rr'fie Commonwea[tfi of1Vlassacfiusetts
~cutive
Office ofrE,nergy anc[rE,nvironmenta(JIfjairs 100 cam6ritfge Street, Suite 900 (J3oston, :M)I 02114 Deval L. Patrick GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000
Fax: (617) 626-1181
hnp://www.mass.gov/envir
Richard K. Sullivan Jr.
SECRETARY
May 16,2014 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE SINGLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT NAME
PROJECT MUNICIPALITY
PROJECT WATERSHED
EEANUMBER
PROJECT PROPONENT
DA TE NOTICED IN MONITOR
: Silver Line Gateway
: Chelsea and Boston
: Boston Harbor
: 15124
: Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
: April 9, 2014
Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) (G.L.c.30, ss.61-621)
and Section 11.07 of the MEP A regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I hereby detennine that the Single
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) submitted for this project adequately and properly
complies with MEP A.
The project will extend the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Silver
Line service through East Boston and Chelsea. It will fill a critical gap in access between
residents in Chelsea, East Boston and other Blue Line communities and the rapid growth in
employment opportunities across Boston Harbor in the Seaport District. It will serve
approximately 8,730 riders per day, with an estimated travel time ofjust 15 to 19 minutes from
the Seaport to Chelsea. Thousands of residents north of Boston will be connected with work,
recreational and entertainment opportunities in the rapidly growing Seaport District. For the City
of Chelsea, which has the greatest proportion of transit-dependent residents in Greater Boston
and the most densely populated neighborhoods outside of the City of Boston, it will provide a
critical transit alternative. The project will include construction of a greenway along a section of
the transit line as part of this Administration's urban parks initiative, the Gateway Cities Parks
Program. The greenway and on-street paths will provide regional connections to the East Boston
Greenway, the Northern Strand Trail, and the Malden River trail system. EEA and MassDOT
have worked closely together to coordinate this project and to engage the residents, businesses,
corrununity organizations and elected officials in Chelsea and Boston.
EEA# 15124
Single EIR Certificate
May 16,2014
The project will leverage many recent public investments and support the
Commonwealth's commitment to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions 25% by 2020. It will
convert more trips to transit, walking and bicycling and will relieve overcrowding on existing
bus routes. Construction is planned for the fall of 2014 with service in place by late 2015.
Project Description
The project entails the extension of the Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service from
South Station in Boston to East Boston and Chelsea along a corridor covering 24.94 acres.
Project construction is limited to Chelsea and will extend from the Massachusetts Port Authority
employee parking lot to Central Avenue and Eastern Avenue, ending at the Mystic Mall. No
construction is necessary in East Boston because existing infrastructure will be used . The project
will replace the Washington Street Bridge in Chelsea, relocate and rebuild the Chelsea commuter
rail station, and provide a shared use path and accessibility for the disabled. The route is
approximately five miles long and will require eight to ten dual-mode (diesel/electric) articulated
buses that will operate in mixed traffic through East Boston to Eastern A venue in Chelsea. The
route will begin at South Station in Boston, stopping at all of the existing Silver Line stations in
the Seaport District, use the Ted Williams Tunnel and stop at the Airport Blue Line Station, use
the new Coughlin Bypass Road, and then cross into Chelsea via the new Chelsea Street Bridge.
West of Eastern Avenue, a new busway will be constructed along MassDOT-owned right-of-way
(ROW), the former Grand Junction Railway, to the Mystic Mall. New stations will be
constructed at Eastern A venue, the Box District, downtown Chelsea, and the Mystic Mall. The
project will be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 will include the construction of the busway,
three of the four proposed BRT stations, and replacement ofthe Washington Street Bridge. Phase
2 will include the construction of the downtown Chelsea BRT station, demolition of the existing
commuter rail station, construction of the new commuter rail station, and construction of the
shared-use path. The project is included in the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization's
2014 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
As part of the project, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
and the City of Chelsea will construct a shared-use path along a section of the former Grand
Junction Railroad ROW with an appropriation under the Gateway Cities Parks Program. It will
provide a linear trail from the Chelsea River waterfront to downtown Chelsea that will provide
transportation and recreation. It will parallel the busway where it can be accommodated within
the ROW. From the downtown area, the path will utilize existing city streets. It will connect to
other regional path systems including the existing East Boston Greenway, the Northern Strand
Trail, and the Malden River trail system. MassDOT will coordinate with the City and EEA to
coordinate planning and construction of the shared-use path.
The Silver Line Gateway project is expected to accommodate a daily ridership of 8,730
trips, 2,500 of which will be new transit trips and the remainder of which will be trips diverted
from oversubscribed MBTA bus routes III and 1161117. It will enhance livability and promote
economic development in Chelsea and East Boston by improving access to transit, relieving
overcrowding on existing bus routes, and relieving traffic congestion. It will include the
modernization of the Chelsea Commuter Rail Station, which will be relocated to Everett A venue
as part of a new multi-modal Silver Line/Commuter Rail Station that will be fully accessible and
2
EEA# 15124
Single EIR Certificate
May 16,2014
compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The project will replace the functionally
obsolete Washington Avenue Bridge and utilize abandoned railroad ROW (thereby preserving
local roadway capacity). It will leverage many recent public investments such as the new
Chelsea Street Bridge, the Coughlin Bypass Road in East Boston, the Airport Blue Line Station,
and the purchase by MassDOT of the former Grand Junction Railroad ROW through the center
of Chelsea. The project also advances a key component of the Urban Ring (EEA # 12565), the
goal of which is to provide circumferential transit service around the urban area of Boston. These
improvements advance MassDOT's GreenDOT initiative and mode shift goals, and by
converting more trips to transit, walking and bicycling, will help to reduce GHG emissions. The
project will serve Environmental Justice (EJ) populations by improving accessibility to jobs in
downtown Boston and the Seaport District.
Potential environmental impacts are limited to the creation of 4.85 acres of new
impervious area, including 3.6 acres for the busway, 0.4 acres for the relocated commuter rail
station, and 0.85 acres for the shared-use path and off-street elements; and 13,798 square feet (sf)
of alteration to Isolated Vegetated Wetlands (IVW).
Permitting and Jurisdiction
The proj ect is undergoing MEP A review and requires preparation of a mandatory
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to 301 CMR 11.03(6)(a)(5) and (3)(b)(l)(d)
because it requires a State Agency Action, entails the construction of a new rapid transit line
along a new, unused or abandoned ROW for transportation of passengers, and will alter 5,000 or
more square feet (sf) of IVW. The project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC)
from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and Section 8(m)
Permits from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). The project is also
subject to Federal Consistency Review by the Office of Coastal Zone Management and review
by the Massachusetts Historical Commission.
The project will also require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and a Section 404 General Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE). The Chelsea Conservation Commission issued a Negative Determination of
Applicability for the project.
Because the Proponent is a State Agency and the project will be constructed with
Financial Assistance from the Commonwealth, MEPA jurisdiction is broad in scope and extends
to any aspect of the project that may, directly or indirectly, cause Damage to the Environment as
defined in the MEPA regulations.
Review of the Single EIR
The Single EIR includes a thorough description of the entire project and all project
elements and construction phases. The first phase of the project will encompass the construction
of the busway, several stations and the shared use path, and replacement of the Washington
Avenue Bridge by the MassDOT Highway Division. The second phase includes construction of
3
EEA# 15124
Single EIR Certificate
May 16,2014
the new Chelsea commuter rail station, the downtown Chelsea station, and the signal system by
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBT A).
The Single EIR includes an existing conditions plan that clearly locates and delineates
project elements, wetland resource areas, and adjacent land uses. It also presents updated
proposed conditions plans illustrating cross-sections and elevations, structures, stormwater
management systems, and utility connections associated with the project within the context of
the project corridor, adjacent land uses and the local street network.
The Single EIR reports that Transit Signal Priority (TSP) applications and critical
intersection adjustments will be considered for locations where the busway will cross local
streets in Chelsea. TSP, along with off-board fare collection, raised platforms, and all-door
boarding, will support reduced dwell times and attract ridership. MassDOT should consider the
suggestions made by WalkBoston in its comments to improve pedestrian access to and from
busway stations and the shared use path.
Wetlands
The project will require a 401 WQC from MassDEP for the permanent alteration of
13,798 sf of IVW along the project corridor within the abandoned ROW. The EENF
demonstrated that these impacts cannot be avoided if the project is to be located in the former
railroad ROW, as compared to a project alternative that would operate on existing city streets.
The Single EIR reports that the wetland resources in the project corridor are limited in their
functions, by their size and degraded urban conditions, to sediment and nutrient removal and
wildlife habitat. The Single EIR presented a mitigation plan that will include a series of biofilter
stormwater management swales along the BRT route from Highland Street to Cottage Street with
an area of 14,125 square feet (sf) and a storage volume of 14,610 cubic feet. Vegetation in the
swales will provide water quality and habitat functions. The mitigation plan will also remove
invasive species and replace them with native plants and shrubs of a higher wildlife habitat
value.
The Single EIR evaluated stormwater runoff impacts during construction and post­
construction, including plans showing the design of the post-construction drainage system
designed in compliance with the stormwater management regulations. Previously, the EENF
indicated that most of the project will be new development; therefore the scope for the Single
EIR required that the relevant sections of the wetlands regulations must be fully met. However,
the Single EIR states that, based on consultations with MassDEP and USACOE, the project can
be defined as redevelopment because the project area was previously used as an active railroad
line and the corridor contains remnants of the previous use. The Single EIR indicates that post­
development peak rates of runoff will increase from existing peaks, which would not achieve the
Standard 2 required condition of no exceedance of the pre-development peak rates of runoff;
however, because the project is a redevelopment, the Single EIR states that this standard will be
met to the maximum extent practicable. This response was also given for not achieving the
requirements of Standards 3 and 4 for groundwater recharge and water quality treatment of total
suspended solids (TSS), respectively. Nevertheless, assuming that the redevelopment standard is
applicable, MassDEP will require a demonstration that the Stormwater Standards at 310 CMR
4
EEA# 15124
Single EIR Certificate
May 16,2014
10.05(6)(k) can be met to the maximum extent practicable. If full compliance cannot be
achieved, then it must be demonstrated that the highest practical level of stormwater
management is being provided.
In its comments, MassDOT should revise its calculations for removal of Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) for the busway sections with swales and leaching catch basins in order to ensure
consistency with the Stormwater Management Handbooks. MassDOT should refer to
MassDEP's comments for guidance on this issue, which can be addressed as part of the 401
WQC permitting process.
Potential Infrastructure Impacts
The MWRA prohibits the discharge of groundwater to the sanitary sewer system. The
Single EIR states that the project will not discharge to the sanitary sewer system, and that the
stormwater management system has been designed to avoid such discharges. The stormwater
system for the project will be connected to existing City of Chelsea drainage systems located in
Everett A venue, Spruce Street, Sixth Street, Griffin Way and Cottage Street. Because the project
does not include any vehicle maintenance, storage or washing facilities, gas/oil separators will
not be required. These functions will be conducted at existing MBTA facilities. The project will
overlap with a MWRA water line in the vicinity of the commuter rail and busway crossing near
the intersection of Everett Avenue and Maple Street (MWRA Section 57), but it will not tie in to
the water line.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Because the project required a mandatory EIR, it was subject to review under the MEPA
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Policy and Protocol. The Single EIR presented a revised
greenhouse gas analysis in order to clarify the emissions reduction potential of the project using
a Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) model that includes and isolates emissions
generated by the operation of eight to ten dual-mode articulated buses. The revised analysis
indicates that the new bus trips will contribute 2,610 kilograms per day (kg/day) of carbon
dioxide (C02) that will be more than offset by the shift from vehicle trips to transit
(approximately 2,500 trips per day), which will yield an estimated reduction in CO2 emissions of
1,573 kg/day, as compared to the 2035 No Build Alternative. The analysis indicates that project
annual highway emissions will decrease by 1,431.2 tons per year (tpy) and transit emissions will
increase by 1,050.1 tpy for a net reduction of 381.1 tpy of GHG emissions.
To ensure that identified GHG reductions are achieved, the project includes transportation
management systems to provide efficient operations, including transit signal system
improvements, transit signal priority, and intelligent transportation systems to reduce intersection
delay. Fuel efficiency of the bus fleet is expected to improve by 2020 through replacement with
best-in-class fuel efficiency vehicles or by retrofitting with hybrid systems. The shared use path
will further reduce GHG emissions by encouraging walking and bicycling as an alternative to
driving, however, these reductions were not incorporated into the GHG analysis.
5
EEA# 15124
Single EIR Certificate May 16,2014
Construction Period Impacts
The Single EIR presents a draft Construction Management Plan (CMP) describing project
activities and their anticipated constriction sequencing, site access and truck routing, staging and
site preparation, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to avoid and minimize
adverse environmental impacts. It addresses land disturbance, wetlands, noise, vibration, dust,
odor, nuisance, vehicle emissions, construction debris, and construction-related traffic and
outlines measures that can be implemented to eliminate or minimize these impacts. The project
will comply with MassDEP's Solid Waste and Air Quality Control regulations and the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP), and will recycle construction and demolition waste.
Mitigation and Section 61 Findings
The Single EIR contains a separate chapter on mitigation measures, which includes a
summary table of all mitigation commitments as well as detailed draft Section 61 Findings for
MassDEP and the MWRA. It describes mitigation measures and contains clear commitments to
mitigation and a schedule for implementation. The draft Section 61 Findings will serve as the
primary template for State Agency Permit conditions. Mitigation measures include:
• Avoid and minimize tree clearing along the project corridor;
• Construct bio-filter vegetated swales to manage stormwater, improve water quality,
provide habitat and mitigate the alteration of 13,798 sf ofIVW.
• Limit work hours to the period from 7 am to 4pm and limit nighttime construction and
maintain mufflers on construction equipment;
• Install piles using augured holes in lieu of pile-drivers in order to avoid vibration;
• Apply water and calcium chloride to control dust and odors;
• Meet MassDOT standard specifications for diesel construction equipment and avoid
unnecessary truck idling;
• Meet MassDOT standard specifications requiring that discarded material, rubbish and
debris be removed from the worksite and disposed; and
• Provide multiple access points for construction vehicles.
• Install a traffic signal at the Market BasketlMystic Mall northern site drive to mitigate for
traffic safety and operational issues posed by the busway crossing at Everett Avenue; and
• Construct a new site drive and reconfigure the existing site drive on Spruce Street for the
Massachusetts Information Technology Center to mitigate for traffic safety and
operational issues posed by the busway crossing at Spruce Street.
Conclusion
The Single EIR has provided sufficient information for the purposes of MEP A review
and includes commitments to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental impacts. Any
outstanding issues can be addressed during State and local permitting. Based on review of the
Single EIR and comments received, I have determined that no further MEP A review is required.
The project may proceed to State permitting. State Agencies should forward copies of final
Section 61 Findings to the MEPA Office for publication in accordance with 301 CMR 11.12.
6
EEA# 15124
Single EIR Certificate May 16,2014
May 16,2014 Date Comments received:
05/07/2014 05/07/2014 05/09/2014 05/09/2014 05/09/2014 A Better City (ABC)
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional
Office
City of Chelsea Department of Planning & Development
WalkBoston
RKSIRABlrab
7
33 Broad Street 1 Suite 300 ! Boston, MA 021 09
Tel: 617-502-6240 I Fax: 617-502-6236
"VWW .ABEn·ERCi TY . ORG
BOARD MEMBERS
.J
li.k~ , ·
.... :
(;: ... .,.,.' J,':
-
.'\t'j~
.'.:':'1
" r'
10,
'S ...
,It'" .C1' . , ... ..." •
- , ..,..
rj ~ r..
Secretary Richard K, Sullivan
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Attn: MEPA Office, EEA# 15124
tf.a; ,­ r'"
.", .
,'" ".r: •
~
.
.,
,"
"', • .l••
olliil ' ~
_
,:~
,I •
:1'
I
May 7, 2014
I
L;'. ,~
r'K.'l .-:.!'C
r,
Re:
i ~ • ' l~ ,
' .. ~.;~.
," I
,\"
_ 1 .. ~ 'r,!'..l [:!r;t·"il. ~
J:it ':": :.t "
•• ~ ..h
•
t
Dear Secretary Sullivan:
.,
"") "P"' "
... . .. d
C;- " , '
#l .T,~·t
:;:- z..n:1-"'1. ' GJIL
~•
~?
.,. .
~~.
!
...
- ,
. :
A Better City (ABC) is pleased to submit comments on the Single Environmental Impact
Report for the Silver Line Gateway Project referenced above, submitted to your office on
March 31, 2014 . We have been active participants in the review of transportation
improvements in the Urban Ring Corridor since 1993, and currently our Planning Director
Thomas Nally is co-chair of the Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee.
:
ca ' .
, _~~
-
0 [.\
L , .0
/' ",~,l,
'-+.11"
j
­
.
,.. " u '
~
.,
t I ~<!". '
I.
[ "'k ~ .;
}~' , II
'''; :
I
:;'(:rl; :l:; '.; .f¥.... .l"!
:'~l: " ' ,"
.
'~·Mr-·t
A Better City advances infrastructure investments and projects that are vital to sustaining
and growing the Boston area's economy and ensuring that Boston remains one of the most
dynamic and unique cities in the world. Our Board of Directors is comprised of almost 100
business and institutional leaders throughout the greater Boston area.
1·'h.1
'Cfu'l,l ...... ·
: .•,..... ~ TJ _ "
'.\Itl ', '. ,: '.;
r.. r»'1'
~
II
1""
I
I t
"J"J ,
E""""' frl.'
• \>\... ,.
.::,. :,..
E\"*Jt .11:..!!C ~ ..... hJl
.• tn"'."f1t- ('- · •.1r"',"·
P• .
~u
f!
E :'!:y,
, .\ ~ ~ ,., .... i
Cr';
I ~
I" '~P";T
"
! '.
:
I
)..-: ~
.!IHA
I
.01 , '
, ,- ,I •
.;P··­
)S~I1r.-~!:; ;
' j . ::
: O.:n":
~, ., • •
I
,'t' ..
Jll
, r.,
We continue to enthusiastically support the concept of the Silver Line Gateway which will,
when implemented, provide improved transportation services to an underserved portion of
the region where the residents are in need of enhanced mobility and access to places of
employment. The concept was developed through a well-executed participation process
examining a reasonable range of alternatives that has resulted in a remarkable degree of
consensus and support from civic leaders and community members in Chelsea.
,
IJ ',
:;Jwr\;\"
Silver Line Gateway EEA #15124 Single Environmental Impact Report . '
~. ' 1\.,\
•
The Single EIR further develops analysis of the Silver Line Gateway Project described in
the Expanded Environmental Notification Form and further describes the phased
implementation approach. The phasing calls for construction of the busway, replacement
of the Washington Avenue Bridge, and several stations in the first phase by the MassDOT
Highway Division, and construction of the new Chelsea Commuter Rail Station,
Downtown Chelsea Station, and signal system by the MBTA in the second phase of work.
The current project also includes completion of a shared use path located along the right of
way through Chelsea in Phase I.
The implementation phasing is a reasonable method for completing the project with a
reasonable uti lization of construction expertise. Addition of the shared use path provides a
useful amenity for the community and enhances access to the stations.
With respect to design features, we are encouraged to see that Transit Signal Priority
applications will be considered along with critical intersection adjustments where the
bus way crosses local streets in Chelsea. It will be important to use TSP to reduce bus
TRANSPO RTATI O N· LA ND DEVELO P MENT . ENVI RO MENT
travel time that will help to attract good ridership. Passenger amenities planned for the
BRT stations -- including off board fare collection, raised platfonns, and all door boarding­
- will also support reduced dwell time and good ridership numbers. Similarly, the platfonn
configuration at Airport Station will facilitate efficient bus movement, passenger boarding,
and transfer to and from the MBTA Blue Line.
We are pleased to see the SEIR provide further development of the Washington Avenue
Bridge reconstruction included as part of this project to closely coordinate the two-pier
design and construction with the Silver Line busway. We hope that future work on the
Broadway Bridge will also support a two way right of way for operation of the busway.
Analysis of operations for buses, fire apparatus, and other vehicles during Washington
Avenue Bridge reconstruction is thorough.
The construction period impacts section of the SEIR outlines the proposed construction
sequencing for each phase. Effective coordination between the separate construction
contracts administered by the Mass DOT Highway Division and the MBT A will be
important for the efficiency and success of the overall project. The construction mitigation
measures outlined here cover a range of potential impacts. The SEIR does not, however,
identify potential laydown or staging areas that may be necessary to support the
construction. The report does not discuss the impact of construction vehicles on local
traffic, particularly near the access points at Cottage Street and Griffin Way.
We appreciate the response to our comments on the EENF regarding further expansion of
the busway west of Mystic Mall will not be precluded by the design of the buswayand
commuter rai I station. We also appreciate the response on the use of Silver Line dual mode
articulated vehicles following their mid-life overhaul; however, we remain concerned about
the number of buses available to serve passenger demand for both the Chelsea extension
and the Silver Line service in South Boston. The MBTA will need to provide an adequate
number of buses to maintain high levels of service for South Boston, in light of an already
high level of demand. The MBTA may need to accelerate the procurement process to
obtain additional and replacement vehicles that can operate in the existing Silver Line
tunnel to serve the entire set of South Boston and cross harbor routes at appropriate
headways in a time frame that addresses growing ridership to avoid overcrowding.
We hope that infonnation can be developed to address the outstanding issues indicated in
this letter. If so, we look forward to the construction of the Silver Line Gateway Project
and operation of service in th is presently underserved corridor.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this critically important project for the
communities directly served and for the region as a whole.
cc: James Cerbone, Scott Hamwey
6063n
urcl!502
2
MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY
Charl estown Navy Yard 100 First Avenue, Building 39 Boston , MA 02129 Telephone: (617) 242 · 6000
Fax : (617) 788-4899
nv: (617) 788 -4971
Frederick A. Laskey
Executive Director
May 7, 2014
Richard Sullivan, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge St, Suite 900
Attn: MEPA Office, Richard Bourre'
Boston, MA 02114
Subject: EOEEA # 15124 Single Environmental Impact Report
Silver Line Gateway, East Boston and Chelsea
Dear Secretary Sullivan:
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the Single Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Silver Line Gateway (the
" Project") proposed for East Boston and Chelsea. The Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (MassDOT), in conjunction with the City of Chelsea and the City of Boston,
proposes to extend Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service from South Station and the
Seaport District in Boston to East Boston and Chelsea, MA. The Study Area is five miles long
and consists of diverse and dense residential and commercial uses. It begins at the Seaport
District of Boston, travels through East Boston and the Airport Blue line stop, and crosses
Chelsea Creek into the City of Chelsea.
MWRA ' s comments focus specifically on issues related to Section 8(m) permitting from
both the Water and Wastewater Operations Departments.
Section 8 (m) Permitting
Section 8 (m) of Chapter 372 of the Acts of 1984, MWRA's Enabling Legislation, allows
the MWRA to issue permits to build, construct, excavate, or cross within or near an easement or
other property interest held by the MWRA, with the goal of protecting Authority-owned
infrastructure_ MWRA has both water and sewer infrastructure within or adjacent to the project
site.
•
As stated in earlier comments on the Environmental Notification Form, MWRA will need
to issue 8 (m) permits to protect water and wastewater facilities (both at ground level and
subsurface) located along the route that will be impacted by project construction. MWRA
recommends that MassDOT staff and their consultants meet with the Water and Wastewater
8(m) Permitting staff to review and identify critical areas that will be affected. For assistance in
arranging a meeting, MassDOT should contact Mr. Ralph Francesconi within MWRA ' s Water
Permitting Group at (617) 305-5827 and Mr. Kevin McKenna within the Wastewater Permitting
Group (617) 305-5956.
Sincerely,
~~~~~/9
Sr. Program Manager
Environmental Review and Compliance
cc: Ralph Francesconi, Water Permitting
Kevin McKenna, Wastewater Permitting
Kevin McCluskey, Public Affairs
C:MEPA : 15124SilverLineSEIR.docx
2
May 9, 2014
Richard K. Sullivan, Jr. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attn: Rick Bourre' 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900 Boston MA 02114 •
RE: Comments on the Single Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver Line Gateway
Proposal- MEPA# 15124
~
co
Dear Secretary Sullivan :
WalkBoston has reviewed the Single Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver Line Gateway Bus
Rapid Transit proposal. The new MBTA service, which will run on a separate right-of-way between
Everett Avenue and Eastern Avenue with connections through East Boston, will provide access
between Chelsea and South Station and the Seaport District of Boston.
o
The proposal includes very positive improvements for the City of Chelsea, with significantly improved
transit connections to downtown and the airport. Stations are pleasantly and attractively designed,
with raised platform floors that align with the floors of the Silver Line Gateway buses, thus providing
easily accessible service. Landscaping is to be added along the shared use path and the BRT where
feasible, improving the route as a pleasant walking facility. The MBTA has planned for off-bus fare
collection to speed the boarding of buses and reduce fare collection procedures on-board each bus.
(f)
f I
o
Overall, the proposal is a very positive addition to the MBTA network of high-capacity services.
However, some questions need to be addressed based on our review of the current plan:
~~
1. The discontinuity of the shared use path may affect good pedestrian access to each of the stations.
The proposed shared use path parallels the route of the BRT buses between Eastern Avenue up to
Broadway. West of Broadway, there are some parallel sidewalks, but the path itself is not
continuous. It would be useful for the MBTA and the City to consider longer-range goals for the
planned walkway and not preclude future extensions to the walking route. For instance, the
walkway might be extended from Arlington Street to Everett Avenue. Such a continuation of the
path would provide direct access by foot to the commuter rail station at Everett Avenue. A
continuation of the path would also afford some recreational uses of the path by both pedestrians
and bicyclists.
2. At the Everett Avenue terminus of the BRT, pedestrian connections are provided to both the BRT
terminal station and the new commuter rail station. However, there are presently no nearby
crosswalks to help pedestrians cross Everett Avenue near the turnaround loop of the BRT. The
proposed narrowing of Everett Avenue at this location would be a good location for a crosswalk.
Otherwise, the nearest crosswalks appear at Spruce Street - 400 feet to the south, and Carter
Street - 400 feet to the north . These distances are excessive for most pedestrians. An Everett
Avenue crosswalk at the entrance to the BRT and commuter rail stations would be appropriate and
useful, and should include a pedestrian phase of the proposed traffic signal at this location.
3. A similar crosswalk protected by a proposed signal would be appropriate at the crossing of the rail
line and the BRT on Spruce Street. A pedestrian phase should be added to this signal.
MAKING MASSACHUSETTS MORE WALKABLE
Old City Hall
I
45 School Street
I
Boston MA 02108
I
T; 617.367.9255
I
F; 617.367.9285
I
info@walkboston.org
I
www.walkboston.org
4. At the Arlington/6 th Street crossing, which is called the Downtown Chelsea station, the proposal
calls for narrowing streets and instituting a one·way pattern on two of those streets going away
from the rail tracks and the BRT route . The narrower streets will make pedestrian crossings safer.
The proposed traffic signal should include a pedestrian phase to assure safe crossings to get to
the station.
5. Figure 2.2-13, which details the Arlington/6 th Street crossing, shows a concrete sidewalk on the
south side of the BRT station platform. Figure 2.2·14 indicates that the sidewalk reaches the
Washington Street Station, which is about 150 feet away. Completing this connection would be
useful for full pedestrian access through the corridor, and should include wayfinding signs to help
pedestrians reach the station.
6. Lighting the way for pedestrians is important. Many riders will be using the BRT service after dark,
particularly in the winter. If the walking route is not well lit riders may be discouraged from using
the stations because of safety concerns, especially for people traveling alone during the times of
day when there may be few other people nearby.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please feel free to contact us with
questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Robert Sloane
Senior Planner
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs
Department of Environmental Protection
Northeast Regional Office' 2058 Lowell Street, Wilmington MA 01887 • 978-694-3200
LJl:W,L L PAUliCK
Ul\\l iL '. j.; \... J\ ~~'
CVl,n 1l~>!~I U 'I·.·1
May 9, 2014
Richard K. Sullivan Jr., Secretary
Executive Office o·
Energy & Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston MA, 02114
RE:-Chelsea;·Bast ·Boston - - ­
Silver Line Gateway
EEA # 15124
Attn: MEPA Unit
Dear Secretary Sullivan:
The Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office (MassDEP­
NERO) has reviewed the Single Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) submitted by the
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to extend the Silver Line Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) service from South Station and the Seaport District to East Boston and Chelsea,
which covers about 24.94 acres in Chelsea and East Boston (EEA# 15124). This project is reported
to be consistent with the BRT alignment identified in the Urban Ring Phase 2 revised DEIRIDEIS,
November 2008 (EEA #12565). The project includes new construction in Chelsea, extending from
the Massport employee parking garage to Central Avenue and Eastem Avenue to the Mystic Mall.
The project proposes to relocate the Chelsea commuter rail station and provide handicap
accessibility. In addition, the Washington Avenue Bridge will be replaced. The construction of
Phase 1 includes the bridge replacement, busway, and three of the four stations; Phase 1I includes
construction of the downtown Chelsea station followed by demolition of the existing station, a new
commuter rail station west of Everett Avenue, and construction of a shared use path. Busway traffic
signal systems also wiU be instalIed. The expanded bus transit route will require eight to ten dual­
mode articulated buses. The Department (MassDEP) provides the following comments.
The proposed Silver Line service will remain the same in the Seaport District, and the route
to East Boston will be through the Williams Tunnel to the Blue Line Airport Station. Buses will
enter the Coughlin Bypass Road, cross the new Chelsea Street Bridge into Chelsea. From there the
Silver Line would use an exclusive busway on the fOimer railroad right-of-way (Grand Junction
Railroad) to the Mystic Mall. New stations also would be constructed at Eastern A venue, Box
DistIict, downtown Chelsea, and the Mystic Mall.
ThiS information is available in alternate format. Call MiChelle Waters·Ekanern. DiverSity Director, at 617·292·5751 . TDDtl1·866·539 ·7622 or 1 -617·574-6868 MassDEP WebSIte· www mass.gov;dep Printed on Recycled Paper
Silver Line Gateway EEA # 15124
Wetlands and 401 Water Quality Certification
The preferred altemative alters 13,798 square feet (sf) of isolated vegetated wetlands (IVW)
along the project route within the abandoned railroad right-of-way. The SEIR indicates that
MassDOT has submitted an application for a 401 Water Quality Certificate from MassDEP,
pursuant to 314 CMR 9.06(1) and a USACOE Category 2 Massachusetts General Permit, under
Section 404 Permit has been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, March 19, 2014 .
The SE1R reports that the existing wetland resource functions are limited, by the sizes and
degraded urban conditions in and around the wetland resources, to sediment and nutrient removal
and wildlife habitat for urban wildlife. The mitigation plan includes a series of biofilter storm water
management swales along the BRT route' totaling 14,125 sf with a storage volume of 14,610 cubic
feet. By planting vegetation in the swales, the plan is to provide water quality and habitat functions .
The mitigation program will replace invasive species with native plants and shrubs of higher
wildlife habitat value.
Stormwater
The post-development peak rates of runoff are shown to increase from existing peaks, in
Table 4 .2-1 and 4.2-2, which does not achieve the Standard 2 required condition of no
exceedance of the pre-development peak rates of runoff. In response, the SEIR states, "Since the
project is a redevelopment project, this standard will be met to the maximum extent practicable."
This statement alone also is given for not achieving the requirements of Standard 3 and 4, for
groundwater recharge and water quality treatment of total suspended solids (TSS), respectively.
Where the redevelopment standard is applicable, supporting information is needed, in the form
of a demonstration that the Stormwater Standards at 310 CMR 1O.05(6)(k) are met to the
maximum extent practicable and improve existing conditions for compliance with 3 10 CMR
10.05(6)(k)7 and 310 CMR 10.05(6)(0)(2). An evaluation would include consideration of
possible stormwater management measures, including environmentally sensitive site design and
low impact development techniques, structural storm water best management practices, pollution
prevention, and other applicable storm water control measures to comply with the standards, as
explained in the Slormwater Management Handbooks (SMH). If it is demonstrated that full
compliance cannot be achieved, then it must be clear that the highest practical level of
stormwater management is being provided. Alternatively, because this is a MassDOT project,
the proponent may follow the guidelines in the MassHighway Storm water Handbook Jor
Highways and Bridges to screen and select the BMPs, as explained in the Storm water
Management Handbooks, Volume 2, Chapter 3, page 2.
The TSS calculation sheet for the busway sections with swales needs to be revised for
consistency with the Storm water Management Handbooks. Specifically, catch basins are only
given TSS removal credit, (a maximum of 25 percent) when used for pretreatment. The TSS
calculation sheet reports a 25 perc·ent removal credit for a catch basin that is not the first device,
(i.e., the pretreatment device in the treatment train, (SMH, Volume 2, Chapter 2, page 2). In this
treatment train configuration, the catchbasin would not be given TSS removal credit.
The proposed improvement plans (Sheet 6 through 8, pages 2-8 to 2-10) show the swales extending from about
Highland Street to Cottage Street.
I
2
Silver Line Gateway EEA # 15124
The TSS calculation sheet for the busway section with the leaching catchbasin also needs
to be revised in accordance with the Stormwater Management Handbook. Volume 2, Chapter 2,
page 100. In the description, the SMH makes states, "80%TSS removal is awarded to the deep
sump catchbasinlleaching catch basin pretreatment combination provided the system is off-line."
Although the use of mUltiple leaching catchbasins in this location may help to reduce the peak
rates of runoff, they would not be expected to infiltrate runoff very effectively, because the soils
are reported to be Hydrologic Group C and D. Accordingly, careful consideration should be
given to providing safe overflows for the off-line leaching basins, to minimize flooding potential
during larger storm events. Monitoring and maintaining the basins to keep them functioning also
is important for leaching catch basins, which have a tendency to clog, as noted in the SMH,
Volume 2, Chapter 2, page 101.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
MassDEP appreciates that the GHG analysis has been revised to clarify the emissions
reduction potential of the proposed transit project. The Greenhouse Gas analysis provided in the
SEIR uses a Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) model that has been revised from the
EENF; it includes and isolates emissions generated by the transit service, (eight to ten dual-mode
articulated buses) in order to provide an estimate GHG emissions associated with the project.
The revised analysis indicates that the new bus trips will contribute 2,610 kg/day of CO 2 that will
be offset by the shift from other highway trips to transit, which would yield an estimated
reduction of 1,573 kg/day of CO 2 when compared with the 2035 No Build alternative. On an
annual basis, the analysis estimates that the project would result in a reduction of GHG emissions
by 381.1 tons/year.
The project will also incorporate transportation management systems to operate the new
service efficiently, fuel efficiency of the all the transit buses will be improved by 2020, and the
shared use path will encourage alternative modes of travel. These improvements will contribute
to additional, unquantified reductions in GHG emissions.
The MassDEP appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Please
contact Chris.Ross@state.ma.us at (508) 946-2813 with questions on the 401 Water Quality
Certification. If you have any general questions regarding these comments, please contact
Nancy.Baker@state.ma.us, MEPA Review Coordinator at (978) 694-3338.
~y~
~~la
Deputy Regional Director
cc:
Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission
3
Silver Line Gateway EEA # 15124
Richard Blanchet, MassDEP-Boston
Chris Ross, MassDEP-SERO
Heidi Davis, Phil DiPietro, MassDEP-NERO
4
ltv.,..,.
Chelsea
City of Chelsea
,III I!
Ali-America. City
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
John DePriest, AICP, Director
City Hall, Room 101, 500 Broadway Chelsea, Massachusetts 02150 Telephone (617) 466-4180 FAX (617) 466-4195 May 9, 2014
Secretary Richard K. Sullivan
Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Attn: MEPA Office, EEA #15124
1998
R~C~/VED
MAY 122014
M€PA
Dear Secretary Sullivan,
I am writing once again to support the proposed Silver Line Gateway project in Chelsea. As I have stated
in previous correspondence about this project, the City views the project as having benefits for the City
and regional economy, recreation needs, and neighborhood stabilization and neighborhood connectivity,
and on the health of the residents of Chelsea. We are pleased that the State has included the City as a
partner in the project and has provided us with access to the MassDOT personnel that are managing the
project, and to the consultants that are designing the facilities. The State is to be commended for the level
of effort that has been undertaken in the public input process. Opportunity was given on many levels for
input by all stakeholders.
We share the view as outlined in Section 2.2.4 of the SEIR that the greenway should be xiewed as a part of
a regional network of bicycle/pedestrian paths through East Boston, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Revere,
Saugus, and Lynn. This is a vision that the City held throughout the conceptual planning conducted in
conjunction with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA). We hope that the
State will continue to work with the local communities to complete the connections and make this a reality.
I confirm the statement made in Section 3.1 that the City of Chelsea is a strong supporter of the project and
note that the project is in substantial conformity with the City's CSX Right-of-Way Multi-Use Path
Feasibility/Conceptual Design Study, prepared by EOEEA in 2011 as part of the Gateway Cities Parks
program. Also, as Conservation Agent to the Chelsea Conservation Commission, I express the
Commission ' s support for the planting plan for the wetland biofilter swale which precludes the use of
invasive and unacceptable plants (Section 3.3 . 1.3).
As always, thank you for your consideration of my comments. I continue to look forward to working with
MassDOT and EOEEA on this project and to see a project on which I have been working for over twenty
years come to fruition.
J!'IUik tv- ­
John DePriest, A ICP
Director of Plann ing & Development!
Conservation Agent