Urban Ring Phase 2
Proposed Circumferential Transit Project
Urban Ring
Compact Meeting
April 6, 2009
1
Urban Ring Phase 2
Agenda
MEPA Certificate
Notice of Project Change Requirements
RTP Status, Issues
Implementation Plan
Evaluation Criteria
Different Approaches
ABC
Roadmap – Early actions throughout corridor
Minimum
2
Discussion
Urban Ring Phase 2
Operating Segment (MOS)
MEPA Certificate
MEPA Certificate issued
on March 6, 2009
Requires NPC for:
3
Early Action
Implementation Plan
Implementation Plan for
Full Project
Comment Response
Urban Ring Phase 2
Notice of Project Change Requirements
Early Action implementation plan
Identify “early action items” to improve transit service
Identify engineering tasks that can be accomplished in the
near term to bring the early action items closer to realization
Implementation Plan for the full project
Define overall project phasing
Provide “schedule for resolving the key remaining technical,
routing, and implementation issues”
Comment response
4
EOT must “thoroughly respond” to the 75 comment letters
(not counting the multiple form letters)
Urban Ring Phase 2
Project Implementation
1996-2001
Overall
Urban Ring
Plan
Corridor
3 Phases
Draft
Environmental
FTA
Approval –
Enter
Preliminary
Engineering
Preliminary
Engineering,
Final
Environmental
FTA
Approval –
Enter
Final
Design
We
Are
Here
Design
FTA New Starts
Application
• Cost-Effectiveness
Full
Funding
Grant
Agreement
• State, MBTA
Financial Condition
•
5
Urban Ring Phase 2
MUST BE IN
MPO RTP
Construction
RTP Status, Issues
Boston Region MPO – Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) update
Reflect State Implementation Plan (SIP) changes
Green Line Extension
Fairmount Branch commuter rail improvements
1,000 parking spaces on MBTA system
Design of Red Line – Blue Line connection
FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED to 2030
6
REALISTIC projections of revenue sources (based
on existing conditions)
Urban Ring Phase 2
Implementation Plan - Evaluation Criteria
7
Ridership
Costs and cost-effectiveness
Environmental Justice benefits
Economic Development benefits
Percentage of dedicated running way
Continuity/Independent Utility
Feasibility/right-of-way and abutter issues
Local support
Urban Ring Phase 2
ABC Roadmap Concept
Leverage funds in 2008 Transportation Bond Bill
Build support for full Urban Ring with early
enhanced bus service throughout corridor
Roadmap study has two parts
8
Part 1: Early action before FTA New Starts and before
NEPA Record of Decision on full project
Part 2: Resolve outstanding design issues on full
project while completing FEIR/FEIS
Timeframe is 2009 through 2017
Urban Ring Phase 2
Issues with Early Action/Incremental Approach
9
Ridership – Early action is not continuous for any
single route. Must wait for major improvements in
any segment of corridor
Costs – Early action is spread over wide
geographic area. Costs of Full Project don’t fit
within RTP
Local support – provides targeted improvements
over wide geographic/political jurisdictions
Economic Development – Early action lacks focus
which may diminish impact
Environmental justice – Early action provides
minor improvements over wide area vs major
improvement in smaller area
Urban Ring Phase 2
Issues with Early Action/Incremental Approach
10
Percentage of dedicated running way – Early action
unlikely to meet 50% BRT threshold, and travel
time improvements will be incremental
Continuity – Early action does not provide any
single route with continuous BRT operating
environment. Unlikely to meet the “independent
utility” test, not ideal for New Starts
Feasibility – incremental improvements may ease
implementation
Urban Ring Phase 2
ABC Roadmap Concept
11
Urban Ring Phase 2
Schedule and Projected Cost of
Each Early Action Component
12
Urban Ring Phase 2
ABC Roadmap Concept (cont.)
13
Urban Ring Phase 2
ABC Roadmap Concept (cont.)
14
Urban Ring Phase 2
ABC Roadmap Concept (cont.)
15
Urban Ring Phase 2
ABC Roadmap Concept (cont.)
16
Urban Ring Phase 2
ABC Roadmap Concept (cont.)
17
Urban Ring Phase 2
ABC Roadmap Concept (cont.)
18
Urban Ring Phase 2
MOS Proposals
19
Minimum Operating Segment (MOS) proposals
were evaluated and presented to CAC in May 2008
MOS Candidates
Logan Airport to Kendall Square, “Northern Tier”
Logan to Wellington
Wellington to Kendall
Assembly Square to Yawkey
Kendall to Logan with tunnel
Kendall to Logan, “Southern Tier” without tunnel
Harvard to Logan with tunnel
Harvard to Logan without tunnel
Urban Ring Phase 2
Daily riders
184,000
% Reserved ROW
53%
Capital cost (2007)
~ $2.4 bn
Cost-effectiveness
~ $15-20
Ev er e t t
Wellington
Downtown
Chelsea
Station
Me d fo r d
Somerville
Assembly
Square
Ch e l se a
Sullivan
Square
Harvard
Square
E a st
B o st o n
New
Lechmere
Airport
Ca m b r i d g e
Recommended
Project
Logan
West
Garage
Cambridgeport
Kendall /
MIT
World
Trade
Center
A ll s t on
Yawkey
Broadway
BU Bridge
LMA
Ruggles
Washington
Street
Br o o k l i n e
S o u t h Bo s t o n
Proposed Alignment
20
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Busway (Surface)
Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
Urban Ring Phase 2
Newmarket
Dudley
Square
Ro x b u r y
JFK/UMass
D o r ch e s t er
Logan-Kendall
Eve re tt
Me df or d
Som er vi lle
Daily riders
% Reserved
roadways, lanes
Capital cost
Cost-effectiveness
Che l sea
East
Bost on
~ 64,000
C am br i dge
~ 63%
~$450 M
Logan
West
Garage
Al ls ton
Kendall /
MIT
~$7-10
Br ook lin e
South B o ston
Roxb ury
D orch est er
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Busway (Surface)
Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
21
Route Options
Urban Ring Phase 2
Logan Wellington
Eve re tt
Wellington
Me df or d
Som er vi lle
Daily riders
% Reserved
roadways, lanes
Che l sea
~ 34,000
East
Bost on
C am br i dge
~ 70%
Capital cost
~ $280 M
Cost-effectiveness
~ $10-13
Logan
West
Garage
Al ls ton
Br ook lin e
South B o ston
Roxb ury
D orch est er
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Busway (Surface)
Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
22
Route Options
Urban Ring Phase 2
Wellington Kendall
Wellington
Me df or d
Som er vi lle
Daily riders
% Reserved
roadways, lanes
Capital cost
Che l sea
~ 31,000
East
Bost on
~ 35%
C am br i dge
~ $170 M
Al ls ton
Cost-effectiveness
Eve re tt
~ $6-9
Kendall /
MIT
Br ook lin e
South B o ston
Roxb ury
D orch est er
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Busway (Surface)
Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
23
Route Options
Urban Ring Phase 2
Kendall – Logan
(with tunnel)
Eve re tt
Me df or d
Som er vi lle
Daily riders
% Reserved
roadways, lanes
Capital cost
Cost-effectiveness
Che l sea
~ 104,000
East
Bost on
Logan
West
Garage
C am br i dge
~ 55%
~ $1.9 B
Al ls ton
Kendall /
MIT
~ $23-26
Br ook lin e
South B o ston
Roxb ury
D orch est er
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Busway (Surface)
Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
24
Route Options
Urban Ring Phase 2
Kendall – Logan
(w/out tunnel)
Eve re tt
Me df or d
Som er vi lle
Daily riders
% Reserved
roadways, lanes
Capital cost
Cost-effectiveness
Che l sea
~ 88,000
East
Bost on
Logan
West
Garage
C am br i dge
~ 50%
~ $280 M
Al ls ton
Kendall /
MIT
~ $4-7
Br ook lin e
South B o ston
Roxb ury
D orch est er
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Busway (Surface)
Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
25
Route Options
Urban Ring Phase 2
Assembly Sq Yawkey
Eve re tt
Me df or d
Assembly
Square
Som er vi lle
Daily riders
% Reserved
roadways, lanes
Capital cost
Che l sea
~ 47,000
East
Bost on
C am br i dge
~ 65%
~ $280mi
Al ls ton
Cost-effectiveness
~ $6-9
Yawkey
Br ook lin e
South B o ston
Roxb ury
D orch est er
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Busway (Surface)
Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
26
Route Options
Urban Ring Phase 2
Harvard – Logan
(with tunnel)
Eve re tt
Me df or d
Som er vi lle
Che l sea
East
Bost on
Harvard
Square
Daily riders
% Reserved
roadways, lanes
~ 104,000
54%
Capital cost
~ $1.9 bi
Cost-effectiveness
~ $22-25
Logan
West
Garage
C am br i dge
Al ls ton
Br ook lin e
South B o ston
Roxb ury
D orch est er
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Busway (Surface)
Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
Route Options
27
Urban Ring Phase 2
Area of Ongoing Analysis
Harvard – Logan
(w/out tunnel)
Eve re tt
Me df or d
Som er vi lle
Che l sea
East
Bost on
Harvard
Square
Daily riders
% Reserved
roadways, lanes
Capital cost
Cost-effectiveness
~ 91,000
56%
Logan
West
Garage
C am br i dge
Al ls ton
~$320 mi
~ $4-7
Br ook lin e
South B o ston
Roxb ury
D orch est er
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Busway (Surface)
Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
Route Options
28
Urban Ring Phase 2
Area of Ongoing Analysis
Issues with MOS Concept
29
Ridership – continuity can provide strong ridership
in segment
Costs and cost effectiveness –Separation from Full
Project may reduce overall cost effectiveness of
remaining segments in the future
Local support – more likely to get focused support in
segment
Economic development – major investment and
strong transit identity supports TOD and
Development
Environmental Justice – depends upon segment
Urban Ring Phase 2
Issues with MOS Concept
30
Percentage dedicated running way – depends upon
segment
Continuity – provides end to end route
improvements and has independent utility – more
attractive for New Starts funding
Feasibility – depends upon segment – issues with
most segments
Urban Ring Phase 2
Next Steps
31
Boston MPO RTP coordination, spring 2009
FTA discussions on project segmentation,
spring 2009
EOT CSX acquisition – June 15, 2009
Urban Ring Phase 2
Discussion
Please visit our website at
www.theurbanring.com
32
Urban Ring Phase 2