MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
URBAN RING PHASE 2 RDEIR/DEIS
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE –MEETING NOTES
LOCATION OF MEETING: State Transportation Building, 10 Park Plaza, Boston DATE/TIME OF MEETING: CAC Meeting # 27 – December 1, 2009, 5:00­7:00 PM CAC MEMBERS: *Kelly Brilliant, Fenway Alliance Larry Brophy, Northeastern University Kelley Brown, MIT Peter Cusato, Boston University John DePriest, City of Chelsea Dept. of Planning & Development *Paul Ellis, City of Medford *Marzie Galazka, City of Everett Elizabeth Gerlach, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Vineet Gupta, Boston Transportation Department Sarah Hamilton, MASCO *Romin Koebel, Fenway Community Development Corporation *Maureen Lacey, TranSComm ­ BU Medical Center *Michael Lambert, City of Somerville Jeff Levine, Brookline Planning & Community Development Rafael Mares, Conservation Law Foundation Arthur Mombourquette, Brigham & Women's Hospital Thomas Nally, A Better City Charlotte Nelson, Roxbury Strategic Plan Oversight Committee *Stephen Oakley, Livable Streets Alliance Aditi Pain, University of Massachusetts Boston *Susanne Rasmussen, Cambridge Community Development Tad Read, Boston Redevelopment Authority *William Richardson, Fenway Civic Association *Kathy Spiegelman, Harvard University Karen Wepsic, On the Move/MBTA Rider Oversight Committee *Daniel Wilson, Move Massachusetts Wig Zamore, Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership CAC ALTERNATES: Joe Beggan, Harvard University Ellin Reisner, Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership (STEP) Jeff Rosenblum, City of Cambridge James Shaer, Boston University CAC EX­OFFICIO MEMBERS: *Joe Cosgrove, MBTA Paul Christner, Massport *Scott Darling, MBTA *Julia O’Brien, Department of Conservation & Recreation * Indicates that the person was not present MassDOT Planning Page 1 of 5 Minutes of CAC Meeting #27 December 1, 2009 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION: Secretary Jeffrey Mullan, MassDOT Brian Murphy, MassDOT David Mohler, MassDOT Ned Codd, MassDOT Steve Woelfel, MassDOT Scott Hamwey, EOT AGENCY/PUBLIC: Rick Dimino, A Better City Michael Hall, Tetra Tech Rizzo Frank Calabro, Labor Local 88 Tunnel Workers Rick Bourre, EOEEA/MEPA Richard Garver Robert J. LaTremouille, FOWC Jim Gallagher, MAPC Kathleen Ziegenfuss, City of Somerville Steve Silveira, ML Strategies Joanne Haracz, AECOM Archie Mazmanian, Cottage Farm Neighborhood Association Mary Ollinger, Wentworth Institute of Technology Stephanie Pollack, Partners Healthcare HANDOUTS: � Meeting Agenda � Draft CAC Letter to Secretary Bowles PURPOSE/SUBJECT: CAC Meeting #24 BACKGROUND: The Massachusetts Department of Transportation is coordinating the Urban Ring environmental review, in accordance with state and federal regulations, and responding to the Certificates issued by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA). The focus of this meeting was to discuss the EOEEA’s request for clarifications of the project’s standing given the current state and federal financial environment, as evidenced by the fact that no funding for the project was identified in the recently adopted Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Welcome and Introductions Tom Nally, Co­Chairman, thanked everyone for attending and asked that attendees introduce themselves (see attendance). Project Status and Issues Jeffrey Mullan, Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation set the context for this meeting and that morning’s meeting with the Compact Communities by explaining that Secretary Ian Bowles of EOEEA asked for clarification on the project’s standing. Secretary Mullan asked for input from the CAC, and underscored his belief that the Urban Ring is an important project even with the universal appreciation of the enormity of the funding challenges. He explained that his job is to set transportation priorities for the Commonwealth in these challenging times and he did not intend to gloss over the budget problems, but that he would be supportive of ongoing regional EOT Planning Page 2 of 5 Minutes of CAC Meeting #27 December 1, 2009 planning for the project, understanding the need to plan during times of scarcity to prepare for better times. Secretary Mullan said he understood the concerns about the rules governing the application of FTA grant programs, but that he does advocate an incremental approach to project implementation. He expressed an intention to continue to approach the Urban Ring as an overall project, while still advancing manageable pieces of the project that can be implemented in the short and medium term. At the same time, Secretary Mullan emphasized the very real issues facing the Commonwealth relative to the MBTA’s $10 billion debt and its difficulty making debt payments. He is committed to making sure that problem does not get worse. CAC Discussion Mr. Nally said that the CAC’s three primary goals are to resolve outstanding right of way issues, mitigate Charles River crossing projects, and to advance the Urban Ring as one project. He suggested that advancing pieces of the project would be fine as long as it was part of the overall project. Jeffrey Rosenblum, City of Cambridge thanked the Secretary for meeting with the Compact that morning. He said all members agree transit is the only way to meet shared mobility needs, and that there needs to be a way to do planning for accommodating the right of way. Mr. Rosenblum said that they are looking for a way to move the project forward to meet the practical needs of the Compact Communities. Wig Zamore, STEP, emphasized the need to move forward unless the “small bites” approach is inconsistent with the future pursuit of the whole project. He suggested it may make sense to skip Phase 2 and go straight to planning for Phase 3 now that there is no money to do Phase 2 in the near term. Mr. Zamore also mentioned his concern with the NPC’s recommendation for the Route 99 alignment versus his preferred alignment of Assembly Square. Tad Read, Boston Redevelopment Authority, explained the problems the City of Boston will face if MassDOT steps back from the project. He specifically referenced the difficulty they will have in preserving the right of way in the face of development pressures along the corridor. John DePriest, City of Chelsea, questioned the merits of looking ahead to Phase 3 given that many of the Phase 1 commitments have not yet been implemented. Elizabeth Gerlach, Beth Israel, said that the hospital has shifted developments to accommodate two different rights of way proposed for the Urban Ring and that there is a lot of time and money at stake for her organization. Arthur Mombourquette, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said there is a need to figure out how to improve LMA access without automobiles. He said the additional platform at Ruggles Station was critical, as was the Melnea Cass Boulevard corridor. Sarah Hamilton, MASCO, said she appreciates the financial difficulties MassDOT is facing. She said the problem is that the Green Line is at capacity and that by 2012 there will be 4,000 employees in the LMA without a parking space or a seat on the Green Line. Ms. Hamilton said moving elements of the Urban Ring forward is critical, as is increased service on the existing CT bus routes. EOT Planning Page 3 of 5 Minutes of CAC Meeting #27 December 1, 2009 Charlotte Nelson, Roxbury Strategic Master Plan, said there needs to be better communication between the Urban Ring planning process and the development of parcels 8, 9 and 10 along Melnea Cass Boulevard. She said there also needs to be consistency with the City’s plans for Dudley Square. Karen Wepsic, On the Move, said express service on Melnea Cass Boulevard is a car project because you’d have to drive to get there. She said the CT buses are not overcrowded and therefore not in need of headway improvements. Joe Beggan, Harvard University, said there is a lot of bridge construction going on over the Charles River and they need to ensure bus riders trying to cross the river have good options. Secretary Mullan asked if the City of Boston could give clarification on the Melnea Cass issue. Vineet Gupta, Boston Transportation Department, said there were no direct transit links in this corridor. Mr. Mombourquette said it is very important to provide easy connections between Crosstown and the LMA because that is the only way these areas can expand. Mr. Gupta said that what are needed are proactive statements about keeping the project whole. Mr. Nally discussed the subcommittee’s work on identifying early action items and that a relatively small amount of money was found to address some key issues. Mr. Gupta asked how you formalize the project/process as a whole, either on the environmental documents or through official statements. For example, he said a statement could be made that “MassDOT will continue to plan and pursue the Urban Ring.” Richard Garver said that it should be said within MEPA too, and that the group feels strongly about the need to try to work with MEPA in spite of the money problem. He cited the earmark for Cass Boulevard. Mr. Rosenblum highlighted the fact that the process has been successful in getting a large group of stakeholders to agree on the vast majority of the alignment. There is recognition that the only way to move forward mobility­wise is through transit. He cited a point made in the RTP that transit demand will increase by 50% over the next 20 years. Mr. Rosenblum said the logical conclusion is to collaborate on finding ways to fund the project. Kelley Brown, MIT, said credibility is strained when municipalities pressure organizations to not use their land for an indefinite period of time. Ms. Hamilton added that the private sector is not here with their hands out, but that MASCO members generate 3 million passenger trips annually and keeping the project together under MEPA is important. Secretary Mullan said that he hoped no one thinks MassDOT sees the process as the private sector looking for a handout. Jeff Levine, Town of Brookline, said that by segmenting the project we run the risk of losing our way. Public Questions and Comments Robert J. LaTremouille, FOWC, said a heavy rail crossing at Kenmore makes the most sense. Buses south of the river do not make sense, but an Orange Line spur off of Ruggles to the LMA would. He said a Green Line spur could be used to serve Harvard – Allston. Archie Mazmanian, Cottage Farm Neighborhood Association, said the project has been around a long time and that although bus rapid transit has been proposed, he agreed with the earlier EOT Planning Page 4 of 5 Minutes of CAC Meeting #27 December 1, 2009 comment that they should move directly to Phase 3. He said the Urban Ring won’t work without dedicated lanes, which are not available for much of the Phase 2 alignment. The CSX purchase provides an opportunity to skip to Phase 3. Stephanie Pollack, Partners, said the DEIR chart on No Build ridership shows that the Red Line and Green Line will be way over capacity in 2020. She said the Urban Ring is leveraging private development in places like North Point, Kenmore, and the LMA. EOEEA has asked for a 12/15 letter outlining project status and a March 2010 updated NPC. The letter should be used to establish the blueprint. Ms. Pollack said the special review procedures are flexible and that you can break things out and advance elements while demonstrating to the federal government that it is one project. Secretary Mullan asked the group if people are behind the Urban Ring because they see it as the best solution or because the project is already in the process. Ms. Pollack replied that in the second to last Program for Mass Transportation, the Urban Ring was the most cost effective project. She suggested it was the best way to demonstrate that we can do public/private development and reduce our carbon footprint. Mr. Nally added that they should not just think about transit benefits but also environmental justice and economic development benefits. Rick Dimino, A Better City, suggested the project is not only of regional importance but also statewide importance. He said the healthcare industry is critical to the Commonwealth’s economy and the Urban Ring has been proven to be one of the most effective ways to support this industry. He also mentioned the bridge repair work over the Charles as well as projects on Storrow Drive and Memorial Drive, saying they were critical projects but that there is a need to ensure we’ve mitigated the impacts with transit. Mr. Dimino said the work to get broad stakeholder support for the alignment is significant and needs to be supported in some way. He added that ABC takes the consent order very seriously and advocated for the use of bridge funds to put in place transit mitigation on the Charles River basin. He concluded his comments by asking that MassDOT continue to encourage the participation of this group. The Secretary asked if Mr. Dimino was referring to spending engineering or planning money on the corridor, to which he replied both. Richard Garver concluded the comments by suggesting a letter from the CAC on MassDOT’s 12/15 letter to EOEEA saying that increments should be identified but done in a way that keeps the project whole. The letter should also ask MEPA to give you a process that allows you to advance key elements while keeping the project whole. EOT Planning Page 5 of 5