The Mass Department of Transportation will present the very long-awaited design plans for the Needham Street/Highland Ave corridor at a public hearing this Thurs. Jan. 8, 7 p.m. at Countryside School Auditorium on Dedham Street.
You can get a preview of the project here and go here read more about the project from Wicked Local from when it was unveiled at a public meeting at Needham Town Hall in early December.
This section of roadway has been neglected for so long… but I don’t know that I trust anyone to improve Needham/Highland instead of exacerbating the existing problems. From experience it takes the traffic folks 2 or 3 re-dos before they get it right.
Case in point is the Oak St / Christina St / Needham Street intersection… that section is currently a free-for-all, with all left-turning traffic having to cross each other’s paths. But cycling the light would back up traffic entering Needham Street tremendously, so the cure ends up being worse than the problem.
As for bike lanes… I wish it would work, but I don’t see a way to make it work safely with the high volume of turning traffic. Getting the rail trail done would be a safer alternative.
Why does Needham get fancy ornamental black street lamps, while Newton only gets standard green?
Long-awaited, perhaps, but the plans don’t seem to have changed a whole lot from the public hearing last year at Countryside. The question I’d like to ask DOT Thursday night: show which changes were based on public feedback from the previous session.
@Dulles: Part of the project, being done early with a “MassWorks” grant, would take property and realign Oak/Christina. Might help a bit. Also, there have been multiple requests from Newton City Hall (also from individuals) for a cycle track instead of a bike lane (with reduced curb cuts, a possibility) as bicycle accommodations on Winchester to actually connect to the T and the rest of the city. None of that seems to be in the 25% plans. It should be safe to bicycle on Needham Street as well as the Greenway, and there ought to be connections designed between the two (another point DOT has ignored). DOT is supposed to have a new focus on mode shift. You wouldn’t know it from looking at these plans.
One other interesting change: the bridge over the Charles seems to have been flipped to favor Needham: two lanes out, one lane in.
Thanks @Adam!
I didn’t get to the previous meeting(s), so this slide deck is new to me. Oak/Christina streets desperately need to be aligned to “fix” that borked intersection, which is also very pedestrian-unfriendly. I will be impressed if the implemented improvements pull this off and fix the left-turn mess.
As a cycling fan and advocate I agree it would be a good thing to be able to cycle Needham St Highland Ave. Right now for safety’s sake I only cycle Elliot Central Ave when going to Needham. I really hope the follow-through on the Greenway still happens as planned, I would love a route parallel to Needham Street without all the traffic dangers.
@Adam. Thanks. It’s frustrating when community groups and individuals make a real effort to provide positive suggestions and input for a major project with so many community impacts like this major transportation project, and then find out that few if any of these suggestions are incorporated into a final plan. I hope this turns out not to be the case when Needham Street Highland Avenue project actually gets underway.
Just as disturbing and related to all of this is the likely loss of critical options for additional bicycling options when the old railroad bridge across 128 is dismantled and not replaced with even a narrow foot and bicycle bridge. I still can’t believe the State is allowing this to happen.
@Bob – Agree with you regarding the Rt 128 rail bridge, and it’s going to be tough to replace that if lost in the add-a-lane project. The opposition to this appears to be squarely in Needham, and is very difficult to understand
Opposition is squarely among the Needham Selectmen. No indication of opposition from Needham residents or businesses, and even the Needham Planning Board recognized the danger of letting MassDOT tear down the bridge without replacing it.
@Dulles, among the “improvements” at Oak and Christina is the addition of a right turn only lane on Christina to make the intersection a bit less pedestrian-friendly. Why? Hoping someone will ask on Thursday.
What is this “favor” Needham over Newton DOT bias all about? I have seen the bias in DOT’s disregard for Newton’s interests in the Add-A-Lane Project, but I dismissed it because the project limits are technically outside Newton, so we are supposed to look to DOT for their largesse, not our rights. Needham and Wellesley will gain advantages: both Needham and Wellesley will gain improved access to their Office Parks and Wellesley will gain access to new sound barrier shielding. Newton will get more traffic and more back-ups and more neighborhood invasion of drivers trying to avoid the mess. Now, in addition, there will be a 2 to 1 lane “favor” of the bridge direction over the Charles at Highland Ave. and Needham will get “fancy ornamental black street lamps, while Newton only gets standard green.” Does anyone see a Cinderella treatment here?
People, people, people. This Needham jealousy is unbecoming and, more importantly, unjustified.
At the first public hearing in December, Mass DOT explained that Needham was getting the ornamental fixtures because that was the look the town has adopted that it is uses downtown and in Needham Heights. Newton, they said, did not have a standard defined look beyond the green posts, but they were open to introducing one based on input from the city.
In other words don’t blame Needham for having its act, er look, together.
Meanwhile, Sallee you’ll have to explain to me how the Kendrick Street ramp only helps Needham’s office park and not Wells Ave?
As for the rail road bridge, I think it’s important to understand that the current structure can’t just stay. It needs work, i.e. money. Needham’s position (and I see the wisdom here) is that we should not invest money in creating a walking/bike bridge there because what we really need is a bridge that can one-day accommodate mass transit. But since the state is very very unlikely to invest in a mass transit capable bridge now (since there is no approved mass transit plan now) its best to go back and request that later.
This is a long term strategy that may frustrate some people but is not irrational. The idea is, you don’t want to ask the state to invest XXX millions now on a foot/bike bridge and then go back in a decade or so and say, “just kidding, now we want you to tear that down and do this instead.”
@Chris and Adam. I knew the opposition was coming from the Needham Selectmen. In fact, I recall that they objected to Jerry Reilly’s presence at one of their meetings and jerry had to remind them that it was a meeting open to the public and the last time he checked, he was a public.
@Sallee, you should direct that question to the Mayor, who has been working directly with the Needham Selectmen on the N2 corridor. Needham has certainly been far more effective lobbying MassDOT over the years, but in fairness, their requests have been more in line with MassDOT’s way of doing business, favoring the car and the highway.
@Bob 🙂
Does this project impact Srdjan’s project with the railway?
No you would not ask them to build a foot/bike bridge and then tear it down to build a rail bridge and no one is advocating that. The sensible course would be to build a foot/bike bridge in such a way that a rail bridge could be added alongside later. Two very different uses can be accommodated by two very different bridges. Yes, there would be some cost efficiencies from combining them into one structure, but when no rail plan exists, holding out for a combined rail/pedestrian bridge means no bridge at all for many, many years. I would not call the Needham position irrational, but short-sighted. I think those who advocate a pedestrian bridge now are taking the most realistic position of actually getting a bridge in our lifetimes.
@Greg. I think it will be many, many years before the MBTA constructs any kind of transit system on this rail bed. A trolley system from Newton HIghlands to Needham Heights would be competing with so many more transit priorities that have far greater commuter demand — the Green Line extension to Somerville and Needham being just one of these. A narrow, no frills bridge (with railings) for bicyclists over 128 could provide years (perhaps decades) of use for cyclists to travel freely from Upper Falls to Needham Heights, and beyond since it would link to or be close to other existing bike trails in the area.
Still, I think replacing the whole bridge would be the better option. With this, the MBTA would always have the option of extending some form of combined transit and bike path to Needham Heights in the future. I can’t understand why the MBTA isn’t pressuring the state to replace a full bridge to keep this and other options open. Did the MBTA lose ownership of that railroad bridge cease to exist when 128 was constructed, or does it still own that land, too?? Could the MBTA’s ownership still be in place because the old bridge is still there, but effectively end when the bridge is demolished? There are so many variables here, it’s tough to predict the eventual outcome, but I think destroying the bridge without some kind of immediate replacement is a mistake simply because it makes future options so much more difficult if not impossible.
Bruce B was posting his comments while I was composing mine. I think there’s a lot of merit in a two bridge solution,; Our common concern is what it would mean to destroy one bridge and not replace it with something that would signal a commitment to transit and to cycling and walking across 128. If nothing replaces the destroyed bridge now, it probably means that nothing will ever replace it.
@Greg, perhaps the poles are irrelevant, but can you shed some light on the lane change on the Charles River bridge? Was that negotiated somehow? It seems to go against Newton’s interests, if not Newton’s outright requests. Regarding the Kendrick Street exit, it certainly benefits Wells Ave, but it also disproportionately affects Newton’s residential areas, as Needham was able to negotiate a turn restriction to keep traffic off Greendale, and we all know there’s strong incentive to bypass already congested roads heading towards Boston.
The reason the current rail structure over 128 must come down isn’t its condition. It’s because it’s not wide enough to support the additional 4(!) lanes. Yep, 4 lanes for that stretch. It’s gotta come down, as well as the supporting structure. They could certainly build a bike ped structure then, decades from now when we run out of fossil fuels and realize our mistakes, build a bridge to support light rail or carbon fiber vehicles or who knows what right next to it (BruceB’s point) We’re talking a long time. It’s not even in the MBTA’s 25 year plan. Even the Somerville extension, at far less cost per passenger, is only happening over MBTA protest because of massive federal funding and legal requirements from the big dig.
A more legitimate plan might be to extend the Commuter Rail one stop to Muzi, then allow commuters to walk or ride over that new span to get to the western portion of the Needham business park (supporting businesses!). Meanwhile, there’s a bike/ped resource for employees to enjoy, adjoining a river crossing, and maybe, just maybe, a bit of mode shift.
No matter how you look at it, a bike/ped structure makes sense, now. Needham refuses to have public discussion or even consider the possibilities. Instead, they play FUD and let the resources wither away. Nothing wise about that.
The state recently completed a bridge over Route 24 in Randolph for the Blue Hills Reservation Trail that only services hikers and horse riders. So a bike/ped bridge replacement at the spot where we are discussing would not be a precedent setting project.
Maybe we need to ask for a ped/bike/horse trail to get a bridge across the highway 😉
@Greg: What Adam said.
@Adam et. al. I sometimes get the feeling that the powers that be (whoever they may be and where ever they may be) are listening more to Needham than to Newton on a lot of things. And I would still like to know who now owns the land and air rights over the soon to be demolished railroad bridge across 128. Is it the Commonwealth, the MBTA, or the Town of Needham?
Has the MBTA turned the railbed land between 128 and Needham Heights over to the Town of Needham, or does it still retain ownership? I rather suspect that the MBTA still retains ownership since they never ceded the land for the Upper Falls Greenway to Newton. If this is so and if the MBTA will still retain air rights over the 128 space previously occupied by the bridge, why does Needham have the right to halt construction of a bicycle bridge over 128, or even to interfere with construction of a bicycle and pedestrian path along the old rail bed?? Of course, Needham would and should have right to regulate any adverse effects on the town from a bike path (whatever these may be), but where do they get the authority to halt something on land that doesn’t belong to them? I’m sure there’s a reasonable or at least plausible answer for all of this, but I’d still like to know.
Bob, to the best of my knowledge, ownership hasn’t changed. It was suggested by DOT at a public meeting that the MBTA still has the right to a bridge over the highway, and DOT would do whatever the MBTA says (though who knows when!). Not sure exactly which agency has what property rights, but it definitely lies at the state level. Needham has no ownership, but seems to have all the control. DOT suggested that it is deferring to local municipalities to suggest how to use the inactive corridor — of course, that doesn’t mean the MBTA would necessarily fund light or heavy rail service on request, but leasing for a trail has been offered. Apparently, Needham would have to take the MBTA up on that lease and offer to build the trail, like Newton did, for the state to justify building a bridge. If you’re willing to wait, there are plenty of federal/state $$ for rail trails, so cost isn’t the issue. Otherwise, for the MBTA, it’s status quo.
Just jumping in quickly on a busy day to clarify that the bridge/add a lane project is not on the agenda tomorrow: Needham Street/Highland Ave. is.
I’m only saying that so folks who may be hoping to be heard on Add-A-Lane/the bridge won’t be further disappointed/frustrated.
However, the Needham St.Highland Ave. matter is also REALLY important and I people will pay attention/participate/comment.
Greg, so noted. But a big part of the problem is that each DOT team seems to fail to look at the big picture; other projects in the area, congestion and regional traffic patterns, etc.
Not disagreeing Adam, just pointing it out.
With all due respect, the poles are NOT irrelevant. Well run cities beautify their commercial environments. The poles are nice to look at, but more important they help to “class up the joint” so to speak. The fact the Needham will get them and we won’t because we are too cheap and disorganized to put them in all of our village centers speaks wonders for the failings of our last few mayors, including this one. Especially this one, based on what I have seen on the Walnut Street redo and the Austin Street project, which has had the same discussions regarding the poles and the plantings come up. Too expensive. Not sure. Need to wait. Meanwhile, cities like Needham who have more organized planning efforts do a better job. This is emblematic of a lack of concern for details and the insular nature of our city hall. We SHOULD be getting the same poles as Needham, there should be someone involved in the planning that cries foul and objects. What utter nonsense.
The Needham part of this project will be more organized, have better outcomes and better retail tenants. It ALL ties together. I don’t blame Needham for pushing for the best deal possible on all aspects. BUT WHERE IS OUR MAYOR AND OUR CITY GOVERNMENT?
Well run cities do this stuff as a matter of course. Well run planning departments push for more, not less. I’m not sure if it is incompetence, lack of funding, lack of leadership, or all three. I vote for all three I think. Which means I’m voting for someone else next election.
Fig: Reasonable point.
But here’s the reality check: At the moment only a very small part of this project is funded. The first real hurdle is getting state and federal dollars to pay for the actual construction. That’s the part everyone should be most concerned about.
Imagine you’re a business owner looking for a place for a bricks and mortar home. You have one community (Needham as an example) where the residents say, “Come on over. Love to have you. Maybe we can increase our commercial tax base and reduce our property taxes at the same time”. Then you have another community (Newton for example) that either charges exorbitant rents or you know the residents will beat you to a pulp if you try to build in commercial areas. You know they’ll accuse you of trying to ruin their community, drag the process out endlessly, and complain about every detail (the awnings on a building on rte 9 was my personal favorite). Now imagine these communities border one another and both have several exits onto Rte 95. The choice for the business owner seems pretty simple to me. I don’t know, but maybe it’s time to accept some personal responsibility for the situation we’ve created.
@Jane: Right on!
@Joanne: And in my IMHO, it’s not that we elect our chief executive, it’s all the nitpicking and micromanaging that comes from every corner of every decision and 70,000 or so self-appointed experts.
At last night’s meeting for example, you had an individual mad that there were going to be bike lanes on Needham Street because he has decided its too dangerous for people to bike on Needham Street. Then you had the person question improving the sidewalks and crosswalks because he wasn’t convinced that people want to walk on Needham Street. And on and on and on and on.
IMHO- the difference is that Needham is a Town with a hired Town Manager vs an elected Mayor. We need to wait to get rid of a non performing Mayor they can just fire the Town Manager. And I am not sure but doubt they have 24 BOA either.
Thanks Fig – I agree with you.
I have been concerned about the railroad bridge over 128 all along. I understand it needs to be demolished but it is short-sighted not to plan a continuation of the NUF rail trail.
In addition, what is needed is a foot/ bike bridge over 128 to link the Echo bridge to the rest of the Sudbury aqueduct. Why not do it at the same time as the Add-A-lane construction? Who should put pressure on the Mayor and DOT? The friends of Hemlock Gorge? Bikers Newton? other concerned citizens?
isabelle, unfortunately, it’s up to Needham. Newton has virtually no say in the add-a-lane project. Best we can do is ask the Mayor to bring it up with Needham in his executive meetings.
Hi Greg,
I think the cyclist commenter complaining about the bike lanes had a point, just not a good alternative. There are so many entrances and exits (and turning vehicles) that this is a dangerous street for cyclists, which paint can’t fix. Having a bike lane can be more dangerous than having none, if it gives the casual rider a false sense of security that Needham Street is safe for bikes. It’s a road where a cyclist has to be exceptionally vigilant, because drivers have a lot of distractions.
The commenter groused for a cycle path separated by a barrier. That presents two new problems: First, it’s a three-season solution (unless the City of Newton also commits to plowing/sanding/salting the separated bike path regularly, and even then, you’ll end up with ice on the bike path). Second, a barrier-separated path puts cyclists further out-of-mind from vehicular traffic. With so many turn-offs already, you need cyclists close in with traffic so they’re more obvious, to bring down the chances of being left- and right-hooked. I wish we were the Netherlands and motor vehicle operators would better know to see (and yield to) cyclists, but we’re not.
I think the MassDOT plan was decent, working with what it’s got. I saw just three or four (minor) concerns. The one major concern is getting this work actually on the docket and done.
So Greg – they don’t nitpick and micromanage in Needham?
Basically.
I had a conversation with John Bulian, the Chairman of Needham’s Board of Selectmen, at the Chamber holiday party the other night. After some good-natured ribbing back and forth about Needham stealing and eating Newton’s lunch these days, he offered some interesting insights into how Needham has been so succssful at attracting businesses to its side of the N2Corridor.
Unlike Newton, Needham’s chief executive is a 5 person board of selectmen, which is also the town legislative body. The selectmen appoint the town manager as well as the various boards and commissions that advise and act on zoning and land use issues. Unlike Newton, Needham has a master plan and an economic plan that the selectmen, planning board, economic development director and others have been working on for a number of years both in parallel and in sync with one another.
By contrast, Newton has a Mayor and a 24 person Board of Aldermen. The Mayor proposes and the board disposes, as one of my former colleagues used to say. Except that with zoning and land use issues, the Board alone has the requisite authority to approve zoning and special permits. Although the Mayor could veto zoning (but not special permits), zoning amendments require 16 votes, which is effectively a veto-proof majority. And unless the administration and a 2/3 majority of the board are on the same page, it is virtually impossible to reach consensus on almost any zoning or land use issue.
In the minds on many on this blog, I would imagine that is very frustrating. On the other hand, for those who oppose redeveloping Austin Street and zoning reform that would lead the the addition of 800 units of affordable housing within 5 years, as the Mayor has called for in his recent announcement, I am sure that the deliberative nature of the Board of Aldermen is an essential check and balance on the executive.
Needham’s Legislative Function is carried out by its Town Meeting, not the Board of Selectman.
I should clarify that the members of the Planning Board are elected not appointed, and that the town has a representative town meeting which is also elected and adopts legislation. Needham’s charter allows up to 252 town meeting representatives (!). The ZBA, which reviews and approves special permits, is appointed by the Board of Selectmen. Having an appointed special permit granting authority, which is a quasi-judicial body, rather than an elected one, such as the Board of Aldermen, eliminates the inherent conflict of interest between having to act in both a representative and a quasi-judicial capacity.
Ironically, the Brookline neighbors had just as much if not more of an influence on the Chestnut Hill Square and Kessler Woods I and Kessler Woods II special permits than any of the Newton folks. The Brookline planning department and the neighbors of CHSq threatened to sue over the Florence Street entrance, as well as the Newton neighbors, so when NED applied for the special permit it eliminated that entrance. So now, everyone from that side of the project enters through the Capitol Grille parking lot off of Florence Street. The Brookline neighbors also were the most adamant opponents of both Kessler Woods proposals.
Greg – Glad to know it has nothing to do with our Mayor or their Town Manager – it is just the citizens of Needham being less nitpicking that Newton. I still have to disagree with you- I think it is that things work better in Needham because they have a town manager not a Mayor and 24 BOA. Just my opinion though.
Well Joanne, I’m pretty sure I hadn’t defended the 24 aldermen concept! Be we have functional and dysfunctional cities and towns all across the Commonwealth. There certainly is lots one can learn by looking past one’s city/town limits.
Throughout the entire presentation the other night, there was not a single mention of the urban design elephant sitting in the middle of the road,… The horrifically ugly over head utilities !!!
@Bill: Not sure when you left but overhead wires were part of the conversation. I’m pretty positive nobody wants them to stay. It’s all about finding the money to do so and right now only a very small portion of the work has been funded.