Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.0 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is serving as the lead agency in the preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Urban Ring Phase 2 project (the Project) to address federal environmental requirements. The DEIS is being prepared in combination with a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) to address Massachusetts state environmental requirements. The 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 in the corridor, and many of the major educational and medical institutions in the corridor. The RDEIR/DEIS has been prepared to provide environmental analyses for the proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service and new and improved intermodal connections that comprise the Project. A regional map identifying the project study area is shown in Figure 1­1. This chapter includes a statement of the project purpose; a summary of the needs underlying that purpose and demanding the proposed action; and a review of the planning background and regulatory context for this document and for the proposed action. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­1 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED Figure 1­1 Boston Region MPO – Regional Location Map Existing MBTA Routes
LYNNFIELD
Blue
BEDFO
RD
READING
95
BURLINGTON
WOBURN
MAPC MPO
Region
3
CH
WIN
Green
WAKEFIELD
Project
Location
MAPC MPO
PEABODY
Urban Ring Study Area
SALEM
Orange
Red
STONEHAM
ER
EST
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
WE
LL
ES
LE
Y
BROOKLINE
BOSTON
NEEDHAM
95
93
QUINCY
DEDHAM
MILTON
DOV ER
28
WEYMOUTH
WESTWOOD
BRAINTREE
NORWOOD
RANDOLPH
Data provided by MassGIS.
0
2
93
HINGHAM
CANTON
Urban Ring Phase 2 RD EIR/ DEIS
4
Regional Location Map
Miles
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­2 November 2008 1.1 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED Project Purpose The primary purpose of Phase 2 of the Circumferential Transportation Improvements in the Urban Ring Corridor (Urban Ring Phase 2) is to significantly improve transit access and capacity for the many residential neighborhoods, employment centers, major educational and medical institutions, and other important destinations in the Urban Ring corridor. The Urban Ring Phase 2 is also intended to reduce crowding in the MBTA’s central subway system and to enhance economic opportunities by facilitating smart growth/transit­oriented development and by reducing constraints on transportation access and capacity in the Urban Ring corridor. The Urban Ring Phase 2 is designed to achieve these objectives by providing faster and more direct transit connections between points in the ring corridor, and from the “spokes” of the MBTA’s existing radial rapid transit and commuter rail system to destinations in the corridor. 1.2 Project Need The Urban Ring Phase 2 project 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 densely­built, established neighborhoods and commercial centers, as well as emerging neighborhoods with environmental justice populations and under­utilized districts with 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 a constraint on residential accessibility and on further economic growth and development in the corridor. The western and southern quadrants of the Urban Ring corridor in particular are home to dense and historic residential neighborhoods, including East Cambridge, Cambridgeport, Cottage Farm, Audubon Circle, the Fenway, Lower Roxbury, and the South End. Among these neighborhoods, there are also many established employment and economic centers. These are heavily concentrated in the educational and health care fields, with major internationally­known institutions that include Boston University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Longwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA) and its member institutions, and Boston University Medical Center, among others. The educational and medical sectors are a critical component of the regional and state economies, and this segment of the Urban Ring corridor has seen rapid economic growth, both within the institutions and in research and commercial ventures that have collocated with them. The medical institutions, the life sciences­oriented disciplines in the educational institutions, and life sciences­oriented research and commercial enterprises in the Urban Ring corridor have been termed the Boston area’s “Life Sciences Cluster.” The proximity of these uses to each other represents a strategic advantage in attracting new research facilities and talented workers, realizing further benefit for 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. In other quadrants of the Urban Ring corridor, especially in the north, emerging neighborhoods and commercial districts have new economic opportunities. Many formerly industrial areas that experienced job losses and diminished economic activity over the years are beginning to take advantage of their proximity to the Boston core and their existing transportation and utility infrastructure. New developments, including mixed­use 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. However, the existing transportation system faces challenges in satisfying access and capacity needs for the Urban Ring corridor. The rapid transit and commuter rail systems are radially­oriented toward downtown Boston. As they pass through the Urban Ring corridor, these transit lines diverge and leave gaps in between. This results in less robust rapid transit access and capacity for any given sector within the Urban Ring corridor. Residential neighborhoods throughout the Urban Ring corridor have limited Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­3 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED transit connections to employment, recreational, and cultural opportunities in other sectors of the corridor. The LMA, the densest employment district outside downtown Boston, is directly served by only two branches of the Green Line at its edges, while all of Everett and Chelsea have no rapid transit service. This limits the ability of residents and employees to use the existing rapid transit system for connections in the Urban Ring corridor. Travelers to and from the Urban Ring corridor, including residents of corridor neighborhoods, face transit access limitations for many trips: they must make rapid transit connections through downtown Boston, or connections on MBTA buses and private shuttle buses that must share the corridor’s limited roadway network with general traffic. As a result, many residents and employees who have a choice travel by private automobile, resulting in heavily­congested roadways and high demand for parking throughout the Urban Ring corridor. This has a number of negative economic and quality of life impacts: increased traffic and congestion on neighborhood streets; limits on the amount, density, and sustainability of development due to transit capacity and parking demands; personal economic impacts due to vehicle costs and high fuel costs for travelers who have limited transit options; and increased emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases. These needs for the Urban Ring Phase 2 have been documented in the Urban Ring Major Investment Study (MIS) that was completed in July 2001, and they were updated in the Urban Ring Phase 2 (DEIR) published in 2004. The need for the project is discussed in more detail below, including a description of the project study area; the key issues and challenges; travel demand characteristics in the project study area; land use and demographics; the study area’s transportation network; and key environmental issues in the corridor. 1.2.1 Urban Ring Phase 2 Study Area The Urban Ring Phase 2 study area comprises the circumferential project corridor (Urban Ring corridor), along with the transportation facilities and services that are within the project corridor or pass through the project corridor. The Urban Ring corridor includes portions of seven municipalities: Chelsea, Everett, Medford, Somerville, Cambridge, Brookline and Boston. Approximately 25 miles long and 1 mile wide, the corridor contains numerous “activity centers,” (i.e. land use concentrations that generate significant travel demand within a relatively small geographic area), including major medical, educational, and cultural institutions, high­density employment, commercial centers, and other trip generating uses, as well as densely populated residential areas that include significant environmental justice populations. The Urban Ring corridor passes through the following principal activity centers, listed below in general counterclockwise order: • Logan Airport (East Boston); • Day Square (East Boston); • Chelsea Center (Chelsea); • Everett; • Wellington (Medford); • Assembly Square (Somerville); • East Somerville; • Union Square (Somerville); • Sullivan Square (Charlestown); • Lechmere (Cambridge); • Kendall Square (Cambridge); • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge); Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­4 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED • Cambridgeport (Cambridge); • Boston University (Boston); • North Allston (Boston); • Harvard Square (Cambridge); • Audubon Circle (Boston); • Kenmore Square (Boston); • Fenway Park (Boston); • The Fenway (Boston); • Longwood Medical and Academic Area (Boston); • Huntington Cultural District (Boston); • Ruggles Station (Boston); • Roxbury (Boston); • Dudley Square (Boston); • Crosstown (Boston); • Newmarket (Boston); • Columbia Point (Boston); • Boston University Medical Center (Boston); and • South Boston Seaport (Boston). The 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. In addition, the RDEIR/DEIS corridor adds a new spur to the west 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 official recognition of the anticipated growth in this area as reflected in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan adopted land use scenario. The study area and Urban Ring Phase 2 corridor are shown in Figure 1­2. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­5 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED Figure 1­2 Study Area and Urban Ring Corridor Me df or d
Ev e re tt
93
S o m erv i lle
Chel s ea
Ea st
Bo st o n
C a mb ri dg e
93
90
93
Br o ok lin e
So uth Bo sto n
Ro xb ury
Major Highways
Existing MBTA Routes
Blue Line
Green LIne
Do rch est er
Orange Line
Red LIne
Silver Line
Commuter Rail
MBTA Stops
Commuter Rail Station
Study Area
Data provided by MassGIS.
0
0.5
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
1
Study Area
Miles
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­6 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.2.2 Issues and Challenges in the Study Area The Urban Ring corridor has been the subject of previous transportation studies that have focused on the corridor’s transportation needs. Existing public transit services do not adequately satisfy the high and growing travel demand in the corridor. This lack of adequate public transit services has a number of social, environmental, and economic effects. The transportation needs in the Urban Ring corridor, and the interrelated social, environmental, and economic issues are described below: • Transit Accessibility and Mobility in the Urban Ring Corridor Is Inadequate. The existing rapid transit system is radially oriented toward a hub in downtown Boston. However, many of the region’s growing neighborhoods and major employment centers are located outside the downtown core in the Urban Ring corridor. Trips to and from these activity centers, such as the Longwood Medical and Academic Area, Kendall Square, and Chelsea Center, currently require indirect travel on rapid transit to downtown Boston and back out; travel by bus on congested roadways; or travel by automobile on congested roadways. As a result, there is demand for more direct transit connections and reduced transit travel times between the activity centers located within the Urban Ring corridor, as well as between the corridor and other destinations throughout the region. • 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, low­income, and transit­dependent households. These environmental justice (EJ) populations would benefit from rapid transit connections to growing employment, academic, cultural and health care centers in the corridor, and from improved access to the existing radial rapid transit system, with its connections to downtown Boston. Public transit improvements in the Urban Ring corridor would offer relief from high fuel prices, which have a greater relative impact on EJ populations. • The Environment in the Urban Ring Corridor is Negatively Affected by High Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Congestion. Travel demand from established and growing neighborhoods and activity centers in the corridor, combined with the corridor’s public transit constraints, is expected to result in heavy traffic and congestion. This would produce pollution, which would have negative air quality and health impacts in the corridor’s neighborhoods and the region as a whole. Traffic demand and congestion would also produce increased levels of greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change. • 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 also includes major employment centers; commercial districts; educational, medical and cultural institutions; and other destinations. The project corridor includes the state’s greatest concentration of public and private sector employers in the life sciences sector, which is expected to be a large and important source of job creation and economic activity in the future. However, poor access and traffic congestion threaten to limit the development capacity of established areas, and to constrain growth for emerging areas in the Urban Ring corridor. Heavy reliance on automobile access imposes economic costs on businesses in the corridor (due to the high costs of building and providing parking in dense areas of the corridor) and on travelers (due to vehicle costs, fuel costs and parking costs). Improved transit access would strongly support economic development, job growth, and quality of life in the corridor by easing traffic congestion in established areas, reducing automobile reliance, and helping to attract investment to emerging areas, including neighborhoods with EJ populations and brownfield sites that have the potential to host smart growth, transit­oriented development. • Transit Congestion in the Boston Core Remains a Problem. Existing transit travel patterns, current service levels, and potential future growth in transit travel demand would result in heavy passenger loads and concentrated transfer demand in the central portion of the Boston rapid transit system. A significant portion of the increase in transit travel demand is due to growth in the Urban Ring corridor. Projected future transit demand increases are especially high for the Green Line and the Red Line, rapid transit lines that already have high vehicle loads at their peak load points. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­7 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED The Urban Ring Phase 2 project is designed to address these issues. The effectiveness of the various project alternatives has been based on a range of evaluation criteria that relate directly to the above issues and challenges. These evaluation criteria include all of the evaluation criteria that form the basis for project justification in the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts program. The evaluation criteria are listed in full in Chapter 3, Alternatives and Evaluation. The following is a list of the major categories of evaluation criteria that have been used in assessing the potential alternatives, and developing the project recommendations: • Transit mobility improvements; • Environmental benefits; • Transit supportive land use and development; • Cost­effectiveness; and • Transit operating efficiencies. 1.2.3 Travel Demand and Transit Accessibility in the Urban Ring Corridor A travel market analysis of existing and projected future trips in the Urban Ring corridor was conducted using data from the Boston Region MPO’s 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). There is a high volume of trips in the corridor today. As shown in Table 1­1, there were approximately 2.2 million weekday trips with an origin or a destination in the Urban Ring corridor in 2005. This number is expected to grow by 37.4 percent to nearly 3 million trips in 2030. Of these projected future trips serving the Urban Ring corridor, approximately 35 percent are expected to be intra­corridor trips, or “corridor – corridor” trips (i.e. trips with both origin and destination in the one mile wide Urban Ring corridor); these are trips that have the potential to be served exclusively by Urban Ring Phase 2 service. The remaining trips are either “outside – corridor” trips (trips that have one trip end within the Urban Ring corridor and the other trip end on the outside of the corridor, away from downtown Boston), or “inside – corridor” trips (trips that have one trip end within the Urban Ring corridor and the other trip end on the inside of the corridor, towards downtown Boston). “Outside – corridor” trips account for 49 percent of the corridor’s trips, while “inside – corridor” trips account for 16 percent of the corridor’s trips. It is also important to note the patterns of growth in trips serving the Urban Ring corridor. Although trips with one end in the Urban Ring corridor and one end outside it continue to represent a plurality (49 percent) of all Urban Ring corridor trips, these “outside – corridor” trips are not growing as fast as “corridor – corridor” trips or “inside – corridor” trips. Trips between a point within the Urban Ring corridor and a point on the inside of the corridor in downtown Boston are growing fastest, at a rate of 51.4 percent from 2005­2030. However, trips that have both ends within the Urban Ring corridor are growing almost as fast, and represent a high proportion of the Urban Ring corridor trips. As a result, the absolute growth in intra­corridor trips of 332,252 (2005­2030) is the higher than the absolute growth in the other two categories. This high­level of intra­corridor trips demonstrates the high level of growth and the increase in density that is anticipated in the Urban Ring corridor. This reflects a trend toward smart­growth, transit­oriented development in the Boston region in general and in the Urban Ring corridor in particular. As discussed below, municipalities in the Urban Ring corridor have oriented their planning and zoning toward such smart growth, transit­oriented development. The Urban Ring Phase 2 project could provide the transit access that would help facilitate smart growth development in the corridor. The existing and projected daily person trips for the Urban Ring corridor in 2005 and 2030 are shown in Table 1­1. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­8 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED Table 1­1: Daily Person Trips With Origin and/or Destination in Urban Ring Corridor 2005 and 2030 Origin/Destination Location 2005 Trips(1) 2030 Trips(1) (2) Difference % Change 715,240 1,047,492 332,252 46.4% 1,126,282 1,438,729 312,447 27.7% 318,953 483,023 164,070 51.4% 2,160,475 2,969,244 808,769 37.4% Intra­Urban Ring Corridor Outer Areas to/from Urban Ring Corridor Inner Core to/from Urban Ring Corridor Total 1. 2. Data provided by CTPS May 2008. Figures represent linked trips. Assumes No­Build conditions, but origins and destinations of Build condition trips will be comparable. Chapter 4, Transportation Impacts and Mitigation, includes a detailed discussion of the travel market analysis, with a thorough assessment of key destinations in the Urban Ring corridor and major travel patterns. 1.2.4 Land Use and Demographics Many areas of the Urban Ring corridor are growing quickly, with rates of residential and job growth significantly higher than the regional average. At the same time, other areas of the corridor also include EJ neighborhoods, urban brownfields and large areas of land suitable for redevelopment. While the Urban Ring corridor as a whole is generally less dense and less congested than the downtown core, many areas of the Urban Ring corridor suffer from traffic congestion and poor transit access because the existing roadway and transit networks have a strong radial orientation. As the distance between the existing “spokes” of the radial transit lines increase further from the core, the extent of areas not served or underserved by the radial rapid transit and commuter rail network increases. Table 1­2 shows the absolute numbers of residents and jobs in the corridor in the existing and future 2030 condition, along with an Urban Ring corridor growth rate and a comparison to the growth rate in the region as a whole. The projected growth rate in population within the Urban Ring study area is nearly three times higher than the growth rate in the region as a whole (26.1 percent compared to 9.5 percent). Similarly, the projected growth rate for employment within the study area is more than double the growth rate in the region as a whole (24.2 percent compared to 9.9 percent). This balance of residents and jobs, as well as the project robust growth in both categories, is strongly supportive of new transit service in the Urban Ring corridor; the residents would be a pool of employees and customers for businesses in the area, while the jobs represent employment opportunities and economic activity for residents. Table 1­2: Existing and Future Population and Employment in the Urban Ring Corridor and the Boston Region Population Employment Urban Ring Corridor MPO Region Urban Ring Corridor MPO Region Base Case Year 2000 392,702 3,071,614 327,459 1,833,213 Future Year 2030 495,064 3,364,771 406,797 2,013,979 26.1% 9.5% 24.2% 9.9% Percentage Change Source: Updated RTP 2030 Land Use forecast for Urban Ring Corridor, November, 2007. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­9 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED This strong growth in both residential and commercial density in the Urban Ring corridor near the Boston core reflects 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 transit­oriented development, especially in the Urban Ring corridor. These efforts are described in detail in Chapter 5, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation, in the land use section, and include the following major elements: • Transit­supportive zoning by municipalities throughout the Urban Ring corridor. • Institutional master plans. The City of Boston requires that major educational, health care, and other institutions file long­term master plans that describe the institution’s planning and development vision and proposals. The City of Boston and the Urban Ring project proponent have worked throughout the Urban Ring planning process to ensure that Urban Ring proposals are actively incorporated into the master plans. • Regional planning. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council, the regional planning agency for the Boston metropolitan region, completed “MetroFuture: Making a Greater Boston Region” in 2007. This regional master plan embraces smart growth, sustainable development that is focused in population centers, established downtowns, and areas with existing infrastructure, a vision that is consistent with and supportive of the Urban Ring and public transit in general. The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization has adopted the MetroFuture land use projections for the Boston Region, and these underlie the Urban Ring travel demand and ridership projections. • Economic Target Zones. The Urban Ring corridor includes 73 areas that have been designated as federal, state and/or local Economic Target Zones, areas where public agencies have identified an interest in stimulating investment to create housing, increase employment, and improve infrastructure. • District and development planning. Municipalities and developers throughout the project corridor have conducted or are conducting planning processes that are coordinated with and supportive of Urban Ring planning. These include plans for Assembly Square, Sullivan Square, Inner Belt, North Point, Allston, the Yawkey Station area, and Lower Roxbury/Melnea Cass Boulevard corridor, among others. The residential population in the Urban Ring corridor includes a high proportion of environmental justice (EJ) populations and transit dependent populations. Areas with EJ populations in the Urban Ring corridor have been identified based on thresholds established by the Boston Region MPO, which recognize an area as an EJ zone when the minority population is higher than the regional average, and the median income is lower than 80 percent of the regional average. Areas that satisfy these criteria are heavily concentrated in the Urban Ring corridor. As a result, transit improvements in the Urban Ring corridor would provide EJ populations with improved access to other destinations in the Urban Ring corridor and throughout the region; this would give EJ populations greater employment, economic, cultural and recreational opportunities. Chapter 5, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation, provides extensive detail on EJ populations in the Urban Ring corridor, and benefits of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project for EJ populations. The following are some of the key established or emerging areas in the Urban Ring corridor: • Longwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA). The LMA is a major medical, academic and research district, with great density of travel demand, travel demand that remains high throughout the day due to the LMA’s diversity of uses (inpatient medical, outpatient medical, emergency medical, academic, and research, among others) and overlapping shifts and schedules. The LMA is currently served by two branches of the Green Line (the D and E branches), and by bus. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­10 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED • Fenway/Huntington Cultural District. Immediately adjacent to the LMA are the Fenway and the Huntington Cultural District. The Fenway is a component of the Emerald Necklace, a system of parkways and green spaces designed by Frederick Law Olmsted that stretches from downtown Boston to Franklin Park in Roxbury. The Emerald Necklace is a critical open space resource for Boston residents, employees, and visitors. The Huntington Cultural District includes a major concentration of cultural institutions, and it represents an important part of the Boston area’s creative economy. • Kendall Square. Kendall Square is a major commercial area that is home to a concentration of research and technology companies. It is currently served by the Red Line and several bus routes. • Logan Airport. Logan Airport is a destination for air travelers, and it is also a major regional employer. Logan Airport is currently served by the Blue Line and by transit buses and shuttles. • Chelsea Center. Chelsea Center is a densely populated residential area with a significant EJ population. Chelsea Center is currently served by commuter rail on the Rockport/Newburyport line, and by buses, including a bus to downtown Boston and buses to East Boston. • South Boston Waterfront. The South Boston Waterfront is a former industrial area that is experiencing rapid growth in high­density commercial and residential land use, owing in large part to new highway connections provided by the Central Artery/Tunnel project. Transit service is provided by the Silver Line and by bus. Transit improvements in the Urban Ring corridor could have beneficial effects on land use in the corridor and in the region. Such transit improvements could help to spur transit­oriented development in the corridor, in particular infill development in areas of the corridor that lie between radial transit lines and do not currently have rapid transit service. This would facilitate the kind of sustainable development that corridor municipalities are preparing for with their planning and zoning efforts. The resulting development would be located close to the region’s downtown core, enabling residents, employees and visitors to these land uses to make shorter trips, to make more trips via transit, and reduce regional travel relative to development further from the downtown core. This would reduce emissions of air pollution and greenhouse gases, thereby benefiting air quality and reducing impacts on global climate. 1.2.5 Transportation Network Transportation facilities in the corridor include an extensive network of roadways and fixed transit facilities, as well as a comprehensive system of both public and private transportation services. Generally speaking, all of the fixed transit facilities radiate from the Boston core, and as a result they pass through the circumferential Urban Ring corridor. The roadway system is also principally radial, with continuous major arterials oriented from the Boston core outward. Roadways in the corridor that provide circumferential access, both for private automobile travel and transit bus travel, tend to be discontinuous and congested. As a result, existing access in the Urban Ring corridor is constrained, and options for improving access in the corridor using existing infrastructure are limited. The following information describes the existing and projected 2030 transportation network in the corridor and its service and capacity constraints in the absence of the proposed project. Transit The existing transit system provides service to activity centers in the Urban Ring corridor, but does not provide good transit access among points in the corridor. Transit service providing connections among points in the corridor currently consists of a network of local buses along with three limited stop crosstown buses. The crosstown buses, the CT1, CT2 and CT3, are the same basic routes that the MBTA implemented over ten years ago as an early implementation stage of Urban Ring transit improvements. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­11 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED All of the buses serving the Urban Ring corridor operate on the congested crosstown roadway network in mixed traffic, and are subject to congestion and delays. Nevertheless, the bus routes that provide connections in the Urban Ring corridor generally enjoy high ridership. As discussed in Chapter 4, bus routes that provide connections in the Urban Ring corridor account for almost a quarter of the total daily bus ridership on the MBTA system. Based on ridership counts from early 2007, bus routes with circumferential components in the Urban Ring corridor account for approximately 89,000 daily riders, among a total of 372,000 daily bus riders throughout the MBTA system. Urban Ring service would not be able to provide better service for all of the connections served by these bus routes, and the Urban Ring could be expected to capture only a portion of this ridership. However, the level of existing bus ridership in the corridor gives an indication of potential future transit ridership in the corridor, especially under conditions of increased growth and development, improved travel times, and increased service frequency. The existing rapid transit and commuter rail lines all pass through the Urban Ring corridor as they converge on the downtown, and many travelers use these lines to make connections to and from the Urban Ring corridor. The existing radial rapid transit and commuter rail system can provide good access between downtown Boston and sectors of the Urban Ring that are directly served by the rapid transit lines. However, the existing system is limited in its ability to connect destinations along the Urban Ring corridor to each, and to the rest of the Boston region outside the downtown core. Transit trips to and from destinations in the Urban Ring corridor can often require either bus connections along the corridor on congested roadways or indirect connections on the rapid transit system through downtown Boston. For transit trips to and from the Urban Ring corridor that are not directly served by a rapid transit line, use of the radial rapid transit system requires traveling to line into downtown, transferring to another radial line, and traveling back out again. This “in­and­out” travel pattern is time consuming, and it may still require a long walk or bus trip for many destinations in the corridor because of the distance between the radial transit spokes. Indirect rapid transit trips through downtown also use scarce transit capacity in the downtown subway system: these trips increase loading on the rapid transit lines at their peak load points approaching downtown Boston, and they also increase congestion in downtown transfer stations, such as Park Street and Government Center. In the absence of transit improvements in the Urban Ring corridor, this rapid transit system congestion will get worse. Demand on the existing rapid transit system is projected to grow in coming years, a trend that is likely to intensify with rising fuel prices and concerns about global climate change. High growth in demand is projected for the Red Line, and even higher growth is projected for the Green Line, which will realize growth in ridership not only from general ridership growth and new development, but also from new riders on the planned Green Line Extension in Somerville and Medford. The Green Line is already congested during peak periods in the downtown central subway section, where the four branches of the line interline. Transit improvements in the Urban Ring corridor would provide faster transit connections through the corridor, provide riders with more direct trips, reduce congestion on the radial rapid transit system, and enable the transit system as a whole to operate more efficiently. Like the rapid transit system, the existing commuter rail system is radially­oriented to two terminal stations in downtown Boston, South Station and North Station. All of the commuter rail lines pass through the Urban Ring corridor, but commuter rail service to the corridor is limited. The only north­side (i.e. terminating at North Station) commuter rail line that serves the Urban Ring corridor is the Newburyport/ Rockport line, which has limited stop/flag stop service at Chelsea Station. Among the commuter rail lines terminating at South Station, the Kingston/Plymouth and the Middleborough/Lakeville lines have limited stop service at JFK/UMass; the Providence/Stoughton line and the Needham line have limited stop service at Ruggles; the Framingham/Worcester line has limited stop service at Yawkey Station; and the Fairmount line has service at Uphams Corner. The limitations on the service in the Urban Ring corridor are generally due to a lack of existing stations, physical limitations at existing stations, and/or traffic on the line that limits the number of stopping trains that can be accommodated on commuter rail trunk lines where several branch lines come together. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­12 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED Some large employers, including educational and medical institutions, have responded to the current lack of rapid transit service along the Urban Ring corridor by implementing a large number of private shuttle bus services. These shuttles provide both line haul service between affiliated institutions in different areas of the corridor, as well as a feeder service from existing rail transit spokes beyond reasonable walk distance from major employers. MBTA bus routes connect some but not all of these institutions, and often take longer than the private shuttles because of the need to make frequent intermediate stops. The private shuttles also operate along congested mixed traffic roadways and add to the same environmental impacts as the existing local MBTA buses. Projected employment growth in the corridor, combined with population and employment growth throughout the region, is expected to generate significant new travel demand and increased traffic congestion on many of the roadway links. In the absence of improved transit service in the Urban Ring corridor, long­term use of shuttle buses in mixed traffic will continue to add to congestion on local roadways and will increase demand for available curb space at activity centers. These shuttles would also continue to have environmental impacts on neighborhoods along their routes. As described in Chapter 4, even a partial accounting of existing employee shuttles operating in the Urban Ring corridor (those for which data is available) has daily ridership of approximately 32,000 riders. This further illustrates the existing demand for transit service in the Urban Ring corridor. These private shuttles are generally free or discounted for students and employees of the sponsoring entity. Shuttle services are more flexible than public transit bus routes, enabling alternate routes when traffic is heavy as well as changes to service levels as institutional demands warrant. Added public transit services (such as the Urban Ring) could enable current private shuttle sponsors to reduce expenditures and traffic congestion by reducing private shuttle services. However, whether and how much private shuttles would be reduced due to initiation of Urban Ring service is uncertain. Aside from the Urban Ring Phase 2 project, the Boston Region MPO’s 2030 RTP does not include any projects that address circumferential transit access and mobility needs in the Urban Ring corridor. Roadways and Traffic The existing roadway network in the Urban Ring corridor presents challenges for efficient “crosstown” movement through the corridor. Like the rapid transit system, the roadway network in the corridor is also largely radial. Major roadways along the corridor today are primarily congested collector and arterial streets interspersed with historic parkways, some of which are restricted to pleasure vehicles only. In addition, the corridor crosses many rivers, including Chelsea Creek, the Malden River, the Mystic River, and the Charles River. There is a limited number of existing river crossings, and most of these have significant congestion because traffic is concentrated at these few crossing points (and the roadways that lead to them). This issue is expected to be exacerbated in coming years in the Charles River corridor; major rehabilitations are proposed for the Longfellow Bridge, BU Bridge, and Storrow Drive. These construction projects will constrain roadway capacity, which highlights the need for transit improvements in Urban Ring corridor. As a result of the urban character of roadways and the close spacing of congested signalized intersections, the intersections are the primary determinant of roadway capacity in the corridor. Therefore, a detailed SYNCHRO traffic model of the corridor was created to assess traffic conditions in the future No­Build conditions, as well as traffic impacts of the Baseline and Build Alternatives. Traffic counts and turning movements were recorded for the existing condition, and future traffic volumes were developed based on demographic projections and transportation infrastructure recommendations from the Boston Region MPO 2030 RTP. Existing and future volumes were reviewed and further coordinated with the traffic and transportation departments of all seven municipalities in the corridor, as well as the Traffic and Transportation subcommittee of the Urban Ring Phase 2 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and a variety of other agencies and authorities with jurisdiction along corridor roadways. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­13 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED Using this traffic model, level of service (LOS) at the study intersections was analyzed for the existing and future No­Build conditions. Level of service is system for rating roadway congestion using letter grades, ranging from LOS A (minimal congestion, free flow of traffic) down to LOS F (high levels of congestion, with traffic demand exceeding roadway capacity). Level of service for signalized intersections is based on the average delay in seconds per vehicle, and ranges from less than 10 seconds for LOS A to greater than 80 seconds for LOS F. Traffic capacity analysis for signalized intersections is typically performed using a 15­minute analysis period. Table 1­3 shows the LOS criteria for signalized intersections. Table 1­3: Signalized Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Criteria Average Delay Per Vehicle Level of Service (seconds) A < 10 B > 10 ­ 20 C >20 ­ 35 D >35 ­ 55 E >55 ­ 80 F >80 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, HCM 2000. Table 1­4 identifies the number of study area intersections that fall within different LOS categories, and the change in LOS categories for these intersections over time (2000 to 2030). The results show that trips associated with 2030 land use projections are expected to result in a very large increase in traffic congestion and delay along corridor roadways; this increase in congestion would adversely impact access and mobility for vehicular travel along the corridor, including bus travel in mixed traffic. As shown in the table, the number of intersections with LOS of E or F is expected to increase by 54 percent for the morning peak hour and by 83 percent for the afternoon peak hour in the year 2030 compared to the base 2006 condition. Because they operate along existing roadways in mixed traffic without any physical or operational priority, and because roadways in the Urban Ring corridor are expected to grow more congested in the future, 2030 No­Build MBTA buses and private shuttles are expected to experience slower travel times and less reliability in the absence of the project. Table 1­4: Summary of Traffic Level of Service at Corridor Intersections LOS E, F D C A, B Total AM Peak Hour 2030 Percent 2006 Base No­Build Change 65 20 32 77 194 100 20 29 45 194 +54% 0% ­9% ­40% PM Peak Hour 2030 No­Build 2006 Base 65 24 43 62 194 119 15 30 30 194 Percent Change +83% ­38% ­30% ­52% In summary, the No­Build transportation network in the corridor (transit system and roadways) does not satisfy all transit access needs in the Urban Ring corridor, and does not address anticipated changes in land use and growth in travel demand. The regional activity centers and the high intensity land uses in the project corridor are not well connected by the existing transportation network. Moreover, the level of Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­14 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED public transit services provided within the corridor is insufficient to meet the growing mobility needs of the corridor residential population, workforce, visitors, and transit­dependent population. The proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 project directly addresses these issues. In the absence of transit improvements in the Urban Ring corridor, the anticipated land use changes and transportation system constraints that are described above will contribute to increased traffic congestion and vehicle­miles traveled (VMT). This would result in air quality impacts, degraded environmental conditions, impacts on quality of life in the corridor, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. 1.3 Urban Ring Corridor Planning Background The Urban Ring corridor has been the subject of many past transportation studies that have focused on the corridor’s critical transportation needs. These studies, which span more than 50 years, have identified a range of potential solutions. Early proposals for a six­lane Inner Belt Highway in the corridor were abandoned in the early 1970s, when there was a shift in state policy away from heavy reliance on highway expansion in favor of more balanced approach to improving the transportation system, including implementation of appropriate transit­based solutions to access and mobility needs. This shift was reflected in the work of the Boston Transportation Planning Review, whose recommendations included a proposed circumferential transit line in the Inner Belt Highway corridor. This transit proposal is the genesis of the Urban Ring project. Since the initial proposal for circumferential transit improvements, there has been extensive review, analysis and planning for the project. Key planning milestones in the chronology of Urban Ring transit planning include: • 1972 Boston Transportation Planning Review; • 1989 Circumferential Transit Feasibility Study; • 1993 Circumferential Transit Mid­Term Improvement Study; • 1994 Program for Mass Transportation; • 1995 Urban Ring Regional Planning Compact; • 2001 Urban Ring Major Investment Study; • 2001 Joint MEPA/NEPA scoping session for Urban Ring Phase 2; • 2003 Program for Mass Transportation; • 2004 Urban Ring Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report; • Current MBTA Program for Mass Transportation; and • 2007 Boston MPO Regional Transportation Plan. In response to findings of early studies, the MBTA implemented three “Crosstown,” or “CT,” limited stop bus routes, the CT1, CT2, and CT3 in 1994. These bus routes, which serve portions of the Urban Ring corridor, were intended to be early transit improvements in the Urban Ring corridor that would be followed by improvements of higher quality and capacity. A comprehensive, long­term strategy for transit improvements in the Urban Ring corridor was proposed in the Urban Ring Major Investment Study (MIS), which the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) completed in July 2001. The MIS defined the access and mobility problems in the corridor; evaluated a wide range of alternatives for addressing these problems; and recommended a three­phase approach to making public transit improvements in the Urban Ring corridor. Phase 1 would improve bus service in the Urban Ring corridor; Phase 2 would principally consist of bus rapid transit (BRT) service in the corridor with new and improved intermodal connections; and Phase 3 would add rail rapid transit in a Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­15 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED portion of the corridor (generally from Wellington/Assembly Square/ Sullivan Square in the north, through Cambridge, across the Charles River, through the Kenmore/Fenway/LMA to Dudley Square in the south). The MIS proposal for Urban Ring Phase 1 entailed an expanded network of conventional bus routes to meet transit demand in the corridor in the near­term. These bus routes included additional “crosstown” routes (CT4, CT5, CT6, CT7, CT8, CT9, CT10 and CT11) and “express commuter,” or “EC,” routes (EC1 and EC2). These routes were proposed to provide principally circumferential service, although the EC routes and some of these CT routes would also provide “circumfer­radial” service, or service that would follow an outer radial alignment until it entered the Urban Ring corridor, at which point it would follow a circumferential alignment through the corridor. Because Urban Ring Phase 1 would involve only supplemental bus service, and would not trigger any state environmental thresholds under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), the EOEA Secretary's Certificate on the MIS did not require Phase 1 to undergo any environmental permitting process. As a result, the MBTA assumed responsibility for implementing Phase 1 through its service planning process. As a result, Urban Ring Phase 1 bus service proposals have been evaluated in the context of systemwide transit needs and budget constraints. While the MBTA has not implemented any new independent CT routes since the MIS Phase 1 proposal, service improvements have included some elements of the Urban Ring Phase 1 proposals. In particular, the MBTA’s 2006 Key Bus Routes Improvement Program has implemented service, frequency, and operational improvements on most of the MBTA’s highest volume existing bus routes, including several routes that overlap the Urban Ring Phase 1 proposals. These include improvements to the following bus routes, with corresponding Urban Ring Phase 1 proposals: • Route 15 (Ruggles Station – Fields Corner/Kane Square) corresponds to major segments of CT4 (Ruggles Station – JFK/UMass Station) and CT11 (LMA – Fields Corner); • Route 23 (Ruggles Station – Ashmont Station) corresponds to segments of CT4 (Ruggles Station – JFK/UMass Station) and CT7 (Kendall Square – Franklin Park Zoo); • Route 28 (Ruggles Station – Mattapan Square) corresponds to segments of CT4 (Ruggles Station – JFK/UMass Station) and CT7 (Kendall Square – Franklin Park Zoo); • Route 57 (Watertown Yard – Kenmore Square) corresponds to a segment of CT9 (Harvard Square – Kenmore Square); • Route 66 (Harvard Square – Dudley Square) corresponds to a segment of CT9 (Harvard Square – Kenmore Square) and provides a one­seat Harvard Square – LMA circumferential connection; • Route 111 (Woodlawn – Haymarket Station) corresponds to a major segment of CT6 (Chelsea – Kendall Square); and • Route 116/117 (Wonderland Station – Maverick Station) does not overlap with the CT5 (Logan Airport – Sullivan Square), but it does provide a corresponding Chelsea – Blue Line connection. While these key route improvements would not provide the new single­seat connections that some of the Urban Ring Phase 1 proposals would, these key route improvements have improved service for much of the Urban Ring corridor. The current Urban Ring Phase 2 proposal focuses the project’s resources and improvements on the BRT services, which would realize the greatest service improvements through the provision of dedicated running way, high­capacity vehicles, and enhanced stations. The Phase 2 proposal would retain the existing CT1, CT2 and CT3 services. The portions of the CT routes that overlap the BRT alignments would be superseded by the BRT routes, while the non­contiguous portions of the alignment would be retained as CT routes. The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA would not implement any new elements of Phase 1, the responsibility for which remains with MBTA service planning. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­16 November 2008 Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED After completing the MIS, the MBTA subsequently prepared the Urban Ring Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to address the state environmental regulations under MEPA. The DEIR process, which included comprehensive public involvement, was completed in November 2004. The DEIR included a locally preferred alternative (LPA) for a system of overlapping BRT routes, new and improved stations on existing commuter rail lines, and new supporting bus lines in the Urban Ring corridor. Based on the DEIR analysis and a range of public comment, the Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) issued a Certificate in response to the Phase 2 DEIR. The Certificate recognized the validity of the document’s analysis and conclusions, and supported the general project proposal and corridor, but it also raised a number of issues for further analysis, including the following principal issues: • Congestion on surface streets in the Longwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA), and the potential for a tunnel through this area; • Congestion on the Boston University Bridge over the Charles River, and the potential for an alternate connection; • Impacts of traveling in mixed traffic in certain congested areas of the Urban Ring corridor, and the potential for increased use of dedicated rights­of­way/busways; • Inclusion of Allston, and the planned Harvard University development initiatives, in the project corridor; • Feasibility of constructing a new commuter rail station in Allston on the Worcester/Framingham Line, as well as transit services from a station located in Allston to Yawkey and Back Bay Stations; • Impacts of BRT operation on historic parkways, especially the Fenway; and • Other detailed routing issues, including some that would move proposed BRT routes a short distance to a parallel right­of­way. EOT has undertaken a subsequent round of planning and environmental review for Urban Ring Phase 2 in order to address the comments and issues raised in the DEIR Certificate, and in order to meet the federal environmental requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This RDEIR/DEIS document analyzes a wide range of alternatives (described in detailed in Chapter 3, Alternatives and Evaluation) and identifies a new LPA (described in Chapter 2, Locally Preferred Alternative) that best serves the project’s Purpose and Need. The Urban Ring Phase 2 is one of the most highly rated transit projects in the 2003 MBTA Program for Mass Transportation (PMT). The PMT is the result of a periodic planning process that identifies and evaluates potential transit projects; projects that are evaluated positively in the PMT are identified as having greater potential for further study and implementation. Evaluation results in the 2003 PMT were reported in tabular form using three categories: high priority, medium priority and low priority projects. Projects with the highest overall evaluation results were designated as high priority; those in the middle, medium priority; and those satisfying the fewest performance measures, low priority. In Chapter 5C: System Expansion of the 2003 PMT, Urban Ring Phase 2 received the highest rating across all seven performance measures of the PMT evaluation process, and therefore was listed as one of the high priority system expansion projects on page ES­6 of the PMT.1 The Urban Ring Phase 2 is also included among the recommended projects in the Boston Region MPO’s financially constrained long­range 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which was published in 2007. 1 CTPS, 2003 Program for Mass Transportation. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 1­17 November 2008