Medford
Everett
Chelsea
Somerville
Cambridge
Circumferential
Transportation
Improvements
in the
Urban Ring Corridor
Boston
Urban Ring
Phase 2
Brookline
REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT /
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(RDEIR/DEIS)
EOEA #12565
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Introduction ..........................................................................................................1
1.1
Project Overview ................................................................................1
Project Purpose and Need ...................................................................................4
2.1
Project Purpose ..................................................................................4
2.2
Project Need.......................................................................................4
2.3
Project Study Area..............................................................................5
Locally Preferred Alternative ................................................................................7
3.1
Description of LPA..............................................................................7
3.2
Benefits of the LPA...........................................................................15
3.3
Impacts of the LPA ...........................................................................22
Alternatives Evaluation ......................................................................................33
4.1
Overview of Alternatives Analysis Process .......................................33
4.2
Evaluation of Alternatives .................................................................34
Financial Review................................................................................................38
5.1
Capital Cost......................................................................................38
5.2
Operating Cost .................................................................................38
5.3
Potential Funding Allocation and Sources.........................................39
Phasing and Implementation..............................................................................39
Summary, Conclusions, and Next Steps ............................................................40
Overview of Document.......................................................................................44
Detailed route and station level diagrams of the recommended LPA are provided at the
end of this document.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-i
November 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1:
Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA Characteristics and Statistics...................................... 8
Table ES-2:
Urban Ring Phase 2 Systemwide Daily Ridership Forecasts – 2030 Alternatives .
..........................................................................................................................16
Table ES-3:
Urban Ring Phase 2 Travel Time Savings – Year 2030 PM Peak Period...........17
Table ES-4:
Preliminary Effect Finding for Historic Resources within the LPA .......................30
Table ES-5:
Urban Ring Phase 2 Year 2030 Alternatives Comparison ..................................37
Table ES-6:
LPA Capital Cost Summary ...............................................................................38
Table ES-7:
Summary Evaluation of LPA by Segments.........................................................42
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1
Boston Region MPO – Regional Location Map ................................................... 3
Figure ES-2
Study Area and Urban Ring Corridor................................................................... 6
Figure ES-3
Urban Ring Phase 2 Locally Preferred Alternative .............................................13
Figure ES-4
Locally Preferred Alternative BRT Routes..........................................................14
Figure ES-5
LPA Ridership and Travel Time Summary .........................................................18
Figure ES-6
MBTA System Ridership by Line Comparison – Existing, No-Build and LPA
Alternatives ........................................................................................................19
Figure ES-7
Change in Rapid Transit Passenger Loads - Urban Ring Compared to No-Build
Year 2030 ..........................................................................................................20
Figure ES-8
RDEIR/DEIS Flow Chart of Alternatives Process ...............................................34
Figure ES-9
Overview of Corridor Segments .........................................................................41
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-ii
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0
Introduction
This Executive Summary provides an overview of the key issues and findings of the Urban Ring Phase 2
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIR/DEIS), the
details of which are contained in the document chapters that follow. Included are: a project overview;
summaries of the project purpose, need and background; a brief description of the Locally Preferred
Alternative and its benefits and impacts; the broad range of alternatives considered; and financing and
implementation.
1.1
Project Overview
The Urban Ring is a proposed major new bus rapid transit (BRT) system that would run in a roughly
circular “ring” through densely developed portions of Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett,
Medford and Somerville. A regional map identifying the project study area is shown in Figure ES-1. The
Urban Ring would provide faster and more direct transit service both for the high volume of trips within the
“Urban Ring corridor,” as well as better connections between points in the corridor and the MBTA’s
existing radial rapid transit and commuter rail systems. As a result, the Urban Ring would improve transit
access and capacity in the corridor, reduce crowding in the central subway system, and support transit
oriented development and smart growth plans and policies.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is serving as the lead federal agency in the preparation of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Urban Ring Phase 2 project (the Project) to address
the federal environmental process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related
federal requirements. The DEIS is being prepared in combination with a Revised Draft Environmental
Impact Report (RDEIR) to address Massachusetts state environmental requirements under the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The RDEIR is a revision to a stand-alone Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that was filed under MEPA in November 2004; the revision to the
original DEIR is intended to address public comments on the DEIR, and to enable a reconnection of the
state MEPA and federal NEPA environmental review processes.
The RDEIR Project proponent is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation
and Public Works (EOT). Throughout the planning and environmental review process, EOT has
coordinated its actions with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), the Boston Region
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the project’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), which
includes representatives from the municipalities in the project corridor (Boston, Brookline, Cambridge,
Chelsea, Everett, Medford, and Somerville, MA), neighborhood and citizens groups, and the many
educational and medical institutions in the corridor.
This combined RDEIR/DEIS is latest step in a decades-long planning process for public transit
improvements in the Urban Ring corridor. During that time, new residential, commercial and institutional
development in the corridor has increased travel demand and worsened congestion. As a result, transit
needs in the corridor have grown. This document reflects the most up-to-date understanding of future
economic and infrastructure development in the area, and an Urban Ring Phase 2 project proposal that is
most suited to these conditions.
The findings and recommendations in this document have also been developed with an understanding of
the current federal and state financial constraints and the challenges to funding the recommended Urban
Ring Phase 2 project. As discussed further in this Executive Summary and in Chapter 6 (Costs, Funding
and Implementation), EOT recognizes that the overall review must include consideration of other
proposed transit expansion projects and other state funding priorities.
As a result of extensive technical analysis and public involvement, EOT has developed recommendations
and an implementation plan for the Urban Ring Phase 2 project that represent the best balance of
benefits, costs and impacts given current conditions and financial assumptions. Nevertheless, EOT
recognizes that the recommendations and implementation plan will be influenced both by the public and
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-1
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
regulatory review of the proposed project; by changing conditions in the proposed alignment and the
Urban Ring corridor as a whole; and by ongoing developments relative to federal, state, municipal, and
private sector funding opportunities. As the Urban Ring Phase 2 project evolves through the preliminary
engineering and final environmental review processes, EOT will continue to work with public agencies,
abutters, the general public, and other stakeholders to maximize the effectiveness and feasibility of the
proposed Urban Ring.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-2
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-1 Boston Region MPO – Regional Location Map
ExistingLYNNFIELD
MBTA Routes
Blue
BEDFO
RD
READING
95
BURLINGTON
WOBURN
MAPC MPO
Region
3
Green
WAKEFIELD
Project
Location
MAPC MPO
PEABODY
Urban Ring Study
Area
SALEM
Orange
Red
STONEHAM
R
ST E
CHE
N
I
W
Silver
1
Commuter Rail
SAUGUS
LYNN
MELROSE
LEXINGTON
Key Location Map
93
MALDEN
MEDFORD
REVERE
ARLINGTON
EVERETT
BELMONT
E
CH
SOMERVILLE
WALTHAM
LS
EA
CAMBRIDGE
20 WATERTOWN
NEWTON
ES
LE
Y
BROOKLINE
WE
LL
BOSTON
NEEDHAM
95
93
QUINCY
DEDHAM
MILTON
DOV ER
28
WEYMOUTH
WESTWOOD
BRAINTREE
NORWOOD
2
93
RANDOLPH
Data provided by MassGIS.
0
HINGHAM
CANTON
Urban Ring Phase 2
4
Miles
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
RD EIR/ DEIS
Regional Location Map
Page ES-3
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.0
Project Purpose and Need
The RDEIR/DEIS has been prepared to provide environmental analyses for the proposed bus rapid
transit (BRT) service and the enhanced intermodal connections that comprise the Project. The Project
purpose and need is discussed in detail in Chapter 1, and summarized briefly below.
2.1
Project Purpose
The primary purpose of Urban Ring Phase 2 is to significantly improve transit access, mobility, and
capacity for the many residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, major educational and medical
institutions, and other important destinations in the Urban Ring corridor, and to enhance their connections
with the surrounding region. The Urban Ring Phase 2 is also intended to reduce crowding in the MBTA’s
central subway system, and to support smart growth and transit-oriented development (TOD) by
eliminating or reducing constraints on transportation access and capacity in the corridor. The Urban Ring
Phase 2 is designed to achieve these objectives by providing fast, frequent, and more direct transit trips
between points within the corridor, as well as for trips to and from Urban Ring connections with the many
“spokes” of the MBTA’s existing radial rapid transit and commuter rail systems.
2.2
Project Need
The Urban Ring Phase 2 project, also known as the Circumferential Transportation Improvements in the
Urban Ring Corridor, is focused on addressing the particular transportation challenges and needs in the
“Urban Ring corridor,” the area just outside of the downtown Boston core. The Urban Ring corridor
includes densely-built, established neighborhoods and commercial centers, as well as emerging
neighborhoods with environmental justice populations and under-utilized districts that have residential
and commercial development potential.
The Urban Ring corridor has the advantage of close proximity to the downtown Boston core, with its
concentration of infrastructure and economic activity. As the downtown core has become more densely
built, development pressures have increased in the Urban Ring corridor. However, the transportation
system in the Urban Ring corridor is limited and/or congested, and these transportation limitations act as
constraints on residential accessibility and further economic growth and development in the corridor.
•
Transit Accessibility and Mobility in the Urban Ring Corridor Is Inadequate. The existing rapid transit
does not adequately serve many of the region’s growing neighborhoods and major employment
centers that are located outside the downtown core in the Urban Ring corridor. Travel to and from this
corridor currently requires indirect travel on rapid transit to downtown Boston and back out; travel by
bus on congested roadways; or travel by automobile on congested roadways. Transit improvements
in the Urban Ring corridor could enhance transit access and mobility for the corridor and the region
as a whole.
•
Transit Access for the Significant Environmental Justice Populations in the Corridor is Constrained by
the Lack of Existing Circumferential Connections. The Urban Ring corridor includes a large
percentage of minority, low-income, and transit-dependent households that would benefit from
improved rapid transit connections to other destinations in the corridor and to the existing transit
system.
•
The Environment in the Urban Ring Corridor is Negatively Affected by High Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) and Congestion. Increased travel demand in the corridor is expected to result in heavy traffic,
congestion, and negative impacts on air quality and health in the corridor’s neighborhoods and the
region as a whole.
•
Economic Development is Constrained by Traffic Congestion and Poor Access. In addition to dense
residential neighborhoods with concentrations of environmental justice populations, the Urban Ring
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-4
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
also includes major employment centers; commercial districts; educational, medical and cultural
institutions; and other destinations. Improved transit access would strongly support economic
development, job growth, and quality of life in the corridor by easing traffic congestion, reducing
automobile reliance, and facilitating development in emerging areas of the corridor.
•
Transit Congestion in the Boston Core Remains a Problem. Increased travel on the existing transit
system would result in heavily loaded rapid transit vehicles and congested transfer stations in
downtown Boston. Relieving congestion at key subway loading points and transfer stations in the
Boston core would have regional transportation benefits.
Strong growth in both residential and commercial density in the Urban Ring corridor near the Boston core
will require a commitment in the region and the corridor municipalities to smart growth and sustainable
development. Since the inception of the Urban Ring planning and environmental review process, corridor
municipalities, regional planning bodies, and the state have consistently supported clustered development
and transit-oriented development, especially in the Urban Ring corridor.
2.3
Project Study Area
The principal study area and Urban Ring corridor are shown in Figure ES-2. The Urban Ring study area
encompasses portions of Chelsea, Everett, Medford, Somerville, Cambridge, Brookline and Boston, and
the transportation facilities and services that pass through them and provide regional transportation
connections. The “Urban Ring corridor” is a roughly 1-mile wide band that passes through the
municipalities listed above and is centered on the key destinations targeted for circumferential transit
connections. The corridor is approximately 25 miles long, and it includes numerous “activity centers” such
as major medical, educational, and cultural institutions, high-density employment, commercial centers,
and other trip generating uses. The corridor also contains densely populated residential areas that include
significant environmental justice populations.
The Urban Ring corridor runs mainly in a continuous ring, but it also includes two “spurs” off of the main
ring. One spur travels from the Crosstown area of Boston through Roxbury and the Uphams Corner area
of Dorchester to the University of Massachusetts, Boston at Columbia Point. The RDEIR/DEIS also adds
a new spur to the west of the corridor that reaches the North Allston neighborhood of Boston and Harvard
Square in Cambridge. This segment was added to the corridor in response to a requirement in the May
2005 EOEA Certificate, as well as in recognition of anticipated growth in this area as reflected in the land
use scenario adopted by the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-5
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-2 Study Area and Urban Ring Corridor
Me d f or d
Ev e re tt
93
So m erv i lle
Chel s ea
Ea st
Bo st o n
Ca m b ri d g e
93
90
93
Br o ok lin e
So u th Bo s to n
R o xb ury
Major Highways
Existing MBTA Routes
Blue Line
Green LIne
Orange Line
Do rch es t er
Red LIne
Silver Line
Commuter Rail
MBTA Stops
Commuter Rail Station
Study Area
Data provided by MassGIS.
0
0.5
1
Miles
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Urban Ring Phase 2
RDEIR/DEIS
Study Area
Page ES-6
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3.0
Locally Preferred Alternative
EOT has developed a proposed BRT alignment for the Urban Ring corridor. This recommendation, known
as the “locally preferred alternative” (LPA) is based on a year and a half long alternatives analysis
process, which included thorough technical evaluation and broad-based public involvement with the
project’s Citizens Advisory Committee, neighborhood and advocacy groups, the general public, and other
stakeholders. Based on a wide variety of criteria, including ridership, travel time, reliability, local and
abutter benefits and impacts, environmental benefits and impacts, consistency with municipal and abutter
impacts, cost, and stakeholder input, EOT selected the best-performing segments from twelve different
alternatives. Through an iterative process of technical evaluation, conceptual engineering, and public and
stakeholder review, these segments were “mixed and matched” to develop what EOT proposes as the
optimal Urban Ring Phase 2 project, based on current information and analysis.
EOT recognizes, however, that a number of issues related to the proposed LPA remain unresolved, that
the publication of the RDEIR/DEIS is an opportunity for public comment on the recommended alignment,
and that some elements of the proposed LPA may be subject to change and refinement during the
preliminary engineering and final environmental processes. This section provides a summary description
of the recommended Urban Ring Phase 2 alignment (hereafter referred to as the LPA) and its associated
benefits and impacts. A more detailed analysis of the LPA is provided in Chapter 2.
3.1
Description of LPA
The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA is a proposed circumferential bus rapid transit (BRT) system. BRT is a
transit mode that employs modern bus vehicles within a system of coordinated infrastructure and service
enhancements that enable the buses to operate more like rapid transit service. The Urban Ring Phase 2
LPA includes the following important BRT project elements:
•
Dedicated roadway, including surface roadways dedicated to bus-only use (“busways”), bus lanes on
existing roadways, and a 1.5 mile BRT tunnel through the Fenway/Longwood Medical and Academic
Area (LMA) dedicated for bus-only use.
•
High-frequency service: in peak periods, ranging from every 10 minutes to as often as every 3
minutes in heavy demand segments of the corridor.
•
High capacity vehicles: 60-foot articulated buses powered by diesel-electric hybrid engines, with low
emissions and low floors for easy, rapid boarding.
•
Widely-spaced, substantial and recognizable transit stations, rather than bus stops.
•
Advanced communications, including reduced delay for BRT vehicles at traffic signals and real-time
traveler information.
The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA is a system of transit services and stations that would increase
circumferential mobility within the Project corridor and make transit significantly more attractive by making
trips more direct and less time-consuming for travelers throughout the greater Boston region. Table ES-1
presents some key characteristics and performance measures of the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA.
One of the central performance measures of the Project is the number of trips projected to use the Urban
Ring Phase 2 in the horizon year of 2030. Those forecasts have been developed using the Boston
Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s regional travel demand model. This is the same model, with
the same underlying demographic and travel network assumptions used to analyze other potential
transportation projects in the Boston Region, as well as the proposals for the Boston Regional
Transportation Plan. The model’s projections for the Urban Ring Phase 2 ridership have not yet been
reviewed and approved by the Federal Transit Administration. EOT will continue to work with FTA on
review of these projections as Urban Ring Phase 2 progresses toward a New Starts program application.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-7
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-1:
Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA Characteristics and Statistics
LPA Characteristics and Statistics(1)
Daily riders (BRT only)
184,000 (weekday year 2030) trips
Continuing transit riders
116,900 trips
Diverted from auto
41,500 trips
Diverted from walk/bike
25,600 trips
Number of buses (including layover and spares)
73
Stations
36
Maintenance facilities
Wellington and Southampton Street (2)
Length of project corridor
25 miles
Length of tunnel
1.5 miles
People living within 10-minute walk of planned Urban Ring station
321,800 (in 2030)
Jobs within a 10-minute walk of a planned station
378,600 (in 2030)
Reserved (separated) BRT roadways and lanes
(% of alignment dedicated for BRT)
53%
Connections to MBTA bus routes
122
Connections to MBTA rapid transit
15
Connections to MBTA commuter rail
7
Auto trip reduction
41,500 person-vehicle trips per day
Travel time savings
8-9 minutes for a 30 minute ride(3)
Environmental Justice residents served
218,600 (2000)
Capital cost (2007 dollars)
$2.4 billion (approximate)(4)
Operating and maintenance costs
$30-40 million per year (approximate)
Cost effectiveness
$15-20 per user hour benefit(4)
(FTA New Starts “medium” standard is $16-24)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
This summary information for the LPA reflects an approximate average of the analytical results for different
options in the Allston segment of the corridor, as described in Section 2.1, Sector 7.
Urban Ring Phase 2 bus maintenance operations would be split among two facilities, the existing Southampton
Street maintenance facility and the proposed Wellington Bus Maintenance Facility.
Based on travel time savings of the LPA versus the No-Build Alternative for 5 representative Origin-Destination
pairs within the Urban Ring corridor with travel times in the 25-40 minute range.
This is based on the FTA metric of cost per user benefit hour, a measure of annualized capital and operating and
maintenance costs divided by the aggregate time savings provided to transit riders by the project. The costeffectiveness calculation for the LPA and the project alternatives are preliminary, and are based on travel
demand modeling results and cost estimates that do not yet have FTA approval. Ridership and cost data will be
formally reviewed by FTA during a request for New Starts Preliminary Engineering approval.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-8
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The LPA is designed to provide the most effective and efficient transit service by operating five
overlapping BRT routes through the Urban Ring corridor:1
•
BRT 1 Airport Blue Line Station - Kendall Square
•
BRT 2 Logan Airport (West Garage) - Wellington Station
•
BRT 5 Sullivan Square - Ruggles Station
•
BRT 6 Harvard Square - JFK/UMass Station
•
BRT 7 Yawkey - Mystic Mall (Everett Avenue)
These routes are designed to satisfy the key travel demand patterns, and to overlap in areas with the
heaviest travel demand, such as the LMA and Chelsea.
The LPA defines the recommended alignment throughout most of the project corridor, but there are a few
outstanding issues that will be the subject of ongoing analysis and coordination:
•
Railroad Coordination. The preferred alignment would require acquisition of abandoned railroad
tracks and coordination on BRT operation near commuter rail or freight tracks. The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts’ recent agreement with CSX Transportation sets the stage for the Commonwealth to
purchase and take control of several key railroad properties, subject to completion of the other
elements in the overall plan. This is expected to simplify the rail coordination issue.
•
Allston Connection. Although the Urban Ring project has been in planning for many years, the
potential BRT connection to Allston is a new proposal that has not yet undergone formal public review
and comment. In addition, there are a number of major issues related to the Allston BRT connection
that will require further review and consideration. One potential Urban Ring Phase 2 alignment would
pass beneath the Massachusetts Turnpike viaduct and through CSX Transportation’s Beacon Park
Yard railroad facility; it is expected that the Massachusetts Turnpike viaduct will require significant
repairs in coming years, and that the CSX railroad operations will be subject to consolidation and
relocation. Further, the City of Boston is undertaking a major community planning study, at the same
time that Harvard University is conducting a master plan for a major expansion of its Allston campus;
both of these planning efforts are expected to influence potential Urban Ring Phase 2 connections. As
a result of these factors, the project recommendations include a range of alternatives for making
connections in Allston that are designed to maintain flexibility and enable consistency with different
future conditions.
•
Fenway/LMA Tunnel. The proposed 1.5 mile tunnel through the Fenway/LMA is projected to cost
$1.7 billion, or approximately two thirds of the project’s $2.4 billion capital cost (in 2007 dollars). This
major investment is warranted by the LMA’s dense concentration of jobs and travel demand, along
with its limited and highly congested roadways in close proximity to sensitive natural and historic
resources of the Fenway neighborhood. A wide range of tunnel alternatives were developed and
evaluated during the course of the RDEIR/DEIS leading to a preliminary recommendation for
Fenway/LMA tunnel alignment, as well as an assumption about construction method (for cost
estimating purposes, based on best available information at the conceptual level of planning and
engineering). EOT will use this environmental filing to continue to solicit feedback from the general
public, corridor residents, municipalities, public agencies, elected officials, and other project
stakeholders regarding tunnel alignment and construction method. EOT will consider this feedback,
along with more detailed technical information developed during preliminary engineering, in order to
ensure an optimal tunnel alignment from the perspective of cost-effectiveness, engineering feasibility,
1
BRT route numbers 3 and 4 were included in alternatives analysis, but have been eliminated from the LPA in order to optimize
alignment, service characteristics, and cost-effectiveness.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-9
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
and abutter benefit and impact. In order to provide adequate time to identify necessary funding and to
enable interim bus service improvements, an interim surface route to serve this area is also being
investigated.
•
Orange Line Connection/Mystic River Crossing. There are a number of challenges in the northern
segment of the LPA alignment, generally between Everett and Sullivan Square. These include
environmental impacts to crossing the Malden River, congestion on Revere Beach Parkway/Route 16,
and challenges to providing dedicated right-of-way. New planning efforts in the vicinity of Sullivan
Square may facilitate a review of the alignment in this segment of the corridor.
•
Financial Constraints. Overarching all of these issues is the issue of project costs and financial
feasibility. The project proposed in this RDEIR/DEIS has high benefits, but also high costs. There is
tremendous competition for limited federal and state funds, including a number of other major transit
expansion projects, such as the State Implementation Plan projects (Green Line Extension, 1,000
park and ride spaces, and Fairmount Line), as well as the Silver Line Phase III and the South Coast
Rail project. A determination of the appropriate state portion of funding for the Urban Ring, as well as
a mechanism for funding the state portion, are still to be determined.
Figure ES-3 provides the proposed alignment of the LPA and Figure ES-4 shows the BRT routes that
make up the LPA. The description of the LPA alignment below includes the following key features, and is
summarized geographically with stations shown in bold:
•
The route that the BRT vehicles would follow;
•
The type of roadway in that segment of the route: bus-only (busway), busway in tunnel, bus lane, and
bus operations in mixed traffic; and
•
The station locations, including major intermodal connections with the MBTA’s existing system.
Locally Preferred Alternative Alignment – Geographic Breakdown:
East Boston: Logan Airport – Chelsea Creek
•
•
•
•
Logan West Garage Station
Airport Service Road in mixed traffic to Airport Station (Blue Line connection)
East Boston Haul Road (limited access bus and commercial vehicle way)
Over Chelsea Creek via Chelsea Street Bridge in mixed traffic
Chelsea: Chelsea Creek – Mystic Mall
•
•
•
Eastern Avenue to Griffin Way in mixed traffic to Griffin Way Station
Busway in abandoned railroad bed (adjacent to Rockport commuter rail line) to Downtown Chelsea
Station (commuter rail connection)
Busway in abandoned railroad bed continues to Mystic Mall Station
Everett and Medford: Mystic Mall, Chelsea – Wellington Station, Medford
•
•
•
•
•
Busway in abandoned railroad bed (adjacent to the commuter rail line) continues to the west of
Second Street
Busway enters tunnel and crosses beneath railroad tracks and Route 99
Busway passes beneath Revere Beach Parkway via Saugus Branch rail underpass to Everett
Station
Busway runs along northern side of Revere Beach Parkway
Busway crosses Malden River on a new bridge north of the Revere Beach Parkway Bridge
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-10
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
Corporation Way in mixed traffic to Wellington Station (Orange Line and bus connections)
Somerville: Wellington Station – New Lechmere
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Revere Beach Parkway through Wellington Circle in mixed traffic
Route 28 in mixed traffic to Assembly Square
Assembly Square Drive in bus lanes to Assembly Square Station (future Orange Line connection)
Assembly Square Drive in bus lanes to Broadway
Broadway in mixed traffic to Sullivan Square Station (Orange Line, commuter rail, bus connections)
Cambridge Street/Washington Street in mixed traffic and bus lanes to Inner Belt Road
Inner Belt Road in bus lanes to Inner Belt Station
Inner Belt Road in bus lanes to new busway viaduct over railroad tracks to New Lechmere Station
(Green Line connection)
Cambridge: New Lechmere – Kendall/MIT – Cambridgeport
•
•
•
•
•
•
First Street in bus lanes to Binney Street in mixed traffic to Binney Street Station
To Kendall/MIT Station (Red Line connection) via two routes:
o Binney Street in mixed traffic to Fulkerson Street Station to Main Street to terminate at
Kendall/MIT Station AND
o Third Street in mixed traffic to busway connection to Main Street to Kendall/MIT Station
Main Street in mixed traffic to Albany Street in combination of bus lanes and mixed traffic to Mass
Ave/MIT Station
Albany Street in bus lanes and mixed traffic to Erie Street
Busway connection to Cambridgeport Station
Busway in Grand Junction Railroad alignment to Charles River
Boston: BU - Yawkey
•
•
•
Busway on modified Grand Junction Railroad Bridge to tunnel beneath BU Bridge
University Road (southbound in bus lane and northbound in mixed traffic) to Carlton Street Bridge
over Mass Turnpike to BU Bridge Station (Green Line connection)
Mountfort Street in bus lanes to Yawkey Station (commuter rail connection)
Allston: BU Bridge - Harvard Square, Cambridge – Note: This segment includes different routing options.
•
•
Alignment options for connection from BU Bridge to Cambridge Street in North Allston:
o Busway adjacent to Soldiers Field Road, beneath Mass Turnpike viaduct, along perimeter of
rail yard with connection to proposed West Station (commuter rail connection) OR
o Commonwealth Avenue in mixed traffic to Malvern Street in mixed traffic to proposed West
Station (commuter rail connection) to busway viaduct over rail yard OR
o Commonwealth Avenue in mixed traffic to Brighton Avenue in mixed traffic to Cambridge
Street in mixed traffic
Alignment options for connection from Cambridge Street to North Harvard Street in North Allston:
o Busway in abandoned railroad bed between Cambridge Street and Mass Turnpike to North
Harvard Street Station, busway continues underneath Cambridge Street to bus lanes in
proposed new Stadium Way to Barry’s Corner Station
o Busway in abandoned railroad bed between Cambridge Street and Mass Turnpike to North
Harvard Street Station, in mixed traffic with limited bus lanes on North Harvard Street to
Barry’s Corner Station
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-11
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
o Cambridge Street Station to Lincoln Street in mixed traffic to Everett Street to potential bus
•
•
lanes in potential new roadway to Brighton Mills Station, mixed traffic on Western Avenue to
Barry’s Corner Station
North Harvard Street in bus lanes to JFK Bridge over Charles River
JFK Street in mixed traffic to Eliot Street and Bennett Street in mixed traffic to the existing MBTA
busway and Harvard Square bus tunnel to Harvard Square Station (Red Line connections)
Boston: Yawkey - LMA - Ruggles
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enter bus tunnel via portal adjacent to Green Line D Branch on east side of Miner Street near
Landmark Center
Bus tunnel to underground Fenway Station (Green Line D Branch surface connection and connection
to Green Line C Branch at St. Mary’s via Park Drive/Beacon Street sidewalks)
Note: Creation of the portal structure and underground tunnel, and servicing the tunnel for material
supply and material removal, would require temporary taking and use of several parcels in the vicinity
of the portal. At the same time, this area is experiencing significant growth and development
pressures.
Bus tunnel beneath Riverway, Muddy River, Emerald Necklace to Longwood Avenue to LMA Station
Bus tunnel beneath Longwood Avenue to Huntington Avenue to Ruggles Street
Portal on north side of Ruggles Street to Ruggles Station (Orange Line, commuter rail, and bus
connections)
Boston: Melnea Cass Boulevard - BU Medical Center
•
•
•
•
Center median busway in Melnea Cass Boulevard to Washington Street Station (Silver Line
connection)
Washington Street mixed traffic loop to Dudley Square Station (Silver Line connection)
Albany Street in mixed traffic to Crosstown Center Station
Albany Street in bus lanes to BU Medical Center Station
North Dorchester: Crosstown Center – JFK/UMass
•
•
•
Mass Ave in bus lanes to Newmarket Station (Fairmount Branch connection)
Mass Ave in bus lanes to Edward Everett Square Station
Columbia Road in mixed traffic to JFK/UMass Station (Red Line and commuter rail connections)
South Boston: Broadway Station – Ted Williams Tunnel
•
•
•
•
Frontage Road in mixed traffic to Broadway Station (Red Line connection)
A Street in mixed traffic to A Street Station
Congress Street in mixed traffic to World Trade Center Station (Silver Line connection)
D Street in mixed traffic to I-90/Ted Williams Tunnel in mixed traffic to Logan Airport
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-12
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-3 Urban Ring Phase 2 Locally Preferred Alternative
Ev e re tt
Wellington
Downtown
Chelsea
Station
Me df or d
So m erv i lle
Assembly
Square
Chel sea
Sullivan
Square
Harvard
Square
Ea s t
Bo s to n
New
Lechmere
Airport
Ca m bri dg e
Logan
West
Garage
Cambridgeport
Kendall /
MIT
Al ls to n
World
Trade
Center
Yawkey
Broadway
BU Bridge
LMA
Ruggles
Washington
Street
Br o ok lin e
So u th Bo sto n
Newmarket
Dudley
Square
Ro xb ury
JFK/UMass
Do rch est er
Proposed Alignment
Intermodal Connections
Mixed Traffic
Commuter Rail
Buslane
Silver Line
Busway (Surface)
Blue Line
Busway (Tunnel)
Green Line
Proposed Stop
Area of Ongoing
Analysis
Red Line
Orange Line
Route Options
Base map data provided by MassGIS.
0
0.5
1
Urb an Ring Phase 2
RDEIR/DEIS
Locally Preferred Alternative
Miles
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-13
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-4 Locally Preferred Alternative BRT Routes
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-14
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3.2
Benefits of the LPA
The Urban Ring Phase 2 project is expected to produce major benefits for corridor residents; Urban Ring
Phase 2 riders; transit riders throughout the MBTA system; and property owners, employers, and
institutions throughout the corridor. These benefits include improvements to transit system access and
capacity; the regional transportation system in general; and smart growth and economic development
opportunities. These benefits are discussed in more detail below.
Transit Benefits – The following is a summary of the benefits that the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would
produce for the transit system. These benefits include increased system ridership, travel time savings for
Urban Ring riders, and relief of overall transit system congestion.
•
Table ES-2 provides a summary of the ridership impacts of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project. Ridership
impacts of the Urban Ring Phase 2 are expressed by comparing daily ridership projected for the LPA
in the year 2030 to two other future scenarios: the No-Build Alternative and FTA Baseline Alternative.
The No-Build scenario represents future conditions without the project, and is used to identify
environmental impacts for federal regulatory review (National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA) and
state regulatory review (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA). The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Baseline Alternative is a lower-cost option (with comparable service
improvements to the LPA but no fixed guideway improvements), which FTA uses as a basis for
evaluating the transit benefit of fixed guideway investment. For the Urban Ring Phase 2, the Baseline
Alternative improves upon the No-Build by implementing a network of surface cross town (CT) bus
routes providing the same market coverage and service frequency as the LPA, but without any
dedicated busways or bus lanes. In order to make the effects of the Baseline Alternative and the LPA
more understandable, ridership effects are expressed in terms of change relative to the No-Build
condition. Table ES-2 shows a number of beneficial effects of the Urban Ring on transit system travel
patterns relative to the No-Build condition and Baseline Alternative.
o
The LPA is projected to increase overall regional transit trips by 67,100 relative to the NoBuild condition and by 37,700 relative to the Baseline Alternative. The LPA increase in the
regional transit mode share is more than double what is achieved by the Baseline Alternative.
o
Compared to the 2030 No-Build Alternative and the Baseline Alternative, the LPA is projected
to result in a large net reduction in ridership on other MBTA transit lines. By providing faster
trip times and more direct routing, the LPA would attract a significant number of new fare
paying transit riders to the system, while reducing ridership on many other rapid transit and
bus lines, thereby alleviating transit congestion. In contrast, the Baseline Alternative would
increase ridership on the No-Build rapid transit and bus systems, resulting in increased bus
congestion, and would not relieve rapid transit congestion as much as the LPA.
o
The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would increase the number of unlinked transit trips on the
system relative to both the No-Build condition and the Baseline Alternative. This is primarily
due to the higher overall systemwide transit ridership achieved by the LPA. Many existing
transfers that occur in the central subway system would occur at less crowded new and
improved intermodal stations located along the Urban Ring corridor. This would provide
improved service to riders and reduce congestion on existing transit services.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-15
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-2: Urban Ring Phase 2 Systemwide Daily Ridership Forecasts – 2030
Alternatives
2030 Daily Ridership
2030 No-Build
Baseline(1)
Change
LPA(2)
Change
Regional Trips by Travel Mode
Linked Transit Trips(3)
Auto Person Trips
Walk Trips
Transit Mode Share (Total trips = 16,581,200)
Unlinked Transit Trips by Individual Transit Mode(4)
Commuter Rail
12,187,400
3,084,100
7.90 %
+ 29,400
+ 67,100
- 17,300
- 41,500
- 12,000
- 25,600
8.08% (+0.18) 8.29% (+0.39)
153,400
1,214,200
+ 10,600
- 45,600
+ 9,200
- 78,700
Bus (Local and Express)
Ferry
Unlinked Transit Trip Sub-Total
Urban Ring Service
CT buses
BRT buses
Urban Ring Total
479,200
5,000
1,851,800
+ 43,500
0
+ 8,500
- 27,000
0
- 96,500
8,500
0
8,500
+56,200
0
+56,200
- 800
+184,000
+183,200
TOTAL UNLINKED TRANSIT TRIPS
System Wide Transfers
1,860,300
550,600
+ 64,700
+ 35,300
+ 86,700
+19,600
Rapid Transit (Green, Red, Orange, Blue, Silver)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
•
1,309,700
The 2030 Baseline conditions reflect comparable service to the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA without exclusive bus running
way.
LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative
Linked transit trips are end-to-end trips that use one or more transit modes and may require transfer
Unlinked transit trips are individual trip segments on a given transit mode – e.g. a trip that entails travel on the Red Line
followed by a transfer and travel on the Green is one linked transit trip, and two unlinked trips
The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would attract significant ridership, among both existing and new transit
riders, by offering more direct connections and faster travel times. The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA
would provide dedicated, reserved right-of-way to make bus operations faster and more reliable. The
result would be significantly improved travel time (8-9 minutes on average for a 30 minute trip) on the
Urban Ring Phase 2 compared to the No-Build condition, as shown in Table ES-3 for a number of key
origin-destination pairs. The exclusive busways and bus lanes of the LPA provide travel time savings
ranging from 16 to 44 percent compared to the No-Build Alternative.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-16
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-3:
Urban Ring Phase 2 Travel Time Savings – Year 2030 PM Peak Period
Walk
Time(1)
Wait
Time(2)
InVehicle
Time(3)
Total
Time
Walk
Time
Wait
Time
InVehicle
Time
Total
Time
Percent
Travel
Time
Savings
Chelsea Commuter Rail – Airport Blue Line
11
4
10
25
10
2
9
21
16%
Chelsea Commuter Rail – Wellington
10
7
24
41
10
3
10(4)
23
44%
Sullivan Square – Kendall/MIT
10
4
13
27
9
2
8
19
30%
Kendall/MIT – LMA(5) (6)
10
6
17
33
7
4
15
26
21%
6
3
16
25
7
2
9
18
28%
12
5
31
48
9
5
29
43
10%
2030 No-Build
Origin-Destination
Boston Medical Center –
LMA(5)
2030 LPA
Outside Urban Ring Corridor
Alewife – LMA(5)
Source: CTPS Regional Model. Data is for BRT vehicles.
(1)
Walk Time represents average time in minutes to walk from origin to station
(2)
Wait time represents average time in minutes from when person arrives at station until next desired bus arrives at station
(3)
In-vehicle time
(4)
Adjusted
(5)
LMA = Longwood Medical and Academic Area
(6)
From Cambridgeport, BRT buses would travel via busway on GJRR Bridge access University Road via an underpass of BU property.
Buses would then cross Commonwealth Avenue at a new signal at Carlton Street and continue to Mountfort Street.
•
By offering transit riders significant travel time and reliability benefits, the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA
would achieve high levels of ridership in a cost-effective manner. Figure ES-5 below is a graphic
representation of the ridership and travel speed of the proposed Urban Ring project (based on
technical analysis and computer-based travel demand modeling). The size of the yellow dots is
proportional to the forecast number of daily boardings at Urban Ring stations, and the thickness of the
lines between stations is proportional to the number of daily passengers in that segment of the
corridor. The color of the lines indicates the travel speed, with green being fastest, followed by
orange, then red showing the slowest segments. The ridership diagram shows some of the key travel
patterns and high ridership segments of the Urban Ring LPA that demonstrate the benefits that the
new transit connections can offer. Key transit connections, and segments of high ridership, include the
following:
o
Chelsea and Everett. The Urban Ring LPA would operate in busway through most of
Chelsea and Everett, which do not currently have regular rapid transit service. It would
provide fast and frequent connections to the Orange Line at Wellington Station and the Blue
Line at Airport Station, which would enable rapid connections to downtown Boston.
o
Sullivan Square – Lechmere – Kendall Square. The Urban Ring LPA would connect
Sullivan Square (existing Orange Line and bus, and new commuter rail) with Cambridge’s
major employment centers of Lechmere/Cambridgeside and Kendall Square. This connection
is currently difficult to make via the existing transit system.
o
Southwestern Quadrant. Many of the radial transit lines are outside the reach of the dense
cluster of jobs in the southern and western portions of the corridor (particularly in the LMA).
The Urban Ring LPA would connect across this segment of the corridor and provide more
robust connectivity from the Red Line, Orange Line, Green Line and commuter rail to the jobs
and other destinations throughout this segment of the corridor.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-17
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-5 LPA Ridership and Travel Time Summary
Ev e re tt
Wellington
Downtown
Chelsea
Station
Me d f or d
S o merv i lle
Assembly
Square
Ch el s ea
Sullivan
Square
Harvard
Square
Ea st
Bo st o n
New
Lechmere
Airport
Ca mb ri d g e
Logan
West
Garage
Cambridgeport
Kendall /
MIT
Al ls to n
World
Trade
Center
Yawkey
Broadway
BU Bridge
LMA
Ruggles
Washington
Street
Br o ok lin e
So u th Bo s to n
Newmarket
Dudley
Square
Ro xb ury
JFK/UMass
Do rch est er
Proposed Alignment
Average Travel Speed &
2030 Peak Passenger Load
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Width of Line Proportional to
Passenger Loads
0 - 9 mph
10 - 14 mph
> 15 mph
Busway (Surface)
Ridership
(Size of dot is
proportional to number
of daily boardings)
Base map data provided by MassGIS.
0
0.5
1
Miles
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Busway (Tunnel)
Route Option
Proposed Stop
Urban Ring Phase 2
RDEIR/DEIS
LPA Ridership, Passenger Loads,
and Travel Speeds
Page ES-18
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA is projected to provide more direct transit connections, largely by
enabling riders to avoid taking the rapid transit system through congested downtown Boston transfer
stations and peak loading points. Figure ES-6 shows the projected effects on ridership of the other
rapid transit lines and commuter rail system. While the LPA reduces rapid transit ridership on all rapid
transit lines, its effect is most pronounced where it is needed most, which is on the congested Green
Line. Also, by providing new and improved transit connections with commuter rail outside the
downtown core, the LPA will also make commuter rail more attractive to suburban commuters. This
would make system operations more efficient and have regional benefits for transit system capacity.
Figure ES-6 MBTA System Ridership by Line Comparison – Existing, No-Build and LPA
Alternatives
MBTA System Ridership by Line Comparison
500,000
450,000
Urban Ring
Daily Trips
400,000
Blue Line
350,000
Orange Line
300,000
Red Line
Green Line
250,000
Commuter Rail
200,000
Silver Line
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Existing
2030 No-Build
2030 LPA
Alternative
Figure ES-7 depicts the approximate change in rapid transit system segment passenger loads in the
year 2030 with a typical Build Alternative compared to the No-Build. Red indicates a reduction in
passenger loads and green indicates an increase. Similar to the alternative shown, the LPA
significantly reduces passenger loads in the central subway system by attracting transit trips to the
more direct routing afforded by the Urban Ring service.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-19
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-7
Change in Rapid Transit Passenger Loads - Urban Ring Compared to NoBuild Year 2030
Source: CTPS 2007. Red indicates passenger load reduction and green
indicates passenger load increase for a typical Urban Ring Build Alternative
compared to No-Build Alternative.
Regional Transportation System Benefits – In addition to the significant benefits for transit riders
throughout the region, the proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would have other benefits for the regional
transportation system, including reductions to regional automobile trips and benefits for the pedestrian
and bicycle transportation systems.
•
The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would result in a decrease in 41,500 daily auto person trips. This mode
shift should provide some relief for traffic congestion and parking constraints in and around downtown
Boston, as well as improved air quality.
•
The LPA alignment would cross and/or coincide with numerous major shared-use pedestrian/bicycle
paths, both existing and proposed, with convenient connections to Urban Ring Phase 2 stations.
•
The LPA alignment is designed to facilitate improvements for shared-use facilities. The LPA alignment
is designed to accommodate the South Bay Harbor Trail in the Melnea Cass Boulevard corridor and
the proposed Grand Junction Rail-with-Trail project in Cambridge. In addition, the proposed
reconstruction of the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge over the Charles River would build a shared-use
path linking the paths on both sides of the Charles River.
•
The new accessible BRT and commuter rail stations associated with the LPA result in significant
benefits to the pedestrian and bicycle network within the corridor. The site design and architecture of
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-20
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
proposed BRT stations would be integrated with the surrounding pedestrian network, and would
clearly give these locations a new pedestrian character, making the new stations feel safer and more
appealing with new landscaping, lighting, and streetscape improvements.
Environmental Benefits – The proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would have significant benefits for the
environment.
•
As noted above, the proposed LPA would significantly reduce regional automobile traffic by over
41,000 daily person auto trips. The LPA would result in a reduction of 189,400 vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) per day compared to the No-Build Alternative. This would result in improved regional air quality
and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants associated with automobile travel.
For example, greenhouse gases would decrease by approximately 225,800 pounds per day for the
LPA Alternative compared to the No-Build Alternative.
•
The proposed LPA alignment would create new transit connections and new transit nodes. These new
transit nodes would complement the extensive municipal planning and zoning that has been done
throughout the Urban Ring corridor. The Urban Ring Phase 2 service, combined with transitsupportive planning and zoning, would help to facilitate concentrated transit-oriented development
and smart growth patterns around these transit nodes. The density of uses and new transit
connections would enable greater reliance on walking, cycling, and transit, which would have regional
environmental benefits.
Economic Benefits – The proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 would have significant economic benefits for the
Urban Ring corridor and the region as a whole.
•
The proposed LPA would ultimately enhance the economic competitiveness and position of the
Commonwealth by improving transit access, mobility, and connections for 184,000 expected daily
riders throughout the Commonwealth. Residents throughout the greater Boston region, but especially
the nearly half million residents that are expected to live in the Urban Ring corridor by the year 2030,
would have improved transit access to employment, cultural, recreational and other destinations in
the corridor. This is particularly important for the transit-dependent environmental justice (EJ)
populations that are heavily represented in the Urban Ring corridor.
•
Planning and development in the Urban Ring corridor have long been conducted in order to facilitate
and respond to the Urban Ring Phase 2 project. Municipalities in the corridor have implemented
transit-supportive planning and zoning practices for the corridor, and have reflected future Urban Ring
service into master planning efforts, such as plans for Assembly Square, Sullivan Square, Inner Belt,
North Point, Allston, the Yawkey Station area, and Lower Roxbury/Melnea Cass Boulevard corridor,
among others. In addition, institutions and developers have reflected the Urban Ring in their planning
as well.
•
The proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would help to relieve traffic congestion and transportationbased development constraints in more established, densely-developed portions of the Urban Ring
corridor, especially in the corridor’s western and southern quadrants. These areas of the corridor are
home to dense and historic residential neighborhoods and established employment and economic
centers, with a particular concentration in the educational and health care sectors. Major
internationally-known institutions (including Boston University, Harvard University, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Boston University Medical Center, the Longwood Medical and Academic Area
and its member institutions), along with life sciences-oriented research and commercial enterprises
form the Boston area’s “Life Sciences Cluster,” a critical component of the regional and state
economies. This portion of the corridor also includes vital natural resources and park spaces, such as
the Emerald Necklace and the Charles River basin; the Huntington Cultural District, which is a major
component of Boston’s important creative economy; and a number of other unique resources, such
as Fenway Park.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-21
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would provide new rapid transit access in other, less-developed
quadrants of the Urban Ring corridor, especially in the north. The proposed LPA could enable many
former industrial areas that experienced job losses and diminished economic activity over the years to
take better advantage of their proximity to the Boston core and their existing transportation and utility
infrastructure. New developments, including mixed-use developments, are underway or proposed in
areas such as Inner Belt and Assembly Square in Somerville; Sullivan Square and the South Boston
Waterfront in Boston; Everett; and Chelsea. The Urban Ring Phase 2 could help to enhance the
development opportunities in these areas, and to facilitate development that is transit-oriented and
consistent with the smart growth development policies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
the host communities.
•
Construction phases of the Urban Ring LPA would create a significant number of construction jobs,
resulting in positive impacts for the local economy.
3.3
Impacts of the LPA
This section summarizes transportation and environmental impacts of the LPA.
3.3.1
Transportation Impacts
The proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT alignment would travel through the study corridor with a
combination of exclusive busways, bus lanes, and in mixed-traffic. This RDEIR/DEIS describes
transportation impacts (e.g., public transit, roadways, intersections, parking, bicycle and pedestrians,
safety, freight and waterways) in Chapter 4. Key transportation impacts of the LPA are summarized
below.
Traffic Volume Impacts
Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA bus volumes would account for approximately two percent of total traffic
volumes at study intersections system-wide. These increases are minimal and generally represent
nominal impacts to traffic on study area roadways. Moreover, diversions from auto to transit mode
achieved by the LPA would help reduce general background traffic volumes at corridor intersections.
Traffic Operations Impacts
While the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA is anticipated to have net benefits for regional traffic operations by
removing an estimated 41,500 auto person-trips from regional roadways, the addition of frequent bus
operations in the proposed LPA alignment may have some minor local traffic impacts. Generally, the
addition of LPA buses would not adversely affect the operation of study intersections. A total of 194 study
intersections were analyzed under future No-Build and Build conditions using the SYNCHRO2 traffic
analysis software. Under 2030 No-Build conditions, an estimated 100 study intersections would operate
with high levels of delay and congestion (at Level of Service E or F) during the AM peak hour and an
estimated 119 intersections would operate with high levels of delay and congestion (at Level of Service E
or F) during the PM peak hour. Under the LPA, an additional six intersections are expected to operate at
LOS E or F during the AM peak hour, and an additional three intersections are expected to operate at
LOS E or F during the PM peak hour. In some cases, overall intersection Level of Service would improve
as a result of geometric and/or signal timing/phasing improvements. Most intersections experience little or
no impact in LOS as a result of the LPA.
2 SYNCHRO Version 6.14.2007
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-22
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bus signal priority equipment would be installed at many of the signalized intersections in the study
corridor in order to improve transit travel time and reduce overall person-delay.3 With bus signal priority,
the general traffic that operates during the same phases as the bus movements would experience
additional intersection green time. The system is designed to minimize impacts to general traffic,
especially at intersections where side streets are congested. Because of these features, the impact to
general traffic would be minimized under the LPA.
Parking Impacts
The proposed LPA project would require the removal, relocation, redistribution, and reconfiguration of
approximately 800 public and private parking spaces along 13 public roadways within the study corridor.
The largest impact to on-street parking (over 100 spaces) due to proposed bus lanes would occur on
Albany Street in Cambridge; and Albany Street, North Harvard Street, Beacon Street, and Massachusetts
Avenue in Boston. Many of the on-street spaces identified for removal could be accommodated in nearby
off-street parking facilities located in or near Kendall/MIT, Boston University, the LMA, and Boston
Medical Center. Elimination/replacement of on-street parking on study area roadways is being further
defined in coordination with the city transportation and planning departments and would be mitigated in
coordination with local plans as the project progresses.
Two off-street parking facilities would be impacted by BRT station/route alignments. These include the
private parking lots on Spruce Street in Chelsea and at Yawkey Station in Boston. These areas would be
redesigned to minimize the loss of off-street parking. Tunnel and underground station construction may
result in some temporary on-street parking impacts, but after construction, the tunnel portion of the LPA
would have no parking impacts between Ruggles Station and the Sears Rotary area.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts
Currently, numerous recreational and commuting bicycle and pedestrian facilities are located and
adjacent to the Urban Ring study corridor. The busways and bus lanes featured in the LPA have been
coordinated with existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian networks located around the corridor such
as the East Boston Greenway, the East Chelsea Linear Park, Bike to the Sea, Somerville Community
Path, Charles River Basin Trails, Riverway Path to Yawkey, South Bay Harbor Trail, and others. The LPA
does not preclude any of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian improvements in the study corridor. Where BRT
buses are restricted to exclusive busways, the impact to pedestrians and bicyclists would be minimal.
BRT buses traveling in mixed-traffic lanes where MBTA bus service already exists would also have
minimal impacts on bicyclists and pedestrians.
Pedestrian crosswalk distances would not increase at most locations with the addition of busways and
bus lanes because: 1) busways would be located on exclusive right of way, such as CSX rail corridors
that do not have pedestrians, and 2) bus lanes would replace on-street parking and therefore not widen
the roadway cross section. Where new busways are proposed to cross an existing roadway and/or
sidewalk, the design of busways would include minimizing crossing distances, providing storage or refuge
areas as feasible, and signage, markings, and delineation, and pedestrian signals where appropriate.
As part of the LPA, new traffic and pedestrian signals are proposed at eight locations in East Boston,
Boston, and Chelsea. Many existing signals would also be upgraded or adjusted to 1) provide sufficient
time for pedestrians to safety cross the street and improve safety, 2) accommodate BRT vehicles; and 3)
improve operations for general traffic.
Construction of the LPA tunnel between Ruggles Station and the Sears Rotary may result in temporary
re-routing of pedestrian and bicycle traffic at a limited number of locations. Tunnel portals would be
3 Bus signal priority technology allows signals to provide additional “green” time to specific intersection approaches when Urban
Ring buses approach signalized intersections.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-23
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
designed to prevent pedestrians, bicyclists, and general traffic from entering. Devices such as gates,
lights, signage, and video detection would be defined during subsequent engineering and design.
No new pedestrian impacts are anticipated where BRT buses would serve existing transit and/or
redeveloped commuter rail stations. For street level stations such as the Melnea Cass Boulevard the new
center-median busway, shelters, plantings and crosswalks planned in coordination with the City and
neighborhood would help provide an appropriate pedestrian scale to the existing broad roadway corridor.
Freight and Navigable Waterways Impacts
The Urban Ring corridor contains a number of major generators of freight and goods movement via air,
trucks and rail, such as Logan Airport, fuel tanks along Chelsea Creek, and fuel tanks, produce handling,
and numerous industrial businesses in Chelsea and Everett. The proposed Project would travel adjacent
to active freight rail tracks or share roadways used for freight transport at three locations in the study
corridor: the East Boston Haul Road, the Grand Junction Railroad corridor, and Beacon Park Yard. The
LPA would not impact freight movement along the East Boston Haul Road or the Grand Junction Railroad
corridor. Although the Project does not entail a final proposal for an alignment to Allston, one alternative
alignment connects beneath the Mass Pike viaduct and runs along the northern edge of Beacon Park
Yard at rail yard level. This alignment would require relocation and/or consolidation of some operations in
Beacon Park Yard. The opportunity to effect these changes appears more favorable with the recent
agreement between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and CSX, the freight rail carrier currently
operating in the rail yard and along portions of the corridor.
Navigable waterways along the Urban Ring Phase 2 corridor include the Charles River, the Mystic River,
the Malden River, Chelsea Creek, and Boston Inner Harbor. No project impacts would occur at Chelsea
Creek, the Mystic River, or the Boston Inner Harbor because the LPA utilizes existing bridge and tunnel
infrastructure without modifications. New bridge construction for the busway over the Malden River would
be coordinated with planned replacement of the adjacent Route 16 bridge by the Department of
Conservation and Recreation (DCR). Modifications to the existing Grand Junction Railroad Bridge over
the Charles River would be conducted without adverse impact on existing river uses.
3.3.2
Environmental Impacts
This RDEIR/DEIS describes environmental impacts (land use and economic activity, displacement and
relocations, visual resources and aesthetics, air quality, noise and vibration, plant and animal species and
habitats, water resources and wetlands, energy, geology and soils, hazardous materials, electric and
magnetic fields (EMF) and moving metal, public service and utilities, historic and archeological issues,
parks and open space, and construction) in Chapter 5. Key environmental impacts of the LPA are
summarized below.
Economic Impacts
The Urban Ring Project is important to the economy of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the
improved transit access and mobility it would provide. Additionally, the construction and operation of the
Urban Ring would have a significant economic impact on the region. A regional economic impact model
(RIMS II) was used to estimate the total economic impacts of the Project’s construction and operations
expenditures for a three-county region including Suffolk, Norfolk, and Middlesex counties. The model
estimated a total output of $4,149 million due to construction, and $83 million for Project operations (year
2007 dollars). The Project is estimated to generate 19,505 construction jobs and 384 permanent jobs.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-24
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Displacement and Relocation Impacts
There would be no residential takings or business relocations associated with the Project.4 Construction
and implementation of the project would require approximately 27 acres comprised of multiple narrow
property takings along the LPA alignment for construction of project elements including BRT busways and
BRT stations. Approximately 43 percent of the right-of-way (ROW) impacts occur along railroad ROWs,
33 percent are industrial commercial, and 24 percent are institutional/municipal. The acquisition program
would be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, as amended.
Visual Resources and Aesthetic Impacts
Site planning explorations indicate that development of Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT station shelters at each
of the selected locations is feasible without adverse visual/aesthetic impact. Specific design elements for
each station shelter will be coordinated within the local context at later phases of engineering and final
environmental analysis. Construction of BRT busways, and mixed traffic and exclusive bus lanes at
various locations along the corridor is not expected to result in adverse visual impacts at any location. In
general, the construction of BRT station shelters and other Project improvements have the potential to
enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the locations where such facilities are planned.
Air Quality Impacts
The Project would improve air quality at the intersection, municipal, and regional levels compared to the
No-Build and Baseline Build Alternatives, largely due to the project’s ability to divert automobile trips to
public transportation. Air quality analyses of existing and future alternatives were conducted in
accordance with Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) and U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidance and air quality modeling procedures. A microscale
analysis indicated that maximum 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations remain the same for Project Build
and No-Build scenarios, but future year CO concentrations are generally below existing levels due
primarily to future year emission controls required by Federal regulations. A mesoscale analysis
demonstrated that the LPA exhibited the lowest emissions of all future cases, while the No-Build case
exhibited the highest emissions because the ability of the LPA to increase transit ridership reduces the
number of individual motor vehicles in the project area.
Noise and Vibration Impacts
Construction noise and vibration vary greatly depending on the construction process, type and condition
of equipment used, and layout of the construction site. For the LPA, the primary locations for assessing
construction noise and vibration impacts would be at the proposed portals for the tunnel boring machine,
the proposed underground stations in the Fenway/LMA, and at MIT. The potential for construction
disturbing vibration-sensitive equipment is of specific concern in the LMA and at MIT. The potential for
construction noise impact would be minimal for commercial and industrial land use, with impact screening
distances of 70 feet and 40 feet, respectively. The potential for temporary construction noise impact
would be limited to locations within about 125 feet of the corridor for residential land use. However, the
potential for noise impact from nighttime construction could extend to residences as far as 400 feet.
Potential construction noise impacts would be evaluated during engineering and design of the project, as
more details of the construction scenarios are known, including potential haul routes for excavated
material.
Noise-sensitive land use along the project corridor was identified based on preliminary alignment
drawings, aerial photographs, GIS data, visual surveys, and input from abutters. Areas adjacent to the
4 One of the Allston route options still under consideration would impact an existing business at the north end of Malvern Street,
Boston, only if selected as the recommended option. Analysis of Allston route options is ongoing.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-25
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
proposed corridor include single-family residences, multi-family residences, non-residential (commercial)
and a number of institutional land uses, including the LMA, MIT and others. The analysis indicates that no
locations are projected to have severe noise impacts.
Potential noise impacts at stations were also evaluated. Because of the high existing noise levels at the
proposed station locations and the limited amount of noise generating activities, no noise impact is
projected for any of the station locations on any of the alternatives.
The only portions of the proposed alternatives with the potential for vibration impact from bus operations
are the LMA and MIT. However, based on the ambient vibration measurement program conducted in
these locations, the bus operations are not projected to generate vibration levels higher than existing
vibration generated by current bus operations, trucks, and deliveries to buildings.
As the project proceeds through preliminary engineering to support a FEIS, the noise and vibration
impacts will be further refined.
Plant and Animal Species and Habitats Impacts
There are no federal or state-listed threatened or endangered species known to occur within the Urban
Ring corridor. The most recent Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas shows that there is one small area
of priority habitat of rare species and estimated habitat of rare wildlife located in Sector 1, in East Boston.5
The proposed LPA alignment follows abandoned railroad right of way and existing roadways in this area
and is not expected to have any impacts.
Water Resources and Wetlands Impacts
The water resources in the Urban Ring corridor consist of Boston Inner Harbor and the following five
rivers: Malden River, Chelsea River (also known as “Chelsea Creek”), Mystic River, Charles River, and
Muddy River. The Urban Ring corridor includes areas that may be located on land areas, particularly filled
tidelands, subject to jurisdiction pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91 – the Public
Waterfront Act. Additionally, there are a number of local, state, and federal jurisdictional wetlands along
the project corridor. Any alteration of the wetlands or encroachment within a 100-foot buffer around the
wetlands would be prohibited. Therefore, coordination with both the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and the local conservation commissions, which administer the Massachusetts
Wetlands Protection Act, would be anticipated. In locations where the Urban Ring alignment utilizes
existing roadways and rail corridors, no significant impacts to water resources or wetlands are anticipated.
Energy Impacts
The impacts of the proposed BRT service on the regional energy economy of the Boston Metropolitan
Area, and the state of Massachusetts, are expected to be positive. Direct impacts to the energy economy
would result from the anticipated reduction in gasoline and diesel vehicle fuel usage that would result
from the reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on regional roadways. The BRT vehicles are planned
to be powered by hybrid electric drive. Gasoline, diesel fuel, and electrical energy would be consumed
during the construction of new BRT stations and other infrastructure, but this is expected to be an
insignificant amount in comparison to background growth in regional energy demand. Operation of the
system would result in a net decrease in energy consumption due to the significant mode shift from auto
to transit achieved by the Project.
5 Source: Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. October 1, 2006 (Effective Date). Massachusetts Natural Heritage
Atlas, 12th Edition. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-26
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hazardous Materials Impacts
A hazardous materials investigation was conducted to identify potential releases of oil and/or hazardous
materials (OHM) that may have occurred within the corridor. Existing transit stations where no
construction is proposed would not affect, or be affected by, the potential presence of site contamination.
The analysis indicated that 19 potential new BRT bus stop locations are in the vicinity of at least one open
DEP site.
Numerous 21 E sites are located in the vicinity of the Urban Ring corridor and several of these sites are
owned by the MBTA. The MTBA is currently working to remediate several of these sites, including the
Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility, Wellington Station, and Sullivan Square Station. In comments
submitted in response to the Expanded ENF filed on the Urban Ring in 2001, DEP recommended that the
MBTA consider combining these sites using the single Special Project Designation provisions outlined
under 21E and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP).
Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Impacts
The Urban Ring routes would travel through and serve institutions where sensitive research and medical
equipment is located and used in the context of academic and commercial research laboratory
experiments, and medical diagnostics and treatment. These areas include the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), Boston University (BU), the Longwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA), and the
Boston City Hospital Medical Center (BMC). The two distinct features of transportation technology that
may give rise to EMF and its possible interference with such facilities are (1) the “moving metal” of the
vehicle chassis, and (2) the EMF associated with the electrical currents that are used for the propulsion
system. The EMF levels associated with the project alternatives were estimated by distance from the
proposed busway tunnel and bus lanes, and the results for the LPA showed minimal increases in EMF
levels during both construction and operation of the Urban Ring Phase 2 unlikely to have significant
impact.
Public Service and Utilities Impacts
The communities within the Urban Ring corridor are highly developed and have well-established public
service systems and utilities networks. Public services that could be affected by the project include fire,
police, emergency medical service, solid waste collection and snow removal. Areas of mixed traffic are
generally predicted to result in negligible impacts to public service requirements because the increase in
bus traffic would be offset by an overall reduction in passenger vehicle traffic from the Urban Ring project.
Bus lanes would be open to use by emergency vehicles, which is a potential project benefit, particularly in
areas of the corridor with significant existing traffic congestion.
No significant impacts on solid waste collection and disposal services are anticipated. Minor alterations in
hauling routes may be required but should not significantly impact their services. In mixed traffic areas
and areas with proposed surface bus lanes and busways the anticipated, construction would have little or
no impact on existing utilities. For the proposed LPA tunnel there would be a combination of utility
protection and relocations particularly in the area of the tunnel portals and underground stations. This
includes some main utility trunk lines, interceptors, deep systems and underground conduits. As the
Project proceeds through preliminary engineering to support a FEIS, the impacts to utilities will be further
refined.
Historic and Archeological Impacts
A documentary reconnaissance survey of historic resources was completed for the Project to identify
previously recorded individual properties, areas, and districts that may be eligible for listing in the State
Register and National Register. A reconnaissance archaeological survey was conducted to identify areas
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-27
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
within the Urban Ring corridor that are considered to be archaeologically sensitive. The results address
historic resources in the Urban Ring Area of Potential Effect (APE).6 The greatest numbers of historic
resources within the APE are located in Boston, followed by Cambridge, Brookline, Somerville, Chelsea,
Everett, and Medford in descending order. A total of 1,068 individual properties and 88 historic districts
and areas within the Urban Ring Phase 2 APE were identified for all the alternatives, options, and
stations. While the APE for the Project includes numerous architectural resources, it is likely in most
instances that few of the resources would be physically affected by the project. Those that may potentially
be affected are primarily roadways and bridges.
Preliminary Finding of Effect
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, requires federal agencies to
consider the effects of their undertakings on properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The findings may be “No Historic Properties
Affected,” “No Adverse Effect,” or “Adverse Effect”. An adverse effect is defined as “alteration to the
characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register” (36
CFR 800.16(I)). Effects can be direct or indirect and can be immediate or reasonably foreseeable:
cumulative, later in time, or at a distance.
The majority of the Urban Ring LPA is not expected to have any impact on historic properties located
along the proposed corridor. By utilizing the existing street network and operating in bus lanes and mixed
traffic within the existing curb lines, the LPA would avoid historic properties throughout all but a small
number of locations. There are specific elements of the LPA that may have direct and/or indirect impacts
to historic properties that may result in a “finding of effect” and in some cases the effect may be
considered “adverse”. Each of these locations was included in the LPA only after an extensive review of
alignment alternatives and options seeking to avoid or mitigate the potential effects while still addressing
the purpose and need for the Project. In most cases, the impacts are temporary, associated with
construction and will result in a finding of no adverse effect.
Temporary and permanent adverse impacts have been identified on a preliminary basis at locations listed
in Table ES-4. The proposed busway adjacent to Revere Beach Parkway in Everett would introduce an
additional, parallel bus-only roadway to this NR property that may result in direct (construction) and
indirect (visual) impacts to this resource. However, the Revere Beach Parkway corridor in this area
adjacent to the proposed busway is a general use parkway currently used by trucks and buses and the
additional two-way busway is not expected to result in a finding of adverse effect. The proposed shift of
bus traffic from Albany Street to a busway within the CRX right of way would introduce new traffic patterns
near the Fort Washington Historic District in Cambridge and would require further evaluation to determine
if there is an adverse effect to this property. The proposed crossing of the Charles River on a rebuilt
Grand Junction Railroad bridge may result in temporary direct (construction) and indirect impacts to the
Charles River Basin Historic District and the BU Bridge. Careful review of the proposed design and
construction methods for the rebuilt Grand Junction Railroad Bridge will be needed to determine if these
impacts are an “adverse effect”.
The construction of the portals for the proposed tunnel through the Longwood Medical Area would result
in temporary construction and visual impacts to the Back Bay Yard, Riverway Administration Building and
the Landmark Center, resulting in a finding of effect on these properties. However, the impacts are
temporary and upon completion of construction the area would be restored to its current or improved
conditions, resulting in a finding of no adverse effect. The proposed tunnel and underground stations
beneath the Fenway and Longwood Medical Area were carefully evaluated to determine whether or not
construction of the tunnel would result in vibrations that could directly impact above ground historic
resources. The tunnel portals, alignments, and station locations of the LPA were modified during
conceptual design to avoid any long-term adverse impacts on historic resources. Preliminary analysis of
6 The APE extends 50 to 100 feet from the centerline, depending on present use, and 150 feet around stations.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-28
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
tunnel operations has indicated that the passage of rubber-tired buses through the tunnel would not result
in any vibration that could impact above ground historic resources. During preliminary engineering and
final evaluation of environmental impacts, additional analysis of subsurface conditions and tunnel
construction methods will be conducted to confirm these preliminary findings, resulting in a finding of no
adverse effect.
Further survey and evaluation is needed in the Allston/Harvard area of the LPA to identify historic
properties. Furthermore, the location of each stand alone BRT bus shelter should be reviewed to confirm
that there is no impact to surrounding historic properties. If any shelter is found to have an impact options
for relocation or design should be considered. Further archaeological investigations are recommended
wherever the LPA traverses new alignment (i.e. busways, the proposed tunnel) to determine whether
there would be any impacts on significant archaeological sites.
As the project moves forward and the design is refined, continued coordination and consultation will occur
to insure that project planning takes into account potential impacts on historic properties and that all
measures to avoid or mitigate impacts and adverse effects are considered. If the Project results in a
finding of adverse effect on historic properties, measures to avoid and/or mitigate the adverse effect will
be developed through consultation and implemented through a memorandum of agreement.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-29
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-4:
Survey
No.
Preliminary Effect Finding for Historic Resources within the LPA
MHC No.
EVR.AA
CAM.AJ/
BOS.CA
CAM.D
BOS.JE
BKL.T
BOS.JD
BOS.IO/
BKL.X
530
588
BOS.7494
589
593
BOS.78467848
594
BOS.7849
600
BOS.7505
601
BOS.7514
602
BOS.7506
603
BOS.7507
604
BOS.7507
605
BOS.7511
606
BOS.7509
607
BOS.7515
608
BOS.7508
609
BOS.7512
610
BOS.7510
611
BOS.7513
692
BOS.7563
693
BOS.7536
Property Name
Revere Beach Parkway
Impacts
construction/
visual
Effect
No Adverse Effect (NAE)
Charles River Basin HD
construction/
visual
Construction/
visual
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
visual
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
vibration
construction/
visual
construction/
visual
Temporary during construction
Fort Washington HD
Emerald Necklace Parks
Longwood Historic District
Sections of Back Bay Fens
Olmsted Park System
BU Bridge, Cottage Farm Bridge, Brookline Street
Bridge over Charles River
Edward A. Bangs Double House (now Collins
Building, WIT)
Rodgers Hall, Building 15, Wentworth Institute of
Technology
Wentworth Hall, Wentworth Institute of Technology,
Power House and Watson Hall
Huntington Avenue District #5 Fire Station, Boston
Fire Department Engine 37
Westcourt Apartment Building
Massachusetts College of Pharmacy & Health
Science
Angell Memorial Animal Hospital (now Harvard
Police)
Harvard University School of Dental Medicine
Harvard University Dental School and Hospital
Harvard Medical School, Bacteriology & Pathology,
Collis P. Huntington Memorial Lab
Harvard Medical School Anatomy and Histology,
Building B
Boston Lying-In Hospital
Harvard Medical School Administrative Building,
Warren Anatomical Museum
Harvard Medical School, Sears Memorial
Laboratories, Pharmacology and Hygiene
Harvard Medical School, Morgan Building,
Physiological Chemistry, Building C
Children's Hospital
Sears, Roebuck, and Co. Mail Order Store (Landmark
Center)
Back Bay Yard, Riverway Admin. Building (currently
Boston Youth Fund Headquarters)
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Permanent
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Temporary during construction
Page ES-30
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Parks and Open Space Impacts
Parks along the proposed LPA route would experience increased bus traffic and associated noise, but in
heavily developed and trafficked areas, the overall impact is not expected to be significant or affect the
park’s use. Locations that do not require “use” of parks or any change in use, the project would not
impede the public’s use or enjoyment of the park. Park users may experience some increased bus traffic,
noise, and vibration from operation on the adjacent roadways, but the surrounding roadways are currently
heavily used by all types of traffic and impacts are expected to be minor. Increased bus traffic from the
Project occurs in some locations but is not expected to result in a significant change over existing
conditions. In other locations the LPA would result in a net decrease in bus traffic through and adjacent to
parks, notably where the proposed Fenway/LMA BRT tunnel enables a reduction in bus volume on
surface roadways and parkways through the historic Emerald Necklace Park in the Fenway neighborhood
of Boston.
Assessment of the environmental consequences of the Project to public parklands and open space was
based on the extent to which the Project “uses” a Section 4(f) and/or a Section 6(f) resource or whether it
is a “conversion” under Massachusetts Article 97. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT)
Act of 1966 establishes the requirement for consideration of park and recreational lands, wildlife and
waterfowl refuges, and historic sites in transportation project development. Before approving a project
that “uses” a Section 4(f) resource, FTA must find that there is no prudent and feasible alternative and
that the selected alternative minimizes harm to the resource. Section 6(f) of the DOT Act applies much
the same procedural standards to publicly-owned parks and open space purchased with federal funds
under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) program. Several of the parks and open spaces
located along the Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT corridor have received LWCF monies.7
In Massachusetts, Article 97 of the 1972 Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution requires that
any “conversion” of public parks and open spaces is subject to approval of a two-thirds vote of both
houses of the Massachusetts General Court (Legislature). Conversion has been historically considered to
occur when a transfer of property rights occurs, such as with a temporary or permanent easement or
property taking. Legislative approval is only granted upon the written petition of the municipality (or in the
case of a state-owned parcel, the state agency) to the Legislature. The Massachusetts Executive Office
of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) developed an “Article 97 Land Disposition Policy” to guide the
land disposition process for municipalities and agencies of the EEA.
The Urban Ring Phase 2 project would directly impact the following areas of publicly owned open space
along the Urban Ring Corridor. These impacts would require a Section 4(f) evaluation and Article 97
conversion approval. The Section 4(f) evaluations, which describe resources affected, discusses direct
(property acquisition) and indirect impacts to these resources from project alternatives, identifies and
evaluates alternatives that avoid such impacts, and discusses mitigation measures to minimize
unavoidable adverse effects, are provided in Chapter 7.
•
Revere Beach Parkway – Parkland along the north side of Revere Beach Parkway between
Sweetser Circle and Santilli Circle in Everett may be converted to transportation use. During
construction, 3.06 acres of parkland would be converted temporarily and existing conditions would be
restored once construction is completed. A total of approximately 1.90 acres of parkland would be
permanently converted to transportation use.
•
Fort Washington Park – The Park would be subject to visual disturbance during construction, and
increased noise and vibration during operation. During construction, 0.04 acres of parkland would be
converted temporarily and existing conditions would be restored once construction is completed. A
total of approximately 0.03 acres of parkland would be permanently converted to transportation use.
7 Website: National Park Service, Land and Water Conservation Fund. Detailed List of Grants by County: Massachusetts.
http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm, May 2008.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-31
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
Memorial Drive – The Memorial Drive overpass, part of the DCR parkway system, would be modified
to accommodate beneath it a busway, multi-use path (by others) and the relocated existing railroad
track. The overpass would be reconstructed and widened by approximately 15 feet. During
construction, 0.04 acres of parkland may be converted temporarily and existing conditions would be
restored once construction is completed. A total of approximately 0.01 acres of parkland may be
permanently converted to transportation use.
•
The Grand Junction Railroad – The LPA proposes a two-way busway connecting across the
existing Grand Junction Railroad track. The two-way busway (on the southeast side of the Grand
Junction Railroad single track) would connect under Memorial Drive, across the Charles River on a
reconfigured and rebuilt railroad bridge, and over Storrow Drive. This would impact park spaces in the
Charles River Reservation on the Cambridge and Boston sides of the Charles River. During
construction, 0.08 acres of parkland would be converted temporarily and existing conditions would be
restored once construction is completed. A total of 0.03 acres of parkland would be permanently
converted to transportation use.
•
The Grand Junction Railroad Bridge – Modifications to the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge may
affect the water sheet of the publicly-owned Charles River. During construction, 0.11 acres of the
water sheet would be converted temporarily and existing conditions would be restored once
construction is completed. A total of 0.03 acres of the water sheet would be permanently converted to
transportation use in the form of extending the length of the existing bridge piers to accommodate the
reconfigured bridge deck. No new bridge piers are anticipated.
•
Landmark Center – Construction of a busway tunnel portal at the Landmark Center would require
heavy construction adjacent to the north and west sides of the Back Bay Yard building, and
temporary relocation of a segment of the proposed multi-use path. Impacts in the park portion of the
project area would be temporary and construction related, and existing conditions would be restored
once the tunnel is completed and the surface areas above it restored. No significant permanent
adverse impacts to parks and open spaces are anticipated from this project element, although it
would result in a change in use of existing parkland. During construction, 0.12 acres of parkland may
be converted temporarily and existing conditions would be restored once construction is completed.
None of the parkland would be permanently converted to transportation use.
•
Galaxy Park – Galaxy Park is a park that was acquired and improved by the Cambridge
Redevelopment Authority using Department of Housing and Urban Development funds as an open
space in 1990. It features a distinctive sculpture in the center, which acts as a water fountain in the
summer and a steam fountain in the winter. The LPA proposes a short busway connection between
Third Street and Main Street near Kendall Square. To facilitate the connection between Third Street
and Main Street, 0.11 acres of parkland would be converted temporarily and existing conditions would
be restored once construction is completed. A total of approximately 0.10 acres of parkland (Galaxy
Park) would be permanently converted to transportation use. During construction, there would be
visual disturbance near the fountain and seating areas of the park and access via the western side of
the park may be limited. However, pedestrian access to the park would be maintained. During
operation, the park could experience increased noise and vibration due to bus traffic, but the project
is not likely to adversely impact the future use of the park, as compared to its current use.
General use DCR Parkways (allowing mixed traffic) that are used for short distances by the LPA project
alignment include:
•
Fellsway Route 28 between Wellington and Assembly Square;
•
Larz Anderson Bridge; and
•
Columbia Road between Edward Everett Square and JFK/UMass station.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-32
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For DCR parkways that are classified as General Use Parkways (allow general mixed traffic), no adverse
environmental consequences associated with bus use within existing roadways are anticipated. The
proposed LPA tunnel in the Fenway/LMA allows the BRT routes to avoid use of the surface Fenway and
Riverway parkways that are designated pleasure vehicle only.
Construction Impacts
Temporary impacts due to construction would primarily include traffic, noise, vibration, air quality, and
visual/aesthetic impacts. Construction impacts would be most prominent for proposed tunnel portal and
station locations. It is assumed that the running tunnels would be constructed by methods such as TBM
or SEM that do not require surface cut and cover.
Construction impacts would be mitigated to the greatest extent possible to minimize disruption to adjacent
parklands and open space. To address potential air quality impacts during construction, and as required
by the DEP/EOT Administrative Consent Order, the project proponent is committed to the retrofit of offroad diesel construction equipment during project construction and the use of low sulfur diesel fuel.
4.0
Alternatives Evaluation
The development and evaluation of Urban Ring alternatives is described in Chapter 3. Below is a brief
overview of the RDEIR/DEIS alternatives evaluation process and results.
4.1
Overview of Alternatives Analysis Process
Figure ES-8 summarizes the RDEIR/DEIS process and sequence of events. The RDEIR/DEIS process
began with the DEIR LPA. Based on the MEPA Certificate and scoping letter, as well as stakeholder
comments, the RDEIR/DEIS alternatives analysis process investigated and evaluated some 60 new
routing variants. These variants were used to create nine Build Alternatives, followed by three short-listed
“Hybrid Alternatives” that combined the best segments and features of the nine Build Alternatives. The
best-performing segments from the short-listed alternatives were then mixed and matched and updated to
create an optimal project alignment identified as the recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
This new LPA for the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS responds to the documented need in the corridor
to improve transit service, support future development, and achieve highly cost-effective transit service.
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works (EOTPW) has developed the
proposed LPA alignment through the Urban Ring corridor based on a detailed alternatives analysis
process, which included thorough technical evaluation and broad-based public involvement with the
project’s Citizens Advisory Committee, neighborhood and advocacy groups, the general public, and other
stakeholders. A brief description of the alternatives process follows.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-33
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-8 RDEIR/DEIS Flow Chart of Alternatives Process
Winter 2006-07
VARIANTS
A-1
A-2
Spring/Summer 2007
Spring 2008
ALTERNATIVES &
OPTIONS
Baseline
A-3
Etc.
B-1
B-2
Etc.
C-1
C-2
Etc.
Total of 60
variants tested
4.2
Fall/Winter 2007-08
HYBRIDS
1
RECOMMEND
H1
LPA
2
H2
2A
H2T
3
Sub-Options
3A
3B
3C
4
4A
Evaluation of Alternatives
All Build Alternatives assume year 2030 conditions. To determine the relative impacts and benefits of
each alternative, the analysis results for the 2030 Build Alternatives were compared to analysis results for
the 2030 No-Build and Baseline Alternatives. A brief description of each alternative follows.
No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative represents the transportation system in Greater Boston that is expected to be in
place in the year 2030 in the absence of Urban Ring Phase 2. It is comprised of the existing MBTA
system with the addition of all the projects contained in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). These
projects include the Green Line light rail extension to Medford and branch to Union Square;
improvements to the Orange Line Assembly Square station; a series of planned transit improvements on
the North Shore; Silver Line Phase III; Fairmont Line improvements; the completion of the Greenbush
Commuter Rail Line; and other smaller projects.
Build Alternatives
Build Alternatives 1, 2, and 2A are surface alternatives and Build Alternatives 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, and 4A
are tunnel options. A lower cost Baseline Alternative was also evaluated for comparison purposes.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-34
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Baseline Alternative – The “Baseline Alternative” is a relatively lower cost alternative against which the
benefits of an LPA are compared when seeking federal New Starts funding. For the Urban Ring Phase 2
the Baseline Alternative includes a network of surface CT bus routes that provides the same market
coverage and service frequency as the Build Alternatives.
Build Alternative 1 – This is an all-surface alignment that contains the lowest percentage of dedicated
running way for the BRT and proposes no tunnels or underground stations. It is modeled as closely as
possible upon the LPA presented in the 2004 DEIR, but has been modified as necessary to reflect new
projects and planning initiatives, changes to other projects, and changes to the project scope, including
addition of a branch between the BU Bridge and Harvard Square.
Build Alternative 2 – This is an improved all-surface alignment (no tunnels) that is intended to increase
the percentage of exclusive BRT running ways compared to Alternative 1. This is accomplished primarily
by continuing the busway adjacent to the Rockport commuter rail line westerly all the way from Chelsea
and into Everett.
Build Alternative 2A – Similar to Build Alternative 2, this option is an all-surface alignment (no tunnels or
underground stations) with an increased percentage of exclusive BRT running way compared to
Alternative 1. Option 2A is identical to Alternative 2 except it utilizes the Massachusetts Avenue Bridge to
cross the Charles River instead of a modified Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.
Build Alternative 3 – Build Alternative 3 features an all-surface alignment on the north side of the
Charles River, but adds a mainline tunnel through the LMA between Ruggles Station and the MBTA
commuter rail station at Yawkey to address congestion and limited available roadway capacity in that
area. Tunnel sections for Alternative 3, which include two optional alignments on Mountfort Street, are
limited to the most highly congested areas of the corridor.
Build Alternative 3A – This alternative was developed to minimize the cost and disruption involved in
constructing the tunnel options in Alternative 3, while still achieving the primary service goals and
objectives of the project. This alternative is identical to Alternative 3, except that tunneling would be
limited to the LMA tunnel from Leon Street to Yawkey Station, with the Mountfort Street tunnel options in
Alternative 3 replaced with surface routes.
Build Alternative 3B – Option 3B minimizes the cost and potential disruption of constructing either of the
Mountfort Street tunnel options (Alternative 3). South of the Charles River, the Mountfort Street tunnel
options in Alternative 3 are replaced with surface routes. Compared to Alternative 3 and Options 3A and
3C, Option 3B involves the least amount of tunnel construction in order to reduce costs and minimize the
impacts on the air rights Parcel 7 and traffic flow on Beacon Street.
Build Alternative 3C – Option 3C connects the two tunnels of Alternative 3 into one slightly longer
overall tunnel to eliminate the need for additional tunnel portals and minimize the impacts upon the air
rights Parcel 7 development.
Build Alternative 4 – Alternative 4 includes a significantly longer tunnel through the LMA commencing at
Melnea Cass Boulevard and reaching north to Cambridge and west to Allston. This alternative includes
six to eight underground transit stations, including a deep mined station beneath the existing Ruggles
Station and other underground stations in Boston and Brookline. Alternative 4 would minimize surface
impacts, but do so at a significantly greater overall cost.
Build Alternative 4A – This alternative explores the possibility of maintaining connectivity with the Green
Line branches, as Alternative 4 accomplishes, but with fewer stations. Key features that distinguish this
alternative include a Park Drive tunnel alignment between the LMA and BU and a longer length of tunnel
in Cambridge.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-35
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Build Hybrid Alternatives
The Hybrid Alternatives combined the best segments and features of surface alternatives (primarily
Alternative 2A) and tunnel alternatives (primarily Alternative 3B), and mixed and matched them to
maximize ridership and other benefits for a reasonable cost. The selection of the most productive and
efficient segments from previous alternatives was based on an evaluation of multiple factors, including
ridership, cost, dedicated ROW impacts, environmental justice populations, and development
characteristics. The Hybrid Alternatives include H1 H2, and H2T. The H1 and H2 Alternatives are surface
routes, and H2T includes a tunnel through the LMA.
Build Hybrid Alternative H1 – This alternative is most similar to Build Alternative 2, except at Wellington
Circle (Medford) and the Grand Junction Railroad right-of-way and Albany Street (Cambridgeport), where
it follows the same alignment as Alternative 1. Alternative H1 uses the Mountfort Street surface routing in
Brookline; follows Brookline Avenue (not Park Drive) in Boston; and does not provide bus lanes in the
Fenway/LMA, on Dudley Street, or on Mount Vernon Street in Boston.
Build Hybrid Alternative H2 – Hybrid 2 blends Build Alternative 2 and some surface features of
Alternative 3 and their sub-options. It is similar to Hybrid 1, except it includes a station at Wood Island
(East Boston) instead of at Neptune Road; it crosses the Malden River (Malden) via the proposed
Telecom Boulevard Bridge; it takes a direct route via Assembly Square to Sullivan Square (Somerville); it
traverses an Inner Belt route (Cambridge) to reach New Lechmere (same as Alternative 3B); it traverses
Albany Street (Cambridge) with bus lanes in both directions; and it connects to a surface busway beneath
the Massachusetts Turnpike viaduct (Allston).
Build Hybrid Alternative H2T – Hybrid 2T is identical to Hybrid 2 except in the area of the Longwood
Medical and Academic Area (LMA), where it includes a 1.5-mile BRT tunnel and underground station
between Yawkey Station and Ruggles Station. (The “T” designation in “Hybrid 2T” is for this tunnel.)
Modifications of these Hybrid Alternatives were made within specific areas to maximize project benefits
while minimizing project costs in the development of the LPA. The LPA is most similar to Alternatives 3B
and H2T. Table ES-4 summarizes ridership, right-of-way, and cost impacts for all alternatives. Key
conclusions from the comparison are summarized below.
•
The LPA would have approximately 184,000 daily riders. Of all the alternatives, the LPA results in the
largest number of system wide linked transit trips (1,376,800 trips per day). This represents almost a
3 percent increase over systemwide ridership of the Baseline Alternative.
•
The LPA provides the largest auto trip reduction of all the alternatives. The LPA would result in a
reduction of 41,500 automobile trips per day.
•
The LPA provides significant time travel savings compared to the Baseline and other build
alternatives. The LPA results in total travel time savings of approximately 30,000 hours daily
compared to the Baseline Alternative.
•
The alternatives considered have a very wide range of capital costs directly related to the amount of
busway tunnel and the number of underground stations. The LPA contains approximately 1.5 miles of
busway tunnel extending from Leon Street next to Ruggles Station on the east to the Landmark
Center on the west, with two underground stations near its mid-point in the Longwood Medical Area,
and at the Fenway Station of the Green Line D Connection. By comparison, the FTA Baseline
Alternative contains no exclusive running way for the BRT.
•
The LPA contains what the analysis determined is the most cost effective combination of busway
tunnel and underground stations.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-36
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-5:
Urban Ring Phase 2 Year 2030 Alternatives Comparison
2030 ALTERNATIVE
Criteria
Baseline
Alternative
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 2a
Alt 3
Alt 3a
Alt 3b
Alt 3c
Alt 4
Alt 4a
H1(1)
H2
H2T
LPA(2)
N/A
108,500
140,300
140,200
149,000
149,300
157,800
158,600
176,100
140,800
159,800
164,300
170,300
184,000
Auto Trip Reduction(4)
17,300
28,500
33,100
33,000
34,100
33,600
35,600
35,200
36,800
29,000
31,800
33,900
38,200
40,900
Travel Time Savings(5)
N/A
23,000
23,000
25,000
25,000
27,000
22,000
24,000
24,000
Urban Ring BRT Service
Boardings(3)
Capital Cost in million (2007
Dollars)(6)
Cost Effectiveness(7)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
17,000
19,000
19,000
26,000
30,000
$444 mi
$708 mi
$802
$755
$3,756
$2,465
$2,089
$4,254
$6,669
$7,614
$783
$723
$2,126
$2,400
N/A
$6-8
$5-7
$5-7
$36-40
$26-30
$23-25(8)
$32-36
$38-43
$43-46
$4 -6
$4 -6
$16 -18 (9)
$15-20
H1 = Hybrid 1; Alternative; H2 = Hybrid 2 Alternative; H3 = Hybrid 2T Alternative; N/A = Not applicable
LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative.
Urban Ring ridership is shown for BRT service only.
Auto trip reduction relative to the No-Build Condition.
Preliminary daily user benefit savings (hours) compared to Baseline year 2030.
Cost expressed in 2007 constant dollars exclusive of debt services with a 30% contingency and including design and construction management, administration and insurance. Note that cost estimates are preliminary and do not yet have
FTA approval.
Cost effectiveness is given in cost per user hour benefit. The FTA New Starts “medium” standard is $16-24. The cost-effectiveness calculation for the LPA and the project alternatives are preliminary, and are based on travel demand
modeling results and cost estimates that do not yet have FTA approval. Ridership and cost data will be formally reviewed by FTA during a request for New Starts Preliminary Engineering approval.
Assumes 2 underground stations.
Assumes 1 underground station.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-37
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5.0
Financial Review
This section briefly summarizes the costs associated with the LPA, funding options, and phasing and
implementation of the LPA. Note that the FTA Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC) will be
providing the EOT with an evaluation of costs in November of 2008. This information may affect the
contents of the data presented in this section. Detailed cost analysis is provided in Chapter 6.
5.1
Capital Cost
A breakdown of the LPA capital costs by major cost category is provided in Table ES-6. The capital cost
of the LPA is estimated to be $2.4 billion in year 2007 constant dollars. The mid-point year of project
construction will determine the amount of cost escalation to be added to the 2007 constant dollar costs
shown, as addressed in the concept-level Financial Framework provided in Chapter 6.
Table ES-6:
LPA Capital Cost Summary
Capital Cost
$ millions (2007 dollars)8
Capital Cost Category
Guideway and track elements
$939
Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals
$401
Support Facilities, Yards, Shops, Admin. Bldgs
$196
Site work and special facilities
$344
Systems
$160
Right-of-way
$170
Rolling Stock
$191
Total
$2,401
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) engaged a Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC)
to undertake a review of the preliminary cost estimate for the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA. The PMOC
review identified a number of issues that introduce risk into this preliminary cost estimate. The most
significant issues relate to uncertainty about a final tunnel alignment and construction methodology;
assumptions related to dimensional and other specifications for the tunnel and underground stations
(many of which were flagged as resulting in higher than expected cost estimates); and the lack of a
definite project implementation schedule and mid-year of construction assumption. As a result, FTA is not
able to endorse these cost estimates at this time. EOT recognizes these issues, which are principally
related to the current state of conceptual engineering for the LPA, as appropriate to a draft environmental
document. EOT will continue to work with FTA and the PMOC process to address these issues and
ensure FTA endorsement of Urban Ring Phase 2 cost estimates as the project develops through
preliminary engineering, final environmental review, and final design.
5.2
Operating Cost
Preliminary Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs were developed utilizing the operating statistics
from the travel demand model run and unit costs for hybrid electric bus technology, and estimated using
an average of the revenue vehicle miles and revenue vehicle hours methods. The result is a preliminary
8 Capital costs include 30 percent construction contingency and 30 percent soft costs.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-38
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
O&M cost for the LPA of $35 million per year. Note that by comparison, using the same methodology the
Baseline Alternative would cost $43 million per year primarily because it requires somewhat more bus
vehicle miles and significantly more bus vehicle hours to provide comparable service in the absence the
exclusive running ways of the LPA.
5.3
Potential Funding Allocation and Sources
The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA exhibits strong project justification characteristics and good costeffectiveness, and it is expected to be competitive for funding through the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) Section 5309 New Starts funding program. Therefore, a fundamental part of the capital finance
plan is an assumption that a major portion of the project's capital funds would be provided through the
New Starts program. A project is most competitive in the New Starts funding program if it requests 50
percent or less of its capital funding requirements from the New Starts program; in addition, maximum
New Starts funding is generally approximately $800 million. Therefore, it is assumed that the federal New
Starts share will fall within this range: from the equivalent of $800 million (relative to the 2007 current
dollar cost of $2.4 billion) up to 50 percent. As a result, the overall cost allocation is assumed to be:
•
Federal, Section 5309 New Starts
33% - 50% ($800 M to $1.2 B in 2007 dollars)
•
State and/or other funds, to be determined
50% - 67% ($1.2 B to $1.6 B in 2007 dollars)
EOT assumes that the magnitude of the maximum typical New Starts award can grow commensurate
with project inflation. Therefore, EOT assumes that the share of New Starts funding would remain
constant relative to 2007 program practice at 33 to 50 percent.
The remaining 50 to 67 percent of capital funds would be provided through a combination of non-New
Starts federal sources, state funding, and other funding sources. Another federal funding source that may
have application for the Urban Ring Phase 2 project is Congressional earmarks, which include roughly
$22 million in funding for projects that may facilitate or include Urban Ring Phase 2 project improvements.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is exploring options to enable it to make a major contribution to the
capital funding of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project. However, in light of the Commonwealth’s financial
constraints, it is expected that the Commonwealth would not be able to cover the full non-federal share of
project costs. For planning purposes a Commonwealth share of roughly half of the non-federal capital
costs of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project, or approximately $600 – 800 million in 2007 dollars should be
used as a placeholder until additional information relative to the Commonwealth’s overall financing
situation can be clarified.
Given the financial constraints facing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA
would require additional non-federal, non-state revenue sources totaling approximately $600 – 800 million
in 2007 dollars. These revenues could come from locally-based funding sources or from private funding
sources. Locally-based funding sources could include district improvement financing (DIF), tax increment
financing (TIF), local option taxes, and parking surcharges. Potential private revenue sources include
property transfer, area betterment fees, development or transportation impact fees, joint development,
payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT), development linkage payments, and private parking fees or surcharges.
It is important to note that the Commonwealth is not advocating for or supporting any particular revenue
generating strategy at this time. Rather, EOT will work with the involved municipalities and other project
stakeholders to facilitate discussion on this most critical topic.
6.0
Phasing and Implementation
The Purpose and Need for the Urban Ring Phase 2 is about establishing or improving connections
between and among different neighborhoods, commercial centers, and transportation corridors in order to
improve mobility, reduce congestion, and contribute to sustained economic development in the Boston
region. The Urban Ring Phase 2, a circumferential ring around the urban core, is a very large project,
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-39
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
which serves a diverse corridor with a broad range of characteristics, transportation needs, potential
riders, and key stakeholders. The Executive Office of Transportation recognizes the benefits generated
from a project that encompasses the Urban Ring Phase 2 in its entirety, and EOT is therefore proposing
the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA as a single project. This is intended to preserve the clarity of the project’s
purpose and need; recognize the usefulness of a continuous connection through the corridor; help to
provide geographically equitable benefits throughout the project corridor and the region; and to provide
maximum flexibility in terms of project implementation.
At the same time, the Urban Ring Phase 2 is a large and challenging project. The bulk of its capital costs
are concentrated in a number of discrete infrastructure investments that are spread around the corridor,
such as the Fenway/LMA tunnel, the Chelsea – Everett busway, and the reconstructed Grand Junction
Railroad Bridge over the Charles River, among others. In other parts of the corridor, such as locations
where the Urban Ring Phase 2 would operate in mixed traffic or in bus lanes within the existing roadway
footprint, capital costs are more modest.
As a result, the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA exhibits good phasing characteristics. This is expected to prove
advantageous in any implementation scenario. Assuming the project is implemented in a single
construction phase, the infrastructure improvements could proceed in parallel through separate
construction contracts. The geographic diversity of the corridor could help to prevent these parallel
contracts from resulting in great construction impacts in any given area (although local construction
impacts would still be significant in certain portions of the corridor).
The diverse nature of the Urban Ring corridor and the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA infrastructure
improvements could also facilitate early implementation of some project elements through related
infrastructure improvements. For example, the City of Boston is pursuing a planning and design study in
Sullivan Square that could facilitate roadway improvements that aid Urban Ring Phase 2 and local bus
access and service quality; major development plans and a federal earmark could facilitate reconstruction
of the Melnea Cass Boulevard corridor in a manner consistent with Urban Ring Phase 2 proposals. If
these infrastructure projects were to advance before Urban Ring Phase 2 implementation, EOT would
coordinate with project proponents and with FTA on accommodating Urban Ring improvements in these
projects.
EOT strongly supports the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA reflected in this RDEIR/DEIS. However, EOT
recognizes that the current federal and state financial environments present significant constraints to
funding the LPA in its entirety, and that the LPA as proposed cannot currently be advanced in this
RDEIR/DEIS assuming only those funding sources. EOT is eager to use this environmental filing to solicit
feedback from the general public, corridor residents, municipalities, public agencies, elected officials, and
project stakeholders in order to inform the future direction of the project and its implementation plan. The
federal, state, local and private financial environment in coming years will also inform project development
and financing.
7.0
Summary, Conclusions, and Next Steps
The Urban Ring Phase 2 project was evaluated in three geographic segments (A, B, & C) shown in
Figure ES-9. For the LPA, Segment B would have the highest daily ridership with 116,700 followed by
Segment A (48,500) and Segment C (19,000). Segments A and C have 10 stations each in the LPA and
Segment B has 15 stations. Each of the seven communities in the Urban Ring Project Corridor has at
least one station with at least 5,000 boardings per day, which is the average daily boarding per station for
the LPA.
A geographic breakdown of the evaluation and capital costs of the LPA is provided in Table ES-7.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-40
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES-9 Overview of Corridor Segments
Me df or d
Ev e re tt
A
3
2
So mervi lle
Chel sea
4
East
Bost o n
Ca mbri dg e
1
5
7
6
11
B
C
8
So uth B osto n
9
Br o ok lin e
Roxb ury
10
Dorch est er
Segment Sector
A
B
C
1
2
3 4
5
6
7 8
9 10 11
Urban Ring Phase 2
RDEIR/DEIS
Data provided by MassGIS.
0
0.5
1
Segments and Sectors
Miles
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-41
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-7:
Summary Evaluation of LPA by Segments
Segment
Segment A
(Sectors 1, 2, 3, 4)
East Boston
to
Somerville/Charlestown
Measures
(1)
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ
Key Environmental Issues
PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT
48,500
46
18
81,400
59,600
58,800
Coordination with East Boston Greenway
Chelsea - construction noise & vibration
Everett - construction noise & vibration
Malden River - potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
Segment B
(Sectors 5, 6, 7, 8)
East Cambridge
to
Boston/Ruggles
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ
Key Environmental Issues
$283.0
$140.0
$423.0
116,500
36
14
Segment C
(Sectors 9, 10, 11)
Roxbury
to
South Boston
Key Environmental Issues
$1,782.2
$119.0
$1,901.2
19,000
41
11
Grand Total
41
11
90,000
127,300
51,100
Coordination with planned Harbor Trail
Richardson Sq - operation bus traffic adjacent
Columbia Rd Park - operation bus traffic adjacent
Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ
Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
36
14
150,400
191,700
108,700
Busway at private Steam Fountain park east end of Hotel at Kendall
Cambridgeport - construction noise & vibration
Fort Washington Park - construction noise & vibration
Fort Washington Park - operation bus traffic adjacent
Charles River Reservation - construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation - operation bus traffic through
Charles River - potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
Allston Yards - potential hazardous materials issue
Allston - construction noise & vibration
Riverway - construction noise & vibration
Riverway - potential wetland impacts
Fenway, LMA & Longwood - construction noise & vibration
Leon Street Portal - construction impacts
LMA Station - construct
Park Drive Landmark Center Portal - construction impacts
Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ
38
18
$17.0
$60.0
$77.0
184,000
123
14
115
14
321,800
378,600
218,600
$2,082.2
$319.0
$2,401.2
NOTE:
(1) - Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period.
- Sector level population, employment and EJ totals within 1/2 mile radius catchment area, truncated to avoid double counting.
- Construction cost includes contingency and soft costs. All costs are in $ millions in 2007 dollars.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-42
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public Outreach
To engage a wide variety of stakeholders effectively during the RDEIR/DEIS, EOT and the project team
utilized a comprehensive public involvement plan, including:
•
Over 50 meetings of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, subcommittees and working groups;
•
Over 40 public/neighborhood meetings in seven communities, keyed to project milestones;
•
Over 40 briefings for public agencies and elected officials;
•
Over 40 meetings with institutions and other abutters;
•
Use of a project website, which includes project information, updates on meetings and events,
and opportunities to ask questions and post comments; and
•
Email notifications of meetings and publication of new documents.
Conclusions and Next Steps
The recommended LPA is the result of a comprehensive planning process that evaluated a very wide
range of alternatives and their ability to meet project goals and objectives in a cost effective and
environmentally responsible manner. The recommended LPA would provide a major new transit system
in greater Boston providing significant improvement in transit access, mobility, and capacity throughout
the MBTA system, particularly for environmental justice communities, while strongly supporting economic
growth in the corridor consistent with principals of smart growth and sustainable development.
In order to provide flexibility to reach agreement on project financing and implementation, the following
preliminary schedule (expressed in general time frames) from the November 2008 RDEIR/DEIS filing date
is proposed:
•
1 - 1.5 years
File New Starts program application
•
1.5 - 2 years
FTA approval to enter Preliminary Engineering
•
2.5 - 3 years
File Urban Ring Phase 2 FEIR/FEIS
•
3 - 3.5 years
Complete Preliminary Engineering
•
3.5 - 4 years
FTA approval for Final Design
•
5.5 - 6 years
Complete Final Design
•
6 - 6.5 years
FTA Full Funding Grant Agreement
•
6.5 - 7.5 years Construction begins
It should also be noted that the Urban Ring corridor could benefit from interim improvements to
conventional bus service. The 2001 Urban Ring Major Investment Study included a proposal for such
improvements as Urban Ring Phase 1, which included the existing CT1, CT2, and CT3 bus routes, along
with a series of other routes in other parts of the corridor. While these additional routes were not
implemented due to MBTA service planning and financial constraints, EOT will continue to coordinate
with the MBTA, municipalities, and corridor stakeholders to identify opportunities for bus service
improvements in the corridor, and to identify opportunities for roadway design, traffic signal, and
circulation enhancements that could make conventional bus service more effective.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-43
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
8.0
Overview of Document
The RDEIR/DEIS document includes a full review of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project and the planning
process, including the project purpose, the recommendations, the study and analysis that produced the
recommendations, the benefits and impacts of the various alternatives, project costs and financing, and
several chapters related to regulatory and public involvement processes.
The RDEIR/DEIS includes the following chapters:
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action – This chapter includes an introduction with
information regarding project background and history, as well as a detailed description of the purpose and
need for the Project.
Chapter 2 – Locally Preferred Alternative – This chapter is dedicated to the description and evaluation
of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Both benefits and impacts of the LPA are presented.
Chapter 3 – Alternatives and Evaluation – This chapter describes and evaluates the nine original Build
Alternatives and three resulting Hybrid Build Alternatives, with comparisons to the No-Build and FTA
Baseline Alternatives.
Chapter 4 – Transportation Impacts and Mitigation – This chapter evaluates transportation impacts,
including transit, roadways, parking, bicycles and pedestrians. Project mitigation measures are also
discussed.
Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequences and Mitigation – This chapter evaluates environmental
impacts, including land use and economic activity, displacement and relocations, visual resources and
aesthetics, air quality, noise and vibration, plant and animal species and habitats, water resources and
wetlands, energy, geology and soils, hazardous materials, electromagnetic fields (EMF) and moving
metal, public service and utilities, historic and archeological issues, parks and open space, and
construction impacts. Environmental mitigation is also discussed in this chapter.
Chapter 6 – Costs and Funding – This chapter presents a financial analysis of the proposed Project,
including capital cost, operating costs, and potential funding allocation and sources.
Chapter 7 – Compliance/Consistency with Massachusetts and Federal Environmental Laws,
Regulations and Programs – The Project’s compliance with relevant state and federal Environmental
regulations are discussed.
Chapter 8 – Public Involvement – This chapter contains a summary of public meetings and outreach.
Chapter 9 – Response to Comments – This is a summary of comments received during the course of
the RDEIR/DEIS. Comment responses are provided as appropriate. Additionally, reference is made to a
separate volume containing comments and responses on the 2004 Urban Ring Phase 2 DEIR.
Chapter 10 – List of Preparers – Includes a list of participants in the preparation of this document.
Chapter 11 – Distribution List – The distribution list includes federal, state and local agencies,
committee members, neighborhood groups, businesses, private residences, and other stakeholders.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page ES-44
November 2008
Detailed route and station level diagrams of the recommended LPA
EAST
BOSTON
LOGAN
AIRPORT
Sector 1
0
1:12,000
500
1,000
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS.
3 2
4
1
5
8
6
7
Sheet 1 of 8
Locally Preferred Alternative
Se
c to
r3
Se
c to
r2
CHELSEA
Se
r2
cto
r1
cto
Se
0
1:12,000
500
1,000
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS.
3 2
4
1
5
8
6
7
Sheet 2 of 8
Locally Preferred Alternative
EVERETT
Se
c to
r3
Secto
r4
Secto
r3
MEDFORD
SOMERVILLE
0
1:12,000
500
1,000
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS.
3 2
4
1
5
8
6
7
Sheet 3 of 8
Locally Preferred Alternative
CHARLESTOWN
CAMBRIDGE
4
t or
Sec
r5
o
t
Sec
Se
r5
cto
cto
Se
r6
0
1:12,000
500
1,000
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS.
3 2
4
1
5
8
6
7
Sheet 4 of 8
Locally Preferred Alternative
CAMBRIDGE
r6
r5
cto
cto
Se
Se
Sector
7
Sector
6
ALLSTON
FENWAY
&
LMA
6
or
8
ct
e
or
S
ct
e
S
0
1:12,000
500
1,000
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS.
3 2
4
1
5
8
6
7
Sheet 5 of 8
Locally Preferred Alternative
FENWAY
&
LMA
Sec
tor
11
S ec
tor
9
Se
c
Se tor 8
ct
or
9
CROSSTOWN
9
or
ct
10
Se tor
c
e
S
ROXBURY
0
1:12,000
500
1,000
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS.
3 2
4
1
5
8
6
7
Sheet 6 of 8
Locally Preferred Alternative
Sector 10
DORCHESTER
0
1:12,000
500
1,000
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS.
3 2
4
1
5
8
6
7
Sheet 7 of 8
Locally Preferred Alternative
Se
c to
r1
Se
c to
r1
1
CROSSTOWN
Sec
tor
11
S ec
tor
9
SOUTH BOSTON
0
1:12,000
500
1,000
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS.
3 2
4
1
5
8
6
7
Sheet 8 of 8
Locally Preferred Alternative
Urban Ring Phase 2 - LPA Stations
Sector/Station No
1.2
1.3
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.3
4.2
4.3
4.9
4.10
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.3
7.5
7.6
7.7
8.2
8.4
8.8
8.11
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.3
10.6
10.8
11.1
11.2
11.5
Station Name
Logan West Garage
Airport
Griffin Way
Downtown Chelsea
Mystic Mall
Everett
Wellington
Assembly Square
Inner Belt
Sullivan Square
New Lechmere
First Street/Galleria
Binney Street
Fulkerson Street
Kendall/MIT
Mass Avenue/MIT
Cambridgeport
BU Bridge
Allston West Station *
North Harvard Street *
Western Ave *
Harvard Square
Yawkey
Fenway Station/ Park Drive
LMA
Ruggles
Washington Street
Dudley Square
Crosstown Center
BU Medical Center
New Market
Edward Everett Square
JFK/ UMass
Broadway
A Street
World Trade Center
Location
Boston
Boston
Chelsea
Chelsea
Chelsea
Everett
Medford
Somerville
Somerville
Boston
Cambridge
Cambridge
Cambridge
Cambridge
Cambridge
Cambridge
Cambridge
Boston/Brookline
Boston
Boston
Boston
Cambridge
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
BRT Routes
Effective Headway
Weekday Peak
(min)
2
1, 2, 7
1 ,2, 7
1, 2, 7
1, 2, 7
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 5
1, 2, 5
1, 5
1, 5
1, 5
1
1, 5
5
5
5, 6
6
6
6
6
5, 6, 7
5, 6, 7
5, 6, 7
5, 6, 7
6, 7
7
6, 7
6, 7
6
6
6
7
7
7
10
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
4
3
4
4
4
10
4
7
7
4
7
7
7
7
3
3
3
3
4
10
4
4
7
7
7
10
10
10
* In Sector 7 the final alignment to/from Allston has not been selected. Allston stations shown are place holders subject to
ongoing analysis.
BRT 1, 2, and 7 routes each have the following headways:
10 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods
15 minutes mid-day and Saturdays
20 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings
BRT 5 and 6 routes each have the following headways:
7 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods
12 minutes mid-day and Saturdays
15 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings