Capuano Raising Questions as City Pursues Funding for Rutherford Ave

Two months ago, to debate, raise questions and show their support for a redesign of Rutherford Avenue and Sullivan Square. Congressman Mike Capuano, who organized the meeting, got an earful from the community, both for and against the so-called “surface option.”

In the time since, Capuano has raised his own questions about the project’s impact on local traffic – and he’s engaged the city’s Transportation Department for answers.

City officials have been responsive, even as they are pursuing the funding to bring the project to its final design phase.

So what does that mean, in terms of next steps for a Rutherford Avenue and Sullivan Square redesign? A lot. And a little.

First, what’s happening with the city:

The Boston Transportation Department is currently working with MassDOT to get a portion of a federal earmark to support the surface option redesign. The project recently secured a spot in the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization budget. Which is to say, the surface option is moving slowly but surely to its next phase.

“While we continue to work with the Charlestown community and elected officials, we have started to access that funding since we got consensus last year with the community,” said Vineet Gupta, who directs planning for the city’s Transportation Department.

Gupta is referring to the eight meetings the city held in Charlestown over an 18-month period to discuss the Rutherford Avenue redesign. The surface option was favored by a consensus, and has been endorsed by a majority of the Charlestown Neighborhood Council.

And second: What are the Congressman’s concerns?

Capuano is primarily concerned with the surface option’s impact on local traffic.

Elimination of an underpass at Rutherford Avenue and Austin Street could cause issues on Main, Baldwin, Essex and Mishuwam streets, Capuano wrote in a letter to the city’s Transportation Department. He also outlined five other areas of concern. (You can see the letter attached to this article in PDF format.) They are:

1. The traffic diversion plan: Capuano requested copies of the city’s plan to limit traffic diversion through residential streets.

2. Statistics on the number (and type) of vehicles using the I-93 entrance ramp by Home Depot – In response to residents’ claims that much of the current traffic on Rutherford Avenue is headed to that ramp.

3. Emissions issues: Would traffic lights on a redesign Rutherford Avenue spew more emissions into the air?

4. The city’s plans for development of the southbound side and most of Sullivan Square, after the surface option is implemented.

5. Alternative truck and evacuation routes – Rutherford Avenue is currently a preferred truck and evacuation route. What routes would replace it?

The city responded to each point in a June 21 letter. (Also attached to this story in PDF format.) But in a letter to the community last week, Capuano wrote that, although he was grateful that the city was addressing his concerns, the traffic questions he posed were not “adequately answered.” He said he’s waiting for a follow-up response – and will keep the community posted when he receives it.

In the meantime, it’s unclear what the timeline is for the city’s next steps in the project. Gupta, at the Transportation Department, said the amount of time it takes to access funding varies with each project.

That federal funding the city’s hoping to access is a $17 million earmark that Capuano himself secured. At the community meeting in May, he assured residents that he intends to see it used.