Massachusetts Department of Transportation State Implementation Plan – Transit Commitments 2010 Status Report Agency Reponses to Public Comments Submitted to the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
January 28, 2011
For questions on this document, please contact: Katherine S. Fichter Massachusetts Department of Transportation Office of Transportation Planning 10 Park Plaza, Room 4150 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 katherine.fichter@state.ma.us State Implementation Plan – Transit Commitments 2010 Annual Status Report Agency Responses to Public Comments I.
II.
Cover Letter III.
List of Public Comments Received IV.
Public Comments V.
Agency Responses to Public Comments VI.
2010 Annual Status Report MassDOT Certification Comment Letters Received on the MassDOT 2010 Annual SIP Status Report (by date)
First Name
Affiliation
Stephen
Last Name
Kaiser
9/22/2010
Josiah Lee
Auspitz et. al.
9/27/2010
Marcus
Rozbitsky
9/28/2010
Laura
Beretsky
9/28/2010
Michael
Chiu
9/28/2010
Alex
Epstein
9/28/2010
Greg
Nadeau
9/28/2010
Cador
Pricejones
9/29/2010
Alice
Grossman
9/29/2010
Jurgen
Weiss
9/30/2010
Michael
Bernstein
9/30/2010 Staff Attorney
Rafael
Mares
Conservation Law Foundation
9/30/2010 Chairperson
Carolyn
Rosen
Green Line Advisory Committee for Medford
9/30/2010
Wig
Zamore
10/1/2010
Ami
Almendral
10/1/2010
Ted
Bach
10/1/2010
Katjana
Ballantyne
10/1/2010
Susanna
Barry
Date
Title
8/9/2010
Fairmount / Indigo Line Coalition
9/17/2010
10/1/2010
Priscilla
Chew
10/1/2010 Organizer
Chelsea Clarke
Community Corridor Planning
10/1/2010 Vice‐President
John
Dieckmann
Belmont Citizens Forum
10/1/2010
Alex
Feldman
10/1/2010
Rachel
Fichtenbaum
10/1/2010
Rachel
Gordon
10/1/2010
William
Harnois
10/1/2010
Gloria
Korsman
10/1/2010
Kenneth
Krause
10/1/2010 Director of Transportation and Infrastructure
Michael
Lambert
City of Somerville
10/1/2010 Executive Director
Jennifer Lawrence
Groundwork Somerville
Comment Letters Received on the MassDOT 2010 Annual SIP Status Report (by date)
First Name
Affiliation
10/1/2010
Thomas
Last Name
Lincoln
10/1/2010
Karen
Molloy
10/1/2010
Alan
Moore
10/1/2010
Paul
Morgan
10/1/2010
Steven
Orzack
10/1/2010 Massachusetts House of Representatives
Denise
Provost
State Representative
10/1/2010 President
Ellin
Reisner
Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership
10/1/2010
Arah
Schuur
Date
Title
10/1/2010
John
Sommerstein
10/1/2010
Leah
Tenney
10/1/2010
Lynn
Weissman
10/1/2010
Lynn
Weissman
10/1/2010
Walter
Willett
Friends of the Community Path
10/1/2010
Somerville Climate Action
10/1/2010
Brickbottom Condominium Trust
undated
Mike
Korcynski
Oral Testimony Given on the MassDOT 2010 Annual SIP Status Report (by date)
First Name
Last Name
10/8/2010
Stephen
Kaiser
10/8/2010
Kenneth
Krause
10/8/2010
Alan
Date
Title
10/8/2010 Massachusetts House of Representatives
Denise
Moore
Provost
10/8/2010
Ellin
Reisner
10/8/2010
Carolyn
Rosen
10/8/2010
Wig
Zamore
10/30/2010
Michael
Bernstein
10/30/2010
Mark
Chase
10/30/2010
Nina
Garfinkle
10/30/2010
Stephen
Kaiser
10/30/2010
Karen
Molloy
10/30/2010
Alan
Moore
10/30/2010
Lynn
Weissman
10/30/2010
Wig
Zamore
Affiliation
State Representative
State Implementation Plan Public Meeting
Department of Environmental Protection and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
September 8, 2010 - 4:00pm to 6:00pm Mass DEP One Winter Street Washington Street Conference Center Boston, MA Attendees:
Jim Coleman, Department of Environmental Protection
Christine Kirby, Department of Environmental Protection
David Mohler, Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Stephen H. Kaiser, Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods
Maureen Kelly, Central Transportation Planning Staff
Ken Krause, Medford resident
Anne McGahan, Central Transportation Planning Staff
Alan Moore, Friends of the Community Path, Somerville resident
Denise Provost, State Representative, 27th Middlesex
Ellin Reisner, Somerville resident
Carolyn Rosen, Green Line Advisory Group of Medford
Wig Zamore, Somerville resident
Introduction
Jim Coleman, Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Waste Prevention at MassDEP, opened the
fourth annual public meeting on MassDOT’s annual status report on the Commonwealth’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP). He introduced David Mohler, Executive Director of MassDOT’s
Office of Transportation Planning, and Christine Kirby, Deputy Division Director, Consumer
and Transportation Division at MassDEP.
MassDEP requires MassDOT to report annually on its progress for implementing uncompleted
SIP projects under its authority pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 111, Sections 142A through 142M,
subsection (7) of 310 CMR 7.36, the Transit System Improvements regulation.
MassDOT submitted a status report to MassDEP on July 9, 2010. Following the release of the
status report, MassDEP is required to hold a public meeting and take public comments. Within
120 days of this meeting, MassDOT is required to summarize and respond to public comments.
Within 60 days of the summary and response, MassDEP must then determine whether the public
process requirements of the regulation have been met.
Due to the beginning of the Rosh Hashanah holiday today, MassDEP will hold a second public
meeting on September 30 from 4PM to 6PM. A supplemental notice will be released. Also the
public comment period has been extended. Written comments will be accepted until 5:00 PM on
October 1, 2010. Comments should be submitted to Kate Fichter, MassDOT, Office of
Transportation Planning, Room 4150, Ten Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116.
Page 1
Status Report
David Mohler provided a summary of the status on the SIP projects:
The Fairmount Commuter Rail Line project is approximately one-year behind schedule primarily
due to public outreach and concerns about the Blue Hill Avenue Station. The status of the
components of the project is as follows:
 Four Corners Station: Construction is underway.
 Talbot Station: Construction will begin later this month.
 New Market Station: The project is out to bid and bids are due in September. Weather
permitting, the project could be under construction in November.
 Neponset River Bridge: The project is out to bid and bids are due October 14.
Construction will begin in the spring.
 Blue Hill Avenue Station: The civic engagement process is ongoing.
The project for the construction of 1,000 new parking spaces is on schedule for completion by
December 31, 2011. The status report includes a new list of projects that will satisfy MassDOT’s
commitment to create 1,000 new parking spaces. The largest number of spaces will be at
Wonderland Station. A construction contract has been awarded. That project is expected to be
complete by November 2011.
MassDOT is addressing public comments received regarding the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for the Design of the Red Line/Blue Line Connector project.
MassDOT received a MEPA certificate for the Green Line Extension to Somerville and Medford
project on July 31. The project’s design working group met for first time on August 9. MassDOT
is working with the MBTA to develop a schematic design report to guide engineering for project.
Yesterday, the MassDOT Board withdrew a contract amendment for preliminary engineering and
MassDOT is now reprocuring that segment of the project. MassDOT is committed to do this as
soon as possible and to look for ways to get the project back on schedule.
Oral Testimony
Denise Provost, State Representative, 27th Middlesex
Representative Provost expressed chagrin that the deadline for the Green Line Extension project
has been extended one year and that the reprocurement for the preliminary engineering segment
of the project will take from three months to one year. She expressed concern that MassDOT
staff would not be able to make up that time and noted that her constituents are concerned that
the project will never be built. Noting that compliance with air quality goals underpins the
project, she asked MassDOT to think hard about how to move the project forward and address
the air quality goals that the project was intended to achieve.
Stephen H. Kaiser, Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods
Mr. Kaiser commented that the Green Line Extension project is still alive – unlike some other
planned transit improvements – because it is in the SIP, and he credited former Secretary of
Page 2
Transportation Fred Salvucci for putting the project in the SIP. He expressed appreciation for the
SIP process.
He noted that the final design of the project may be difficult and suggested streamlining the
process so that the project could get back on schedule, while having democratic participation. He
remarked upon a recent charrette at which members of the public discussed alternatives for
Brickbottom Station, and he suggested that a similar grassroots approach could be used with
citizens taking the lead to refine the Green Line design alternatives. If a dialog could get
underway soon, agreement could be reached by years end, he said.
He also commented about air quality issues in the Brickbottom area of Somerville caused by
idling trains, and noted the need for a solution.
Alan Moore, Friends of the Community Path, Somerville resident
Mr. Moore expressed appreciation that MassDOT has agreed to design a portion of the
Community Path and expressed that he would like MassDOT to design and construct the entire
Path along with the Green Line Extension project. This would be the most cost effective option,
he said.
He requested that MassDOT work hard to not delay the Green Line Extension project and he
urged MassDOT to work better and more cooperatively with project advocates to work out the
design issues.
He offered two ideas for interim air quality projects to offset emissions:
 Extend the Community Path before the original Green Line Extension deadline in 2014
 Include the extension of the Green Line to Route 16 in Phase 1 of the project
Speaking for Janie Katz-Christy, Director of the Green Streets Initiative and a Cambridge
resident, he expressed her wish to have the Community Path opened by the original Green Line
Extension deadline.
Ellin Reisner, Somerville Resident
Ms. Reisner stated that the delay in the Green Line Extension project offers an opportunity to
correct what was not done well before. She stated that a more transparent and collaborative
process is required, and that peer reviews should be available to everyone.
She noted that the project had moved forward with limited public response and that the design
firm was never present at public meetings. She expressed that the public wishes to work with
MassDOT on the project and to share ideas.
As an interim project, she voiced support for moving forward with the Community Path, and
noted that the project would be a terrific opportunity to reduce the number of cars on the road
and to build future ridership for the Green Line. She remarked that under current conditions it is
dangerous to bicycle from Somerville to Boston. The Community Path would provide a safe
route.
Page 3
She also voiced support for including the extension of the Green Line to Route 16 in Phase 1 of
the project. She noted again that the public wants to work closely with MassDOT and consultants
to expedite the project.
Ken Krause, Medford resident
Mr. Krause commented about the delays on the Green Line Extension project, noting that since
the DEIR was filed late, it was likely that the delays would continued down the line, and that
MassDOT should have anticipated potential controversies. He suggested that MassDOT should
accept ideas from the public earlier than MassDOT has planned.
He noted that the more the project is delayed, the more the burden falls on MassDOT, and that now MassDOT must develop and interim offset program. He suggested that other agencies – such as the Department of Conservation and Recreation, MassDEP, or MassDOT Highway Division – should become involved to help relieve MassDOT of this burden and to free MassDOT to focus on moving the Green Line Extension project forward. He suggested that the focus be on opportunities defined in the DEIR that could improve air quality, such as improving traffic flow, improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and upgrading the rotary on the Mystic Valley Parkway and Alewife Brook Parkway. He asked that the Green Line Extension project be treated as a top priority. He also expressed support for accelerating the Community Path project and designing the Green Line Extension to Route 16. Wig Zamore, Somerville Resident
Mr. Zamore voiced several concerns about the Green Line Extension project:  The MassDOT and MBTA SIP reports come out together in July and this can be
confusing to people. The reports should be combined with the state’s legal obligations
outlined in the report.
 MassDOT does not have enough staff people working on the project. (He made clear that
he was not casting aspersions on individual staff members, just noting that not enough
people are assigned to the project.)
 The feedback MassDOT receives from the public does not get “into the loop” fast enough. He stated that the urban design firm working on the project needs to be highly engaged and the
project needs to be well resourced in the next stage. He advocated for completing the project on
time.
He noted that the Mystic Valley watershed is the most polluted watershed in Massachusetts, and
cited pollution from combined sewer overflows during flash floods, and high levels of noise
pollution, which is associated with hypertension.
Regarding air pollution issues, he stated that the interim offset projects should be in places where
the air quality is the worst. He offered several ideas for reducing emissions:
Page 4







Complete the Community Path to Boston by the original deadline for the Green Line
Extension project, which has regional benefits, addresses an environmental justice area,
and would give a boost to the regional bicycle network.
Accelerate and enhance the project to build a new Orange Line Station at Assembly
Square, which provides an air quality benefit by taking cars off the road.
Construct the 200 new MBTA parking spaces at Assembly Square on time.
Erect three to five wind turbines at Assembly Square to help relieve future fuel costs for
the MBTA.
Electrify the commuter rail system in the urban core where the population is densest.
Construct a commuter rail maintenance facility on the south side of Boston to eliminate
the need to ferry trains between North and South Stations.
Lower the Fitchburg commuter rail line in the Brickbottom area of Somerville to allow
for future mixed-use development.
Carolyn Rosen, Chair, Green Line Advisory Group of Medford (GLAM), Medford resident
Ms. Rosen expressed concerns about the civic participation aspects of the Green Line Extension
project, noting the process has excluded people from the disability community and from the
environmental justice community. She also voiced concern about the lack of citizen control over
the project and her belief that development is being forced on the Medford community.
She voiced concern that the station design working group does not include representatives from
the environmental justice and disability communities. She questioned why MassDOT appointed
an individual to the group that GLAM believes is opposed to civic participation after GLAM
filed a civil rights complaint with the Federal Transit Administration. She also stated that
MassDOT has not responded to GLAM’s request that each member file a conflict of interest
statement, or to a request for information on affirmative action or disability representation on the
group.
Civil rights should be the cornerstone of transit planning, she stated. She emphasized that
transportation reform has not occurred and, referencing an article called “A Ladder of Civic
Participation” by Sherry Arnstein, she indicated that MassDOT has used the techniques of
manipulation and placation to undermine the public interest on this project. She voiced
complaints about a lack of information and technical assistance from MassDOT, and said that
Medford residents have not received answers to questions about mitigation regarding proposed
development at College Avenue and Route 16.
She also voiced complaints that a duel process being headed by MAPC under the FEIR has
segregated minority, environmental justice, and disability groups from the MassDOT process.
She stated that the environmental justice community in West Medford is opposed to
development at Route 16 and opposed to having Somerville’s high-density land use being
pushed onto Medford. She also reported that some small business owners in Medford did not
realize that their businesses were in danger from land takings.
She stated that she supports the decision of the MassDOT Board in denying a contract to Parsons
Brinckerhoff. She cited the firm’s corrupt actions and past low-quality work that resulted in the
death of a woman traveling through the Central Artery Tunnel.
Page 5
She also expressed concern about he impact the Green Line Extension would have on local jobs
in Medford, particularly the negative impact it could have by displacing workers from the
environmental justice community and disabled workers. She noted that the temporary
construction jobs would not address the unemployment problem, which she called a “blue collar
depression.” She also objected to perceived political patronage and expressed frustration that the
project would likely benefit more powerful interests such as a realty firm owned by a member of
the Kennedy family and Tufts University (which she says will profit from parking fees). She
called for more information about the proposed new jobs that the Green Line development is
expected to bring and who they would employ. She called on the state to ask Tufts University to
pay for mitigation.
In closing she stated that she thinks the Green Line Extension project needs to be delayed until
these issues are addressed.
Page 6
State Implementation Plan Public Meeting
Department of Environmental Protection and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
September 30, 2010 - 5:00pm to 6:00pm
Mass DEP One Winter Street Washington Street Conference Center Boston, MA Attendees:
Christine Kirby, Department of Environmental Protection
David Mohler, Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Michael Bernstein, Medford resident
Mark Chase, Tufts University
Nina Garfinkle, Livable Streets Alliance, South End resident
Stephen H. Kaiser, Cambridge Resident
Maureen Kelly, Central Transportation Planning Staff
Karen Malloy, Somerville resident
Anne McGahan, Central Transportation Planning Staff
Alan Moore, Friends of the Community Path, Somerville resident
Ellin Reisner, Somerville resident
Lynn Weissman, Friends of the Community Path
Wig Zamore, Somerville resident
Introduction
Christine Kirby, Deputy Division Director, Consumer and Transportation Division at MassDEP
opened the public meeting on MassDOT’s annual status report on the Commonwealth’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
MassDEP requires MassDOT to report annually on its progress for implementing uncompleted
SIP projects under its authority pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 111, Sections 142A through 142M,
subsection (7) of 310 CMR 7.36, the Transit System Improvements regulation.
MassDOT submitted a status report to MassDEP on July 9, 2010. Following the release of the
status report, MassDEP is required to hold a public meeting and take public comments. Within
120 days of this meeting, MassDOT is required to summarize and respond to public comments.
Within 60 days of the summary and response, MassDEP must then determine whether the public
process requirements of the regulation have been met.
Written comments will be accepted until 5:00 PM on October 1, 2010. Comments should be
submitted to Kate Fichter, MassDOT, Office of Transportation Planning, Room 4150, Ten Park
Plaza, Boston, MA 02116.
Page 1
Status Report
David Mohler, Executive Director of MassDOT’s Office of Transportation Planning, provided a
summary of the status on the SIP projects:
The Fairmount Commuter Rail Line project is not expected to be completed by the December 31,
2011 SIP deadline. The project is about six to nine months behind schedule. The status of the
components of the project is as follows:
 Four Corners Station: Construction is underway.
 Talbot Station: Construction is underway.
 New Market Station: Weather permitting, the project could be under construction in
November.
 Neponset River Bridge: Construction will begin in the spring.
 Blue Hill Avenue Station: The civic engagement process is ongoing.
The project for the construction of 1,000 new parking spaces is on schedule for completion by
December 31, 2011. The construction of new parking spaces at Wonderland Station will
contribute to meeting the commitment.
The Red Line/Blue Line Connector project must be at final design by 2011. MassDOT is
currently reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
The Green Line Extension to Somerville and Medford project is due by December 31, 2004.
MassDOT is expecting a 10-month delay. MassDOT received a MEPA certificate for the project
in July. The project’s design working group met for first time on August 9. Two station meetings
were held the week of September 19. MassDOT withdrew a $24 million contract amendment for
preliminary engineering and is now transitioning that project to the MBTA. The MBTA has
added an addendum to a contract for Green Line project management to add engineering
services. The MBTA will procure those services directly. MassDOT looking for ways to get the
project back on schedule.
Oral Testimony
Stephen H. Kaiser, Cambridge Resident
Mr. Kaiser spoke in regard to the Green Line Extension project. He stated that he has been doing
design work with five groups in Somerville – the Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership,
Friends of the Community Path, Brickbottom Residents, Somerville Chamber of Commerce, and
M.S. Walker Company – and liaising with the Somerville Office of Strategic Planning.
He presented a design plan, developed from citizen ideas, to address the air and noise pollution
caused by idling commuter rail trains in the residential Brickbottom area of Somerville. The
proposed solution would involve moving the train idling area and result in less pollution,
reductions in energy use, and time-savings for trains heading into North Station. The design
goals were to save money (such as by eliminating the need for a $50 million taking), provide for
Page 2
the movement of MBTA trains, reducing idling and set idling trains away from buildings, and
expedite the Green Line process. The design also allows space for the Community Path. He also
discussed the possibility of designing for a sixth track and a track on which trains could travel 50
miles per hour.
Mr. Kaiser suggested that citizens could be helpful in identifying alternatives for the location of
the Brickbottom Station, which could help expedite the Green Line project. He also urged
MassDOT to identify flaws in the ownership of land along the rail lines, particularly as concerns
Commonwealth-owned tidelands that a private railroad company claims to own. Doing so would
help the state challenge that company’s claims and reduce the need to take properties from other
parties.
Mark Chase, Tufts University Lecturer and Somerville resident
Mr. Chase voiced support for the Community Path project as an interim project to mitigate for
the delay in the Green Line Extension project. He discussed the benefits of the path noting that
multi-modal access to transit is critically important, that people are more willing to walk in a
pleasant environment, and that walking and biking help address health and obesity problems.
He stated that the proposed path goes through an environmental justice neighborhood. It would
also promote a more efficient use of the Red Line because people could bike directly to the
transit stations without having to transfer downtown between the Green and Red Lines. He said
that the project would have regional benefits because it would link Somerville to North Point and
link Bedford to Boston.
Michael Bernstein, Medford resident
Mr. Bernstein voiced strong support for the Green Line Extension project. He stated that the plan
to terminate the line at College Avenue does not satisfy the SIP requirement to extend the Green
Line to Medford Hillside.
He objected to MassDOT’s reasoning that the Hillside would be served because it is within a
one-mile walk of the College Avenue terminus. Referencing the results of a CTPS ridership
survey (2008-2009), he stated that the survey shows that few people are willing to walk more
than a mile to a Green Line station and most only walk up to a quarter of a mile. Also, he said the
survey shows that some outlying Green Line stations have a higher number of “drop and ride”
passengers than the figures used for modeling in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Green Line project.
Mr. Bernstein asked that MassDOT allow the public to be involved in the development of the
interim emission projects required by the project delay. He urged MassDOT to complete the
interim reduction projects earlier than legally required to bring air quality benefits to people. He
also asked MassDOT to develop interim projects that will specifically target improving air
quality in the neighborhoods along the Green Line Extension corridor, including the area around
the proposed Route 16 terminus.
He offered the following ideas for ways that MassDOT could reduce emissions:
Page 3





Reduce diesel emissions from the commuter rail in this corridor by electrifying the
system, using diesel scrubbers, and adding noise barriers.
Reduce headways on bus routes in the area, and add bus shelters and benches.
Reduce emissions from buses by employing electric, hybrid, and clean diesel technology.
Offer financial incentives to reduce vehicle usage in the area.
Build the Green Line Extension to Route 16. A terminus at Winthrop Street in Medford
would satisfy the SIP commitment.
Mr. Bernstein submitted his comments in writing.
Nina Garfinkle, Livable Streets Alliance, South End resident
Ms. Garfinkle expressed support for the Green Line Extension and indicated that the project
would likely produce benefits (as occurred in her South End neighborhood with the Southwest
Corridor Park) in terms of taking cars off the road, creating a community space where people can
walk, and providing healthy transportation options.
Alan Moore, Friends of the Community Path, Somerville resident
Mr. Moore stated that he is happy to see progress in the SIP, but that he is disappointed in the
delays in the Green Line Extension project. Regarding the delay due to the need to procure a new
preliminary engineering contract, he expressed that MassDOT should have kept the preliminary
engineering process going until a new contract was signed. He also expressed disappointment
that MassDOT is not requesting public comments for interim air quality projects. He proposed
constructing the Community Path as one of those projects.
He will be submitting a letter.
Lynn Weisman, Friends of the Community Path
Ms. Weisman expressed support for the Community Path as an interim air quality project and
advocated that the path be built by 2014 and that it extend to North Point and connect to the
Charles River Path. She also urged MassDOT to include the section of the path from
Somerville’s Inner Belt to Lechmere in the preliminary engineering contract. She expressed that
there needs to be connectivity from Somerville to Boston, and that if the project is not built along
side the Green Line Extension it may never be built.
She spoke about how the path could increase access to non-fossil fuel modes, reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, maximize MBTA ridership, and provide connections to six Somerville schools
(four of which are in environmental justice areas) and to other paths. She also spoke about the
health benefits and about how by using off-road paths, people can avoid exposure to particulates
from vehicle sources.
She noted that Massachusetts ranks last in the nation for the allocation of funds for alternative
transportation projects, and that she would like to see that changed. She acknowledged that she
believes MassDOT wants to build the Community Path.
The Friends of the Community Path will be submitting a letter.
Page 4
Karen Malloy, Somerville resident
Ms. Malloy expressed support for the Community Path as an interim air quality project for the
Green Line Extension delay. She spoke of the benefits of the project noting that it would take
motor vehicles off the road, reduce the need for parents to drive their children to schools near the
path, and produce health benefits. She stated that the project could be like the Southwest
Corridor Park and that it would be a great project for MassDOT’s “GreenDOT” initiative. She
also noted that there is a need for pedestrian and bicycle access to the Green Line stations, since
the new stations are being designed without parking lots.
Wig Zamore, Somerville resident
Mr. Zamore spoke in support of the Green Line Extension project and the Community Path as an
interim air quality project. He referenced a CTPS report that shows that the light rail extension
has four to six times the environmental benefit of the bus alternative, and that the Green Line
Extension has four to six times the environmental benefits of the entire SIP Package. He asked
that MassDOT provide a summary of how the environmental test is done to the public.
Mr. Zamore suggested the following as interim air quality projects:
 Complete the Community Path to Boston before the original deadline for the Green Line
Extension project.
 Build the new Orange Line Station at Assembly Square, which has enormous potential
for taking cars off the road. Complete the project on time with a good bicycle and
pedestrian connection. Consider building a modest footpath over the tracks to the planned
IKEA store to provide a direct connection from the MBTA station to the store.
 Install wind turbines and solar installations to provide power to the MBTA. Add six
additional wind turbines in the Assembly Square area. Find funding to build these
facilities, which could be erected quickly. (He provided diagrams.)
 Electrify the commuter rail system in the urban core where the population is densest.
He submitted several PowerPoint presentations on the following topics:
 An April 2009 presentation to the EPA Scientific Advisory Committee on disease
associated with exposure to mobile source emissions
 Additional information on cardiovascular outcomes from exposure to ultrafine
particulates (also presented to the EPA Scientific Advisory Committee)  A recent presentation to the International Society of Environmental Epidemiology  Concept locations for wind turbines Ellin Reisner, Somerville resident
Ms. Reisner spoke in support of the Community Path. She noted that if a person wants to ride a
bicycle from Somerville to Boston they are forced to travel on dangerous roads. She stated that
the Path would reduce that exposure and take cars off the road.
Page 5
Massachusetts Department of Transportation State Implementation Plan – Transit Commitments 2010 Annual Status Report Agency Responses to Public Comments Submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection January 28, 2011 For questions on this document, please contact: Katherine S. Fichter Massachusetts Department of Transportation Office of Transportation Planning 10 Park Plaza, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 617‐973‐7342 katherine.fichter@state.ma.us INTRODUCTION This document summarizes and responds to public comments received by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) on the State Implementation Plan ‐ Transit Commitments 2010 Annual Status Report (the Status Report) submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on July 2, 2010 in order to fulfill the requirements of 310 CMR 7.36(7), Transit System Improvements. The Status Report detailed the status of four public transit projects – listed below – required of MassDOT under 310 CMR 7.36. The projects are:  Fairmount Line Improvement Project  Construction of 1,000 New Commuter Parking Spaces  Red Line/Blue Line Connector ‐ Design  Green Line Extension to Somerville and Medford This document also responds to questions on projects not included in the Status Report. MassDOT received public comment on the Status Report through October 1, 2010, following two public meetings (September 8 and September 30, 2010) at which staff from MassDOT presented on the content of the Status Report. The majority of the comments received by MassDOT pertain to the extension of the Green Line to Somerville and Medford. MassDOT has reviewed all of the comments received – they are included here in full, as is a list of all of the submitting individuals and organizations – and has grouped and summarized them so as to capture the salient ideas while reducing redundancy and overlap. When a comment could not be effectively summarized, we have used the comment text verbatim and placed it in quotation marks. As much as possible, we have listed the comments here in the same language as that used in the original comment, with clarifying notes as needed. In this document, indication of the authorship of each comment has been omitted. Project Updates Since submission of the Status Report in July, some projects have seen significant progress. For the latest status, please see the most recent monthly SIP Status Update report, which at the time of this submittal is the January 2011 report. All monthly SIP Status Update reports can be found online at: http://www.eot.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/transitCommitment&sid=about. Public Input The projects described in the Status Report each have public input processes associated with them, but the public process associated with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) itself provides an additional opportunity for MassDOT to hear from interested individuals and organizations about the progress and direction of our projects. This is a valuable reminder that our projects will serve real people in real communities, and we strive to shape our efforts to meet the needs of the users of the transportation network, both present and future. At the same time, the framework of the SIP obliges us to retain a regional perspective and to understand that the portfolio of projects mandated under the SIP is intended to work together to bring benefits to the Boston Metropolitan Region as a whole. Furthermore, MassDOT and the MBTA must always be sensitive to the overall constrained fiscal climate of both the transportation agencies and the Commonwealth as a whole. With those issues in mind, we are grateful to the individuals and institutions who participated in this public comment process and who participate in the development of ongoing transportation projects. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 1
This document follows the general format of the Status Report submitted on July 9, 2010, which is also included in this binder. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011
Page 2
I. GENERAL COMMENTS Public Comments 
[We] request that DEP require a mid‐year status report to be filed by MassDOT [on the SIP projects]. MassDOT feels that the frequency with which it reports to DEP on the status of the projects required as part of the State Implementation Plan is both adequate and appropriate. The reporting requirements are outlined in the SIP regulation, which was developed by DEP based on public input. Given the complexity of and time required to develop the projects required by the SIP, more frequent reporting would not necessarily provide any greater level of detail about the status of the projects. Furthermore, developing and submitting status reports – while important for transparency and public involvement – requires time and resources from MassDOT staff; resources that could otherwise be spent on advancing the SIP projects themselves. In addition, MassDOT has committed to providing monthly updates on the SIP projects to the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). These status reports have been filed monthly since January 2010 and are available on the MassDOT website at http://www.eot.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/transitCommitment&sid=about. 
It is crucially important for MassDOT to seek public input early in the process of investigating ideas for Interim Offset Projects [ed. note: related to any potential delays in implementation of the SIP projects]. 
The SIP regulation requires that MassDOT ‘petition’ DEP with the information that the implementation of a SIP project will be delayed. As part of the petition process, MassDOT must also identify potential interim offset measures designed to meet the air quality improvement targets for the period of time by which the implementation of the required project will be delayed. In order to do so, MassDOT must do some internal analysis in order to develop a potential list of appropriate interim offset measures. However, it is the intent of MassDOT to incorporate public input as much and as early as possible in identifying and selecting interim measures. This document is one means by which the public is beginning to comment on potential measures. Additionally, MassDOT has begun meeting with stakeholder groups interested in the Fairmount Line Improvement project to identify and quantify potential offset measures related to that project. MassDOT intends to take the same steps, when the time is appropriate, for other projects needing offset measures. Please implement interim offset projects as soon as possible; do not wait for legal deadline to act. MassDOT is currently working as hard as possible to minimize any delays associated with the SIP projects, while also beginning the process of identifying appropriate interim offset measures for the Fairmount Line Improvement project. Per the SIP regulation, interim offset measures are to be implemented at the time of the missed deadline (e.g. in the case of the Fairmount Line Improvement project, on December 31, 2011). While there could be potential benefits to early enactment of interim offset measures, to do so would also remove focus from our primary goal: reaching the original deadlines included in the SIP regulation. We will seek to provide meaningful environmental benefit through interim offset measures in the most cost efficient means possible given the constrained resources of MassDOT and the MBTA. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 3

We recommend that all interim offset measures considered be located in the respective neighborhoods of the delayed projects. While this is not a legal requirement of the SIP, we strongly believe that failing to adhere to this approach would be patently unfair and politically unwise. The purpose of the State Implementation Plan in general, and the specific projects affiliated with the SIP in particular, is to improve regional air quality. MassDOT will focus on enacting interim offset measures in the most prudent way possible to meet regional air quality goals. However, in making decisions on interim offset measures, MassDOT will attempt, whenever reasonable, to identify measures that would also improve air quality directly in the project corridors associated with the delayed implementation of any projects. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 4
II. FAIRMOUNT LINE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Public Comments 
[We] renew our request that MassDOT identify and report on planned measures to improve service and increase ridership for the Fairmount Line. While the SIP doesn’t directly require an increase in service levels on the Fairmount Line, we believe it would be a valuable exercise and in the spirit of the SIP to consider whether a higher level of service would attract significantly higher ridership. Given that, we believe that the most prudent course of action is to review the existing Fairmount Line service plan once the new stations are close to being operational. With station construction underway, MassDOT and the MBTA are beginning to examine potential service changes to accommodate the new stations, and improve service. Any service improvements would not be implemented until the new stations are open. 
The projects we suggest for consideration and close analysis [as interim offset measures] are the following: 1. Switching to ultra‐low sulfur diesel fuel on all trains on the Fairmount Line; Installing new, less polluting auxiliary engines on Commuter Rail locomotives for the Fairmount Line earlier than required by other legal commitments; Putting the new generation of Commuter Rail locomotives to use on the Fairmount Line earlier than required by other legal commitments. MassDOT and the MBTA are continually looking for means of reducing emissions from all MBTA‐operated locomotives, including ones in use on the Fairmount Line. These three specific suggestions are goals shared by MassDOT, and as noted, these suggestions are all subject to other legal commitments; in general, interim offset measures cannot be measures otherwise required by any law, regulation or other obligation. However, MassDOT and the MBTA are working on each of the above items as a matter of general policy and practice, as described below: Ultra‐low sulfur diesel fuel is already in use in all locomotives on the commuter rail system. New auxiliary engines and head‐end power (which power lights, heating and other internal systems) are currently being installed on commuter rail vehicles. The MBTA is working finish these installations by the deadlines set forth by consent decree. The newest generation of commuter rail vehicles is currently in active procurement. 2. Implementing night and weekend service on the existing Fairmount Line to encourage ridership and reductions in vehicle miles travelled. The Fairmount Line currently does not have any weekend service, and has limited evening service. Adding new off‐peak (nights and weekends) trips on the Fairmount Line is unlikely to generate the air quality benefit needed from an interim offset measure, but MassDOT will nevertheless examine this option. Air quality benefits are generally less in off‐peak hours because automobile congestion is less and parking availability is greater, meaning that people are more inclined to drive than use transit. Users would likely be diversions from other transit modes. Night and weekend service is generally a low demand time for the MBTA, and it is possible that the emissions from the rail vehicles used on these trips would outweigh the air quality benefit from Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 5
greater transit service. Nevertheless, MassDOT will examine this potential measure, and is working with Boston MPO staff to determine what air quality benefit would be provided. 3. Eliminating fares on the existing Fairmount Line until all new stations are complete to encourage ridership and reductions in vehicle miles travelled. Current fares range from $1.70 to $4.25 per one way ride. Eliminating fares on the Fairmount Line is financially infeasible for the MBTA. The density of existing transit service in the Fairmount corridor would cause a significant number of users of other transit services to divert to a free Fairmount Line. The impact to fare revenue would be too large for this to be an appropriate option for an interim offset measure. A more conservative modification to exiting fare policy would be to reduce fares on the Fairmount Line to be equal to rapid transit fares. MassDOT will examine and model the impact of changing the fares on the Fairmount Line and at Readville as part of an examination of interim offset measures. 4. Providing a bus shuttle service (a new bus route) from Andrew Square to Boston Medical Center to reduce vehicle miles travelled in the area and more directly connects these two important nodes. MassDOT sees potential utility in this measure, and will analyze it for air quality benefits. MassDOT will continue to work with stakeholders and the general public to identify other potential measures, and will present findings as soon as analysis is complete. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 6
III. CONSTRUCTION OF 1,000 NEW PARKING SPACES Public Comments 
The only way to ensure that [Wonderland Garage] has enough space available for transit riders is to reserve a specific number of parking spaces for MBTA customers at all times and implement a system, such as parking ticket validation, which enforces such a restriction. MassDOT shares this concern. However, the plans for the private development around Wonderland Station are not yet finalized nor is the private development project in construction, so this will not be an issue for the short‐term. Over the long‐term and to ensure that the spaces dedicated for MBTA users are, in fact, reserved and available for MBTA riders, the MBTA is working closely with the private developer to develop an appropriate system of enforcement. Similar situations have been handled at numerous other MBTA parking facilities, including Lynn Station, Route 128 Station and Mystic Center (Wellington). 
To comply with the SIP requirement, one thousand additional parking spaces have to be constructed rather than merely provided. The parking spaces near the Beverly commuter rail station, at least, appear only to have been opened to the public but have not been constructed. We disagree with the commenter’s apparent belief that the use of the term “constructed” in the SIP is a term of limitation. The SIP requires the MBTA to create 1,000 new parking spaces available to the public serving commuter transit facilities. One hundred twenty‐two new parking spaces at the Beverly Commuter Rail Station were opened to the public after the MBTA purchased the land and converted the spaces from private to public. This activity is in full compliance with the SIP. 
For the Savin Hill Station, MassDOT is counting thirty spaces towards the requirement. However, there are only twenty‐six parking spaces in the lot, three of which are reserved for MBTA station inspectors and hence not available to commuters. MassDOT appreciates having this brought to our attention, and apologizes for the error. There are only twenty‐two spaces open for public use at Savin Hill Station, including two accessible spots. Six other striped parking spaces at the station are divided between MBTA employee parking, and ZipCar spaces. MassDOT will correct this information in all future Status Reports. MassDOT will also confirm the number of spaces at other parking areas part of this commitment. 
[We] urge MassDOT not to abandon its parking projects in Salem and Beverly MassDOT has no intention of abandoning the Salem and Beverly parking projects and will continue to advance them, as it has been doing over the past year. At present, the Beverly project is advancing as a ‘Construction Manager at Risk’ procurement. Thirty‐percent design plans were completed in the fall of 2010, and the MBTA is working to move the project forward as quickly as possible. In Salem, work is continuing to scale the project back in cost and scope, as the original design was larger than the site or budget warranted. New concept plans have been developed and the MBTA is now working to procure a new designer for the project. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 7
IV. RED LINE/BLUE LINE CONNECTOR ‐ DESIGN No Public Comments Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011
Page 8
V. GREEN LINE EXTENSION TO SOMERVILLE AND MEDFORD Public Comments 
The Green Line Extension Project, as proposed, does not comply with the SIP, since the well‐documented historical boundaries of Medford Hillside do not include the location of the proposed terminus at the intersection of College Avenue and Boston Avenue (Medford). The SIP requires that the Green Line be extended to Medford Hillside, and MassDOT feels confident not only that College Avenue offers the best balance of benefits and impacts of any potential station location in the immediate area, but also that it fulfills the legal commitment for extending the Green Line to Medford Hillside. This issue has been discussed, asked and answered in numerous forums, including previous annual SIP Status Reports. Due to this repetition, MassDOT will no longer respond to this inquiry on Annual SIP Reponses to Comments. 
MassDOT should complete the Somerville Community Path extension prior to the December 31, 2014 deadline as an interim offset measure for any delays associated with the implementation of the Green Line Extension. Extend the Path to connect with Lechmere Station, Brickbottom Artists Residence, Union Square, and the Charles River. MassDOT has committed to develop final designs of the Somerville Community Path extension between Lowell Street in Somerville and Inner Belt Road in Somerville. However, construction of the extension of the Community Path prior to the construction of the Green Line Extension project would significantly complicate the construction of both projects. To date, the design concepts for the Community Path and the Green Line Extension have been developed assuming the Green Line Extension project will be constructed before the Community Path. Early Path construction would mean that necessary retaining walls may not be in place and bridge abutments may not yet have been widened (such as for the underpass at Walnut Street). These issues would complicate the construction and increase the costs of both projects. Connections on the southern end of the proposed Path extension have been discussed extensively with the City of Somerville, and MassDOT is working to design the Path extension with the long‐
term urban development goals of Somerville in mind. Any discussion of further Path connections beyond Inner Belt Road is premature until Somerville establishes a future vision for the Inner Belt area and necessary new infrastructure is constructed. The City of Somerville has and will continue to take the lead on the construction of the extension of the Community Path. MassDOT has enjoyed working closely with advocates for the extension of the Community Path, which offers new opportunities for sustainable transportation in the area. 
An interim offset project must truly benefit the entire project corridor. Extension of the Somerville Community Path does not meet that standard. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 9

MassDOT agrees that the SIP regulations are intended to improve regional air quality and MassDOT will focus on enacting interim offset measures in the most prudent way possible to meet regional air quality goals. I urge MassDOT to allocate more resources to the project and eliminate the projected delay. MassDOT must focus all of its efforts on eliminating the 10‐month delay and return to the 2014 project opening. This can be accomplished by beginning construction on early action items immediately. 
MassDOT agrees that the best means of completing the Green Line Extension project is to eliminate the projected delays and open the project for riders as soon as possible. MassDOT and the MBTA are working diligently try to make that happen, including the recent solicitation for a Project Management/Construction Management/Preliminary Engineering team to support the development and implementation of the project. Unfortunately, however, it is impossible to begin construction immediately without jeopardizing the potential for future federal funding, as the project has not yet received federal environmental approval. In addition, while the Green Line Extension project is one of the top transportation priorities of the Commonwealth, MassDOT and the MBTA must balance the needs of this project with the needs of the many other transportation projects currently underway around the Commonwealth. Resources are limited on all fronts, and must be shared. The SIP Status Report does not provide adequate information about the Commonwealth’s funding plan for the Green Line Extension. Furthermore, MassDOT has not acted to amend the 2008 Bond Bill. [We] hereby renew our request that MassDOT complete and make publically available a detailed funding plan for the Green Line Extension Project. 
The funding strategy for the Green Line Extension remains the same as it has been throughout the project: to pursue federal funding through the federal New Starts discretionary funding program – a competitive program for which the Commonwealth must apply for funding – and to match that funding with Commonwealth dollars. MassDOT looks forward to working with the Legislature to amend the 2008 Bond Bill at the appropriate time in order to secure any additional necessary Commonwealth funding for the Green Line Extension project. The Green Line Extension project has had inadequate public participation, and project leaders do not listen to the views of the public. 
Since the inception of the project in 2006, the Green Line Extension project team has made public participation a top priority. As much as possible, we provide information about the project to the public; we seek public input and use it to modify project plans, designs, and overall direction; we take seriously public expectations for the quality of our work and hold ourselves to the high standards set for us by the public; and we are genuinely interested in and enjoy interaction with the public. A listing of public meetings and briefings is included as an appendix to this document. The listing covers the period only from fall 2007 to the present, and does not include the hours spent my MassDOT staff responding to emails and phone calls from the public. MassDOT is understaffed, and not able to take on the massive task of the Green Line Extension. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 10

As has been well‐documented over the past decade, the transportation system of the Commonwealth – and, indeed, the Commonwealth as a whole – is facing significant financial challenges. For that reason, the resources available for any project are, by nature, limited. But MassDOT is extremely proud to have progressed the Green Line Extension project as far as we have and we look forward to moving the project into construction. MassDOT leadership and staff understand the complexity of the project, and have adequate staff to meet the goals of this project. Furthermore, as the project transitions into the direct control of the MBTA, additional staff and expertise is being dedicated to the project. MassDOT should engage other state agencies, such as DEP or DCR, to complete any interim offset measures. 
MassDOT will continue to work closely with other state agencies to progress both the Green Line Extension project and any interim offset measures, but must remain as the primary sponsor of any measures. As part of a potential future Green Line Extension at Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16, the Commonwealth will use its eminent domain powers to ‘take’ private property and sell it to private developers for transit‐oriented development, whether the surrounding community agrees to it or not. 
The construction of a safe and functional station at Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 would require the acquisition of private, commercial property. If the next phase of the project can advance a future extension of the Green Line to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16, every effort would be made to minimize those acquisitions. MassDOT would only acquire land needed to build a station, and would work with the surrounding municipalities to determine how best to deal with any surplus land. MassDOT would not acquire land specifically to use for private development at Mystic Valley Parkway. Please consider constructing the Green Line Extension to Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 either as the proposed project, or as an interim offset measure for any project delays. MassDOT has been consistent in its support of an ultimate terminus from the Green Line Extension at Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16, but has proposed that this final segment of the project be planned and constructed as a second phase. This is the case for financial reasons – the Commonwealth simply cannot afford it at this point – but also for planning and policy reasons. MassDOT learned a wealth of lessons from the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and we feel that there is still a meaningful lack of consensus for a station at Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16. We hope to continue to work and develop such consensus for this potential station area. In the near term, that will involve supporting the process undertaken by Metropolitan Area Planning Council to help detail some of the local issues around the station, and identify some further recommendations. MassDOT will not commit to a Mystic Valley Parkway / Route 16 terminus as an interim offset measure for any project delay. Committing to Route 16 would be against the stated aims of interim offset measures, and would be infeasible to complete in the timeframe necessary by the SIP regulations. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 11

Why was the Route 16 Station dropped from the environmental process between publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and publication of the Final Environmental Impact Report? 
Following public release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Green Line Extension project, MassDOT learned many lessons from the public input received, including many relating to a potential Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 station. After submittal of the DEIR, we determined that that segment of the project was not ready to move forward, and that fact – combined with the financial constraints facing MassDOT and the MBTA – caused us to remove it from any further analysis in the FEIR. Further analysis of Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 in the FEIR would not have been beneficial to the planning process at that time. Any potential future station at Mystic Valley Parkway/Route 16 will need a full reconsideration of the planning and design issues at hand, and will require further examination under the MEPA process, as the deadline would have passed for using the original FEIR filing for that phase of the project. As an interim offset measure, improve bus service and bus emissions in the Green Line Extension project corridor by reducing headways; improving stations, stops, and shelters; and switching to electric, hybrid or clean diesel vehicles. 
MassDOT agrees that improvements to existing bus services should be part of its examination of interim offset obligation. At present, all MBTA diesel buses operate using ultra‐low sulfur diesel fuel. All buses have “particulate scrubbers” and are monitored as part of a robust program to ensure compliance with emissions standards. The MBTA’s oldest buses have also been retrofitted to dramatically improve engine emissions. MassDOT and the MBTA understand that there are potential tradeoffs to bus‐oriented improvements, such as reduced on‐street parking, consolidation of bus stops, or long light cycles. These are issues that MassDOT and the MBTA are dealing with in other municipalities throughout the MBTA service area, and we would look closely at them as part of the interim offset measure process in the Green Line Extension corridor. Reduce diesel emissions from the existing MBTA Commuter Rail locomotives that operate on the Lowell and Fitchburg Lines through the project corridor. Electrify the tracks, add diesel scrubbers, or use cleaner burning fuels. 
MassDOT agrees that examining existing MBTA Commuter Rail operations proximate to the Green Line Extension corridor should be part of its examination of interim offset obligation. At present, the MBTA uses ultra‐low sulfur diesel fuel on all Commuter Rail vehicles, two years before it was required to by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, the MBTA is in the process of adding head‐end power to one‐third of the locomotive fleet. This addition will allow these locomotives to run more cleanly, with fewer emissions and less fuel, while improving them to U.S. EPA Tier 2 standards. U.S. EPA locomotive tiers define the emissions standards for new and remanufactured locomotives, similar to standards for automobiles. Tiers range from a low of ‘0’ to a high of ‘4’, with Tier 2 standards being the minimum requirement for all locomotives newly constructed between 2005 and 2011. All current MBTA locomotives were built before EPA Tiers were developed in 1997. Add noise barriers along the Green Line Extension corridor to help reduce emissions and noise pollution from existing MBTA Commuter Rail operations. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 12

As part of the Green Line Extension project, MassDOT and the MBTA will make significant improvements in the Fitchburg and Lowell Line corridors, including the addition of noise barriers. That work, however, needs to be timed with the rest of the Green Line Extension project. Many retaining walls and other structures will need to be built before noise barriers can be put in place. Installing walls before other work is complete would make Green Line Extension construction more costly and inefficient. Make significant improvements to existing MBTA Commuter Rail lines, and adjust future plans around the Brickbottom Artists Community Building at 1 Fitchburg Street, Somerville, including removing the ‘drill track,’ moving Green Line tracks farther from the building along the Medford Branch, and re‐
evaluating the track locations for Green Line and Commuter Rail along the Union Square Branch / Fitchburg Line. 
MassDOT has and will continue to work with the Brickbottom Artists Community on project design issues, including track placement and design, in the area of the Brickbottom condominium building. The residents of Brickbottom have unique concerns about the impact of the Green Line Extension, and MassDOT wants to ensure that their quality of life is mitigated properly while still providing the best transportation benefits for the entire project corridor. Work and discussion between MassDOT and Brickbottom about mitigation measures and project design will continue through the design phase for the Green Line Extension project, as they will with all abutters in the corridor. As for the ‘drill track’, MassDOT and the MBTA have evaluated and determined that the drill track is an essential piece of transportation infrastructure. The Boston Engine Terminal (BET) maintains and stores locomotives and coaches. The ‘drill track’ is used for moving trains within the BET area, and as a safety track for runaway trains. Most often, the ‘drill track’ is used to pull locomotives and/or strings of coaches from the storage yard and push them into the various shops within the BET building and then back into the yard after the work is complete. The ‘drill track’ allows these operations to occur independent of the Fitchburg Commuter Rail Main Line and the Lowell Commuter Rail Main Line operations, allowing these key commuter lines to operate without interruption. Having this ability is vital to the safe and effective operations of both the maintenance facility and passenger service. As an interim offset measure, reduce traffic congestion and improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the corridor. Focus on intersections noted in the DEIR for poorest air quality, including the Mystic Valley Parkway/Alewife Brook Parkway rotary. 
MassDOT will explore this potential measure for air quality benefits. MassDOT should offer direct financial incentives to reduce gasoline‐powered car and truck usage in the Green Line corridor area, including rebates for hybrid or electric cars, discounted or free MBTA passes, free bicycles or ZipCar memberships. MassDOT has and will continue to encourage alternatives to gas‐powered vehicle travel with initiatives such as GreenDOT and agencies such as MassRIDES. The idea of using these types of policies to serve as interim offset measures is an interesting one, but it is unclear whether these measures would meet the air quality benefits needed in the short timeframe allotted. Work on these issues will continue. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 13

MassDOT should commit to advancing engineering and construction of the extension of the community path that is central to the newly completed Mystic River Reservation Master Plan. 
Thank you for the comment. MassDOT will continue to examine all viable means of implementing interim offset measures. The MBTA/MBCR should construct mini‐high platforms at the West Medford commuter rail station to provide ramped access to and level boarding of the trains. 

While the MBTA has been diligently working to increase accessibility at as many stations as possible, budgetary constraints mean that not every station can be improved at this time. At present, there are no plans to upgrade West Medford station. This upgrade would also be unlikely to provide the air quality improvement necessary for an interim offset measure. Therefore, it is unlikely that it will be considered as an offset measure. Continue to consider maintenance facility options which eliminate the need to take any place of business. MassDOT has recommended the so‐called Option L site in the Inner Belt area of Somerville for the location of the Green Line Extension vehicle support facility. To endeavor to change locations at this point would jeopardize the schedule of, budget of, and ability to complete the project. With the Option L location – as with the entirety of the Green Line Extension project – MassDOT and the MBTA are committed to minimizing negative impacts to local businesses and abutters. When a business must be relocated, MassDOT and the MBTA have and will continue to work cooperatively with owners to provide adequate relocation. We would like to see the Haines Square bus layover area (Fellsway Garage) removed as promised by MassDOT. MassDOT and the MBTA have long intended to relocate the services currently performed at the Fellsway Garage once an appropriate replacement facility was constructed. The proposed new facility would incorporate the maintenance and storage elements of the Fellsway Garage, as well as the maintenance element of the Lynn Garage. The MBTA has proposed constructing an expanded facility at Wellington. This proposal has been met with local opposition, and has not progressed beyond the planning stages. The MBTA and MassDOT will continue to work towards a consolidated bus garage in the Medford area. 
Money set aside for mitigation for both residences and small business must be identified immediately as part of the planning process for the Green Line Extension. 
The current project budget includes funding for all proposed mitigation. At this time, the overall project budget is estimated at $952.8 million. All necessary funds for mitigation will continue to be included in the project budget. The citizens of Medford should be provided clear, specific, and accurate information on mitigation, such as land takings, traffic and parking impacts, and other build impacts immediately from Ball Square to College Avenue. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 14

Extensive information on land acquisitions and parking and traffic impacts has been presented in the DEIR, FEIR, and soon‐to‐be‐released Environmental Assessment. Additional information on potential impacts, including presentations and fact sheets on noise and vibration, traffic and property can be found on the Green Line Extension website: mass.gov/greenlineextension. Progress the development and construction of a proposed Assembly Square Orange Line station as an interim offset measure for any delays associated with the Green Line Extension. Make continued improvements to alternative energy solutions and pedestrian connections at Assembly Square. 
MassDOT feels, for many of the same reasons described above, that improvements to Assembly Square are not appropriate as an interim offset measure for a Green Line Extension delay. Assembly Square is a project with many supporters, and has utility independent of the Green Line Extension project. “MassDOT planners in their simple answers to complex social issues will state that the people in Davis Square are happy with the Red Line. But that is nothing more than a racist statement since the majority of people who currently live in Davis Square now are not those populations who lived there before the Red Line was introduced. Like the West End, Kendall Square and Davis Square, these are all areas where people were displaced from their communities. MassDOT planners refuse to recognize the change they create in communities. They refuse to address these critical socioeconomic issues beyond the 10% of design studies and there answers are based usually on assumptions for one group of people, demonstrating a middle class, white bias in planning.” 
MassDOT planners are aware of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the Green Line Extension, and are similarly concerned about any negative impacts. One reality of a major new transit investment is that displacement of current residents and changes in the retail and commercial landscapes may occur in local neighborhoods. However, the jurisdiction of MassDOT is limited to transportation, and we cannot and do not control zoning ordinances, housing policies, and social welfare issues that will influence the type, pace, and breadth of change experienced in the Green Line Extension corridor communities. To be truly effective, the Green Line Extension municipalities must help to manage these impacts, and work closely with the public on any issues of social concern. MassDOT would welcome an opportunity to partner with the corridor municipalities on these types of issues. Public participation on the project is deeply flawed. This includes the lack of representation for environmental justice or disability communities on the Design Working Group, continued verbal and physical harassment of a disability community advocate, and lack of disclosure on Design Working Group member representation. 
MassDOT feels strongly that this project and its management team have worked to increase participation from the public, and have treated all members of the public equally and fairly. ”We do know that the Design group contains people who have tried to prevent community participation and there is written evidence to this fact. […] This is evident in Mass Dot’s promotion of the Community Corridor planning document on its website. The CCP is a group sponsored by other not for profit advocacy groups backed by Tufts University. One of the sponsor groups called Groundworks Somerville was co‐
established by Tufts staff based upon articles of organization at the Secretary of State’s office and their website promotes that they are funded by Tufts university among other donors. In fact, Tufts University’s Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 15
[…]
Yet this project is full of political patronage […] Again, who is really benefitting from this urban
development project called the Green Line Extension?
[…]
Mass DOT rewards construction companies with lucrative contracts who have questionable ethics issues.
They use manipulation techniques in citizen participation and refuse to address diversity and other critical
issues”
MassDOT has and will continue to work with all project stakeholders, including individuals, institutions, neighborhood groups, and corridor landowners (large and small). To do any less would be to violate our commitment to strong civic engagement, and would make it more difficult to effectively plan the Green Line Extension project. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 16
VI. OTHER PROJECTS AND POLICIES MassDOT received public comment on projects not directly covered in State Implementation Plan ‐ Transit Commitment Status Report. Those comments and attendant responses are listed below. 
[We} disagree with MassDOT’s claim that its obligation under this SIP commitment is complete by virtue of implementing six‐car train service despite the failure to modernize all Blue Line stations. As described in the 2009 Agency Responses to Public Comments, the Blue Line station modernization is important and the MBTA is aggressively trying to complete the necessary work, but it is not a required part of the SIP commitment. At present, construction is ongoing at State Street Station, with expected completion in early 2011. Orient Heights Station is expected to be bid for construction in the spring of 2011, and Government Center Station is currently in design, with a construction start anticipated in the spring of 2012. This issue has been discussed, asked and answered in numerous forums, including previous annual SIP Status Reports. Due to this repetition, MassDOT will no longer respond to this inquiry on Annual SIP Reponses to Comments. Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 17
APPENDIX: GREEN LINE EXTENSION CIVIC ENGAGEMENT LOG Public Meetings and Other Events Meeting Date October 25, 2007 Environmental Review/Conceptual Engineering Project Advisory Group ‐
Meeting No. 1 December 3, 2007 Environmental Review/Conceptual Engineering Project Advisory Group ‐
Meeting No. 2 January 1, 2008 Briefing ‐ Union Square Main Streets January 9, 2008 Environmental Review/Conceptual Engineering Project Advisory Group ‐
Meeting No. 3 January 23, 2008 Public Meeting ‐ Medford Attendance: 138 January 28, 2008 Station Workshop ‐ Gilman Square, Washington Street/Brickbottom January 29, 2008 Station Workshop ‐ Lowell Street/Ball Square January 31, 2008 Station Workshop ‐ College Avenue/Winthrop Street February 2, 2008 Briefing ‐ Friends of the Community Path February 6, 2008 Station Workshop ‐ Mystic Valley Parkway February 12, 2008 Briefing ‐ Union Square Main Streets February 19, 2008 Station Workshop ‐ Union Square February 27, 2008 Public Meeting ‐ Medford Attendance: 90 February 28, 2008 Briefing ‐ Medford Resident (Donnelly) March 3, 2008 Environmental Review/Conceptual Engineering Project Advisory Group ‐
Meeting No. 4 March 13, 2008 Briefing ‐ Brickbottom and Glass Factory Condominiums March 14, 2008 Briefing ‐ Tufts University (staff) March 24, 2008 Briefing ‐ Medford Kiwanis Club March 25, 2008 Briefing ‐ Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership March 26, 2008 Briefing ‐ Town of Arlington March 27, 2008 Briefing ‐ Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership/Union Square Main Streets April 7, 2008 Environmental Review/Conceptual Engineering Project Advisory Group ‐
Meeting No. 5 May 5, 2008 Environmental Review/Conceptual Engineering Project Advisory Group ‐
Meeting No. 6 May 13, 2008 Briefing ‐ Medford City Council May 19, 2008 Briefing/Tour ‐ Somerville Elected Officials @ Yard 8 May 20, 2008 Briefing ‐ Tufts University (staff) May 21, 2008 Briefing ‐ East Cambridge Planning Team June 2, 2008 Environmental Review/Conceptual Engineering Project Advisory Group ‐
Meeting No. 7 June 3, 2008 Tutorial ‐ Transportation Modeling June 12, 2008 Briefing ‐ Cambridge Commission for Persons with Disabilities June 19, 2008 Briefing ‐ Medford Commission for Persons with Disabilities Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 18
June 23, 2008 June 25, 2008 June 31, 2008 July 3, 2008 August 4, 2008 August 6, 2008 August 15, 2008 August 18, 2008 August 21, 2008 October 22, 2008 November 12, 2008 December 1, 2008 December 10, 2008 December 18, 2008 February 3, 2009 February 23, 2009 March 5, 2009 March 9, 2009 March 11, 2009 April 27, 2009 May 13, 2009 May 20, 2009 May 22, 2009 July 13, 2009 August 3, 2009 August 5, 2009 August 19, 2009 August 24, 2009 November 17, 2009 November 18, 2009 December 16, 2009 December 22, 2009 February 2, 2010 February 5, 2010 Tutorial ‐ Somerville Community Path Extension Briefing ‐ Somerville Board of Aldermen Tutorial ‐ Green Line Extension Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Facility Briefing ‐ Somerville Resident (Moore) Environmental Review/Conceptual Engineering Project Advisory Group ‐
Meeting No. 8 Briefing ‐ Magoun Square Neighborhood Association Briefing ‐ Move Massachusetts Briefing ‐ Medford Green Line Neighborhood Alliance Briefing ‐ MaxPak Development Project Briefing ‐ Somerville Commission for Persons with Disabilities Environmental Review/Conceptual Engineering Project Advisory Group ‐
Meeting No. 9 Environmental Review/Conceptual Engineering Project Advisory Group ‐
Meeting No. 10 Briefing ‐ Burget Avenue Neighbors (Medford) Briefing ‐ Winchester Planning Board Environmental Review/Conceptual Engineering Project Advisory Group ‐
Meeting No. 11 Briefing ‐ MBTA Rider Oversight Committee Briefing ‐ Town of Winchester Public Meeting ‐ Medford Attendance: 320 Public Meeting ‐ Somerville Attendance: 257 Briefing ‐ Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership Briefing ‐ Tufts University (Trustees) Public Meeting ‐ East Cambridge Attendance: 69 Briefing ‐ NSTAR Briefing ‐ Tufts University (students) Briefing ‐ Brickbottom Condominiums Briefing ‐ Glass Factory Condominiums Briefing/Tour ‐ Brickbottom Condominiums @ Riverside Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Facility Briefing ‐ Burget Avenue Neighbors (Medford) Briefing ‐ Medford City Council Public Hearing ‐ Somerville Attendance: 400+ Public Meeting ‐ Cambridge Attendance: 105 Briefing ‐ NSTAR Briefing ‐ Tufts University (students) Briefing ‐ Urban Land Institute Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 19
February 18, 2010 February 25, 2010 March 5, 2010 March 10, 2010 March 18, 2010 March 22, 2010 March 30, 2010 May 5, 2010 May 19, 2010 May 26, 2010 June 12, 2010 June 30, 2010 July 7, 2010 July 12, 2010 July 19, 2010 July 26, 2010 August 9, 2010 August 17, 2010 September 28, 2010 September 29, 2010 October 5, 2010 Briefing ‐ Somerville Community Corridor Planning Coalition Briefing ‐ Somerville/Cambridge Residents (Moore, Kaiser) Briefing ‐ A Better City Briefing ‐ Tufts University (staff) Briefing ‐ Women in Transportation Seminar Briefing ‐ Conservation Law Foundation Briefing ‐ Somerville Business (Rogerʹs Foam) Briefing ‐ Glass Factory Condominiums Land Use Planning Workshop ‐ Medford Land Use Planning Workshop ‐ Cambridge Land Use Planning Workshop ‐ Somerville Public Meeting ‐ Somerville Attendance: 150 Briefing ‐ Powderhouse Condominiums (Medford) Briefing ‐ University Place Condominiums (Medford) Briefing ‐ Somerville Community Corporation Briefing ‐ MBTA Rider Oversight Committee Preliminary Engineering Design Working Group ‐ Meeting No. 1 Meeting ‐ Tufts University (staff) Station Design Workshop Kickoff ‐ Somerville Station Design Workshop Kickoff ‐ Medford Preliminary Engineering Design Working Group Design Principles Subcommittee ‐ Meeting No. 1 October 19, 2010 Preliminary Engineering Design Working Group Design Principles Subcommittee ‐ Meeting No. 2 November 8, 2010 Preliminary Engineering Design Working Group ‐ Meeting No. 2 November 16, 2010 Preliminary Engineering Design Working Group Design Principles Subcommittee ‐ Meeting No. 3 December 6, 2010 Preliminary Engineering Design Working Group Design Principles Subcommittee ‐ Meeting No. 4 External Stakeholders and Elected Officials Briefings/Meetings Date Meeting November 29, 2007 Meeting ‐ City of Somerville February 12, 2008 Meeting ‐ City of Somerville February 22, 2008 Meeting ‐ City of Somerville April 17, 2008 Meeting ‐ City of Medford April 18, 2008 Meeting ‐ City of Somerville April 28, 2008 Meeting ‐ Division of Conservation & Recreation May 20, 2008 Meeting ‐ City of Medford June 27, 2008 Meeting ‐ City of Somerville July 24, 2008 Briefing ‐ Representative Sean Garballey July 29, 2008 Meeting ‐ City of Somerville August 4, 2008 Meeting ‐ City of Somerville Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 20
September 15, 2008 October 2, 2008 October 14, 2008 October 16, 2008 October 17, 2008 October 22, 2008 January 15, 2009 February 3, 2009 February 11, 2009 February 18, 2009 February 26, 2009 May 28, 2009 July 6, 2009 July 10, 2009 August 18, 2009 September 30, 2009 October 19, 2009 November 2, 2009 December 7, 2009 January 21, 2010 February 10, 2010 February 19, 2010 February 24, 2010 March 3, 2010 March 12, 2010 March 16, 2010 March 23, 2010 March 31, 2010 March 31, 2010 April 1, 2010 April 5, 2010 April 8, 2010 April 14, 2010 April 20, 2010 May 12, 2010 May 18, 2010 May 26, 2010 June 22, 2010 June 23, 2010 June 24, 2010 July 8, 2010 July 14, 2010 July 15, 2010 Meeting ‐ City of Somerville Meeting ‐ City of Cambridge Meeting ‐ Congressman Michael Capuano Meeting ‐ Major Joseph Curtatone Meeting ‐ Mayor Michael McGlynn Meeting ‐ City of Somerville Meeting ‐ City of Cambridge Meeting ‐ Mayor Michael McGlynn Meeting ‐ Division of Conservation & Recreation Meeting ‐ City of Somerville Meeting ‐ Division of Conservation & Recreation Meeting ‐ City of Cambridge Meeting ‐ City of Somerville Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ City of Somerville Meeting ‐ City of Somerville Briefing ‐ Green Line Extension State Legislative Delegation Meeting ‐ Mayor Michael McGlynn Meeting ‐ City of Somerville Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ City of Somerville Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Corridor Municipal Coordination Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Corridor Municipal Coordination Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ City of Cambridge Meeting ‐ Corridor Municipal Coordination Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Briefing ‐ Green Line Extension State Legislative Delegation Meeting ‐ Corridor Municipal Coordination Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Corridor Municipal Coordination Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Corridor Municipal Coordination Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Department of Public Utilities Conference Call ‐ City of Cambridge Meeting ‐ Congressman Michael Capuano Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 21
July 20, 2010 July 20, 2010 July 23, 2010 July 26, 2010 July 28, 2010 August 3, 2010 August 10, 2010 August 19, 2010 August 24, 2010 August 30, 2010 September 1, 2010 September 15, 2010 September 21, 2010 September 29, 2010 October 1, 2010 October 5, 2010 October 13, 2010 October 6, 2010 October 26, 2010 October 26, 2010 October 28, 2010 November 8, 2010 November 15, 2010 November 16, 2010 November 23, 2010 December 2, 2010 December 9, 2010 December 9, 2010 December 14, 2010 January 4, 2011 January 7, 2011 January 10, 2011 January 11, 2011 January 25, 2011 Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ City of Cambridge Meeting/Tour ‐ City of Somerville, Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Mayor Michael McGlynn Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Briefing ‐ Senator Sal DiDomenico Meeting ‐ Corridor Municipal Coordination Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Congressman Michael Capuano Meeting ‐ Mayor Michael McGlynn Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Mayor Michael McGlynn Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration, State and Local Historical Agencies Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration, City of Somerville Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration, State and Local Historical Agencies Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration, City of Somerville Meeting ‐ Brickbottom Condominium Trustees Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration, State and Local Historical Agencies Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Massachusetts Clean Energy Center Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Metropolitan Area Planning Council Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Groundwork Somerville Meeting ‐ Federal Transit Administration Conference Call ‐ Federal Transit Administration Meeting ‐ Brickbottom Condominium Community Massachusetts Department of Transportation January 28, 2011 Page 22