Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2.0 LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
This chapter describes the recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for Urban Ring Phase 2.
The LPA is the result of the evaluation of nine Build Alternatives and three Hybrid Alternatives that are
described and evaluated in Chapter 3. Section 2.1 is a detailed description of the LPA, Section 2.2
describes the transportation benefits of the LPA, Section 2.3 describes the BRT vehicle fleet size and
maintenance facility, Section 2.4 describes environmental impacts and their mitigation, and Section 2.5
provides a summary of estimated capital and operating costs.
The LPA is an integrated system of transit improvements that meets the need to provide better
circumferential transit service in areas of Boston and the neighboring municipalities of Brookline,
Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Medford and Somerville. The LPA would pass through a corridor where the
existing radial MBTA rapid transit and commuter rail lines fan out, and transit access to residential
neighborhoods and activity centers becomes more limited. Many of these areas contain high
concentrations of environmental justice populations and households without automobiles that depend on
transit for access and mobility. The LPA also meets the needs of regional travelers connecting to and
from the Urban Ring corridor, enabling them to avoid a trip to downtown to transfer services.
The LPA would create more direct transit routes for large numbers of existing MBTA riders, as well as
attracting new MBTA riders who divert from automobiles and private shuttle modes. It would also attract
additional riders who combine walking or bicycling trips with transit. More than 36,850 people currently
ride private shuttle buses daily in the project corridor because the existing public transit connections do
1
not meet their needs. By increasing transfer opportunities and decreasing the need for many transit
riders to travel into downtown Boston and transfer to an outgoing line to reach their destination, the LPA
would also reduce congestion on other heavily used MBTA rapid transit lines. Intercepting transit riders
outside the congested downtown core of Boston would improve travel times and convenience for
commuters and travelers throughout the region, thereby attracting more transit riders to the system and
reducing the number of miles traveled (and air pollution emitted) by automobiles.
Unlike other transit projects that typically consist of one line or service, the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA is a
system of several different types of transit lines and stations. The major components are:
•
Five Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes covering a 25-mile highly urbanized mile-wide corridor
with nearly a half million residents in the year 2030;
•
36 stations2 ranging from street-level shelters to larger stations with joint development
opportunities;
•
19 intermodal transfer points that would create connections with all existing MBTA rapid
transit lines, as well as most commuter rail lines and several major bus hubs.
Public, stakeholder, and agency involvement has been central in the development of the LPA. The
project’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) has continued to serve as a principal channel for public and
stakeholder participation to supplement EOT’s periodic major public meetings on the project and its
briefings for neighborhood and institutional groups. EOT has worked closely with the CAC and its
subcommittees throughout the alternatives analysis process to provide information and revise the design
of alternatives in response to public and stakeholder concerns. Similarly, EOT has engaged a wide range
of agencies at the municipal, state and federal levels with a stake in the successful outcome of this
project. It is this active involvement and coordination that has produced a Locally Preferred Alternative
that successfully meets the access needs of the people and businesses of Greater Boston.
1
2
Private shuttle ridership information was collected from shuttle providers, including MASCO, Charles River Transportation
Management and Boston Medical Center Shuttle Service in 2007. For more private shuttle ridership information refer to Table
4-8: Summary of Private Shuttle Daily Ridership by Owner in Chapter 4.
The precise number of stations may change based on final Allston alignment.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-1
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2.1
Locally Preferred Alternative Description
The analysis of the alternatives and their respective benefits, costs and impacts has enabled the selection
of a recommended LPA for the project corridor. The 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 2-1 shows some key characteristics and performance measures of the Urban Ring Phase 2
LPA.
Table 2-1:
LPA Characteristics and Statistics
Daily riders
184,000 (weekday year 2030) trips
Number of buses (including layover and spares)
73
Stations
36
Maintenance facilities
Wellington and Southampton Street (1)
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)(2)
Jobs within a 10-minute walk of a planned station
378,600 (in 2030)(2)
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 (compared to No-Build)
41,500 person-vehicle trips per day
Travel time savings (compared to No-Build)
8-9 minutes for a 30 minute ride(3)
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction (compared to No-Build)
189,400 vehicle miles per day
Environmental Justice residents served
218,600 (2000)
Capital cost (2007 dollars)
$2.4 billion (approximate)
Operating and maintenance costs
$30-40 million per year (approximate)
Cost effectiveness
$15-20 per user hour benefit
(FTA New Starts “medium” standard is $16-24)(4)
Note: 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.
(1)
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.
(2)
Population and employment (jobs) are used to represent the land use and economic development characteristics
in the Urban Ring corridor. These measures are included in the Regional Transportation Plan for the region and
the CTPS regional travel demand model.
(3)
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.
(4)
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 2-2
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
One of the central performance measures, trips that are projected to use the Urban Ring Phase 2 in the
horizon year of 2030, has 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, which is 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 the review of these projections as the Urban Ring
Phase 2 progresses toward a New Starts program application.
The LPA would be served by the following five overlapping BRT routes:3
• 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; and
• BRT 7 Yawkey Station - Mystic Mall (Everett Avenue).
The LPA described in this chapter entails a single, final preferred alignment and service plan in most
segments of the corridor. However, there are five major issues (related to uncertainty about timing,
actions by others, and/or the project funding environment) that necessitate a recognition of routing
options, contingent alignments, or the potential for refinements to the LPA alignment or implementation
plan. The following are the LPA elements with uncertainties, and the principal sources of uncertainty:
• 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
3
BRT route numbers 3 and 4 were included in alternatives analysis, but have been eliminated from the LPA as separate routes in
order to optimize alignment, service characteristics, and cost-effectiveness.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-3
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
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 proposal from the perspective of cost-effectiveness, engineering feasibility,
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 by the City of Boston 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. As a
result, there is significant uncertainty about the Commonwealth’s ability to advance the Urban Ring.
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.
These issues are described in detail in the relevant sector descriptions in Section 2.1. EOT is now
performing a study for the Allston area that entails coordination with the City of Boston, Harvard
University, Boston University, the Allston neighborhood, and other stakeholders. The preliminary
engineering findings of that study will be used to further define and evaluate the potential Urban Ring LPA
alignments and configurations. Modifications for other areas will be evaluated as the preliminary
engineering phase of the Urban Ring project progresses, with a particular focus on the proposed tunnel
alignment in the Fenway/LMA segment of the corridor.
Figure 2-1 shows the proposed alignment of LPA and Figure 2-2 shows the BRT routes that make up the
LPA.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-4
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 2-1
Urban Ring Phase 2 Locally Preferred Alternative
Ev e re tt
Wellington
Downtown
Chelsea
Station
Me df or d
So merv i lle
Assembly
Square
Chel sea
Sullivan
Square
Harvard
Square
Ea st
Bo st o n
New
Lechmere
Airport
Ca mbri 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 B o s to n
Newmarket
Dudley
Square
Ro xb ury
JFK/UMass
Do rch es t 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
Urban Ring Phase 2
RDEIR/DEIS
Locally Preferred Alternative
Miles
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-5
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 2-2
Locally Preferred Alternative BRT Routes
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-6
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Summary of Bus Rapid Transit Elements and Systemwide Transit Features
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. Chapters 3 and 4 discuss
the bus rapid transit elements and systemwide transit feature options. The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA
includes the following important BRT project elements:
• Dedicated roadway – This refers to roadway space that is restricted for special transit use. In the
Urban Ring LPA, dedicated roadway for BRT use is available in the form of “busways,” or roadways
reserved for bus-only use (either surface busways or busway in tunnel), and bus lanes on existing
roadways that also carry general traffic. The proposed bus lanes in the LPA would not have adjacent
on-street parking, which can create “friction” from parking entry and exit, as well as blockage from
double-parking. Bus lanes would be designated by pavement markings and signage.
• Bus queue-jump lanes – These are a special type of bus lane that is most suited to congested
roadways with limited opportunity for long stretches of continuous bus lane. Bus queue-jump lanes
are short priority lanes for buses in advance of a signalized intersection; these are typically combined
with traffic signal priority improvements to allow the higher-capacity vehicles to move through the
intersection in advance of the general traffic queue when a traffic signal turns green. This reduces the
delay caused by the signal and improves the operational efficiency of the transit system.
• High-frequency service – In peak periods, proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 service would range from
every 10 minutes to as often as every 3 minutes in heavy demand segments of the corridor. Station
dwell times would range from 15 to 30 seconds, with 15 or 25 second dwell time at most stations.
• High capacity, low-emission vehicles – Vehicles would be 60-foot articulated buses powered by
diesel-electric hybrid engines, with low emissions and low floors for easy, rapid boarding. The BRT
vehicles would be configured with passenger circulation enhancements that can have important
impacts on dwell time, capacity, passenger comfort, and community and rider acceptance.
Conventional 40-foot transit buses typically can carry approximately 50-60 passengers, while 60-foot
articulated buses of the type assumed for Urban Ring Phase 2 have capacities of approximately 8090 passengers (depending upon configuration of doors and seats). Diesel-electric hybrid engines
provide improved performance and fuel economy with reduced emissions. Hybrid engines are capable
of using low-emission fuel on city street and electric power in the tunnels.
• Widely-spaced, substantial and recognizable transit stations, rather than bus stops – Four BRT
station prototypes were developed based on specific site conditions. They include stand-alone station,
joint development, intermodal and underground tunnel prototypes. The Urban Ring station prototypes
include new features, including weather protection, security cameras, ITS features, fare vending
machines and vertical icons that make stations both user-friendly and identifiable from a distance.
(See Chapter 3 for more detailed description of the station prototypes.)
• Advanced communications – This includes technology that reduces delay for BRT vehicles at traffic
signals, provides real-time traveler information, and enforces bus only use of dedicated BRT lanes,
busways and tunnels. BRT vehicles typically utilize Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
technology to improve reliability, increase safety, and reduce travel time on a BRT system. ITS
technology consists of different combinations of technologies such as Automatic Vehicle Location
(AVL), Automated Scheduling and Dispatch (ASD), and Transit Signal Priority (TSP). These
technologies provide real-time schedule information and inform passengers of any delays incurred at
stations. TSP systems that can be facilitated with timing adjustments on every signal cycle are
appropriate with large numbers of buses and highly congested conditions. A detailed description of
the signal priority system is provided in Chapter 4. The Urban Ring project may also be able to use
photo and video enforcement technology (bus-mounted or fixed cameras) for automatic enforcement
of dedicated bus lanes, busways and tunnels (depending upon technology advances and
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-7
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
legal/regulatory environment). Automated enforcement technology is described in Chapter 3, Section
3.11.
• Modernized fare collection system – This includes electronic and mechanical fare collection
systems that maximize the boarding efficiency of the BRT buses. It is assumed that Urban Ring
Phase 2 BRT vehicles would utilize equipment and technology for fare transactions based on
embedded-chip smart cards (consistent with the MBTA Charlie Card system).
Figure 2-3 and Table 2-2 provide an overview of corridor segments. These segments correspond to the
detailed descriptions of the LPA alignment in Sections 2.1.1 – 2.1.11.
The following sections describe the key characteristics of the LPA in each of the 11 geographic sectors of
the project corridor, beginning in East Boston at Logan Airport and proceeding counterclockwise (see
Figure 2-3 for Segments and Sectors Map). The LPA sector descriptions include a summary of the sector
area, the Urban Ring stations in the sector, the Urban Ring service characteristics, transportation issues,
environmental issues, and economic development issues. Detailed maps of the LPA alignment and the
route structure of the five BRT routes are provided at the end of this section.
2.1.1 Sector 1: East Boston/Logan Airport
Sector 1 of the LPA alignment extends from the I-90 Ted Williams Tunnel to the crossing of Chelsea
Creek at Chelsea Street in East Boston. It uses existing regional highway and Massport roadways in
combination with a proposed new bus and commercial vehicle only facility located in the abandoned
railroad right of way between Logan Airport and the approach to the Chelsea Street Bridge. See Figures
2-4 and 2-5 for Sector 1 alignment of the LPA.
The key transportation features of Sector 1 include access to the centrally located West Garage at Logan
Airport, connection to Airport Station on the Blue Line, and travel in the proposed restricted-access East
Boston Haul Road, which would improve travel time and reliability by allowing buses to avoid general
traffic congestion in and around the airport and on neighborhood streets.
Stations. The LPA includes two stations in this sector that would be located at:
• Logan West Garage; and
• Airport (Blue Line connection).
These stations would provide connections with four MBTA bus routes and Massport shuttles, as well as
one connection with the MBTA Blue Line (at the Airport). Refer to Table 2-3 for list of connections.
Urban Ring Service. Urban Ring service would be available on three BRT routes:
• Route 1 - Airport Station to Kendall Square (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15 minutes
midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
• Route 2 - Logan West Garage Station to Sullivan Square (headways = 10 minutes peak periods,
15 minutes midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
• Route 7 – Yawkey Station to Mystic Mall (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15 minutes
midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
All three routes would serve Airport Station, which is directly accessible to the East Boston neighborhood
via Bremen Street, and has direct connections with both the Blue Line and various Massport shuttle
buses. The BRT2 route only would serve the two stations in Sector 1: Airport West Garage Station would
be served via a new bus-only connection to a station stop at the ground floor of the existing West Garage
with vertical circulation to the pedestrian bridge and moving sidewalk network that connects with
individual airport terminals; and Airport Station.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-8
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 2-3
Overview of Corridor Segment
Me df or d
Ev e re tt
A
3
2
So merv i lle
Chel sea
4
Ea s t
Bo s t o n
1
Ca mbri dg e
5
7
6
11
B
8
C
9
So uth Bo s to n
Br o ok lin e
Ro xb ury
10
Do rch 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 2-9
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Route and Running Way
• In I-90 Ted Williams Tunnel and Route 1A in mixed traffic
o BRT2 route only: from terminus at Logan Airport West Garage via West Garage access
road in mixed traffic and Airport Service Road in mixed traffic
• Logan Airport Service Road in mixed traffic to Airport Station (Blue Line connection)
o BRT2 route only: from Airport Station via Logan Airport Service Road in mixed traffic to
Frankfort Street
• Airport Service Road in mixed traffic to East Boston Haul Road, a proposed new combined
•
busway/commercial vehicle facility that passes beneath Route 1A along former railroad alignment
to reach Chelsea Street
Chelsea Street in mixed traffic across Chelsea Creek Bridge (to be rebuilt by others) in mixed
traffic
The alignment total for this segment is 3.0 miles, of which 30 percent would be the combined
busway/commercial vehicle facility and 70 percent would be mixed traffic operation. The mixed traffic
portion is primarily the I-90 Williams Tunnel and Logan Airport roadways, while the dedicated right of way
portion is in the proposed East Boston Haul Road. Average travel speeds would be approximately 16
mph in each direction.
Demographics. An estimated 22,100 people will live within a one-half mile walk of one of these two
stations, of whom a majority of residents live within TAZs that meet regional Environmental Justice criteria
(based on current population characteristics), and 11,000 people are expected work within one-half mile
of a station (an area that includes Logan Airport and its employees) by 2030, the project horizon planning
year. A traffic analysis zone (TAZ) is a defined geographic area used in transportation network modeling.
The criteria for establishing TAZs include homogenous land use, street system and natural barriers, and
other factors. There are 2,727 TAZs in the CTPS regional transportation model being used for this
project. Each TAZ has population and employment characteristics that are converted to vehicle trips
which are then assigned to the local and regional roadway network.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key transportation, environmental and economic
development issues in this sector. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary
engineering and design stages of the planning and environmental review process. More detailed
summary information is provided in Chapter 4 (Transportation) and Chapter 5 (Environmental).
Transportation Issues
• Coordination with implementation of the East Boston Haul Road, a proposed restricted use
roadway in the former railroad right of way between the Airport Service Road and Chelsea Street.
This roadway is proposed to provide airport-related commercial vehicles, airport-related shuttles,
and other transit vehicles (including the Urban Ring) with access between Logan Airport and
Chelsea that avoids the heavy congestion in Day Square and the Neptune Road corridor. The
service plan for the three proposed Urban Ring BRT routes combined (totaling approximately one
transit vehicle every three minutes during peak periods in each direction) in combination with the
fairly low demand by other vehicles should allow good travel times and vehicle operations, with
no capacity issues. This shared-use approach allows multi-use benefits and should improve the
environmental benefits to the East Boston neighborhood. Additional analysis is needed to finalize
appropriate design of the facility and determine cost-sharing as appropriate.
• Logan Airport West Garage BRT Station Layout. Several optional route and station location
options were coordinated with Massport, which controls planning and ground transportation at
Logan International Airport. Massport has expressed a preference that the Urban Ring BRT
service provides a single centralized station location rather than serving all the individual
terminals, and that the location be within the ground floor of the existing West Garage where it
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-10
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
can take advantage of existing pedestrian bridges and moving sidewalks connecting to the
individual airport terminals. Further details of the station layout and circulation will be defined in
coordination with Massport in subsequent phases of project development.
Environmental Issues
• Sites where hazardous materials have been identified are limited to five locations where
underground storage tanks have been identified or are listed as unclassified sites.
• Coordination with the East Boston Greenway. During the DEIR process coordination meetings
were held with East Boston and Greenway stakeholder groups. The key coordination issue with
the East Boston Greenway, an existing shared-use path with a proposed extension, is where the
proposed Greenway extension and the planned busway pass beneath Route 1A. A conceptual
engineering plan was developed that shows the separation of uses and the location of a signal
protected at-grade pedestrian and bicycle crossing at the intersection of the busway with the
Airport Service Road. As the respective projects advance, further coordination on right-of-way
acquisition and design details will be necessary to ensure that the compatibility established at the
conceptual level continues and is further enhanced.
2.1.2 Sector 2: Chelsea
Sector 2 of the LPA alignment crosses Chelsea Creek using the Chelsea Street Bridge (proposed for
reconstruction by others) and passes through East Chelsea on Eastern Avenue parallel to the waterfront
before entering an exclusive busway in the abandoned rail corridor. It then parallels the south side of the
existing MBTA Rockport Commuter Rail line in a busway that extends westward through Everett. See
Figure 2-5 for Sector 2 alignment of the LPA.
The busway, which extends through most of Chelsea, would provide improved travel time and reliability
over the general traffic roadways, which carry high truck volumes and are often congested. The alignment
also provides a more direct route than the circuitous existing roadways. New or upgraded signals would
be provided at grade crossings to improve safety and operations. The connection with commuter rail at
the Downtown Chelsea Station would improve service and connections for riders to and from Chelsea.
Stations. The LPA includes three stations in this sector that would be located at:
• Griffin Way;
• Downtown Chelsea (connections to commuter rail); and
• Mystic Mall.
These stations would provide connections with five MBTA bus routes and the MBTA Newbury/Rockport
Commuter Rail Line at Downtown Chelsea Station. Refer to Table 2-4 for a list of connections. Through
much of this sector, the route is in a dedicated busway with minimal roadway crossings located alongside
the existing MBTA commuter rail Newbury/Rockport line, which would enable faster and more reliable
operation than in mixed traffic on existing roadways (e.g., Revere Beach Parkway/Route 16). Transitoriented development opportunities at the Chelsea Downtown and Everett Avenue station locations are
rated high.
Urban Ring Service. Urban Ring service would be available on three BRT routes:
• Route 1 - Airport Blue Line Station to Kendall Square (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15
minutes midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-11
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
• Route 2 - Logan Airport to Sullivan Square (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15 minutes
midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
• Route 7 – Yawkey to Mystic Mall (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15 minutes midday and
Saturday, and 20 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
Route and Running Way
• Eastern Avenue in mixed traffic 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
The alignment total for this segment is 2.0 miles, of which 60 percent would be exclusive busway and 40
percent would be mixed traffic operation. Average travel speeds would be approximately 14 mph in each
direction.
Demographics. An estimated 28,200 people will live within a one-half mile walk of one of these four
stations, and 10,900 people will work within one-half mile of a station by 2030, the project horizon
planning year. Significantly, the Urban Ring Phase 2 is expected to serve large environmental justice (EJ)
populations in this area, as more than three-fourths of year 2000 residents near these stations live within
TAZs that meet regional Environmental Justice criteria.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key environmental and economic development issues
in this sector. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary engineering and
design stages of the planning and environmental review process. In addition, there is some uncertainty in
this segment of the LPA alignment that merits special recognition. More detailed summary information is
provided in Chapters 4 and 5..
Transportation Issues
• The principal outstanding issue related to future risk and uncertainty in this sector of the corridor
is right-of-way acquisition of the CSX-controlled abandoned rail corridor that extends from East
Chelsea through Everett along the south side of the active MBTA-owned Newburyport/Rockport
commuter rail line. Protecting the integrity of this abandoned rail corridor was identified in the MIS
(2001) and DEIR (2004) as a high priority to facilitate its acquisition and conversion to transit use
for the Urban Ring.
Environmental Issues
• Sites where hazardous materials have been identified are limited to 3 locations where
underground storage tanks have been identified or are listed as unclassified sites.
Economic Development
• The three proposed stations in this sector have high potential to spur economic development and
redevelopment. The alignment and stations are compatible with local planning goals for new
transit-oriented development. Stations are within walking distance of high density residential
neighborhoods.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-12
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2.1.3 Sector 3: Everett
Sector 3 of the LPA continues the busway along the south side of the Rockport commuter rail line, passes
beneath the rail line in a new bus only underpass, then beneath the existing Route 99 underpass. The
LPA alignment then turns north following adjacent to the Saugus Branch rail spur, which passes beneath
Revere Beach Parkway and then west adjacent to the north side of the Parkway where it crosses the
Malden River to reach the Wellington Orange Line station. See Figures 2-5 and 2-6 for Sector 3
alignment of the LPA.
The alignment in this sector is provided entirely in exclusive busway. As a result travel times and reliability
would be greatly improved over the future No-Build and Baseline alternatives which travel on the
congested Revere Beach Parkway. Travel time for the one mile between Everett Station in Everett and
Mystic Mall Station in Chelsea would be approximately 2 minutes. This is much faster than any existing
bus route in the area.
Stations. The LPA includes one station in this sector that would be located at:
• Everett
This station would provide connections with five MBTA bus routes. Refer to Table 2-5 for list of
connections. Through much of this sector, the BRT busway would be located alongside the existing
MBTA commuter rail Newbury/Rockport line, which would enable faster and more reliable operation.
Urban Ring Service Urban Ring service would be available on two BRT routes:
• Route 1 – Airport Blue Line Station to Kendall Square (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15
minutes midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
• Route 2 - Logan Airport to Sullivan Square (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15 minutes
midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
Route and Running Way
• Busway in abandoned railroad bed (adjacent to the commuter rail line) continues to the west of
Second Street
• Busway enters tunnel (south of Sweetser Circle and east of Everett Station) 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
• Corporation Way in mixed traffic to Wellington Station (Orange Line and bus connections)
The alignment total for this segment is 1.0 mile, of which 100 percent would be exclusive busway.
Average travel speeds would be approximately 28 mph in each direction.
Demographics. An estimated 5,400 people will live within a one-half mile walk of one of these four
stations, and 4,300 people will work within one-half mile of a station by 2030, the project horizon planning
year. Significantly, the Urban Ring Phase 2 is expected to serve large environmental justice (EJ)
populations in this area, as more than 4,500 residents near these stations live in TAZs that meet regional
Environmental Criteria.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key environmental and economic development issues
in this sector. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary engineering and
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-13
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
design stages of the planning and environmental review process. In addition, there is some uncertainty in
this segment of the LPA alignment that merits special recognition. More detailed summary information is
provided in Chapters 4 and 5.
Transportation Issues
• The proposed busway bridge across the Malden River would require review and permitting
related to waterways access and environmental impacts. The U.S. Coast Guard would need to
review the proposal to determine whether a moveable span would be required at this location to
enable adequate waterways access. If the U.S. Coast Guard approved a fixed span in this
location, the capital, operating and maintenance costs would be lower, which would improve the
cost effectiveness of the project. A fixed span may have the further advantage of potential cost
savings on construction of the busway bridge, because the existing six-lane moveable span that
carries the Revere Beach Parkway in this corridor is in need of replacement. The owner of the
bridge, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, has indicated that it may be necessary
to construct a temporary bridge for maintenance of traffic. If design and timing issues could be
addressed, converting the temporary bridge to later busway use could reduce the environmental
impacts and costs of a completely new busway bridge over the Malden River.
Environmental Issues
• The main environmental issue within this sector is potential wetland and Chapter 91 impacts on
the Malden River, and impacts to associated plant and animal species and habitats. The
proposed busway may impact wetlands and water resources associated with the Malden River.
Bordering vegetated wetlands, characterized as a palustrine emergent wetland and dominated by
common reed and broad-leaved cattail, are located along both sides of the Revere Beach
Parkway east of the proposed Malden River crossing. Additionally, the Malden River itself may be
impacted by the construction of a new busway that would also trigger Chapter 91 licensing.
Impacts may include filling or altering wetland resource areas.
• Within this sector, open sites with identified hazardous materials include Monsanto Chemical
located on Mystic View Road (RTN 3-0313), which is a Tier II site where a release of an unknown
chemical occurred in a lagoon, and an unidentified site also located at 2401 Revere Beach
Parkway (RTN 3-26369), which is an Unclassified Waste Site. In addition, this sector has four
locations where underground storage tanks have been identified or are listed as unclassified
sites.
• Moderate to high archaeological sensitivity on shorelines and in river for the new Malden River
busway bridge. Moderate sensitivity for the busway route in cross-country section through rail
yard.
• Parkland along the northern roadway edge of Revere Beach Parkway between Sweetser Circle
and Santilli Circle in Everett may be affected. While the segment of land affected by the new
busway does not contain any passive or active recreational areas, it is owned by DCR and thus
would trigger a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Article 97 conversion. Although the
area is not actively used for recreation, it is an open space that is part of the DCR parkway
system.
• Revere Beach Parkway is a general use parkway, so no adverse environmental consequences
associated with bus use within the existing roadway is anticipated.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-14
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Economic Development
• The proposed Everett Station supports planned development projects in the area including Rivers
Edge. The project could help to enhance transit-oriented and smart growth development in the
area.
2.1.4 Sector 4: Wellington/Somerville/Charlestown
Sector 4 of the LPA alignment passes through Wellington Circle and uses the Fellsway to access
Assembly Square and then existing streets to reach Sullivan Square, and then through the Inner Belt
district in Somerville, from which it would use a new busway viaduct to pass over the Fitchburg Line
commuter rail tracks to reach New Lechmere Station in East Cambridge. See Figures 2-6 and 2-7 for
Sector 4 alignment of the LPA.
A combination of busways and bus lanes would be provided through most of this sector, including over
the Malden River and through Inner Belt Road, and connecting Inner Belt Road to New Lechmere. The
project would also take advantage of the planned improvements at Wellington Circle. These features
would improve travel time and reliability over the Baseline alignment, which would use congested local
roadways. The project would connect with the Orange Line at two locations in this sector (three if the
proposed Orange Line station at Assembly Square were implemented and the BRT routed to connect
with it) and with the commuter rail. These connections would improve service and options for riders.
Stations. The LPA includes four stations in this sector that would be located at:
• Wellington (Orange Line, major bus hub connections);
• Assembly Square (potential future Orange Line connection);
• Sullivan Square (Orange Line, proposed new commuter rail, major bus hub connections); and
• Inner Belt.
These stations would provide connections with 19 MBTA bus routes and two connections with existing
MBTA Orange Line stations at Wellington Station and Sullivan Square (there is also a proposal for a new
Orange Line station at Assembly Square). Refer to Table 2-6 for a list of connections. Future transitoriented development opportunities are rated highly at all four station locations.
Urban Ring Service. Urban Ring service would be available on three BRT routes:
• Route 1 – Airport Blue Line Station to Kendall Square (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15
minutes midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
• Route 2 - Logan Airport to Sullivan Square (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15 minutes
midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
• Route 5 – Sullivan Square to Ruggles Station (headways = 7 minutes peak periods, 12 minutes
midday and Saturday, and 15 minutes nighttime, Sundays and holiday)
Route and Running Way
•
•
•
•
Revere Beach Parkway through Wellington Circle in mixed traffic
Route 28 in mixed traffic to Middlesex Avenue
Middlesex Avenue to Assembly Square Station
Assembly Square Station to Mystic Avenue/Broadway in mixed traffic
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-15
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
• Mystic Avenue in mixed traffic to Sullivan Square Station (Orange Line, proposed new commuter rail, major bus hub 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)
The alignment for this segment measures 3.0 miles, of which 20 percent would be separated running
way. Average travel speeds would be approximately 12 mph in each direction.
Demographics. An estimated 25,700 people will live within a one-half mile walk of one of these four
stations, and 33,400 people will work within one-half mile of a station by 2030, the project horizon
planning year. Approximately half of all residents living within this radius of future stations live in TAZs
that meet regional Environmental Justice criteria.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key transportation, environmental and economic
development issues in this sector. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary
engineering and design stages of the planning and environmental review process. More detailed
summary information is provided in Chapters 4 and 5.
Transportation Issues
• Wellington Circle, at the intersection of Revere Beach Parkway/Route 16 and the Fellsway/Route
28, currently has heavy traffic congestion. The Boston Region MPO’s Regional Transportation
Plan includes a major improvement project for Revere Beach Parkway/Route 16 that would entail
grade-separation of this intersection. This is important for optimizing travel time on this segment
of the Urban Ring alignment.
• EOT is coordinating with the City of Somerville to review the future street network at Assembly
Square in East Somerville. There are challenges to providing bus lanes near the proposed center
of the Assembly Square district.
• EOT is coordinating with the City of Boston and the MBTA on accommodating bus lanes into and
out of Sullivan Square and bus circulation at the station through an ongoing City of Boston
planning and design effort for Sullivan Square. This effort is intended to improve travel time and
reliability for existing MBTA bus routes, as well as potential Urban Ring Phase 2 bus connections,
whether via the current LPA or an adjusted alignment via the Route 99 corridor (as in Alternative
4A, described in Chapter 3).
• EOT will coordinate with on the future street network at the west end of the North Point
development in East Cambridge to ensure that it can accommodate a connection to the planned
Urban Ring busway between Inner Belt and North Point.
Environmental Issues
• The main environmental issue within this sector is the reconstruction of the bridge over the
Malden River and potential wetland and Chapter 91 impacts, and impacts to associated plant and
animal species and habitats. As in Sector 3, the proposed busway crossing at the Malden River
may impact the wetlands and water resources associated with the river. Proposed work within the
Malden River would trigger Chapter 91 licensing.
• Within this Sector, open sites with identified hazardous materials include the MBTA Water Street
Car House located on Water Street (RTN 3-18502), which is a Tier II site where naphthalene and
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-16
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2-methylnaphthalene have been released, the East Cambridge Service Yard located on East
Street (RTN 3-12467), which is a Tier ID site where a release of TPH occurred the property
located at 30 Allen Street identified as a US Brownfield site and B&M Yard 21 located at Foley
Street and Tenney Court (RTN 3-4082), which is a Tier II site relative to a release of an unknown
chemical.
Economic Development
• The project is consistent with and enhances the proposed development at Assembly Square,
which is being developed as a mixed-use transit-oriented development. Urban Ring service would
provide enhanced transit connectivity and capacity for Assembly Square.
• The project would bring bus rapid transit to Somerville’s Inner Belt district, which currently does
not have transit service. It would provide fast and direct connections between Inner Belt and
many radial transit services, in particular the Orange Line and commuter rail at Sullivan Square
Station; the Green Line at New Lechmere Station; and the Red Line at Kendall/MIT Station. This
would enhance transit-oriented and smart growth development opportunities in this area.
• The project would increase the transit connectivity and capacity for Sullivan Square by providing
a new commuter rail stop on the Newburyport/Rockport line and the Haverhill line, and by
providing better connectivity with other parts of the Urban Ring corridor. This would enhance
transit-oriented and smart growth development opportunities in this area.
Based on the transportation and environmental issues identified by the cities of Everett, Somerville and
Boston, the LPA alignment between Everett and Sullivan Square is under review.
2.1.5 Sector 5: East Cambridge
Sector 5 of the LPA alignment extends between New Lechmere and Kendall Square. Bus lanes on First
Street and a short busway connection between Third Street and Main Street near Kendall Square would
produce faster travel times and greater reliability than is possible with the existing transit network.
Connections to the Red and Green Lines would improve service and allow riders to travel west to reach
destinations such as Boston University and the Longwood Medical and Academic Area in Boston rather
than traveling first into the central Boston subway system before traveling west. See Figures 2-7 and 2-8
for Sector 5 alignment of the LPA.
Stations. The LPA includes five stations in this sector that would be located at:
• New Lechmere (Green Line, major bus hub connections);
• First Street Galleria;
• Binney Street;
• Fulkerson Street; and
• Kendall/MIT (Red Line, major bus hub connections).
These stations would provide connections with seven MBTA bus routes and connections with the Green
Line at Lechmere and the Red Line at Kendall Square. Refer to Table 2-7 for a listing of connections.
Future transit-oriented development opportunities are rated highly at the station locations.
Urban Ring Service. Urban Ring service would be available on two BRT routes, which overlap between
Kendall Square and Lechmere:
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-17
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
• Route 1 – Airport Blue Line Station to Kendall Square (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15
minutes midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
• Route 5 – Sullivan Square to Ruggles Station via LMA (headways = 7 minutes peak periods, 12
minutes midday and Saturday, and 15 minutes nighttime, Sundays and holiday)
Route and Running Way
• First Street in bus lanes to Binney Street in mixed traffic to Binney Street Station
• To Kendall/MIT Station (Red Line connection) via one of two routes:
o Binney Street in mixed traffic to Fulkerson Street Station to Main Street to terminate at
o
Kendall/MIT Station OR
Third Street in mixed traffic to busway connection to Main Street to Kendall/MIT Station
The alignment total for this segment is 2 miles; of which 28 percent would be separated running way and
72 percent would be mixed traffic operation. Average travel speeds would be approximately 13 mph in
each direction.
Demographics. An estimated 25,500 people would live within a one-half mile walk of one of these four
stations, and 54,000 people would work within one-half mile of a station by 2030, the project horizon
planning year. Approximately 14,100 residents live within this radius of future stations live in TAZs that
meet regional Environmental Justice criteria, based on 2000 population data.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key transportation, environmental and economic
development issues in this sector. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary
engineering and design stages of the planning and environmental review process. More detailed
summary information is provided in Chapters 4 and 5.
Transportation Issues
• The main transportation issue in Sector 5 is the proposed bus lanes on First Street near
Cambridgeside Galleria. These bus lanes are important for speed and reliability of service
between New Lechmere and Kendall Square. First Street currently has a four-lane cross-section,
with two general-purpose lanes in each direction. Traffic volumes and congestion are relatively
low, and should not present a problem for converting one lane in each direction to bus lane.
However, there is currently illegal parking in these curb lanes, which would need to be addressed
through signage and enforcement. Keeping bus lanes clear of parked vehicles and loading and
unloading will be a priority of the Urban Ring project. Bus lanes and busways along the project
corridor would be consistently signed, striped and demarcated to project an overall bus operation
to the motoring public. Consistent enforcement of illegally parked vehicles would be a key
element of this operation. EOT and MBTA will coordinate these issues as the project progresses.
Environmental Issues
• The main environmental issue is the proposed short busway section at Galaxy Park near Kendall
Square. This connection is needed to directly connect Third Street and Main Street, and to
provide faster, more direct connections to and from Kendall/MIT Station. Preliminary designs
have shown that this element can be implemented without significant impact on the park.
However, the alignment would require taking a small amount of open space that was purchased
or improved by public money which would create parkland impacts. Alternative routings would be
available on existing roadways if necessary.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-18
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Economic Development Issues
• The project would increase the transit connectivity and capacity for New Lechmere Station and
the proposed North Point development by providing better connectivity with the Red Line at
Kendall/MIT and other parts of the Urban Ring corridor. This would enhance transit-oriented and
smart growth development opportunities in this area.
• The three new stations (in addition to Kendall and New Lechmere) would increase transit access
for riders. These stations are consistent with the type of transit-oriented development that is being
proposed and constructed in East Cambridge.
2.1.6 Sector 6: Cambridgeport/Charles River Crossing
Sector 6 of the LPA alignment passes through the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) and the Cambridgeport neighborhood of Cambridge; it then crosses the Charles River to connect
with Boston University and the Mountfort Street corridor in the Cottage Farm neighborhood of Brookline.
See Figure 2-8 for Sector 6 alignment of the LPA.
This sector includes a combination of bus lanes on Albany Street and a busway on the Grand Junction
Railroad corridor (west) that includes a busway across a reconstructed Grand Junction Railroad bridge.
The busway in this sector connects with a new station at Commonwealth Avenue/Boston University. The
LPA alignment provides significant travel time benefits in that it provides a direct alignment between
Kendall Square and Boston University. The Baseline alignment would require using local streets in
Cambridgeport and traveling through the BU rotary which is often congested and susceptible to Red Sox
game traffic. This sector also provides for a new Green Line station at Commonwealth Avenue.
Stations. The LPA includes three stations in this sector that would be located at:
• MIT/Massachusetts Avenue;
• Cambridgeport; and
• Boston University (Green Line B Branch connection ).
These stations would provide connections with three MBTA bus routes. Refer to Table 2-8 for a listing of
connections. Future transit-oriented development opportunities are rated highly at the station locations.
Urban Ring Service. Urban Ring service would be available on two BRT routes:
• Route 5 – Ruggles Station to Sullivan Square via LMA (headways = 7 minutes peak periods, 12
minutes midday and Saturday, and 15 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
• Route 6 – JFK/UMass to Harvard Square via LMA (headways = 7 minutes peak periods, 12
minutes midday and Saturday, and 15 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
BRT 5 would serve the entire length of Sector 6, from Kendall Square through the Charles River crossing.
BRT 6 would serve the Boston University – Fenway segment only.
Route and Running Way
• From Kendall Square Station along Main Street in mixed traffic
• Albany Street in combination of bus lanes and mixed traffic (bus lanes split between eastbound
•
and westbound to provide dedicated bus lane approaches
MIT/Massachusetts Avenue Station
Albany Street in combination of bus lanes and mixed traffic to Erie Street
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
to
intersections)
to
Page 2-19
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Busway connection to Cambridgeport Station near Fort Washington Park
Busway in Grand Junction Railroad alignment to Charles River
Busway on Grand Junction Railroad Bridge across Charles River
Busway beneath BU Bridge and beneath proposed future park space on existing Boston
University Academy site
University Road – Southbound in bus lane to Boston University Station – Northbound in mixed
traffic
Carlton Street Bridge over Mass Turnpike – Boston University Station to northbound in bus
lane – Southbound in mixed traffic to bus-only connection
Mountfort Street in bus lanes to Beacon Street (mixed traffic maintained on Mountfort Street)
The alignment total for this segment is 2 miles, of which 69 percent would be separate running way and
31 percent would be mixed traffic. Average travel speeds would be approximately 12 mph in each
direction.
Demographics. An estimated 34,500 people would live within a one-half mile walk of one of these four
stations, and 31,200 people would work within one-half mile of a station by 2030, the project horizon
planning year. Significantly, more than three-fourths of residents near these stations live in TAZs that
meet regional Environmental Justice criteria.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key transportation, environmental and economic
development issues in this sector. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary
engineering and design stages of the planning and environmental review process. In addition, there is
some uncertainty in this segment of the LPA alignment that merits special recognition. More detailed
summary information is provided in Chapters 4 and 5.
Transportation Issues
• Two-way BRT travel is proposed along Albany Street in alternating bus lanes on one side
between Fort Washington Park and Main Street. The proposed bus lanes are at locations that
would provide the best advantages for BRT travel along Albany Street, including queue-jump
lanes in each direction at the approach to Massachusetts Avenue. The bus lane locations have
been coordinated with the City of Cambridge. On the west end of Albany Street BRT buses would
enter a two-way busway adjacent to Fort Washington Park (see next bullet). An interim routing via
an Albany Street (eastbound) – Vassar Street (westbound) one-way pair may be necessary,
depending upon the timing of busway construction. The interim condition would be coordinated
between EOT, the City of Cambridge, and MIT.
• Busway connection and station location adjacent to Fort Washington Park. The project alignment
is currently proposed to connect from Albany Street to the Grand Junction Railroad alignment.
There is currently an empty, MIT-owned parcel in this location bifurcated by an abandoned
industrial rail right-of-way now owned by the City of Cambridge. EOT has coordinated with MIT
and the City of Cambridge to develop a busway alignment and station location that serves the
needs of the Urban Ring project; that serves the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access needs of
students and neighborhood residents; and that is compatible with the character of Ft. Washington
Park and amenable to MIT parcel development needs. EOT will continue to coordinate with MIT
and the City of Cambridge on the design of a busway connection in this area, in the context of
other development plans.
• Busway in the Grand Junction Railroad right-of-way. The LPA proposes a two-way busway
connecting across the existing Grand Junction Railroad track in the vicinity of Fort Washington
Park (at an existing pedestrian grade crossing). 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. The busway
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-20
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
operation adjacent to the Grand Junction Railroad track and the reconstruction of the Grand
Junction Railroad Bridge would require coordination with CSX Transportation, which owns the
right-of-way. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts recently reached agreement with CSX on
purchase of various CSX properties, including the Grand Junction Railroad, which is expected to
facilitate coordination on reconfiguration and use of these facilities for the proposed Urban Ring.
On an interim basis during design and construction of the reconfigured Grand Junction Railroad
Bridge over the Charles River, Urban Ring buses may need to cross the Charles River in mixed
traffic on the existing Boston University Bridge, as the existing MBTA CT2 and 47 buses do
today.
• Boston University Academy tunnel “Y” connection. The LPA alignment would connect from the
Grand Junction Railroad alignment through a new tunnel beneath the Boston University Bridge
and then beneath a proposed park space on the site currently occupied by the Boston University
Academy, a private high school owned and operated by Boston University. As part of its campus
master planning process, Boston University has indicated an intention to relocate BU Academy
and pursue the creation of a publicly-accessible park space, with connections to the Charles
River Esplanade, on that site. This would facilitate creation of the proposed LPA connection. The
preliminary concept for the “Y” connection shows that this alignment appears to be feasible.
Preliminary engineering will be conducted in a next phase of the Urban Ring project. This portion
of the proposed LPA alignment can be developed separately from the Grand Junction Railroad
alignment described above. Until and unless Boston University and other key stakeholders
(including the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, MassHighway, Department of Conservation and
Recreation, the City of Boston, and others) are able to effect the relocation of BU Academy and
the provision of access through the site, the Urban Ring alignment could connect to the Mountfort
Street corridor via a viaduct connection from the Grand Junction Railroad, over the Mass
Turnpike, to Commonwealth Avenue immediately west of the BU Bridge.
• Heavy traffic volumes and congestion make use of the BU Bridge undesirable for Urban Ring
access. Congestion would make travel times on the BU Bridge slower and less reliable than a
connection via a reconfigured Grand Junction Railroad Bridge.
• On the Boston side of the Charles River, the proposed LPA alignment would connect to the
Mountfort Street corridor via the Carlton Street Bridge over the Mass Turnpike. The Urban Ring
would be able to make use of a northbound bus lane on the Carlton Street Bridge if Cambridgebound traffic were able to continue westbound on Mountfort Street directly to the BU Bridge. This
would remove enough traffic on the Carlton Street Bridge that a lane would be available for
exclusive bus use. The additional traffic on Mountfort Street could be accommodated with a
relatively minor reconfiguration of Mountfort Street within its existing footprint. This would also
enable pedestrian and bicycle improvements to the BU Bridge intersection at Commonwealth
Avenue, and to the Mountfort Street/Carlton Street intersection. Potential roadway reconfiguration
and traffic circulation changes should be explored further in conjunction with the Massachusetts
Turnpike, Department of Conservation and Recreation, City of Boston, Town of Brookline, Boston
University, and other appropriate parties.
Environmental Issues
• The Urban Ring’s crossing over the Charles River may impact wetlands and other habitats
associated with the river, including the river itself. Impacts may include filling or altering wetland
or aquatic habitats. The proposed crossing may impact water resource areas associated with the
river, including the river itself.
• Within this Sector, open sites with identified hazardous materials include an unidentified site
located at 22 Massachusetts Avenue (RTN 3-25323), which is a Tier II site where lead, 1,3,5trimethylbenzene, and naphthalene have been identified. In addition, 2 locations where
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-21
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
underground storage tanks have been identified or are listed as unclassified sites have been
identified.
• Moderate archaeological sensitivity in cross-country section from Albany Street across Charles
River to Commonwealth Avenue/BU Station. Moderate to high sensitivity along cross-country
route (National Register-listed Olmsted Park System).
• The route passes Fort Washington on the adjacent railroad right-of-way and/or roadways; no
“use” or conversion of this historical parkland would occur. The Memorial Drive overpass would
be modified to accommodate a busway. As this is part of the DCR parkway system, a Section 4(f)
evaluation would be triggered. Modifications to the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge could also
trigger a Section 4(f) evaluation because the change to the private bridge could potentially affect
the watershed of the publicly-owned Charles River. The recent agreement between the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and CSX regarding this and other rail properties could facilitate
development of effective mitigation measures. The proposed Urban Ring modifications to the
Grand Junction Bridge would include a pedestrian path connecting the existing and planned path
networks on the north and south sides of the River. This path connection across the Charles
River is a component of the Charles River Basin Master Plan developed by DCR.
Economic Development Issues
• The project would increase the transit connectivity and capacity for Boston University and the
central BU Bridge area of the campus. This would enhance transit-oriented and smart growth
development opportunities in this area, including the potential for decking over the MTA air rights
parcels in the immediate vicinity.
• The new stations at Mass Ave/MIT would increase transit access and connectivity for trips to this
area, especially to and from the Red Line at Kendall Square. This would enhance transit-oriented
and smart growth development opportunities in this area.
2.1.7 Sector 7: Allston/Harvard Square Cambridge
Sector 7 comprises the Boston University West Campus area, the Allston Landing railyards, the North
Allston neighborhood, and Harvard Square in Cambridge (to enable connection to the Red Line rapid
transit). Although the Urban Ring project has been in planning for many years, the potential BRT
connection to Allston is a new proposal, dating from the 2004 Certificate issued on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), as discussed in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need. As a result, there
has been no previous opportunity for formal public comment on Urban Ring proposals in Allston, as there
has been in all other areas of the corridor. See Figures 2-7 and 2-8 for Sector 7 alignment of the LPA.
In addition, there are major challenges with making fast, direct BRT connections in this segment of the
corridor, due in large part to the barriers presented by the Massachusetts Turnpike and the Beacon Park
Yards railroad yard. There is significant uncertainty associated with future rail operations in Beacon Park
Yards and ongoing negotiations with CSX Transportation (CSX) over the future of Beacon Park Yards. In
addition, the Massachusetts Turnpike viaduct adjacent to the Beacon Park Yards is in need of significant
repair and rehabilitation in coming years.
In recognition of these issues, the project recommendations include a range of alternatives for making
connections to Allston. The following are the primary options for making the connection from the BU
Bridge area to the Cambridge Street corridor in Allston:
A. Busway beneath Mass Turnpike viaduct and through Beacon Park Yards at the railroad level.
Optional routing would be evaluated in the engineering phase of the project. Options may include
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-22
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
connections between existing Turnpike viaduct columns in addition to busway to between the
Turnpike viaduct and Soldiers Field Road.
B. BRT operation on Commonwealth Avenue in mixed traffic to Malvern Street, where buses would
travel over the rail yard via a viaduct. Preliminary evaluation shows that business land takings
may be required to construct the viaduct.
C. Commonwealth Avenue in mixed traffic to Brighton Avenue in mixed traffic to Cambridge Street in
mixed traffic.
EOT is also coordinating with the City of Boston and Harvard University, which are undertaking master
planning efforts in the North Allston neighborhood, north of Cambridge Street. This coordination is
intended to facilitate further examination of community and stakeholder priorities in identifying a route
north of Cambridge Street that preserves the operating characteristics of BRT while equitably balancing
the service needs of the neighborhood and Harvard University. As a result of these ongoing planning
efforts EOT has identified the following potential Urban Ring Phase 2 routes north of Cambridge Street:
A. 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
B. 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
C. Cambridge Street Station to Lincoln Street in mixed traffic to Holton Street to potential bus
lanes in potential new roadway to Brighton Mills Station, mixed traffic on Western Avenue to
Barry’s Corner Station
The different options in these two segments (1) BU Bridge – Cambridge Street corridor and (2)
Cambridge Street corridor – Barry’s Corner are independent of each, and any option for each could be
combined with any option for the other. For the sake of simplicity, they are described here as being
combined (southern option A with northern option A, etc.)
Urban Ring service in Sector 7 would be available on one BRT route that would serve each of the
potential alternative alignments:
• Route 6 – JFK/UMass to Harvard Square via LMA (headways = 7 minutes peak periods, 12
minutes midday and Saturday, and 15 minutes nighttime, Sunday and holiday)
Any of the potential alternative alignments would provide more direct connections between the LMA and
BU and Allston and Harvard Square than existing public services. New connections would be provided to
the Red Line at Harvard Square, and potentially to a new commuter rail station on the Framingham
Worcester line.
The following is a summary of the key characteristics and issues associated with the three alternative
alignments described above.
Option A – Railyard Level Busway
Stations. This option includes four stations in this sector that would be located at:
•
West Station - potential future commuter rail stop locations are being evaluated as part of the
North Allston commuter rail study for EOT;
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-23
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
•
North Harvard Street – proposed for the vicinity of the intersection of North Harvard Street and
Cambridge Street;
•
Western Avenue – proposed for the vicinity of the planned Stadium Way roadway at the
intersection of Western Avenue and Stadium Way; and
•
Harvard Square.
These stations would provide connections with 14 MBTA bus routes, as well as one connection to the
MBTA Red Line (at Harvard Square) and commuter rail at Allston West Station. The locations of the
station would differ slightly depending on the option. Refer to Table 2-9 for a listing of connections. Future
transit-oriented development opportunities are rated highly at the station locations.
Route and Running Way
• Beginning at the “Y” connection, south of the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge a two-way busway:
•
•
•
•
•
•
would extend westerly between Mass Turnpike and Soldier’s Field Road and then beneath the
Mass Turnpike viaduct. The busway would follow the existing railroad alignment south of the
Mass Turnpike in Beacon Park Yard.
Busway along perimeter of railyard with connection to West Station (potential future commuter
rail connection)
Busway under Mass Turnpike viaduct and along railroad bed between Cambridge Street and
Mass Turnpike to North Harvard Street Station
Busway connection continues along railroad bed, underneath Cambridge Street to planned new
Stadium Way
Stadium Way in bus lanes to Western Avenue Station/Barry’s Corner Station
North Harvard Street in bus lanes to Anderson Memorial Bridge over Charles River
JFK Street to Eliot Street in mixed traffic. At Eliot Street, the northbound continues to Bennett
Street in mixed traffic and uses the existing Harvard Square Bus tunnel at Mount Auburn Street
and continues to an underground station at Harvard Square (Red Line connections). The
southbound route uses surface streets and Harvard Square Surface Station. The southbound
follows Massachusetts Avenue to Brattle Street in mixed traffic then continues to Eliot Street and
JFK Street in mixed traffic.
The alignment is 3 miles, of which 82 percent would be busway/bus lane and 12 percent would be mixed
traffic operation. The mixed traffic portion is primarily between the Charles River and Harvard Square on
JFK Blvd. Average travel speeds would be approximately 15 mph in each direction.
Demographics. An estimated 42,500 people live within a one-half mile walk of one of the stations of which
most live in TAZs that meet regional Environmental Justice criteria, and 39,800 people will work within
one-half mile of a station.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key transportation, environmental and economic
development issues with this option. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary
engineering and design stages of the planning and environmental review process. In addition, there is
some uncertainty in this segment of the LPA alignment that merits special recognition. More detailed
summary information is provided in Chapters 4 and 5.
• Coordination would be required with CSX and Harvard University (owner of the property
underlying Beacon Park Yards) to obtain operating permission and right-of-way to operate in the
Beacon Park Yard. In addition to operating permission and right-of-way, this alignment may
require the relocation of some CSX activities within Beacon Park Yard depending upon the route
of the Busway Viaduct. The connection between the BU Bridge area, beneath the Mass Turnpike
viaduct, into Beacon Park Yards would require crossing an active railroad track that
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-24
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
accommodates train operations and provides access to the “teardrop parcel.” There are a number
of active railroad operations at Beacon Park Yard including the Grand Junction Railroad and
access to the teardrop parcel (including municipal solid waste and locomotive fueling and
servicing) that may preclude bus operations across this track. Therefore, this alignment may
require that the railroad uses in the teardrop parcel be relocated.
• Coordination and negotiation would be required with BU on impacts to its lands and campus.
Transportation Issues
• Coordination with MassPike Authority would be required for the busway beneath the Mass
Turnpike viaduct. Coordination would include right–of-way issues, maintenance and cost.
• Coordination with MBTA would be required for planning, construction and operation of a new
commuter station.
• Coordination will continue with Boston University and City of Boston, Department of Conservation
and Recreation.
Environmental Issues. The following are key environmental issues:
• There are likely to be hazardous materials that would need to be removed in the Allston Railyard.
• The Charles River Reservation and Allston neighborhood would experience noise and vibration
impacts during construction as well as bus traffic when in operation.
• Approximately 0.59 acres of the Charles River Reservation along Soldier’s Field Road would be
affected. Although no walking paths or recreational areas are located in this section (in fact, this
area is not publicly accessible), the property is DCR-owned and would require a Section 4(f)
evaluation and an Article 97 approval.
Economic Development Issues
• Coordination with Harvard University would be required on the planning and development of their
growing Allston campus, including accommodation of busways and bus lanes on existing and
proposed new roadways. The EOT is also coordinating with the City of Boston’s Community-Wide
Plan for Allston. Optional station locations including Barry’s Corner and Brighton Mills (via Holton
Street) are being considered as they have been identified as important/development centers.
Urban Ring routing to the stations is being evaluated.
• Coordination with Boston University would be required for future planning efforts in the campus
area to reflect both the Boston University’s Master Plan as well as the developments that have
occurred to date. Boston University has finalized a Master Plan, complete with a TAPA with a City
of Boston.
Option B – Commonwealth Avenue and Malvern Street Busway Viaduct
This alignment would connect along Commonwealth Avenue in mixed traffic, and then make a busway
viaduct connection over the Beacon Park Yards in the Malvern Street corridor.
Stations. The LPA includes stations in this sector at the following likely locations (pending further
examination of potential viaduct locations over Beacon Park Yards):
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-25
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
•
Packards Corner (Malvern Street);
•
West Station – potential future commuter rail stop locations are being evaluated as part of the
North Allston commuter rail study for EOT;
•
North Harvard Street – proposed for the vicinity of the intersection of North Harvard Street and
Cambridge Street;
•
Barry’s Corner – proposed for the vicinity of the intersection of North Harvard Street and Western
Avenue; and
•
Harvard Square.
These stations would provide connections with 14 MBTA bus routes, as well as one connection to the
MBTA Red Line (at Harvard Square) and commuter rail at Allston West Station. The locations of the
station would differ slightly depending on the option.
Route and Running Way
• For the viaduct option, buses would travel in mixed traffic on Commonwealth Avenue to
•
•
•
•
•
•
Packard’s Corner then Malvern Street. Buses would travel over the rail yard via a viaduct.
Preliminary evaluation shows that business/residential land takings on the Malvern Street side
may be required to construct the viaduct. Because of these issues this option may not be
feasible.
Busway viaduct over Beacon Park Yards (at to-be-determined location), to busway connection
under Mass Turnpike viaduct
Busway connection along railroad bed between Cambridge Street and Mass Turnpike to North
Harvard Street Station
Cambridge Street in mixed traffic to North Harvard Street Station
North Harvard Street in mixed traffic to Barry’s Corner Station
North Harvard Street in bus lanes to Anderson Memorial Bridge over Charles River
JFK Street in mixed traffic to Eliot Street in mixed traffic to Harvard Square Station (Red Line
connections)
The alignment is 2.8 miles, of which 50 percent would be busway/bus lane and 50 percent would be
mixed traffic operation. The mixed traffic portions are along Commonwealth Avenue, Malvern Street and
between the Charles River and Harvard Square on JFK Blvd.
Demographics. An estimated 45,500 people live within a one-half mile walk of one of the stations of which
most live in TAZs that meet regional Environmental Justice criteria, and 39,300 people will work within
one-half mile of a station.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key transportation, environmental and economic
development issues with this option. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary
engineering and design stages of the planning and environmental review process. In addition, there is
some uncertainty in this segment of the LPA alignment that merits special recognition. More detailed
summary information is provided in Chapters 4 and 5.
• Coordination would be required with CSX and Harvard University (owner of the property
underlying Beacon Park Yards) to obtain operating permission and right-of-way to operate in the
Beacon Park Yard. In addition to operating permission and right-of-way, this alignment may
require the relocation of some CSX activities within Beacon Park Yard depending upon the route
of the Busway Viaduct.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-26
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
• Additional coordination with Boston University and City of Boston will continue regarding optional
alignment in connections through Beacon Park Yard.
Transportation Issues
• Coordination with MBTA would be required for planning, construction and operation of a new
commuter station.
• Coordination will continue with Boston University and City of Boston, Department of Conservation
and Recreation.
Environmental Issues
•
There are likely to be hazardous materials that would need to be removed in the Allston Railyard.
•
The Allston neighborhood would experience noise and vibration impacts during construction as
well as bus traffic when in operation.
•
The BU Campus an in particular its Student Village area would experience noise and vibration
impacts during construction as well as bus traffic when in operation.
•
Preliminary evaluation shows that business/residential land takings on the Malvern Street side
may be required to construct the viaduct. Because of these issues this option may not be
feasible.
Economic Development Issues
• Coordination with Harvard University would be required on the planning and development of their
growing Allston campus, including accommodation of busways and bus lanes on existing and
proposed new roadways. The EOT is also coordinating with the BRA’s community-based Allston
planning program. Optional station locations including Barry’s Corner and Brighton Mills (via
Holton Street) are being considered as they have been identified as important/development
centers. Urban Ring routing to the stations is being evaluated.
• Coordination with Boston University would be required for future planning efforts in the campus
area to reflect the Boston University Master Plan. Boston University has finalized a Master Plan,
complete with a TAPA for the City of Boston.
Option C – Existing Surface Streets
Stations. This option includes nine stations in this sector that would be located at:
• Packard’s Corner;
• Linden Street;
• Brighton Avenue/Harvard Avenue;
• Union Square;
• Cambridge Street/Harvard Avenue (potential future commuter rail stop);
• Franklin Street;
• Brighton Mills;
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-27
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
• Barry’s Corner; and
• Harvard Square.
These stations would provide connections with 14 MBTA bus routes, as well as one connection to the
MBTA Red Line (at Harvard Square) and commuter rail at Allston West Station. The locations of the
station would differ slightly depending on the option.
Route and Running Way
• Mixed traffic on Commonwealth Avenue from the vicinity of the BU Bridge to Packard’s Corner
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Station
Brighton Avenue in mixed traffic to Linden Street Station
Brighton Avenue in mixed traffic to Brighton Avenue/Harvard Avenue Station
Brighton Avenue in mixed traffic to Union Square Station
Cambridge Street in mixed traffic to Cambridge Street/Harvard Avenue Station (potential future
commuter rail connection)
Lincoln Street in mixed traffic to Franklin Street Station
Lincoln Street in mixed traffic to Everett Street in mixed traffic to Brighton Mills Station
Western Avenue in mixed traffic to Barry’s Corner Station
North Harvard Street in bus lanes to Anderson Memorial Bridge over Charles River
JFK Street in mixed traffic to Eliot Street in mixed traffic to Harvard Square Station (Red Line
connections)
The alignment is 3.2 miles, of which 30 percent would be busway/bus lane and 70 percent would be
mixed traffic operation. The mixed traffic portions are along Commonwealth Avenue, Brighton Avenue,
Cambridge Street, and North Harvard Street and between the Charles River and Harvard Square on JFK
Blvd.
Demographics. An estimated 56,400 people live within a one-half mile walk of one of the stations of which
most live in TAZs that meet regional Environmental Justice criteria, and 44,900 people will work within
one-half mile of a station.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key transportation, environmental and economic
development issues in this sector. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary
engineering and design stages of the planning and environmental review process. More detailed
summary information is provided in Chapters 4 and 5.
Transportation Issues
•
Coordination with Harvard University would be required on accommodating busways and bus
lanes on existing and proposed new roadways.
•
Coordination with MBTA would be required for planning, construction and operation of a new
commuter station.
• Coordination will continue with Boston University and City of Boston, Department of Conservation
and Recreation.
Environmental Issues. The following are key environmental issues:
• The Allston neighborhood and BU Campus would experience noise and vibration impacts during
construction as well as bus traffic when in operation.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-28
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Economic Development Issues
• Coordination with Harvard University would be required on the planning and development of their
growing Allston campus, including accommodation of busways and bus lanes on existing and
proposed new roadways. The EOT is also coordinating with the BRA’s community-based Allston
planning program. Optional station locations including Barry’s Corner and Brighton Mills (via
Holton Street) are being considered as they have been identified as important/development
centers. Urban Ring routing to the stations is being evaluated.
• Coordination with Boston University would be required for future planning efforts in the campus
area to reflect both the Boston University’s Master Plan as well as the developments that have
occurred to date. Boston University has finalized a Master Plan, complete with a TAPA with a City
of Boston.
Summary
EOT has been actively coordinating with the City of Boston and Harvard University regarding Urban Ring
alignments, location of busways, bus lanes, station locations, commuter rail station locations, and
planned Harvard University development. EOT has attended and presented at several of the North
Allston public neighborhood meetings. Discussions continue of the issues surrounding the North Allston
options. Other options may be identified/evaluated in addition to the options identified above. EOT is also
overseeing a study focusing on the North Allston commuter rail issues. The goal of the North Allston
process is to reach consensus on transportation issues by the time the final environmental documents are
submitted to the state and FTA.
2.1.8 Sector 8: Boston/Fenway/Longwood Medical and Academic Area
Sector 8 of the LPA alignment extends from Yawkey Station to Ruggles Station via Fenway Station at
Park Drive and the Longwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA). The majority of the alignment would be
in tunnel, with short segments of surface busway and bus lane. See Figures 2-8 and 2-9 for Sector 8
alignment of the LPA.
The key transportation feature of Sector 8 is a new bus tunnel between the vicinity of the Landmark
Center and Ruggles Station. Principal tunnel elements include the portals, the running tunnels, and the
stations. The current BRT requirements were the controlling factor in determining tunnel cross sections.
Typical cross sections have been developed, as far as practicable, to take into account Phase 3 rail
requirements (see Chapter 3, Section 3.15.5). For example, a minimum horizontal radius of 700-ft has
been assumed to allow for Phase 3 rail conversion. Further refinement to the BRT vehicle envelope in
subsequent engineering studies may afford a reduction in the tunnel cross sectional area.
There are a number of different tunneling techniques that can be used to construct the running tunnels.
The primary ones under consideration are: cut and cover tunnel; sequential excavation method (SEM)
mined tunnel; and tunnel boring machine (TBM) bored tunnel. With each of these techniques there is the
possibility to construct a single tunnel carrying two lanes or two tunnels each carrying one lane. While
each of these techniques has been considered, either exclusively or in combinations, in the development
of the tunneled alignment alternatives, the initial assumption is that the running tunnels would be
constructed using a TBM in a single bore configuration. Alternative construction methods and
configurations (e.g. twin bored tunnels, cut and cover tunnels, or SEM mined tunnels) will be re-assessed
during subsequent engineering studies and as more information on geology, hydrogeology, settlement
and building response, electromagnetic field impacts, and noise and vibration becomes available.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-29
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Systems required within the tunnel and associated structures to enable the safe operation of BRT
services include tunnel ventilation, tunnel lighting, electrical and safety equipment, drainage, and vehicle
recovery.4
The tunnel would allow buses to operate unimpeded, with much faster travel speeds than would
otherwise be possible on the existing congested roadways (especially on the limited street network in the
LMA). The tunnel does not preclude the use by other public and private shuttle buses, as long as they are
dual mode fuel vehicles that can operate on electric power in tunnels. New bus lanes would also be
provided between Yawkey and BU Bridge stations.
As a result, almost the entire alignment in this sector would be in exclusive running way. These features
would greatly improve travel times between the LMA, Yawkey and destinations to Roxbury and
Dorchester. The new underground BRT stations between the intersection of Longwood Avenue and
Avenue Louis Pasteur and Binney Street, and at the Fenway Station of Green Line D Branch could
reduce the number of buses that need to circulate or lay over in this area, which could reduce conflicts
and improve vehicular and pedestrian operations. New connections would be provided to Green and
Orange Lines and commuter rail at Yawkey and Ruggles Stations. No BRT routes terminate at Tugo
Circle in the LPA, therefore no buses would be required to layover at this station.
Stations. The LPA includes four stations in this sector that would be located at:
• Yawkey Station (Framingham/Worcester commuter rail connection);
• Fenway Station/ Park Drive (Green Line D Branch);
• LMA (underground station between the intersection of Longwood Avenue and Avenue Louis
Pasteur and Binney Street); and
• Ruggles Station (Orange Line, proposed improvements to Attleboro/Stoughton, Franklin, and
Needham commuter rail, and major bus hub connections).
These stations would provide connections with 11 MBTA bus routes and would connect with the Green
Line D Branch at Fenway Station and with the Green Line E Branch via a short walk from either the LMA
Station or Ruggles Station. Connections with the Orange Line would occur at Ruggles Station.
Connections with the Framingham/Worcester Line would be made at Yawkey Station; and Providence
Line and its existing and planned branches would occur at Ruggles Station. These stations would also be
available for private shuttle stops. The number of private shuttle routes that have the potential to connect
with the Urban Ring stations will change between now and the project completion. The Urban Ring
project has the potential to reduce the number and route of some of the existing private shuttles. This will
be evaluated by EOT and MBTA as the project progresses. Refer to Table 2-10 for a listing of
connections. Future transit-oriented development opportunities are rated highly at the station locations.
The locations of stations and headhouses have been generally located for the LPA alignment based on
information collected as part of this RDEIR/DEIS. Precise locations of stations and headhouses will be
determined by additional study that will be performed during a preliminary engineering phase of the study.
The LPA alignment does not preclude additional station connections in the future if they are warranted by
demand. One example would be consideration of a connection with the Green E Line.
Urban Ring Service. Urban Ring service would be available on three BRT routes, which overlap within the
LMA:
4
Tunnel systems and technology options are described in the Urban Ring Phase 2 Tunnel Alternatives Summary Report for the
RDEIR/DEIS, November 2008.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-30
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
• Route 5 – Ruggles Station to Sullivan Square via LMA (headways = 7 minutes peak periods, 12
minutes for midday and Saturday, and 15 20 minutes for Sunday, holiday)
• Route 6 – JFK/UMass to Harvard Square via LMA, (headways = 7 minutes peak periods, 12
minutes for midday and Saturday, and 15 minutes for Sunday, holiday)
• Route 7 - Yawkey Station to Mystic Mall (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15 minutes for
midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes for Sunday, holiday)
Route and Running Way
• Enter bus tunnel via portal adjacent to Green Line D Branch portal near Landmark Center
•
•
•
•
Bus tunnel beneath the Riverway to underground Fenway/Park Drive Station (Green Line D
connection)
Bus tunnel beneath 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 busway connection into Ruggles Station (Orange Line,
commuter rail, and bus connections)
The alignment between the Fenway/Park Drive Station and the intersection of Longwood Avenue and
Brookline Avenue has not yet been determined. Options still under consideration include a tight turn
under Brookline Avenue, a medium turn under the Windsor School, or a wide turn under Longwood
Avenue and the Emerald Necklace (see Figures 2-8 and 2-9). The wide turn option, which extends the
tunnel alignment to continue along Longwood Avenue prior to making the turn to the north to connect with
the Landmark Center portal, may afford an opportunity to alleviate impact to the Windsor School.
The alignment total for this segment is 2.0 miles; of which 20 percent would be separated running way
and 80 percent would be tunnel. Average travel speeds would be approximately 17 to 18 mph depending
on direction and time of day.
Demographics. An estimated 48,300 people would live within a one-half mile walk of one of these four
stations, and 67,200 people would work within one-half mile of a station by 2030, the project horizon
planning year. More than three-fourths of residents near these stations live in TAZs that meet regional
Environmental Justice criteria. It should be noted that the population and employment projections could
be higher than the CTPS model provides since the model is constrained by a cap on regional growth.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key transportation, environmental and economic
development issues in this sector. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary
engineering and design stages of the planning and environmental review process. In addition, there is
some uncertainty in this segment of the LPA alignment that merits special recognition. More detailed
summary information is provided Chapters 4 and 5.
• Tunnel alignment, construction and cost analysis is still underway. Preliminary analysis is
reflected in this document. The complexity of the tunnel engineering and uncertainty surrounding
geotechnical conditions in the LMA mean that final alignment and tunneling method (i.e. tunnel
boring machine versus sequential excavation method) will need to be evaluated in the preliminary
engineering and final environmental phases. However, the tunnel boring machine method
appears at this time to generate fewer impacts to the surrounding area.
• The impacts of the LPA in the LMA area would focus on tunnel and station construction. The level
of impacts to private property owners would depend on the type of tunnel construction method
used. The impacts due to tunnel construction would be temporary during the construction phase.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-31
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Transportation Issues
• The cost of the entire project is high and is expected to require funding in addition to federal and
state funding sources. The timing for acquiring additional funding has not been determined.
However, some sections of the LPA can be constructed in advance of other sections. The
complexity of issues (engineering, design and construction) surrounding the proposed tunnel
under the LMA may necessitate the tunnel section being deferred to a later date. The LMA’s
transit needs, however, are immediate and growing. Therefore, EOT is developing
recommendations for a potential interim surface alignment that would allow nearer term
circumferential transit improvements. This alignment has not yet been finalized, but it is expected
to entail some elements of bus lane on existing roadways in the LMA, and limited use of the
Fenway segment of the Emerald Necklace Parkway system. Stakeholders have expressed
concerns about impacts of these proposals, and EOT is continuing to work with stakeholders to
develop an interim surface proposal that improves transit travel time and reliability while
minimizing impacts. EOT is continuing to coordinate with the City of Boston and stakeholders
regarding potential interim solutions in the LMA.
• To the extent that tunnel construction requires cut-and-cover sections, the transportation access
needs of the LMA must be considered.
• The development of the Mass Turnpike Authority Parcel 7 will include the construction of a new
Yawkey Station as well as new streets serving the development and the station. EOT has been
coordinating with the MBTA, City of Boston, and the Parcel 7 developers regarding Urban Ring
alignment and access.
Environmental Issues
• Construction of the proposed busway tunnel is not expected to impact the Muddy River, emergent
wetlands associated with the river, or other wetlands along the alternative alignments. Protection
of the adjacent wetlands in proximity to the west tunnel chamber may be necessary during
construction. Following construction the tunnel and chamber will be completely underground in
this area.
• Within this Sector, open sites with identified hazardous materials include a Parking Lot at 1 Joslin
Place (RTN 3-25456), which is a Tier II site where a release of 11.4 ppm of an unknown chemical
occurred as well as a release of 0.24 inches of an unknown chemical, indicating floating product
on the water table, and a Northeastern University facility located at 281-283 Ruggles Street (RTN
3-20978), which is a Tier II site resulting from a release of 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene,
tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, and 1,3-dichloro 1-propene. In addition, nine locations where
underground storage tanks have been identified or are listed as unclassified sites have been
identified.
• Moderate to high historic and archaeological sensitivity along portions of the proposed tunnel
route (recorded prehistoric site MHC#19-SU-81 and National Register-listed Olmsted Park
System).
• Construction of a busway tunnel portal at the Landmark Center may require moving a Boston
Parks and Recreation building used for office and storage/maintenance facilities. 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. No significant permanent adverse
impacts to parks and open spaces are anticipated from this project element, although this action
may still trigger a Section 4(f) evaluation and Article 97 review due to the change in use of
existing parkland. Coordination between EOT, the City of Boston, the Landmark Center, and MTA
Parcel 7 will continue as the Urban Ring project advances. During the preliminary engineering
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-32
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
phase of the project, the specific location and operations of the portal would be evaluated. This
would include ways to prohibit general traffic and pedestrians from entering the tunnel, avoiding
conflicts between buses and general traffic/pedestrians, traffic control, grading, lighting, drainage
etc. Based on the evaluation results, the exact portal location would be identified.
• The LPA may result in temporary construction impacts at the Wentworth Institute fields near
Ruggles Station, but there would be no permanent impacts or changes in use due to the
proposed project.
• During construction of the tunnel vibration levels could negatively impact highly sensitive
academic, cultural, medical and research uses, Once the tunnel is completed little or no impact is
expected from rubber tired BRT vehicles operating in the tunnel. Noise and vibration issues will
require further research in the preliminary engineering phase.
• Construction of a tunnel and station may impact future adjacent property uses and must be
further evaluated in preliminary engineering.
• Construction of the Urban Ring in the Fenway area assumes collaborative development and
planning with Parcel 7 Turnpike Air Rights development, and 819 Beacon Street parcels.
• Potential conflict with construction of the proposed Urban Ring portal and the multi-use path
being proposed by the City of Boston linking Muddy River to the vicinity of the MTA Parcel 7 will
be fully evaluated.
Economic Development
• Transportation access and capacity is constrained for the Longwood Medical and Academic Area.
This major medical and educational cluster has Greater Boston’s highest density of jobs outside
downtown. At the same time, it has a limited roadway network that carries high volumes of LMAbound traffic as well as general regional traffic. The Urban Ring would increase transit
connectivity and capacity serving the LMA, and help to manage the impacts of rapid growth in this
area.
• The project would increase the transit connectivity and capacity for the Yawkey Station area,
where a major transit-oriented development is proposed as well as the capacity in the Ruggles
Station area through creation of an additional commuter rail platform.
2.1.9 Sector 9: Roxbury/ BU Medical Center
Sector 9 of the LPA alignment extends from Ruggles Station to the Boston University Medical Center. It
uses primary dedicated busway and bus lanes along City of Boston roadways. See Figure 2-9 for Sector
9 alignment of the LPA.
The key transportation features in Sector 9 include a center median busway along Melnea Cass
Boulevard and bus lanes on Albany Street through BU Medical Center. These elements would improve
transit travel time and reliability in this congested corridor. The project would connect with the Silver Line
BRT at Washington Street and Dudley Square stations.
Stations. The LPA includes four stations that would be located at:
• Washington Street (Silver Line connection);
• Dudley Square (Silver Line and major bus hub connections);
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-33
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
• Crosstown Center; and
• BU Medical Center.
These stations would provide connections with 16 MBTA bus routes and connections with the Silver Line
at Washington Street and Dudley Square. Refer to Table 2-11 for a listing of connections. Future transitoriented development opportunities are rated highly at the station locations.
Urban Ring Service. Urban Ring service would be available on two BRT routes:
• Route 6 – JFK/UMass to Harvard Square via LMA, (headways = 7 minutes peak periods, 12
minutes for midday and Saturday, and 15 minutes for Sunday, holiday)
• Route 7 - Yawkey Station to Mystic Mall (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15 minutes for
midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes for Sunday, holiday)
Both routes would serve the Washington Street, Crosstown Center and BU Medical Center stations.
Dudley Station would be served by Route 7. Connections to the Silver Line would be made at the
Washington and Dudley Square stations.
Route and Running Way
• Service to Ruggles Station via busway to Melnea Cass Boulevard
• 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
The alignment total for this segment is 2.0 miles, of which 36 percent would be exclusive busway, 34
percent would be bus lane and 30 percent would be mixed traffic (along sections of Albany Street).
Average travel speeds would be approximately 12 mph in each direction.
Demographics. An estimated 26,900 people will live within a one-half mile walk of one of these four
stations, and 22,900 people will work within one-half mile of a station by 2030, the project horizon
planning year. Approximately 21,600 residents near these stations live in TAZs that meet regional
Environmental Justice criteria.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key transportation, environmental and economic
development issues in this sector. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary
engineering and design stages of the planning and environmental review process. More detailed
summary information is provided in Chapters 4 and 5.
Transportation Issues
• EOT will continue coordination with the City of Boston regarding the planned Melnea Cass
corridor center busway alignment. This reconfiguration would enable streetscape improvements
to the Melnea Cass corridor, and would facilitate the creation of a planned shared-use path, the
South Bay Harbor Trail.
• EOT will continue coordination with the City of Boston regarding the removal of on-street parking
on Albany Street to provide bus lanes in both directions.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-34
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
• The project would provide a direct, frequent connection between the Boston University’s Charles
River campus and the BU Medical Center.
Environmental Issues
• Within this Sector, open sites with identified hazardous materials include an unidentified site
located at 2000 Washington Street (RTN 3-25822), which is an Unclassified Waste Site where a
release of TCE, 1,2-dichloroethene, and 2-hexanone occurred; a Proposed Parking Facility
located at 710-710A Albany Street (RTN 3-4159); the former National Lead Co. located at 800
Albany Avenue (RTN 3-0245), which is a Tier II site where a release of an unknown chemical
occurred and the former Bowen Cleaners located at 2326-2328 Washington Street (RTN 3-4461)
which is a former drycleaner and Tier II site where a release of an unknown chemical occurred
from drums. In addition, 3 locations where underground storage tanks have been identified or are
listed as unclassified sites have been identified.
• The Urban Ring’s preliminary alignment plans have been developed so as to facilitate
development of the proposed South Bay Harbor Trail along the north side of Melnea Cass
Boulevard. As the respective projects advance, further coordination on design details will be
necessary to ensure that the compatibility established at the conceptual level continues and is
further enhanced. During the engineering phase of the Urban Ring project, designs will be
developed for the Melnea Cass Boulevard corridor that will be consistent with policies of the
Roxbury Master Plan. This will include landscape, treatments to the extent possible along the
corridor.
Economic Development Issues
• The project would increase the transit connectivity and capacity for the Melnea Cass Boulevard
corridor, and enhance transit-oriented and smart growth development opportunities in this area.
EOT has been coordinating with neighborhood groups and the City of Boston on roadway design
and streetscape issues related to development parcels along the corridor.
• The project would increase the transit connectivity of Dudley Square. EOT has coordinated with
the City of Boston regarding the Roxbury Strategic Master Plan vision as well as with the
development of publicly owned parcels at the Melnea Cass/Washington Street intersection and
Dudley Square.
2.1.10 Sector 10: Dorchester
Sector 10 of the LPA alignment extends from south of Albany Street to JFK/UMass Station in South
Boston. It uses existing city roadways, with some proposed segments of bus lane. See Figures 2-9 and 210 for Sector 10 alignment of the LPA.
The key transportation feature of Sector 10 is the provision of bus lanes on Massachusetts Avenue. Bus
operations on Massachusetts Avenue would be improved by implementing segments of bus lane in both
directions where conditions allow. Only one stop (Newmarket) would be provided between Albany Street
and Edward Everett Square, so travel speeds and reliability would be improved. A new commuter rail
connection would be developed at the Newmarket Station.
Stations. The LPA includes three stations in this sector that would be located at:
• Newmarket (Fairmount Branch commuter rail connection);
• Edward Everett Square; and
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-35
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
• JFK/UMass (Red Line and Old Colony commuter rail connections).
These stations would provide connections with 5 MBTA bus routes and connections with the Fairmount
Branch commuter rail at the planned Newmarket Station. Connections would be provided with the Old
Colony Commuter Rail Line and the Red Line at JFK/UMass. Refer to Table 2-12 for a listing of
connections. Future transit-oriented development opportunities are rated highly at the station locations.
Urban Ring Service. Urban Ring service would be available on one BRT route:
• Route 6 – JFK/UMass to Harvard Square via LMA, (headways = 7 minutes peak periods, 12
minutes for midday and Saturday, and 15 minutes for Sunday, holiday)
This route would provide two connections with commuter rail and a connection with the Red Line at
JFK/UMass Station. The Newmarket Station would be new providing new service and accessibility to the
neighborhood.
Route and Running Way
• 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)
The alignment total for this segment is 2 miles, of which 46 percent would be separated running way. The
mixed traffic portion is primarily along Columbia Road. Average travel speeds would be approximately 9
mph in each direction.
Demographics. An estimated 26,500 people will live within a one-half mile walk of one of these four
stations, and 16,400 people will work within one-half mile of a station by 2030, the project horizon
planning year. More than three-fourths of residents near these stations live in TAZs that meet regional
Environmental Justice criteria.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key transportation, environmental and economic
development issues in this sector. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary
engineering and design stages of the planning and environmental review process. More detailed
summary information is provided in Chapters 4 and 5.
Transportation Issues
• Coordination with the City of Boston regarding the removal of on-street parking on segments of
Massachusetts Avenue to provide bus lanes.
• Coordination with MBTA on connections between the Urban Ring service and the planned new
commuter rail station on the Fairmount Branch at Newmarket.
Environmental Issues
• Coordination will be necessary with respect to bus operations adjacent to Richardson Square and
Columbia Road park. Further coordination with the BRA and Boston Parks Department on design
details will be necessary to ensure that the compatibility established at the conceptual level
continues and is further enhanced.
• A potential project benefit is the improved cross-town access to the Joseph Moakley Park and
Carson Beach recreational areas, as well as the Harbor Walkways on Harbor Point.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-36
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Economic Development
• The project would increase the transit connectivity and capacity for the station locations, and
enhance transit-oriented and smart growth development opportunities in this area.
2.1.11 Sector 11: South Boston/ World Trade Center
Sector 11 of the LPA alignment extends from the west end of Albany Street at the I-93 service road to
midpoint of the I-90 Ted Williams Tunnel. It uses existing local and Massport roadways with bus lanes
provided on A Street. See Figure 2-11 for Sector 11 alignment of the LPA.
The key transportation features of Sector 11 alignment include a direct route between the Crosstown
corridor and the Seaport area of South Boston and the World Trade Center. Bus lanes are proposed
along A Street in both directions. The project would also utilize the new Seaport District roadways around
the World Trade Center. The project would connect with the Red Line at Broadway Station and Silver
Line BRT at World Trade Center.
Stations. The LPA includes three stations in this sector that would be located at:
• Broadway (Red Line connection);
• A Street; and
• World Trade Center (Silver Line connection).
These stations would provide connections with 11 MBTA bus routes and connections with the Red Line at
Broadway and the Silver Line at World Trade Center. Refer to Table 2-13 for a listing of connections.
Future transit-oriented development opportunities are rated highly at the station locations.
Urban Ring Service. Urban Ring service would be available on one BRT route:
• Route 7 - Yawkey Station to Mystic Mall (headways = 10 minutes peak periods, 15 minutes for
midday and Saturday, and 20 minutes for Sunday, holiday)
This route would provide one connection with the Red Line at Broadway Station and one connection with
Silver Line BRT at World Trade Center.
The alignment total for this segment is 4 miles, of which 9 percent would be separated running way and
91 percent would be mixed traffic. The mixed traffic portion would include Broadway and Massport
roadways in the Seaport District. Average travel speeds would be approximately 12 mph in each
direction.
Demographics. An estimated 36,600 people will live within a one-half mile walk of one of these four
stations, and 88,000 people will work within one-half mile of a station by 2030, the project horizon
planning year. Approximately 5,200 residents near these stations live in TAZs that meet regional
Environmental Justice criteria.
Outstanding Issues. The following is a summary of key transportation, environmental and economic
development issues in this sector. These are issues that will need to be addressed in future preliminary
engineering and design stages of the planning and environmental review process. More detailed
summary information is provided in Chapters 4 and 5.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-37
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Transportation Issues
• Coordination with the City of Boston to identify potential opportunities for bus lanes on A Street.
Environmental Issues
• Within this Sector, open sites with identified hazardous materials include Reflex Lighting located
at 10 Silver Street (RTN 3-25513), which is an Unclassified Waste Site related to a release(s) of
lead, benzo(a)anthracene, and benzo(e)acephenanthrylene in soil. In addition, 5 locations where
underground storage tanks have been identified or are listed as unclassified sites have been
identified.
Economic Development
• The project would increase the transit connectivity and capacity for the station locations, and
enhance transit-oriented and smart growth development opportunities in this area. In particular
the project would improve transit connectivity for the A Street corridor by providing improved
connectivity to the Red Line at Broadway Station and the Silver Line at World Trade Center
Station.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-38
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-2:
Summary Evaluation of LPA by Segments
Segment
Segment A
(Sectors 1, 2, 3, 4)
East Boston
to
Somerville/Charlestown
Segment B
(Sectors 5, 6, 7, 8)
East Cambridge
to
Boston/Ruggles
Segment C
(Sectors 9, 10, 11)
Roxbury
to
South Boston
Grand Total
Measures
(1)
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ
Key Environmental Issues
Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ
Key Environmental Issues
Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ
Key Environmental Issues
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
PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT
48,500
46
18
38
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
$283.0
$140.0
$423.0
116,500
36
14
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
$1,782.2
$119.0
$1,901.2
19,000
41
11
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
$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 2-39
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-3:
Evaluation of LPA – Sector 1
STATION DETAILS
Sector/ Station Name
Station
No.
SERVICE
BRT
Routes
Headways 1
Bus
SOCIO/ECONOMIC DATA
Connections 2
Rapid
Transit
1
East Boston
1.2
Logan West Garage
2
10/15/20
171, 448, 449,
459
1.3
Airport Blue Line
1, 2, 7
10/15/20
171, MPA
Shuttles
CR
3
TRANSPORTATION
Population
2030
Employment
2030
Development
Compatibility
1,700
5,700
Lower
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
3
16
17,900
5,500
Lower
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min
Avg. Speed, mph
7
16
BLUE
Measures 4
4,100
3
16
2,900
6
16
SECTOR SUMMARY
Sector
No.
Sector Name
Measures
7,000
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/ cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/ cw)
Population
Employment
EJ
15
16
TOD Support
Sector 1
East Boston
Cost
Guideway
Stations
Coordination with East Boston Greenway
New Access
Permanence
Medium
Low
Busway
Bridges
BRT
Commuter Rail
$ 14.2 m
Sitework
ROW
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
NOTE:
(1) Headways are given in minutes for weekday AM and PM peak periods / mid-day and Saturdays / Sundays, holidays, and evenings.
(2) BRT route connections are shown, CT routes are not.
(3) Population and employment numbers represent data for entire one-half mile radius catchment area around each station, and is not adjusted fo
Development Compatibility: Higher - % employment growth is higher than the city; Lower - % employment growth is lower than the city.
(4) Travel time and average speed (AM peak period) "To/ From" next station (counter-clockwise) in the list, not including dwell time.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
10
16
22,100
11,000
19,800
Key Environmental Issues
6
5
$ 1.6 m
$ 2.2 m
$ 9.0 m
$ 27 m
$ 36.5 m
$ 63.5 m
(5) - Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period . Sector level travel time includes dwell time.
- 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.
(6) New Access: High - provides transit to areas not currently served; Medium - complements existing service; Low -l argely redundant.
Permanence: High - >60% busway/buslane; Medium - 40% to 60%; Low - <40% busway/buslane.
Page 2-40
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-4:
Evaluation of LPA – Sector 2
STATION DETAILS
Sector/
Station No.
SOCIO/ECONOMIC DATA 3
SERVICE
Station Name
BRT Routes
Headways
2
Chelsea
2.2
Griffin Way
1, 2, 7
10/15/20
2.3
Chelsea Commuter Rail
1, 2, 7
10/15/20
1
Bus
Connections
Rapid
Transit
TRANSPORTATION
2
CR
Population
2030
Employment
2030
Development
Compatibility
13,100
3,300
Lower
23,600
6,600
Higher
Measures
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
4
1,900
2
20
Daily Boardings
2.4
Mystic Mall
1, 2, 7
10/15/20
111, 112, 114,
116, 117
New /
Rockport
112
15,900
8,500
Higher
2
20
14,600
Travel Time, min
1
1
Avg. Speed, mph
17
17
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
3
29
2,300
3
29
SECTOR SUMMARY
Sector No.
Sector Name
Measures
5
18,800
Daily Boardings
8
14
Travel Time, min (ccw/ cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/ cw)
Population
28,200
10,900
Employment
23,200
EJ
Chelsea - concstruction noise & vibration
Key Environmental Issues
TOD Support 6
Sector 2
East Boston
7
13
New Access
Permanence
High
High
Cost
Guideway
Busway
$ 21.4 m
Bridges
Stations
BRT
$ 3.1 m
Commuter Rail
$ 18.5 m
Sitework
$ 0.4 m
ROW
$ 12.6 m
Construction Total
Systemwide
$ 56 m
$ 30.1 m
Capital Cost Total
$ 86.1 m
NOTE:
(1) Headways are given in minutes for weekday AM and PM peak periods / mid-day and Saturdays / Sundays, holidays, and evenings.
(2) BRT route connections are shown, CT routes are not.
(3) Population and employment numbers represent data for entire one-half mile radius catchment area around each station, and is not adjusted for over lap.
Development Compatibility: Higher - % employment growth is higher than the city; Lower - % employment growth is lower than the city.
(4) Travel time and average speed (AM peak period) "To/ From" next station (counter-clockwise) in the list, not including dwell time.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
(5) - Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period . Sector level travel time includes dwell time.
- 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.
(6) New Access: High - provides transit to areas not currently served; Medium - complements existing service; Low - largely redundant.
Permanence: High - >60% busway/buslane; Medium - 40% to 60%; Low - <40% busway/buslane.
Page 2-41
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-5:
Evaluation of LPA – Sector 3
STATION DETAILS
Sector/
Station
No.
Station Name
3
Everett
3.3
Gateway, Everett
SOCIO/ECONOMIC DATA 3
SERVICE
BRT Routes Headways 1
1, 2
Bus
Connections
Rapid
Transit
TRANSPORTATION
2
CR
Population
2030
Employment
2030
Development
Compatibility
4,800
3,100
Higher
10/15/20
Measures 4
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
6,300
2
30
2
30
SECTOR SUMMARY
Sector No.
Measures 5
Sector Name
6,300
Daily Boardings
3
28
Travel Time, min (ccw/ cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/ cw)
Population
5,400
Employment
4,300
EJ
4,600
Everett - construction noise & vibration
Malden River - potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
Key Environmental Issues
TOD Support 6
Sector 3
Everett
3
28
New Access
Permanence
High
High
Cost
Guideway
Stations
Busway
$ 10.6 m
Underpass
$ 85.0 m
Bridges
$ 10.5 m
BRT
$ 0.4 m
Commuter Rail
Sitework
$ 0.3 m
ROW
$ 8.2 m
Construction Total
Systemwide
$ 115 m
$ 16.3 m
Capital Cost Total
$ 131.3 m
NOTE:
(1) Headways are given in minutes for weekday AM and PM peak periods / mid-day and Saturdays / Sundays, holidays, and evenings.
(2) BRT route connections are shown, CT routes are not.
(3) Population and employment numbers represent data for entire one-half mile radius catchment area around each station, and is not adjusted for overla
Development Compatibility: Higher - % employment growth is higher than the city; Lower - % employment growth is lower than the city.
(4) Travel time and average speed (AM peak period) "To/ From" next station (counter-clockwise) in the list, not including dwell time.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
(5) - Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period . Sector level travel time includes dwell time.
- 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.
(6) New Access: High - provides transit to areas not currently served; Medium - complements existing service; Low -l argely redundant.
Permanence: High - >60% busway/buslane; Medium - 40% to 60%; Low - <40% busway/buslane.
Page 2-42
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-6:
Evaluation of LPA – Sector 4
STATION DETAILS
Sector/
Station No.
4
Station Name
SERVICE
BRT Routes Headways 1
Bus
SOCIO/ECONOMIC DATA
Connections
Rapid
Transit
3
TRANSPORTATION
2
CR
Population
2030
Employment Development
2030
Compatibility
Measures
4
Wellington/ Somerville/ Charlestown
4.2
Wellington
1, 2
10/15/20
90,97,99,100,1
06,108,110,11
2,134
ORANGE
3,700
4,200
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
9
10
4.3
Assembly Square
1, 2
10/15/20
90, 92
ORANGE
8,200
12,600
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From Sullivan Sq)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Sullivan Sq)
5
15
4.9
Inner Belt
1, 5
10/15/20,
7/12/15
86, 91
11,900
11,800
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From New Lechmere)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From New Lechmere)
3
16
4.10
Sullivan Square
1, 2, 5
10/15/20,
7/12/15
86,89,90,91,92
,93,95,101,104
,105,109
10,500
13,700
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From Cobble Hill)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Cobble Hill)
3
13
ORANGE
New/Roc/Hav
5,600
8
10
5,200
4
14
2,900
3
16
2,700
3
13
SECTOR SUMMARY
Sector No.
Sector Name
Measures
16,400
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/ cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/ cw)
Population
20
12
25,700
33,400
EJ
11,200
TOD Support
Wellington/ Somerville/
Charlestown
18
12
Employment
Malden River - potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
Key Environmental Issues
Sector 4
5
6
New Access
Permanence
High
Medium
Cost
Guideway
Stations
Busway
$ 2.5 m
Bridges
$ 22.0 m
BRT
$ 1.5 m
Commuter Rail
$ 55.5 m
Sitework
$ 3.0 m
ROW
$ 1.5 m
Construction Total 5
Systemwide
$ 85 m
$ 56.9 m
Capital Cost Total
$ 141.9 m
NOTE:
(1) Headways are given in minutes for weekday AM and PM peak periods / mid-day and Saturdays / Sundays, holidays, and evenings.
(2) BRT route connections are shown, CT routes are not.
(3) Population and employment numbers represent data for entire one-half mile radius catchment area around each station, and is not adjusted for overlap.
Development Compatibility: Higher - % employment growth is higher than the city; Lower - % employment growth is lower than the city.
(4) Travel time and average speed (AM peak period) "To/ From" next station (counter-clockwise) in the list, not including dwell time.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
(5) - Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period . Sector level travel time includes dwell time.
- 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.
(6) New Access: High - provides transit to areas not currently served; Medium - complements existing service; Low - largely redundant.
Permanence: High - >60% busway/buslane; Medium - 40% to 60%; Low - <40% busway/buslane.
Page 2-43
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-7:
Evaluation of LPA – Sector 5
STATION DETAILS
SOCIO/ECONOMIC DATA 3
SERVICE
Station Name
5
Cambridge
5.1
New Lechmere
1, 5
10/15/20,
7/ 12/ 15
5.2
First Street/ Galleria
1, 5
10/15/20,
7/ 12/ 15
14,200
BRT Routes Headways
5.3
Binney Street
1, 5
10/15/20,
7/ 12/ 15
5.4
Fulkerson Street
1
10/15/20
5.5
Kendall Square
1, 5
10/15/20,
7/ 12/ 15
1
Bus
Connections
Rapid
Transit
69, 80, 87, 88
64, 68, 85
TRANSPORTATION
2
Sector/
Station
No.
CR
GREEN D/E
RED
Population
2030
Employment
2030
Development
Compatibility
13,900
20,700
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
1
18
17,200
36,800
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
1
17
36,500
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From Fulkerson St)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Fulkerson St)
Travel Time, min (To/ From Kendall Sq)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Kendall Sq)
3
12
3
15
16,800
28,800
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
2
16
10,600
35,400
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
2
15
Measures
4
600
1
18
5,500
1
17
400
3
12
3
15
200
2
15
15,500
3
14
SECTOR SUMMARY
Sector No.
Sector Name
Measures
22,200
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/ cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/ cw)
Population
6
13
53,500
14,100
EJ
Busway at private Steam Fountain park east end of Hotel at Kendall
Key Environmental Issues
Sector 5
Cambridge
6
13
25,100
Employment
TOD Support 6
5
New Access
Permanence
Medium
Low
Cost
Guideway
Busway
Bridges
Stations
BRT
$ 5.2 m
Commuter Rail
Sitework
$ 2.5 m
ROW
$ 0.3 m
Construction Total
Systemwide
$8m
$ 20.4 m
Capital Cost Total
$ 28.4 m
NOTE:
(1) Headways are given in minutes for weekday AM and PM peak periods / mid-day and Saturdays / Sundays, holidays, and evenings.
(2) BRT route connections are shown, CT routes are not.
(3) Population and employment numbers represent data for entire one-half mile radius catchment area around each station, and is not adjusted for overlap.
Development Compatibility: Higher - % employment growth is higher than the city; Lower - % employment growth is lower than the city.
(4) Travel time and average speed (AM peak period) "To/ From" next station (counter-clockwise) in the list, not including dwell time.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
(5) - Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period . Sector level travel time includes dwell time.
- 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.
(6) New Access: High - provides transit to areas not currently served; Medium - complements existing service; Low - largely redundant.
Permanence: High - >60% busway/buslane; Medium - 40% to 60%; Low - <40% busway/buslane.
Page 2-44
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-8: Evaluation of LPA – Sector 6
STATION DETAILS
SERVICE
Sector/
Station
No.
Station Name
6
Cambridge/ Boston
6.1
MIT/ Massachusetts Ave.
5
7/ 12/ 15
6.2
Cambridgeport
5
7/ 12/ 15
6.3
Commonwealth Ave/ BU
5, 6
7/ 12/ 15
BRT
Routes
Headways
1
SOCIO/ECONOMIC DATA
Connections
Rapid
Bus
Transit
CR
Population Employment
2030
2030
1
47, 57
3
TRANSPORTATION
2
GREEN B
Development
Compatibility
Measures
4
15,000
25,000
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
2
14
5,700
16,199
15,000
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
2
18
15,500
9,700
Lower
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From Yawkey)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Yawkey)
Travel Time, min (To/ From Allston W est Sta)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Allston W est Sta)
3
13
3
20
2
14
2,000
2
18
10,000
2
13
3
20
SECTOR SUMMARY
Sector
No.
Sector Name
Measures
17,700
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/ cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/ cw)
Population
12
12
12
12
34,500
31,200
27,200
Employment
EJ
Cambridgeport - construction noise & vibration
Fort Washington Park - construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation - construction noise & vibration
Charles River - potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
Fort Washington Park - operation bus tra
Key Environmental Issues
Sector 6
5
Cambridge/ Boston
TOD Support
6
New Access
Permanence
High - North of River / Medium - South of River
High - North of River / High - South of River
Cost
Guideway
Stations
Busway
$ 33.9 m
Bridges
$ 29.9 m
BRT
$ 1.5 m
Commuter Rail
Sitework
$ 13.0 m
ROW
$ 10.5 m
$ 88.8 m
$ 23.3 m
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
$ 112.1 m
NOTE:
(1) Headways are given in minutes for weekday AM and PM peak periods / mid-day and Saturdays / Sundays, holidays, and evenings.
(5) - Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period . Sector level travel time includes dwell time.
- Sector level population, employment and EJ totals within 1/2 mile radius catchment area, truncated to avoid double counting.
(2) BRT route connections are shown, CT routes are not.
(3) Population and employment numbers represent data for entire one-half mile radius catchment area around each station, and is not adjusted fo
Development Compatibility: Higher - % employment growth is higher than the city; Lower - % employment growth is lower than the city.
(4) Travel time and average speed (AM peak period) "To/ From" next station (counter-clockwise) in the list, not including dwell time.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
- Construction cost includes contingency and soft costs. All costs are in $ millions in 2007 dollars.
(6) New Access: High - provides transit to areas not currently served; Medium - complements existing service; Low - largely redundant.
Permanence: High - >60% busway/buslane; Medium - 40% to 60%; Low - <40% busway/buslane.
Page 2-45
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-9:
Evaluation of LPA – Sector 7
STATION DETAILS
SERVICE
Sector/
Station No.
Station Name
7
Boston - Allston
7.3
Allston West Station
6
7/12/15
7.5
North Harvard Street
6
7/12/15
7.6
Stadium Way/ Western Ave
6
7.7
Harvard Square
6
BRT Routes
Headways
SOCIO/ECONOMIC DATA
Connections
Rapid
Transit
3
TRANSPORTATION
2
CR
Population
2030
Employment
2030
Development
Compatibility
Framingham
16,400
10,100
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
1
20
64, 66
13,700
12,200
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
2
20
7/12/15
66, 86
8,300
14,200
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
4
14
7/12/15
1,66,68,69,71,
72,73,74,75,7
7,78,86,96
17,100
20,100
Lower
1
Bus
RED
Measures
4
3,500
1
20
3,300
2
20
4,100
4
14
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
2,000
NA
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
SECTOR SUMMARY
Sector No.
Sector Name
Measures
12,900
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/ cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/ cw)
Population
11
15
39,800
32,400
EJ
Charles River Reservation - construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation - operation bus traffic through
Allston Yards - potential hazardous materials issue
Allston - construction noise & vibration
Key Environmental Issues
Boston - Allston
TOD Support 6
11
15
42,500
Employment
Sector 7
5
New Access
Permanence
High
High
Cost
Guideway
Busway
$ 10.2 m
Stations
Bridges
BRT
Commuter Rail
$ 1.5 m
Sitework
ROW
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
$ 3.7 m
$ 1.6 m
$ 17 m
$ 25.8 m
$ 42.8 m
NOTE:
(1) Headways are given in minutes for weekday AM and PM peak periods / mid-day and Saturdays / Sundays, holidays, and evenings.
(2) BRT route connections are shown, CT routes are not.
(3) Population and employment numbers represent data for entire one-half mile radius catchment area around each station, and is not adjusted for overlap.
Development Compatibility: Higher - % employment growth is higher than the city; Lower - % employment growth is lower than the city.
(4) Travel time and average speed (AM peak period) "To/ From" next station (counter-clockwise) in the list, not including dwell time.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
(5) - Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period . Sector level travel time includes dwell time.
- 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.
(6) New Access: High - provides transit to areas not currently served; Medium - complements existing service; Low - largely redundant.
Permanence: High - >60% busway/buslane; Medium - 40% to 60%; Low - <40% busway/buslane.
Page 2-46
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-10:
Evaluation of LPA – Sector 8
STATION DETAILS
Station Name
8
Boston - Fenway/ LMA
8.2
Yawkey
5, 6
7
7/12/15,
10/15/20
8.4
Fenway Station/ Park Drive
(underground sta)
5, 6, 7
7/12/15,
10/15/20
47
8.8
LMA (Underground Sta)
5, 6
7
7/12/15,
10/15/20
8, 47, Shuttles
8.11
SOCIO/ECONOMIC DATA 3
SERVICE
Sector/
Station
No.
BRT
Routes
Headway
5, 6
7
Ruggles
7/12/15,
10/15/20
1
Bus
Connections
Rapid
Transit
TRANSPORTATION
2
CR
Population Employment
2030
2030
Framing
GREEN D
Development
Compatibility
Measures
4
23,300
21,300
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From Fenway Sta/Park Dr)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Fenway Sta/Park Dr)
1
20
5,900
21,300
25,200
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From Longwood Pasteur
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Longwood Pasteur)
2
20
21,700
50,200
Higher
9,200
Daily Boardings
8,15,19,22,23,
28,42,43,44,
45,47
ORANGE
Attl/ Stough,
Franklin,
Needham
27,300
12,600
Lower
1
20
2
20
27,100
Travel Time, min (To/ From Ruggles)
2
2
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Ruggles)
20
20
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From Washin. St/Silver L.)
2
2
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Washin. St/Silver L.)
17
17
21,500
SECTOR SUMMARY 7
Sector
No.
Sector Name
Measures
7
17
7
16
48,300
Employment
67,200
EJ
35,000
Riverway - construction noise & vibration
Riverway - potential wetland impacts
Fenway, LMA & Longwood - construction noise & vibration
Key Environmental Issues
Sector 8
5
63,700
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/ cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/ cw)
Population
Boston - Fenway / LMA
TOD Support
6
New Access
Permanence
Medium
High
Cost
Guideway
Busway
Stations
Bridges
BRT
Commuter Rail 7
$ 1178.3 m
$ 457.6 m
$ 32.5 m
Sitework
ROW
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
NOTE:
(1) Headways are given in minutes for weekday AM and PM peak periods / mid-day and Saturdays / Sundays, holidays, and evenings.
(2)
BRT route connections are shown, CT routes are not.
(3) Population and employment numbers represent data for entire 1/2 mile radius catchment area around each station, and is not adjusted for overlap.
Development Compatibility: Higher - % employment growth is higher than the city; Lower - % employment growth is lower than the city.
(4) Travel time and average speed (AM peak period) "To/ From" next station (counter-clockwise) in the list, not including dwell time.
$ 1668.4 m
$ 49.5 m
$ 1717.9 m
(5) - Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period. Sector level travel time includes dwell time.
- 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.
(6) New Access: High - provides transit to areas not currently served; Medium - complements existing service; Low - largely redundant.
Permanence: High - >60% busway/buslane; Medium - 40% to 60%; Low - <40% busway/buslane.
(7) Commuter Rail platform improvement includes Ruggles Station but not Yawkey Station.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-47
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-11:
Evaluation of LPA – Sector 9
STATION DETAILS
SERVICE
SOCIO/ECONOMIC DATA
Sector/
Station
No.
Station Name
9
Roxbury
9.1
Washington St./ Silver Line
6, 7
7/12/15,
10/15/20
1, 8, 47, 170
9.2
Dudley Station
7
10/15/20
1,8,14,15,19,23,
28,41,42,44,45,4
7,66,170,171
BRT
Routes
Headways
1
Bus
Connections
Rapid
Transit
3
TRANSPORTATION
2
Population
2030
Employment
2030
Development
Compatibility
Silver Line
17,700
15,100
Higher
Silver Line
13,200
6,700
Higher
CR
9.3
Crosstown Center
6, 7
7/12/15,
10/15/20
1, 47
13,900
19,500
Higher
9.4
Boston Medical Center
7
10/15/20
8, 10, 47
14,700
23,200
Higher
Measures
4
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From Dudley Sta)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Dudley Sta)
Travel Time, min (To/ From Crosstown Center)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Crosstown Center)
2
10
2
17
3,300
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From W ashin. St./Silver L.)
3
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Washin. St./Silver L.)
10
3
10
2
17
500
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From BMC)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From BMC)
Travel Time, min (To/ From Magaz. St/Mass. Ave.)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From Magaz. St/Mass.Ave.)
2
10
5,500
1
15
2
15
Daily Boardings
1
15
2
15
1,900
Travel Time, min (To/ From )
6
6
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
11
11
SECTOR SUMMARY
Sector
No.
Sector Name
Measures
13
12
22,900
21,600
Coordination with planned Harbor Trail
Key Environmental Issues
Sector 9
Roxbury
13
12
26,900
Employment
EJ
TOD Support 6
5
11,200
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/ cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/ cw)
Population
New Access
Permanence
Medium
High
Guideway
Busway
$ 2.7 m
Stations
Bridges
BRT
$ 3.0 m
Cost
Commuter Rail
Sitework
ROW
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
$ 2.6 m
$ 0.7 m
$9m
$ 18.5 m
$ 27.5 m
NOTE:
(1) Headways are given in minutes for weekday AM and PM peak periods / mid-day and Saturdays / Sundays, holidays, and evenings.
(2) BRT route connections are shown, CT routes are not.
(3) Population and employment numbers represent data for entire one-half mile radius catchment area around each station, and is not adjusted for overlap.
Development Compatibility: Higher - % employment growth is higher than the city; Lower - % employment growth is lower than the city.
(4) Travel time and average speed (AM peak period) "To/ From" next station (counter-clockwise) in the list, not including dwell time.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
(5) - Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period . Sector level travel time includes dwell time.
- 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.
(6) New Access: High - provides transit to areas not currently served; Medium - complements existing service; Low - largely redundant.
Permanence: High - >60% busway/buslane; Medium - 40% to 60%; Low - <40% busway/buslane.
Page 2-48
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-12:
Evaluation of LPA – Sector 10
STATION DETAILS
Sector/
Station
No.
10
Station Name
SOCIO/ECONOMIC DATA 3
SERVICE
BRT Routes Headways 1
Bus
Connections
Rapid
Transit
TRANSPORTATION
2
CR
Population
2030
Employment
2030
Development
Compatibility
Fairmont
7,100
9,300
Lower
16,300
4,700
Lower
Measures 4
Dorchester
10.3
Massachusetts Ave/ New Market
6
7/12/15
8, 10
10.6
Edward Everett Square
6
7/12/15
16, 17, 8, 41
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
1,800
2
15
Daily Boardings
1,900
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
6
6
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
6
6
Daily Boardings
10.8
JFK/ UMass
6
7/12/15
8, 16, 41
Red
Old Colony
12,300
6,300
Lower
2
15
600
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
NA
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
SECTOR SUMMARY
Sector No
Measures 5
Sector Name
4,300
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/ cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/ cw)
Population
Employment
EJ
12
9
26,500
16,400
24,300
Richardson Sq - operation bus traffic adjacent
Columbia Rd Park - operation bus traffic adjacent
Key Environmental Issues
Sector 10
Dorchester
TOD Support 6
Cost
Guideway
Stations
11
9
New Access
Permanence
Busway
Bridges
BRT
Commuter Rail
Sitework
ROW
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
NOTE:
(1) Headways are given in minutes for weekday AM and PM peak periods / mid-day and Saturdays / Sundays, holidays, and evenings.
Medium
Medium
$ 2.2 m
$ 0.6 m
$ 0.2 m
$3m
$ 16.5 m
$ 19.5 m
(5) - Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period . Sector level travel time includes dwell time.
(2) BRT route connections are shown, CT routes are not.
- Sector level population, employment and EJ totals within 1/2 mile radius catchment area, truncated to avoid double counting
(3) Population and employment numbers represent data for entire one-half mile radius catchment area around each station, and is not adjusted for overlap.
- Construction cost includes contingency and soft costs. All costs are in $ millions in 2007 dollars.
Development Compatibility: Higher - % employment growth is higher than the city; Lower - % employment growth is lower than the city.
(4) Travel time and average speed (AM peak period) "To/ From" next station (counter-clockwise) in the list, not including dwell time.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
(6) New Access: High - provides transit to areas not currently served; Medium - complements existing service; Low - largely redundant.
Permanence: High - >60% busway/buslane; Medium - 40% to 60%; Low - <40% busway/buslane.
Page 2-49
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-13:
Evaluation of LPA – Sector 11
STATION DETAILS
SERVICE
Sector/
Station
No.
Station Name
11
South Boston/ BUMC/ WTC
11.1
Broadway Station
7
10/15/20
3, 9, 11, 47
11.2
A Street
7
10/15/20
3
11.5
World Trade Center
7
10/15/20
3, 4, 6, 7, 448,
449, 459, 171
BRT Routes Headways 1
Bus
SOCIO/ECONOMIC DATA
Connections
Rapid
Transit
3
TRANSPORTATION
2
CR
RED
Population
2030
Employment
2030
Development
Compatibility
22,400
31,600
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
3
12
23,600
61,100
Higher
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
3
12
16,600
42,100
Higher
Measures
4
500
2,700
Daily Boardings
Silver Line
3
12
5
13
300
Travel Time, min (To/ From)
13
7
Avg. Speed, mph (To/ From)
20
23
SECTOR SUMMARY
Sector
No.
Sector Name
Measures
3,500
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/ cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/ cw)
Population
South Boston/ BUMC/ WTC
17
12
17
12
36,600
Employment
88,000
EJ
Key Environmental Issues
5,200
None
Medium
Low
TOD Support 6
Sector 11
5
New Access
Permanence
Cost
Guideway
Busway
Bridges
Stations
BRT
$ 3.5 m
Commuter Rail
Sitework
$ 1.0 m
ROW
$ 0.5 m
Construction Total
Systemwide
$5m
$ 25 m
Capital Cost Total
$ 30 m
NOTE:
(1) Headways are given in minutes for weekday AM and PM peak periods / mid-day and Saturdays / Sundays, holidays, and evenings.
(2) BRT route connections are shown, CT routes are not.
(3) Population and employment numbers represent data for entire one-half mile radius catchment area around each station, and is not adjusted for overlap.
Development Compatibility: Higher - % employment growth is higher than the city; Lower - % employment growth is lower than the city.
(4) Travel time and average speed (AM peak period) "To/ From" next station (counter-clockwise) in the list, not including dwell time.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
(5) - Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period . Sector level travel time includes dwell time.
- 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.
(6) New Access: High - provides transit to areas not currently served; Medium - complements existing service; Low - largely redundant.
Permanence: High - >60% busway/buslane; Medium - 40% to 60%; Low - <40% busway/buslane.
Page 2-50
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 2-4
LPA - East Boston/Logan Airport
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-51
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 2-5
LPA – East Boston/Chelsea
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-52
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 2-6
LPA - Everett/Medford/Somerville
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-53
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 2-7
LPA – Charlestown / Cambridge
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-54
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 2-8
LPA - East Cambridge/ Allston/ Fenway & LMA
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-55
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 2-9
LPA – Fenway & LMA/Roxbury/Crosstown
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-56
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 2-10 LPA – Dorchester
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-57
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 2-11
LPA – South Boston
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-58
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2.2
Transportation
This section provides a summary of the transportation benefits and impacts of the Locally Preferred
Alternative compared with the Baseline Alternative. The following categories are summarized below:
•
Transit;
•
Local Traffic, Pedestrians and Bicycles;
•
Regional Traffic; and
•
Phase 3 Compatibility.
2.2.1 Transit
The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) would provide several transit-related advantages over the
Baseline Alternative as noted below.
Dedicated Right-of-Way for Exclusive Bus Use. The LPA would comprise a coordinated system of
exclusive busways (both surface and tunnel long and short), bus lanes, and mixed traffic BRT operation.
The alignment recommendations are designed to maximize the amount of dedicated busways and bus
lanes in congested areas of the corridor, and to allow mixed traffic operations primarily in areas with lower
levels of traffic congestion and delay. These features would allow BRT vehicles to bypass general traffic
congestion and queuing which results in travel time savings and greater schedule reliability. Bus lanes
would also permit bicycle travel where separate bicycle lanes cannot fit on the road.
Bus queue-jump lanes. The LPA would include bus queue-jump lanes, which are short priority lanes for
buses that are typically combined with traffic signal priority improvements. The intent of the bus queuejump lane is to allow the higher-capacity vehicles to cut to the front of the queue, reducing the delay
caused by the signal and improving the operational efficiency of the transit system. Bus queue-jump lanes
consist of a travel lane on the approach to a signalized intersection which is often restricted to transit
vehicles only. A queue-jump lane is generally accompanied by a signal which provides a phase
specifically for vehicles within the queue jump. Such a signal reduces the need for a designated receiving
lane, as vehicles in the queue-jump lane get a "head-start" over other queued vehicles and can therefore
merge into the regular travel lanes immediately beyond the signal. Thus, the idea is to enable buses to
by-pass queues of traffic waiting at a busy intersection, allowing faster travel times for buses.
Ambulances and emergency vehicles would also be allowed to use queue-jump lanes.
Vehicle Technology. The LPA BRT service would use a fleet of diesel-electric hybrid buses. Advances in
engine and battery technology are expected to enable these diesel-electric hybrid buses to operate
efficiently, reliably and with low emissions throughout the Urban Ring system, including zero-emission
operation for the full length of the tunnel.
Enhanced Transit Identity. An important element of the LPA is to create a transit identity for the Project.
This would consist of distinctive low-floor 60-foot articulated buses; state-of-the-art stations with
consistent materials and design features; and traveler amenities such as real-time information and prepay boarding options. The BRT buses would accommodate between 90 to 120 passengers. These
elements would create a transit identity for the LPA that would improve the quality and enjoyment of
service.
Ridership. The LPA would carry approximately 191,700 daily riders on the proposed Urban Ring service
(BRT and CT routes), and would increase overall project ridership over the Baseline Alternative by
127,000 daily riders. By providing more direct routes between key origin and destination points, the LPA
would reduce demand for the heavily-used Green Line light rail service and would relieve transit
congestion in the central subway system of Boston. The LPA would reduce the number of riders on
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-59
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Green Line service in the central subway by approximately 2,600 riders in the AM peak hour compared to
the Baseline, representing 15 percent reduction in riders. The LPA would increase ridership for commuter
rail service over the No-Build Alternative by 9,200 daily riders.
High Frequency Service. Headways of 10/15/20 minutes for BRT buses are proposed for peak,
midday/Saturdays and Sundays, holidays and evenings, respectively. The five BRT routes would overlap
in most areas resulting in headways of approximately 3 minutes, which is comparable to rapid transit
service.
Travel Time Savings. The LPA results in higher travel speed of 14 mph compared with 11 mph for the
Baseline Alternative. The LPA results in 40-45 minute travel time savings over the Baseline Alternative for
the entire length of the corridor. These travel time advantages result in higher ridership demand for the
Urban Ring project.
Reliability. In addition to travel time savings, the LPA would provide more reliable service for riders. The
bus lanes, busways and tunnels provide exclusive BRT running ways which are not impacted by general
traffic, delivery trucks, and non-vehicular conflicts. These features allow BRT buses to travel according to
schedule without encountering delays that are typically experienced in mixed traffic. In addition, the LPA
BRT routes have been developed to generally avoid congested roadways and intersections in the study
area to the extent possible. The result of these advantages is a reliable service provided to riders on a
daily basis. The travel advantage features have been used to evaluate ridership and travel time for each
of the project alternatives.
Mode Share. The LPA would result in increased transit mode share (8.3 percent) in the region over the
Baseline (8.1 percent) and No-Build (7.9 percent) Alternatives. As a result, the LPA would eliminate
approximately 41,500 daily auto person trips compared to the No-Build and 24,200 trips compared to the
Baseline. These transit mode share increases are considered significant and positive benefits of the
Urban Ring project.
2.2.2 Local Traffic
The LPA would minimize the impacts on general traffic and pedestrians relative to the Baseline
Alternative due to bus signal priority; tunnels, busways and bus lanes; pedestrian features; and bicycle
features.
Bus Signal Priority. 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
(based on delay weighted by bus occupancy). The bus signal priority system is designed to minimize
impacts to general traffic where general traffic that operates during the same phases as the bus
movements would experience additional intersection green time as a result of bus signal priority. Because
of these features the impact to general traffic would be minimized under the LPA.
In order to implement the proposed traffic signal bus priority operations strategy for Urban Ring Phase 2
BRT, it is necessary to provide new and upgraded traffic signal equipment at the signalized intersections
(existing and proposed) within the Urban Ring Project Corridor. These intersections are controlled by a
number of different jurisdictions including the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Chelsea;
the Town of Brookline; Massport and the DCR. It is proposed that new and upgraded equipment at these
locations be provided as part of the Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT project, and that the various jurisdictions
continue to be responsible for operations and maintenance of the signal systems. An agreement would be
necessary between the EOT/MBTA and each jurisdiction to provide the desired traffic signal bus priority
operation as well as continued maintenance of equipment necessary for providing such operation.
Tunnels, Busways and Bus lanes. The busways and bus lanes would be made available not only for
the new Urban Ring buses, but also for other existing bus and shuttle services, as well as emergency
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-60
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
vehicles (where appropriate).5 This would improve the reliability of buses and shuttles and reduce
congestion in general travel lanes.
Pedestrian Features. The LPA would signalize some intersections that are currently unsignalized and
upgrade equipment at many signalized intersections. Pedestrian signal equipment would be provided and
upgraded at these locations. Appropriate pedestrian crossing signal timings would be provided. The LPA
alignment and stations have been developed to be consistent with and complement existing and planned
pedestrian facilities in the study corridor including mixed-use paths. Measures have been developed to
separate bus travel from pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The LPA would also increase pedestrian safety
and comfort by providing medians at locations such as the Melnea Cass Boulevard.
Bicycle Features. Bus lanes could also allow bicycle travel where separate bicycle lanes cannot fit on
the road. Bus/bike lanes operate well in many cities in North America. In addition, bicycle racks would be
provided at station locations and buses would be equipped to permit bicycles either on front racks or on
board.
2.2.3 Regional Traffic
By providing improved transit access and capacity, the LPA would make transit more attractive. This
would result in a mode shift from automobile travel to transit travel for a total of 24,200 person-trips per
day compared to Baseline Alternative. This in turn would result in 80,500 fewer daily vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) on regional roadways than the Baseline Alternative, and 6,700 fewer vehicle hours
traveled (VHT). This would have a positive impact on air quality, as discussed below in the Environmental
summary.
2.2.4 Urban Ring Phase 3 Compatibility
The proposed bus tunnel alignment and cross section in the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA was developed to
facilitate potential later conversion of the tunnel to rail transit operations in Urban Ring Phase 3. As a
base case for comparison, the Phase 2 horizontal tunnel alignment considered the Urban Ring Phase 3
rail transit alternatives between Sullivan Square and Dudley Square as previously identified in the Urban
Ring MIS and presented in the 2004 DEIR. In addition, the analysis of Phase 3 compatibility also
recognizes the potential for long range rail transit service connections to Allston, a travel market whose
high growth rate was not yet recognized in the MPO land use projections at the time the MIS was
completed.
The Phase 3 compatibility test included three categories: basic compatibility (i.e. tunnel cross section and
alignment criteria); basic features (i.e. portal elements, station elements, turnouts etc.); and advanced
features (i.e. detailed elements of rail functionality).
Major structural elements required for Phase 3 that could be built during Phase 2 may include:
•
Dedicated underground turnout structures consistent with potential Phase 3 rail alignments;
•
Longitudinal extension of underground stations to allow for Phase 3 platform lengths;
•
Vertical extension of underground stations to allow Phase 3 station platforms to be built beneath
the Phase 2 station (such that both BRT and rail could operate simultaneously, if this were the
recommendation of future Urban Ring Phase 3 planning and environmental review); and
5
Tunnels will be considered for use by other buses and shuttles but must have appropriate dual mode equipment so they can use
electric propulsion in tunnel sections.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-61
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
•
Construction of a larger diameter tunnel to incorporate two decks - an upper deck for BRT, fitted
out during Phase 2, and a lower deck provided during Phase 2 and fitted out for rail during
Phase 3.
In general, where cut-and-cover structures are required for tight turns in Phase 2, these would be built to
incorporate Phase 3 turnouts. In addition, where portals are required to be re-graded during Phase 3
conversion, the portals would be designed and constructed to accommodate these requirements in Phase
2.
2.3
Maintenance Facilities
The BRT vehicle fleet needed to provide the services described in the LPA would require bus
maintenance facility capacity beyond that currently available from existing MBTA bus maintenance
facilities. Urban Ring Phase 2 bus maintenance operations would be split among two facilities: the
existing Southampton Street maintenance facility and a proposed Wellington Bus Maintenance Facility.
In 2002, the MBTA initiated a separate Bus Maintenance Facilities Strategic Plan to “develop a Strategic
Plan for bus operations that identifies the short, medium, and long-term facility needs based on changes
in fleet size, technology, and composition; fleet maintenance requirements; service delivery
characteristics; and new service initiatives, specifically the Urban Ring.”6 Bus fleet size estimates for the
Baseline Alternative (referred to in that study as Urban Ring Phase 1) were identified in the MIS. These
bus fleet size estimates have been updated and are being coordinated with MBTA’s Bus Maintenance
Facilities Strategic Plan. The key recommendations contained in the Final Strategic Plan for Bus
Maintenance Facilities are being advanced by MBTA as separate projects and are summarized below.
The Urban Ring would contribute a prorated share of the cost of the bus maintenance facilities based on
the number of Urban Ring vehicles as a percentage of total vehicles maintained.
The number of BRT buses needed to operate each of the Phase 2 routes in the LPA and Baseline was
estimated using the round trip length of each route, calculating the total round trip cycle time including all
station dwells, and dividing the total cycle time in minutes by the planned 10-minute peak period headway
of BRT1, BRT2 and BRT 7 and 7-minute peak period headway of BRT5 and BRT6. Average roundtrip
speeds, including station dwell, for the proposed routes during the AM peak period in the year 2030 were
projected based on the total cycle time, including all station dwell time. The cycle times and speeds are a
function of route length, the percentage of busways and bus lanes, and the forecast level of congestion in
mixed traffic segments using ITS bus signal priority.
Table 2-14 presents the summary of BRT vehicle fleet size requirements by route for Baseline and LPA. It
shows that for the Baseline Alternative, the estimated fleet size for all five CT routes combined is 105
vehicles including layover considerations and spares. The total BRT fleet size for LPA is 65 vehicles,
including layover considerations and spares.
6
Final Strategic Plan for Bus Maintenance Facilities, MBTA, April 2003.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-62
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-14:
Summary of BRT Vehicle Fleet Size by BRT Route
Route
2.4
Number of BRT Vehicle
Baseline
LPA
BRT 1 (CT5)
14
9
BRT 2 (CT12)
10
6
BRT 5 (CT2)
16
8
BRT 6 (CT4)
18
11
BRT 7 (CT3)
15
11
Total (no layover)
72
45
Total with 12% layover
81
50
TOTAL with layover & 30% spares
105
65
Environment
The following is a summary of the major environmental benefits, impacts, and mitigation associated with
the proposed LPA. Per the requirements of the NEPA process, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
were considered; the categories of impacts defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR §§
1508.7 and 1508.8) as follows:
• Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.
• Indirect impacts are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but
are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect impacts may include growth inducing effects and other
effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate,
and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.
• Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact
of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking
place over a period of time.
For the analysis of cumulative impacts of the LPA, the following regional transit projects have
been considered:
o Fairmount Line Corridor Improvements – Program to improve facilities, infrastructure,
and service on the Fairmount commuter rail line (implementation ongoing)
o Green Line Extension – Project to extend existing Green Line service from Lechmere
Station through the northwest Boston corridor communities of Cambridge, Somerville,
and Medford, with an extension of the main line to Medford and a spur line to Union
Square in Somerville (conceptual engineering and preparation of state and federal
environmental review documents)
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-63
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2.4.1 Land Use and Economic Activity
Direct Impacts
o The LPA would improve connections among life sciences institutions and companies, and
enhance connections between life sciences jobs clustered in Boston and Cambridge and
the regional workforce.
o The LPA would provide improved linkages between residential communities and existing
and emerging employment centers in the corridor, and better connections among the
many educational, medical, and research institutions and businesses concentrated there.
o To construct the LPA, the total capital cost expenditures associated with the cities, towns,
and counties along the corridor would be an estimated $1,965.4 million (in 2007 dollars).
In terms of employment, an estimated 11,265 new jobs would be created directly over the
construction period.
o Operating and maintenance costs for the LPA have been estimated at $30 million to $40
million per year. Direct, permanent project employment is anticipated to be 200.
Indirect Impacts
o Improved transit service would benefit target economic zones that are located in or
immediately adjacent to one or more LPA catchment areas, assuming that transit-related
land uses are planned for or exist within the area, and assuming also that supportive
municipal policies are in place.
o With the LPA in place, workers would be able to get to work in the life sciences cluster
and in other employment centers in the greater Boston area easier, increasing the
attractiveness of these centers as places of work. In turn, this would enable the growth
and expansion of the employment centers, bolstering the regional economy.
o The regional input-output model system (RIMS II) estimates that indirect economic
activity, as a result of project construction, would be $2,199 million in the three-county
region; 8,240 new jobs would be created indirectly over the construction period.
o Indirect economic output from the project’s annual operation expenditures is estimated at
$47.9 million; indirect, permanent jobs total 184.
Cumulative Impacts
o Both the Fairmount Line Corridor Improvements and the Green Line Extension would
increase access to target economic zones, and, in combination with the LPA, would
benefit these zones.
o Cumulatively, these regional transit projects and the LPA, by increasing the
attractiveness of the life sciences cluster and other employment centers as places of
work, would enable the growth and expansion of the employment centers, bolstering the
regional economy.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-64
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2.4.2 Displacements and Relocations
Direct Impacts
o Construction and implementation of the project would require some property takings
along the corridor for construction of project elements including BRT busways and BRT
stations. The anticipated ROW requirements of the LPA total 27.32 acres, comprising
8.90 industrial/commercial, 6.54 acres institutional/municipal, and 11.88 acres railroad
right-of-way. There are no residential takings or business relocations associated with the
project.7
2.4.3 Neighborhoods and Population
Direct and Indirect Impacts
o The LPA would not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on the minority or
low-income populations in the corridor or the seven-city region. The LPA also would
provide benefits to residents including the minority and low-income populations living
near the stations. These benefits include improved access to transit, transit travel time
savings, expanded access to employment and amenities, and the potential for increased
economic development.
2.4.4 Visual Resources and Aesthetics
Direct Impacts
o Construction of BRT busways, and mixed traffic and exclusive bus lanes at various
locations along the corridor, would not result in adverse visual impacts at any location.
Construction of BRT stops and other corridor-wide improvements would greatly enhance
the visual and aesthetic qualities of the place where such facilities are planned.
2.4.5 Air Quality
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
o Given the significant anticipated reduction in VMT and introduction of low-emission
vehicles, air quality benefits would be realized as part of the LPA. The LPA would
improve air quality at the intersection, municipal, and regional levels compared to the NoBuild and Baseline Build Alternatives, largely due to the project’s ability to divert
automobile trips to public transportation. A microscale analysis indicated that maximum
1-hour and 8-hour carbon monoxide (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 increased public transportation reduces the number of individual motor vehicles
in the project area. Regarding fine particulate emissions, the introduction of ultralow
sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel in 2007, along with future emission standards (established
under state and federal regulations) would significantly reduce fine particulate emissions
7
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 2-65
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
from on-road diesel powered vehicles in future years. ULSD is currently used by the
MBTA in its bus fleet.
2.4.6
Noise and Vibration
Direct Impacts
o The construction and operation of Urban Ring Phase 2 is not expected to have severe
noise impacts on sensitive receptors in the corridor, defined as noise that can cause
significant percentage of people to be highly annoyed. Any noise from the project’s
construction or operation is projected to fall within an acceptable range of existing
ambient noise conditions.
Because most of the construction on the proposed bus alternatives would primarily be
street improvements, the primary locations for assessing construction noise impact would
be at the proposed portals for the tunnel boring machine and the stations in the LMA.
Potential construction noise impacts will 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.
o The only portions of the proposed LPA with the potential for operational vibration impact
from bus operations are within the LMA and MIT. However, based on the ambient
vibration measurements conducted in these locations, the bus operations are not
projected to generate vibration levels higher than existing vibration generated by current
buses, trucks, and deliveries to buildings. In addition, because the primary source of
vibration from rubber-tired vehicles is from roadway irregularities such as potholes, it is
expected that buses operating on newly-constructed busways or in the proposed tunnel
would generate lower vibration levels than are currently experienced from buses and
trucks on existing streets.
Construction vibration levels would have the most impact during tunnel construction
operations in the LMA. This area has a range of sensitive locations including residential
locations and research facilities with vibration-sensitive equipment. As more detailed
information regarding soil conditions, specific equipment locations and building coupling
losses becomes available during final design, more accurate assessments for each piece
of equipment can be made.
2.4.7 Plant and Animal Species and Habitats, and Water Resources and
Wetlands
Direct Impacts
o The proposed busway may impact wetlands and other habitats associated with the
Malden River. Bordering vegetated wetlands, characterized as a palustrine emergent
wetland and dominated by common reed and broad-leaved cattail, are located along both
sides of the Revere Beach Parkway east of the proposed Malden River crossing.
o The proposed Charles River crossing may impact wetlands and other habitats associated
with the river, including the river itself.
o The impacts may include filling or altering wetland or aquatic habitats. Detailed
delineations of these resources would be conducted as required during the future design
phase of the project. All wetland and water resource impacts would be minimized to the
extent practicable. Any impacts to wetland or water resources would be mitigated to
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-66
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
compensate for any loss of water resource area or function. The mitigation requirements
would be worked out through consultation with the conservation commissions of the
affected communities.
2.4.8 Energy
Direct Impacts
o Direct impacts are characterized by the energy that would be used for the construction of
the Urban Ring facilities and operation of the BRT system. Direct impacts include the
energy consumed by operation of the BRT vehicles, lighting for stations and bridges, and
lighting and ventilation for tunnels.
Indirect Impacts
o Indirect impacts include changes in energy use by the regional transportation system –
including automobiles, buses, trucks, and motorcycles – that would be caused by
operation of the BRT service. As stated in Section 2.2.3, the LPA would result in a mode
shift from automobile travel to transit travel and, thereby, 81,300 fewer daily VMT on
regional roadways than the Baseline Alternative. At the regional level, this in turn would
result in a reduction of 483 BTUs per day compared to the Baseline Alternative and in a
reduction of 1,131 BTUs per day compared to the No-Build Alternative.
2.4.9 Hazardous Materials
Direct Impacts
o Proposed management activities in and around the numerous 21 E sites (locations where
unintended releases or spills of hazardous materials have been reported) known to exist
within the Phase 2 corridor include: developing a soil pre-characterization program,
formulating a formal health and safety plan, and developing a contaminated soil and
groundwater management plan. These measures have not been conducted at this time,
but they will be completed as part of later phases of the project.
o DEP has recommended that the MBTA consider combining the numerous 21 E sites
using the single Special Project Designation provisions outlined under 21E and the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). It is intended that this recommendation will be
adopted, but the application for the Special Project Designation has not yet been
completed. 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.
2.4.10 EMF and Moving Metal
Direct Impacts
o The only portions of the LPA with a demonstrated sensitivity to electro-magnetic field
(EMF) and moving metal impact from bus operations are the LMA and MIT. Magneticfield fluctuations from the Urban Ring Phase 2 are expected to have a frequency
spectrum of 0 to 10 Hz and to occur approximately every few minutes due to the
intermittency of bi-directional transit service. The highest magnetic fields are expected at
grade, at the edge of the right-of-way. It is unlikely that Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT vehicles
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-67
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
would cause an EMF/EMI impact or would necessitate EMF/EMI mitigation. Additional
study on potential EMF/EMI impacts is required during preliminary engineering.
Mitigation
o If mitigation is required, there are three independent mitigation strategies: Increase
separation distance, decrease electric currents, and cancellation. EMF/EMI increases
with the magnitude of the currents in the source and decreases with the distance away
from the source. Along the lines of cancellation, opposing supply currents can be places
as close to each other as possible to cancel effects at greater distances, or local coils can
be used to cancel disturbing magnetic fields. Another type of EMF/EMI mitigation at the
receptor location is placing high-permeability ferromagnetic “mu-metal” sheets in
locations that shunt the magnetic field lines away from sensitive areas.
2.4.11 Historic and Archaeological
The project corridor for the LPA is the result of combining individual elements from the nine Build and
three Hybrid Alternatives. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) includes almost 240 individual properties
and 45 areas that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places,
as well as several areas that have been identified as archaeologically sensitive (see Table 2-15). There
are also a number of local historic districts located along the LPA corridor. There is also the potential for
additional eligible properties within the corridor of the LPA. Reconnaissance level survey will be needed
for significant portions of the LPA to verify currently inventoried properties, evaluate those properties that
have been inventoried but not evaluated, and to identify additional properties.
The APE is defined as “the geographic area within which the undertaking may cause changes in the
character of or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist” [36 CFR 800.16 (d)]. For the
purposes of the Urban Ring, the APE was established as a corridor extending from 50 feet (existing
streets) to 100 feet (rail corridors and new right-of-way) left and right from the centerline of the proposed
route. At BRT station locations, the APE was expended to encompass150 feet around each station
location, depending on the type of BRT station. For proposed bus shelters the APE was limited to the
surrounding streetscapes, while larger bus stations required a larger APE. An historic property is defined
as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion
in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior” [36 CFR 800.16(l)].
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 mixed traffic and bas
lanes, the LPA would avoid historic properties, provided that the bus lanes are within the existing street
and do not require additional right-of-way. However, there are specific elements of the LPA, the proposed
tunnel option and busway routes on new locations that may have direct and/or indirect impacts to historic
properties.
This section discusses each sector of the LPA, summarizing the historic properties within the APE, the
potential impacts to each property as a result of implementing the LPA, and a preliminary finding of effect.
Sector 1: East Boston/Logan Airport
The LPA corridor between the Ted Williams Tunnel and the Chelsea River contains three previously
inventoried individual properties and one area that have been determined potentially eligible or
recommended eligible for listing in the National Register (see Table 2-15). The LPA traverses through the
Chelsea River Industrial District (BOS.RO) on a busway located within an abandoned railroad right of
way. As long as all construction activities occur within the right of way no impacts to this resource are
anticipated. The LPA approaches and crosses the Chelsea River in mixed traffic and therefore would not
impact the MDC Sewage Pumping Station (BOS.19), Chelsea Street Bridge Tender House, or the
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-68
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Chelsea Street Bridge (CLS.900) which is to be rebuilt by others. Two BRT Stations are proposed within
Sector 1. Both are located within existing structures, the Logan West Garage and the Airport Blue Line
and would have no impact on any historic properties. There are no areas of archaeological sensitivity
within Sector 1 of the LPA.
Table 2-15:
Historic Resources: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment A - Sector 1
Potential
Property Name
National Register Status
Impact
Chelsea River Industrial District
Rec. NRHD
No
28
MDC Sewage Pumping Sta (MWRA E. Boston
NRI, Rec. NRHD contri.
No
Steam Pumping Station)
943
Chelsea St. Bridge Tender House
Rec. NRI
No
944
CLS.900
Chelsea Street Bridge
NRI
No
Key: Rec. – recommended, Contr. – contributing element, NRI – National Register Property, NRHD – National Register Historic District
Survey
No.
MHC No.
BOS.RO
BOS.19
Sector 2: Chelsea
The LPA corridor through Chelsea LPA passes three inventoried individual properties that have been
determined potentially eligible for listing and one area that is listed (see Table 2-16). The LPA through
Chelsea is located within an abandoned railroad corridor and adjacent to the MBT Rockport Commuter
Rail line. The LPA passes the Russell Box Company (CLS.608-610) and surveyed properties 960 and
961 in a depressed section of the abandoned railroad and abuts the northern edge of the Bellingham
Square District (CLA.A) within the existing commuter line right of way. As long as all construction activities
for the busway are contained within the rail right of way (both abandoned and active) no impacts to
historic properties are anticipated. Three BRT stations are proposed. The stations at Griffin Way and
Everett Avenue/Mystic Mall are stand alone shelters, while the Chelsea Commuter Rail location is an
existing station that is proposed for upgrading and lengthening of the station platforms. None of the
proposed stations are anticipated to have any impact on historic properties. There are no areas of
archaeological sensitivity within Sector 2 of the LPA.
Table 2-16:
Survey
No.
Historic Resources: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment A - Sector 2
MHC No.
CLA.A
Property Name
Bellingham Square District
National Register Status
NRHD
960
Rec. NRI
961
Rec. NRI
963
CLS.608-610
Russell Box Co. Spring Air Mattress Factory
Rec. NRI
Key: Rec. – recommended, NRI – National Register Property, NRHD – National Register Historic District
Potential
Impact
No
No
No
No
Sector 3: Everett
The LPA corridor through Everett includes two National Register-listed properties, the Woods Memorial
Bridge (EVR.904/MDF.914) and the Revere Beach Parkway (EVR.AA), as well as, two potential districts
Paris-Garvey-Spring Streets District (EVR.X) and the Broadway-Charlton Street Industrial District
(EVR.AA). In addition, there are nine individual properties within the Broadway-Charlton Street Industrial
District that have been inventoried but not evaluated (see Table 2-17). The LPA bypasses the ParisGarvey-Springs Streets District within the Rockport commuter rail line right of way. The proposed surface
busway is separated from the district by the commuter line and is not anticipated to have any impact on
the district. In the vicinity of the Broadway-Charlton Street Industrial District the surface busway is within
the Rockport commuter rail line, north of the existing tracks and is not anticipated to have any impact on
the district. The LPA busway would run parallel and north of the Revere Beach Parkway and cross the
Malden River on a new bridge structure placed adjacent to the Woods Memorial Bridge. The construction
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-69
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
of the busway may have direct and indirect impacts (visual) to the Revere Beach Parkway, resulting in a
finding of adverse effect. The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (MADCR) is
planning to replace the Woods Memorial Bridge and would construct a temporary bridge to the north.
Negotiations are currently underway for the temporary bridge to remain in place to carry the busway over
the Malden River. Consequently, the proposed busway would have no impact on the Woods Memorial
Bridge. Only one BRT station is proposed, the stand alone bus shelter at Gateway, Everett would have no
impact any historic property. The project corridor adjacent to the Malden River is considered
archaeologically sensitive for both terrestrial and marine resources dating from the precontact/contact/post contact periods and survey is recommended to determine the presence/absence of
potentially significant archaeological properties
Table 2-17:
Survey
No.
Historic Resources: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment A - Sector 3
Potential
Property Name
National Register Status
Impact
Paris-Garvey-Springs Streets District
Not Evaluated
No
Broadway- Charlton Street Industrial
Not Evaluated
No
EVR.U
District
EVR.AA
Revere Beach Parkway
NRHD
Yes
Everett Factories-EFTC
Not Evaluated
No
975
EVR.196
#5 Loft
Everett Factories-EFTC
Not Evaluated
No
976
EVR.195
#3 Loft
Donovan, James Shoe
Not Evaluated
No
977
EVR.193
Co. Engine House
1013
EVR.205
New England Bolt Co. Sheds
Not Evaluated
No
1014
EVR.203
New England Bolt Co. Machine Shop
Not Evaluated
No
1015
EVR.204
New England Bolt Co. Warehouse
Not Evaluated
No
1016
EVR.202
Everett Factories-EFTC Machine Shop
Not Evaluated
No
American Agricultural Chemical Co.
Not Evaluated
No
1017
EVR.201
Warehouse
1028
EVR904/MDF.914
Woods Memorial Bridge
NRHD contr., NRMPS
No
Key: Contr. – contributing element, NRHD – National Register Historic District, NRMPS – National Register Multiple Property Submission
MHC No.
EVR.X
Sector 4: Wellington/Somerville/Charlestown
The LPA corridor through Sector 4 includes three National Register-listed districts, the Middlesex Canal
(SMV.BD/BOS.TB), the Fells Connector Parkways (MDF.Y), and the aforementioned Revere Beach
Parkway (MDF.AB); two potential districts, the Charlestown B&M Railroad Industrial Area which has been
recommended as eligible (BOS.RL) and the Charlestown Mystic River Industrial Area (BOS.RM) which
has not been evaluated; and three individual properties (see Table 2-18). The LPA proceeds in mixed
traffic along the Revere Beach Parkway and the Fells Connector Parkways and no impacts to either
historic property are anticipated. The LPA then proceeds through Assembly Square and Sullivan Square
via a combination of mixed traffic and bus lanes on existing streets before entering a surface busway to
New Lechmere Station. By utilizing a combination of mixed traffic and bus lanes within existing streets the
LPA is not anticipated to have any impact on any of the inventoried properties. BRT stations are proposed
at Wellington Station, Assembly Square, Sullivan Square, and Cobble Hill (Inner Belt). Except for Sullivan
Square and Wellington Station, these stations are stand alone bus shelters and would have no impact on
historic properties. The existing Sullivan Station would be modified to include new commuter rail platforms
beneath the I-93 viaduct. Although Sullivan Station is in close proximity to the Davidson Rubber
Company-Davidson Syringe Company (BOS.4336) the proposed improvements to the station are not
anticipated to have an impact on this property. Any improvements at Welling Station would be contained
within the existing station. There are no archaeological sensitive areas within Sector 4 of the LPA.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-70
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-18:
Survey
No.
Historic Properties: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment A - Sector 4
Potential
Property Name
National Register Status
Impact
Charlestown Mystic River Industrial District
Not Evaluated
No
Charlestown B&M Railroad Industrial District
Rec. NRHD
No
Middlesex Canal
Rec. NRHD
No
Revere Beach Parkway
NRHD
No
Fells Connector Parkways
NRHD
No
176
Davidson Rubber Co.-Davidson Syringe Co.
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
1078
Somerville Fire Station Engine #2
Not evaluated
No
1079
Canto Auto School
Rec. NRI
No
Key: Rec. – recommended, Contr. – contributing element, NRI – National Register Property, NRHD – National Register Historic District
MHC No.
BOS.RM
BOS.RL
SMV.BD/BOS.TB
MDF.AB
MDF.Y
BOS.4336
SMV.1014
Sector 5: East Cambridge
The LPA proceeds through East Cambridge via mixed traffic and bus lanes on existing streets. Two
National Register districts, East Cambridge Historic District (CAM.E) and Blake and Knowles Steam
Pump (CAM.C) are located in Sector 5, as well as four individually listed properties, Blake and Knowles
Smith Shop and Brass Foundry (CAM.355), Blake and Knowles Erecting and Assembly Building
(CAM.356), Blake and Knowles Machine Shop #2, Worthington Place (CAM.357), and Blake and
Knowles Machine Shop, #3 (CAM.358). In addition, there are 18 recently identified or inventoried
properties that are considered potentially eligible for listing in the National Register (see Table 2-19). By
utilizing the existing street network and operating in mixed traffic and bus lanes, the LPA is not expected
to have any impact on any of the properties identified, provided that the bus lanes are within the existing
street and do not require any additional right-of-way. Five BRT stations are proposed, the new Lechmere
Station that is part of the Green Line project and four stand alone bus shelters at First Street/Galleria,
Binney Street, Fulkerson Street, and Kendall Square. As each bus shelter is small in size no impacts to
inventoried properties in anticipated. There are no archaeologically sensitive areas identified within Sector
5 of the LPA.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-71
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-19:
Survey
No.
Historic Properties: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment B - Sector 5
Potential
National Register Status
Impact
NRHD
No
NRHD
No
874
Rec. NRI
No
875
Merrimack Pharmaceuticals
Rec. NRI
No
876
Rec. NRI
No
877
Rec. NRI
No
878
Therion Biologics
Rec. NRI
No
879
Oncogene Science
Rec. NRI
No
880
Transgenomic
Rec. NRI
No
881
Rec. NRI
No
882
CAM.357
Blake and Knowles Machine Shop #2, Worthington Place
NHRD Contri.
No
883
CAM.358
Blake and Knowles Machine Shop, #3
NHRD Contri.
No
884
CAM.356
Blake and Knowles Erecting and Assembly Building
NHRD Contri.
No
887
CAM.373
A.H. Davenport-Irving and Casson, Co., Haviland Candy Inc.
Rec. NRI
No
888
CAM.914
Lechmere Square Streetcar Station, Lechmere MBTA Shelter No. 2
Rec. NRI
No
889
Rec. NRI
No
890
A.H. Davenport Co. Building
Rec. NRI
No
896
Sat Con Technology Corp
Rec. NRI
No
899
Kendall Building
Rec. NRI
No
900
K2 CafT
Rec. NRI
No
901
MIT Building E 38
Rec. NRI
No
902
Fire Station (now Kendall Hotel)
Rec. NRI
No
915
CAM.914
Lechmere MBTA Shelter No. 1
Rec. NRI
No
922
CAM.355
Blake and Knowles Smith Shop and Brass Foundry
NRHD contri.
No
Key: Rec. – recommended, Contr. – contributing element, NRI – National Register Property, NRHD – National Register Historic District
MHC No.
CAM.E
CAM.C
Property Name
East Cambridge Historic District
Blake and Knowles Steam Pump
Sector 6: Cambridgeport/Charles River Crossing
A combination of bus lanes and a busway are proposed through Cambridgeport, across the Charles
River, and through Brookline to Boston. Three BRT stations are proposed; MIT/Mass Avenue,
Cambridgeport, and Commonwealth Avenue/BU. Sector 6 of the LPA bypasses or traverses five districts:
Audubon Circle (BOS.XB), Fort Washington (CAM.D), the Charles River Basin (CAM.A/BOS.CA), the
Cottage Farm Historic District (BLK.A), and the Commonwealth Avenue Area (BKL.AO) (see Table 2-20).
There are three individually listed properties: Boston University Bridge, Amos A. Lawrence-Bates House
(BLK.28), and the Richard M. Lee House (BLK.27) as well as eighteen inventoried properties that have
been recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register. There are four properties that
contribute to local historic districts. In addition, there are ten recently inventoried properties that have not
been evaluated (see Table 2-20A). The majority of the LPA in Sector 6 is within existing streets, either in
mixed traffic or bus lane. Through these areas, the LPA is not expected to have any impact on historic
resources. In the vicinity of the Fort Washington Historic District (CAM.D) the LPA crosses a vacant
MBTA lot to access a proposed busway within the CSX corridor, crossing the Charles River on a
reconstructed Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. The proposed alignment may result in an indirect impact
(visual) on the Fort Washington Historic District. Furthermore, the placement of the Cambridgeport bus
shelter should be carefully reviewed. A reconstructed railroad bridge over the Charles River has the
potential to impact the Charles River Basin Historic District and the Boston University Bridge. Impacts
could be direct (construction related) and/or indirect (visual), resulting in a finding of adverse effect.
Furthermore, if the reconstruction of the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge requires new land takings on
either shoreline, or new bridge abutments and piers in the river, additional archaeological investigations
will be required to determine the sensitivity of potentially undisturbed areas. Within Brookline and Boston
the LPA is in mixed traffic and bus lanes within existing streets and impacts to adjacent historic resources
are not anticipated, provided that bus lanes are within the existing streets and do not require any
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-72
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
additional right-of-way. The stand alone bus stations at MIT/Mass Ave and Commonwealth Ave/BU are
small in size and no impacts to inventoried properties in anticipated.
Table 2-20:
Survey
No.
Historic Properties: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment B - Sector 6
MHC No.
BKL.AO
BOS.XB
CAM.D
CAM.AJ/BOS.CA
BLK.A
867
868
869
870
871
872
927
928
929
930
530
Property Name
Commonwealth Ave Area
Audubon Circle
Fort Washington HD
Charles River Basin HD
Cottage Farm Historic District
MIT
Francis Bitter Magnet Lab, MIT
Plasma Science & Fusion
Center, MIT
MIT Graduate Housing
CAM.1353
CAM.360
CAM.361
CAM.362
CAM.363
National Register Status
NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD
LHD
NRHD
NHRD
Rec. NRI
Rec. NRI
Rec. NRI
Rec. NRI
Rec. NRI
Rec. NRI
LHD contr.
LHD contr.
LHD contr.
LHD contr.
NRHD contr.
Standard Plate Glass Co.
Metropolitan Supply Co. Warehouse
Hovey, F.A & Co. Warehouse
Metropolitan Supply Co. Warehouse
Metropolitan Supply Co. Warehouse
BU Bridge, Cottage Farm Bridge, Brookline Street Bridge
over Charles River
422
Cadillac Automotive Co. of Boston (BU Metro. College)
Rec. NRI
863
BKL.28
Lawrence, Amos A.-Bates House
NRHD contr., LHD contr.
864
BKL.27
Lee, Richard M. House
NRHD contr., LHD contr.
672
Boston University African American Studies
Rec. NRI,NRHD contr.
102
BOS.15430
Wedgemere Chambers Apartment House
Rec. NRI,NRHD contr.
668
BOS.15484
Mountfort Chambers
Rec. NRHD contr.
669
BOS.15485
Mayfield Chambers
Rec. NRHD contr.
670
BOS.15486
Auburndale Chambers
Rec. NRHD contr.
199
BOS.15447
Longford Apartment Building
Rec. NRHD contr.
200
BOS.15448
Melborne Apartment House
Rec. NRHD contr.
201
BOS.15449
Nathan Apartment Building
Rec. NRHD contr.
202
BOS.15450
Vinal, W.D. Rowhouse
Rec. NRHD contr.
667
BOS.15483
Mountfort Chambers
Rec. NRHD contr.
Vinal, W.D.-Wheatland,
103
BOS.7290
George Jr. Row House
Rec. NRI,NRHD contr.
Key: Rec. – recommended, Contr. – contributing element, LHD – Local Historic District, NRI – National Register Property,
NRHD – National Register Historic District
Potential
Impact
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Table 2-20A: Historic Properties: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment B - Sector 6
Survey
No.
414
415
416
417
420
421
815
816
817
818
MHC No.
BOS.15380
BOS.15425
BOS.9549
BOS.15424
BOS.15422
BOS.15421
BKL.2731
BKL.2732
BKL.2733
BKL.2734
Property Name
Boston University Classroom
Boston University School of Law
Boston University School of Law Courtyard
Boston University Law Library
Boston University Sherman, George Student Union
Shell Oil Company Building
Fay, C.E. Auto Sales Co.
Cottage Farm Motor Sales Co.
Colonial Beacon Oil Co. Gas Station
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
National Register Status
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Potential
Impact
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Page 2-73
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Sector 7: Allston/Harvard Square Cambridge
The Allston/Harvard Square area of the LPA was only recently incorporated into the project and the level
of study is not as complete as that in other areas. Consequently, the LPA has not been finalized and
several options are under consideration including surface and elevated busways, and mixed traffic and
bus lanes along existing streets. The various options traverse or pass at least eight historic districts and
seven individual properties (see Table 2-21). An additional 35 properties have been inventoried but not
evaluated (see Table 2-21A). LPA Option A in Sector 7 entails surface busway through the Beacon Park
Rail Yard or mixed traffic along Commonwealth Avenue Brighton Street and Cambridge Street to Harvard
Square. As such Option A is not expected to have an impact on any historic resources. Option A does
entail the construction of a new BRT station in the rail yard. This structure would not have any impact on
above ground resources. The archaeological sensitivity of the rail yards is considered low to moderate
and the construction of a busway and the proposed bus station will require archaeological investigations
to determine the presence/absence of potentially significant archaeological sites. The remaining stations
include three stand alone bus shelters at Allston/Cambridge Street, Stadium Way/Western Avenue, and
Harvard Square Station, as well as the existing underground bus station at Harvard Square.
Table 2-21:
Survey
No.
Historic Resources: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment B - Sector 7
423
MHC No.
BOS.KO
BOS.KN
BOS.JL
CAM.AD
CAM.AB
CAM.AJ/BOS.CA
CAM.AM
BOS.8069
426
680
681
903
BOS.8068
BOS.9333
BOS.8286
CAM.901
Property Name
Packard's Corner
Harvard Avenue HD
Harvard Business School
Harvard Yard HD
Harvard Square HD
Charles River Basin HD
Old Cambridge HD
Noyes, H.K. Buick Co.,
BU College of Fine Arts
Commonwealth Armory
Anderson, Larz Bridge
Harvard Stadium
Harvard Square Subway Kiosk
National Register Status
Rec. NRHD
NRHD
Rec. NRHD
NRHD
NRHD
NRHD
LHD
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
Potential
Impact
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
TBD
NRHD contr.
TBD
NHL, NRI, Rec. NRHD contr. TBD
NRI, NRHD contr., LHD
TBD
contr., NRMRA
913
CAM.1202
Gore Hall - Harvard University
NRHD contr., NRMRA
TBD
933
CAM.1195
Hyde, Isaac-Taylor
NRHD contr., NRMRA, LHD
TBD
House
contr.
430
BOS.8779
Graham Paige Auto Co.
Rec. NRHD contr.
TBD
431
BOS.8778
Packard Motor Car Co. Building
Rec. NRHD contr.
TBD
432
BOS.8780
Stassel, Max Commercial Block
Rec. NRHD contr.
TBD
Key: Rec. – recommended, Contr. – contributing element, LHD – Local Historic District, NHL – National Historic Landmark,
NRI – National Register Property, NRHD – National Register Historic District, NRMRA – National Register Multiple Resource Area
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-74
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-21A: Historic Resources: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment B - Sector 7
Survey
No.
424
425
427
428
429
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
MHC No.
BKL.AO
BOS.15420
BOS.15419
BOS.15418
BOS.15417
BOS.15416
BKL.2735
BKL.2736
BKL.2737
BKL.2738
BKL.2739
BKL.2740
BKL.2741
BKL.2742
BKL.2743
BKL.2744
BKL.3066
BKL.2745
BKL.2746
BKL.2747
BKL.2748
BKL.2749
BKL.2750
BKL.2751
BKL.2752
BKL.2753
BKL.2754
BKL.2755
BKL.2756
BKL.2757
BKL.2758
BKL.2759
Property Name
Commonwealth Ave Area
Rand-Avery Supply Co.
Youth's Companion Printing Plant
Holland System Motor Co. Building
New England Velie Co. Building
Ford Showroom & Service Station
Wills Saint Claire Auto Co.
Amoco Gas Station
Leghorn Motor Co. - Becker-Stutz Auto Co.
Kissel Auto Co. - Utterbach-Gleason Auto Co.
Ahlberg Bearing Co. - Lomer Armond Tire Co.
Funderbunk and Mitchell Auto Co.
Brown Motors Co. - Boston Motors Co.
Hinchcliffe-Potter Motor Car Co.
Hume Carriage Co. - Kings Dept. Store
Columbia Tire and Top Co.
White Automobile Co. - Atamian Rambler Auto Co.
Kissell Kar Company - Boston Oldsmobile Co.
General Tire Co. Store and Service Station
Speedy Muffler King Service Station
Firestone Tire and Rubber Co.
Coombs and McBean Auto Sales Office
McKenzie Engraving Co.
Auto Gear Company - Gamewell Fire Alarm Co.
Norge Boston Refrigerator Sales Company
Sanitary Devices Co. - Ruggiero Beauty Co.
Frost, F.M. A.G. Rowhouse
Frost, F.M. A.G. Rowhouse
Hinchcliff Motor Car Co.
National Register Status
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Not evaluated
Potential
Impact
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Option B entails mixed traffic on Commonwealth Avenue to a busway on a new viaduct over Beacon Park
Yards to abandoned railroad corridor to a new proposed Stadium Way, then in bus lanes and mixed traffic
to Harvard Square. The proposed viaduct through Beacon Park Yards may result in a visual impact to
surrounding historic properties and its placement and design will need careful examination. The
archaeological sensitivity of Beacon Park Rail Yards is low to moderate and the placement of piers for the
viaduct has the potential to impact archaeological sites. Furthermore, the location of the proposed new
Stadium Way has been assigned moderate archaeological sensitivity for both deeply buried precontact/contact period Native American sites (fish weirs, shell middens) and documented post-contact
residential/commercial/industrial sites. Survey is recommended for each area to determine the
presence/absence of archaeological sites. A new Stadium Way may also have an impact on above
ground resources.
Option C entails buses traveling in mixed traffic on local streets except for bus lanes on North Harvard
Street to the JFK Bridge over the Charles River. Option C is not expected to have an impact on any
historic properties provided that no new right-or-way is required to accommodate the bus lanes. The
majority of BRT stations under Option C are stand alone bus shelters that are not expected to have an
impact.
In summary, the final alignment of the LPA in Sector 7 has the potential to impact both above and below
ground historic properties, resulting in a finding of adverse effect.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-75
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Sector 8: Boston/Fenway/Longwood Meadow
The majority of the proposed LPA in Sector 8 is contained within a tunnel with surface busway, bus lane,
and mixed traffic at either end of the tunnel. Prior to construction of the tunnel an interim plan for the LPA
through the Longwood Medical Area consists of bus lanes and mixed traffic along existing streets. The
Boston/Fenway/Longwood Meadow contains a number of historic districts and individual properties that
are listed in or eligible for the National Register (see Table 2-22). The surface option for the LPA is
contained within existing streets and is not expected to have an impact on historic properties, provided
that no new right-or-way is required to accommodate the bus lanes and no ground disturbing activities
occur outside of the existing streetscape. The tunnel option does have the potential to have an impact on
a number of properties, especially during construction and operation (properties that may be impacted by
the tunnel option are italicized in Table 2-22). The portals for the tunnel are located near the Green Line D
Branch near the Landmark Center and north of Ruggles Street near Ruggles Station. The tunnel portal
near the Landmark Center would be partially located on property occupied by Back Bay Yard, Riverway
Administrative Building (BOS.7536), a National Register Property and impacts are expected to the
property during construction, resulting in an adverse effect. Since the exact horizontal and vertical
alignments of the proposed busway tunnels in this historic parkland and associated nineteenth-century
neighborhood areas are not currently known, the tunnel routes are collectively assigned moderate
archaeological sensitivity. There is one area of high sensitivity where the tunnel would extend through a
recorded Native American (pre-contact) site area, MHC #19-SU-81, in the vicinity of the existing MBTA
Ruggles Station near the intersection of Ruggles and Tremont streets.
Table 2-22:
Survey No.
Historic Properties: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment B - Sector 8
MHC No.
BOS.JE
BKL.T
BOS.JD
BOS.IO/BKL.X
Property Name
Emerald Necklace Parks
Longwood Historic District
Sections of Back Bay Fens
Olmsted Park System
Emmanuel College Alumni Hall (Beth Israel Hsp. Rsch E)
Boston Public Latin High School
Vanderbilt Hall
BU Sailing Pavilion
Wedgemere Chambers Apts
Simmons Residence Hall, Simmons College (SC)
Morse Residence Hall, SC
Mesick Residence Hall, SC
Evans Residence Hall, SC
Bartol Dining Hall, SC
Simmons College-South Hall
Rose Ambulatory Care Building, Beth Israel Hospital
Kirsten Hall, Beth Israel
Boston Fire Engine House #3
Longford Apartment Bldg.
Melborne Apartment House
Nathan Apartment Building
Vinal, W.D. Rowhouse
BU Classroom
BU School of Law
National Register Status
NRHD
NRHD
NRHD
NRHD
51
Rec. NRI,NRHD contr.
52
BOS.7517
Rec. NRI,NRHD contr.
53
BOS.7516
Rec. NRI,NRHD contr.
59
BOS.15413
NRHD contr.
102
BOS.15430
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
188
Rec. NRI,NRHD contr.
189
Rec. NRI,NRHD contr.
190
Rec. NRI,NRHD contr.
191
Rec. NRI,NRHD contr.
192
Rec. NRI,NRHD contr.
194
BOS.7358
Rec. NRI,NRHD contr.
193
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
195
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
198
BOS.7359
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
199
BOS.15447
Rec. NHRD contr.
200
BOS.15448
Rec. NHRD contr.
201
BOS.15449
Rec. NHRD contr.
202
BOS.15450
Rec. NHRD contr.
414
BOS.15380
Not evaluated
415
BOS.15425
Not evaluated
416
BOS.9549
Not evaluated
417
BOS.15424
BU Law Library
Not evaluated
418
BOS.9548
BU-Mugar Library Courtyard
Not evaluated
419
BOS.15423
BU Mugar Memorial Library
Not evaluated
420
BOS.15422
BU Sherman, George SU
Not evaluated
Key: Rec. – recommended, Contr. – contributing element, LHD – Local Historic District, NRI – National Register Property,
NRHD – National Register Historic District
Potential Impact
Poss. tunnel
Poss. tunnel
Poss. tunnel
Poss. tunnel
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
(Table continued on next page)
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-76
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-22:
(cont’d)
Survey
No.
421
422
534
535
536
537
588
Historic Properties: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment B - Sector 8
MHC No.
BOS.15421
BOS.7408
BOS.7409
BOS.7494
589
590
591
593
BOS.7846-7848
594
BOS.7849
595
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
BOS.15500
BOS.7504
BOS.7505
BOS.7514
BOS.7506
BOS.7507
BOS.7507
BOS.7511
606
607
608
BOS.7509
BOS.7515
BOS.7508
609
BOS.7512
610
BOS.7510
611
668
669
670
672
689
BOS.7513
BOS.15484
BOS.15485
BOS.15486
BOS.7535
692
BOS.7563
693
BOS.7536
718
722
818
819
863
BOS.7872
BOS.7583
BKL.2734
BKL.1755
BKL.28
Property Name
Shell Oil Company Building
Cadillac Automotive Co. of Boston (now BU Metro. Coll.)
Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
Beatley Library, SC
Main College Building, SC
Main College Building, SC
Edward A. Bangs Double House (now Collins Building,
WIT)
Rodgers Hall, Building 15, Wentworth Institute of
Technology
Boston Normal Sch. (now Bakalar Gallery, Mass. Coll. of Art)
Smith Hall, Massachusetts College of Art
Wentworth Hall, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Power
House and Watson Hall
Huntington Avenue District #5 Fire Station, Boston Fire
Department Engine 37
United Drug Co. – Dept. of Research & Technology
Sparr's Drugs
Carlton Apartment Building
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 and 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
Mountfort Chambers
Mayfield Chambers
Auburndale Chambers
BU African American Studies
Boston Normal School
Sears, Roebuck, and Co. Mail Order Store (now Landmark
Cntr)
Back Bay Yard, Riverway Administrative Building (currently
Boston Youth Fund Hqtrs)
Annunciation Greek Orthodox Cathedral of New England
New England Deaconess Hospital
Colonial Beacon Oil Co. Gas Station
Fuller, Peter Building
Lawrence, Amos A.-Bates House
National Register
Status
Not evaluated
Rec. NRI
NRI, Rec. NRHD contr.
Potential
Impact
No
No
No
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
No
No
No
Poss. tunnel
Rec. NRI
Poss. tunnel
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
No
No
Poss. tunnel
Rec. NRI
Poss. tunnel
Not Evaluated
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Poss. tunnel
No
No
Poss. tunnel
Poss. tunnel
Poss. tunnel
Poss. tunnel
Poss. tunnel
Poss. tunnel
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Rec. NRI
Poss. tunnel
Poss. tunnel
Poss. tunnel
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Poss. tunnel
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Poss. tunnel
Rec. NRI
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
Not evaluated
Poss. tunnel
No
No
No
No
No
NRI, LL
Yes
NRHD contr., LL
Yes
NRI
Not Evaluated
Not evaluated
NRI, NRMRA
NRHD contr., LHD
contri.
Key: Rec. – recommended, Contr. – contributing element, LHD – Local Historic District, NRI – National Register Property,
NRHD – National Register Historic District
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
No
No
No
No
Page 2-77
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Sector 9: Roxbury
The LPA corridor through Roxbury contains four historic districts: Dudley Station, the Eliot Burying
Ground (BOS.QX) and Lower Roxbury Historic District, all listed in the National Register, and the Eustis
Street Architectural Conservation District (BOS.QW), a local historic district. The Eliot Burying Ground is
also individually listed in the National Register and there are 12 individual properties that are potentially
eligible for listing either as individual properties or as contributing properties to a district (see Table 2-23).
The LPA utilizes a combination of dedicated busway and bus lanes along city streets. Four BRT stations
are proposed, the existing Dudley Station and stand alone shelters at Washington Street/Silver Line,
Crosstown Center, and at the Boston Medical Center. A bus station would also be integrated into the
existing parking garage at Boston Medical Center. The LPA would run from Ruggles Station to the
Washington Street Station via a busway down the center median of Melnea Cass Boulevard, from
Washington Street Station to Dudley Square via mixed traffic and from Washington Street Station to the
Boston Medical Center in mixed traffic and bus lanes on Albany Street. None of the elements of the LPA
in Sector 9 are anticipated to have an impact on historic properties. By placing the busway within the
median of Melnea Cass Boulevard, the need for additional right-of-way is eliminated. Utilizing mixed
traffic and bus lanes would not impact any properties provided at no new right-or-way is required to
accommodate the bus lanes. There are no archaeologically sensitive areas in Sector 9.
Table 2-23:
Survey
No.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Historic Properties: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment C - Sector 9
MHC No.
BOS.QU
BOS.QX
BOS.QY
BOS.QW
BOS.1452
BOS.1453
BOS.1454
BOS.1455
BOS.1456
BOS.1457
BOS.1458
Property Name
Dudley Station HD
Eliot Burying Ground
Lower Roxbury HD
Eustis St Architect Conservation District
Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. Building
Everett Piano Company
Badger Woodworking Mill- Estabrook Building
Green, Samuel Building
Bolter, J.L. and H.K. Building
Smith American Organ Co.
Massachusetts Homeopathic Hospital
School of Public Health, BU
Mallory Inst. of Pathology, Boston City Hosp,
Boston EMS Fleet Service
Boston EMS
National Register Status
NRHD
NRHD
NRHD
LHD
NRHD contr.
NRHD contr.
NRHD contr.
NRHD contr.
NRHD contr.
NRHD contr.
NRI
Rec. elig. NRI, NRHD contr.
Potential
Impact
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Rec. elig. NRI, NRHD contr
45
Rec. elig. NRI, NRHD contr
No
46
Rec. elig. NRI
No
47
Rec. elig. NRI
No
532
Eliot Burying Ground
NRI, LHD contr.
No
797
Rec. Elig NRI, NRHD contri
No
Key: Rec. – recommended, Contr. – contributing element, Elig. – eligible, LHD – Local Historic District, NRI – National Register Property,
NRHD – National Register Historic District
Sector 10: Dorchester
The LPA proceeds through Dorchester via bus lanes and mixed traffic on existing streets. Three BRT
stations are proposed, stand alone bus shelters at Massachusetts Ave/New Market Street and Edward
Everett Square, and a station at the existing Red Line commuter rail station at JFK/UMass. The LPA
passes or traverses through four recommended National Register Districts: St. Margaret's-Boston Street
(BOS.CY), the Lower Roxbury Industrial District (BOS.RS), St. Margaret's Roman Catholic Church
Complex (BOS.VV), and Pleasant Street North (BOS.DA) (see Table 2-24). There are also 41 individual
properties that are recommended as eligible individually and as contributing elements to the St.
Margaret’s Boston Street district. By utilizing existing streets and mixed traffic/bus lanes, the LPA is not
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-78
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
anticipated to have any impact on historic properties, provided at no new right-or-way is required to
accommodate the bus lanes. There are no archaeologically sensitive areas within Sector 10 of the LPA.
Table 2-24:
Survey
No.
216
265-69
270
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
Historic Properties: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment C - Sector 10
MHC No.
BOS.CY
BOS.RS
BOS.VV
BOS.DA
Property Name
St. Margaret's- Boston St.
Lower Roxbury Industrial Dist
St. Margaret's RC Church
Pleasant Street North
William E. Russell Grammar School
BOS.5806-7
BOS.5808-9
BOS.5828
BOS.5829
BOS.5810-11
BOS.5830
BOS.5813
BOS.5833
BOS.5814-15
BOS.5835
BOS.5816-17
BOS.5818-19
BOS.5821
BOS.5822-23
Boyd & Berry Three Decker
Boyd & Berry Three Decker
Boyd & Berry Three Decker
Boyd & Berry Three Decker
Boyd & Berry Three Decker
National Register Status
Rec. NRHD
Rec. NRHD
Rec. NRHD
Rec. NRHD
Rec. NHDR contr.
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRHD contr.
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
Potential
Impact
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
St. Margaret Roman Catholic Elementary
287
BOS.15259
School
288
BOS.5824-25
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
No
289
BOS.5826-27
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
290
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
No
291
BOS.15258
St. Margaret Parish Rectory
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
No
292
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
No
293
BOS.5805
St. Margaret Roman Catholic Church
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
No
294
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
295
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
296
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
297
Boomer McLoud Mobile Electronics
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
298
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
299
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
No
300
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
No
301
Dorchester Day Commemorative Flagpole
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
303
BOS.9156
Edward Everett Bronze Statue
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
635
BOS.11282
Colonial Filling Station
Not evaluated
No
636
BOS.12933
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
637
BOS.12934
Standard Electric Building
Rec. NHRD contr.
No
638
BOS.12935
Kinnealey, T.F. and Co.
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
639
BOS.11281
Vose Piano Factory - Old Mr. Boston Distillery
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
664
BOS.6415
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
665
BOS.6416
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
666
BOS.6417
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
Key: Rec. – recommended, Contr. – contributing element, NRI – National Register Property, NRHD – National Register Historic District
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-79
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Sector 11: South Boston/BU Medical Center/World Trade Center
The LPA proceeds from the west end of Albany Street at the I-93 service road to the mid-point of the Ted
Williams Tunnel on existing local and Massport roadways with bus lanes on A Street. Three BRT stations
are proposed: a stand alone bus shelter on A Street and stations within the exiting Red Line and Silver
Line stations. The LPA traverses or passes two National Register districts, South End Industrial Area
(BOS.RK) and Fort Point Channel (BOS.WZ/ BOS.CX) and two districts that are recommended as
eligible, Saints Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church (BOS.WV) and Boston Army Supply Base
(BOS.RT) (see Table 2-25). There are also 22 individual properties that listed or determined eligible as
individual properties or as contributing elements to a district. As the majority of the LPA in Sector 11 is in
mixed traffic on existing streets no impacts are anticipated to historic properties. There are no
archaeologically sensitive areas in Sector 11.
Table 2-25:
Survey
No.
2
3-11
12
13
14
15
21
33
34
160
177
178
179
440
568
Historic Properties: Locally Preferred Alternative: Segment C - Sector 11
MHC No.
BOS.RK
BOS.WV
BOS.RT
BOS.WZ
BOS.CX
BOS.6816
BOS.5498-5506
BOS.5507
BOS.5508
BOS.5509
BOS.5510
BOS.15343
BOS.1450
BOS.1451
BOS.5512
BOS.6836
BOS.9008,
BOS.9247
BOS.9249
BOS.5529
BOS.1478
Property Name
South End Industrial Area
Saints Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church
Boston Army Supply Base
Fort Point Channel HD
Fort Point Channel HD
USPS Garage
Boston Wharf Co. Warehouse
Barlow, Frederick Building
Factory Building Trust Industrial Building
Keith, George E. Shoe Factory
Boston Wharf Co. Warehouse
Boston Button Co. Warehouse
Brahman and Dow Pipe and Valve Company
Paul, Joseph F. and Company Building
Factory Buildings Trust Industrial Building #1
Broadway Streetcar/Broadway Bus Station
Broadway Bridge over Fort Point Channel
National Register Status
NRHD
Rec. NRHD
Rec. NRHD
NRHD
NRHD
NRI
NRHD contr.
NHRD contr.
NHRD contr.
NHRD contr.
NHRD contr.
NHRD contr.
NHRD contr., Rec. NRI
NHRD contr., Rec. NRI
NHRD contr.
Not evaluated
NRI, Rec. NRHD contr.
Potential
Impact
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Broadway Subway Station
Not evaluated
No
Boston Wharf Co. Building
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.
No
Emerson Piano Co., Waltham Street Factory (
Rec. NRI, NHRD contr.,
No
now Reed Block)
Rec. LHD contr.
674
BOS.5550
Boston Wharf Co. Building
NRHD contr.
No
724
BOS.1482
Rotch, Lester Playground Fieldhouse
NRHD contr.
No
768
BOS.15357
Middleby, Joseph Jr. Warehouse
NHRD contr.
No
778
Broadway Bridge (over Haul Rd.)
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
779
BOS.7113
Ss Peter and Paul RC Church
NRI, Rec. NRHD contr.
No
780
BOS.7104
Cardinal Cushing Central High School for Girls
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
781
BOS.7114
Saints Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Rectory
Rec. NRI, NRHD contr.
No
782
BOS.15331
Devine Block
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
783
BOS.7105
Casey, Thomas Building
Not Evaluated
No
790
Second Street (West) Bridge
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
792
Third Street (West) Bridge (over Haul Road)
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
793
Cliflex Bellows Corp.
Rec. NRHD contr.
No
Key: Rec. – recommended, Contr. – contributing element, LHD – Local Historic District, NHL – National Historic Landmark, NRI –
National Register Property, NRHD – National Register Historic District
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-80
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
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 would 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 2-26. The proposed busway adjacent to Revere Beach Parkway in Everett would introduce an
additional, parallel lane 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 lane 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 Fort Washington Historic
District and would require careful 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 would 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
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 would 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 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.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-81
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-26:
Survey
No.
Preliminary Effect Finding for Historic Resources within the LPA
MHC No.
EVR.AA
CAM.AJ/
BOS.CA
Property Name
Revere Beach Parkway
Impacts
construction/
visual
Effect
No Adverse Effect (NAE)
Charles River Basin HD
construction/
visual
Construction/
visual
Temporary during construction
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
CAM.D
BOS.JE
BKL.T
BOS.JD
BOS.IO/BKL.X
530
588
BOS.7494
589
593
BOS.7846-7848
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
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
Cntr)
Back Bay Yard, Riverway Admin. Building (currently
Boston Youth Fund Hqtrs)
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
Page 2-82
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Historic properties in the vicinity of the LPA are shown in Figure 2-12. 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 2-83
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Figure 2-12
LPA – Historic Properties
REVERE
EVERETT
MEDFORD
!
!
CHELSEA
!
Revere Beach Parkway
(EVR.AA)
!
SOMERVILLE
!
!
!
CAMBRIDGE
!
!
!
!
!
Fort Washington
(CAM.D)
!
!
!
!
530
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
BOSTON
!
!
! !
!
!
Charles River Basin
(CAM.AJ / BOS.CA)
!
!
!
Emerald Necklace Parks (BOS.JE)
Longwood H.D. (BKL.T)
Backbay Fens (BOS.JD)
Olmstead Park System (BOS10, BKL.X)
!
!.
693
!. !.!
!. !. !.
!. .! !.
!.
!
!
!
!
BROOKLINE
!
!
!
593 - 595,
598 - 611
!
!.
!
Allston LPA Options
Roadways
LPA
Municipal Boundaries
Historic Districts
Archaeologically Sensitive
Historic Properties
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR / DEIS
0
0.5
Miles
1
e
Historic Properties
Locally Preferred Alternative
Base map data provided by MassGIS
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-84
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
2.4.12 Parklands and Open Space
Direct Impacts
Anticipated parkland and open space impacts associated with the proposed comprise the
following:
o Parkland along the north side of Revere Beach Parkway between Sweetser Circle and
Santilli Circle in Everett may be converted to transportation use.
o Fort Washington Park would be subject to visual disturbance during construction, and
increased noise and vibration during operation.
o The Memorial Drive overpass, part of the DCR parkway system, would be modified to
accommodate a busway beneath it.
o The Grand Junction Railroad connections on both sides of the Charles River (Cambridge
and Boston) would be affected by the LPA alignment. This would impact park spaces in
the Charles River Reservation.
o Modifications to the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge would affect the water sheet of the
publicly-owned Charles River.
o Construction of a busway tunnel portal in the vicinity of the Landmark Center east and
west of Park Drive would be immediately adjacent to the north and west sides of the
Boston Parks and Recreation building used for office and storage/maintenance facilities.
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.
o The small pocket park in Kendall Square (Galaxy Park) would be modified to
accommodate the proposed exclusive bus lanes and bike lane connecting Third Street to
Main Street at the Kendall Square MBTA Station.
No major permanent adverse impacts to parks and open spaces are anticipated, although it is
expected that the proposed actions would require Section 4(f) evaluations and Article 97 reviews.
In addition, portions of some proposed Urban Ring BRT routes would utilize segments of DCR
parkways. Most of the Urban Ring operations are proposed for general use parkways, so no
adverse environmental consequences associated with bus use within the existing roadway is
anticipated. Limited bus use of the Fenway, a pleasure-vehicle only parkway, is proposed for
interim surface bus service for the Fenway and LMA areas.
Table 2-27 below details the amount of publicly owned open space that would be temporarily or
permanently impacted and thus require a Section 4(f) evaluation.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-85
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Table 2-27:
Publicly Owned Open Space Impact Summary
PARK LOCATION
Revere Beach Parkway
Fort Washington Park
Memorial Drive Overpass
GJRR Connections
(Storrow Drive Overpass)
GJRR Bridge Water Sheet
Landmark Center
(400 Park Drive)
Galaxy Park
2.5
Town
Everett
Cambridge
Cambridge
Temporary
Impact
(ft2)
133,294
1,750
1,553
Temporary
Impact
(ac)
3.06
0.04
0.04
Permanent
Impact
(ft2)
82,640
1,405
513
Permanent
Impact
(ac)
1.90
0.03
0.01
Boston
Cambridge/Boston
3,508
5,000
0.08
0.11
1,288
1,140
0.03
0.03
Boston
Cambridge
5,385
4,970
0.12
0.11
0
4,208
0.00
0.10
LPA Costs
The two principal cost categories for the project are capital costs and Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
costs. Capital costs are associated with construction of the new and improved busways, structures,
tunnels, stations, and other infrastructure, as well as necessary land acquisition, transit vehicles, and
support facilities. Most capital costs are incurred prior to start-up of the new service. O&M costs generally
begin at system start-up and are ongoing for as long as the service is provided. O&M costs cover such
items as labor, materials, and supplies to operate and maintain the transit vehicles, guideways, and other
system infrastructure necessary to provide the scheduled service.
2.5.1 Capital Costs
Table 2-28 provides a summary of capital costs for the LPA by major category in 2007 constant dollars. A
geographic breakdown of the capital costs is provided in the LPA evaluation Tables 2-3 through 2-13.
Table 2-28:
LPA Capital Cost Summary
Capital Cost Category
Guideway and track elements
Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals
Support Facilities, Yards, Shops, Admin. Bldgs
Site work and special facilities
Systems
Right-of-Way
Rolling Stock
TOTAL
(1)
Capital Cost
$ millions(2007 dollars)(1)
$ 939.3
$ 401.0
$ 195.7
$ 344.1
$ 159.6
$ 170.4
$ 191.0
$ 2,401.2
Capital costs include 30% construction contingency and 30% soft costs.
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
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-86
November 2008
Chapter 2
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
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.
The delivery method for the Urban Ring project could have an effect on the overall capital cost of the
project. Traditional methods such as Bid-Build would be considered along with Design-Build methods.
The Design-Build approach may offer more flexibility in terms of project delivery.
2.5.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs
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 O&M costs are shown
in Table 2-29 for the LPA. Annual O&M costs for the Baseline Alternative (not shown) are expected to be
higher than the LPA because the lack of bus lanes and busways in the Baseline Alternative result in
slower route cycle times and the need for a larger fleet size to provide equivalent market coverage and
service frequency as the Build Alternative (the LPA). The O&M costs shown in the table are preliminary
and subject to revision based on final projected operating statistics from the regional model for the LPA
and the Baseline Alternative.
Table 2-29:
LPA Operations and Maintenance Cost Summary
O&M Cost Methodology
Annual O&M Cost
$ millions (2007 dollars)
Revenue Vehicle Miles
$40
Revenue Vehicle Hours
$30
AVERAGE
$35
Signal maintenance cost has not been assumed in the overall O&M costs of the project. The Urban Ring
project has assumed costs for new signal equipment and upgrades at many intersection locations along
the study corridor. The maintenance of signalized intersections will be coordinated between EOT, cities
and towns and agencies.
The Urban Ring LPA would reduce congestion in the Boston central subway. This would result in a cost
savings on the existing operations and maintenance costs, particularly on the Green Line. This is noted
as being a positive benefit of the Urban Ring LPA on existing transit infrastructure.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Page 2-87
November 2008