Somerville Traffic and Parking Committee Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: November 17, 2025, at 12:00 AM Governing Body: Somerville City Council, Traffic and Parking Committee Type of Meeting: Remote Participation via Zoom
Attendees:
- Councilor Naima Sait (Chair)
- Councilor Willie Burnley
- Councilor Emily Hardt
- Director Brad Rawson, Mobility Department, OSPCD
- Lily Wirth, Transportation Planner, Mobility Division
- Director Brian Postaway, Engineering Department
Executive Summary: The Traffic and Parking Committee met to discuss two key items: strategies for improving safety on the Community Path and current efforts to fix the unsafe crossing of the Community Path at School Street. The Mobility Department provided an update on their community engagement process for Community Path safety, highlighting over 1,000 survey respondents and upcoming strategy documents. The Engineering Department presented three conceptual designs for the School Street crossing and two concepts for the Lowell Street crossing, emphasizing the need for MassDOT approval due to state ownership of bridge infrastructure. Both items were held in committee for future updates.
1. Discussion on Strategies for Improving the Safety of Users of the Community Path
Agenda Item: Sent for discussion by Councilor Sait, Councilor Wilson, and Councilor Strezo that the Director of Mobility discuss with this Council strategies for improving the safety of users of the community path as detailed within.
Introduction:
- Councilor Naima Sait, Ward 5 Councilor and Traffic and Parking Chair, called the meeting to order.
- The meeting was conducted via remote participation pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Act of 2023.
- A quorum was established with Councilors Burnley, Hardt, and Sait present.
- Approval of previous meeting minutes was not required as there were no minutes.
Mobility Department Update (Director Brad Rawson & Transportation Planner Lily Wirth):
- Community Engagement Process (Spring/Summer 2025):
- Research and preparation for an outreach campaign in September and October 2025.
- Focus on gathering community experiences, safety concerns, and reactions to potential design options.
- Scope included improvements along the path, roadway crossings, and Green Line station entrances.
- Public Engagement Campaign:
- Launched a project website.
- Conducted a "safety concerns survey."
- Posted multi-language flyers along the path.
- Publicized the project via newsletter, press release, and city-wide email.
- Held in-person outreach pop-up events at various locations and times.
- Utilized an online public input map for concerns and observations.
- Presented a wide range of design options, from signage and pavement markings to bollards and tactile pavements.
- Informed the public about the Engineering Division's design and permitting work for the School Street and Lowell Street crossings.
- Survey Response:
- Over 1,000 unique respondents, significantly higher than typical streetscapes projects.
- Survey covered safety concerns, specific locations of issues, and opinions on design options.
- Currently undergoing review and analysis of input to produce a "community engagement report."
- Report to be published later in Fall 2025 on the project website and distributed via email and city newsletters.
- Key Themes from Outreach:
- Concerns about street crossings, yielding, and stopping (right-of-way with vehicles).
- Difficulty sharing narrow space among different user types.
- Desire for path widening (not within the project's purview).
- Specific concerns about the School Street crossing and connectivity through Davis Square.
- Positive feedback from users grateful for the path and safety efforts.
- Next Steps:
- Prepare a "strategy document" in early 2026 outlining recommended short and long-term treatments.
- Focus on achievable solutions addressing community-raised issues, aiming to improve safety, path sharing, speed reduction, and intersection compliance.
- Anticipate initial treatments to include signage and pavement markings, with other "quick build" options under evaluation.
- Implementation anticipated in 2026.
- Community Engagement Process (Spring/Summer 2025):
Councilor Questions and Discussion:
- Councilor Burnley: Inquired about the impact of shared jurisdiction (MBTA ownership) on implementing solutions.
- Director Rawson Response:
- MBTA owns the land (fee interest), City operates the path under a long-term lease.
- MBTA has been pragmatic; minor changes (e.g., signage) require less red tape.
- More substantial interventions (e.g., bollards, excavation) require extensive permitting due to soil conditions and liability.
- Cited the recent lighting enhancement project in East Somerville as a success story, requiring extensive MBTA permitting and coordination.
- The City has established relationships with MBTA divisions for these discussions.
- Councilor Burnley: Asked about lower-level tactics for speed control given MBTA involvement.
- Lily Wirth Response: Prioritizing "quick build" design options that require less intensive state review. The strategy document will outline different levels of review required for various interventions.
- Director Rawson Response:
- Councilor Sait: Asked about the memo from Brendan Salisbury (Council's Legislative and Policy Analyst) regarding speed limits and enforcement.
- Director Rawson Response:
- Memo highlights complexities of posted vs. regulatory speed limits, enforceability, and whether the path is considered a public way under state law.
- Notes challenges in objective speed studies and the varying safety of speeds (e.g., 20 mph on a bicycle).
- Discusses difficulty in distinguishing legal vs. illegal electric/gas-powered micromobility devices.
- Brendan Salisbury's Recommendation: An ordinance is not the preferred approach; instead, focus on establishing a culture of safe path use through collaboration with city staff and community partners.
- Councilor Sait: Suggested exploring a working group with city staff and constituents.
- Director Rawson Response:
- Councilor Sait: Inquired about coordination between Community Path safety efforts and other city projects like Highland Ave reconstruction.
- Director Rawson Response:
- Acknowledged that the path's high usage is partly due to a lack of safe, separated bike facilities on arterial streets (e.g., Highland Ave, Medford St).
- Reaffirmed the City's commitment to an "all of the above" strategy, including building a safe, separated network of streets to meet the 2030 29-mile target set by ordinance.
- Director Rawson Response:
- Councilor Sait: Asked about funding for Community Path safety improvements.
- Director Rawson Response:
- "Quick build" solutions (pavement markings, flex posts, signs) are typically affordable and can be funded through existing sources.
- More substantial construction will require different funding.
- The upcoming strategy document (early 2026) will include order-of-magnitude cost estimates.
- Staff will review funding options with the Finance Department and present requests to the Council for larger numbers.
- Director Rawson Response:
- Councilor Sait: Requested the public engagement report be added to the city's newsletter and mobility department's newsletter.
- Lily Wirth Response: Confirmed the report would be published on the project website and emailed to those who interacted with the project.
- Councilor Burnley: Inquired about the impact of shared jurisdiction (MBTA ownership) on implementing solutions.
Outcome: Item kept in committee for future updates.
2. Update on Efforts to Fix the Unsafe Crossing of the Community Path at School Street
Agenda Item: 25-1171 Sent for discussion by Councilor Ewen Campen, Wilson, Strezo, Clingan, and Mbah that the Director of Engineering update this council and community advocates on current efforts to fix the unsafe crossing of the community path at School Street.
Introduction:
- Councilor Sait introduced the item, noting it has been discussed previously.
- Director Brian Postaway provided an update.
Engineering Department Update (Director Brian Postaway):
- Project Overview:
- Engineering consultant Bowman has developed conceptual designs for the School Street crossing.
- The project also includes reviewing the Lowell Street crossing at Magoon Station.
- Designs are conceptual and have not yet been discussed with MassDOT.
- All options are technically possible, but MassDOT approval is crucial due to state ownership of bridges.
- School Street Crossing Concepts:
- Concept 1: Fully Raised Crossing:
- Description: Roadway raised to sidewalk level, creating a wide, barrier-free crossing for all users.
- Benefits: Clear, obvious visual cue for motorists; raised surface helps slow traffic.
- Concerns: Adding significant weight (tons of asphalt/concrete) to the bridge structure, which MassDOT may object to. Requires design calculations to ensure structural integrity.
- Bike Lane: Assumes a future two-way protected bike lane on the west (Davis) side of School Street, improving connections to Highland and Medford Streets.
- Concept 2: Extended Bump-outs with Roadway Grade Crossing:
- Description: Roadway and bike lane remain at grade. Extended bump-outs with wheelchair-accessible ramps on either side.
- Benefits: Provides traffic calming through deflection; similar route for path users.
- Concerns: Requires reconstructing a substantial portion of the sidewalk on the bridge; angle is slightly tighter than Concept 1. Potential MassDOT concerns about plowing and roadway maintenance due to bump-outs.
- Concept 3: Extra-Large Bump-out on West Side:
- Description: Large bump-out only on the west side, maintaining a clean curb line on the east side.
- Benefits: Minimizes work on the bridge structure; easier plowing; less obstructive to motor vehicle traffic; provides narrowing effect for traffic calming. All grade changes occur within the bump-out, reducing impact on existing sidewalk.
- Concerns: May require changing roadway elevation, which MassDOT might object to. Less deflection in the roadway might be more comfortable for users but less effective for traffic calming.
- Concept 1: Fully Raised Crossing:
- Project Overview:
Councilor Questions and Discussion:
- Councilor Sait: Asked if the concepts were presented in order of department preference.
- Director Postaway Response: Generally, yes, but trade-offs exist. DPW and Fire Department input is still needed.
- Director Rawson Caveat: Emphasized that these are "early, hot off the press" illustrative concepts. Expectations should be managed as designs will iterate based on feedback from operations teams (DPW, Fire Department) and MassDOT.
- Councilor Sait: Asked about the presentation strategy to MassDOT (all at once or sequentially).
- Director Postaway Response: Anticipates an open discussion of all three options with MassDOT, ensuring representatives from operations, bridge construction, and complete streets are present.
- Councilor Hardt: Inquired about safety and visibility in designs without a raised crossing, particularly for cyclists.
- Director Postaway Response:
- Aims to ensure users can see each other in time.
- Bump-outs (Concept 3) provide more time for eastbound users before entering traffic.
- Visibility is limited by bridge structures; relies on stop signs and traffic calming measures.
- Speed humps are installed on approaches (e.g., School Street downhill side, Walnut Street) to slow vehicles before the crossing.
- Narrowing travel lanes at the crossing also aids traffic calming.
- Director Rawson Addition: Traffic calming works best at a corridor scale; individual treatments have limited effective range.
- Director Postaway Response:
- Councilor Burnley: Asked about using lighter materials than asphalt/concrete for raised crossings.
- Director Postaway Response:
- Lighter aggregates/concrete exist but tend to be less durable and strong.
- Durability is a concern for bridge lifespan (50-100+ years).
- MassDOT is responsible for long-term bridge maintenance; the City wants to avoid proposing changes that would reduce lifespan or shift maintenance responsibility to the City.
- Councilor Burnley: Clarified if MassDOT would maintain sidewalks/bump-outs.
- Director Postaway Response: Technically yes, but an agreement would be needed. The primary concern is avoiding changes that limit bridge lifespan or increase City maintenance burden.
- Councilor Burnley: Asked about the preference between Concept 2 and 3, noting benefits of Concept 3.
- Director Postaway Response: The City may not have a strong preference at this stage. Concept 3 might involve roadway elevation changes that MassDOT could object to. Less deflection in the roadway (Concept 3) could be more comfortable for users. The priority is to first discuss with MassDOT to determine viable options before a larger public conversation on value judgments.
- Councilor Burnley: Emphasized the importance of internal coordination with DPW and Fire Department before engaging MassDOT.
- Director Postaway Response: Confirmed that internal coordination with DPW, Fire Department, and other city departments would occur first to ensure the City speaks with "one voice" before approaching MassDOT.
- Director Postaway Response:
- Councilor Sait: Asked if the concepts were presented in order of department preference.
Lowell Street Crossing Concepts (Director Brian Postaway):
- Context:
- Magoon Station is located here.
- Closest crosswalk at Princeton (400 ft); next closest at Medford Street/Magoon Square (2000+ ft).
- Need for crossings from both the Community Path (V&A side) and Vernon Street side.
- State controls both bridges and the roadway between them.
- Concept 1: Crossing at Maxwell's Green:
- Description: Provide a crossing directly at Maxwell's Green.
- Improvements: Narrowing the existing large crossing and providing improved crosswalks.
- Requirement: Requires state support and approval.
- Concept 2: Raised Crossing at Vernon Street:
- Description: Raised crossing where Vernon Street meets Lowell Street.
- Benefits: Entirely on city right-of-way, requiring no state approval. Tightens crosswalks, improving pedestrian travel and removing the "dogleg" for pedestrians. Improves crossing for those coming from side streets (Troll, Bartlett).
- Challenges: Requires drainage due to slope; needs clear delineation of vehicular vs. pedestrian space (e.g., bollards) to ensure pedestrian safety during turns.
- Context:
Councilor Questions and Discussion:
- Councilor Burnley: Expressed strong support for raised crosswalks, noting personal experience with the intersection's safety issues. Asked if the design would shorten the area for vehicle turns.
- Director Postaway Response:
- Does not change the ability to make turns; may improve turns for vehicles (including fire engines) due to flush raised crossing.
- Acknowledged potential discomfort for pedestrians waiting to cross; will need safety improvements (e.g., bollards) to minimize vehicle encroachment into pedestrian space.
- Emphasized ADA compliance, including considerations for visually impaired individuals.
- Director Postaway Response:
- Councilor Burnley: Expressed strong support for raised crosswalks, noting personal experience with the intersection's safety issues. Asked if the design would shorten the area for vehicle turns.
Outcome: Item kept in committee for future updates.
Adjournment:
- Roll Call Vote:
- Councilor Burnley: Yes
- Councilor Hardt: Yes
- Councilor Sait: Yes
- Outcome: All members voted to adjourn.
- The meeting was adjourned.