Update: the variance was denied.

1. February 16, 2012
To: Thomas Hopkins, Director, and members, MA Architectural Access Board
Re: AAB Docket #V11-241, submitted 12/2/11. Public Hearing on 2/27/12.
Petitioner: City of Somerville Office of Strategic Planning & Community Development,
Transportation & Infrastructure
Location: Pedestrian Connection between Lowell Street Bridge and Community Path Extension
Dear Chairman Lang and Architectural Access Board Members,
The Community Access Project and the Boston Center for Independent Living have examined this
Variance application submitted by the City of Somerville, which requests the AAB to facilitate the
City in constructing a stairs-only pedestrian link between the west side of the upper Lowell Street
Bridge to the Community Path Extension below the bridge.
We request that the MA AAB please Deny this Variance on the basis that:
1. This proposed extra set of stairs is not required, nor necessary, to overcome any costing or
structural infeasibility issues at this location. There is already a stairway (with ramp) being
constructed on the west side of Lowell Street- less than 200 feet from the proposed inaccessible
stairway.
2. It will be of significant benefit to persons with disabilities to have the use of all points of
entry, public rights of ways and community benefits generated by these State-funded pedestrian
links between the lower Community Path Extension and the upper future Lowell Street MBTA
station. It will be of significant detriment to people who cannot use stairs to be blatantly denied
use of any public pedestrian links between the Community Path and the Lowell Street MBTA
station.
3. The future Lowell Street MBTA station will be located on the west side of Lowell Street. The
plans and costing estimates submitted in this Variance do not indicate whether the necessary
crosswalks and curb cuts to connect the east and west sides of Lowell Street have yet been
included in the design. It appears that the City is requesting to waste $109K on a redundant set
of stairs; yet, the design for continuously accessible pedestrian rights of ways on either sides of
the Bridge, and connecting both sides of the Bridge, is not yet in the plans.
4. Irregardless of a State waiver, the publicly-funded inaccessible stairs will still be subject to
Federal legal challenges.
5. Finally, this Variance Application simply doesn't make sense. Here are 5 examples:
a. The Variance states, in response to question 5 (p. 3 of 6):
"This stair is in support of the accessible public route that will be the primary accessible way
through the Maxwells'Green development from the Community Path to Lowell Street on the west
side of the Lowell Street bridge."
Since the stairs-only proposition will not offer any accessibility, how will the stairs "support" the
accessible public route?
Page 1 of 3

2. b. The Variance states, under question 6 (p. 3 of 6):
"A second ramp immediately adjacent to the proposed stairs would be redundant and cost
prohibitive."
Since there is already an accessible route, including stairs, being constructed through the
Maxwell's Green development on the west side of the Lowell Street Bridge and less than 200 feet
away from the proposed stairs (also on the west side)- how can the Applicants claim that a ramp
would be redundant without acknowledging how redundant these stairs (estimated cost: $109K)
would be?
3. The Variance states, on the Additional Sheet for question 7 (page 6 of 6):
"The Maxwell's Green development (currently under construction) is required by a legal
convenent with the City and by additional funding provided by the state to construct a
public accessible pedestrian route of travel from the future Community Path to the Lowell
Street Bridge. This is the primary connection from the Path to Lowell Street and eventually
the Lowell Street Green Line stop. The petitioner considers this connection the accessible
route for the western side of the Lowell Street Bridge."
Since the Covenant1 includes a promise to provide three (3) public pedestrian/bicycle access
routes which "shall be ADA-compliant," - not just one-, what gives the City the entitlement to
"consider" one public route, to the exclusion of the other two, as being the "primary
connection?"
4. The Variance states, on the Additional Sheet for question 7 (page 6 of 6):
"As a secondary point of access to the Lowell Street Bridge, a stairway is being proposed at
the corner of the future Community Path and the west side of the Lowell Street Bridge. As is
required by MassDOT"s review (as a stipulation of the funding) both the MBTA and
MassDOT reviewed 25% plans of the project. Both agencies found the proposed stairway
with no proposed ramp immediately adjacent raised accessibility concerns; however, a
waiver from MAAB would satisfy their concerns..."
Since both the MassDOT and the MBTA have a multitude of Federal plus State legal
requirements, to fulfill, including:
o TIP requirements, which state "All projects for new construction that provide
pedestrian facilities must incorporate accessible pedestrian features to the extent
technically feasible, without regard to cost. The development process should ensure
accessibility requirements are incorporated in the project."
see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/memos/ada_memo_clarificationa.htm
o Complete Streets and 2006 MassDOT Project Development & Design Guide, Draft
o Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (P.R.O.W.A.G.) of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), and
o State Architectural Access Board (AAB) regulations.
1
In January 2007, Curtatone and the developers signed a covenant in which the Developers
promise to provide three public pedestrian/bicycle access routes which include "iii. public access
at Lowell Street to the Community Path... All 3 access connections shall be ADA-compliant." (see
Covenant between KSS and Curtatone, page 3, at (d)(iii); plus, other City Planning Board
reports at http://www.somervillema.gov/departments/ospcd/max-pak )
Page 2 of 3

3. ... how can the City claim that a waiver from the MAAB will satisfy the Federal (civil rights as
well as) architectural accessibility requirements of either MassDOT or the MBTA?
5. The Variance states, on the Additional Sheet for question 7 (page 6 of 6):
"Finally, given that the state has already provided $380,000 in public money to create the public
pedestrian connection through Maxwell's Green, the cost of buileding a second ramp (estimated
at $337,600) seems redundant and an inappropriate use of public monies."
How can the City of Somerville justify the use of 109K of public funding just to provide an
exclusionary, inaccessible second staircase, less than 200 feet away from another staircase on the
west side of Lowell Street, as being an appropriate use of public funds?
Please deny this Variance application.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Eileen Feldman, Director, Community Access Project
Thomas Gilbert, Plaintiff, MBTA settlement and Member, Community Access Project
Karen Schneiderman, Senior Advocate, Boston Center for Independent Living
Page 3 of 3