DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Massachusetts Public-Private
Partnership Infrastructure Oversight
Commission
High-level P3 Suitability Assessment
Summary Document
September 11, 2013
Agenda
High-Level P3 Suitability Assessment Summary
Project Summaries
• South Station Expansion
• Route 3 South Managed Lanes
• Highway Rest Stops/Service Stations
• South Coast Rail
• Blue Line Extension to Lynn
• Red and Blue Line Connector
1
Introduction
Purpose

To assess at a high level the suitability of specific projects for delivery under an alternative and/or innovative delivery model and
present those options to the P3 Commission and MassDOT management.

Identify key considerations in relation to the P3 development of specific projects and potential next steps
Methodology

Screening criteria were developed by MassDOT for assessing projects which included Commonwealth Considerations, Satisfies
Public Transportation Need, Opportunity for Innovation, Ability to Transfer Risk, Accelerated Project Development, Market
Precedent and more.
Meetings and Calls

The following meetings and calls were conducted with MassDOT subject matter experts:
–
Interview with Charles Planck, Senior Director – Strategic Initiatives and Performance. on August 7, 2013 (Blue and Red Line
Connector)
–
Interview with Charles Planck, Senior Director – Strategic Initiatives and Performance, on August 7, 2013 (Blue Line Extension)
–
Interview with Frank DePaola, Administrator – Highway Division, on August 1, 2013 (Route 3 Managed Lanes)
–
Interview with Charles Planck, Senior Director – Strategic Initiatives and Performance on August 6, 2013 (South Coast Rail)
–
Interview with Kate Fichter, Manager of Long Range Planning, on August 6, 2013 (South Station)
–
Interview with Steve Jacques, Rest Areas Contact, on August 1, 2013 (Rest Areas/Service Plazas)
Limitations

This assessment was based on high level information and is not intended to assess which delivery option provides best value to
the Commonwealth. Additional information and analysis will be required in order to address this question.
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
2
Sources of Information
Documents referenced

The P3 suitability assessment included a review of project documents, including:
–
MassDOT, Draft Environmental Impact Study, March 2010 (Blue and Red Line Connector)
–
MassDOT, http://www.eot.state.ma.us/redblue/downloads/FactSheet2_050310.pdf, May 2010 (Blue and Red Line Connector)
–
MassDOT, North Shore Transit Improvements Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement, December 2011
(Blue Line Extension)
–
Route 3 South Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Assessment, Volume 1 (1/25/2005). (Route 3
Managed Lanes)
–
Route 3 South (Between the Sagamore Bridge, Bourne, and I-93, Braintree), Traffic Volume Diagrams, 2008 (Route 3 Managed
Lanes)
–
Three-page unsolicited proposal presentation form unsolicited proposer regarding HOT lanes proposal on Route 3 (Route 3
Managed Lanes)
–
South Coast Rail Economic Development and Land Use Corridor Plan, http://southcoastrail.com/downloads/1%20%20Corridor%20Plan%20Executive%20Summary.pdf, June 2009 (South Coast Rail)
–
MassDOT,
http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/0/docs/infoCenter/boards_committees/PublicPrivate/SouthStationExpPPP07152013.p
df, July 2013 (South Station)
–
MassDOT, Statement of Work, http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/25/Docs/Attachment1toAmendmentNo1.pdf, July 2012
(South Station)
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
3
Assessment Criteria
Addresses
Considerations, Public
Transportation Needs
and Priorities in Plans
Provides Opportunity for
Acceleration, Innovation
and Efficiencies
Requires Funding/
Provides Opportunity for
Revenue Generation and
Capital Raising
Is Ready for
Procurement1
South Station Expansion
Yes
Yes
TBD/Yes
TBD
Route 3 South Managed Lanes
Yes
Yes
TBD/Yes
TBD
Highway Rest Stops/Service
Stations
Yes
Yes
TBD/Yes
TBD
South Coast Rail
Yes
Yes
TBD/Yes
TBD
Blue Line Extension to Lynn
TBD
Yes
TBD
TBD
Red and Blue Line Connector
Yes
TBD
TBD
TBD
Criteria
(1) These projects are not quite ready for immediate procurement and require additional development work. Key drivers for procurement are
funding and environmental approvals. Depending on policy objectives and priorities some projects may move faster than other ones.
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
4
Potential Delivery Options
These are potential delivery options based on high-level information (market precedent, project characteristics). Other options or variations may
exist/apply as more analysis is being performed, the Commonwealth objectives are defined and funding is identified.
Potential delivery
options
South Station
Expansion
DB1
DB&F

Route 3 South
Managed Lanes

Highway Rest
Stops/Service Stations

South Coast Rail

Blue Line Extension to
Lynn

Red and Blue Line
Connector



DBFM/AP
DBFOM / AP
DBFOM/
Concession







2




Other
3

(1) Doesn’t allow for acceleration, unless full public funding identified for development
(2) May require negotiations with key stakeholders and/or changes in legislation
(3) O&M and sponsorship or just sponsorship contract
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
5
Project Features
Public funding
identified
Project features
Self funding
potential
Ability to move
quickly
Potential for
demand risk
transfer
Potential for
O&M risk
transfer
South Station Expansion
No
Medium
Medium
High
High
Route 3 South Managed
Lanes
No
High
High
High
High
Highway Rest
Stops/Service Stations
No
Medium
High
Medium
High
South Coast Rail
No
Low
Low
Low
High
Blue Line Extension to Lynn
No
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Red and Blue Line
Connector
No
Low
Low
Low
Low
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
6
South Station Expansion Summary
South Station Expansion
Project
description:
 The Boston South Station Expansion Project involves the expansion of the station, as well as the creation of a new rail
vehicle layover facility
 The project includes the acquisition and demolition of an existing US Postal Service (USPS) General Mail Facility currently
located adjacent to the station and relocation and construction onto a new site
 The project also includes exploring the integration of real estate investment and private development around and over the
expanded station
Project need:
 Currently there are over 20 million annual rail passengers commuting through South Station with significant growth
potential expected in the future as services are expanded in the Northeast Corridor
 Mobility for travelers in the region is constrained by the limitations of the existing facility which includes only13 tracks
and limited space for passenger queuing, but is currently expected to provide access to 40 daily Amtrak NEC trains and
296 daily MBTA commuter trains
Can the project
be structured as
a P3 (market
precedent):
 Yes. Market precedents for station expansion/development P3 projects include:
― DBFOM/AP: Southern Cross Station (Australia), Airport Link (Australia) Avenida de America Intermodal
Transportation Hub (Spain), Plaza de Castilla Intermodal Transportation Hub (Spain), Principe Pio Intermodal
Transportation Hub (Spain)
― DB: Denver Union Station (Colorado)
― Revenue Generating Components: Chatswood Transport Interchange (Australia)
Key
considerations:
 Involvement of numerous stakeholders including: City of Boston, Amtrak, MBTA, MassPort, Hines, area residents, FRA,
FTA, USPS, NEC
 Negotiation, environmental review and preliminary engineering for acquisition/relocation of US PS facility
 Management/coordination of proposed Hines Tower under existing air-rights lease agreement expiring 2017
 Construction management challenges relating to maintaining current operation during construction
 Assuming stakeholder coordination, and relocation of the USPS facility can be completed, this project could be delivered
in the near-term
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
7
Route 3 South Managed Lanes Summary
Route 3 South Managed Lanes
Project
description:
 The Project includes the construction of HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lanes, also known as “managed lanes”, between:
―I-93 / Route 3 interchange at Braintree at the north end; and
―Exit 14 (Route 228) in Rockland at the south end
 The Project would add one lane in each direction, creating 4 lanes of traffic from the I-93/Route 3 interchange to Exit 16,
and 3 lanes of traffic from Exit 16 to Exit 14
Project need:
 Based on 2008 data, depending upon the segment of the project examined, the average daily traffic ranges between
70,000 and 80,000 vehicles per day in each direction
 These sections of Route 3 South experience extreme traffic volume and congestion, particular during the peak rush hour
periods that can exceed 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour
 The Project could alleviate congestion by adding lane capacity to reduce traffic congestion along the Route 3 South
corridor. Tolls could change in frequent, real-time intervals (dynamic pricing) to ensure that minimum speeds are
maintained
Can the project
be structured as
a P3 (market
precedent):
 Yes. Market precedents for similar projects include:
―DBFOM/Toll Concession: Capital Beltway (Virginia), NTE (Texas), LBJ (Texas), I95 (Virginia), US 36 (Colorado),
SR-91 (California)
―DBFOM/APs: I595 (Florida)
Key
considerations:
 North and south limits of the project
 Operational and commercial issues in relation to single managed lane per direction
 Tolling policy, incl. throughput vs revenue maximization, HOV policy, park & ride lots
 Traffic management during construction
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
8
Highway Rest Stops / Service Stations Summary
Highway Rest Stops / Service Stations
Project
description:
Project need:
Can the project
be structured as
a P3 (market
precedent):
Key
considerations:
 Currently MassDOT owns eleven travel plazas and visitor centers (rest areas) throughout the State
 There has been no project development surrounding these rest areas, however, MassDOT is exploring the viability of a
P3 arrangement
 In addition, MassDOT owns a significant number of other facilities (i.e. weigh stations, RMV centers, park & ride lots)
that potentially could be part of a P3 arrangement; however the review of constraints applicable is still outstanding
 During the onset of the economic downturn in 2008, the Commonwealth was unable to maintain the funding allocated
towards operating the rest areas, which caused the majority of them to close or to become seasonal
 Currently one location is completely closed, two are closed and maintain portable rest rooms, four are seasonal
information centers with rest rooms, three are open information centers with rest rooms, and lastly there is one that is
an information center occupied by a registry
 Yes. Market precedents for similar projects include:
―Sponsorship/advertizing + O&M (Arizona model)
―Sponsorship/advertizing + Vending (Virginia model)
―Service Plaza Operation (Connecticut model) – may require negotiations with key stakeholders or change in
legislation
 The impact of the 1956 Interstate Highway Act, which restricts non-grandfathered-in rest areas from being
commercialized
 Lack of public funding for operations or construction (if required)
 Commission for the Blind’s rights to revenue from vending machines pursuant to state law will
 Constraints for additional MassDOT facilities
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
9
South Coast Rail Summary
South Coast Rail
Project
description:
 The South Coast Rail project (SCR) will extend commuter rail service from the City of Boston to the South Coast, including
the cities of New Bedford and Fall River
 The service will run for 50 to 53 miles, depending on alternative, along an existing freight corridor running south from
Taunton to Fall River and New Bedford
 The estimated cost of the project is $1.8 billion
Project need:
 Population in the South Coast region of the State is projected to grow faster than any other region in Massachusetts
 There have been increased traffic volumes due to the lack of public transportation alternatives leading to traffic
congestion and adverse effects on air quality, climate change and transportation safety
 The SCR could ease traffic congestion along the highways and adjacent commuter rail lines and create opportunities for
economic development and revitalization throughout the region
Can the project
be structured as
a P3 (market
precedent):
 Yes. Market precedents for similar projects include:
― DBFOM/AP: Denver Fastracks Eagle P3 project (Colorado), HSL – Zuid (Netherlands) and Canada Line (British
Columbia)
― DBFM/AP : Ottawa LRT (Quebec), Le Mans – Rennes HSR and Nimes – Montpellier HSR (France)
― DBFOM/Revenue Risk: Gautrain Rapid Rail Link (SA), UK rail franchises and Nottingham Transit LRT (UK)
Key
considerations:
 Relatively low projected levels of ridership
 Expansion of South Station in Boston needed to accommodate South Coast Rail trains
 Public funding need
 Potential for use of federal funding programs, including New Starts and CMAQ Grants
 System integration and interfacing with the new MBTA O&M contractor
 Environmental concerns surrounding the Hockomock Swamp; technical challenges with trestle construction
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
10
Blue Line Extension to Lynn Summary
Blue Line Extension to Lynn
Project
description:
 The Blue Line Extension project would extend the Blue Line subway service 4.5 miles above ground from the Wonderland
stop in Revere (currently the northernmost terminus of the Blue Line) to the City of Lynn
 The estimated capital cost of the project ranges from $737 million to $1.048 billion, according to the Alternatives
Analysis/DEIS prepared in 2011
Project need:
 The Lynn community has an unemployment rate that is higher than the state average and one of the highest among the
North Shore communities
 The project would provide improved service to the North Shore area with higher frequency public transportation
alternatives
 The commuter rail system already serves this area with regular service during rush hour with trips approximately every 30
minutes, although service is reduced to 1-2 hours during non-rush hours.
Can the project
be structured as
a P3 (market
precedent):
 Yes. Market precedents for similar projects include:
― DBFOM: Madrid Metro Line 8 Extensión - T4 (Spain), Canada Line (Canada) and Edmonton Light Rail (Canada)
― DBF: Evergreen Line Rapid Transit Project (Vancouver, Canada)
― DB: Honolulu Guideway Phase I (Hawaii), Hiawatha Light Rail Transit (Minnesota), Crenshaw /LAX Transit
Corridor (California), and Dallas Area Rapid Transit Orange Line Extension (I-3) (Texas)
Key
considerations:
 Impact of project from/to adjacent competing commuter rail facility and bus service
 System integration and interface issues with the existing the Blue Line service
 Relationship between ridership benefits and project costs
 Alternative scope options
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
11
Red and Blue Line Connector Summary
Red and Blue Line Connector
Project
description:
 The proposed Red Line / Blue Line Connector will link the only two lines that do not currently intersect within MBTA’s
rapid transit system
 The project will extend the Blue Line along two tracks from the Bowdoin station for approximately 1,500 feet to connect
with the Charles/MGH station on the Red Line
 The estimated capital cost of the project is $750 million, according to the DEIR published in May 2010
Project need:
 The Red and Blue Lines are the only two of Boston’s rapid transit lines that do not intersect with one another
 Current transit riders traveling from points along the Blue Line to the Red Line, which connects to Massachusetts
General Hospital (MGH) and surrounding medical facilities, must transfer using the MBTA’s Green or Orange lines
 The Green and Orange lines are highly congested along this transfer segment
 The completion of the project will enhance transit access, connectivity and regional mobility in East Boston, the North
Shore and Cambridge
Can the project
be structured as
a P3 (market
precedent):
 Yes. Market precedents for similar projects include:
― DBFM: Liefkenshoek Railway Connection (Belgium))
― DB: DFW Connector – Highway (Texas)
Key
considerations:
 System integration and interfacing with existing subway lines may limit opportunities for innovation
 MassDOT initiated a process to amend the SIP to permanently remove the obligation to perform final design of the
project due to high costs
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
12