak hour volumes for vehicles are illustrated in Figures A.4 and A.5, respectively.

Appendix A – Transportation A-13

Longwood Place

A.4.4

PDA Submission

Pedestrian Environment + Accessibility The Project Study Area has sidewalks along all the surrounding roadways and crosswalks provided at each of the area intersections.

Pedestrian volumes at the Project Study Area intersections have been compiled in conjunction with the TMCs, discussed in Section A.4.3. Figures A.6 and A.7 illustrate and summarize the 2021 Existing Condition pedestrian volumes for the morning and evening peak hours. Consistent with the MassDOT Guidelines, no growth adjustment was applied to the pedestrian volumes to represent baseline conditions.

A.4.5

Bicycle Environment + Infrastructure Bicycle volumes at the Project Study Area intersections (refer to Figures A.8 and A.9), were compiled simultaneously with the vehicle TMCs. Within the immediate Project Study Area, there are bike lanes present on Brookline Ave, Longwood Ave, and Beacon St. In addition, the Emerald Necklace / Back Bay Fens, located nearby the Project Site, provides public recreational space, including paths for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Bluebikes Bikeshare The following Bluebikes stations are provided within a quarter mile of the Project Site with their respective location illustrated on Figure A.10:

› › › ›

Longwood Ave at Binney Street (15 docks) Landmark Center – Brookline Ave at Park Drive (15 docks) Colleges of the Fenway – Fenway at Avenue Louis Pasteur (15 docks) HMS/HSPH – Avenue Louis Pasteur at Longwood Ave (25 docks)

The closest Bluebikes docking stations are Longwood Ave at Binney Street, and Landmark Center – Brookline Ave at Park Drive.

A.4.6

Public Transportation The Project Site is served by several MBTA public transportation services within or slight outside of a 0.25-mile radius, including:

› ›

MBTA Green (“C”, “D”, and “E” Branch) Lines; and MBTA Bus Routes: 8, 19, 47, 60, 65, CT2 and CT3.

Transit Services are summarized in Table A.3 and are illustrated in Figure A.11, which shows MBTA services in the vicinity of the Project Site.

Appendix A – Transportation A-14

Longwood Place

Table A.3

PDA Submission

MBTA Public Transportation Services

Transit Line / Route

Origin / Destination

Peak Hour Headways (minutes)

Closest Stop to Project Site

Hours of Operation

MBTA Subway Services Green Line “B” Branch

Park Street

6-7

Boston University East

Weekday: 5:01 AM – 1:36 AM Saturday: 4:45 AM – 1:37 AM Sunday: 5:20 AM – 1:38 AM

Green Line “D” Branch

Government Center

6-8

Fenway

Weekday: 4:56 AM – 1:48 AM Saturday: 4:55 AM – 1:30 AM Sunday: 5:25 AM – 1:28 AM

Lansdowne

Schedule Varies

9-20

Brookline Avenue at Pilgrim Road

Weekday: 5:15 AM – 12:55 AM Saturday: 6:30 AM – 1:03 AM Sunday: 6:30 AM – 1:01 AM

17

Brookline Avenue at The Fenway

Weekday: 5:50 AM – 7:45 PM Saturday: No Service Sunday: No Service

MBTA Commuter Rail Services Commuter Rail Framingham/Worcester Line

Framingham or Worcester/ South Station

Schedules vary

MBTA Bus Services Route 8

Harbor Point/UMass – Kenmore Station

Route 19

Kenmore

Route 47

Broadway Station

15-20

Brookline Avenue at The Fenway

Weekday: 5:15 AM – 1:28 AM Saturday: 5:00 AM – 1:46 AM Sunday: 7:30 AM – 1:09 AM

Route 60

Kenmore

20-30

Brookline Avenue at The Fenway

Weekday: 4:55 AM – 12:18 AM Saturday: 4:55 AM – 1:01 AM Sunday: 6:00 AM – 9:55 AM

Route 65

Kenmore

8-10

Brookline Avenue at The Fenway

Weekday: 5:58 AM – 8:59 PM Saturday: 6:45 AM – 6:39 PM Sunday: No Service

Route CT2

Ruggles

20-25

Brookline at Short Street

Weekday: 5:55 AM – 7:54 PM Saturday: No Service Sunday: No Service

Route CT3

Andrew Station

15-20

Brookline at Short Street

Weekday: 6:00 AM – 8:40 PM Saturday: No Service Sunday: No Service

Source:

MBTA Fall 2021 Schedule

A.4.7

Parking and Carshare Locations Figure A.12 illustrates the parking regulations within a 0.25-mile radius of the Project Site. There is limited parking regulated in the area. Though most roadways do not provide parking at all there is resident permit parking on Pilgrim Rd and Park Drive, a small amount of metered parking on Joslin Place and unregulated parking on the south side of Riverway. Additionally, Figure A.13 illustrates the existing off-street parking options around the neighborhood.

Appendix A – Transportation A-15

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.4

Carsharing Locations (Zipcar - November 2021)

Location/Address

Number of Vehicles Provided

164 St Mary’s St - Brookline

2

200 Brookline Ave

1

3 Blackfan Circle

1

300 Longwood Ave

3

Total

7

The closest location to the Site is across Brookline Ave at 3 Blackfan Circle and provides one vehicle. Figure A.10 illustrates the carshare locations (along with bikeshare locations, as previously described) in the vicinity of the Project Site.

A.4.8

MASCO Shuttles The Project Site is served by several MASCO shuttle services. Many of the MASCO shuttle services stop within walking distance of the project site:

A.4.9



M2 Cambridge-Boston: Provides service between Harvard Medical School in the LMA and Harvard Square in Cambridge



JFK Station: Provides service to JFK/UMass MBTA Station and Andrew Square MBTA Station



Ruggles Station: Provides service to Ruggles MBTA Station



Fenway: Provides service between satellite Fenway parking lots, Landsdowne MBTA Station and the LMA



Wentworth Lot: Provides service to Wentworth lot and Ruggles and JFK/UMass MBTA Station



Landmark: Provides service between Harvard Chan School of Public Health and the Landmark Center



Midday and Evening Wentworth-Ruggles-JFK Combo: Provides service between LMA, Wentworth, Ruggles MBTA Station, and JFK MBTA Station

Crash Analysis A detailed crash analysis was conducted to identify vehicle accident trends and potential roadway deficiencies in the traffic Project Study Area. Both RMV data and City of Boston data are compiled, reviewed and presented here. The MassDOT roadway crash database is comprised of crash data from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) Division primarily for use in traffic studies and safety evaluations. Data files are provided for entire calendar years, though it is certain that some crash records are omitted either due to individual crashes not being reported, or the city crash records not being provided in a compatible format for RMV use.

The most current vehicle accident data for the traffic Project Study Area intersections

Appendix A – Transportation A-16

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

was obtained from MassDOT for the years 2014 to 2018 (the most recent five-year period available at the time of the data compilation). A summary of vehicle accident history at the study intersections based on the available RMV data is demonstrated in Table A.5.

Crash rates are calculated based on the number of accidents at an intersection and the volume of traffic travelling though that intersection daily. Rates that exceed MassDOT’s average for accidents, at intersections in the district in which the town or city is located, could indicate safety or geometric issues for an intersection. As Boston is in MassDOT’s District 6, the calculated crash rates were compared to those of MassDOT District 6, which are 0.71 for signalized intersections and 0.52 for unsignalized intersections. These rates imply that, on average, 0.71 accidents occurred per million entering signalized intersections throughout District 6, and 0.52 accidents occurred per million vehicles entering unsignalized intersections.

A review of the accident data indicates that all Project Study Area intersections are below the MassDOT District 6 crash rate averages. The intersection of Riverway at Longwood Ave has the highest number of crashes in the Project Study Area with a total of 51 crashes occurring at the intersection over the five-year period. The most common type of crash at the intersection was an angled crash. Six of the 51 crashes at the intersection involved non-motorists (either pedestrians and/or bicyclists).

According to the MassDOT Top Crash Locations interactive map,4 the following intersections were identified as Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)eligible intersections:

›

Riverway at Longwood Ave – signalized (also a 2008-2017 HSIP Bicycle cluster)

›

Brookline Avenue at Park Drive and Boylston Street – signalized (also a 2008-2017 HSIP Bicycle cluster)

› ›

Riverway at Pilgrim Road/Netherlands Road – unsignalized Brookline Ave at Riverway - signalized

Note the intersection of Brookline Avenue at Park Drive and Boylston Street is currently undergoing a Road Safety Audit (RSA) process. While not reflected in the 2014-2018 crash data, there was a fatal injury at this location in February of 2019 involving a heavy vehicle and a cyclist.

A review of the City of Boston’s Vision Zero transportation project website lists one ongoing projects near the LMA neighborhood:

›

4

The Boylston Street safety improvements project, which will improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians though Boylston Street between Park Drive and Ipswich Street.

https://gis.massdot.state.ma.us/topcrashlocations/

Appendix A – Transportation A-17

Longwood Place

Table A.5

PDA Submission

Vehicular Crash Summary (2014 – 2018)

Signalized?

MassDOT Average Crash Rate Calculated Crash Rate Exceeds Average?

Park Dr at Riverway Yes 0.71 0.07 No

Park Dr at Riverway Eastbound Yes 0.71 0.00 No

Brookline Avenue at Riverway / Fenway Yes 0.71 0.53 No

Brookline Avenue at Boylston St / Park D Yes 0.71 0.50 No

Park Dr at Landmark Center South Drive Yes 0.71 0.27 No

Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

2 0 0 0 1 3

0 0 0 0 0 0

4 9 6 4 5 28

11 5 6 9 4 35

0 0 2 2 4 8

Collision Type Angle Head-on Rear-end Rear-to-rear Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Sideswipe, Same Direction Single Vehicle Crash Unknown/Not Reported

1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16 0 4 0 3 1 4 0

14 2 6 0 0 5 8 0

3 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

Severity Fatal Injury Non-fatal Injury Property Damage Only Unknown/Not Reported

0 2 1 0

0 0 0 0

0 13 15 0

0 13 20 0

0 1 7 0

Time of Day Weekday, 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Weekday, 4:00 – 6:00 PM Saturday, 11:00 AM – 2:00 PM Weekday, Other Time Weekend, Other Time

0 0 0 3 0

0 0 0 0 2

1 2 2 14 9

2 4 1 18 10

0 0 1 6 1

Pavement Conditions Dry Wet Snow Slush Ice Unknown/Not Reported

3 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

18 8 1 0 1 0

28 5 1 1 0 0

6 2 0 0 0 0

Non-Motorist (Bike, Pedestrian)

1

0

0

5

0

Source: Crash data was obtained from MassDOT Crash portal (2014-2018).

Appendix A – Transportation A-18

Longwood Place

Table A.5

PDA Submission

Vehicular Crash Summary Cont. (2014 – 2018)

Signalized?

MassDOT Average Crash Rate Calculated Crash Rate Exceeds Average?

Park Dr at Landmark Brookline Ave Center Entrance at Pilgrim Rd Yes No 0.71 0.52 0.00 0.00 No No

Brookline Ave at Brookline Ave at BIDMC Main Deaconess Rd / Entrance / Brookline Ave at Jimmy Short St Longwood Ave Fund Way Yes Yes Yes 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.08 0.00 No No No

Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 1 1 4

0 0 0 0 0 0

Collision Type Angle Head-on Rear-end Rear-to-rear Sideswipe, Opposite Direction Sideswipe, Same Direction Single Vehicle Crash Unknown/Not Reported

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Severity Fatal Injury Non-fatal Injury Property Damage Only Unknown/Not Reported

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 2 2 0

0 0 0 0

Time of Day Weekday, 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Weekday, 4:00 – 6:00 PM Saturday, 11:00 AM – 2:00 PM Weekday, Other Time Weekend, Other Time

0 0 0 0 3

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 0

Pavement Conditions Dry Wet Snow Slush Ice Unknown/Not Reported

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

3 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-Motorist (Bike, Pedestrian)

0

0

0

0

0

Source: Crash data was obtained from MassDOT Crash portal (2014-2018).

Appendix A – Transportation A-19

Longwood Place

Table A.5

PDA Submission

Vehicular Crash Summary Cont. (2014 – 2018)

Signalized?

MassDOT Average Crash Rate Calculated Crash Rate Exceeds Average?

Brookline Ave at Francis St Yes 0.71 0.07 No

Riverway at Brookline Ave Pilgrim Rd / Riverway at at Riverway Netherlands Rd Longwood Ave Yes No Yes 0.71 0.52 0.71 0.48 0.00 0.83 No No No

Riverway at Short St Ext Yes 0.71 0.00 No

Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

0 0 1 0 2 3

7 7 6 8 5 33

0 0 0 0 0 0

8 10 14 11 8 51

1 0 1 0 0 2

Collision Type Angle Head-On Rear-End Rear-to-rear Sideswipe, opposite direction Sideswipe, same direction Single Vehicle Crash Unknown/Not Reported

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

24 3 3 0 1 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

21 6 10 0 2 7 5 0

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Severity Fatal Injury Non-Fatal Injury Property Damage Only Unknown/Not Reported

0 3 0 0

0 15 17 0

0 0 0 0

0 23 28 0

0 0 2 0

Time of day Weekday, 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Weekday, 4:00 – 6:00 PM Saturday, 11:00 AM – 2:00 PM Weekday, other time Weekend, other time

1 0 0 2 0

3 1 3 22 4

0 0 0 0 0

2 5 2 28 14

0 0 0 2 0

Pavement Conditions Dry Wet Snow Slush Ice Unknown/Not Reported

1 2 0 0 0 0

27 5 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

40 9 2 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0 0

Non-Motorist (Bike, Pedestrian)

0

1

0

6

0

Source: Crash data was obtained from MassDOT Crash portal (2014-2018).

Appendix A – Transportation A-20

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Additional City of Boston Emergency Response (EMS) crash data were obtained though the Vision Zero website. Crashes resulting in an EMS call at the Project Study Area intersections are presented below in Table A.6. Although, limited information is available about each individual crash, the supplemental data are presented to represent the overall crash characteristics of the Project Study Area.

Table A.6

Vision Zero Crash Summary (2014 – 2018)

Park Dr at Riverway

Park Dr at Riverway Eastbound

Brookline Avenue at Riverway / Fenway

Brookline Avenue at Boylston St / Park D

Park Dr at Brookline Ave at BIDMC Main Landmark Park Dr at Center South Landmark Brookline Ave at Entrance / Drive Center Entrance Pilgrim Rd Short St

2014

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2015

2

0

3

1

0

0

2

1

2016

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

2

2017

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

2018

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Total

0

0

5

4

2

0

2

3

Motor Vehicle

1

0

5

1

0

0

2

2

Pedestrian

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

1

Bicycle

2

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

Year

Mode

Brookline Ave Riverway at Brookline Ave at Deaconess Pilgrim Rd / Riverway at at Longwood Rd / Jimmy Brookline Ave Brookline Ave Netherland Longwood Ave Fund Way at Francis St at Riverway s Rd Ave

Riverway at Short St Ext

Year 2014

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2015

2

2

2

3

0

2

1

2016

0

1

4

1

2

2

1

2017

0

1

2

6

1

3

1

2018

2

2

0

0

1

2

0

Total

4

6

8

10

4

9

3

Motor Vehicle

2

2

6

10

4

8

1

Pedestrian

0

4

0

0

0

1

1

Bicycle

2

0

2

0

0

0

1

Mode

Appendix A – Transportation A-21

Longwood Place

A.4.10

PDA Submission

Winsor School Existing Conditions During September 2021 VHB and the Project team conducted detailed observations of existing Winsor School pick-up and drop-off activity at the site to assist the design team in better understanding school operations, identify access challenges and opportunities, and to provide guidance and input regarding the framework of future transportation conditions and operations at the school as it co-exists with the success of the Proposed Project access and circulation. Note that the Project team also held several working meetings with the Winsor School staff, detailed in Section A.5.2.

Observations were made on Wednesday, September 22 during both the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up.

General Findings

›

Winsor School morning drop-off arrival tends to begin after 7:00 AM and ends just before school classes commence. Parent drop-off along Short Street Extension, queuing on Pilgrim Road, and bus drop-off in the bus lane that is accessed via the Riverway all function reasonably well – as drop-off activity is spread out over an approximate 45-minute window. Drop-off activity is actively managed by a team of Winsor staff to ensure that student movements from vehicles to the School are safe. It is envisioned that there will be little overlap between morning school operations and Project generated traffic based upon the design considerations for entering passenger cars and service vehicles destined for the Project site (see Figures A.2.b and A.2.d, presented previously.

›

Afternoon pick-up dismissal (vehicles begin to queue around 2:35 PM) between 2:35 and 2:55 PM is the time that requires the most management of students and parents for an effective and safe pick-up each day. Queues are longest in the 10-minute window before students are dismissed. The Project intended to widen Pilgrim Road within the Project site property between the new mid-block driveway and Short Street Extension to create a landscaped hybrid lane for parents to queue. This will keep Pilgrim Road open and available to moving traffic and emergency vehicles. It will also provide the opportunity for some Winsor parents to pick up students and exit the Winsor Campus via Short Street onto Brookline Avenue (instead of the Riverway).

›

It is envisioned that vehicles exiting the Project Site in the afternoon that are destined for the Riverway would do so primarily after the traditional school pick-up has ended, thus minimizing the overlap of school operations with Project traffic.

Buses

›

Buses arrive via the Riverway and Nessel Way and queue on the curb between the Winsor School and the Riverway (the Winsor Bus Lane).

Appendix A – Transportation A-22

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

›

During the observation period, both student and coach buses were observed queuing and picking up students.

›

There were up to seven buses queued at 2:45 PM and one bus parked on the Riverway at this time.

›

The Project looks to supplement bus queuing for Winsor by providing an opportunity for buses to also queue along the north side of Pilgrim Road near Short Street Extension as well as a secondary designated location on Short Street that could be accessed via Brookline Avenue.

Parking + Vehicle Activity

›

The staff parking lot is heavily used; and provides parking for approximately 30 vehicles.

›

The staff parking lot is also used to support some parent pick-up/drop-off activity during peak pick-up/drop-off periods.

›

Parents dropping off and picking up students arrive via Pilgrim Road and travel down the road until a queue begins to form. Often, two lanes are formed on Pilgrim Road: one for queueing and one for a travel lane.

›

During the afternoon pick-up observations, this queue was observed to be about 400 feet at its longest (2:50 PM) down Pilgrim Road and dissipated shortly after this time.

›

After picking up students, vehicles exit Pilgrim Road and take Short Street Extension (in front of the Winsor School) to its intersection with the Riverway to depart.

›

The traffic light at the intersection of Riverway at Short Street provides sufficient green time that it does not cause adverse impacts to the Winsor School dismissal or arrival periods.

A.5 Future Transportation Conditions Two future conditions were evaluated for a seven-year time horizon to assess the potential Project-related transportation impacts: 2028 No-Build Condition and 2028 Build Condition. These future conditions are summarized in the following sections.

A.5.1

2028 No-Build Condition The 2028 No-Build Condition was developed to evaluate future transportation conditions in the traffic Project Study Area without consideration of the Project. The No-Build Condition provides insight into future transportation conditions resulting from regional growth and traffic generated by specific planned projects that are expected to affect the local roadway network.

Traffic growth on area roadways and ridership on public transportation services is a function of the expected land development, economic activity, and changes in demographics. Several methods can be used to estimate this growth. A procedure frequently employed is to estimate an annual percentage increase and apply that

Appendix A – Transportation A-23

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

increase to Project Study Area traffic volumes. An alternative procedure is to identify estimated traffic generated by planned new major developments that would be expected to impact the Project Study Area roadways. For the purpose of this assessment, both methods were considered.

Background Traffic Growth Rate Historic traffic data in the vicinity of the Project Site and growth rates used by nearby development projects were reviewed to determine an appropriate growth rate. Based on this review, a growth rate of 0.25-percent was determined appropriate for this Project Study Area to comply with BTD direction on this methodology (MassDOT is not requiring use of a background growth rate at this time).

Area Development Projects In addition to accounting for background growth, traffic volume projections for several specific planned or approved projects were incorporated into the development of the 2028 No-Build Condition.

These include the following developments:

› › › › › › › › › › ›

Boston Children’s Hospital Clinical Building Landmark Center Phase 3 Winsor School Campus Projects Emmanuel College Campus Development Plan Wentworth Institute of Technology Institutional Master Plan BIDMC New Inpatient Building Fenway Center Fenway Theater Scape/1252-1270 Boylston Street Scape/819 Beacon Street Fenway/Red Sox Project

No-Build Traffic Volumes The 2028 No-Build Condition peak hour traffic volumes were developed by increasing the 2021 Existing Condition volumes to include general background traffic growth and adding traffic volumes associated with known traffic forecasts projected for other development projects in the area.

Figures A.14 and A.15 illustrate the 2028 No-Build Condition traffic volumes for the weekday morning and evening, respectively.

Infrastructure Improvements In assessing future transportation conditions for the Project, proposed roadway improvements within the Project Study Area were also considered.

Appendix A – Transportation A-24

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

These include the following infrastructure improvements:

›

A.5.2

Boylston Street Corridor Improvements – This City of Boston-led project will reconstruct Boylston Street to install buffered bike lanes along the corridor between Ipswich Street and Park Drive/Brookline Avenue. The project aims to make it easier for people who walk, ride a bike, and take transit to access homes, jobs, parks, businesses, and cultural institutions around the Fenway/Kenmore Area. Specific modifications from the 100% design plans, dated August 25, 2020 (and found in The Appendix) were incorporated at the following Project Study Area intersection of Park Drive at Brookline Ave / Boylston Street. Both lane geometry and signal timings were modified for future conditions.

2028 Build Condition The 2028 Build Condition analyzes the future transportation conditions within the Project Study Area with the Project in place. This condition considers the Sitegenerated traffic volumes and distributes these volumes over the Project Study Area roadways. This condition is described further below.

Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the Project are based on standard Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) data5 paired with empirical trip rates. The following section discusses how the unadjusted trip generation will be converted to new trips on the surrounding roadway networks for the purpose of conducting the transportation analysis.

Unadjusted Vehicle Trip Generation The Project will consist of approximately 1,750,000 square feet (sf), as defined in zoning code, of building space. This building space will include 4 buildings devoted to a mix of research & development and office space (approximately 1,516,000 sf), retail uses (approximately 47,000 sf), and residential space (approximately 175,000 sf/ 200 units). Currently the site contains Simmons University’s residential campus within a series of buildings. Though the existing site is occupied, no trip credit was taken for existing University Housing or Athletic uses in order to conduct a conservative analysis.

The ITE Trip Generation Manual categorizes various land uses and provides weekday daily, weekday morning peak hour, and weekday evening peak hour unadjusted vehicle trip generation estimates for each use. Trip generation estimates for the proposed uses were projected using data published in the ITE data for LUC 221 (Mid-Rise Residential), and LUC 820 (Shopping Center). In addition, these ITE rates

5

Trip Generation Manual – 10th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers; Washington, D.C.; 2017.

Appendix A – Transportation A-25

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

were paired with empirical trip rates collected from local, available transportation monitoring report projects for the Office and R&D land uses6.

Person Trips The unadjusted vehicle trips estimated using the ITE data were subsequently converted into person trips by applying average vehicle occupancy rates (VOR) based on national data7 for each use. The national average vehicle occupancy rates applied were 1.18 persons/vehicle for office, research and development, and residential trips and 1.82 persons/vehicle for retail trips. The national rates are applied when converting to person trips to be consistent with ITE data, which is also based on national data. The unadjusted vehicle trips were converted into person trips in order to apply the internal capture credits and applicable mode share credits discussed below.

Internal Capture As the Project proposes a mixture of uses, the trip generation characteristics of the Project will be different from a single-use project. Some of the traffic to be generated by the Project will be contained on-site as “internal” or “shared vehicle” trips. This concept means that some patrons could visit more than one of the uses on the Project Site. For example, workers at the R&D/office space on-site may patronize the retail shops after work or residents who live in the development may also work in the office on-site. While these shared trips represent new traffic to the individual uses, they would not necessarily register as new vehicle trips on the surrounding roadway network.

As described in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook,8 “because of the complementary nature of these land uses, some trips are made among the on-site uses. This capture of trips internal to the Development Site has the net effect of reducing vehicle trip generation between the overall Development Site and the external street system (compared to the total number of trips generated by comparable land uses developed individually on stand-alone sites) an internal capture rate can generally be defined as the percentage of total person trips generated by a site that are made entirely within the Development Site. The trip origin, destination, and travel path are all within the site.”

Based on the methodology outlined in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, internal capture rates were applied to the gross person trips resulting in adjusted person trips. Trip generation calculations, including the internal capture worksheet, are included in The Appendix.

6

Based on 2017 and 2018 PTDM and Planning Board Special Permit transportation monitoring reports from 14 projects (F2, F4, F8, F9, F11, F14, F15, F27, F43, F47, F51, PB65, PB125, PB150)

7

Summary of Travel Trends – National Household Travel Survey; USDOT Federal Highway Administration (Washington, DC), 2017.

8

Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., 2017.

Appendix A – Transportation A-26

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Mode Shares The future mode shares for the Project were developed based on Go Boston 2030’s9 defined mode share goals for 2030 for the R&D/office and residential uses and empirical data obtained for similar urban uses10 for the retail land use. Following a parallel review of nearby transportation studies, the U.S Census Bureau’s Journey to Work data for the LMA area, and a review of the Boston Transportation Department’s (BTD’s) mode share guidelines for individual city zones, the mode shares presented in Table A.7 were determined to be appropriate.

Table A.7

Future Mode Share

Use

Vehicle

Transit

Bike/Walk/Other

R&D/Office

37%

53%

10%

Retail1

10%

3%

87%

Residential

24%

44%

32%

Mode shares based on Go Boston 2030’s aspirational mode share goals for 2030.

1 Retail mode share based on 2019 PTDM patron surveys

Vehicle Trips The mode shares presented in Table A.7 were applied to the net-new person trips to generate the adjusted Project person trips by mode. To reflect the number of vehicle trips generated by the Site, the adjusted person trips are converted back to vehicle trips by applying average vehicle occupancy rates (VOR). The vehicle occupancy rates mentioned previously were applied again.

The adjusted vehicle trips by land use are shown in Table A.8.

9

Go Boston 2030: Goals and Targets (City of Boston).

10 Retail mode share based on 2019 PTDM patron surveys conduct at local sites including Bon Me and Catalyst Café.

Appendix A – Transportation A-27

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.8

Project Trip Generation – Site-Generated Vehicle Trips

Time Period / Direction

Total Vehicle Trips

Residential

R&D/Office

Retail

4 12 16

380 11 391

10 5 15

394 28 422

6 4 10

32 365 397

13 14 27

51 383 434

Weekday Morning Enter Exit Total Weekday Evening Enter Exit Total Note:

Vehicle trip generation estimates by land use with mode share and internal capture credits applied.

Trip Distribution Having estimated changes in automobile trips associated with the Project, the next step in the analysis involves the distribution and assignment of these trips to the local roadway network based on geographic distribution of Project vehicular trips.

The directional distribution of Project vehicular trips is a function of several variables: the relative locations and densities of population, competing uses, existing travel patterns, and the operational efficiency of the roadways leading to the Site.

The directional distribution of the vehicular traffic approaching and departing the Site is based on the U.S Census Bureau’s Journey to Work data (2012-2016) for the Census Tract representing the Project Site. A summary of the regional trip distribution results is presented graphically in Figure A.16.

Site Access and Circulation The Proposed site (Figure A.2a) includes access to parking garage ramps and loading via two driveways: 

a new segment of Short Street (between Pilgrim Road and Brookline Ave) with vehicle access via the intersection of Brookline Ave at BIDMC Driveway/Short Street and



a new midblock driveway connecting Brookline Ave and Pilgrim Road (passenger cars and trucks).

The signalized intersection of Brookline Ave at BIDMC Main Entrance/Short Street is proposed to operate restricting left turns via the northbound Brookline Ave approach and with a concurrent pedestrian crossing. All other movements are not restricted at this intersection and would be identical to how they are accommodated under current conditions. Note that the green time allocation for Brookline Avenue and the BIDMC driveway will not change with this modification in place – and their respective operations will not be materially different than they are today. This driveway will

Appendix A – Transportation A-28

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

provide access to a drop-off supporting the western-most commercial building and a parking portal for the entire site.

The new proposed intersection of Brookline Ave at New Midblock Driveway is proposed to be signalized and not restrict any vehicle movements with a concurrent pedestrian crossing across Brookline Avenue and connecting to the Colleges of the Fenway. This is the primary route for many passenger cars and all large service vehicles supporting Project.

2028 Build Condition Traffic Volumes The Project-generated vehicle trips, as shown previously in Table A.8, were assigned to the Project driveways. The morning and evening Project-generated vehicle trips, as they are distributed throughout the network, are shown in Figures A.17 and A.18.

These new vehicle trips were then added to the 2028 No-Build Condition traffic networks. The resulting 2028 Build Condition networks are shown in Figures A.19 and A.20 for the weekday morning peak and evening peak hour, respectively.

Project-Initiated Roadway / Operational Improvements With the implementation of the Project, the following roadway and intersection improvements are being considered and are appropriately incorporated into the 2028 Build Condition: Working with the Winsor School The project team held several very collaborative working meetings with the Winsor School staff, where it was discussed how the Project could support a better pick-up and drop-off solution for the Winsor School for both parents and buses given their close proximity to the project. The following items were identified as possible improvements to the Winsor School pick-up and drop-off sequence:      

Widening Pilgrim Road / more space for pick-up/drop-off (both parents/caregivers + buses) Dedicated use of a lane on Pilgrim Road just for the pick-up & drop-off periods Safer crossings for students Ability for Winsor traffic to exit onto Short Street Extension Ability for both left and right turns out of Short Street Extension onto Brookline Ave Mitigate commercial delivery vehicle usage on Pilgrim Road

Following outcomes of these meetings with the Winsor School as well as considerations of BTD’s Complete Street Guidelines, the following roadway changes are proposed with the Project.

Pilgrim Road Improvements The Project proposes to widen the existing Pilgrim Road to provide added space for the vehicular traffic and operational needs of the site’s abutters in an effort to

Appendix A – Transportation A-29

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

alleviate backups that exist today and eliminate challenges of access around the site for the future development. The widening of Pilgrim will include space for existing Resident Permit parking, a generous westbound travel lane, and the introduction of a mountable, grade-separated, hybrid, landscaped, loading lane on the Project site side of the road (outside the public right-of-way). The widening will also include space for 3 buses to queue on the north curb adjacent to Short Street. The landscaped hybrid lane will support intermittent standing of vehicles during times of pick-up and drop-off for the Winsor School as well as various programming opportunities such as food trucks and other mobile service vehicles like blood donation centers.

Short Street Improvements The Project proposes significantly improved access for all modes, and most notably pedestrians and cyclists, throughout Short Street between Riverway and Brookline Ave with the Project in place requiring that Short Street be integrated into the traffic signal at Brookline Ave at BIDMC Main Entrance. The change proposes the reconstruction of the existing brick pathway between Pilgrim Road and Brookline Ave and its replacement with a proposed cross-section including a grade-separated 12’ multi-use path with 2’ buffer on each side and two 11’ vehicle travel lanes to and from the proposed site driveway. All roadway improvements will be consistent with the objectives of BTD’s Complete Street Guidelines.

In addition, north of the garage driveway on Short Street, the Proponent will allow space for the Winsor School to queue one school or Coach bus for athletic games afterschool.

Brookline Ave Improvements The Project supports installment of a 6’ grade-separated bicycle lane with 2’ buffer between Longwood and Fenway/Riverway on the north side of Brookline Ave. All roadway improvements will be consistent with the objectives of BTD’s Complete Street Guidelines and support the goals to create corridors that are comfortable for all ages and abilities including children (as noted in Section A.9.1).

Further, and detailed in section A.9.2, the Project supports the construction of floating bus stops at the Brookline Ave at Pilgrim Rd and Brookline Avenue at Short Street stops to protect bicyclists from conflicting MBTA bus maneuvers.

A.6 Proposed Parking A.6.1

Vehicle Parking Existing Parking The existing parking supply accommodated on the Project Site includes two small surface lots with two (2) curb-cuts located on Pilgrim Rd with approximately 28

Appendix A – Transportation A-30

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

parking spaces in total which serve the Simmons Residential staff. The existing surface parking lots will be taken out of service in connection with future implementation of the Project.

On-site Private Parking The proposed Project is contemplated as a mixed-use development that is anticipated to consist of a combination of retail, R&D/office, and residential components. Table A.9 summarizes the parking demand ratios for each of the development parcels, as based on the latest Boston Transportation Department (BTD) Parking Guidelines.

Table A.9

Parking Zoning Maximums Maximum Parking Ratioi

Proposed Parking Spaces

Use

Program

Residential

200 units

0.50 per unit

100

R&D/Office

1,516,000 SF

0.60 per KSF

910

Retail

47,000 SF

0.60 per KSF

29

Total Supply to Support Project Components

1,039

Existing On-Site Parking Supply to be Eliminated

( -28)

Net-New Parking Supply

1,011

Source: Bike Parking Guidelines_v2.1.pdf (boston.gov)

As shown in Table A.9, the estimated parking supply for the Project is approximately 1,039 spaces based on BTD Parking Guidelines. Building upon the transit- and urban-mobility-oriented principles of the Project, trending in declining parking needs in Boston, and in response to local transportation goals, the Project will seek to minimize dependence on auto travel and will implement a comprehensive package of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce auto trips and parking demand. It is envisioned that the garages will include designated spaces for carsharing companies (such as ZipCar) driven by future anticipated demand. To further encourage travel by modes other than private automobile, short- and long-term bicycle parking will be provided. Additionally, the Project will comply with the City’s Electric Vehicle Readiness Policy11, which requires that 25 percent of parking spaces in a new development be “EVSE (electric vehicle supply equipment) installed”, and the remaining 75 percent of parking spaces be “EV (electric vehicle) ready” for future installation, to the maximum extent possible.

The Proponent is committed to managing the on-site parking supply to minimize its impact on the adjacent street network and to encourage its tenants to promote the use of public transportation, walking, or bicycling to access the site.

11

EV Readiness Policy For New Developments_1_1(1).pdf (boston.gov)

Appendix A – Transportation A-31

Longwood Place

A.6.2

PDA Submission

Bicycle Parking Consistent with the City’s goals, the Proponent will provide bicycle storage on-site for both employees and visitors in accordance with City Guidelines.

Secure bicycle storage will be provided within the building to encourage cycling as a healthy and environmentally friendly means to commute. The Proponent will work with BTD to satisfy bicycle demand at the Project Site. The number of short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces are shown in Table A.10.

Table A.10 Proposed Bicycle Parking Short-Term Bike Parking Program

Size

Rate

R&D/Office

1,516,000 sf

1 space per 20,000 sf

76

1 space per 2,500 sf

608

Residential

200 units

1 space per 5 units

40

1 space per unit

200

Retail

47,000 sf

1 space per 5,000 sf

10

1 space per 3,000 sf

Project Total

Spaces

Long-Term Bike Parking

Short-term Bike Parking:

126

Rate

Long-term Bike Parking:

Spaces

16 824

Source: City of Boston Bike Parking Guidelines, January 2021

As required in the City of Boston’s Bike Parking Guidelines, Version 2.0 (January 2020), at least 824 secure indoor bicycle spaces will be available for employees and residents. In addition, on-site shower and locker facilities will be provided for employees. At least 126 publicly accessible short-term bicycle storage spaces will be highly visible and convenient for visitors arriving on bicycle.

A.7 Proposed Service and Loading This section provides an overview of the loading and service elements of the proposed Project. Loading for each of the buildings will be provided below-grade and within dedicated loading docks directly connected to respective building cores.

The locations of the loading docks were presented previously for each building in their respective Conceptual Site Plans (Figure A.2a). It is expected that some service and delivery trips will accommodate multiple buildings and therefore reduce the number of total Project generated truck trips. The proposed buildings will likely have a delivery manager that will help schedule and reduce the number of trucks being generated by consolidating deliveries and schedule them outside of commuting peak hours.

A.7.1

Truck Access and Routing Most service vehicles will enter and exit the site via the new mid-block driveway with direct access to the below-grade system of loading docks serving the four buildings.

Trucks will also exit the site via this same portal and route. Further, trucks are restricted on the Riverway, and as such, will also not travel on Short Street Extension.

Some smaller service and delivery activities may occur at the building-designate drop-

Appendix A – Transportation A-32

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

off areas, and these smaller trucks and vans would make use of the mid-block driveway, Pilgrim Road, and Short Street to complete those operations.

Service and delivery trucks will be directed to access the Project site using only designated truck routes as directed by MassDOT. Regionally, trucks will use I-90, Massachusetts Avenue, and Route 9, while avoiding Storrow Drive. Locally, trucks will use Brookline Avenue and Boylston Street to access the Project site and are prohibited from making use of nearby parkways such as the Fenway and the Riverway.

A.8 Transit Assessment A comprehensive transit capacity analysis was completed to identify bus and rail transit service segments in the MBTA system that may need additional service (either more frequent service, or adjustments to existing patterns of service trips) to address any passenger overcrowding that may be caused by the Project’s development. This analysis compares the 2021 Existing, 2028 No-Build, and 2028 Build ridership levels and the expected level of performance on these service routes associated with passenger crowding, based on the standards and thresholds noted in the MBTA’s 2017 Service Delivery Policy (“SDP”).

For this study, the MBTA Routes 8, 19, 47, 60, 65, CT2, and CT3 bus service were evaluated for Project impacts on passenger capacity, along with the Green Line D branch.

The analysis requires estimating future passenger activity and establishing assumptions for future transit service levels. These future conditions are compared against existing conditions. The analysis helps inform how well the transit system can accommodate future passenger demands.

This section contains the following information:

› › › › A.8.1

Methodology Existing MBTA Service Capacity Projected Ridership and Distribution of Project-Generated Transit Trips Future Transit Service Capacity Analysis

Methodology The capacity analysis results in a comparison of the expected demand for transit to the existing and planned capacity of the service. Thus, for service routes, we first identify the service segments that are expected to be used by riders generated by the proposed Project. For each service, we identify the peak passenger load point – the service segment that is most crowded, based on existing ridership, for each bus trip, commuter rail trip, or half-hour service period on rapid transit. These passenger loads are compared against the service’s capacity.

Appendix A – Transportation A-33

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

The capacity threshold of the transit services is based on the MBTA’s Service Delivery Policy.12 For the passenger comfort standard, which is based on vehicle capacity and riders, the standard sets the level of passenger crowding that is acceptable by transit mode and time period (or trip). Generally, the vehicle load assumes all seats on the vehicle will be occupied and some passengers may stand as well, before the condition is determined to be “overcrowded.” The standard varies by service period: generally, high-volume (peak periods) have a higher threshold than low volume (offpeak) periods. (In other words, the standard “accepts” more crowding during rush hour service than at other service periods of the day.)

The intent of applying this method is to identify segments in the MBTA system that may need additional service (more trips) to address overcrowding. These transit capacity analyses are performed consistent with MassDOT Office of Performance Management and Innovation (OPMI) and MBTA analysis methods used since the issuance of the 2017 SDP. To estimate the expected growth in transit ridership between the Existing Condition and the future No-Build Condition, an average annual passenger growth rate is applied based on the Boston MPO’s CTPS Regional Travel Demand Model projections for daily ridership by transit service. (These are reported in the Boston MPO’s longrange regional transportation plan.) The calculated average annual growth rates are applied to existing ridership (data provided by the MBTA). The details of the existing and future transit capacity analyses are provided in the following sections.

A.8.2

Existing Conditions Bus Passenger Crowding For the passenger crowding analysis, we apply the vehicle (bus) load standard dictated

by MBTA’s Service Delivery Policy.13 The MBTA’s average bus fleet has a seated capacity of 38 passengers (for the 40-foot buses), resulting in a policy capacity (hereafter referred to as the passenger crowding threshold) equal to 53 passengers during the peak periods and equal to 47 passengers during off-peak periods.14 Table A.11 presents the average passenger levels at the peak load point for the study’s analysis segments for each of the bus services. These passenger loads are compared against the crowding threshold. A graphical representation of the peak passenger load point for each individual bus route for the existing condition is presented in Figure Series A.21.

MBTA Route 47 Inbound and Route 65 Inbound and Outbound each experience trips that have passenger loads exceeding the MBTA’s SDP passenger crowding

12 Service Delivery Policy, 2017 Update; Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA); January 23, 2017. Table B-1, p. 45.

13 Service Delivery Policy, 2017 Update, MBTA, approved January 23, 2017, pp. 26-27.

14 MBTA Average Fleet Seating – CY2019, as provided by MassDOT OPMI on July 6, 2020. Note that the capacities presented are rounded down to the nearest whole number. Seated capacity on MBTA buses ranges from 37 to 40 seats for its fleet of 40-foot vehicles. The offpeak load standard is 125 percent of seated capacity, whereas the peak load standard is 140 percent of seated capacity.

Appendix A – Transportation A-34

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

threshold. The MBTA Route 65 Inbound service experiences the most trips exceeding this threshold, with four trips during its typical service weekday.

Table A.11 Route-Level Summary of Passenger Crowding (Weekday Bus Service) Existing (Fall 2019) Number of Trips at Project Site

Service Route (analysis segment) 8

19

47

60

65

Number of Trips Exceeding Threshold

Inbound (b/w Ruggles and Kenmore)

40

Outbound (b/w Kenmore and Ruggles)

39

–

79

Average pax per Trip:

Inbound (b/w Ruggles and Kenmore)

19

–

Outbound (b/w Kenmore and Ruggles)

20

–

39

Average pax per Trip:

Inbound (b/w Central Square and Ruggles)

55

3

8

Outbound (b/w Ruggles and Central Square)

55

–

–

(Route 47 does not directly serve the Project Site)

110

Average pax per Trip:

3

Inbound (b/w Chestnut Hill Mall and Kenmore)

35

–

–

Outbound (b/w Kenmore and Chestnut Hill Mall)

36

–

–

71

Average pax per Trip:

n/a

Inbound (b/w Brighton Center and Kenmore)

38

4

15

Outbound (b/w Kenmore and Brighton Center)

35

2

3

73

Average pax per Trip:

3

27

–

–

25

–

–

52

Average pax per Trip:

30

–

29

–

59

Average pax per Trip:

n/a

9

27

CT2 Inbound (b/w Sullivan and Ruggles) Outbound (b/w Ruggles and Sullivan) CT3 Inbound (b/w BIDMC and Andrew) Outbound (b/w Andrew and BIDMC Total

483

–

Total Passengers Over Threshold – – n/a – – n/a

n/a – –

For trips scheduled to start 07:00-08:59 or 16:00-18:29 weekdays (peak periods), the passenger crowding threshold is 53 passengers; for trips scheduled to start at other times and on weekends (off-peak periods), the threshold is 47 passengers.

Bus Passenger Comfort Metric Additionally, the MBTA Service Delivery Policy defines a passenger comfort standard for the percent of passenger travel time experienced in comfortable conditions that includes a minimum of 92 percent of travel time per bus passenger and target of 96

Appendix A – Transportation A-35

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

percent of travel time per bus passenger experienced in comfortable conditions.15 This is a metric that is calculated by MassDOT’s OPMI for the MBTA, and is reported here for reference.16 Among the routes that directly serve the Project Site along Brookline Avenue, three routes exceed (meet) the MBTA’s standard for this metric: Route 8 bus service had an SDP comfort metric of 97.8 percent of passenger minutes in comfortable conditions (weekday service), Route 60 had an SDP comfort metric of 99.9 percent, and Route CT2 had an SDP comfort metric of 97.5 percent. These routes are in the desired (target) range for passenger comfort conditions. One route, Route 19, exceeds (meets) the MBTA’s standard for this metric but is below the desired target level; the bus service had an SDP comfort metric of 93.0 percent of passenger minutes in comfortable conditions (weekday service). This route is deemed to be in an acceptable range for passenger comfort conditions.

The Route 65 bus service has an SDP comfort metric of 78.9 percent of passenger minutes in comfortable conditions (weekday service) and does not meet the MBTA’s minimum standard of 92 percent. Route 47, with an SDP comfort metric of 86.8 percent, also does not meet the MBTA’s minimum standard. In other words, these routes are not within the desired range for passenger comfort conditions.

Existing MBTA Green Line Capacity (Trunk Section) The capacity of the Green Line service is determined by the number, type, and frequency of trains in service during each service period. At a peak service time, the Green Line is expected to handle 1,000 passengers per each 30-minute period during the peak periods (rush hour service), when trains are scheduled to run 6-minute headways (Table A.12). During the midday and evening periods, those capacity loads are lower as a result of fewer trains in service, resulting in increased headways and fewer trips per period. The trunk section of the Green Line is defined as the section between Kenmore Station and Government Center, where all Green Line branches merge.

15 Service Delivery Policy, 2017 Update; MBTA; approved January 23, 2017.

16 Passenger comfort metric provided by MassDOT OPMI, July 6, 2020. Values represent Fall 2019 weekday conditions.

Appendix A – Transportation A-36

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.12 MBTA Green Line Capacity by Service Period MBTA Policy Max Passenger Load per Car1

Cars per Train

MBTA Policy Max Passenger Load per Train

Train Headways (minutes)2

Trains per 30 Minutes

MBTA Policy Max Load per 30-Minute

Period

Time

Sunrise

3:00 AM - 5:59 AM

66

2

132

11

2.7

360

Early AM

6:00 AM - 6:29 AM

100

2

200

11

2.7

545

Early AM (Rush Hr)

6:30 AM - 6:59 AM

100

2

200

6

5.0

1,000

AM Peak (Rush Hr)

7:00 AM - 8:59 AM

100

2

200

6

5.0

1,000

Midday Base

9:00 AM - 1:29 PM

66

2

132

8

3.8

495

Midday School

1:30 PM - 3:29 PM

100

2

200

8

3.8

750

Midday School (Rush Hr)

3:30 PM - 3:59 PM

100

2

200

6

5.0

1,000

PM Peak (Rush Hr)

4:00 PM - 6:30 PM

100

2

200

6

5.0

1,000

Evening

6:30 PM - 7:59 PM

66

2

132

8

3.8

495

Late Evening/Night

8:00 PM - 11:59 PM

66

2

132

11

2.7

360

Late Night 12:00 AM - 2:59 AM 66 2 132 11 2.7 360 1 Passenger Comfort Load Standard for Green Line vehicle Type 7/Type 8, per MBTA Service Delivery Policy (2017), Table B2 "Vehicle Load On Light Rail, Heavy Rail". Early AM, AM Peak, Midday School, and PM Peak periods have a higher vehicle load than other periods.

2 MBTA Rapid Transit Schedule, Effective September 1, 2019 - December 30, 2019. Headways for unpublished service periods are assumed.

VHB reviewed the MBTA’s data reflecting Fall 2019 Green Line Passenger Load Profiles17 to perform a transit capacity (line haul) analysis. The capacity analysis is based on the maximum load point on the entire line; the maximum load point is defined as the point along the line that carries the greatest number of passengers. The peak load point of the Green Line often occurs in the trunk section served by all four branches.

The passenger loads represent the average condition for the Fall weekday activity, which are presented in Figure Series A.22.

Based on existing conditions, the MBTA meets its current policy passenger load threshold along the trunk section of the Green Line for Inbound and Outbound Service. The points at which passenger loads most closely approach the threshold are called the “shoulder peak” periods, which occur from 9:00 AM to 9:30 AM and 6:30 PM to 7:30 PM. During these periods, the service frequency changes from sixminute headways to eight-minute headways, and the policy threshold decreases from a peak period policy maximum of 100 passengers per train car to an off-peak policy max of 66 passengers per train car. However, the Fall 2019 passenger loads during the shoulder periods for both Inbound and Outbound service are consistently 100 or more passengers below the policy threshold.

Planned MBTA Green Line Improvements The MBTA has plans for substantial investment in the MBTA system over the next ten-to-twenty years. The improvements include State of Good Repair (SGR) projects geared toward track, signals, and power infrastructure upgrades, the procurement of

17 Green Line Load Profile (aka Rail flow data), Weekday, Fall 2019. Available at the MBTA’s Open Data Portal website mbtamassdot.opendata.arcgis.com.

Appendix A – Transportation A-37

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

new Type 9, and eventually the introduction of Type 10 “Supercar” vehicles with expanded capacity.18 Type 9 cars that are currently being deployed to the Green Line D branch (in support of the Green Line Extension project scheduled to open in late 2021) have room for up to 10 percent more passengers as compared to the older cars in the existing fleet.19 The Type 10 vehicles will have an even higher capacity per vehicle than the older vehicles, and according to the MBTA’s materials, will provide a 15-percent greater peak period core capacity in the central subway) initially and 50-percent increase in capacity with both D and E branches operating 2-Supercar trains.20 The combination of new passenger cars and increased service reliability is expected to accommodate passenger demand growth on the Green Line.

While the Green Line Transformation project and the procurement of new vehicles is expected to increase capacity and service on the Green Line, it is not expected that all improvements will be completed prior to the future build year of 2028. These MBTA projects are included for reference and the future passenger capacity analyses only includes the introduction of the Type 9 train cars into service.

A.8.3

Future Conditions: Transit Ridership and Service Levels Service Levels For the purpose of analyzing future conditions, VHB has assumed the same level of service (frequency, trips, and service span) as what is provided in Fall 2019 (base analysis year for buses and subway). In other words, the existing transit routes serving the Project Site today will continue to operate with the same service in 2028.

Transit Ridership: No-Build Background Growth MBTA Bus The future condition bus transit analyses are based on the horizon year 2028. The 2028 No-Build analysis applies a local bus growth in passengers of approximately 0.22 percent annually, based on the projections expressed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) regional travel demand model (maintained by CTPS21) forecasts for changes in weekday ridership from the baseline levels. This growth rate is applied to the average passenger load at the peak load point for each analysis time period.

Green Line The future 2028 condition analysis for the Green Line applies an annual growth rate in passengers of 1.01 percent, based on the projections expressed by the Boston

18 Focus40, Positioning the MBTA to Meet the Needs of the Region in 2040; MBTA; March 2019.

19 www.mbta.com/projects/new-green-line-vehicles 20 Source: MBTA presentation on the Green Line Transformation (Public Meeting, September 2019), slides 4 and 17, available at https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2019-09/GLT-public-meeting-presentation-accessible-v2.pdf 21 The 0.22 percent annualized growth rate for buses was calculated from Destination 2040: Long-Range Transportation Plan: Model Results; Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS, 2019), for local bus weekday passenger growth.

Appendix A – Transportation A-38

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) regional travel demand model22 forecasts for changes in weekday ridership from the baseline levels. That study applied the regional travel demand model to forecast future (background) growth based on expected new urban development projects in the metropolitan area’s core.

This growth rate is applied to the Fall 2019 passenger volumes as a basis for the 2028 No-Build Conditions. Additionally, background passenger transit volumes from specific area developments are added to the future No-Build Conditions to account for the high level of development in the Fenway/Longwood neighborhoods.

Transit Ridership: Project-Generated Trips The Project is estimated to generate 603 additional transit trips during the morning peak hour and 606 additional transit trips during the evening peak hour (Table A.13).

To calculate a daily transit trip generation, the existing bus ridership by half hour was examined in order to calculate what percent of the daily transit trips occur during each peak hour in each direction (inbound and outbound). The Project-generated transit trips were then proportionally grown to project the daily transit trips expected.

Table A.13

Project-generated Transit Trips Project Generated Trips

Percentage of existing daily transit trips during the same peak hour

560

18.5%

560 ÷ 18.5% = 3,027

43

7.2%

43 ÷ 7.2% = 599

Calculated daily Project Generated Transit Trips

Morning Peak Hour Enter Exit Total

Median (3,027, 599) = 1,813 (low estimate)

603

Evening Peak Hour Enter

66

5.8%

66 ÷ 5.8% = 1,129

Exit

540

14.8%

606 ÷ 20.3% = 3,658

Total

606

Daily Project Transit Trips (one direction) Daily Project Transit Trips (both directions)

Median (1,129, 3,658) = 2,395 (high estimate) Median (1,813, 2,395) = 2,110 2,110 x 2 = 4,220

The distribution of Project transit trips among the services are assigned as follows: 37 percent of riders would use MBTA bus routes, 53 percent of riders would use the MBTA Green Line, and 10 percent of riders would use the Commuter Rail (via either Lansdowne or Ruggles Station). (This assumption is consistent with recent Census

22 The 1.01 percent annualized growth rate for subway was calculated from Destination 2040: Long-Range Transportation Plan: Model Results; Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS, 2019), for local Green Line weekday passenger growth.

Appendix A – Transportation A-39

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

data from 2012-2016 for employees and residents of the Longwood Neighborhood).

In conjunction with that basis on recent Census data for trip origin-destinations, the total number of Project transit trips were distributed across all nearby, available transit routes accounting for existing boarding and alightings at stops closest to or within approximately 0.25 mile of the Project.

MBTA Bus The existing passenger loads on the bus services along Brookline Avenue are used to represent the daily variation in activity (demand) on bus transit, in each direction.

The total daily transit trips are then distributed among the bus services, by direction, to investigate the passenger loads on each bus trip.

The result of this process yields an estimated daily new bus ridership of 1,562 passengers (i.e., 37 percent of new transit trips). These passengers are distributed among the bus services based on the respective areas served and the employee commute origins as reported in BTD’s Access Boston 2000-2010 trip distribution table for Zone 5. The resulting assignment of transit riders to the bus services is shown in Table A.14 below.

Table A.14 Assignment of Project Transit Ridership to Bus Services To Site % In

Route Bus 60

Inbound Outbound

Bus 65

Inbound Outbound

Bus 8

Inbound Outbound

Bus 19

Inbound Outbound

Bus 47

Inbound Outbound

Bus CT2 Bus CT3

Inbound

From Site % Out

9%

2%

2%

9%

14%

2%

2%

14%

15%

2%

2%

15%

11%

2%

2%

11%

13%

7%

7%

13%

15%

3%

Outbound

3%

15%

Inbound

0%

5%

Outbound

5%

0%

100%

100%

76%

76%

Total In the peak direction

Passenger distribution among the scheduled trips during the service weekday is based on today’s passenger load patterns experienced collectively on the bus services that operate near the Project Site along Brookline Avenue. For e.g., the highest number of riders traveling to the Project Site in the morning are expected to

Appendix A – Transportation A-40

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

be on bus trips during the 8:00 AM hour and the highest number of riders traveling from the Project Site in the evening will be on bus trips in the 4:30 PM hour period.

Green Line Based on the expected split of Project-generated transit riders among modes, 53 percent for the MBTA Green Line, a daily total of 2,237 riders are estimated as a result of the Project. These riders were added to the future expected riders of the Green Line to create a 2028 Build Condition. The trip assignment among the Green Line branches results in 80 percent of the trips expected to travel via the peak load point in the trunk section of the Green Line, whereas the remaining riders are split among the branches to the west.

Transit Capacity Analysis: Results MBTA Bus A summary of the future bus passenger crowding is presented in Table A.15. A graphical representation of the peak passenger load point for each individual bus route for the existing condition is presented in Figure Series A.23. These charts illustrate the Fall 2019 ridership and estimated 2028 No-Build and Build ridership levels at the peak load point for each bus trip in comparison to the available policy capacity. In other words, they illustrate the added passenger demand on the bus routes for the future condition, accounting for background growth and Projectgenerated trips, assuming today’s service levels.

In addition to the 9 bus trips exceeding passenger crowding thresholds in the 2028 No-Build condition, 13 additional bus trips (22 trips in total) of the nearly 500 daily trips serving the area may exceed crowding thresholds as a result of the Project (when factoring in both background passengers added and Project passengers).

Table A.15 Route-Level Summary of Passenger Crowding (Weekday Bus Service) Existing (Fall 2019)

40

–

–

–

–

–

–

Outbound

39

–

–

–

–

–

–

Inbound Outbound

19 20 39

47

– –

n/a

Average pax per Trip:

– –

Average pax per Trip:

– –

n/a

Average pax per Trip:

n/a – – n/a

Number of Trips Exceeding Threshold

Total Passengers Over Threshold

Inbound

Average pax per Trip:

Number of Trips Exceeding Threshold

Total Passengers Over Threshold

Number of Trips Exceeding Threshold

79 19

Total Passengers Over Threshold

2028 Build

Number of Bus Trips at Project Site

Service Route (analysis segment) 8

2028 No Build

Average pax per Trip: 2 – Average pax per Trip:

4 4 – 6

Inbound

55

3

8

3

12

7

26

Outbound

55

–

–

–

–

4

8

Appendix A – Transportation A-41

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.15 Route-Level Summary of Passenger Crowding (Weekday Bus Service) Existing (Fall 2019)

Service Route (analysis segment)

Number of Bus Trips at Project Site

Number of Trips Exceeding Threshold

110 60

Average pax per Trip:

Average pax per Trip:

3

–

–

–

–

–

–

36

–

–

–

–

–

–

Inbound Outbound

Average pax per Trip:

38 35

4 2

n/a

Average pax per Trip:

15 3

Average pax per Trip:

4 2

3

Average pax per Trip:

n/a 19 6 4

Average pax per Trip: 6 3

5 31 15

Average pax per Trip:

5

Inbound

27

–

–

–

–

–

–

Outbound

25

–

–

–

–

–

–

Average pax per Trip:

n/a

Average pax per Trip:

4

Average pax per Trip:

6

Inbound

30

–

–

–

–

–

–

Outbound

29

–

–

–

–

–

–

59 Total

4

Total Passengers Over Threshold

35

52 CT3

Average pax per Trip:

Number of Trips Exceeding Threshold

Outbound

73 CT2

3

Number of Trips Exceeding Threshold

2028 Build

Total Passengers Over Threshold

Inbound

71 65

2028 No Build

Total Passengers Over Threshold

Average pax per Trip:

483

9

n/a

Average pax per Trip:

27

9

n/a 37

Average pax per Trip: 22

4 84

Route 47 is anticipated to see the most significant changes compared to the No-Build conditions, with 4 additional trips exceeding the threshold in the inbound direction and 4 additional trips exceeding the threshold in the outbound direction.

In the No-Build condition, Route 47 Outbound is anticipated to have zero trips exceeding the crowding threshold; however, in the Build condition it is anticipated to have 4 trips exceeding the threshold by 8 total passengers.

In addition, the following routes experience an increase in trips exceeding the threshold due to the Project when compared to the No-Build:

›

Route 19 Inbound could experience 2 trips exceeding the threshold by 4 passengers total, an additional 2 trips when compared to the No-Build.

›

Route 65:

 Route 65 Inbound could experience 6 trips exceeding the threshold by 31 passengers total, an additional 2 trips when compared to the NoBuild.

 Route 65 Outbound could experience 3 trips exceeding the threshold by 15 passengers total, an additional trip when compared to the No-Build.

Green Line Figure Series A.24 shows the expected future passenger loads relative to the planned transit service capacity at the peak load point for the Green Line. (The peak load point varies by time of day, but it is typically either between Boylston and

Appendix A – Transportation A-42

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Arlington, Copley and Hynes, or Hynes and Kenmore.) Project-generated trips are assumed to pass through the peak load point on the Green Line. For reference, the charts illustrate the expected 10-percent capacity increase of the Green Line service with the introduction of the Type 9 train cars.

Upon review of the Green Line’s service, under a 2028 No-Build condition, the “shoulder” of the PM peak period (between 6:30 PM and 7:00 PM) of the Inbound service, along with the “shoulder” of the AM peak period (between 9:00 AM and 9:30 AM) of the Outbound service, are both expected to have average peak passenger loads above the MBTA’s current policy capacity thresholds (as applied to an off-peak threshold), by about 45 and 112 passengers, respectively. Under the 2028 Build condition, the Project generates additional passenger loads that would trigger a new exceedance of the policy capacity threshold in the “shoulder” of the AM peak period in the Inbound direction, between 9:00 AM and 9:30 AM, by about 10 passengers in that half-hour period, and during the PM peak period, between 5:00 PM and 5:30 PM, by about 31 passengers in that half hour period. A new exceedance would also be triggered in the “shoulder” of the PM peak period in the Outbound direction, between 6:30 PM and 7:00 PM, by about 23 new passengers in that half-hour period.

Essentially, these projections illustrate that providing additional trains for another 30 minutes in the “shoulder” period or a change in train car capacity would improve these service conditions.

With the planned capacity enhancements gained with the introduction of Type 9 train cars, the MBTA Green Line is expected to address new exceedances projected during the 2028 Build Conditions. With the introduction of type 10 “Supercar” train cars, the MBTA Green Line is expected to address all the service’s capacity limitations seen today and meet the MBTA’s policy capacity standard with these anticipated projected ridership volumes. As detailed earlier, the Type 10 “Supercar” vehicles will have more capacity per vehicle than the older vehicles (about 80 percent more), which will accommodate growth needs on the Green Line (and, according to the MBTA’s materials, will provide a 10- to 15-percent more peak core capacity in the central subway system upon its initial deployment).

Bus Transit Delay Assessment This section provides a high-level quantitative assessment of roadway traffic delay impacts on the MBTA bus routes operating within the study network. This assessment does not constitute a complete transit delay study - the assessment instead relies on the results of the standard traffic operations analysis and the assumption that intersection approaches which experience high levels of vehicular delay create equivalent levels of delay for buses operating in mixed traffic.

Intersection movements with high levels of bus passenger delay will be identified and recommended for further study to determine feasibility of bus transit priority measures. This approach aims to replicate the success of the bus transit priority component of the MBTA Better Bus Project, which targets opportunities for transit priority measures including transit signal priority (TSP), dedicated bus lanes, and queue jumps.

Appendix A – Transportation A-43

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Bus transit priority measures provide numerous operational and service benefits to the MBTA and its riders, including:

› › › › › A.8.4

Faster trip times Improved service reliability Reduced run time variability Improved headway maintenance Potential increase in effective service frequency

Methodology This analysis makes use of the vehicular delay results that are presented later in the traffic operations analysis discussion of Section A.12. Each bus route is assigned to the intersection movements through which it passes, and all intersection movements servicing buses were isolated from the traffic operations analysis results. The routes corresponding to each movement are included in the results table along with the total number of peak hour scheduled buses on those routes, average total passenger loading, and resulting passenger-hours of delay.

Bus routes were determined using the Fall 2021 schedules and route maps posted by the MBTA. The number of scheduled buses and average passenger load per peak hour were determined using the public MBTA Bus Ridership dataset for the Fall 2019 season. Note that passenger load values are approximate and reflect the average load of each route through the entire study segment.

Together, the table includes the following information for each intersection movement:

› › › › ›

Average total vehicle delay, in seconds per vehicle (Existing, No-Build, Build) Level of Service (LOS) (Existing, No-Build, Build) Bus routes making each movement Number of buses making each movement in the peak hour Resulting passenger delay based on average passenger loads, in passengerhours (Existing, No-Build, Build)

The resulting table allows for a high-level quantitative assessment of bus operational and passenger delay at each intersection, and a comparison of delay severity between intersections and specific approaches.

A.8.5

Bus Routing Seven MBTA bus routes operate along at least one segment of the study network, the 8, 19, 47, 60, 65, CT2, and CT3. As shown in Figure A.11, all routes travel along Brookline Ave between Justine Mee Liff Park and Longwood Avenue. At Longwood Avenue the 8, 19, 46, CT2, and CT3 split off in the direction of Huntington Avenue, while the 60 and 65 continue along Brookline Avenue toward Riverway. At the Justine Mee Liff Park the 47 and CT2 are routed to/from the north along Park Drive,

Appendix A – Transportation A-44

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

while the CT3 turns southbound on Fenway and the 8, 19, 60, and 65 continue along Brookline Avenue toward Kenmore. No buses are routed along Riverway outside of the Justine Mee Liff Park.

The study area intersections through which buses are routed include:

› › › › › › › › › › ›

Riverway /Riverway Ext at Fenway & Park Dr Fenway at Riverway Brookline Ave at Fenway Brookline Ave at Park Dr & Boylston St Park Dr at Landmark Center South Drive Riverway Ext/Landmark Center North Drive at Park Dr Brookline Ave at BIDMC East Campus Entrance Brookline Ave & Longwood Ave Brookline Ave at Jimmy Fund Way/Deaconess Rd Brookline Ave at Francis St Brookline Ave at Riverway

Several additional bus routes including the 9 and 57 make occasional school-related trips within the study area but are excluded from this assessment due to their infrequency.

A.8.6

Traffic Delay For each intersection movement, Table A.16 details the impacted bus routes, number of peak hour buses, passenger load, vehicle delay, and resulting passenger delay. Viewed together, this information allows for a high-level quantitative assessment of bus operational delay and passenger delay occurring at each intersection movement.

Several intersection movements stand out with above average levels of passenger delay in the 2028 Build condition:

›

Riverway /Riverway Ext at Fenway & Park Dr o

›

Brookline Ave at Park Dr & Boylston St o

›

›

4.5 hours of delay for the AM SBT movement 18.4 hours of delay for the PM SWT movement

Brookline Ave at BIDMC East Campus Entrance o

6.0 hours of delay for the AM NET movement

o

10.9 hours of delay for the AM SWT movement

o

4.3 hours of delay for the PM SWT movement

Brookline Ave & Longwood Ave o

11.4 hours of delay for the AM NWR movement

o

5.5 hours of delay for the AM SWL movement

Appendix A – Transportation A-45

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

o

›

Brookline Ave at Francis St o

›

7.9 hours of delay for the PM NWR movement 25.3 hours of delay for the PM NET movement

Brookline Ave at Riverway o

4.0 hours of delay for the AM NET movement

These intersections warrant further study and consideration for bus priority treatments, which are discussed in the following section.

Table A.16 Transit Delay Analysis Location / Movement

2021 Existing

No. Buses a

Ridership b

47, CT2

7

238

48

D

47, CT2

6

121

40

47, CT2

7

238

47, CT2

6

SER

47, CT2

NET SWT

Bus Routes

Del

c

LOS

d

2028 No-Build

P-Del

e

2028 Build

Del

LOS

P-Del

Del

LOS

P-Del

3.2

58

E

3.8

68

E

4.5

D

1.3

41

D

1.4

43

D

1.4

27

C

1.8

28

C

1.9

29

C

1.9

121

24

C

0.8

25

C

0.8

25

C

0.8

7

238

18

B

1.2

18

B

1.2

21

C

1.4

47, CT2, 8, 19, 60, 65

22

531

8

A

1.2

10

A

1.5

15

B

2.2

8, 19, 60, 65

13

112

16

B

0.5

20

C

0.6

29

C

0.9

SER

47, CT2

6

121

9

A

0.3

8

A

0.3

12

B

0.4

NET

47, CT2, 8, 19, 60, 65

15

365

25

C

2.5

27

C

2.7

33

C

3.3

SWT

8, 19, 60, 65

10

334

17

B

1.6

27

C

2.5

28

C

2.6

Riverway /Riverway Ext at Fenway & Park Dr Weekday Morning SB T Weekday Evening SB T Fenway at Riverway Weekday Morning SE T Weekday Evening SE T Brookline Ave at Fenway Weekday Morning

Weekday Evening

Brookline Ave at Park Dr & Boylston St Weekday Morning NEL

47, CT2

7

129

48

D

1.7

74

E

2.6

76

E

2.7

NET

8, 19, 60, 65

15

402

23

C

2.6

28

C

3.1

29

C

3.2

SWT

8, 19, 60, 65

13

112

35

C

1.1

36

D

1.1

37

D

1.1

NEL

47, CT2

6

211

55

D

3.2

146

F

8.5

146

F

8.5

NET

8, 19, 60, 65

9

155

20

B

0.9

38

D

1.6

41

D

1.8

SWT

8, 19, 60, 65

10

334

54

D

5.0

196

F

18.2

198

F

18.4

47, CT2

7

129

12

B

0.4

12

B

0.4

12

B

0.4

47, CT2

6

211

13

B

0.8

14

B

0.8

14

B

0.8

129

3

A

0.1

3

A

0.1

3

A

0.1

Weekday Evening

Park Dr at Landmark Center South Drive Weekday Morning NWT Weekday Evening NWT

Riverway Ext/Landmark Center North Drive at Park Dr Weekday Morning NWT

47, CT2

7

Appendix A – Transportation A-46

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Weekday Evening NWT

a b c

47, CT2

6

Number of peak hour scheduled buses.

Average peak hour ridership on all serviced routes.

Average total delay, in seconds per vehicle.

211

d e

3

A

Level-of-service.

Passenger delay, in hours

Appendix A – Transportation A-47

0.2

3

A

0.2

3

A

0.2

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.16 Transit Delay Analysis (continued) Location / Movement

Bus Routes

No. Buses a

Ridership b

2021 Existing Del

c

LOS

d

2028 No-Build

P-Del

e

2028 Build

Del

LOS

P-Del

Del

LOS

P-Del

Brookline Ave at BIDMC East Campus Entrance Weekday Morning NET

47, CT2, CT3, 8, 19, 60, 65

25

541

29

C

4.4

33

C

5.0

40

D

6.0

SWT

47, CT2, 8, 19, 60, 65

20

350

50

D

4.9

99

F

9.6

112

F

10.9

NET

47, CT2, CT3, 8, 19, 60, 65

15

365

31

C

3.1

34

C

3.5

21

C

2.1

SWT

47, CT2, 8, 19, 60, 65

16

455

24

C

3.0

29

C

3.7

34

C

4.3

Weekday Evening

Brookline Ave & Longwood Ave Weekday Morning NWR

47, CT2, CT3, 8, 19

18

286

98

F

7.8

128

F

10.2

143

F

11.4

NET

60, 65

7

255

35

D

2.5

38

D

2.7

39

D

2.8

SWL

47, CT2, 8, 19

14

302

37

D

3.1

58

E

4.9

66

E

5.5

SWT

60, 65

6

48

20

C

0.3

22

C

0.3

22

C

0.3

47, CT2, CT3, 8, 19

10

283

72

E

5.7

100

F

7.9

101

F

7.9

Weekday Evening NWR NET

60, 65

5

82

20

B

0.5

19

B

0.4

19

B

0.4

SWL

47, CT2, 8, 19

10

248

30

C

2.1

36

D

2.5

37

D

2.6

SWT

60, 65

6

207

21

C

1.2

22

C

1.3

20

C

1.1

Brookline Ave at Jimmy Fund Way/Deaconess Rd Weekday Morning NET

60, 65

7

255

37

D

2.6

44

D

3.1

49

D

3.5

SWT

60, 65

6

48

22

C

0.3

26

C

0.3

27

C

0.4

NET

60, 65

5

82

32

C

0.7

32

C

0.7

32

C

0.7

SWT

60, 65

6

207

21

C

1.2

28

C

1.6

37

D

2.1

NET

60, 65

7

255

228

F

16.1

328

F

23.2

357

F

25.3

SWT

60, 65

6

48

21

C

0.3

22

C

0.3

22

C

0.3

NET

60, 65

5

82

58

E

1.3

98

F

2.2

102

F

2.3

SWT

60, 65

6

207

20

C

1.1

27

C

1.5

31

C

1.8

NET

60, 65

7

255

47

D

3.3

54

D

3.8

56

E

4.0

SWT

60, 65

6

48

17

B

0.2

17

B

0.2

17

B

0.2

NET

60, 65

5

82

53

D

1.2

57

E

1.3

58

E

1.3

SWT

60, 65

6

207

20

B

1.1

22

C

1.3

23

C

1.3

Weekday Evening

Brookline Ave at Francis St Weekday Morning

Weekday Evening

Brookline Ave at Riverway Weekday Morning

Weekday Evening

a b c

Number of peak hour scheduled buses.

Average peak hour ridership on all serviced routes.

Average total delay, in seconds per vehicle.

d e

Level-of-service.

Passenger delay, in hours

Appendix A – Transportation A-48

Longwood Place

A.8.7

PDA Submission

Opportunities for Transit Priority Intersections and intersection movements with high levels of bus passenger delay should be assessed for potential applications of specific transit priority measures.

Potential measures include:

› › ›

Transit signal priority Dedicated bus lanes Queue-jump lanes

Transit signal priority could be considered at all intersections, though especially when roadway cross section constraints limit bus operations to mixed use traffic such as the Brookline Ave/Park Dr SWT movement. Dedicated bus lanes could be considered in segments where there are both frequent buses and opportunity to redistribute roadway cross section from other uses, including along Brookline Avenue and within the Justine Mee Liff Park. Queue jump lanes could be considered at intersection approaches where dedicated bus lanes are not feasible, but vehicle queuing creates significant bus delay.

Any potential bus transit priority measures identified should be evaluated in more detail for feasibility and potential benefits.

A.9 Transit Accessibility Assessment This section evaluates the accessibility of existing routes between the Project site and transit services. The Project site is well-served by nearby MBTA public transit, though ensuring convenient and safe access to those existing transit services for people walking and using mobility aids is essential to providing useful and equitable service. MBTA services that Project site users are expected to utilize include the D branch of the Green Line, the Worcester line of the commuter rail, and seven bus routes.

A.9.1

Existing Transit Access and Access Challenges Figure A.25a highlights existing access challenges between the Project site and transit services as well as at the stations and stops themselves. These routes and access challenges are described in detail below.

Fenway Station – Green Line Site users accessing the Fenway Green Line Station do so via existing sidewalks along Brookline Avenue, Riverway, and Park Drive. All pedestrian crossings within the Justine Mee Liff Park provide pedestrian signals with push buttons. While not along the direct route between the site and Fenway Station, a sidewalk is not provided on the west side of Park Drive for one segment within the Justine Mee Liff Park. The grass along that segment is visibly worn from frequent foot traffic of this desire line.

The proposed Fenway Multiuse Path may create additional demand along this

Appendix A – Transportation A-49

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

missing link after Fenway Station becomes accessible from the Emerald Necklace path on the west side of Park Drive.

Longwood Station – Green Line Access is provided via two routes. One route is via sidewalks along the Short Street Extension, then the Short Street Stairs and the Emerald Necklace path within the DCR Riverway Park. This route is not considered accessible, as ADA compliant curb ramps are not provided at the intersection of Riverway and Short Street Extension, and the Short Street Stairs are the only maintained route between Riverway and the Emerald Necklace Path. The second route is an approximately two-minute longer walk and is via the Brookline Avenue and Longwood Avenue sidewalks to Chapel Street which fronts Longwood Station. Both routes provide pedestrian signals at signalized intersections.

Lansdowne Station – Worcester Commuter Rail Line Access is via sidewalks along Brookline Avenue and David Ortiz Drive. No access challenges are noted.

Brookline Ave @ Pilgrim Rd/Brookline Ave @ Fenway – Bus Stops Access is via sidewalks along Brookline Avenue. The pedestrian ramp angle and crosswalk skew at the intersection of Brookline Avenue and Pilgrim road creates a challenging crossing for pedestrians with visual disabilities. No bus shelter is provided at the Brookline Ave/Pilgrim Rd stop (Stop ID 1777). Both bus stops create a potential conflict between buses and people on bikes by placing the stop within the bike lane.

Brookline Ave @ Short St/Brookline Ave opp Short St – Bus Stops Access is via sidewalks along Brookline Avenue. At the intersection of Brookline Avenue and the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center driveway there is no pedestrian ramp serving the crosswalk across Brookline Avenue. Both bus stops create a potential conflict between buses and people on bikes by placing the stop within the bike lane.

A.9.2

Mitigation Opportunities Opportunities for improving public transit access routes are highlighted in Figure A.25b. They include:

›

Reconstructing the pedestrian ramps and crossing at the Brookline Avenue and Pilgrim Road intersection

›

Providing a bus shelter at the Brookline Ave @ Pilgrim Rd bus stop (Stop ID 1777)

›

Constructing floating bus stops at the Brookline Ave @ Pilgrim Rd (Stop ID 1777) and Brookline Ave @ Short St (Stop ID 1778) stops

Appendix A – Transportation A-50

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

›

Constructing an ADA accessible directional pedestrian ramps at the northeast corner of the Brookline Avenue and BIDMC driveway intersection

›

Constructing new sidewalk where none exists along the west side of Park Drive within the Justine Mee Liff Park

›

Constructing an accessible ramp alternative to the Short Street Stairs between Riverway and the Emerald Necklace Path

A.10 Pedestrian Operations Analysis Pedestrian level-of-service (PLOS) at intersections was analyzed using the methodology outlined in the 2000 HCM. The PLOS criteria are presented in Table A.17.

Table A.17 Summary of Existing Count Data Sources Level of Service

Pedestrian Delay (sec/p)

Likelihood of Risk-taking or Noncompliance

PLOS A

<10

<5

Low

PLOS B

≥10-20

≥5-10

PLOS C

>20 – 30

>10 – 20

PLOS D

>30 – 40

>20 – 30

PLOS E

>40 – 60

>30 – 45

High

PLOS F

>60

>45

Very High

Moderate

Source: 2000 HCM

PLOS at signalized intersections is dictated by the portion of the signal cycle dedicated to the pedestrian crossing. Accordingly, increasing pedestrian volumes does not alter PLOS at signalized intersections, and if walk times and cycle lengths do not change PLOS will remain the same under any condition. Table A.18 presents the PLOS at each signalized intersection crosswalks for morning and evening peak hours.

Appendix A – Transportation A-51

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.18 Signalized Intersection Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) AM LOS Intersection

Crosswalk

Park Drive at Riverway

PM LOS

Existing

No-Build

Build

Existing

No-Build

Build

North

E

E

E

E

E

E

East

D

D

D

D

D

D

South

E

E

E

E

E

E

West

E

E

E

E

E

E

Southwest

E

E

E

E

E

E

Northeast

E

E

E

E

E

E

North

D

D

D

D

D

D

West

D

D

D

D

D

D

East

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

South

C

C

C

C

C

C

West

D

D

D

D

D

D

Brookline Ave at Boylston Street /

Northwest

D

D

D

D

D

D

Park Drive

North

D

D

D

D

D

D

East

D

D

D

D

D

D

South

D

D

D

D

D

D

West

D

D

D

D

D

D

Park Drive at Landmark Center

East

E

E

E

E

E

E

South Drive

South

D

D

D

D

D

D

Park Drive at Landmark Center (Entrance)

East

E

E

E

E

E

E

North Drive

South

D

D

D

D

D

D

Brookline Ave at BIDMC Main Entrance /

North

D

D

D

E

E

E

Short Street Ext.

East

D

D

D

E

E

E

Park Dr at Riverway (Eastbound)

Brookline Ave at Riverway / Fenway

Appendix A – Transportation A-52

Longwood Place

Table A.18

PDA Submission

Signalized Intersection Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) (Continued) AM LOS

Intersection

Crosswalk

Brookline Ave at Longwood Ave Brookline Ave at Deaconess Road / Jimmy Fund Way

Brookline Ave at Francis Street

Brookline Ave at Riverway

Riverway at Longwood Ave

Riverway at Short Street

PM LOS

Existing

No-Build

Build

Existing

No-Build

Build

North

E

E

E

E

E

E

East

E

E

E

E

E

E

West

E

E

E

E

E

E

North

E

E

E

E

E

E

South

E

E

E

E

E

E

East

E

E

E

E

E

E

West

E

E

E

E

E

E

North

E

E

E

E

E

E

South

E

E

E

E

E

E

East

E

E

E

E

E

E

West

E

E

E

E

E

E

North

E

E

E

E

E

E

South

E

E

E

E

E

E

East

E

E

E

E

E

E

West

E

E

E

E

E

E

North

E

E

E

E

E

E

East

E

E

E

E

E

E

Diagonal

E

E

E

E

E

E

West

E

E

E

E

E

E

East

D

D

D

D

D

D

South

D

D

D

D

D

D

All crosswalks at signalized intersections currently operate at PLOS E or better. Signal timing updates to be implemented independent of the Project within the seven-year build horizon, include updates at Park Drive at Brookline Avenue and Boylston Street.

As noted previously, the PLOS is determined by the traffic signal phasing and timing.

Therefore, at intersections where timings remain unchanged under No-Build and Build conditions, the PLOS will not be impacted by Project trips.

For unsignalized intersections, the PLOS is calculated using the crosswalk length and the conflicting vehicular flow rates for the morning and evening peak hours. Table A.19 presents the PLOS for each unsignalized intersection crosswalk for the morning and evening peak hours.

Appendix A – Transportation A-53

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.19 Unsignalized Intersection Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) AM LOS Intersection

Crossing

Brookline Ave at Pilgrim Rd

North

Riverway at Pilgrim Rd / Netherlands

PM LOS

Existing

No-Build

Build

Existing

No-Build

Build

A

A

A

A

A

A

South

F

F

F

F

F

F

West

A

A

A

A

A

A

North

F

F

F

F

F

F

South

F

F

F

F

F

F

West

A

A

A

A

A

A

East

A

A

A

A

A

A

As shown, crossings at unsignalized intersections operate at PLOS A during the morning and evening peak period with the exception of locations without a crosswalk that operate at LOS F including south of the intersection of Brookline Ave at Pilgrim Rd and both north and south of the intersection of Riverway at Pilgrim Rd/ Netherlands. No changes to LOS are proposed between the Existing and Build conditions.

A.11 Bicycle Impacts Analysis This section provides a discussion and summary for a bicycle level of comfort study, which was conducted to assess area bicycle infrastructure conditions.

A.11.1

Bicycle Level of Comfort Analysis This section provides a discussion and summary of cyclist comfortability, which was conducted to assess area bicycle infrastructure conditions. Figure A.26 provides a summary of the bicycle level of traffic stress on the existing area roadways.

Bicyclists have varying levels of traffic stress depending on the volume, speed, and facility in adjacent traffic. The bicycle level of traffic stress (BLTS) used vary from either LTS 1 to LTS 4. LTS 1 represents high comfort for users of all ages and abilities.

LTS 4 represents low comfort, which is intolerable even for most experienced adults, often perceived as un-rideable. The City of Boston uses a scale of LTS 1 (high comfort) to 4 (low comfort) which is summarized in Table A.20 and visualized in Table A.21 below.

Appendix A – Transportation A-54

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.20 Definition of Each Level of Traffic Stress Score Level of Comfort

Description

1

Corridor is comfortable for all ages and abilities including children. LTS 1 roadways are characterized by protected bike lanes or greenways, and very little to no intermingling with vehicular traffic.

2

Tolerated by most adults. There may be some turning conflicts, but cyclists are mostly separated from traffic through bike lanes. This type of corridor demands more attention from riders than an LTS 1 and is likely not suitable for children.

Projects must improve bicycle facilities to meet an LTS 2 standard or better.

3

Roadways may have bike lanes next to multilane vehicular traffic with above average traffic volumes or vehicular speeds higher than Boston’s default speed limit. An LTS 3 may also include shared lanes on streets that are not multilane and experience vehicular traffic at the City’s default speed limit or lower.

4

Tolerated by only the most experienced and able-bodied riders.

Source: City of Boston/Toole Design – Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress, December 2020

Table A.21 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Posted Speed Vehicle Volumes1 < 1,500

Bike lane

20

25

30+

No parking

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 2

Parking

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 3

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 3

No parking

LTS 2

LTS 2

LTS 2

Parking

LTS 2

LTS 2

LTS 3

LTS 2

LTS 2

LTS 3

No parking

LTS 2

LTS 2

LTS 2

Parking

LTS 2

LTS 2

LTS 3

LTS 3

LTS 3

LTS 4

No parking

LTS 3

LTS 3

LTS 4

Parking

LTS 3

LTS 4

LTS 4

LTS 3

LTS 4

LTS 4

No bike lane 1,500-3k

Bike lane

No bike lane 3k-6k

Bike lane

No bike lane > 6k

Bike lane

All Ages & Abilities Treatment

No bike lane

Conflict Factors2

Protected Bike Lane

Shared Street3

Neighborhood Greenway4

Add 1 up to LTS 4

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 1

LTS 2

LTS 1

n/a

n/a

LTS 1

n/a

n/a

Source: City of Boston/Toole Design – Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress, December 2020 1 If volumes are not available, a mix of functional class and volumes may be used to estimate AADT in the following way: Use the 6k category for any major arterial and 2+ lane/direction minor arterial.

2 If any of the following conflict factors are present, add 1 to the LTS score: industrial, commercial, or hotel uses; key bus route; valet zone; pickup/drop-off zone; cab stand; or school.

3 For shared streets to meet all ages and abilities criteria, prevailing vehicle speeds should not exceed 10 mph.

4 For neighborhood greenways to meet all ages and abilities criteria, horizontal and/or vertical deflection measures should be used to keep prevailing vehicle speeds under 20 mph.

Appendix A – Transportation A-55

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

The level of comfort that cyclists experience on the existing roadways nearby the Project Site as they are currently configured, were determined using Table A.21 and are presented in Figure A.26.

In the study area, the roadways connecting to the Project Site vary from BLTS 1 and 3 for cyclists. Short Street and Pilgrim Road each lack bicycle facilities and do not meet the criteria for comfort for most cyclists.

In the future condition, (as detailed in Section A.5.2) several improvements are proposed along Short Street and Brookline Ave which will meet the criteria for comfort for most cyclists. This will be achieved by designing roadways to Complete Street Guidelines, along with resolving turning conflicts with vehicles, implementing safety measures, and installing protected, grade-separated bike lanes.

Figure A.27 illustrates proposed area bicycle facilities as determined by the City of Boston Bicycle Level of Stress metrics.

A.12 Traffic Operations Analysis Consistent with BTD guidelines, Synchro 10 software was used to model Level of Service (LOS) operations at the Project Study Area intersections. LOS is a qualitative measure of control delay at an intersection providing an index to the operational qualities of a roadway or intersection.

LOS designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. LOS D is considered acceptable. LOS E indicates vehicles experience significant delay while LOS F suggests unacceptable delay for the average vehicle. LOS thresholds differ for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Longer delays at signalized intersections are perceived as acceptable.

Table A.22 below summarizes the LOS delay threshold criteria as defined in HCM. Table A.22 Level-of-Service Criteria

Level of Service

Unsignalized Intersection Control Delay (sec/vehicle)

Signalized Intersection Control Delay (sec/vehicle)

LOS A

≤ 10

≤ 10

LOS B

> 10-15

> 10-20

LOS C

> 15-25

> 20-35

LOS D

> 25-35

> 35-55

LOS E

> 35-50

> 55-80

LOS F

> 50

> 80

Source: 2000 HCM

Adjustments were made to the Synchro model to include characteristics of the Project Study Area such as heavy vehicles, bus operations, parking activity, and

Appendix A – Transportation A-56

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

pedestrian crossings. The capacity analysis results are summarized in the following sections. All capacity analysis worksheets are included in The Appendix.

A.12.1

Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Detailed results including delay by movement, queuing, and volume-to-capacity ratios are summarized in Table A.23 and the detailed Synchro reports are provided in the Appendix.

Appendix A – Transportation A-57

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.23 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Location / Movement

2021 Existing Conditions v/c a

Del b LOS c

2028 No-Build Conditions

50 Q d 95 Q e

v/c

2028 Build Conditions

Del LOS

50 Q

95 Q

v/c

Del LOS

50 Q

95 Q

Riverway/Riverway Ext at Fenway & Park Dr Weekday Morning WB HL WB BL SB T/R SB R NEB T Overall

0.58 0.38 1.08 1.15 0.52 0.68

22 16 102 140 36 69

C B F F D E

167 106 ~321 ~328 129

259 148 #465 #543 171

0.63 0.40 1.19 1.21 0.55 0.73

25 18 144 164 37 87

C B F F D F

190 114 ~379 ~357 140

289 159 #515 #564 184

0.63 0.39 1.24 1.22 0.56 0.73

25 18 165 167 37 95

C B F F D F

190 114 ~404 ~358 140

289 159 #541 #564 185

Weekday Evening WB HL WB BL SB T SB R NEB T Overall

0.48 0.69 0.95 1.45 0.57 0.81

22 25 66 261 37 78

C C E F D E

143 227 ~246 ~472 142

222 294 #371 #694 165

0.73 0.78 1.13 1.35 0.58 0.83

31 29 120 222 37 81

C C F F D F

242 271 ~325 ~420 150

353 344 #447 #627 174

0.73 0.78 1.16 1.38 0.61 0.84

31 29 133 237 37 85

C C F F D F

242 271 ~328 ~420 161

353 344 #451 #627 187

Weekday Morning EB R SE T Overall

0.69 0.63 0.66

20 27 23

C C C

237 214

318 278

0.73 0.69 0.71

22 28 25

C C C

260 242

348 313

0.78 0.71 0.75

24 29 26

C C C

290 253

389 326

Weekday Evening EB R SE T Overall

0.40 0.45 0.42

15 24 20

B C B

111 143

155 192

0.42 0.55 0.48

15 25 21

B C C

118 181

163 239

0.50 0.55 0.52

16 25 21

B C C

146 182

200 240

Fenway at Riverway

a b c d

Volume-to-capacity ratio.

Average total delay, in seconds per vehicle.

Level-of-service.

50th percentile queue, in feet.

e ~ # m

95th percentile queue, in feet.

Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Appendix A – Transportation A-58

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.23 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis (continued) Location / Movement

2021 Existing Conditions v/c

a

Del

b

LOS

c

50 Q

d

2028 No-Build Conditions

95 Q

e

v/c

Del

LOS

50 Q

2028 Build Conditions

95 Q

v/c

Del

LOS

50 Q

95 Q

Brookline Ave at Fenway Weekday Morning SE L 0.68 SE L/T 0.74 SE R 0.30 NE T/R 0.75 SW T 0.73 Overall 0.74

26 25 18 8 16 18

C C B A B B

259 298 65 34 171

382 384 m118 56 216

0.72 0.80 0.36 0.82 0.79 0.81

27 27 18 10 20 20

C C B A C B

284 334 85 35 246

410 422 m88 70 m267

0.72 0.80 0.50 0.83 0.98 0.89

27 27 21 15 29 24

C C C B C C

289 341 81 188 319

m407 427 m138 276 m320

Weekday Evening SE L SE L/T SE R NE T/R SW T Overall

17 17 9 25 17 19

B B A C B B

164 194 2 224 151

267 273 8 295 m180

0.56 0.72 0.09 0.74 0.75 0.73

17 19 8 27 27 23

B B A C C C

185 258 2 257 265

295 350 m15 337 346

0.56 0.79 0.12 0.87 0.77 0.83

20 23 12 33 28 27

B C B C C C

193 301 5 331 279

302 397 25 #446 363

#234 107 227 88 m74 m243 373 160

1.09

103

F

~237

#356

1.25

165

F

~307

#429

0.52 0.59 0.05 0.67 0.70 0.64

Brookline Ave at Park Dr & Boylston St Weekday Morning WB BL/BR WB BR NW L/T NW R NE L NE T NE BR SW T/R

Overall

0.81 0.31 0.68 0.26 0.53 0.54 0.74 0.58 0.78

48 36 33 28 48 23 13 35 28

D D C C D C B C C

158 32 182 29 49 158 264 106

Lane is removed in future scenarios.

0.79 0.45 0.83 0.72 0.78 0.62 0.93

38 31 74 28 14 36 42

D C E C B D D

0.91

54

D

204 64 61 185 295 105

251 147 m#92 m286 412 162

1.06dl 0.45 0.84 0.73 0.79 0.67 1.01

44 31 76 29 14 37 58

D C E C B D E

242 64 61 186 294 121

#316 147 m#91 m285 416 181

274

#402

0.93

56

E

282

#414

E D F D B F E

281 54 ~126 245 228 ~305

#380 134 #261 362 294 #431

Weekday Evening 0.85 52 D 162 #247 0.57 44 D 81 183 0.71 34 C 193 242 0.21 27 C 20 75 0.72 55 D 78 m#152 0.50 20 B 138 229 0.59 7 A 77 196 0.90 54 D 157 #263 Overall 0.81 33 C a Volume-to-capacity ratio. b Average total delay, in seconds per vehicle. c Level-of-service. d 50th percentile queue, in feet.

WB BL WB BR NW L/T NW R NE L NE T NE BR SW T/R

Lane is removed in future scenarios.

0.97 0.37 1.06 0.68 0.58 1.29 1.04

e ~ # m

66 40 146 38 11 196 72

E D F D B F E

275 54 ~126 223 190 ~303

#369 134 #261 331 245 #427

0.98 0.37 1.06 0.73 0.64 1.30 1.05

70 40 146 41 12 198 72

95th percentile queue, in feet.

Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Appendix A – Transportation A-59

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.23 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis (continued) Location / Movement

2021 Existing Conditions v/c

a

Del

b

LOS

c

50 Q

d

2028 No-Build Conditions 95 Q

e

v/c

Del LOS

2028 Build Conditions

50 Q

95 Q

v/c

Del LOS

50 Q

95 Q

Park Dr at Landmark Center South Drive Weekday Morning NW L NW L/T/R SW BR SW R

Overall Weekday Evening NW L NW L/T/R SW BR SW R

Overall

0.44 0.28 0.00 0.01 0.30

13 12 31 31 13

B B C C B

157 86 1 0

205 119 4 0

0.46 0.31 0.07 0.01 0.34

14 12 31 30 14

B B C C B

168 95 14 0

218 131 30 0

0.46 0.31 0.07 0.01 0.34

14 12 31 30 14

B B C C B

168 95 14 0

218 131 30 0

0.54 0.42 0.19 0.04 0.43

15 13 32 31 15

B B C C B

215 137 38 0

280 186 70 0

0.63 0.46 0.41 0.04 0.55

16 14 34 30 17

B B C C B

269 153 88 0

348 206 137 0

0.64 0.46 0.40 0.04 0.55

17 14 33 30 18

B B C C B

269 153 88 0

348 206 137 0

Riverway Ext/Landmark Center North Drive at Park Dr Weekday Morning NW T NE L NE L/T

Overall Weekday Evening NW T NE L NE L/T

0.21 0.72 0.02 0.45

3 11 0 7

A B A A

10 148 0

13 227 m0

0.22 0.72 0.07 0.46

3 11 0 7

A B A A

12 138 0

14 216 m0

0.22 0.73 0.07 0.46

3 11 0 7

A B A A

12 141 0

14 217 m0

0.31 0.73 0.01 0.52

3 11 0 6

A B A A

23 135 0

28 210 m0

0.33 0.73 0.04 0.54

3 11 0 6

A B A A

24 131 0

30 203 m0

0.33 0.77 0.04 0.56

3 14 0 8

A B A A

24 148 0

30 213 m0

Overall a Volume-to-capacity ratio. b Average total delay, in seconds per vehicle. c Level-of-service. d 50th percentile queue, in feet.

e ~ # m

95th percentile queue, in feet.

Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Appendix A – Transportation A-60

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.23 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis (continued) Location / Movement

2021 Existing Conditions v/c a

Del b LOS c

2028 No-Build Conditions

50 Q d 95 Q e

v/c

Del LOS

50 Q

2028 Build Conditions

95 Q

v/c

Del

LOS

50 Q

95 Q

Brookline Ave at BIDMC East Campus Entrance/Short St Weekday Morning SE L/R NW L NW R NE T/R SW L/T

Overall

0.53 0.07 0.80 1.02 0.80

46 41 29 50 41

Short St is not open to vehicles in this condition.

D 50 93 0.53 46 D 0 42 0.07 41 C 261 309 0.86 33 D ~557 #694 1.15 99 D 0.90 69

D D C F E

50 0 299 ~664

93 42 351 #802

0.01 0.48 0.07 0.93 1.17 1.00

46 44 40 40 112 79

D D D D F E

0 50 0 337 ~436

0 90 29 #407 #896

0.48 0.07 0.75 0.75 0.61

48 44 31 24 29

Short St is not open to vehicles in this condition.

D 54 101 0.48 48 D 0 47 0.07 44 C 270 346 0.83 34 C 220 #360 0.83 29 C 0.66 32

D D C C C

54 0 313 252

101 47 398 #480

0.08 0.50 0.07 0.85 0.75 0.72

51 53 48 21 34 31

D D D C C C

0 59 0 358 334

44 108 46 m361 #433

Weekday Evening SE L/R NW L NW R NE T/R SW L/T

Overall

Brookline Ave & Longwood Ave Weekday Morning SE L SE T/R NW L NW T NW R NE L NE T/R SW L SW T/R

Overall Weekday Evening SE L SE T/R NW L NW T NW R NE L NE T/R SW L SW T/R

0.87 1.22 1.88 0.87 1.01 1.11 0.74 0.74 0.56 1.07

45 140 502 68 98 193 35 37 20 70

D F F E F F D D C E

48 ~285 ~124 207 195 ~53 281 81 226

m48 m#210 #227 #331 #281 #145 360 #153 287

1.45 1.38 2.90 1.03 1.11 1.61 0.79 0.90 0.63 1.55

253 210 967 109 128 381 38 58 22 114

F F F F F F D E C F

~69 ~343 ~162 ~272 ~249 ~97 311 95 268

m#74 m#257 #273 #425 #331 #166 395 #237 339

1.75 1.38 2.90 1.03 1.15 1.61 0.82 0.94 0.64 1.55

384 210 967 109 143 381 39 66 22 119

F F F F F F D E C F

~91 ~342 ~162 ~272 ~275 ~97 330 95 271

m#94 m#263 #273 #425 #352 #166 420 #254 342

0.27 0.66 1.35 0.71 0.93 1.04 0.64 0.63 0.51 0.91

29 35 249 48 72 142 20 30 21 47

C C F D E F B C C D

16 154 ~160 188 197 ~47 109 83 203

m29 m176 #291 277 #373 m#104 131 131 260

0.54 0.99 2.41 0.77 1.03 1.13 0.68 0.73 0.56 1.24

32 50 722 53 100 167 19 36 22 81

C D F D F F B D C F

33 m49 251 m239 ~224 #360 208 #320 ~233 #343 ~55 m#105 111 133 93 #150 230 291

0.55 0.99 2.41 0.77 1.04 1.13 0.68 0.77 0.60 1.25

32 50 722 53 101 167 19 37 20 79

C D F D F F B D C E

34 252 ~224 208 ~235 ~55 111 64 161

m51 m239 #360 #320 #346 m#103 133 m#149 242

Overall a Volume-to-capacity ratio. b Average total delay, in seconds per vehicle. c Level-of-service. d 50th percentile queue, in feet.

e ~ # m

95th percentile queue, in feet.

Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Appendix A – Transportation A-61

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.23 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis (continued) Location / Movement

2021 Existing Conditions v/c a

Del b LOS c

2028 No-Build Conditions

50 Q d 95 Q e

v/c

Del

LOS

2028 Build Conditions

50 Q

95 Q

v/c

Del

LOS

50 Q

95 Q

Brookline Ave at Jimmy Fund Way/Deaconess Rd Weekday Morning SE L SE T/R NW L NW R NE T/R SW L/T

Overall Weekday Evening SE L SE T/R NW L NW R NE T/R SW L/T

Overall

0.34 0.17 0.66 0.64 0.81 0.61 0.62

38 37 49 48 37 22 33

D D D D D C C

40 10 69 62 289 133

71 47 125 116 373 197

0.33 0.17 0.63 0.58 0.90 0.71 0.68

37 36 45 43 44 26 38

D D D D D C D

43 10 68 60 344 155

77 50 127 116 #475 217

0.33 0.17 0.63 0.58 0.94 0.73 0.69

37 36 45 43 49 27 40

D D D D D C D

43 10 68 60 364 157

77 50 127 116 #505 #224

0.19 0.15 0.75 0.60 0.63 0.79 0.68

28 28 44 36 32 21 29

C C D D C C C

33 14 157 128 124 125

68 61 #272 210 m137 m143

0.20 0.18 0.82 0.60 0.69 0.95 0.77

27 27 52 35 32 28 32

C C D C C C C

36 14 169 133 132 157

74 68 #305 217 m137 m161

0.20 0.18 0.82 0.60 0.70 1.01 0.80

27 27 52 35 32 37 36

C C D C C D D

36 14 169 133 133 ~153

74 68 #305 217 m136 m#236

0.64 1.05 0.56 1.42 0.28 1.30 0.38 1.07

47 136 44 228 21 202 21 128

D F D F C F C F

157 ~161 109 ~439 38 ~148 127

#287 #300 #226 #563 m79 #310 170

0.65 1.09 0.57 1.65 0.29 1.56 0.43 1.21

48 146 45 328 23 314 22 179

D F D F C F C F

157 ~169 112 ~530 45 ~196 147

#290 #310 #236 #668 m80 #360 194

0.65 1.09 0.57 1.72 0.29 1.65 0.43 1.25

48 146 45 357 24 354 22 196

D F D F C F C F

157 ~169 112 ~563 48 ~209 149

#290 #310 #236 #701 m81 #373 196

0.46 0.95 0.40 1.04dl 0.22 0.50 0.73 0.81

38 92 38 58 21 23 20 38

D F D E C C C D

119 157 86 99 28 41 169

190 #293 150 #274 55 m67 324

0.47 0.94 0.39 1.13dl 0.24 0.60 0.87 0.89

37 85 36 98 21 28 27 49

D F D F C C C D

128 ~166 88 ~144 28 51 309

202 #304 154 #315 m57 m61 m349

0.47 0.94 0.39 1.13dl 0.24 0.60 0.92 0.90

37 85 36 102 21 28 31 51

D F D F C C C D

128 ~166 88 ~232 28 53 334

202 #304 154 #322 m57 m56 m348

Brookline Ave at Francis St Weekday Morning SE L/T/R NW L NW T/R NE L/T NE R SW L SW T/R

Overall Weekday Evening SE L/T/R NW L NW T/R NE L/T NE R SW L SW T/R

Overall a Volume-to-capacity ratio. b Average total delay, in seconds per vehicle. c Level-of-service. d 50th percentile queue, in feet.

e ~ # m

95th percentile queue, in feet.

Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Appendix A – Transportation A-62

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.23 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis (continued) Location / Movement

2021 Existing Conditions v/c a

Del b LOS c

2028 No-Build Conditions

50 Q d

95 Q e

v/c

Del LOS

2028 Build Conditions

50 Q

95 Q

v/c

Del LOS

50 Q

95 Q

Brookline Ave at Riverway Weekday Morning 1.30 NB T 0.38 NB R 0.63 SB T/R NE L 5.43 0.71 NE T/R 1.60 SW L 0.38 SW T/R Overall 2.41

177 19 17 2081 47 320 17 246

F B B F D F B F

~970 53 345 ~387 191 ~247 135

#1220 132 m283 #566 254 m#367 m171

1.44 0.42 0.66 5.94 0.83 1.97 0.43 2.66

237 20 18 2310 54 483 17 293

F C B F D F B F

~1134 75 360 ~432 234 ~303 152

#1389 164 m281 #617 #306 m#442 m180

1.52 0.45 0.66 5.94 0.86 2.07 0.43 2.71

274 21 18 2310 56 527 17 303

F C B F E F B F

~1231 88 361 ~432 245 ~319 152

#1487 182 m281 #617 #336 m#456 m180

Weekday Evening 1.02 NB T 0.16 NB R 0.92 SB T/R 2.12 NE L 0.56 NE T/R SW L 1.66 0.61 SW T/R Overall 1.23

71 11 18 614 53 342 20 96

E B B F D F B F

~641 0 537 ~131 85 ~527 113

#876 28 m364 #250 128 m#724 m135

1.08 0.17 1.01 2.22 0.67 1.85 0.72 1.32

91 11 29 657 57 430 22 115

F B C F E F C F

~718 0 ~644 ~139 104 ~619 121

#958 29 m378 #260 151 m#786 m172

1.09 0.17 1.03 2.17 0.68 2.00 0.74 1.35

95 11 37 637 58 498 23 130

F B D F E F C F

~731 1 ~671 ~139 105 ~695 132

#973 30 m382 #260 154 m#822 m168

F A E D C E F D F

~546 23 37 225 135 ~512 ~477 0

#751 44 m#82 m304 m104 m255 #567 #47

2.24 0.12 1.06 0.75 0.50 1.20 1.37 0.35 1.48

616 6 175 42 25 114 223 54 192

F A F D C F F D F

~613 23 ~48 243 138 ~612 ~516 0

#822 44 m#107 m310 m94 m260 #606 #47

2.24 0.12 1.06 0.75 0.50 1.24 1.38 0.35 1.49

616 6 175 42 25 135 225 54 199

F A F D C F F D F

~613 23 ~48 243 137 ~658 ~519 0

#822 44 m#107 m310 m89 m261 #608 #47

Riverway at Longwood Ave Weekday morning EB L/T 1.95 484 0.12 6 EB R 0.71 58 WB L 0.70 39 WB T/R 0.49 24 NB L 1.08 63 NB T/R SB T 1.31 195 0.35 54 SB R Overall 1.34 147

Weekday Evening 2.04 534 F ~377 #535 EB L/T 0.20 8 A 45 73 EB R 0.83 77 E 73 m#153 WB L 0.86 58 E 271 m#401 WB T/R 0.47 23 C 108 m117 NB L 0.63 16 B 166 m166 NB T/R 1.58 310 F ~733 #870 SB T 0.32 42 D 7 81 SB R Overall 1.35 180 F a Volume-to-capacity ratio. b Average total delay, in seconds per vehicle. c Level-of-service. d 50th percentile queue, in feet.

3.54 1213 F ~445 #547 3.54 1213 F ~445 #547 0.20 8 A 46 75 0.20 8 A 46 75 0.97 119 F 85 m#183 0.97 119 F 85 m#182 1.11 124 F ~384 m#551 1.11 124 F ~385 m#550 0.48 24 C 111 m113 0.48 24 C 111 m112 0.68 16 B 186 m171 0.68 16 B 189 m171 1.72 373 F ~830 #968 1.76 390 F ~855 #993 0.36 44 D 11 90 0.45 48 D 18 #123 1.87 271 F 1.88 277 F e 95th percentile queue, in feet. ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Appendix A – Transportation A-63

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.23 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis (continued) Location / Movement

v/c a

2021 Existing Conditions Del b LOS c 50 Q d 95 Q e

2028 No-Build Conditions v/c Del LOS 50 Q 95 Q

v/c

2028 Build Conditions Del LOS 50 Q 95 Q

Short St Ext at Riverway Weekday morning EB T WB T NW L NW R Overall

0.42 0.30 0.40 0.02 0.42

7 6 44 40 7

A A D D A

56 36 19 0 56

220 147 29 10 220

0.47 0.33 0.38 0.02 0.41

8 7 41 38 9

A A D D A

63 39 24 0

248 158 34 10

0.49 0.33 0.42 0.04 0.43

8 7 42 38 9

A A D D A

69 40 27 0

263 158 37 10

Weekday evening EB T WB T NW L NW R Overall

0.32 0.51 0.65 0.07 0.47

7 9 51 38 11

A A D D B

43 84 43 0

146 255 60 15

0.37 0.57 0.61 0.08 0.51

8 10 45 36 12

A B D D B

54 102 51 0

165 285 69 15

0.40 0.61 0.72 0.21 0.56

10 13 47 34 16

B B D C B

76 142 81 0

167 285 #120 2

0.03 0.00 0.72 0.80 0.65

34 34 4 15 11

C C A B B

4 0 28 308

18 7 m35 m343

0.22 0.03 0.66 0.59 0.50

30 28 5 16 12

C C A B B

64 0 39 248

130 29 26 224

Brookline Ave at New Mid-Block Rd Weekday morning SE L SE R Intersection does not exist in this condition.

NE L/T SW T/R Overall Weekday evening SE L SE R Intersection does not exist in this NE T condition.

SW T Overall a Volume-to-capacity ratio. b Average total delay, in seconds per vehicle. c Level-of-service. d 50th percentile queue, in feet.

Intersection does not exist in this condition.

Intersection does not exist in this condition. e ~ # m

95th percentile queue, in feet.

Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Appendix A – Transportation A-64

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Under Existing Conditions, the intersection of Riverway/Riverway Extension with Park Drive/Fenway experiences high levels of delay in both the morning and the evening peak hours, operating at LOS E. Under the 2028 No-Build Conditions, operations reduce to an LOS F. Although the intersection also operates at LOS F during the 2028 Build Conditions, delay does not increase significantly with the addition of Project-Generated trips (i.e., 8 seconds of additional delay during the morning peak hour and 4 during the evening).

As mentioned previously, the intersection of Park Drive at Brookline Ave/Boylston Street will be reconfigured as part of the Boylston Street Corridor Improvements Project. The reconfiguration of this intersection is reflected in all 2028 future conditions analyses. As demonstrated in this Section, during the morning peak hour, the intersection operates at LOS C during both the morning and evening peak hours in the 2021 Existing Condition. It operates at LOS D in the 2028 No-Build Condition, and, with the addition of Project trips, will operate at LOS E in the 2028 Build Condition. No degradation in level of service is expected in the weekday evening peak period between the 2028 No-Build and Build conditions.

The intersection of Brookline Avenue at the Beth Israel Deaconess (BIDMC) Main Campus Entrance/Short Street currently operates as a signalized, three-legged intersection. In the morning peak hour, operations reduce from LOS D to LOS E between Existing Conditions and 2028 No-Build Conditions. As part of the Project, the northwest leg of the intersection will be opened to entering and exiting vehicles (i.e., Short Street). Vehicles will be permitted to exit the Site via Short Street to Brookline Avenue south and north, and to enter the Site by making a right turn onto Short Street from the northeast. Left turns onto Short Street from Brookline Avenue will be restricted. With the addition of Project traffic and new movements, operations do not change in the 2028 Build Condition. This is primarily due to a modified phasing plan that removes the all-pedestrian phase in favor of concurrent pedestrian phases for Brookline Avenue and the two side street approaches. The future configuration will include one crosswalk across Brookline Avenue in between the two side street approaches. Because the volume of traffic exiting the Site onto Brookline Avenue south is anticipated to be relatively low (3 in the AM, 38 in the PM), this crosswalk will run concurrently with southeast-bound traffic from Short Street.

Under Existing Conditions, the intersection of Brookline Avenue at Longwood Avenue operates at LOS E during the morning peak hour and LOS D during the evening peak hour. In the 2028 No-Build Conditions, the addition of traffic related to other local developments cause operations to reduce to LOS F in both peak hours.

However, during the 2028 Build Conditions, delay does not increase by more than five seconds during either peak hour. The northeast-bound approach from Longwood Avenue tends to experience the highest levels of delay during both peak hours, especially for left-turning traffic.

Appendix A – Transportation A-65

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

The intersection of Brookline Avenue at Francis Street operates at LOS F during the morning peak hour under Existing Conditions. Under Future Conditions, operations remain at an LOS F, while delay increases by approximately 17 seconds between the 2028 No-Build Conditions and 2028 Build Conditions. The increase in delay is primarily due to the northeast-bound approach from Brookline Avenue, and specifically the shared left-turn/through lane, which experiences capacity issues with the existing traffic volumes along Brookline Avenue.

While the intersection of Brookline Avenue at the Riverway does not show any degradations in level of service with the addition of Project trips, it shows significant delays under all conditions. During the weekday morning and weekday evening peak periods this intersection operates at LOS F throughout all conditions, with the most saturated approach being the southwest-bound left lane from Brookline Avenue.

The intersection of Longwood Avenue at the Riverway experiences similar capacity issues, operating at LOS F throughout all conditions during the morning and evening peak hours.

The intersection of Brookline Avenue at Mid-Block Road is a newly created signalized intersection as part of the Project. It will function as a three-legged intersection with a pedestrian crossing on Brookline Avenue south of the Mid-Block approach. Because the volume of right-turning traffic exiting the Site onto Brookline Avenue south is anticipated to be relatively low (2 in the AM, 34 in the PM), this crosswalk will run concurrently with the southeast-bound approach. The intersection operates at LOS B during both the morning and evening peak hours.

The impacts of Project trips at the other signalized intersections are expected to be negligible as illustrated in Table A.23.

A.12.2

Unsignalized Capacity Analysis The LOS results of the unsignalized capacity analyses are summarized in Table A.24 for the 2021 Existing, 2028 No-Build, and 2028 Build Condition peak hours. The results in this section are determined by the critical approach only and not the overall intersection.

Appendix A – Transportation A-66

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Table A.24 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2021 Existing Conditions Location / Movement

2028 No-Build Conditions

2028 Build Conditions

v/c b

Del c

LOS d

v/c

Del

LOS

v/c

Del

LOS

0.49

0.00

A

0.55

0.00

A

0.69

0.00

A

0.34

0.00

A

0.37

0.00

A

0.43

0.00

A

>1.20

>120

F

>1.20

>120

F

>1.20

>120

F

>1.20

>120

F

>1.20

>120

F

>1.20

>120

F

Brookline Ave & Pilgrim Rd Weekday Morning SWB Weekday Evening NEB

Riverway & Netherlands Rd/Pilgrim Rd Weekday Morning EB Weekday Evening EB a b c d

Volume-to-capacity ratio.

Average total delay, in seconds per vehicle.

Level-of-service.

50th percentile queue, in feet.

e ~ # m

95th percentile queue, in feet.

Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Appendix A – Transportation A-67

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

As shown in Table A.24, during both peak periods, the STOP-controlled eastbound movement at the intersection of Brookline Avenue at Netherlands Road/Pilgrim Road operates at LOS F during all conditions. Both minor street approaches at this intersection operate poorly because the major street (i.e., Riverway) approaches are saturated during morning and evening peak hours, making it difficult for drivers to find gaps to enter the intersection.

The impacts of Project trips at the other unsignalized intersections are expected to be negligible as illustrated in Table A.24.

A.13 Transportation Mitigation and Improvements A.13.1

Enhanced Pedestrian/Bicycle Access The Project’s proposed pedestrian and bicycle-focused improvements are a central pillar of the Project’s public benefits commitment to the LMA neighborhood and the city as a whole, which in aggregate will dramatically improve the pedestrian experience throughout the Project Study Area and also the comfort and safety of cycling conditions along several of the key routes in the vicinity of the Project Site, improving conditions for both residents cycling within the neighborhood and also commuters cycling along major mobility corridors such as Brookline Avenue.

As discussed in Section A.5.2., the Project will include the implementation of very significant pedestrian + bicyclist improvements that will be transformative to the LMA’s public realm. Potential enhancements include the following investments: 

Short Street Improvements - The Project proposes access for all modes throughout Short Street between Riverway and Brookline Ave with the Project in place requiring that Short Street be integrated into the traffic signal at Brookline Ave at BIDMC Main Entrance. The change proposes the reconstruction of the existing brick pedestrian pathway between Pilgrim Road and Brookline Ave but replacing it with a proposed cross-section including an ADA-compliant grade-separated 12’ multi-use path with 2’ buffer on each side and two 11’ vehicle travel lanes to and from the proposed site driveway. All roadway improvements will be consistent with the objectives of BTD’s Complete Street Guidelines. This new driveway will be designed to provide access from Brookline Avenue (right-turn in only) and egress from the Project site via an adjacent garage portal and via Pilgrim Road. The inbound driveway will terminate at the garage entry, thereby restricting through traffic access to the Riverway. Similarly, Short Street Extension will remain one-way from Pilgrim Road to the Riverway, thereby eliminating any opportunity for unintended through traffic in either travel direction on Short Street between the Riverway and Brookline Avenue.

At Brookline Avenue, the existing traffic signal will be reconstructed to support access and egress from Short Street. Note, however, that left turns into the site will be restricted due to the offset Short Street and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) East Campus driveways.

Appendix A – Transportation A-68

Longwood Place

PDA Submission



A.13.2

Brookline Ave Improvements - The Project will design and construct a 6’ grade-separated bicycle lane with 2’ buffer between Longwood Avenue and Fenway/Riverway on the north side of Brookline Avenue. Existing MBTA/LMA Shuttle bus stops adjacent to the Project on the north side of Brookline Avenue will also be reconstructed to be floating bus stops with shelters. The Project will implement a new mid-block driveway that will be signalized, providing primary access and egress for vehicles to and from the Project. This location has been conceptualized to also support protected, signalized pedestrian movements across Brookline Avenue, lining up with the Colleges of the Fenway path connecting to Emmanuel College and onto Simmons University, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, the Massachusetts College of Art, and Wentworth Institute of Technology. All roadway improvements will be consistent with the objectives of BTD’s Complete Street Guidelines and support the goals to create corridors that are comfortable for all ages and abilities including children (as noted in section A.9.1).

Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) The Project will be supported by a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program intended to reduce dependence on vehicle travel, minimize single occupancy vehicle (SOV) drive-alone trips and enhance mobility by alternative transportation modes. This TDM program has been developed based upon the latest BTD TDM Point System model targeting a mobility score of 71-90 (based on the mobility score map for the projects’ location) which requires a target of 90 points.

The BTD model checklist is included in the Appendix for reference.

The Project will be supported by a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program intended to reduce dependence on vehicle travel, minimize single occupancy vehicle (SOV) drive-alone trips and enhance mobility by alternative transportation modes. This TDM program has been developed based upon the latest BTD TDM Point System model targeting a mobility score of 71-90 (based on the mobility score map for the projects’ location) which achieves a total of 90 TDM points. The BTD model checklist is included in the Appendix for reference.

Appendix A – Transportation A-69

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Strategy

Points

Baseline (Required) Programming

(1) TMA Membership

(2) On-site TDM Coordinator

Transit

Join and participate in the local Transportation Management Association (TMA), if available, or if one is formed during the life of the TAPA Provide part- or full-time dedicated staff to coordinate TDM services

(3) Marketing

Distribute annual marketing materials promoting multimodal travel options and benefits

(4) Annual Events

Conduct at least two annual events promoting multimodal travel

(5) Real-Time Transit Information

Provide real-time transit information in building lobbies per BTD review

(6) Emergency Ride Home

Property owner provides ride share services for tenants/employees who use sustainable transportation options Provide ride services, such as reimbursement of taxi or rideshare trips, outside of peak travel periods for tenants/employees who use sustainable transportation options Facilitate transit pass purchases (with pre-tax benefits, if applicable) through participation in MBTA’s Perq Program Provide tenants the option to lease or purchase building space without inclusion of a market rate price for on-site parking. Parking may be leased or purchased by tenants separately at a market rate

(7) Participation in MBTA Perq Program

Vehicle

(8) Unbundled, Market-Rate Parking

Bicycling/Walking

(9) Bicycle Parking/Bike Share Provision

5

15

15

5

Impact Strategies Transit

Transit Subsidy

Offer a subsidy for monthly MBTA transit passes (75% subsidized).

25

Bluebikes membership

Provide discounted Bluebikes memberships as part of the Bluebikes corporate program (Platinum Level).

8

Multimodal Transportation Subsidy

Provide a monthly subsidy for multi-modal travel expenses, such as bicycle maintenance.

10

Car Share Parking

Provide a minimum of one car share vehicle(s) that is accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week (space to park is EV and publicly accessible).

6

Elective Strategies Bicycling

Vehicle

Development

Mixed-Use Development

Retail component in Project.

Centralized parcel drop-off/receiving station.

Appendix A – Transportation A-70

5-20

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Bundled Transportation Options

Identify publicly-accessible space around the development to collocate transportation options such as car share, bike share, bike parking, electric vehicle charging, passenger pick-up/drop-off, bike parking, and e-bike/e-scooter charging stations. This space may be adjacent to a public street that allows for transportation options to be located curbside.

The Proponent will work closely with MASCO to foster the inclusion of future tenants’ membership, allowing employees and residents access to MASCO programs as a means to encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation, including MASCO Shuttles.

A.13.3

Transit Improvements As noted previously in Section A.9.2, opportunities for improving public transit access routes are highlighted in Figure A.25b. They include:

›

Reconstructing the pedestrian ramps and crossing at the Brookline Avenue and Pilgrim Road intersection

›

Providing a bus shelter at the Brookline Ave @ Pilgrim Rd bus stop (Stop ID 1777)

›

Constructing floating bus stops at the Brookline Ave @ Pilgrim Rd (Stop ID 1777) and Brookline Ave @ Short St (Stop ID 1778) stops

›

Constructing an ADA accessible directional pedestrian ramps at the northeast corner of the Brookline Avenue and BIDMC driveway intersection

›

Constructing new sidewalk where none exists along the west side of Park Drive within the Justine Mee Liff Park

›

Constructing an accessible ramp alternative to the Short Street Stairs between Riverway and the Emerald Necklace Path

Intersections and intersection movements with high levels of bus passenger delay should be assessed for potential applications of specific transit priority measures.

Potential measures include:

› › ›

Transit signal priority Dedicated bus lanes Queue-jump lanes

Appendix A – Transportation A-71

4

Longwood Place

PDA Submission

Appendix A – Transportation A-72

FENWAY PARK AMORY PLAYGROUND VICTORY GARDENS LANDMARK CENTER

BACK BAY FENS BU - FENWAY CAMPUS COOLIDGE CORNER 10 MIN

WWII MEMORIAL

Site

5 MIN

ROSE GARDEN

EMMANUEL COLLEGE

CLEMENTE FIELD

WINSOR SCHOOL BIDMC

MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS SIMMONS UNIVERSITY

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

PARSON'S FIELD BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL

0

400

800 Feet

Source: Nearmap Aerial

Development Site

Figure A.1 Site Location Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

1

Riverway Short St Ext

2 Pilgrim Rd FENWAY

5

ROAD PALACE

6

1

3

Short Street Improvements: •

Short Street widened to provide generous shared pedestrianbicycle path connection to the Emerald Necklace.

•

Short Street designed to restrict through traffic between Riverway and Brookline Avenue (both directions).

5

Pilgrim Street Improvements:

FENWAY

Brookline Ave

4

Signalized Mid-block pedestrian crossing connecting to Colleges of the Fenway walking path.

Lefts turns onto Short Street and onto Pilgrim Road restricted from Brookline Avenue (both locations).

ROAD

Site

•

4

PALACE

1

Signalized Mid-block driveway for primary vehicular access/ egress.

Brookline Avenue north curb reconstructed with separated bicycle lane and floating bus stops.

ROAD

2

•

3 PALACE

FENWAY

Short St

6

Mid-Block Addition:

4

Pick-up / Drop-off Loop

6

•

Pilgrim Road widened slightly to support improved access by residents and Winsor School; on-street resident parking maintained.

•

All drop-off needs accommodated in dedicated infrastructure off of Pilgrim Road.

All loading/service accommodated in below-grade loading docks.

Additional Internal Improvements to the Project:

0

100

•

Parking and EV provisions consistent with BTD Guidelines.

•

Bicycle Parking to be implemented consistent with BTD Guidelines.

•

Bluebikes station to be sponsored and accommodated on Site.

200 Feet

Source: Sasaki Architects

Loading & Parking Access

Figure A.2a

PALACE ROAD

FENWAY

Conceptual Site Plan and Improvements Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Riverway Short St Ext Pilgrim Rd

Short St Brookline Ave

0

100

200 Feet

Primary Vehicle Parking Access Secondary Vehicle Drop-off Access

Figure A.2b Site Vehicle Access & Circulation: Entering Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Riverway Short St Ext Pilgrim Rd

Short St Brookline Ave

0

100

200 Feet

Figure A.2c Site Vehicle Access & Circulation: Exiting Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Riverway Short St Ext Pilgrim Rd

Short St Brookline Ave

0

100

200 Feet

Entering Exiting

Figure A.2d Loading/Service Access & Circulation Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Riverway Short St Ext Pilgrim Rd

Short St Brookline Ave

0

100

200 Feet

Figure A.2e Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

14 15

Av e ne to n

Br oo kli

er

St

6

1 wa y

5 4

2

Co

St lston y o B

7

h St

oug b or r e t Pe

3

Pil g

8

ne

Av e

12

kli 300

od

Ave

D

wo

OA

Lon g

Fr an c Fe nw o

Br oo 0

Bin n

11

ey St

13

is St

od

Rd

WA Y

ER

10

FEN

Av eL ou

Bl ac kf an C

Pil g

rim

Rd

9

PA L AC

St

is P ast eur

rt

ir

Riverway

14

16

St erry b s n ee

r

St

Sh o

Site

ay nw Fe

t Ken

15

Qu

D rk Pa

rim

Rd

16

Fu ll

Ri ve r

13

St con Bea

St lton Car

9 10 11 12

Park Dr at Riverway Park Dr at Riverway Eastbound Brookline Avenue at Riverway / Fenway Brookline Avenue at Boylston St / Park Dr Park Dr at Landmark Center South Drive Park Dr at Landmark Center Entrance North Drive Brookline Ave at Pilgrim Rd Brookline Ave at BIDMC Main Entrance / Short St Ext Brookline Ave at Longwood Ave Brookline Ave at Deaconess Rd / Jimmy Fund Way Brookline Ave at Francis St Brookline Ave at Riverway Riverway at Pilgrim Rd / Netherlands Rd Riverway at Longwood Ave t rS Riverway at Short St te s Brookline Ave at Mid-Block Road lche

Dr Park

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

nti Hu

on ngt

Ave

600 Feet

Source: MassGIS

# # #

Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Future Signalized Intersection

Figure A.3 Study Area Intersections One Simmons Redevelopment Project Boston, Massachusetts

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\15297.00\Graphics\FIGURES\One Simmons_Networks_v2.dwg

E LIN K OO BR TON S BO

Riverway S

360

ve

ay

w er

1 350 10

8 45 7 2 4

Pilgrim Rd

2 26 52 3

S

v

99 316 114

56 231 43

267 964 114

Park Dr

S

97

1

S

4 720

735 68

73

Bo

yls ton

S

952 82 288 1053

Fenwa

Park Dr

Fenway

193 721 663

42 1008

Brookline Ave

2

St

Park D r

614 60

2

Brookline Ave

BIDMC Main Campus Entrance

U

6

19 17

928 72

158 245 1

S 2 23 45 5 3

Deaconess Rd

270 467 92 84

28 114 45

170 505 181

54 573 186

S

SITE

S

S

Francis St

3

69 87

S

8 1

1

Pilgrim Rd

50 216 35

Francis St

251 234 92

87 13 56

11 1 24 0 381 851 115 76 150 56 715 114

206 454 21

507 85

im gr Pil Rd

4

779 72

Jimmy Fund Way

Riverway

630 77

S 268 471 4

KLINE BROO ON BOST

4

Riverway

833

0

Pilgrim Rd

S

84

Brookline Ave

18 353 272

Deaconess Rd

U

7 13 12 2

222 49 1

96 87

ds Rd

erlan Neth

Longwood Ave

88 1 69 85

y

Short St

S

77 761

597 315 37

Ri

L S Dandm riv ar e k

A od wo

36

St

323

con

ng Lo

3 U

Bea

Pilgrim Rd

Existing 2021Conditions Vehicle Volumes 2021 Existing Morning Peak Hour Morning Peak Hour - Vehicle Volumes One Simmons Simmons Redevelopment Project One Redevelopment Longwood Place Boston, MA MA Boston,

Figure A.4

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\15297.00\Graphics\FIGURES\One Simmons_Networks_v2.dwg

E LIN K OO BR TON S BO

Riverway S

353

ve

ay

w er

1 348 5

2 57 31 3

Pilgrim Rd

0 23 59 6

S 522

A od wo

110

St

v

80 189 164

37 281 84

246 661 36

S

Park Dr

S

76

2

9 776

56 9

51 59

S

790 49

S

Bo

yls ton

Fenwa Park Dr

Fenway

60 488 477

89 832

735 123 264 876

S

Brookline Ave

2

St

Park D r

647 47

2

Brookline Ave

273 234 1 5 29 33 9 7

Deaconess Rd

171 671 87 84

28 48 80

800 49

BIDMC Main Campus Entrance

U

S

SITE

S

S

Francis St

3 81 641 180

48 502 102

50 61

1

77 92

S

7

Pilgrim Rd

23 163 33

Francis St

269 229 142

98 25 53

76 3 1 18

208 669 101 66 174

49 360 76

122 851 24

699 49

im gr Pil Rd

4

468 44

Jimmy Fund Way

Riverway

103 1 77

S 98 208 7

KLINE BROO ON BOST

4

Riverway

102

0

Pilgrim Rd

S

52

Brookline Ave

21 577 516

Deaconess Rd

U

6 15 21 10

49 3

206 175

ds Rd

erlan Neth

Longwood Ave

90 92 10 21

y

Short St

114 1126

776 472 78

Ri

L S Dandm riv ar e k

con

ng Lo

3 U

Bea

Pilgrim Rd

Existing 2021Conditions Vehicle Volumes 2021 Existing Evening Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour- Vehicle Volumes One Simmons Simmons Redevelopment Project One Redevelopment Longwood Place Boston, MA MA Boston,

Figure A.5

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\15297.00\Graphics\FIGURES\One Simmons_Networks_v2.dwg

E LIN K OO BR TON S BO

con

ng Lo A od wo

St

1 Riverway

Short St

Park Dr

1

651

Pilgrim Rd

37

139

S

Brookline Ave

182

Bo

yls ton

BIDMC Main Campus Entrance

163

2

St

149 185

U

273

S

S 21

309

333 335

Deaconess Rd

Francis St

82

S

176

109

63

Brookline Ave

120

332

Park D r

S

367

2

129

im gr Pil Rd

4

S

Jimmy Fund Way

Riverway

85

39

S

SITE

57

159

85

3

y

193

178

1

1

Fenwa

E

S

27

Francis St

7

78

4

66

Brookline Ave

Pilgrim Rd

Park Dr

20

240

18

Fenway

U

Deaconess Rd

3

Riverway

S

71

Longwood Ave

12

36

S

336

S

240

1

34

5

KLIN BROO ON BOST

y wa

52

22

erlan Neth

S

r

ve

Ri

ds Rd

15

S

ve

Pilgrim Rd

67

L S Dandm riv ar e k

3 U

Bea

Pilgrim Rd

Existing 2021Conditions Ped Volumes 2021 Existing Morning Peak Hour Morning Peak Hour - Ped Volumes One Simmons Simmons Redevelopment Project One Redevelopment Longwood Place Boston, MA MA Boston,

Figure A.6

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\15297.00\Graphics\FIGURES\One Simmons_Networks_v2.dwg

E LIN K OO BR TON S BO

con

ng Lo A od wo

St

1 Riverway 75

S 15

14

Pilgrim Rd

80

53

S

S

Brookline Ave Bo

yls ton

BIDMC Main Campus Entrance

114

U

417

2

St

285 327

S

80

S 484

361 628

Deaconess Rd

Francis St

50

Brookline Ave

107

217

188

55

317

264

im gr Pil Rd

4

S

374

2

144

189

Jimmy Fund Way

Riverway

S

57

S

SITE

57

196

96

3

Park D r

77

Pilgrim Rd

y

E

S

146

1

1

Fenwa

7

21

Francis St

Brookline Ave

75

4

64

307

20

Park Dr

20

Riverway

S

71

Fenway

U

Deaconess Rd

0

6

KLIN BROO ON BOST

10

Longwood Ave

erlan Neth

2

S

407

334

307

1

69

Park Dr

Short St

20

y wa

r

ve

Ri

ds Rd

S

S

ve

Pilgrim Rd

29

L S Dandm riv ar e k

3 U

Bea

Pilgrim Rd

Existing 2021Conditions Ped Volumes 2021 Existing Evening Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour- Ped Volumes One Simmons Simmons Redevelopment Project One Redevelopment Longwood Place Boston, MA MA Boston,

Figure A.7

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\15297.00\Graphics\FIGURES\One Simmons_Networks_v2.dwg

E LIN K OO BR TON S BO

1 Riverway

S

S

ve

ay

6

Pilgrim Rd

7

A od wo

St

w er

v

7

Ri

7

3

23

S

SITE

3

4

S

9 1

S

2

Brookline Ave

24

Bo

yls ton

5

7 1

Park D r

Fenwa

Park Dr

2

St

4 2

23

U

y

BIDMC Main Campus Entrance

6

Brookline Ave

S

S 2 4

1 0 9 2

8

3

Deaconess Rd

Francis St

S 2 13 9

1 3 3

4

im gr Pil Rd

4

Pilgrim Rd

Fenway

Riverway

S

1

3 1

3

E

5 2

Jimmy Fund Way

KLIN BROO ON BOST

S

Francis St

20

4

2

1 7

1

3

Pilgrim Rd

2 18 1

U

Riverway

1

1 43 4

2

S

2

Brookline Ave

Longwood Ave

2

Deaconess Rd

erlan Neth

2

6

Park Dr

1 84

Short St

S

S

ds Rd

L S Dandm riv ar e k

con

ng Lo

3 U

Bea

Pilgrim Rd

Existing 2021Conditions Bike Volumes 2021 Existing Morning Peak Hour Morning Peak Hour - Bike Volumes One Simmons Simmons Redevelopment Project One Redevelopment Longwood Place Boston, MA MA Boston,

Figure A.8

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\15297.00\Graphics\FIGURES\One Simmons_Networks_v2.dwg

E LIN K OO BR TON S BO

1 Riverway

S 26

S

ve

Pilgrim Rd

4

A od wo

St

ay

w er

S

S

20 1

S

yls ton

U

17

S

8 15

S

2

St

Park D r

y Fenwa

Park Dr

4 1

10

Brookline Ave Bo

BIDMC Main Campus Entrance

2

17 2

2

Brookline Ave

14

4 1

1

1

Deaconess Rd

Francis St 7

2

5

5

0 9 2

1

1 6 2

12

im gr Pil Rd

4

S

SITE

Fenway

Riverway

S

3

7 2

1 2

E

1

Jimmy Fund Way

KLIN BROO ON BOST

S

Pilgrim Rd

2 34 3

1

4

7

Francis St

Brookline Ave

1 0

Pilgrim Rd

9

7

U

Riverway

3

3

1

Deaconess Rd

erlan Neth

S

3 3

Longwood Ave

ds Rd

1 26

Park Dr

364

6

4

3

Short St

S

11

S 8

4

v

Ri

L S Dandm riv ar e k

con

ng Lo

3 U

Bea

Pilgrim Rd

Existing 2021Conditions Bike Volumes 2021 Existing Evening Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour- Bike Volumes One Simmons Simmons Redevelopment Project One Redevelopment Longwood Place Boston, MA MA Boston,

Figure A.9

Av e ne

Fu ll

to n

St

1/

St

4-

M

ile

Kilm

R ad iu

wa y Ri ve r

St

St

s n St

h St

roug rbo e t e P

r

rim

Site

ay nw Fe

Pil g

D rk Pa

Rd

r te es h lc Co

lsto Boy

ock arn

St lton Car

s ary ' St M

er

Br oo kli

Dr Park

St con a e B

rway rt

St

200

Ave

D

od

OA

wo

400 Feet

PA L AC

0

Lon g

ER

Bin n

ey St

Pil g

rim

Rd

Bl ac kf an C

ir

Av eL ou

Br oo

kli

ne

Av e

Sh o

is P ast eur

Rive

Source: MassGIS, BPDA

BlueBikes Station Zipcar Location

Figure A.10 Existing Bike and Car Share Locations One Simmons Redevelopment Project Boston, Massachusetts

Av e

St

h St

roug rbo e t e P

wa y

Rd

8

ir Bl ac kf an C

od

Ave

D

wo

8

OA

ey St Bin n

Lon g

19 47 CT3

PA L AC

400 Feet

Source: MassGIS, MBTA

MBTA Green Line MBTA Commuter Rail #

MBTA Bus Route

47 CT3

ER

Rd rim Pil g

65

60

19

Av eL ou

Br oo

kli

ne

Av e

is P ast eur

rim Pil g

8

r

St

65 CT2 CT3

55

D rk Pa

rt

47

n St

ay nw Fe

Sh o

60

19

St

lsto Boy

CT3 Site

R

s

8

Kilm iu

Ri ve r

ile

ad

65

19 60

M

ock arn

St lton Car

CT2 47

4-

ve

rway Rive

200

St

1/

CT2 47

Longwood

0

to n

Ri

ne

Li

er

Fenway

t rS te s e lch e o C id rs D-

ne

Fu ll

Br oo kli

lan leve

St. Mary's Street

s ary ' St M

irc dC

C ine-

CL

le

Dr Park

St con a e B

Figure A.11 Existing Public Transit Services One Simmons Redevelopment Project Boston, Massachusetts

Av e ne

Fu ll

to n

St

1/

St

4-

M

ile

Kilm

R ad iu

wa y Ri ve r

St

St

s n St

h St

roug rbo e t e P

r

rim

Site

ay nw Fe

Pil g

D rk Pa

Rd

r te es h lc Co

lsto Boy

ock arn

St lton Car

s ary ' St M

er

Br oo kli

Dr Park

St con a e B

rway rt

St

200

Ave

D

od

OA

wo

400 Feet

PA L AC

0

Lon g

ER

Bin n

ey St

Pil g

rim

Rd

Bl ac kf an C

ir

Av eL ou

Br oo

kli

ne

Av e

Sh o

is P ast eur

Rive

Source: MassGIS

Handicap Metered No Parking Resident Permit Parking Only Private Unregulated

Figure A.12 Existing Curb Regulations One Simmons Redevelopment Project Boston, Massachusetts

Av e ne

Fu ll

s ary ' St M

er

1

to n

Br oo kli

Dr Park

St

St

1/

4-

M

ile

Kilm

R ad iu

wa y Ri ve r

St

h St

2

rim

D rk Pa r

Site

ay nw Fe

Pil g

n St

roug rbo e t e P

Rd

r te es h lc Co

lsto Boy

St

s 10

ock arn

Landmark Center Pilgrim Road Garage n St Feldberg GarageBeaco Shapiro Garage 333 Longwood Garage Longwood Galeria Garage MASCO Garage BCH Patient & Family Garage CLSB Garage Fenway Triangle Garage

St lton Car

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

rway Sh o

St

Pil g

6

9

3

Bl ac kf an C

rim

Rd

4

ir

Br oo

2

Av eL ou

kli

ne

Av e

7

rt

is P ast eur

Rive

5

200

Ave

D

od

OA

wo

400 Feet

PA L AC

0

Lon g

ER

Bin n

ey St

8

Source: MassGIS

Figure A.13 Existing Off-Street Parking One Simmons Redevelopment Project Boston, Massachusetts

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\15297.00\Graphics\FIGURES\One Simmons_Networks_v2.dwg

E LIN K OO BR TON S BO

Riverway S

395

ve

ay

w er

1 360 35

0 48 530

Pilgrim Rd

5 29 80 3

S

v

105 340 115

65 240 50

280 1080 145

Park Dr

S

12

45

5 885

55 1235

805 80

0 82

Bo

yls ton

1030 90 350 1085

y Fenwa

Park Dr

Fenway S

Brookline Ave

2

St

Park D r

275 280 105

25 20

S

55 235 45

805 60

2

Brookline Ave

180 265 1

S 2 24 49 5 0

Deaconess Rd

290 550 130 120

30 115 45

1160 70

BIDMC Main Campus Entrance

U

S

SITE 230 640 205

80 610 200

S

Francis St

3

S 95 85

Francis St

S

10 20

1

Pilgrim Rd

235 800 720

120 75 155 60 810 120

210 500 30

555 85

im gr Pil Rd

4

880 70

Jimmy Fund Way

Riverway

680 80

S 290 555 5

KLINE BROO ON BOST

4

100 15 60

12 6 25 0 425 975

Brookline Ave

20 390 285

Riverway

900

5

Pilgrim Rd

S

90

U

Deaconess Rd

225 50 1

0 14 10 2

erlan Neth

Longwood Ave

90 0 76 90

ds Rd

70 85

Short St

S

80 825

660 330 70

Ri

L S Dandm riv ar e k

A od wo

45

St

340

con

ng Lo

3 U

Bea

Pilgrim Rd

No-Build 2028 Conditions Condition 2028 No-Build Morning Peak Hour Morning Peak Hour - Vehicle Volumes One Simmons Simmons Redevelopment Project One Redevelopment Longwood Place Boston, MA MA Boston,

Figure A.14

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\15297.00\Graphics\FIGURES\One Simmons_Networks_v2.dwg

E LIN K OO BR TON S BO

Riverway S

380

ve

ay

w er

1 360 20

0 59 370

Pilgrim Rd

5 35 60 7

S

v

80 200 170

80 300 95

260 730 40

S

Park Dr

S

89

0

10 925

U

0 69

Bo

yls ton

860 60

Fenway S

905 140 315 925

Fenwa

Park Dr

BIDMC Main Campus Entrance

95 900

Brookline Ave

2

St

Park D r

300 250 155

60 70

75 90

S

375 315

S 185 740 105 100

35 50 85

830 45

2

Brookline Ave

5 33 42 5 0

Deaconess Rd

Francis St

880 50

S

S

S

SITE 100 685 200

55 530 110

50 130

1

3

45 205 75

Francis St

S

0

Pilgrim Rd

80 690 520

105 65 180 55 405 80

125 980 30

790 50

im gr Pil Rd

4

520 45

Jimmy Fund Way

Riverway

119 5 60

S 105 245 5

KLINE BROO ON BOST

4

140 25 60

84 5 0 20

230 735

Brookline Ave

20 675 550

Riverway

135

5

Pilgrim Rd

S

54

U

Deaconess Rd

50 5

0 16 20 10

erlan Neth

210 180

ds Rd

Longwood Ave

0 20 40 12 20

y

Short St

125 1270

980 330 100

Ri

L S Dandm riv ar e k

A od wo

130

St

555

con

ng Lo

3 U

Bea

Pilgrim Rd

No-Build 2028 Conditions Condition 2028 No-Build Evening Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour- Vehicle Volumes One Simmons Simmons Redevelopment Project One Redevelopment Longwood Place Boston, MA MA Boston,

Figure A.15

Fu ll

er

St lton Car

27%

wa y Ri ve r

St lston y o B

St

h St

oug b or r e t Pe

% 31

Pil g St

31

Av e

rt

%

ir

Av eL ou

D

Ave

OA

od

Fr an c

is St

od

Rd

WA Y

ER

wo

FEN

PA L AC

ey St Bin n

Bl ac kf an C

Rd rim Pil g

300

18%

5% 0

Lon g

is P ast eur

ne kli Br oo

Riverway

3%

Fe nw o

St erry b s n ee

r

St

3%

Site

ay nw Fe

t Ken

Sh o

Qu

D rk Pa

rim

Rd

r ste e lch Co

St

6%

to n

Br oo kli

Dr Park

ne

Av e

7%

St con Bea

nti Hu

on ngt

Ave

600 Feet

Source: MassGIS

Figure A.16 Trip Distribution One Simmons Redevelopment Project Boston, Massachusetts

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\15297.00\Graphics\FIGURES\One Simmons_Networks_v2.dwg

E LIN K OO BR TON S BO

A od wo

12 10

St

1 Riverway

ve

ay

w er

28

Pilgrim Rd

2

S

2

v

10

Ri 8

S

2

S

Short St

Park Dr

Site Drive

150

55 55

3 9 150 2

60

S

S

28

Bo

yls ton St

y Fenwa

2

Brookline Ave

24 10 2

S

252

S 2 7

122

U

Park Dr

Fenway

83 7 31 304

2

154 150

60 5

BIDMC Main Campus Entrance

12

Francis St

5

35

S

SITE

S

S 35

3

Park D r

S

Pilgrim Rd

2 7

5

im gr Pil Rd

4

35

Francis St

Riverway

2

S 20

5

4

Jimmy Fund Way

KLINE BROO ON BOST

2 3

11

15 55

55

Pilgrim Rd

1 62

Deaconess Rd

U

Riverway

S

3 5

2

erlan Neth

Brookline Ave

Longwood Ave

ds Rd

11

U

S

L S Dandm riv ar e k

con

ng Lo

Short St Ext

3 U

Bea

Project GeneratedTrips Trips Project-Generated Morning Peak Hour Morning Peak Hour - Vehicle Volumes One Simmons Simmons Redevelopment Project One Redevelopment Longwood Place Boston, MA MA Boston,

Figure A.17

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\15297.00\Graphics\FIGURES\One Simmons_Networks_v2.dwg

E LIN K OO BR TON S BO

A od wo

153 10

St

1 Riverway S

27

ve

Pilgrim Rd

27

3

ay

w er

v

10

Ri 8

27 11

S

Park Dr

Site Drive

S

19

Short St

7

38 115

4 40

U

3

34 104

S

S 8 54

yls ton St

y

2

Brookline Ave Bo

Fenwa

Park Dr

Fenway

11 88

Francis St

158

Francis St

8

2

20 19

3 126 30

S

32

S 23 104 16

5

19 34

BIDMC Main Campus Entrance

S

S

SITE

S 5

Pilgrim Rd

3 61 11

1

27 7 2

S

im gr Pil Rd

4

5

61

1 95

Riverway

61

4

S 3

Pilgrim Rd

Jimmy Fund Way

KLINE BROO ON BOST

19 42

Deaconess Rd

U

Riverway

S

3 54

27

erlan Neth

Brookline Ave

Longwood Ave

ds Rd

Park D r

7

1

U

S

L S Dandm riv ar e k

con

ng Lo

Short St Ext

3 U

Bea

Project GeneratedTrips Trips Project-Generated Evening Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Vehicle Volumes One Simmons Simmons Redevelopment Project One Redevelopment Longwood Place Boston, MA MA Boston,

Figure A.18

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\15297.00\Graphics\FIGURES\One Simmons_Networks_v2.dwg

E LIN K OO BR TON S BO

Riverway S

397

ve

ay

w er

1 362 35

0 48 558

Pilgrim Rd

5 29 80 3

S

v

Park Dr

65 240 50

13

00

30 115 45

897

86 1539

815 82

Park Dr

Fenway S

1282 90 352 1092

8 84

2

S

154 1385

65 890

Bo

yls ton St

y

2

Brookline Ave

Park D r

286 280 105

28 29 3 5

S

66 235 45

865 60

150 1162 70

BIDMC Main Campus Entrance

U

S

SITE 230 645 205

80 645 200

S

Francis St

3

S 95 85

Francis St

S

10 20

1

Pilgrim Rd

318 807 720

120 75 155

210 505 30

560 85

im gr Pil Rd

4

915 70

Jimmy Fund Way

Riverway

682 80

S 290 575 5

KLINE BROO ON BOST

4

100 15 60

13 1 25 5 440 103 0

Brookline Ave

20 392 288

Riverway

900

7

Pilgrim Rd

S

96

U

Deaconess Rd

225 50 1

0 14 10 2

erlan Neth

Longwood Ave

90 2 76 90

Fenwa

Short St

280 1135 145

ds Rd

60 845 120

S

2 7

150

S

180 289 1

S 412 550 130 120

Site Drive

80 827

70 85

U

105 340 115

8

660 330 70

10

Ri

L S Dandm riv ar e k

A od wo

57 10

St

340

con

ng Lo

Short St Ext

3 U

Bea

2 24 59 5 7

BuildBuild 2028Conditions Condition 2028 Morning Peak Morning Peak Hour Hour - Vehicle Volumes One Simmons Simmons Redevelopment Project One Redevelopment Longwood Place Boston, MA MA Boston,

Figure A.19

\\vhb\gbl\proj\Boston\15297.00\Graphics\FIGURES\One Simmons_Networks_v2.dwg

E LIN K OO BR TON S BO

Riverway S

407

ve

ay

w er

1 387 20

0 59 373

Pilgrim Rd

5 35 60 7

S

v

Park Dr 89

1083

3

98 185

104 34

38 54

S

S

46 205 75

986 90

Park Dr

Fenway

91 778 520

79 960

S

937 140 338 1029

2

30 929

18 979

2

Brookline Ave Bo

yls ton St

375 318

S 201 740 105 120

35 50 85

838 45

29 914 50

BIDMC Main Campus Entrance

U

S

SITE

S

S

Francis St

3 100 746 211

55 535 110

1

Pilgrim Rd

75 90

301 250 155

S 210 180

Francis St

122 2 60

140 25 60

84 5 0 20 232 742 105 65 180

851 50

im gr Pil Rd

4

525 45

Jimmy Fund Way

Riverway

125 1041 30

4

S 105 248 5

KLINE BROO ON BOST

20 694 592

0

0

Pilgrim Rd

Riverway

135

64

Brookline Ave

Longwood Ave

U

Deaconess Rd

50 5

0 16 20 10

erlan Neth

S

69

7

20 67 12 0 20

ds Rd

55 410 120

80 300 95

Short St

260 737 40

S

50 130

Park D r

29

S

y

Site Drive

136 1297

Fenwa

U

80 200 170

92

980 505 100

15

Ri

L S Dandm riv ar e k

A od wo

283 15

St

555

con

ng Lo

Short St Ext

3 U

Bea

2 33 43 5 5

BuildBuild 2028Conditions Condition 2028 Evening Peak Vehicle Volumes Volumes Evening PeakHour Hour- Vehicle One Simmons Simmons Redevelopment Project One Redevelopment Longwood Place Boston, MA MA Boston,

Figure A.20

Route 8 Peak Passenger Load Point, Existing (Fall 2019) Condition Route 8 Inbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) 80 Max Average Passengers (Existing)

75

Passenger Crowding Threshold

70 65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Route 8 Outbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) 80 75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Figure A.21a MBTA Bus Capacity - Route 8 Existing (Fall 2019 Condition) Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Route 19 Peak Passenger Load Point, Existing (Fall 2019) Condition Route 19 Inbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) 80 Max Average Passengers (Existing)

75

Passenger Crowding Threshold

70 65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

5:50

6:08

6:22

6:36

6:49

7:01

7:18

7:35

7:52

8:09

8:26

14:24

14:58

15:32

16:02

16:32

17:02

17:37

18:10

Route 19 Outbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) 80 75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

6:44

6:53

7:10

7:28

7:46

8:03

8:19

8:35

8:51

9:08

14:18

14:41

15:08

15:32

16:03

16:35

17:03

17:33

Figure A.21b MBTA Bus Capacity - Route 19 Existing (Fall 2019 Condition) Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

18:05

18:40

0

Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Figure A.21c

MBTA Bus Capacity - Route 47 Existing (Fall 2019 Condition) 0:15

23:30

22:45

22:00

21:15

20:30

20:00

65

19:30

70

19:00

75 1:00

0:15

23:30

22:45

22:00

21:15

20:30

20:00

19:30

19:00

18:35

70

18:35

18:15

17:55

17:37

17:21

17:05

16:52

16:35

16:18

16:01

15:43

15:25

15:05

14:45

14:25

14:05

13:45

13:25

13:05

12:45

12:25

12:05

11:45

11:25

11:05

10:45

10:25

10:03

9:41

9:23

9:05

8:50

8:40

8:30

8:20

8:10

8:00

7:45

7:30

7:15

7:00

6:45

6:30

6:15

6:00

Passengers 75

18:10

17:50

17:34

17:18

17:02

16:50

16:40

16:30

16:20

16:06

15:50

15:38

15:22

15:05

14:45

14:25

14:05

13:45

13:25

13:05

12:45

12:25

12:05

11:45

11:25

11:05

10:45

10:25

10:05

9:43

9:21

8:59

8:37

8:17

7:57

7:37

7:17

7:02

6:47

6:32

6:17

6:02

5:47

5:32

0

5:15

Passengers

Route 47 Peak Passenger Load Point, Existing (Fall 2019) Condition

80

Route 47 Inbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) Max Average Passengers (Existing)

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

Route 47 Outbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019)

80

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

Passenger Crowding Threshold

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

Route 60 Peak Passenger Load Point, Existing (Fall 2019) Condition Route 60 Inbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) 80 Max Average Passengers (Existing)

75

Passenger Crowding Threshold

70 65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

5:12 6:00 6:30 6:57 7:20 7:45 8:15 8:42 9:06 9:40 10:15 10:50 11:25 12:00 12:39 13:10 13:43 14:10 14:42 15:12 15:42 16:12 16:39 17:09 17:41 18:10 18:35 19:00 19:19 19:45 20:15 20:45 21:15 22:15 23:15

Route 60 Outbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) 80 75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

5:30 6:00 6:23 6:43 7:03 7:32 7:58 8:27 9:00 9:19 9:38 10:12 10:47 11:22 11:57 12:35 13:10 13:35 14:05 14:30 15:00 15:25 15:55 16:25 16:55 17:20 17:50 18:20 18:48 19:15 19:45 20:15 20:45 21:45 22:45 23:40

Figure A.21d MBTA Bus Capacity - Route 60 Existing (Fall 2019 Condition) Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Route 65 Peak Passenger Load Point, Existing (Fall 2019) Condition Route 65 Inbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) 80 Max Average Passengers (Existing)

75

Passenger Crowding Threshold

70 65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Route 65 Outbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) 80 75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

6:14 6:50 7:12 7:31 7:47 8:07 8:27 8:42 9:00 9:30 10:10 10:40 11:15 11:50 12:25 13:00 13:35 14:00 14:25 14:45 15:20 15:40 16:00 16:17 16:35 16:45 16:55 17:05 17:20 17:40 18:00 18:25 18:50 19:35 20:35

Figure A.21e MBTA Bus Capacity - Route 65 Existing (Fall 2019 Condition) Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Route CT2 Peak Passenger Load Point, Existing (Fall 2019) Condition Route CT2 Inbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) 80 Max Average Passengers (Existing)

75

Passenger Crowding Threshold

70 65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

6:35

6:56

7:17

7:38

7:58

8:18

8:40

9:02

9:33

10:07 10:45 11:20 11:55 12:35 13:10 13:40 14:10 14:40 15:05 15:30 15:55 16:25 16:57 17:29 18:00 18:30 19:00

Route CT2 Outbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) 80 75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

5:55

6:24

6:48

7:12

7:36

8:00

8:25

9:05

9:45

10:25

11:00

11:35

12:10

12:44

13:25

14:00

14:35

15:05

15:43

16:11

16:38

17:05

17:40

Figure A.21f MBTA Bus Capacity - Route CT2 Existing (Fall 2019 Condition) Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

18:15

18:45

Route CT3 Peak Passenger Load Point, Existing (Fall 2019) Condition Route CT3 Inbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) 80 Max Average Passengers (Existing)

75

Passenger Crowding Threshold

70 65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

6:28

6:43

7:01

7:16

7:35

7:56

8:16

8:31

8:51

9:11

9:31 10:10 11:22 12:37 13:47 14:25 14:45 15:07 15:28 15:49 16:10 16:31 16:52 17:14 17:36 17:58 18:15 18:45 19:20 20:15

Route CT3 Outbound - Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip (Fall 2019) 80 75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

6:00

6:15

6:30

6:45

7:00

7:20

7:40

8:00

8:20

8:40

9:00

9:40 10:55 12:10 13:20 14:00 14:30 14:50 15:10 15:31 15:53 16:15 16:37 17:02 17:22 17:42 18:10 18:50 19:50

Figure A.21g MBTA Bus Capacity - Route CT3 Existing (Fall 2019 Condition) Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Green Line Peak Load Point Capacity Analysis: Average Passenger Volumes Inbound, Base (Fall 2019) 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,300

MBTA Service Deliver Policy Peak Period Passenger Capacity (Max Load) Threshold is 100 Passenger per Train

30-Minute Avg. Passenger Load (Fall 2019)

MBTA Service Deliver Policy Off-Peak Period Passenger Capacity (Max Load) Threshold is 66 Passengers per Train

Policy Max (No Car Upgrade, Existing Service Levels)

Peak Period

1,200 Peak Period 6:30-9:00 AM

Peak Period 3:30-6:30 PM

1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 4:30 AM 5:00 AM 5:30 AM 6:00 AM 6:30 AM 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM 10:30 PM 11:00 PM 11:30 PM 12:00 AM 12:30 AM 1:00 AM 1:30 AM 2:00 AM

Passengers per 30-Minute Period

1,100

Figure A.22a MBTA Green Line Capacity Analysis - IB Existing (Fall 2019 Condition) Longwood Place Boston, MA

Green Line Peak Load Point Capacity Analysis: Average Passenger Volumes Outbound, Base Year (Fall 2019) 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200

Peak Period Policy Max (No Car Upgrade, Existing Service Levels)

MBTA Service Deliver Policy Off-Peak Period Passenger Capacity (Max Load) Threshold is 66 Passengers per Train Peak Period 6:30-9:00 AM

Peak Period 3:30-6:30 PM

1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 4:30 AM 5:00 AM 5:30 AM 6:00 AM 6:30 AM 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM 10:30 PM 11:00 PM 11:30 PM 12:00 AM 12:30 AM 1:00 AM 1:30 AM 2:00 AM

Passengers per 30-Minute Period

1,100

30-Minute Avg. Passenger Load (Fall 2019)

MBTA Service Deliver Policy Peak Period Passenger Capacity (Max Load) Threshold is 100 Passenger per Train

Figure A.22b MBTA Green Line Capacity Analysis - OB Existing (Fall 2019 Condition) Longwood Place Boston, MA

Route 8 Peak Passenger Load Point, 2028 Build Condition Route 8 Inbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028) 80

Project-Generated Passengers Background Growth in Passengers

75 70

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

65

Passenger Crowding Threshold

60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Route 8 Outbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2026) 80

Project-Generated Passengers Background Growth in Passengers

75 70

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

65

Passenger Crowding Threshold

60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Figure A.23a MBTA Bus Capacity - Route 8 2028 Build Condition Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Route 19 Peak Passenger Load Point, 2028 Build Condition Route 19 Inbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028) 80

Project-Generated Passengers Background Growth in Passengers

75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

5:50

6:08

6:22

6:36

6:49

7:01

7:18

7:35

7:52

8:09

8:26

14:24

14:58

15:32

16:02

Route 19 Outbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028) 80

16:32

17:02

17:37

18:10

Project-Generated Passengers Background Growth in Passengers

75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

6:44

6:53

7:10

7:28

7:46

8:03

8:19

8:35

8:51

9:08

14:18

14:41

15:08

15:32

16:03

16:35

17:03

17:33

18:05

Figure A.23b MBTA Bus Capacity - Route 19 2028 Build Condition Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

18:40

Route 47 Peak Passenger Load Point, 2028 Build Condition Route 47 Inbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028)

Project-Generated Passengers

80

Background Growth in Passengers

75 70

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

65

Passenger Crowding Threshold

60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

Route 47 Outbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028) 80

1:00

0:15

23:30

22:45

22:00

21:15

20:30

20:00

19:30

19:00

18:35

18:15

17:55

17:37

17:21

17:05

16:52

16:35

16:18

16:01

15:43

15:25

15:05

14:45

14:25

14:05

13:45

13:25

13:05

12:45

12:25

12:05

11:45

11:25

11:05

10:45

10:25

9:41

10:03

9:23

9:05

8:50

8:40

8:30

8:20

8:10

8:00

7:45

7:30

7:15

7:00

6:45

6:30

6:15

0

6:00

5

Project-Generated Passengers Background Growth in Passengers

75 70

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

65

Passenger Crowding Threshold

60 55 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

Figure A.23c MBTA Bus Capacity - Route 47 2028 Build Condition Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

0:15

23:30

22:45

22:00

21:15

20:30

20:00

19:30

19:00

18:35

18:10

17:50

17:34

17:18

17:02

16:50

16:40

16:30

16:20

16:06

15:50

15:38

15:22

15:05

14:45

14:25

14:05

13:45

13:25

13:05

12:45

12:25

12:05

11:45

11:25

11:05

10:45

10:25

10:05

9:43

9:21

8:59

8:37

8:17

7:57

7:37

7:17

7:02

6:47

6:32

6:17

6:02

5:47

0

5:32

5 5:15

Passengers

50

Route 60 Peak Passenger Load Point, 2028 Build Condition Route 60 Inbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028) 80

Project-Generated Passengers Background Growth in Passengers

75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

5:12 6:00 6:30 6:57 7:20 7:45 8:15 8:42 9:06 9:40 10:15 10:50 11:25 12:00 12:39 13:10 13:43 14:10 14:42 15:12 15:42 16:12 16:39 17:09 17:41 18:10 18:35 19:00 19:19 19:45 20:15 20:45 21:15 22:15 23:15

Route 60 Outbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028) 80

Project-Generated Passengers Background Growth in Passengers

75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

5:30 6:00 6:23 6:43 7:03 7:32 7:58 8:27 9:00 9:19 9:38 10:12 10:47 11:22 11:57 12:35 13:10 13:35 14:05 14:30 15:00 15:25 15:55 16:25 16:55 17:20 17:50 18:20 18:48 19:15 19:45 20:15 20:45 21:45 22:45 23:40

Figure A.23d MBTA Bus Capacity - Route 60 2028 Build Condition Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Route 65 Peak Passenger Load Point, 2028 Build Condition Route 65 Inbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028) 80

Project-Generated Passengers

75

Background Growth in Passengers

70

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

65

Passenger Crowding Threshold

60 55 50 Passengers

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Route 65 Outbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028) 80

Project-Generated Passengers Background Growth in Passengers

75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

6:14 6:50 7:12 7:31 7:47 8:07 8:27 8:42 9:00 9:30 10:10 10:40 11:15 11:50 12:25 13:00 13:35 14:00 14:25 14:45 15:20 15:40 16:00 16:17 16:35 16:45 16:55 17:05 17:20 17:40 18:00 18:25 18:50 19:35 20:35

Figure A.23e MBTA Bus Capacity - Route 65 2028 Build Condition Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Route CT2 Peak Passenger Load Point, 2028 Build Condition Route CT2 Inbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028) 80

Project-Generated Passengers Background Growth in Passengers

75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

6:35

6:56

7:17

7:38

7:58

8:18

8:40

9:02

9:33

10:07 10:45 11:20 11:55 12:35 13:10 13:40 14:10 14:40 15:05 15:30 15:55 16:25 16:57 17:29 18:00 18:30 19:00

Route CT2 Outbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028) 80

Project-Generated Passengers Background Growth in Passengers

75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

5:55

6:24

6:48

7:12

7:36

8:00

8:25

9:05

9:45

10:25

11:00

11:35

12:10

12:44

13:25

14:00

14:35

15:05

15:43

16:11

16:38

17:05

17:40

Figure A.23f MBTA Bus Capacity - Route CT2 2028 Build Condition Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

18:15

18:45

Route CT3 Peak Passenger Load Point, 2028 Build Condition Route CT3 Inbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028) 80

Project-Generated Passengers Background Growth in Passengers

75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

6:28

6:43

7:01

7:16

7:35

7:56

8:16

8:31

8:51

9:11

9:31 10:10 11:22 12:37 13:47 14:25 14:45 15:07 15:28 15:49 16:10 16:31 16:52 17:14 17:36 17:58 18:15 18:45 19:20 20:15

Route CT3 Outbound - Projected Average Passengers at Peak Load Point by Bus Trip with Full Build and Background Passenger Growth (through 2028) 80

Project-Generated Passengers Background Growth in Passengers

75

Max Average Passengers (Existing)

70

Passenger Crowding Threshold

65 60 55

Passengers

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

6:00

6:15

6:30

6:45

7:00

7:20

7:40

8:00

8:20

8:40

9:00

9:40 10:55 12:10 13:20 14:00 14:30 14:50 15:10 15:31 15:53 16:15 16:37 17:02 17:22 17:42 18:10 18:50 19:50

Figure A.23g MBTA Bus Capacity - Route CT3 2028 Build Condition Longwood Place Boston, Massachusetts

Green Line Peak Load Point Capacity Analysis: Average Passenger Volumes Inbound, Base (Fall 2019) and Projected 2028 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200

30-Minute Avg. Passenger Load (Fall 2019) MBTA Service Delivery Policy Peak Period Passenger Capacity (Max Load) Threshold is 100 Passengers per Train

2028 No Build Passengers Added

MBTA Service Delivery Policy Off-Peak Period Passenger Capacity (Max Load) Threshold is 66 Passengers per Train

Peak Period

Peak Period 6:30-9:00 AM

2028 Project Build Net New Passengers Added Policy Max (No Car Upgrade, Existing Service Levels) Expected Policy Max (Type 9 Car Upgrade) Peak Period 3:30-6:30 PM

1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 4:30 AM 5:00 AM 5:30 AM 6:00 AM 6:30 AM 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM 10:30 PM 11:00 PM 11:30 PM 12:00 AM 12:30 AM 1:00 AM 1:30 AM 2:00 AM

Passengers per 30-Minute Period

1,100

Figure A.24a MBTA Green Line Capacity Analysis - IB Build 2028 Condition Longwood Place Boston, MA

Green Line Peak Load Point Capacity Analysis: Average Passenger Volumes Outbound, Base Year (Fall 2019) and Projected 2028 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200

2028 No Build Passengers Added 2028 Project Build Net New Passengers Added

MBTA Service Delivery Policy Off-Peak Period Passenger Capacity (Max Load) Threshold is 66 Passengers per Train Peak Period 6:30-9:00 AM

Peak Period Policy Max (No Car Upgrade, Existing Service Levels) Peak Period 3:30-6:30 PM

Expected Policy Max (Type 9 Car Upgrade)

1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 4:30 AM 5:00 AM 5:30 AM 6:00 AM 6:30 AM 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM 10:30 PM 11:00 PM 11:30 PM 12:00 AM 12:30 AM 1:00 AM 1:30 AM 2:00 AM

Passengers per 30-Minute Period

1,100

30-Minute Avg. Passenger Load (Fall 2019)

MBTA Service Delivery Policy Peak Period Passenger Capacity (Max Load) Threshold is 100 Passengers per Train

Figure A.24b MBTA Green Line Capacity Analysis - OB Build 2028 Condition Longwood Place Boston, MA

Lansdowne

to n

St

e

sid

Ri ve r

St

R

e-

in

L D-

er

wa y

St lton Car

St lston Boy

3

h St

roug 6 Peterbo

4

Qu

ne

Av e

Site

Sh o

rt

Br oo

kli

7

r

5

ay nw Fe

Longwood

Pil g

2

St erry b s een

D rk Pa

rim

Rd

lch Co

r te es

er iv

Fenway

Fu ll

Br oo kli

Dr Park

ne

Av e

St con Bea

8

St

Lack of reciprocal directional ramp crossing Brookline Ave.

2

4

Short Street Stairs:

is P ast eur

Sears Rotary: Missing sidewalk link along west side of Park Drive southbound.

5

WA Y

Riverway/Short Street Extention:

MBTA Bus Stop: No existing bus shelter.

7

Brookline Ave/Pilgrim Road: Hazardous ADA ramp placement, skewed crosswalk alignment.

Lack of accessible ramp to Emerald Necklace/Longwood Station.

6

D

3

OA

Brookline Ave/BIDMC:

dA ve

ER

1

oo

PA L AC

Pil g

gw

FEN

Av eL ou

rim

Lo n

Bl ac kf an C

Rd

ir

Riverway

1

MBTA Bus Stop: Bus stop/bike lane conflict.

8

MBTA Bus Stop: Bus stop/bike lane conflict.

Lack of ADA ramps at either end of Riverway.

0

300

600 Feet

Source: MassGIS

Primary Pedestrian Access Routes to: MBTA Green Line MBTA Commuter Line MBTA Bus Stops Rail Stop Bus Stop

Figure A.25a Existing Transit Access Challenges One Simmons Redevelopment Project Boston, Massachusetts

Lansdowne

Fu ll

er

Fenway

to n

Br oo kli

Dr Park

ne

Av e

St con Bea

St

wa y

St lton Car Ri ve r

St

h St

ug oro b r e Pet

4

Qu

6

Sh o

rt

Br oo

kli

Longwood

5

r

ne

Av e

Site

ay nw Fe

Pil g

2

St erry b s een

D rk Pa

rim

Rd

lch Co

r te es

St lston Boy

3

St

Short Street Stairs:

5

Construct accessible ramp to Emerald Necklace walkway.

3

is P ast eur

Reconstruct ramps and realign crosswalk.

Install ADA compliment recprocal ramp.

2

Construct missing sidewalk link.

0

300

MBTA Bus Stop: Reconstruct ramps and realign crosswalk.

6

Sears Rotary:

Brookline Ave/Pilgrim Road:

D

4

OA

Brookline Ave/BIDMC:

dA ve

ER

1

oo

WA Y

PA L AC

Pil g

gw

FEN

Av eL ou

rim

Lo n

Bl ac kf an C

Rd

ir

Riverway

1

MBTA Bus Stop: Reconstruct ramps and realign crosswalk.

600 Feet

Source: MassGIS

Primary Pedestrian Access Routes to: MBTA Green Line MBTA Commuter Line MBTA Bus Stops Rail Stop Bus Stop

Figure A.25b Transit Access Improvements One Simmons Redevelopment Project Boston, Massachusetts

D rk Pa

Riv er w ay

r

Pil g

rim

Rd

ay nw Fe

Br oo

kli

ne

Av e

Site

Sh o

0

100

rt

St

200 Feet

Source: MassGIS, City of Boston Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

1 (Less stressful) 2 3 4 (Most stressfull)

Figure A.26 Existing Bicycle Level of Comfort One Simmons Redevelopment Project Boston, Massachusetts

D rk Pa

Riv er w ay

r

Pil g

rim

Rd

ay nw Fe

Site

Br oo

kli

ne

Av e

Short Street Proposed use by all modes including proposed raised 12' multi use path with 2' buffers on either side

Sh o

0

100

rt

St

Brookline Avenue Proposed raised 6' seperated bike lane with 2' buffer

200 Feet

Source: MassGIS, City of Boston Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress

1 (Less stressful) 2 3 4 (Most stressfull)

Figure A.27 Future Bicycle Level of Comfort One Simmons Redevelopment Project Boston, Massachusetts

APPENDIX B SHADOW STUDIES

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

MARCH 20 COMPOSITE 10AM-5PM

SHADOW 4 -5 P M

SHADOW 1 0 -11 A M

EM

ER

A

LD

N

EC

K

LA

C

E

EMERALD NECKLACE EXISTING SHADOW >1HR NEW SHADOW > 1HR

APPENDIX B SHADOW STUDY | EMERALD NECKLACE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

MARCH 20 9AM

MARCH 20 12PM

MARCH 20 3PM

APPENDIX B SHADOW STUDY | VERNAL EQUINOX

EXISTING SHADOW NEW SHADOW

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

JUNE 21 9AM

JUNE 21 12PM

JUNE 21 3PM

JUNE 21 6PM

APPENDIX B SHADOW STUDY | SUMMER SOLSTICE

EXISTING SHADOW NEW SHADOW

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

SEPTEMBER 22 9AM

SEPTEMBER 22 12PM

SEPTEMBER 22 3PM

SEPTEMBER 22 6PM

APPENDIX B SHADOW STUDY | AUTUMNAL EQUINOX

EXISTING SHADOW NEW SHADOW

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022

DECEMBER 21 9AM

DECEMBER 21 12PM

DECEMBER 21 3PM

APPENDIX B SHADOW STUDY | WINTER SOLSTICE

EXISTING SHADOW NEW SHADOW

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA

LONGWOOD PLACE

01 03 2022