Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.0 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION
The alternatives analysis process for the Urban Ring process has been in process for many years. Alternatives analysis began with a wide range of alternatives that were identified and analyzed during the Urban Ring MIS process, culminating in a July 2001 filing that proposed a phased implementation strategy and preliminary alignment proposals for the three proposed phases. The Phase 2 DEIR scoping process and extensive involvement of the Urban Ring Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) provided further definition and identified a wide variety of alternative variants that were analyzed during the DEIR process. The Urban Ring Phase 2 DEIR process built upon the MIS recommendations, and entailed a thorough alternatives analysis process that proposed a well­defined recommended locally preferred alternative (LPA) for the Urban Ring Phase 2. This chapter describes the development and characteristics of new potential routing options and alignment alternatives for the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS planning and environmental review 1
process. The Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS alternatives analysis uses the 2004 DEIR LPA as a basis. However, the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS alternatives include a wide range of variants and alternatives that respond to the MEPA Certificate on the 2004 DEIR, as well as an extensive public and stakeholder involvement process that generated new routing variants and alternative alignments. This chapter describes the routing variants and alternatives that were developed to address the transportation issues and project goals identified in Chapter 1. This chapter summarizes: 1. Alternatives background; 2. Variant screening and alternative development; 3. Mode and technology; 4. Capacity requirements; 5. Right of way; 6. Stations; 7. Operating plan; 8. Routing and service levels; 9. Phasing plan and Phase 3 compatibility; 10. Regional systems interface/integration with other transportation facilities (including fare policy); 11. Safety and security; 12. Maintenance facilities; 13. Alternatives and options considered; 14. Tunnel options, planning, and design characteristics; 15. Systemwide Evaluation; and 16. Comparative Analysis. The mode and technology used in the Urban Ring corridor are discussed, followed by a summary of tunnel planning and design characteristics. Chapter 3 describes the alternatives that have been considered in the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS, including the alternatives analysis background; the wide range of routing variants identified for different 1
MBTA and FTA, Urban Ring Phase 2 DEIR, November 30, 2004. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­1 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION segments of the Urban Ring corridor; the characteristics of the nine Build Alternatives; and the characteristics of a set of narrowed­down “hybrid alternative.” It is important to note that none of these alternatives is the final recommended alternative; all of these alternatives are superseded by the recommended locally preferred alternative (LPA) described in Chapter 2. This chapter provides a description of the No­Build and Baseline Alternatives. Included are evaluations of the alternatives relative to each other, the Baseline Alternative, and the No­Build Alternative, relative to the transportation, environmental, and other relevant criteria assessed in previous chapters. This chapter, which defines and evaluates the alternatives under analysis, is followed by a series of chapters that thoroughly describe the alternatives analysis process: • Chapter 4 – Transportation Impacts and Mitigation describes the transportation benefits and impacts of the alternatives. • Chapter 5 – Environmental Impacts and Mitigation describes the environmental benefits and impacts of the alternatives. 3.1 Alternatives Background Prior studies for the Urban Ring Phase 2 project include the Major Investment Study (2001) and the Draft Environmental Impact Report completed in 2004. These studies are summarized briefly below, along with an introduction and overview of this RDEIR/DEIS process. 3.1.1 Major Investment Study (MIS) The MIS process began with the analysis of corridor sub­areas and was followed by an in­depth development and screening process for 15 preliminary alternatives. Eight of these alternatives were further defined and tested. Through an extensive public process of review and input, three long­range Build Alternatives were identified and evaluated, one of which was a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternative. Common to each of the long­range alternatives was the same proposed network of bus rapid transit (BRT) routes and new and improved commuter rail stations for Phase 2 of the Urban Ring. Previous studies had identified and ultimately rejected highway solutions to corridor access and mobility problems. Therefore, emphasis was placed on developing alternatives that focused on public transportation improvements. Recognition was also given to the role of ride sharing, as well as the numerous private transportation services and other activities undertaken by the many Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) present in the corridor. Two final alternatives resulting from the MIS process consisted of a revised TSM Alternative and a Build Alternative to be implemented in three successive phases: • Phase 1 – TSM Consisting of Improved CT and Express Commuter (EC) Bus Service; • Phase 2 – TSM + BRT + Commuter Rail (CR) connections; and • Phase 3 – TSM + BRT + CR + Rail Transit. Phase 1 would improve bus service in the Urban Ring corridor; Phase 2 would principally consist of BRT service in the corridor with new and improved intermodal connections; and Phase 3 would add rail rapid transit in a portion of the corridor (generally from Wellington/Assembly Square/Sullivan Square in the north, through Cambridge, across the Charles River, through the Kenmore/Fenway/Longwood Medical and Academic Area to Dudley Square in the south). Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­2 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION The MIS proposal for Urban Ring Phase 1 entailed an expanded network of conventional bus routes to meet transit demand in the corridor in the near­term. These bus routes included additional “Crosstown” routes (CT4, CT5, CT6, CT7, CT8, CT9, CT10 and CT11) and “express commuter,” or “EC,” routes (EC1 and EC2). These routes were proposed to provide principally circumferential service, although the EC routes and some of these CT routes also provided “circumferradial” service, or service that followed an outer radial alignment until it entered the Urban Ring corridor, at which point it followed a circumferential alignment through the corridor. Because Urban Ring Phase 1 would involve only supplemental bus service, and would not trigger any state environmental thresholds under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), the EOEA Secretary's Certificate on the MIS did not require Phase 1 to undergo any environmental permitting process. As a result, the MBTA assumed responsibility for implementing Phase 1 through its service planning process, and Urban Ring Phase 1 bus service proposals have been evaluated in the context of systemwide transit needs and budget constraints. While the MBTA has not implemented any new independent CT routes since the MIS Phase 1 proposal, service improvements have included some elements of the Urban Ring Phase 1 proposals. In particular, the MBTA’s 2006 Key Bus Routes Improvement Program has implemented service, frequency, and operational improvements on most of the MBTA’s highest volume existing bus routes, including several routes that overlap the Urban Ring Phase 1 proposals. Phase 2 would entail implementation of new BRT routes, creation of dedicated BRT right­of­way in the form of busways and bus lanes, and construction of new and improved commuter rail stations at Urban Ring interfaces. A fleet of BRT vehicles would be purchased, and additional BRT vehicle maintenance facility capacity provided. Phase 2 BRT routes would supersede redundant Phase 1 bus routes and non­
redundant Phase 1 bus routes would continue to operate. The BRT routes would operate at frequencies comparable to existing transit lines. The MIS Phase 2 Recommended Build Alternative included the following elements: • Seven BRT routes; • Six CT Routes; • One (1) EC route; • Thirty­eight (38) BRT stations; • Eighteen (18) rapid transit connections (i.e. BRT stations located at existing rapid transit stations); and • Eight (8) commuter rail connections (i.e. BRT stations at commuter rail stations; some of these are existing commuter rail stations, some are existing stations that would be upgraded by the Urban Ring Phase 2 project, and some are new stations that would be created by the Urban Ring Phase 2 project). With the possible exception of one BRT route, all of the Phase 2 BRT services and new and improved commuter rail connections recommended in the MIS would continue to be used in Urban Ring Phase 3. In Phase 3, an Urban Ring rail service would be implemented in the most heavily traveled portion of the corridor. The analysis of alternatives conducted in the MIS showed that the portion of the corridor with the highest ridership demand is between Sullivan Square and Dudley Square. A fleet of electric powered rail transit vehicles would be purchased, and additional rail transit vehicle maintenance facility capacity provided. The timing of Phase 3 would be based on future ridership demand and funding capacity, and would be the subject of a separate environmental filing as recognized in the Massachusetts EOEA Special Review Process Certificate for the Urban Ring. Each Urban Ring phase, Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, could be implemented independent of each other. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­3 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION The MIS stage of project development concluded with a joint Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and MBTA public scoping session held on October 3, 2001, which resulted in the formalization of the alternatives and phased approach summarized above. The scoping report was published in December 2001. 3.1.2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) The MIS Phase 2 Recommended Build Alternative was the basis of further development during the Urban Ring Phase 2 DEIR. The DEIR process for Phase 2 began in 2002 with the investigation and modification of the MIS alternatives to address evolving access concerns and priorities. The MIS Phase 2 Recommended Alternative formed the basis of the Phase 2 Alternative variant process in the DEIR. More than 40 alternative variants were developed and analyzed, resulting in four preliminary alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4). Variants included general measures such as bus signal priority and shorter dwell times, as well as specific options such as a busway connection between the Fellsway and Wellington Station in Medford, or a southbound busway at Third and Main Streets in Cambridge. Evaluation of variants provided more detailed technical analysis in response to public and agency comments to address a wide range of concerns, including: • Alternative propulsion fuels and technology; • BRT system and operating plan; • Environmental Justice impacts; • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) features; • Travel market analysis and BRT routes and endpoints; and • BRT impacts on adjacent landowners. From the evaluation of the four preliminary alternatives, the DEIR derived a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The DEIR LPA, shown in Figure 3­1, consisted of a system of six overlapping BRT routes with 43 stations in the Urban Ring corridor. The BRT stations were strategically located to provide more convenient transfer connections to existing pubic transit. The BRT routes are supported by transfer connections to rapid transit lines, commuter rail lines, and bus hubs. The DEIR LPA included new and improved commuter rail stations at six locations where the Urban Ring BRT service crosses a commuter rail line but there is currently no commuter rail station or the existing station is constrained. Several of the BRT routes overlap in heavily traveled portions of the corridor to improve ridership and increase service options. Supporting conventional bus routes (comparable to Urban Ring Phase 1 bus routes) were also added and optimized to improve the efficiency of the entire transit system. The DEIR was submitted to MEPA on November 30, 2004, and an Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) Certificate was issued on May 20, 2005. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­4 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­1 2004 DEIR – Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­5 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.1.3 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIR/DEIS) The DEIR public process, comment letters, and EOEA Certificate of May 20, 2005 raised several issues that shaped the initial alternatives investigated for the RDEIR/DEIS alternatives analysis. Some of the key issues raised include: • Congestion on surface streets in the Longwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA) and the potential for a tunnel through this area; • Congestion on the Boston University Bridge over the Charles River, and the potential for an alternate connection; • Impacts of traveling in mixed traffic in certain congested areas of the Urban Ring corridor, and the potential for increased use of dedicated rights­of­way/busways; • Inclusion of Allston and planned Harvard University development initiatives in the project corridor; • Feasibility of constructing a new commuter rail station in Allston on the Worcester/Framingham Line, as well as transit services from a station located in Allston to Yawkey and Back Bay Stations; • Impacts of BRT operation on historic parkways, especially the Fenway; and • Other detailed routing issues, including some that would move proposed BRT routes a short distance to a parallel right­of­way. In 2006, the Executive Office of Transportation (EOT) commenced the current round of planning and environmental review for Urban Ring Phase 2 to address the comments and concerns raised in the May 20, 2005 DEIR Certificate and to meet the federal environmental requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The resulting document is a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIR/DEIS). Figure 3­2 summarizes the RDEIR/DEIS sequence of events. The RDEIR/DEIS process began with the DEIR LPA. Based on the MEPA Certificate and scoping letter, as well as stakeholder comments, the RDEIR/DEIS alternatives analysis process investigated and evaluated some 60 new routing variants, nine new Build Alternatives, and three narrowed­down “Hybrid Alternatives” that combined the best segments and features of the nine Build Alternatives. The result is a new recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (herein after referred to as the “LPA”) for the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS that responds to the documented need in the corridor to improve transit service, support future economic development in key sectors, and achieve highly cost­effective transit service. A summary of the RDEIR/DEIS process, the alternatives considered, and an evaluation of those alternatives follows. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­6 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­2 RDEIR/DEIS Flow Chart of Alternatives Winter 2006­07 Spring/Summer 2007 Fall/Winter 2007­08 VARIANTS A­1 A­2 A­3 Etc. B­1 B­2 Etc. C­1 C­2 Etc. Total of 60 variants tested Spring 2008 ALTERNATIVES & OPTIONS Baseline 1 2 2A 3 3A 3B 3C 4 4A HYBRIDS H1 H2 H2T Sub­Options RECOMMEND LPA 3.2 Variant Screening and Alternative Development During the DEIR/DEIS process, the proponent generated and screened more than 60 routing options and variants that were developed to address the project’s Purpose and Need goals, the requirements of Phase 2 DEIR Certificate, and other issues and concerns that were identified subsequent to the start of the RDEIR/DEIS. With further input from the CAC, the public, and other stakeholders, the proponent refined and evaluated nine Build Alternatives and options, along with No­Build and FTA Baseline Alternatives. This section summarizes the key characteristics of the variants and the process undertaken to develop the resulting alternatives and options considered. 3.2.1 Variant Screening The proponent worked extensively with the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), agencies, the public and other stakeholders during the RDEIR/DEIS process to identify the universe of feasible options, or “variants,” for key segments of the corridor. Figure 3­3 shows the three segments and eleven sectors in the Urban Ring corridor. The 60 variants considered during this stage of the process are summarized in Table 3­1. Twelve of the variants included corridor­wide options such as fare collection control options, shortening headways, and reconfiguring the local bus network. The remaining variants were specific to one of the three segments that make up the corridor (Segments A, B, or C). Examples of specific variants that were retained for further analysis include bus lanes in Assembly Square (Segment A), a BRT route serving the Harvard Alston Initiative (Segment B), and revised BU Medical Center routing (Segment C). Each variant was assigned a positive, neutral, or negative rating for six categories key to the success of Urban Ring Phase 2. Categories included transportation and mobility, environmental benefit versus impact, land use and economic development, cost and cost/benefit comparison, ease of implementation, and availability of dedicated right­of­way. The final two columns of Table 3­1 show the results of the screening analysis, including which variants were retained for further analysis and under what Build Alternatives. After completion of the screening analysis, the variants still under consideration were then assembled into new Build Alternatives that cover the full corridor, as described below. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­7 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­3 Urban Ring Phase 2 Segment and Sectors
Me df or d
Ev e re tt
A
3
2
S o mer v i lle
Ch el s ea
4
Ea s t
Bo s t o n
Ca mbr i dg e
1
5
7
6
11
B
C
8
S o u th Bo sto n
9
Br o ok lin e
Ro xb u ry
10
Do rch es t 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 3­8 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­1: Preliminary Assessment of Variants with DRAFT Conceptual Screening
Variant # Variant Description CW­1 CW­2 CW­3 CW­4 CW­5 CW­6 CW­7 CW­8 CW­9 CW­10 CW­11 CW­12 A­1 A­2 A­3 A­4 A­5 A­6 A­7 A­8 A­8a A­9 A­10 A­11 A­12 A­13 A­14 A­15 A­16 A­17 Clean diesel BRT propulsion Hybrid electric BRT propulsion ITS3 – aggressive bus signal priority Fare collection – control boarding Fare collection – proof of payment Modify transfer policy Shorten headways Add or extend Urban Ring routes Delete or shorten Urban Ring routes Reconfigure local bus network Retain all existing stations DMUs on rail Allston West to E Boston Consolidate Logan stops W.Garage Use Airport service roads not Rt. 1A Serve Wood Island via Frankfort St Ext. Direct ramps Rt. 1A and Chelsea St. Bridge Busway at Massport Employee garage Griffin Way alignment Move BRT2 off Rt 16 to rail corridor Extend BRT1 busway west to Wellington Everett Telecom Boulevard routing Chelsea St. routing to Everett CBD BRT2 Everett Station on/near Rt16 Busway bypass of Wellington Circle Busway on modified Mystic River RR bridge Bus lanes in Assembly Square Eliminate BRT3 route (A­14a and A­14b) Bus lanes on modified Rutherford Ave Revise routing at New Lechmere/North Point Route BRT1 via Route 99 Corridor Transportation & Mobility 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + 0 ­ + + + ­ + ­ + + 0 ­ 0 + + + 0 0 0 + Environmental Land Use Economic Dev’t Cost Implementation 0 + ­ + + 0 0 0 0 + 0 ­ + + ­ ­ ­ 0 + + ­ ­ 0 + ­ + + + 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 ­ + + ­ 0 + 0 ­ 0 0 ­ 0 0 0 ­ 0 + + 0 0 0 0 + ­ 0 0 ­ ­ ­ 0 ­ ­ ­ 0 + + 0 ­ + ­ ­ 0 ­ 0 ­ 0 0 0 0 ­ 0 0 + ­ ­ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ­ ­ 0 0 0 0 ­ Dedicated Right­of­ Way 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 ­ ­ + ­ + + + ­ 0 + + + + 0 0 + Drop or Retain? Build Alternative Retain Retain Drop Retain Retain Drop Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Drop Retain Retain Retain Drop Drop Retain Retain Retain Retain Drop Retain Retain Drop Retain Retain Retain Drop Retain NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3,4 1,2,3,4 NA 2,3,4 2,3,4 3,4 NA NA 2,3,4 2,3,4 2,3 4 NA 2 2,3 NA 2,3 2,3,4 2,3,4 NA 4 Source: Analysis originally presented at Alternatives/Variants Subcommittee Meeting on 1/8/07. Revised 1/24/07. Variants are corridor wide (“CW”) or for sub­areas A, B, or C. “0” = neutral to DEIR LPA or uncertain “­“ = negative compared to DEIR LPA “+” = positive compared to DEIR LPA NA = Not applicable (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­9 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­1: Preliminary Assessment of Variants with DRAFT Conceptual Screening (cont.)
Variant # Variant Description B­1a B­1b B­2 B­3 B­4 B­5 B­6 B­7 B­8 B­9 B­10 B­11 B­12 B­13 B­14 B­15 B­16 B­17 B­18 B­19 B­20 B­21 C­1 C­2 C­3 C­4 C­5 C­6 C­7 C­8 Revise Kendall Square routing Tunnel Binney Street to Pacific Street Revise MIT corridor routing Revise Cambridgeport routing North tunnel portal near BU Bridge Mass Avenue bridge routing for BRT Tunnel Charles River/portal Cambridge Busway on modified GJRR bridge BRT5 via Brookline Ave/Kenmore/Comm Ave Buick Street/Comm Ave alignment Allston – Yawkey rail shuttle Allston West station BRT Route serving Harvard Allston Initiative BRT5 via Beacon, Kenmore, Comm Ave BRT tunnel to Yawkey station Tunnel Pilgrim Road or Other Tunnel Longwood Ave/Brookline Ave Tunnel Longwood Ave/Louis Pasteur LMA underground station(s) location South portal MBTA ROW near Leon Street South portal Melnea Cass BRT Median Ruggles St Lane Balance configuration Increase bus lanes on Uphams route Mass Avenue bus lanes East Cottage Street routing and extension Add Bus Lanes Columbia Point routing Revised BU Medical Center routing Revised access to S Boston Haul Road Albany/Broadway/A­Street route I93/I90 routing to/from South Boston Transportation & Land Use Environmental Mobility Economic Dev’t + 0 0 + + ­ + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + + + ­ + + 0 0 0 ­ ­ 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 0 ­ 0 + + + 0 + 0 ­ 0 + + + ­ 0 ­ + + 0 0 0 + ­ 0 + + + ­ 0 + + + + + + ­ + 0 0 + ­ ­ ­ 0 + + + 0 Cost Implementation + ­ 0 0 ­ 0 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 0 ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 0 ­ 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 ­ 0 ­ ­ 0 ­ ­ 0 ­ 0 ­ ­ 0 0 0 0 ­ ­ 0 ­ 0 ­ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dedicated Right­of­ Way 0 + ­ + + ­ + + ­ 0 0 0 0 ­ + + + + 0 0 0 ­ + + + + + ­ ­ ­ Drop or Retain? Build Alternative Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Drop Drop Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Drop Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain Retain 2,3,4 4 2,3,4 2,3,4 3 2 4 2,3 2 NA NA 3,4 2,3,4 2 3 4 3,4 NA 3,4 3 4 2 4 2,3 3 2,3,4 2,3,4 2 3 4 Source: Analysis originally presented at Alternatives/Variants Subcommittee Meeting on 1/8/07. Revised 1/24/07. Variants are corridor wide (“CW”) or for sub­areas A, B, or C. “0” = neutral to DEIR LPA or uncertain “­“ = negative compared to DEIR LPA “+” = positive compared to DEIR LPA NA = Not applicable Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­10 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.2.2 Evaluation Criteria and Alternative Development At the start of the RDEIR/DEIS process, the proponent and CAC began updating the evaluation criteria for narrowing the field of options and for final evaluation. At that time, the best available demographic assumptions for ridership and cost­effectiveness projections were contained in the 2007 Boston Region MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan. However, as this process proceeded, new demographic information became available from state and federal agencies. Therefore, the proponent submitted a Notice of Project Change (NPC) to extend the RDEIR/DEIS process by six months so that the most up­to­date ridership and cost­effectiveness information could be included. Also during the early stages of the RDEIR/DEIS process, the proponent received strong feedback from the CAC, the general public, and other stakeholders, that additional permutations of the four Build Alternatives should be developed and analyzed. In response, the proponent added five further alternative sub­options (one sub­option under Build Alternative 2, three sub­options under Build Alternative 3, and one sub­option under Build Alternative 4), resulting in the evaluation of a total of nine separate Build Alternatives and options. These additional options greatly increased the complexity of analyzing and evaluating the Build Alternatives, but were necessary to be fully responsive to the CAC, the public, and other stakeholders. Subsequent to the consideration of the nine Build Alternatives and options, the proponent again responded to strong feedback from the CAC and other stakeholders to further refine the alternatives prior to the selection of a LPA. Therefore, the proponent produced three Hybrid Alternatives that blended the most effective components of the nine Build Alternatives and options. The LPA presented in the RDEIR/DEIS was developed from this family of hybrids. To ensure that the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS alternatives were analyzed in a consistent and productive manner, a single set of evaluation criteria were used to assess the No­Build Alternative, the FTA Baseline Alternative, the nine Build Alternatives, and the three Hybrid Alternatives, and to compare them to each other. Section 3­17 summarizes the evaluation criteria applied in the RDEIR/DEIS alternatives analysis. The evaluation criteria used for this study were designed to reflect the project’s Purpose and Need, its goals, and the FTA’s guidelines and criteria for the New Starts funding program. 3.2.3 Tunnel Alternatives One of the principal reasons for the addition of the options was to comply with the May 20, 2005 DEIR Certificate’s requirements for the analysis of tunnel segments through the Fenway/Longwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA). The Fenway/LMA area, located in Segment B, is a densely developed, congested portion of the corridor that contains many academic and medical facilities, as well as museums and other institutions. The population and number of business in the LMA are forecast to continue growing. The additional traffic that will accompany this growth will limit the capacity and efficiency of existing conventional bus routes and future potential surface BRT routes to adequately meet demand. Therefore, as directed by the DEIR Certificate, several transit tunnel alignments were investigated during the RDEIR/DEIS process. All of these tunnel alignments include a core tunnel section under the Fenway/LMA area. The primary objectives of the tunnel alignments are to: • Avoid the need to route surface BRT services through the LMA; • Reduce travel times; • Increase reliability of service; • Avoid adding traffic to an already congested area that serves medical facilities; and Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­11 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION • Avoid surface routes near the historic and environmentally sensitive Emerald Necklace and over the Muddy River. The tunnel alignments that have been developed can be broadly classified into two categories – shorter tunnel options and longer tunnel options. Shorter tunnel options have been evaluated in order to maximize the benefits of a tunneled alignment while limiting the capital and operational cost, which is accomplished by limiting the tunnel lengths and the number of underground stations. In the shorter tunnel options, the entire length of the tunneled section remains south of the Charles River, and the southern portal is located immediately west of Ruggles Station. Some of these options connect Ruggles Station with the commuter rail line at Yawkey Station. Other shorter tunnel options extend beyond the Yawkey Station area, to come back above ground in the vicinity of the Boston University Bridge or Allston. Longer tunnel options were investigated to explore whether or not the increase in benefits of longer tunnels (e.g. reduced travel times, increased ridership, etc.) would offset the additional cost when compared with the shorter tunnel options. The longer tunnel options provide connection from Ruggles Station, beneath the LMA, to Allston and Cambridge, requiring bifurcations in the tunnel alignment and passing beneath the Charles River. With their increased number of underground stations and overall complexity compared with the shorter tunnel options, the longer tunnel options result in increased cost. As with any alternatives analysis, the review of tunnel options for the Urban Ring Phase 2 must analyze the anticipated benefits, impacts, and costs, and judiciously balance the trade­offs among these. For example, longer tunnels that may include connections under the Charles River or to Allston would offer a faster and more reliable transit service, but this improvement must be weighed against increases in cost and other impacts. And as with any transportation tunnel (unless it is wholly underground), an Urban Ring Phase 2 tunnel must transition from surface level to underground at either end; these tunnel “portals” are challenging to site due to property requirements and local impacts. As with the LPA presented in the 2004 DEIR, the mode of transport evaluated for the RDEIR/DEIS is Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). As such, the development of tunnel options for Phase 2 included not only elements necessary for Phase 2 BRT, but also the future ability to convert the tunnel for use in Phase 3, during which light or heavy rail is anticipated in some segments of the corridor. Therefore, Phase 2 tunnel design priorities have included (in decreasing order of importance): • Not precluding the development of Phase 3; • Including minor alterations to Phase 2 that would ease the transition to Phase 3; and • Providing some key elements required only in Phase 3 within the scope of Phase 2. The shorter tunnel options are reflected in the Alternative 3 “family” of tunnel options (Alternatives 3, 3A, 3B, and 3C), and the longer tunnel options are reflected in the Alternative 4 “family” (Alternatives 4 and 4A). A tunnel alignment is also included among the Hybrid Alternatives and in the LPA. A description of these alternatives is provided in Section 3­13, and tunnel planning and design characteristics are presented in Section 3.15. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­12 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.3 Mode and Technology Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Technology BRT is a system that combines advantages of rail transit with the flexibility and cost savings associated with rubber tire bus transit. BRT typically comprises of running ways (dedicated, high occupancy vehicle, and/or normal streets), stations, specially designed vehicles, frequent service, logical route structure, efficient fare collection and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The perceived advantages include faster speeds than conventional buses, flexibility, lower operating costs than rail systems, and the use of clean fuel technologies. The use of BRT in fully underground tunnels can be attractive in dense downtown areas, where an above­ground structure may be unacceptable. BRT Engine Choices Until recently, transit buses in the United States have been almost universally operated by internal combustion engines (ICEs) using the traditional 40’ long vehicle configuration. Over the past ten years, there has been a major shift in the industry toward use of alternative engine choices to reduce environmental impacts and increase the capacity and flexibility of operations. According to the US Department of Transportation (US DOT) the main preference for new BRT systems is to use articulated 2
bus vehicles due to their higher capacity. This is the case with the Urban Ring, and a 60 foot long low­
floor articulated vehicle is assumed. The Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) implications associated with the following four different options for vehicle engine choice are considered in this Chapter: • Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD); • Compressed Natural Gas (CNG); • Dual Mode (electrified trolley bus in the tunnels); and • Hybrid Electric (battery powered in the tunnels). 3.3.1 Implications of BRT Vehicle Engine Choice on Tunnel Ventilation Requirements This section summarizes the how the choice of BRT vehicle engine impacts tunnel ventilation requirements. Vehicle Fire Size Fire heat release rates are an important criterion to design tunnel emergency ventilation systems and to test the appropriateness of the system response. According to the US Federal Transit Administration, some of the recommendations required for designing fire hardened buses include testing of flammability and smoke emission for seating, panels, flooring, insulation and other miscellaneous materials. The estimation of the peak fire heat release rate depends on the use of clean diesel, dual mode and hybrid, and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses. The vehicle fire size and capacity of tank for carrying fuel for the dual mode and hybrid vehicles is similar to that of an Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD) bus. The heat release rate associated with the fuel of CNG vehicles is 23 MW, which is higher than that of the ECD vehicles (20 MW). 2
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Authority, “Bus Transit Vehicle Demand Analysis Update,” June 2004. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­13 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Vehicle Emissions It is assumed that both dual­mode and hybrid vehicles will be 100 percent electrically operated within the tunnel (the diesel engines will be completely shut­off), and as such underground emissions are not applicable to these vehicle choices. Both diesel and CNG buses are powered by ICEs. The exhaust associated with engines consists of various gases and particulate matter (PM). The gases include nitrogen, carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The particulates consist of soot, unburned fuel and aldehydes. Particulates are generally of an extremely small size (less than one micron), which causes them to be easily inhaled and retained in the body. ECD vehicles represent the combination of ultra low sulfur fuel, high technology engines and after­
treatment (diesel particulate filters). It is understood that ECD vehicles will be the choice if diesel is used for the Urban Ring and as such emissions from conventional diesel buses are not applicable. CNG is a substitute for diesel fuel in buses and is considered to be an environmentally clean alternative made by compressing methane. CNG buses are becoming increasingly common throughout the world used in both Otto­cycle (gasoline) and modified diesel cycle engines. Significant work has been carried out comparing diesel emissions to those associated with CNG. Highly variable results are apparent, dependent upon such issues as engine choice, cycle (frequent stops versus continuous), fuel type, maintenance and diesel after­treatment. In general the following comments are considered appropriate when comparing ECD and CNG. • NOx emissions from CNG are less than ECD (in the range of 25­75 percent of ECD); • PM emissions from conventional diesel engines are many times higher than CNG or ECD (typically 6­7); • In general it seems that PM emissions associated with ECD are less than those of CNG (this is debatable depending on test conditions and engine work cycle); • CO emissions associated with CNG are many times higher than those associated with ECD (>4 times); • CO2 emissions from CNG are slightly lower than ECD; and • ECD toxic emissions, such as aldehydes and hydrocarbons are significantly less than CNG. At this point, without further examination of the relative threat posed by the different contaminants, it is noted that the vehicle emissions, and the corresponding air quantity requirement to ensure adequate dilution, is similar for both engine choices. The quantity of emissions will need to be considered in detail once the engine option is finalized. Ventilation Implications A tunnel ventilation system is generally provided to increase a safe and comfortable environment in all types of operating modes that include normal mode, congested mode, and emergency mode. Tunnel ventilations may be broadly classified as natural, vehicle­induced, or mechanical. The ventilation systems in BRT tunnels and stations are provided mainly for diluting vehicle exhaust emissions to acceptable levels; removing heat generated by the vehicles and other heat sources within the tunnels and stations; providing air exchange with the atmosphere; and controlling smoke and hot gases generated during a tunnel or station fire. Hybrid vehicles are more efficient with potential reduction of onboard fuel. For both CNG and ECD vehicles, some ventilation may be required for removal of heat from all vehicles and for providing sufficient air exchange for passengers and employees. The Urban Ring Tunnels will require Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­14 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION mechanical ventilation installations for both options because of the configuration of stations linked by tunnel segments. Table 3­2 provides a matrix summary of implications of BRT vehicle engine choice on tunnel ventilation requirements. Table 3­2: Summary of Tunnel Ventilation Implications on BRT Vehicle Engine Choice Characteristics Ventilation Implications Vehicle Fire Size Tank Size Heat release fuel Vehicle Engines Ventilation Required Environmentally Clean Alternative Vehicle Emissions NOx Particulate Matters (PM) CO CO2 Toxic Emissions Tunnel Ventilation Layout Fire Aerodynamic Analysis Congested Operations analysis Operating Modes Normal Mode Congested Mode Emergency Mode Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Dual Mode Hybrid Electric 20 MW 125 gallons 5 MW ICE ¨ 23 MW 2700 scf 8 MW ICE ¨ ¨ 20 MW 125 gallons Alternative Fuel 20 MW 125 gallons Alternative Fuel Lower than CND Lower than CNG < ECD (25­75% of ECD) > ECD, >4 ECD Lower than ECD Primary Ventilation Infrastructure Draft relief requirement Thermodynamic modeling Natural ventilation and Mechanical Ventilation Mechanical Ventilation Vehicle Induced with a parallel bypass Note: Not all information available for all systems. 3.3.2 Implications of BRT Vehicle Engine Choice on Electromagnetic Interference This section summarizes the electromagnetic interference (EMI) implications associated with four different BRT vehicle engine options. Electromagnetic Influences Buses with self­contained propulsion systems can be considered solely on the basis of moving metal impacts on existing magnetic field, primarily the static magnetic field of the Earth itself. Whenever systems external to the bus are used for primary or secondary power for vehicle operation, such as the use of a trolley wire by dual mode buses, then the electromagnetic influences of both the bus itself and the external power feed system must be considered. In the case of an overhead catenary type of propulsion system, the resulting magnetic field influences extend through the entire length of the catenary, whereas the moving metal influences occur in and around the immediate vicinity of the bus itself only. Self­contained electric motor propulsion buses create the same order of magnitude moving metal fluctuations as CNG, LPG, or gasoline powered vehicles of equivalent size as long as the drive motors are adequately shielded from excessive emissions. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­15 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Diesel burning engines of themselves do not generate a significant magnetic field influence. For static magnetic field influences, buses using diesel fuel will be considered by this study as moving metal impacts, and will generate field disturbances in the same order as those reported in Earth Tech’s Phase 2 DEIS/R report. Dual mode or hybrid vehicles have the potential for generating external magnetic fields during operation from battery or external electric power sources. Electric propulsion systems pose a potential for generating interferences in the local magnetic field that can influence sensitive receptors such as medical scanning equipment being operated within the local area of bus operations. Fluctuating magnetic fields can be generated along the length of a catenary or trolley wire during vehicle operations as they draw current from the wire. These fields in addition to moving metal fields from the moving vehicles themselves can influence the local static magnetic field. Effects of these fields and the relative influence they can exert will need further study if these options merit serious consideration. CNG­burning engines of themselves do not generate a significant magnetic field influence. For static magnetic field influences, buses using CNG fuel will be considered by this study as moving metal impacts, and will generate field disturbances in the same order as those reported in Earth Tech’s Urban Ring Phase 2 DEIR report in 2004. Electromagnetic Interference The earth’s magnetic field at ground level within most of the United States is approximately 50 µT. The temporal variations of the Earth’s magnetic field are classified into one of three types listed below depending on their rate of occurrence and source : Secular Variations – These are long­term variations that occur over periods of years, and are not considered significant for this report. Diurnal Variations – These are variations in the magnetic field that occur over the course of a day, and are related to variations in the Earth’s external magnetic field. This variation can be of the order of 20 to 30 nT per day (0.02 – 0.03 µT). Magnetic storms – Occasionally, magnetic activity in the ionosphere will abruptly increase. The occurrence of these storms correlates with enhanced sunspot activity. The magnetic field observed during these times is highly irregular and unpredictable, having variations in amplitudes as large as 1000 nT (1.0 µT). Aside from the Earth’s magnetic field, other sources of interference to the local static magnetic field may already exist and be present within the study area. Primarily of concern are effects of the light rail operation within the vicinity of the study area. Some lines are near enough to the study area to already be subject to the influences of the local light rail operation. Moving metal influences are not predicted to vary significantly for vehicles using fuel engines for propulsion. Electric vehicles and hybrid type of vehicles have to date not been measured for electromagnetic interferences in reference to levels above those of moving metal impacts. It can be argued that this vehicle could display higher levels of interference than those measured for fuel engine moving metal influences alone. Theoretical estimates for these added influences would suggest that these levels should not exceed 2­3 times those measured for moving metal influences alone, which would suggest that these levels may not be significant compared to baseline measurements in many cases. These levels could be substantial for those most sensitive receptors located most distant from existing, planned or proposed light rail lines, and might warrant further study depending on the susceptibility limits for that equipment. Table 3­3 provides a summary matrix of implications of BRT vehicle engine choice on electromagnetic interference. The matrix summarizes the electromagnetic influence, electromagnetic field influences, and Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­16 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION magnetic field interference associated with four different types of BRT vehicle engines. It is noted that not all information is available for each BRT system. As environmental review and design progress, analysis and planning for EMI impacts and mitigation for sensitive receptors will continue. Table 3­3: Summary of Electromagnetic Influences due to BRT Vehicle Engine Choice Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Electromagnetic Influences In and around the bus Electromagnetic field interference Similar to Hybrid Characteristics Dual Mode Hybrid Electric Electromagnetic influence of both the bus and external power Electromagnetic influence of bus and the external power fuel system Higher, external magnetic field during operation Entire length of catenary Electromagnetic Influences Magnetic Field Interference Lower magnetic field Lower magnetic field Similar to CNG External magnetic field during operation Note: Not all information available for all systems. 3.3.3 Operations and Maintenance Costs for BRT Vehicles The following is a summary of the operations and maintenance costs associated with the BRT vehicles. This analysis is intended to inform the comparative evaluation and selection of a preferred BRT vehicle technology. These costs do not reflect overall operations and maintenance costs for the Urban Ring Phase 2 as a whole; instead, they are an input to that cost, which is summarized in Chapter 2 – Locally Preferred Alternative. Most vehicle operations and maintenance cost information was obtained from a series of evaluation 3
reports published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). These reports evaluate new propulsion systems using “an established and documented evaluation protocol.” The reports typically compare vehicles using new technology against a baseline vehicle operating with the same transit system under comparable operating conditions. 3.3.3.1 Maintenance Costs Maintenance costs included in the NREL studies include costs borne by the transit operator and do not include warranty work. Maintenance costs are calculated using a constant $50/hour labor charge for each evaluation. Emissions Controlled Diesel (ECD) ECD technologies are used to reduce the amount of particulates in diesel exhaust. Generally ECD’s use particulate filters or oxidation catalysts to reduce particulate emissions. Oxidation catalysts also have the added advantage of reducing NOX emissions. ECD engines have become a mature technology and are the standard power source for newer transit buses. For this reason, ECD powered buses are used as the 3
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO and Washington, D.C., http://www.nrel.gov/ Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­17 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION baseline for comparison of O&M costs of other technologies by most of the NREL evaluation reports. Maintenance costs of ECD buses in the NREL reports range from $0.35­$0.77/mile, with an average cost of $0.54/mile. The MBTA Silver Line Bus had maintenance cost of $2.24/mile. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) New York City Transit (NYCT) experience has been that CNG buses are less reliable than diesel buses and require more maintenance. NYCT estimates that maintenance costs of CNG buses are $0.20/mile greater than those for diesel buses. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) also estimates that fuel and maintenance costs average 15­20 percent higher for CNG than for diesel buses. The NREL studies indicate maintenance costs for CNG vehicles range between $0.25­$1.29/mile, with an average cost of $0.66/mile. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) study conflicts with NYCT and LACMTA experience, and states maintenance costs for CNG buses to be 2.3 to 11.5 percent lower than maintenance costs for diesel buses. Dual Mode The MBTA’s dual mode Silver Line bus experienced a maintenance cost of $5.07/mile. Additional information will be provided by the MBTA regarding maintenance costs. Hybrid­Electric Drives Parallel Hybrid Parallel hybrid systems have both the internal combustion engine and the electric propulsion motor directly and independently connected to the transmission. The only parallel hybrid technology buses evaluated by an NREL study are those operated by King County Metro. The NREL study provides an exceptional comparison by evaluating diesel and hybrid buses constructed with identical chassis and bus bodies of the same model year and are also powered by the same Caterpillar diesel engine. Maintenance costs for the parallel hybrids are between $0.41­$0.44/mile; which is 4­11 percent below the cost associated with the diesel powered vehicles. Series Hybrid Series hybrid systems provide traction power exclusively by an electric traction motor. In 2002, NREL study compared traditional Diesel buses against an earlier version of CNG bus. The NYCT hybrid buses have maintenance expenses of $1.23/mile which is 59 percent greater than the diesel bus, but nearly 5 percent less than maintenance costs for the CNG bus. The Sun Line transit hybrid buses had a maintenance cost of $0.55/mile, which is 120 percent above the CNG baseline bus. 3.3.3.2 Operating Costs Operating costs provided in the NREL evaluation reports and listed in the O&M cost table are essentially fuel costs. In cases where significant energy costs are associated with the fuel dispensing system (such as CNG and Hydrogen), these additional costs are included as part of the bus operating costs. Operating costs have been calculated using a “reference” fuel cost to apply uniform costs to each evaluation and eliminate variations in fuel cost due to location and year of the study. Reference fuel costs were obtained from the references providing current or recent fuel price information. Emissions Controlled Diesel (ECD) Operating costs of ECD powered buses range between $0.66/mile and $1.09/mile and are significantly lower than CNG and Hybrid buses. The ECD buses of MBTA have the lowest operating costs of Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­18 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION $0.40/mile and the NYCT buses have the highest operating cost of $1.09/mile. The average operating costs for ECD buses are $0.88/mile. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Operating costs for CNG buses varies from $0.70/mile to $1.28/mile, or 4.4 percent to 17.4 percent greater than ECD powered vehicles. These costs include the natural gas used to operate the compressors at the fueling stations. Dual Mode Dual mode MBTA buses have high maintenance cost, but their operating costs are significantly lower than the CNG and Hybrid buses. The operating costs of the MBTA Silver Line are $0.64/mile. Additional information will be provided by the MBTA regarding operating costs. Hybrid­Electric Drives Parallel Hybrid The operating costs of the parallel hybrid buses at King County Metro are $0.70/mile to $0.83/mile, or 21­
33 percent less than ECD powered vehicles. This reduction is a reflection of the hybrid propulsion system, which obtains its power from the same Caterpillar C9 engine as the baseline ECD powered bus. Series Hybrid The NYCT series hybrid buses have operating costs of $0.82/mile, or 24 percent lower than the diesel buses in the earlier study and 35 percent lower than the CNG in the latest study. The operating costs of the Sun Line transit hybrid buses are $1.84/mile, or 164 percent greater than the CNG baseline bus and 55 percent greater than the Fuel cell bus in the same study. 3.3.3.3 Summary Matrix of Operations and Maintenance Costs of BRT Vehicle Engine Choice Table 3­4 provides a matrix summary of operations and maintenance costs for ECD, CNG and Hybrid vehicles. Hybrid electric engines are selected for the Urban Ring based on the operations and maintenance cost shown in the table. Table 3­4: Summary of Operations and Maintenance Costs of BRT Systems Characteristics Hybrid Electric Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Parallel Hybrid Series Hybrid Operations (fuel) Cost Minimum Cost $0.66/mi $0.70/mi $0.70/mi $0.82/mi Average Cost $0.88/mi $0.98/mi $0.77/mi $1.33/mi Maximum Cost $1.09/mi $1.28/mi $0.83/mi $1.84/mi $0.35/mi $0.25/mi $0.41/mi $0.55/mi Maintenance Cost Minimum Cost Average Cost $0.54/mi $0.66/mi $0.43/mi $0.89/mi Maximum Cost $0.77/mi $1.29/mi $0.44/mi $1.23/mi Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­19 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.4 Capacity Requirements The following is an example of BRT route capacity for BRT1, BRT2 and BRT 7 and BRT 5 and BRT6. The BRT route capacity example assumes 10­minute headways during the weekday peak period, 15­minute headways during the off­peak period, and 20­minute headways during the nighttime and weekend periods for BRT1, BRT2 and BRT7. Proposed headways on BRT5 and BRT6 routes would be more frequent than on BRT1, BRT2 and BRT7. For BRT5 and BRT6, the capacity analysis assumes 7­minute headways during the weekday peak period, 12­minute headways during the off­peak period, and 15­minute headways during nighttime and weekend periods. This example also assumes current MBTA operating schedules. Example BRT Weekday (Capacity) Assumptions: • • • • • • BRT Bus Capacity = 100 passengers Turn over = 2.5 times per run BRT Bus Capacity with 2.5 times turn over per run = 250 passengers Peak Period Commuter Headways = 10 ­ 7 Minutes o AM Peak Period = 6­9 AM o PM Peak Period = 3­6 PM Off­peak Headways = 15 ­ 12 minutes o Off­Peak Periods = 5 – 7 AM and 10 AM – 3 PM Night Headways = 20 ­ 15 minutes o Night Period = 6PM – 1 PM Commuter Peak Period Capacity (one­way) BRT1, BRT2, BRT7 (10­minute headways) BRT5, BRT6 (7­minute headways) ­ 2,143 passengers/hour/route ­ 6,429 passengers/peak period/route ­ Total AM and PM peak period (6 hours) capacity 12,858 ~ 12,860 passengers/route ­ 1,500 passengers/hour/route; ­ 4,500 passengers/peak period/route; ­ Total AM and PM peak period (6 hours) capacity 9,000 passengers/route; Off­Peak Period Capacity (one­way) BRT1, BRT2, BRT7 (15­minute headways) BRT5, BRT6 (12­minute headways) ­ 1,000 passengers/hour/route; ­ Total Off­Peak period (7 hours) capacity 7,000 passengers/route; Night Period Capacity (one­way) ­ 1,250 passengers/hour/rate ­ Total Off­Peak period (7 hours) capacity 8,750 passengers/route BRT1, BRT2, BRT7 (20­minute headways) BRT5, BRT6 (15­minute headways) ­ 750 passengers/hour/route; ­ 1,000 passengers/hour/rate ­ Total Night Peak period (7 hours) capacity ­ Total Night Peak period (7 hours) capacity 5,250 passengers/route; 7,000 passengers/route Total Daily (20 hours) Route Capacity (one­way) for BRT1, BRT2, BRT7 = 21,250 passengers Total Daily (20 hours) Route Capacity (one­way) for BRT5, BRT6 = 28,610 passengers Total System Capacity (3x2x21,250 + 2x2x28,610) = 241,940 passengers >184,200. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­20 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION The BRT weekday capacity assumes that each bus seat turns over 2.5 times per run. As shown in the example, the total daily route capacity (one way) for BRT1, BRT2 and BRT 7 is 21,250 passengers and that for BRT5 and BRT6 is 28,610 passengers. The BRT route capacity of the total system is 241,940 passengers, which meets the capacity of 184,200 passengers. It is noted that the tunnel and busways will provide exclusive running ways for BRT buses throughout the Urban Ring system. These exclusive running ways will increase reliability and travel savings over sections that are located in mixed traffic. 3.5 Right of Way The Urban Ring Phase 2 would require right­of­way for proposed busways, bus lanes, and tunnels. In general, proposed busways would be located along existing or former transportation corridors. There are no alternatives under consideration that would displace any residence, and for virtually all alignments under consideration, proposed busways would not require displacement of existing businesses. The following show locations where takings may be required for selected alternatives: • Alternative 2 – Business/Residential land use north end of Malvern Street, Boston • All Alternatives – Galaxy Park adjacent to Kendall Square in Cambridge to accommodate short busway • All Alternatives except 2A and 4A – MIT and/or private property parcels in Cambridgeport adjacent to Fort Washington Park in Grand Junction Railroad Detailed calculations for right­of­way impacts will be further identified during the engineering phase of the projects. A summary of anticipated right­of­way impacts along the Urban Ring project corridor for the LPA is summarized in Table 5.2­1 in Chapter 5. The table shows land takings by land use type. No relocations have been identified. 3.5.1 Busway Transitions, Protection, and Separation This section discusses busways and bus lanes in the Urban Ring project corridor; how buses will transition in and out of public roadways and railroad ROWs; and protection and separation between busways and roadways/railroads. At certain locations along the corridor, the proposed BRT routes will be adjacent to active railroads. Along the Chelsea/Everett corridor from Broadway to Second Street the proposed BRT busway is adjacent to the MBTA commuter rail tracks. Along the Grand Junction corridor in Cambridge would be adjacent to portions of the CSX low speed freight operations in the MIT corridor west of Fort Washington in Cambridgeport. In locations where the BRT is operating adjacent to an active railroad, a concrete barrier would be installed between the BRT and the railroad. The face of the barrier would be located to meet minimum required horizontal clearances from the track centerline (generally 8’­6”). Wherever feasible, the barrier would be located to exceed minimum horizontal clearance requirements. Fencing would be installed on the barrier to prevent unauthorized access to the rail corridor from the busway. The dimensions of the barrier are dependent on train/bus operating speeds, type of rail operations and track geometry. The specifications and dimensions of the barrier would be defined in the preliminary engineering phase. Busways Busways are bus­only or bus/commercial vehicle­only roadways that are provided in exclusive ROWs. Busways will be separated from general traffic and railroads by a combination of barriers and fences. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­21 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Bus Lanes Bus lanes are bus­only travel lanes provided within a roadway cross­section. Bus lanes can be provided either as outside, inside or center lanes. Bus lanes with friction are defined as bus lanes adjacent to on­
street parking. On­street parking creates friction with adjacent travel lanes and interferes with bus operations. The proposed bus lanes in all the build alternatives do not have adjacent on­street parking therefore, none of alternatives have bus lanes with friction. Bus lanes will be designated by pavement markings and signage. Tunnels During construction phase, tunnels would require right of way on staging and lay down areas, particularly, the proposed tunnel portal locations at Yawkey Landmark, Ruggles etc. 3.6 Stations The build alternatives include new BRT stations at locations throughout the corridor as summarized by Segment (A, B, and C) in Tables 3­5, 3­6 and 3­7, respectively. New and improved commuter rail stations are also proposed at six locations where the Urban Ring BRT service crosses a commuter rail line, but no commuter rail station is currently available, or the existing station is constrained. The conceptual definition of the BRT stations through the development of station prototypes is summarized below, followed by a summary description of the new and improved commuter rail stations. 3.6.1 BRT Stations Facility programs and prototypical station design were prepared to establish consistent dimensional requirements of the BRT stops and coherent visual treatment of each station area along the Urban Ring corridor. BRT station prototypes were developed based on the use of 60 foot long articulated low­floor buses, but the design can also handle 40 foot local buses where existing local bus routes and the proposed Urban Ring BRT service connect. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­22 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­5: Headways Sector/
Station No. Segment A – BRT Stations by Location, Connections, Routes and 1.1 Alt 1 1.2 All except Alt 1 1.3 All 1.4 Alt 1, 2, 2A 1.5 Alt 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 4A 2.1 BL, Alt 1 2.2 All except Alt 1, BL 2 60 2 25 171, 448, 449, 459 SILVER Airport Boston 1, 2, 7 25 171, MPA Shuttles BLUE East Boston Boston 2 15 112, 120, 121 Wood Island Boston 2 15 112, 120, 121 BLUE Bellingham Street Chelsea 1, 2, 7 15 112 Chelsea 1, 2, 7 15 Mystic Mall 3.2 Alt 1 All except Alt 1 3.4 Alt 3, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4 4.1 4, 4A 4.2 All except 4A 4.3 All except 4, 4A 4.4 Alt 1, 2, 2A Griffin Way All 3.3 Commuter Rail Boston All Rapid Transit Boston 2.3 Alt 1 Bus Routes Logan West Garage 2.4 BRT Routes(2) Connections Logan Terminals Downtown Chelsea(3) 3.1 Location Station Name(1) Alternatives Dwell Time (sec) Chelsea 1, 2, 7 25 111, 112, 114, 116, 117 New/Rockport Chelsea 1, 2, 7 15 112 Revere Beach Parkway Everett 2 25 112 Broadway, Everett Everett 2 25 112 Everett Everett 1, 2 15 Telecom, Everett Everett 1, 2, 3 15 Chemical Way Everett 1 15 Wellington Medford 1, 2, 3 25 90, 97, 99, 100, 106, 108, 110, 112, 134 ORANGE Assembly Square(4) Somerville 1, 2, 3 15 90, 92 ORANGE Broadway/Foss Park Somerville 2, 3 15 89, 101 4.5 Alt 1 Gilman Square Somerville 3 25 80 GREEN LOWELL 4.6 Alt 1, 3, 3A, 3B, 3C Union Square Somerville 1, 3 15 85, 86, 87, 91 GREEN FITCHBURG 4.7 Alt 3, 3A, 3B, 3C Brickbottom Somerville 1, 3 15 4.8 Alt 3, 3A, 3B, 3C Washington Street Somerville 1, 3 15 GREEN 4.9 BL Inner Belt Somerville 1, 5 15 86, 91 ORANGE New/Roc/Hav ORANGE 4.10 All 4.11 All except BL, Alt 3A, 3B Sullivan Square(5) Boston 1, 2, 3, 5 25 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 101, 104, 105, 109, CT2, Community College Boston 1, 3, 5 15 (1) Refer to the route maps in Figures 3­19 through 3­21 for station locations. (2) For the Baseline Alternative, the route number equivalents are CT2 (BRT5); CT3 (BRT7); CT4 (BRT6); CT5 (BRT1); CT12 (BRT2). BRT 1, 2, 3 and 7 routes each have the following headways: BRT 5 and 6 routes each have the following headways: 10 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods 7 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods 15 minutes mid­day and Saturdays 12 minutes mid­day and Saturdays 20 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings 15 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings (3) Improvement of existing commuter rail station and integration of new BRT station. (4) BRT to connect with new Orange Line station by others. (5)
New commuter rail platforms and modifications to existing Orange Line station. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­23 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­6: Headways Sector/
Station No. Segment B – BRT Stations by Location, Connections, Routes, and Location BRT Routes(2) Dwell Time (sec) New Lechmere Cambridge 1, 3, 5 First Street/Galleria Cambridge 1, 3, 5 All Binney Street Cambridge All Fulkerson Street Cambridge All Kendall/MIT Cambridge Alternatives Station Name(1) 5.1 All 5.2 All 5.3 5.4 5.5 Connections Bus Routes Rapid Transit Commuter Rail 15 69, 80, 87, 88 GREEN D/E 15 1, 3, 5 15 1, 3 15 1, 3, 5, 7 25 64, 68, 85, CT2 RED 6.1 All Mass Ave/MIT Cambridge 5, 7 25 1, CT1 6.2 All except 2A Cambridgeport Cambridge 5, 7 15 BU Bridge(3) Boston/Brk 5, 6, 7 15 47, 57 GREEN B Comm Ave/Packard’s Corner Boston 6 15 57, 170 GREEN B Brighton Avenue Boston 15 57, 66 6.3 All 7.1 Alt 1, Alt2, Alt 2A 7.2 Alt 1 7.3 All except Alt 1 7.4 Not used 7.5 All except 4, 4A 7.6 All 7.7 All except Alt 3, 3A, 3B, 3C 8.1 Alt 4 Allston West Station Boston 6 25 Fram/Worcester North Harvard Street Boston 6 15 64, 66 Western Avenue Boston 6 15 66, 86 Harvard Square Cambridge 25 1, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 86, 96 RED Hawes Street Brookline 5, 6 15 GREEN C Yawkey Boston 5, 6, 7 25 Fram/Worcester 25 8, 57, 60, 65 GREEN B/C/D 6 8.2 All except 4, 4A 8.3 All except Alt 1, 3, 3A, 4, 4A Kenmore Boston 5, 6, 7 8.4 Alt 1, 2, 2A, 4A Fenway Station Park Dr Boston 5, 6, 7 15 47 GREEN C 8.5 Alt 4 Longwood/Chapel Street Brookline 5 ,6, 7 15 GREEN D 8.6 Alt 1, 2, 2A 8.7 Alt 4 8.8 All except Alt 4, 4A 8.9 Alt 1,2,2A 8.10 Alt 3,3A,3B,3C, 4, 4A Beth Israel Hospital Boston 5, 6, 7 15 8, 47, 60, 65 Brookline Ave/Longwood Boston 5, 6, 7 15 8, 47, 60, 65 LMA Boston 5, 6, 7 30 8, 47, Shuttles HuntAve/RugglesStreet Boston 5, 6, 7 25 8, 39, 47 GREEN E HuntAve/LongwoodAve Boston 5, 6, 7 25 39 GREEN E 25 8, 15, 19, 22, 23, 28, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 ORANGE 5, 6, 7 8.11 All Ruggles Boston (1) Refer to the route maps in Figures 3­19 through 3­21 for station locations. (2) For the Baseline Alternative, the route number equivalents are CT2 (BRT5); CT3 (BRT7); CT4 (BRT6); CT5 (BRT1); CT12 (BRT2). BRT 1, 2, 3 and 7 routes each have the following headways: (3) Attl/Stough BRT 5 and 6 routes each have the following headways: 10 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods 7 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods 15 minutes mid­day and Saturdays 12 minutes mid­day and Saturdays 20 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings 15 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings Location of Commonwealth Ave/ BU Station varies by alternatives. All stations located within a 1­ 2 block area. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­24 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­7: Headways Segment C – BRT Stations by Location, Connections, Routes, and Sector/S
tation No. Alternatives 9.1 All Station Name(1) Washington Street Location Boston BRT Routes(2) Dwell Time (sec) 6, 7 Connections Bus Routes Rapid Transit Commuter Rail 15 1, 8, 47, 170 Silver Line 15 1, 8, 14, 15, 19, 23, 28, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 66, 170, 171 Silver Line 9.2 All Dudley Square Boston 7 9.3 All Crosstown Center Boston 6, 7 15 1, 47 9.4 All BU Medical Center Boston 7 15 8, 10, 47 Magazine St./ Mass. Ave. Boston 6 15 8, 10 Blue Hill/DudleyStreet Boston 6 15 15, 41, 45 10.1 Alt 2, 2A 10.2 Alt 1, 2, 2A, 4, 4A 10.3 BL, Alt 3, 3A,3B,3C Newmarket Boston 6 15 8, 10 Fairmont 10.4 Alt 1, 2, 2A,4,4A Fairmount/Uphams Boston 6 25 15, 41 Fairmont 10.5 Alt 1, 2, 2A,4,4A Uphams Corner Boston 6 15 15,16,17, 41 10.6 All Except 2, 2A Edward Everett Square Boston 6 15 16, 17, 8, 41 10.7 Alt 2, 2A 10.8 All DorchAve./Columbia Rd Boston JFK/UMass Boston 6 25 8, 16, 41 RED Old Colony 10.9 All except BL Mt. Ver St./Harbor Point Boston 6 15 8,16 10.10 All except BL UMass Boston Boston 6 15 8,16 11.1 All except Alt 1,2,2A, 4,4A Broadway Boston 7 15 3, 9, 11, 47 RED 11.2 All except Alt 1,2,2A, 4,4A A Street Boston 7 15 3 11.3 Alt 2, 2A Wormwood St. Boston 7 15 11.4 Alt 1 South Boston Boston 7 15 7 15 3,4,6,7,448,449,459, 171 Silver Line 7 15 4, 7 Silver Line 11.5 All except Alt 2,2A 11.6 Alt 2, 2A World Trade Center Boston Wharf Rd/Seaport District Boston (1) Refer to the route maps in Figures 3­19 through 3­21 for station locations. (2) For the Baseline Alternative, the route number equivalents are CT2 (BRT5); CT3 (BRT7); CT4 (BRT6); CT5 (BRT1); CT12 (BRT2). BRT 1, 2, 3 and 7 routes each have the following headways: BRT 5 and 6 routes each have the following headways: 10 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods 15 minutes mid­day and Saturdays 7 minutes weekday AM and PM peak periods 12 minutes mid­day and Saturdays 20 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings 15 minutes Sundays, holidays, and evenings The prototypes must be adaptable to specific site conditions and accommodate a variety of program elements associated with MBTA BRT service as summarized in Table 3­8. Not all of the elements included in this table can or should be accommodated within each station. Their inclusion in the transportation facility will depend on ridership levels, MBTA policies, and the actual dimensions of the site. For example, the development of a coffee/flower shop at a station, while an interesting feature, may not be practical at certain locations from a marketing point of view. Elements such as artwork in the pavement of the station area would require coordination with neighborhood residents of the area surrounding the station. Finally, other elements, such as advertising panels, would require concurrence from the town officials where the station is developed. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­25 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­8: Prototype Stations­ Program Comparison
Prototype A Stand­Alone Program Element Minimum Expanded Prototype B Joint Development Prototype C Inter­Modal Prototype D Below­Grade Canopy Shelter � � � � � ● Partial Weather Enclosure � � � � � ● Full Heated Weather Enclosure � � � � � ● Security Camera Benches/Waiting Area � � � � � � � � ● Outdoor Benches/ Waiting Area � � � � � ● Indoor Benches/ Waiting Area Information Kiosk: � � � � � � � � � � ● MBTA Station Identification � � � � � ● Urban Ring Identification � � � � � ● Electronic Variable Message Sign � � � � � ● System "Spider" Map � � � � � ● Line Map � � � � � ● Neighborhood Locus Map � � � � � ● Artwork � � � � � Bike Rack � � � � � Garbage Receptacles Emergency Call Box Newspaper Dispensers Fare Vending Machines Water Fountain Paving Artwork Fiber Optic & Special Lighting Advertisements Telephones Icon/Station Identification Landscaping Toilets Vending Machines Leasable Space: � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ● Mini Coffee/Flower Shop � � ● ATM/Bank � � � ● Laundry � � ● Other Taxi Stand Kiss & Ride Stand Short­Term Parking City Bus Stop � � � � � � � � � � Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­26 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Four station prototypes were developed for application within the Phase 2 Build Alternative. It is important to note that the conceptual designs of the prototype stations were derived from research on BRT systems worldwide. Conceptual designs were also developed with input from the Land Use and Design Subcommittee of the Urban Ring CAC and the MBTA. The MBTA has learned lessons through the design and construction of the Silver Line BRT (Washington Street corridor), upgrades to above­grade Green Line stations, and system­wide modifications of fare collection. While the stations have characteristics and programs similar to those of the Silver Line, the Urban Ring prototypes improve on them by introducing new features such as weather protection, security cameras, fare vending machines and vertical icons that make stations both user­friendly and identifiable from a distance. Examples of the four station prototypes are shown in Figures 3­4 through 3­7. The basic principles informing the design of the station prototypes include the following: • Clarity of Image / Wayfinding: Project a strong transit identity for the Urban Ring that is compatible with the existing MBTA system identity, but also identifiable as a separate transit component; • Compatibility with Context: Create a system of prototype designs that can be adjusted for specific site and context conditions; • Rider Comfort: Provide weather protection, security cameras, benches, electronic signage and other amenities to create a comfortable, safe and accessible system for Urban Ring transit users; • Ease of Operations and Maintenance: Use low­maintenance vandal­resistant materials, climate­appropriate energy efficient systems, and standardized building components in the construction of transit shelters to minimize required operations and maintenance efforts; and • Revenue Generation: Design transit system components that will attract riders to the Urban Ring and maximize the ability to collect fares from transit users. The four station prototypes for Phase 2 Build Alternative are described below. The stand­alone station prototype is the most basic shelter used throughout the Urban Ring Corridor (see Figure 3­4). It could be used in sites where there is a limited sidewalk or median width available for a BRT stop, or it can be widened to include fare vending machines in a secure, heated enclosure. It can also be lengthened for a multiple bus station when required by the Urban Ring service and bus routing. The majority of BRT stations in the Phase 2 Recommended Build Alternative are of this type. The joint development prototype is a station design suitable for sites with limited sidewalk area and depth, where the station functions can be integrated within the ground floor of an adjacent building (see Figure 3­5). The indoor building space provides a secure, heated waiting area, while the typical BRT canopy and other systemwide features provide service and station identity on the exterior of the building façade. This solution is also applicable in situations where underground transit lines interface with the Urban Ring. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­27 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­4 Stand­Alone Prototype Station
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­28 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­5 Joint Development Station Prototype
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­29 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­6 Intermodal Station Prototype
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­30 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­7 Underground Tunnel Station Prototype
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­31 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION The intermodal prototype is a design for a station that integrates two or more grade­separated public transportation modes at one location and provides an efficient transfer service between transit modes. The prototype (see Figure 3­6, shown previously) illustrates how an existing transit station headhouse can be modified and expanded to include the canopy, vertical icon, and other identifiable features of the BRT system. The underground tunnel prototype provides street­level headhouses and a below grade concourse to access underground BRT station platforms (see Figure 3­7, shown previously). The station design accommodates the stairs, elevators and escalators necessary for the relatively deep tunnels. The headhouse design incorporates the features that provide the visual identity for the BRT system. A more detailed description of the station prototypes, with illustrations and examples of how the prototypes would be applied at specific station locations, is provided in Chapter 5, Section 5.4. 3.6.2 Commuter Rail Stations As summarized earlier in this chapter, the LPA includes Urban Ring BRT service connections with each of the MBTA’s existing commuter rail lines outside the downtown core of Boston. The proposed commuter rail connections with the Phase 2 Urban Ring BRT are described in further detail below. Coordination with station area stakeholders will continue as plans are further defined. Downtown Chelsea Expand the existing commuter rail station at Chelsea located on the Newburyport/Rockport Commuter Rail Line to handle the anticipated growth in passenger demand associated with transfers to and from the proposed Urban Ring BRT service at this location. Chelsea is the only existing or proposed commuter rail connection within the northern portion of the Urban Ring project corridor that includes East Boston, Chelsea, and Everett. The expanded Chelsea commuter rail station will be an important transfer point between the North Shore commuter rail lines and Urban Ring BRT routes serving established locations such as Logan Airport, and emerging locations such as the Chelsea Creek waterfront, the Everett Avenue corridor, and Wellington. Major elements of the expanded Chelsea commuter rail station include: • Eight­hundred (800) foot long high­level platforms inbound and outbound extending eastward from Sixth Street; • ADA compliant ramps to connect new platforms with the sidewalks at Sixth Street; • Pedestrian connection between the Washington Street overpass and the new platforms; and • Level transfer between outbound commuter rail platform and the BRT platforms. Sullivan Square Construct a new commuter rail station at Sullivan Square in Boston serving both, the Newburyport/ Rockport and Haverhill Commuter Rail Lines. These commuter rail lines currently converge approximately 1,000 feet north of the existing Orange Line Station at Sullivan Square, but there is currently no commuter rail station at Sullivan Square for either line. The new Sullivan Square commuter rail station will be an important transfer point between these commuter rail lines and Urban Ring BRT 1 route serving established locations such as Kendall Square, and emerging locations such as New Lechmere/North Point and Assembly Square. The new station will also provide connections with the existing Orange Line and the large number of local bus routes that serve Sullivan Square. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­32 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Major elements of the new Sullivan Square commuter rail station include: • Extend the Haverhill Line southward through Sullivan Square along a portion of the Orange Line test track alignment; • Provide high­level center platform and a side platform on east side of ROW to serve all three commuter rail tracks; • New track and switch configuration to provide increased operations capacity and flexibility; and • Connect platforms to a modified Sullivan Square mezzanine area for direct connections with proposed Urban Ring BRT as well as existing Orange Line and local buses. Allston West Station 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. EOT is also coordinating with the City of Boston, which has a master plan underway in the Allston neighborhood. This coordination is intended to facilitate further examination of community and stakeholder priorities, and is necessary to identify an acceptable option for connecting through or around Beacon Park Yards. In addition, EOT is conducting a related study on the feasibility and potential configuration of a multi­modal transportation facility in Allston that may include a commuter rail stop on the existing Framingham/Worcester commuter rail line. EOT is also collaborating with the neighborhood 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, including a potential route obtained through redevelopment of the Holton Street corridor. The new commuter rail station and service at Allston West Station will provide a transfer point between the Framingham/Worcester Line and the Urban Ring BRT 7 route. Major elements of a new Allston West Station include: • New passenger platforms; • Station access; and • Track and signal modifications. Yawkey Station Expansion of the existing Yawkey commuter rail station near Kenmore Square in Boston serving the Framingham/Worcester Commuter Rail Line is assumed to be carried out by others. There is currently limited commuter rail service at Yawkey Station from the single existing side platform. The expanded commuter rail station and service at Yawkey will provide a transfer point between the Framingham/Worcester Line and the Urban Ring BRT 5, BRT 6, and BRT 7 routes. Major elements of an expanded Yawkey commuter rail station include: • Reconfigured and extended passenger platforms; • Commuter rail crossover tracks to increase operational capacity and flexibility; and Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­33 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION • Improved pedestrian connections with Beacon Street and Brookline Avenue configured in coordination with planned Turnpike air­rights development (Parcel 7) in this area. This would improve pedestrian connections to Kenmore Square. EOT has been coordinating with MBTA commuter rail operations regarding improvements at commuter rail stations as part of the Urban Ring project. A range of potential improvement majors at Yawkey Station are being considered and discussed. Issues include the feasibility of extending passenger platforms and bus access and circulation in conjunction with the planned Parcel 7 development project. For access, options include the inactive rail right­of­way between Parcel 7 and Sears Rotary, Brookline Avenue and Beacon Street. If issues with the passenger platform improvements become problematic then alternative commuter rail connections can be considered including a BRT station on Beacon Street above Yawkey Station and a commuter rail station at Boston University or North Allston. Ruggles Station Expand the existing Ruggles commuter rail station in Boston by providing a platform on the inbound side of the station to enable increased frequency of inbound commuter rail service with connections to the Urban Ring BRT 5, BRT 6, and BRT 7 routes, as well as the existing Orange Line and local buses serving this station. There is currently a commuter rail center platform at Ruggles served by two of the three railroad tracks passing through the station. Railroad operations through Ruggles station consists of Amtrak High Speed Intercity trains (Acela) which do not stop at Ruggles, and MBTA commuter rail service on three routes which provide frequent outbound stops at Ruggles, but less frequent inbound stops. The existing MBTA commuter rail service at Ruggles is from the Needham, Franklin, and Attleboro/Stoughton Lines. Planned growth of Amtrak’s Acela Intercity service, MBTA’s planned New Bedford/Fall river commuter rail service, and expected passenger growth on existing commuter rail lines will continue to increase the number of trains using the three tracks at this station. Implementation of this station platform will be coordinated with Amtrak and its Northeast corridor intercity rail service that operates through Ruggles Station, as well as Northeastern University which has facilities immediately adjacent to the station. Major elements of the expanded Ruggles commuter rail station include: • New 800­foot side platform along the south (inbound) side of the existing station extending eastward to the existing Northeastern University parking garage pedestrian bridge; • Level transfer from new commuter rail platform to the existing bus platforms on the south side of the station; and • Design to be coordinated with possible air­rights development by others. Other Commuter Rail Stations In addition to the four commuter rail stations described above that are part of the Phase 2 Build Alternative, the Phase 2 BRT service will also connect with existing commuter rail stations at JFK/UMass on the Old Colony Line. At JFK/UMass the relatively new station that was constructed as part of the Old Colony commuter rail project will be used. Thus, the Urban Ring Phase 2 Build Alternative does not include work at the existing station. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­34 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.7 Operating Plan BRT Service Frequency The BRT routes 1, 2, 3, and 7 would have all day service with the following headways: • Ten (10) minute Morning/Evening peak headway; • Fifteen (15) minute Midday/Saturday headway; and • Twenty (20) minute Evening/Sunday/Holiday headway. The BRT routes 5 and 6 would have all day service with the following headways: • Seven (7) minute Morning/Evening peak headway; • Twelve (12) minute Midday/Saturday headway; and • Fifteen (15) minute Evening/Sunday/Holiday headway. Where routes overlap in portions of the corridor the effective headways for BRT service between many stations will be more frequent than shown. The BRT routes will operate over a combination of separate ROWs, bus lanes, and mixed traffic, utilizing ITS features to improve performance and passenger information. Station dwell times range between 15 and 60 seconds with most stations having 15 or 25 second dwell time. Tables 3­5, 3­6, 3­7 provide additional information including station stops for each route, station dwell time and bus, transit, and commuter rail connections. Chapter 2 – Locally Preferred Alternative shows alignment for each BRT route with station locations and exclusive running ways and tunnels. 3.8 Routing and Service Levels This section describes in detail the BRT routes, busways and bus lanes, and BRT and commuter rail stations included in the four alternatives and options. There are a total of six Urban Ring BRT routes in Phase 2 (BRT routes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7) that together provide service throughout the 25­mile long corridor. Through the variant evaluation process it was recommended that BRT 4, which was contained in the MIS Recommended Alternative, be eliminated in the LPA. Several of the routes overlap, particularly in the most heavily traveled portions of the corridor. Tables 3­5 through 3­7 contain a listing of the Phase 2 BRT stations, the municipality in which they would be located, and the intermodal connections that would be available to them. Table 3­9 shows the route endpoints for each of the six BRT routes. A summary list of the six routes is provided below: • BRT 1 Airport Blue Line Station to Kendall Square; • BRT 2 Logan Terminals to Wellington; • BRT 3 Wellington to Kendall Square; • BRT 5 New Lechmere to Ruggles Station; • BRT 6 Harvard Station to UMass Campus; and • BRT 7 LMA to Mystic Mall (Everett Avenue). Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­35 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­9: BRT Routes
Type Name End Points Bus Rapid Transit BRT 1 Airport Blue Line Kendall/MIT BRT 2 Logan Airport Wellington BRT 3 Wellington Kendall/MIT BRT 5 New Lechmere Ruggles BRT 6 Harvard Station UMass Campus(1) BRT 7 Longwood Medical and Academic Area Everett Avenue Note: In Phase 2 the proposed BRT1, BRT 2 and BRT 6 routes would serve locations currently served by non­
MBTA shuttle bus operators. Implementation of Phase 2 service in such locations will need to address issues of vehicle purchase, operating subsidy, 13(c) indemnification, and indemnification of competition claims from current shuttle contractors. 3.9 Phasing Plan and Phase 3 Compatibility In assessing the conversion of Phase 2 tunnel alternatives to Phase 3, the rail alignment from Sullivan 4
Square to Dudley Square previously identified in the MIS and presented in the DEIR is used as the base case for comparison. The analysis of Phase 3 compatibility now recognizes the potential for Phase 3 rail service connections to Allston, which is now included in the Urban Ring corridor, but was not included in the MIS. Phase 3 compatibility can be summarized in 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). Portions of the alignment include sections 5
of non­compatible tunnel that would not be converted in Phase 3. Major structural works required for Phase 3 that could be built during Phase 2 may include: • Dedicated underground turnout structures to suit 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 stations (such that both BRT and rail could operate simultaneously); and • 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 but 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 re­graded during Phase 3 conversion, the portals would be designed and constructed to accommodate these requirements during Phase 2. 4
MBTA and FTA, Urban Ring Phase 2 DEIR, November 30, 2004, see rail alignment in Figure 3­1.3. Additional detail regarding Phase 3 compatibility for tunnel sections is provided in the Urban Ring Phase 2 Tunnel Alternatives Summary Report for the RDEIR/DEIS, November 2008, see Table 4.3. 5
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­36 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.10 Regional Systems Interface/Integration with other Transportation Facilities A fare policy has not yet been developed for the Urban Ring Locally Preferred Alternative. For developing future 2030 ridership projections for all of the Build Alternatives, MBTA transfer and fare policies were assumed. It is expected that the fare and transfer policies of the project will be consistent with MBTA policies for comparable services, such as the Silver Line MBTA. For comparison purposes, a preliminary fare and transfer matrix has been developed for the Urban Ring and is shown in Table 3­10. Silver Line and Urban Ring would have free transfers to other transit services except commuter rail and express bus service. Transfers from rapid/light transit and Silver Line to the Urban Ring would be free. Transfers from commuter rail and buses to the Urban Ring would require payment. Table 3­10: Modes(1) CRR RT LRT BRTS BRTU XB CT LB Boarding Fare(2) CRR Z P P P P Z P P CF RT Z F F F F Z P P CF LRT Z F F F F Z P P CF BRTS Z F F F F Z F F CF BRTU Z F F F F Z F F CF XB Z P P P P Z P P CF P F/P(3) P Z F F CF P F/P(3) P Z F F CF LB (2) (3)
TO FROM CT (1)
Urban Ring Phase 2 Matrix of Fare & Transfer Assumptions Z Z P P Modes:
CRR: RT: LRT: BRTS: BRTU: XB: CT: LB: Commuter Rail
Rapid Transit
Light Rail Transit
BRT Silver Line (Phase 1 and Phase 2)
BRT Urban Ring
Express Bus
Cross­Town Bus
Local Bus
Fares: F: Z: P: CF: Free Transfer Zone Fare Payment Required for Transfer
Current Fare (escalated to future consistent with CTPS model)
Transfer fees free for Silver Line Phase 1, Transfer fee required for Silver Line Phase 2. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­37 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.11 Safety and Security This section discusses and identifies busways, bus lanes and tunnel portals in the Urban Ring Project Corridor and how buses will transition in and out of public roadways and railroad right­of­ways (ROWs), and protection and separation between busways and roadways/railroads. At certain locations along the corridor, the proposed BRT route will be adjacent to active railroads. Along the Chelsea/Everett corridor from Broadway to Second Street the proposed BRT busway is adjacent to the MBTA commuter rail tracks. Along the Grand Junction corridor in Cambridge, the BRT is adjacent to CSX low speed freight operations between Main Street and New Waverly Street. In locations where the BRT is operating adjacent to an active railroad, a concrete barrier will be installed between the BRT and the railroad. The face of the barrier will be located to meet minimum required horizontal clearances from the track centerline (generally 8’­6”). Wherever feasible the barrier will be located to exceed minimum horizontal clearance requirements. Fencing will be installed on the barrier to prevent unauthorized access to the rail corridor from the busway. The dimensions of the barrier are dependent on train/bus operating speeds, type of rail operations and track geometry. The specifications and dimensions of the barrier will be defined in the preliminary engineering phase. Busways are bus­only or bus/commercial vehicle­only roadways that are provided in exclusive ROWs. Busways will be separated from general traffic and railroads by a combination of barriers and fences. Railroad safety is regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (US DOT), and in Massachusetts the Department of Public Utilities provides oversight through the State Participation Program. The MBTA has a System Safety Program Plan that is updated annually. CSX, Amtrak and Pan Am Railways are the other railroads that may have operations near to the route of the preferred alternative. Security issues are regulated by the Transportation Security Administration (US DHS). Through the Association of American Railroads the rail industry has established a Railroad Security Task Force. That task force produced the “Terrorism Risk Analysis and Security Management Plan” which was designed to enhance freight rail security. Railroads have enacted permanent security enhancing countermeasures. Issues of concern to the railroads include preventing trespass and other unauthorized access to right­of­
way and yards or terminals, and limiting at­grade crossings of tracks. Planning for the preferred alternative has provided for adequate separation of BRT operations from railroad operations. One area yet to be resolved, however, is at Beacon Park Yard (Allston) where a final routing is not yet determined and is pending resolution of third party actions (CSX and the Commonwealth). Bus lanes are bus­only travel lanes provided within a roadway cross­section. Bus lanes can be provided either as outside, inside or center lanes. Bus lanes with friction are defined as bus lanes adjacent to on­
street parking. Bus lanes will be designated by pavement markings and signage (standard and overhead) and surface treatments. Busways and bus lanes are provided to make bus travel faster and more reliable. However, due to inconsiderate drivers blocking bus lanes, the potential benefits of bus lanes may not be fully realized. There are various technologies used for busways and bus lane enforcement. Enforcement devices can be passive or active. Examples of passive enforcement devices include signage, pavement markings, medians, curbs, etc. Examples of active enforcement devices include: • Transponder­activated gates at entrances/exits for exclusive busways; • Bus mounted cameras; • Overhead cameras; and • Police enforcement. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­38 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION The Urban Ring project would use photo and video enforcement technology that uses bus­mounted or fixed cameras for enforcing dedicated lanes. Bus­mounted cameras are installed at the front of the bus and they operate automatically. Bus­mounted cameras record two images onto a video: the first image shows a close­up of the rear license plate of vehicles in the bus lane, while the second shows the surrounding traffic conditions in the bus lane and the adjacent lane. The bus­mounted cameras operate while the bus is in operation and covers the entire route. The function of a fixed camera is similar to that of a bus­mounted camera. Fixed cameras are static and record images of vehicles entering or exiting from dedicated lanes or parking on dedicated lanes. Fixed cameras in busways of the Urban Ring project corridor would be provided at certain exit and entry points. Tunnel portals are provided at each end of tunnels and will be designated by signage so that vehicles, pedestrians and bikes do not drive through the tunnel portals. Video detection technology will also be used for enforcing tunnel portals. EOT will coordinate with the MBTA and Urban Ring communities regarding enforcement of bus lanes within the corridor. For the BRT system, the enforcement system can be implemented on a stand­alone basis, or as a component of a municipal “automated traffic law enforcement system.” 3.12 Maintenance Facilities The BRT vehicle fleet needed to provide the services described in the LPA will require bus maintenance facility capacity beyond that currently available from existing MBTA bus maintenance facilities. 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 long­term facility needs based on changes in fleet size, technology, and composition; fleet maintenance requirements; service delivery characteristics; and 6
new service initiatives, specifically the Urban Ring.” 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 will contribute a prorated share of the cost of the bus maintenance facilities, MBTA 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 build alternatives 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 10­minute peak period headway of BRT1, BRT2, BRT3 and BRT 7 and 7­minute 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 3­11 presents the summary of BRT vehicle fleet size requirements by route for baseline, build alternatives and hybrids. 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 build alternatives vary from 71 vehicles for Alternative 3 to 92 vehicles for Alternative 1. Similarly, the fleet size for Hybrid Alternatives vary from 73 vehicles for Hybrid 2T to 84 vehicles for Hybrid 1. 6
Final Strategic Plan for Bus Maintenance Facilities, MBTA, April 2003. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­39 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­11: Summary of BRT Vehicle Fleet Size by BRT Route Number of BRT Vehicle Route Baseline Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2A Alt 3 Alt 3A Alt 3B Alt 3C Alt 4 Alt 4A H1 H2 H2T BRT 1 (CT5) 14 10 8 8 9 10 9 9 7 7 8 9 9 BRT 2 (CT12) 10 6 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 BRT 3 NA 7 6 6 7 7 7 7 5 3 NA NA NA BRT 5 (CT2) 16 10 11 10 7 7 8 8 7 6 12 12 10 BRT 6 (CT4) 18 19 18 18 11 11 12 11 12 12 20 15 12 BRT 7 (CT3) 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 12 12 13 12 Total (no layover) 72 63 56 56 49 51 51 49 48 45 58 55 50 Total with 12% layover 81 71 63 63 55 57 57 55 54 50 65 62 56 TOTAL with layover & 30% spares 105 92 82 82 71 74 74 71 70 66 84 81 73 3.12.1 Northern Service Area The Urban Ring project would coordinate with the MBTA’s planned construction of a new bus maintenance facility on MBTA property adjacent to the east side of the Wellington Orange Line Station. This new facility would be centrally located for the Urban Ring routes providing service to communities north of the Charles River. It would be located on the BRT 1, BRT 2, and BRT 3 routes and close to the northern terminus of the BRT 5 route. 3.12.2 Southern Service Area The Urban Ring project would coordinate with the MBTA’s planned upgrade of the existing Albany Street Garage and relocate the existing express bus fleet from Albany Street to a new garage at Riverside. The Albany Street garage can then be used to support the Urban Ring routes located south of the Charles River, particularly the BRT 6, BRT 7, and several CT bus routes that continue to service portions of Roxbury and Dorchester. The potential impacts of new and expanded bus maintenance facilities to support the Urban Ring LPA are described in the Final Strategic Plan and are discussed further in Chapter 6. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­40 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.13 Alternatives and Options Considered The following is a detailed summary of the No­Build Alternative, the Baseline Alternative, the Build Alternatives and sub­options; and the Hybrid Alternatives. As stated above, these alternatives are the input to the alternatives analysis, and culminates in the RDEIR/DEIS recommendations that are reflected in Chapter 2 – Locally Preferred Alternative. 3.13.1 No­Build Alternative The No­Build Alternative, shown in Figure 3­8, represents the transportation system in Greater Boston that is expected to be in place in the year 2030 in the absence of Urban Ring Phase 2. It is comprised of the existing MBTA system with the addition of all the projects contained in the Regional Transportation 7
Plan (RTP). 7
Expansion Transit Projects in the Recommended Journey to 2030 Plan • Urban Ring Phase 2 (used for Baseline and Build conditional analysis, not used for No­Build); • North Shore Transit Improvements (Revere to Lynn, Blue Line Extension via Eastern Route Mainline); • Silver Line Phase III (Boston); • 100 Additional Buses to improve service on existing routes (region­wide); • Assembly Square Orange Line Station (Somerville); • Ferry Expansion – Russia Wharf/South Station Ferry Terminal (Boston); and • State Implementation Plan Projects – The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) Project Commitments include the following projects (as recently approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency, pending final publication in the Federal Register): o
Green Line Extension from Lechmere Station to Medford Hillside with a spur to Union Square in Somerville; o
Fairmount Line Improvements consisting of enhancements to existing stations and the addition of four new stations; o
1,000 New Park­and­Ride Spaces serving commuter transit facilities within the Boston Region MPO area (also in the No­Build alternative); o
Complete final design of the Red Line­Blue Line Connector; o
Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail Extension; and o
Fitchburg Commuter Rail Improvements. 7
Ibid. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­41 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Infrastructure and Expansion Projects in the Recommended Journey to 2030 Plan: • East Boston Haul Road/Chelsea Truck Route (Boston); • Route 1A/Boardman Street Grade Separation (East Boston); • Rutherford Avenue/Sullivan Square Reconstruction (Boston); • Logan Airport Consolidated Rental Car Facility (East Boston); • River’s Edge Boulevard (formerly Telecom City Boulevard, Everett, Malden, and Medford); • Revere Beach Parkway (Route 16, Everett, Medford and Revere); • Route 1 Improvements (Malden and Revere); • Mahoney Circle Grade Separation (Revere); • Route 1/Route 16 Interchange (Revere); • Route 1A/Route 16 Connection (Revere); and • Interstate 93/Mystic Avenue Interchange (Somerville). The No­Build 2030 network evaluated for the Urban Ring project includes the transit and roadway projects listed above. In addition to the projects listed above Urban Ring Phase 1 comprised of Crosstown routes 1, 2 and 3 are included in the No­Build Alternative. The No­Build 2030 network serves as a base for which to compare project impacts against for the state environmental process. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­42 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­8 2030 No­Build Transit Network North Shore
Transit
Improvements
Green Line
Extension Me d f or d
Ev e re tt
Assembly Square
Orange Line Station
93
S o merv i lle
Chel s ea
Ea st
Bo st o n
Ca mb ri dg e
Yawkey
Commuter Rail
Station
Silver Line
Phase III
93
Russia Wharf
Ferry Terminal
90
93
Br o o k lin e
So u th Bo sto n
Ro xb ury
Study Area
Major Highways
MBTA Routes
Blue Line
Fairmont
Line
Improvements
Do rch es t er
Green LIne
Plus:
Orange Line
Red LIne
100 Additional Buses
1000 New Park & Ride
Spaces Regionally
Design Red/Blue
Line Connector
Silver Line
Commuter Rail
MBTA Stops
Data provided by MassGIS, CTPS.
0
0.5
1
Miles
Urban R ing Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
2030 No­Build Transit Network
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­43 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.13.2 Baseline Alternative The “Baseline Alternative” is the term used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to describe a relatively lower cost alternative against which the benefits of an LPA may be compared. In the MIS, the Baseline Alternative was a transportation system management (TSM) alternative. For RDEIR/DEIS, the Baseline Alternative includes a network of surface CT bus routes that provides the same market coverage and service frequency as the Build Alternatives without exclusive running way. Figure 3­9 shows the alignment of crosstown (CT) routes under the RDEIR/DEIS Baseline Alternative. The 2030 Baseline includes the No­Build Alternative, plus an Urban Ring Phase 2 service that approximates the LPA, but without travel advantages such as tunnels, busways, bus lanes, etc. The Baseline Alternative is compared with the LPA and is required by FTA. In addition to the No­Build projects, the Baseline Alternative includes an extensive network of new crosstown (CT) bus routes instead of BRT routes, plus West Station in North Allston, commuter rail station upgrades, and bus maintenance facilities. All future 2030 scenarios were modeled by CTPS using the regional travel demand model which is calibrated to existing conditions. The CTPS travel demand model includes the RTP transportation projects and 2030 land use that was developed by the MAPC in conjunction with cities and towns in the region. The MIS proposal for Urban Ring Phase 1 entailed an expanded network of conventional bus routes to meet transit demand in the corridor in the near­term. These bus routes included additional “crosstown” routes (CT4, CT5, CT6, CT7, CT8, CT9, CT10 and CT11) and “express commuter,” or “EC,” routes (EC1 and EC2). These routes were proposed to provide principally circumferential service, although the EC routes and some of these CT routes also provided “circumferradial” service, or service that followed an outer radial alignment until it entered the Urban Ring corridor, at which point it followed a circumferential alignment through the corridor. Because Urban Ring Phase 1 would involve only supplemental bus service, and would not trigger any state environmental thresholds under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), the EOEA Secretary's Certificate on the MIS did not require Phase 1 to undergo any environmental permitting process. As a result, the MBTA assumed responsibility for implementing Phase 1 through its service planning process. As a result, Urban Ring Phase 1 bus service proposals have been evaluated in the context of systemwide transit needs and budget constraints. While the MBTA has not implemented any new independent CT routes since the MIS Phase 1 proposal, service improvements have included some elements of the Urban Ring Phase 1 proposals. In particular, the MBTA’s 2006 Key Bus Routes Improvement Program has implemented service, frequency, and operational improvements on most of the MBTA’s highest volume existing bus routes, including several routes that overlap the Urban Ring Phase 1 proposals. Following are descriptions of the Baseline Alternative alignment and stations in each of 11 geographic analysis sectors of the project corridor. Sector 1 – East Boston – Logan Airport terminals through Chelsea Creek Bridge. The route is from the Logan West Garage with Silver Line I connection through the Airport Exit Road and Route 1A in mixed traffic to the Airport Blue Line Station where it connects with Blue Line; then to East Boston/Neptune Road Station and Chelsea Creek via the East Boston Haul Road (limited to buses and commercial vehicles only). It then meets Chelsea Street on its approach to the bridge. Sector 2 – Chelsea – Chelsea Creek Bridge through Mystic Mall in Chelsea. The route is via a new Chelsea Street Bridge (to be completed by others), Eastern Avenue and Bellingham Street in mixed traffic to Bellingham Station; then to Downtown Chelsea Station where it connects with Newburyport/Rockport branch of commuter rail, and Mystic Mall stations in mixed traffic through Arlington Street and Everett Avenue. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­44 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Sector 3 – Everett – Mystic Mall Chelsea through Wellington. The route branch is via Everett Avenue and Revere Beach Parkway (RBP) to downtown Everett entirely in mixed traffic on the way to Wellington, with the only one station in downtown Everett called Broadway Everett Station. Sector 4 – Wellington – Wellington through Somerville/Charlestown. The route is through Wellington interchange and into Somerville via the existing Fellsway Bridge over Mystic River. In Sector 4, the route makes its first stop at the Wellington Station (Orange Line connection)_and then continues to Assembly Square and Sullivan Square (Orange Line Connections). It then continues to Cambridge Street and Inner Belt Road and stops at Cobble Hill station. The route continues to North Point via Washington Street and McGrath Highway. In addition to the rapid transit connections, Sullivan Square station makes a connection with Rockport Commuter Rail Line. Sector 5 – East Cambridge – New Lechmere through Kendall/MIT. The route starts from New Lechmere Station (connection with D and E Branches of Green Line) and travels via First Street and Binney Street. It then continues to Third Street and Main Street where it connects with Kendall/MIT Red Line. One route terminates at Kendall/MIT and then returns via Broadway to Galileo Galilei Way and Binney Street. There are intermediate stops for all routes on First Street near the Galleria, for one route at Binney/Third Street, and Fulkerson Street. Sector 6 – Cambridge/Boston – Main Street through Yawkey/Kenmore. The route through Cambridge is via mixed traffic along Albany Street. East of Fort Washington Park, the westbound route runs through one­way traffic on Erie Street and Sidney Street and then continues to Boston University Bridge. The eastbound route from BU Bridge travels through Waverly Street and continues to Albany Street. There are intermediate stops at MIT/Massachusetts Avenue and at Cambridgeport just east of Ft. Washington Park. The route then crosses the Charles River on the existing BU Bridge in mixed traffic. South of the Charles River, the route is via Essex and Mountfort Streets. The route stops at a BU Bridge Station on Mountfort Street, and is within a walking distance of Boston University Central Station of Green Line “B” Branch. The route then travels via Park Drive and Beacon Street in mixed traffic to connect with Yawkey Station (commuter rail station connection) with walk access to reach Kenmore Square. Another route that travels from Allston area via Commonwealth Avenue provides a direct connection to the BU Central Station. Sector 7 – Allston/West Cambridge – BU Bridge through Harvard Square. The route is via Commonwealth Avenue, Babcock Street, Ashford Street, Malvern Street, Brighton Avenue, Cambridge Street, North Harvard Street, and JFK Street to Harvard Square. Intermediate stops are located at the intersection of Babcock Street and Ashford Street (Allston West Station with Framingham/Worcester Commuter Rail connection), North Harvard Street, and near the corner of North Harvard Street and Stadium Way. The route makes its final stop at Harvard Square (Red Line connection). Sector 8 – Boston/LMA – Yawkey/Kenmore through Ruggles. The route is via Beacon Street to Park Drive, Brookline Avenue, Longwood Avenue, and Huntington Avenue to Ruggles. The route starts from Kenmore Square Station (Green Line B, C, and D Branch connections), continues to Beacon Street and stops at Yawkey Station (Framingham/Worcester commuter rail connection). It then travels through Park Drive, Brookline Avenue and Longwood Avenue where it makes a stop at Tugo Circle. The route then continues to Ruggles Station via Huntington Avenue and Ruggles Street. There is a direct rapid transit connection with Orange Line and commuter rail line connection with Attleborough/Stoughton at Ruggles Station. Sector 9 – Roxbury – Ruggles through Boston University Medical Center. The route is via Melnea Cass Boulevard to a connection with the Silver Line at Washington Street Station (with one CT route serving Dudley Square directly via Washington Street). It then continues along Melnea Cass Boulevard to Albany Street in mixed traffic and stops at Crosstown Center Station, and then runs along Albany Street east of Mass Avenue to the Boston Medical Center Station (located on Albany Street between East Concord and East Newton Streets). Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­45 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Sector 10 – Dorchester – Crosstown Center through UMass Boston. The route is via Massachusetts Avenue and Edward Everett Square. CT vehicles would travel along Massachusetts Avenue then continue to Edward Everett Square and Columbia Road. The route makes its first stop on Massachusetts Avenue at Newmarket Station near the existing Fairmount Commuter Rail Line and second stop at Edward Everett Square. The route then continues on Columbia Road and makes its stop at JFK/UMass Station (Red Line and Old Colony Commuter Rail connections). Sector 11 – South Boston – Boston University Medical Center through World Trade Center. The route is through Broadway Station and A Street and the World Trade Center. The route makes stops at the Red Line Broadway Station at Dorchester Avenue, at A Street near the Gillette parking lot and World Trade Center where it connects with Silver Line Phases I and II. The route then runs through the Ted Williams Tunnel to Logan Airport. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­46 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­9 FTA Baseline Alternative
M ed fo rd
Ev e re t t
S o m er v il l e
C h el se a
Ea s t
Bo s to n
Cam b r id g e
Br o o k l i n e
S o u t h Bo sto n
Rox b u ry
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Busway (Surface)
Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
Tunnel Portal
Base map data provided by MassGIS.
0
0.5
1
D o r ch e ste r
Urban Ring Phas e 2 RDEIR/ DEIS
FTA Baseline Alternative
Miles
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­47 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.13.3 Build Alternative 1 – DEIR Locally Preferred Alternative Build Alternative 1 is an all­surface alignment that contains the lowest percentage of dedicated running way for the BRT; it proposes no tunnels or underground stations. Build Alternative 1, shown in Figure 3­
10, is modeled as closely as possible upon the LPA presented in the 2004 DEIR. The 2004 DEIR LPA, however, has been modified as necessary to reflect new projects and planning initiatives, changes to other projects, and changes to the project scope. The most significant change relative to the 2004 DEIR and its recommended LPA is the addition of a branch of the Urban Ring Phase 2 between the BU Bridge and Harvard Square that would provide circumferential transit connections for the proposed Harvard University development at Allston Landing. Other changes are the revision of BRT Route 7 to travel on Albany Street to Frontage Road instead of using the East Concord/Massachusetts Avenue Connector route (which was rejected by MassHighway); and the routing of BRT Route 3 via Somerville Avenue in both directions between Union Square and McGrath Highway because the proposed Green Line Extension route to Union Square would occupy the right­of­way along the Fitchburg Line commuter rail that was originally used for the LPA route. Following are descriptions of the Build Alternative 1 alignment and stations in each of 11 geographic analysis sectors of the project corridor. Sector 1 – East Boston – Logan Airport terminals through Chelsea Creek Bridge. The route is from the individual airport terminals with Silver Line I connections through the Airport Exit Road and Route 1A in mixed traffic to the Airport Blue Line Station where it connects with Blue Line; then to East Boston/Neptune Road Station and Chelsea Creek via the East Boston Haul Road (limited to buses and commercial vehicles only). It then meets Chelsea Street on its approach to the bridge. Sector 2 – Chelsea – Chelsea Creek Bridge through Mystic Mall in Chelsea. The route is via a new Chelsea Street Bridge (to be completed by others), Eastern Avenue and Bellingham Street in mixed traffic to Bellingham Station; then to Downtown Chelsea Station where it connects with Newburyport/Rockport branch of commuter rail, and Mystic Mall stations via busway on the abandoned railroad right­of­way in East Chelsea and adjacent to the existing Rockport commuter rail line. The service splits into two branches at Mystic Mall. Sector 3 – Everett – Mystic Mall Chelsea through Wellington. One route branch is via Everett Avenue and Revere Beach Parkway (RBP) and Second Street to downtown Everett entirely in mixed traffic on the way to Wellington, with first station near the corner of Everett Avenue and RBP called Revere Beach Parkway Station and second station in downtown Everett called Broadway, Everett Station. The other route branch is via a busway adjacent to the commuter rail line as far as Second Street and Revere Beach Parkway to Wellington with no intermediate stops. Sector 4 – Wellington – Wellington through Somerville/Charlestown. The route is through Wellington interchange and into Somerville via the existing Fellsway Bridge over Mystic River. The service splits with one route serving Assembly Square, Sullivan Square and Community College (Orange Line connections) via Rutherford Avenue Bypass alignment and a North Point busway viaduct. The other route stops at Gilman and Union Square Stations (Green Line connections) in Somerville where they also connect with new commuter rail stations on Lowell and Fitchburg Lines, respectively. The route travels on a one­way busway in the Fitchburg commuter rail right­of­way paired with Somerville Avenue busway and Route 28 toward North Point. Sector 5 – East Cambridge – New Lechmere through Kendall/MIT. The route starts from New Lechmere Station (connection with D and E branches of Green Line) and travels via First Street in bus lanes and mixed traffic along Binney Street. It travels in mixed traffic on Third Street to a new bus­only connection across Broadway to reach Main Street at Kendall/MIT Red Line. Routes that terminate at Kendall/MIT use Binney Street in mixed traffic all the way around to Main Street eastbound, and then return via a bus­
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­48 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION only connection across Broadway to Third Street. There are intermediate stops for all routes on First Street near the Galleria, for two routes at Binney/Third Street, and for one route at Fulkerson Street. Sector 6 – Cambridge/Boston – Main Street through Yawkey/Kenmore. The route through Cambridge is via a one­way westbound busway in the Grand Junction Railroad corridor adjacent to the north side of the existing track paired with eastbound service in mixed traffic along Albany Street. The route reaches the BU Bridge via the Lower Cambridgeport roadway network with some limited sections of queue jump lane on New Waverly Street and Brookline Street. There are intermediate stops at MIT/Massachusetts Avenue and at Cambridgeport just east of Ft. Washington Park. The route then crosses the Charles River on the existing BU Bridge in mixed traffic. South of the Charles River, the route is via Essex and Mountfort Streets. The route stops at a BU Bridge Station on Mountfort Street, and is within a walking distance of Boston University Central Station of Green Line “B” Branch. The route then travels via Park Drive and Beacon Street in mixed traffic to connect with Yawkey Station (Framingham/Worcester commuter rail connection) with walk access to reach Kenmore Square. Another route that travels from Allston area via Commonwealth Avenue provides a direct connection to the BU Central Station. Sector 7 – Allston/West Cambridge – BU Bridge through Harvard Square. The route is via Commonwealth Avenue, Brighton Avenue, Harvard Avenue, Cambridge Street, North Harvard Street, and JFK Street to Harvard Square. There is a short section of bus lanes along North Harvard Street before crossing the Charles River. Intermediate stops are located at Packard’s Corner, Brighton Avenue, North Harvard Street, and near the corner of North Harvard Street and Stadium Way. The route connects with Green Line “B” Branch stations at BU West Station, Packard’s Corner and Brighton Avenue and red line station at Harvard Square. Sector 8 – Boston/LMA – Yawkey through Ruggles. The route is via Park Drive to Brookline Avenue, the Fenway, Avenue Louis Pasteur, Longwood Avenue, Louis Prang Street, and Huntington Avenue to Ruggles. It utilizes bus only lanes on the Fenway, Avenue Louis Pasteur, and Louis Prang Street, and generally uses a clockwise circulation pattern in the Longwood Medical and Academic Area with stations primarily on Avenue Louis Pasteur and Tugo Circle. Between Huntington Avenue and Ruggles Station, the route uses bus lanes in each direction. The route connects with Green Line D branch at Fenway/Park Drive Station and Green Line E branch at Huntington Avenue/Ruggles Street Station. There is a direct rapid transit connection with Orange Line and commuter rail line connection with Attleborough/Stoughton at Ruggles and commuter line connection with Yawkey. Sector 9 – Roxbury – Ruggles through Boston University Medical Center. The route is via Melnea Cass Boulevard center median busway to a connection with the Silver Line at Washington Street Station (with one Urban Ring BRT route serving Dudley Square directly via Washington Street). It then continues along Melnea Cass Boulevard center median busway to Albany Street in mixed traffic and stops at Crosstown Center Station, and then runs along Albany Street in bus lanes east of Mass Avenue to the Boston Medical Center Station (located on Albany Street between East Concord and East Newton Streets). Sector 10 – Dorchester – Crosstown Center through UMass Boston. The route is via Hampden Street and Dudley Street to JFK UMass in mixed traffic through intermediate stops at Blue Hill/ Dudley, Fairmount/Uphams Commuter Rail Station, Uphams Corner and Edward Everett Square. The route continues to UMass Boston in mixed traffic with intermediate stops at JFK/UMass Red Line Station and Mount Vernon Street. The route stops at UMass Boston, where it makes a loop to travel back to the JFK/UMass Red Line Station where it also connects with the Old Colony commuter rail lines Sector 11 – South Boston – Boston University Medical Center through World Trade Center. The route is along Albany Street via bus lanes and busway on the South Boston Bypass Road to World Trade Center through Boston Wharf Road in mixed traffic. The route makes a single intermediate stop in South Boston at the east edge of the Fort Point District. The route then runs through the Ted Williams Tunnel to Logan Airport, The route connects with Silver Line 1 and 2 at the World Trade Center station.
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­49 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­10 Build Alternative 1
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­50 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.13.4 Build Alternative 2 – Optimized Surface Alternative Build Alternative 2, shown in Figure 3­11, is an all­surface alignment with an increased percentage of exclusive BRT running ways compared to Alternative 1. This is accomplished primarily by continuing the busway adjacent to the Rockport commuter rail line westerly all the way from Chelsea and into Everett. Build Alternative 2 retains surface routings for the BRT routes and requires no tunnel construction. The greater proportion of dedicated right of way and bus lanes, versus mixed traffic operation, than the DEIR LPA is expected to improve travel times and ridership, while minimizing capital costs by avoiding tunnel construction. This alternative was formulated following the DEIR based on comments and requests from the CAC and agencies to include the following new elements: a. Use of Albany Street eastbound and Vassar Street westbound in Cambridge near MIT; b. A connection to Harvard Square from Allston; c. A station in Allston at North Harvard and Cambridge Streets; d. A station at Dudley Street and Magazine Street; e. A station in Dorchester on Columbia Road; f. Exploration of additional surface options that would reduce impacts to the Fenway; and g. Modification of the South Boston route and Station to use the Haul Road, but substitute Wharf Street and Seaport Boulevard for the World Trade Center. Following are descriptions of the Build Alternative 2 alignment and stations in each of 11 geographic analysis sectors of the project corridor. Sector 1 – East Boston – Logan Airport terminals through Chelsea Creek. The route runs from a single stop at the Logan West Garage then via the Airport Exit Road and Route 1A in mixed traffic to the Airport Blue Line Station. It then continues to East Boston/Neptune Road Station and Chelsea Creek via the East Boston Haul Road, which is limited to buses and commercial vehicles, and meets Chelsea Street on its approach to the bridge. Sector 2 – Chelsea – Chelsea Creek through Mystic Mall in Chelsea. The route is via a new Chelsea Street Bridge (to be completed by others), Eastern Avenue and Griffin Way in mixed traffic to Griffin Way Station. It then runs to Downtown Chelsea and Mystic Mall stations via busway on the abandoned railroad right­of­way in East Chelsea and a connecting busway adjacent to the existing Rockport commuter rail line. The BRT station at Downtown Chelsea connects with the existing Rockport commuter rail. Sector 3 – Everett – Mystic Mall Chelsea through Wellington. The route follows a busway adjacent to the commuter rail line west of Second Street, where the busway crosses under the commuter rail tracks and Route 99 and continues westerly adjacent to the south side of the Revere Beach Parkway to a new busway bridge crossing of the Malden River and directly into Wellington Station. There is an intermediate stop at Gateway/Everett to the west of Route 99. Sector 4 – Wellington – Wellington through Somerville/Charlestown. The route travels over the Orange Line rail yard via a busway viaduct connecting to Constitution Way and Presidents Landing and into Somerville via the existing Fellsway Bridge over Mystic River. BRT service splits at this point, with one route branch serving Assembly Square, Sullivan Square and Community College via Rutherford Avenue busway and North Point busway viaduct. The other route branch serves the same intermodal stations, plus Broadway/Foss Park station between Assembly Square and Sullivan Square on the way to Rutherford Avenue and North Point. The BRT routes have connections with Orange Line at Wellington Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­51 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION station, Assembly Square, Sullivan Square and Community College. Sullivan Square is also connected with Rockport Commuter Rail. Sector 5 – East Cambridge – New Lechmere through Kendall/MIT. Same as Alternative 1. Sector 6 – Cambridge/Boston – Main Street through Kenmore. The route through Cambridge is via a one­
way westbound mixed traffic in the Grand Junction Railroad corridor adjacent to the north side of the existing track paired with eastbound service in mixed traffic along Albany Street. In Lower Cambridgeport, the route connects into the railroad right before crossing the Charles River on a busway as part of a modified Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. There are intermediate stops at MIT/Massachusetts Avenue and at Cambridgeport just east of Ft. Washington Park. South of the Charles River, the route is via Commonwealth Avenue, stopping at BU Bridge Station within a walking distance to Green Line B Branch. The route then continues to Kenmore Station where it connects with B, C and D branches of Green Line. Sector 7 – Allston/West Cambridge – BU Bridge through Harvard Square. The route begins at Commonwealth Avenue and Malvern Street in mixed traffic, then travels in elevated busway over the rail yard before continuing to Cambridge Street. It then travels along the proposed Stadium Way to Western Avenue and North Harvard Street in bus lanes. After crossing the Charles River, the route follows JFK Street in mixed traffic and makes a stop at Harvard Square where it connects with Red Line. Intermediate stops are located at Packard’s Corner (Green Line B), Allston West Station Commuter Rail station, North Harvard Street (at Cambridge Street) and near the corner of Western Avenue and Stadium Way. Sector 8 – Boston/LMA – Kenmore through Ruggles. Most of the Sector 8 alignment in Alternative 2 is similar to that of the Sector 8 in Alternative 1. In Alternative 2, the route travels along Beacon Street in bus lane and stops at Kenmore Station and Yawkey commuter rail station before continuing to Park Drive. It then follows Brookline Avenue, the Fenway, Avenue Louis Pasteur, Longwood Avenue, Louis Prang Street, and Huntington Avenue to Ruggles. It utilizes bus lanes on Brookline Avenue and generally uses counter­clockwise circulation pattern in the Longwood Medical and Academic Area with stations primarily on Avenue Louis Pasteur and Tugo Circle. Between Huntington Avenue and Ruggles Station, the route uses bus lanes in each direction. The route connects with Green Line D branch at Fenway/Park Drive Station and Green Line E branch at Huntington Avenue/Ruggles Street Station. There is a direct rapid transit connection with Orange Line and commuter rail line connection with Attleborough/Stoughton at Ruggles. Sector 9 – Roxbury – Ruggles through Boston University Medical Center. Same as Alternative 1. Sector 10 – Dorchester – Crosstown Center through UMass Boston. The route is via Massachusetts Avenue starting in mixed traffic near Massachusetts Avenue Connector followed by bus lanes. It then continues via Magazine Street in mixed traffic to Dudley Street, where vehicles would use bus lanes to Fairmount/Uphams Station, then mixed traffic through Uphams Corner and along Columbia Road to JFK and UMass. The service makes intermediate stops at each end of Magazine Street, Fairmount/Uphams commuter rail station, Uphams Corner, Edward Everett Square, and the JFK Red Line and Commuter Rail station. The final stop in this sector is at UMass Boston, accessed via bus lanes on Mount Vernon Street. Sector 11 – South Boston – Boston University Medical Center through Seaport District. The route is through Albany Street via bus lanes and busway on the South Boston Haul Road via South Boston Bypass Road to the Seaport District through Boston Wharf Road in mixed traffic. The route makes a single intermediate stop at Wormwood Street. The route then runs through the Ted Williams Tunnel to Logan Airport. It connects with Silver Line Phase I Courthouse Station at Wharf Road/Seaport District Station. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­52 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­11 Build Alternative 2
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­53 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Build Alternative 2 Option 2A Similar to Build Alternative 2, Option 2A, shown in Figure 3­12, is an all­surface alignment with an increased percentage of exclusive BRT running way compared to Alternative 1. Option 2A has no tunnels or underground stations and is identical to Alternative 2 throughout Sectors 1­5 and Sectors 7 through 11. Within Sector 6, Option 2A utilizes the Massachusetts Avenue Bridge to cross the Charles River, instead of the modified Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. A description of the Option 2A route through Sector 6 is provided below. Sector 6 – Cambridge/Boston – Main Street through Yawkey/Kenmore. The route through Cambridge is via a one­way pair including westbound Vassar Street in mixed traffic paired with eastbound Albany Street in mixed traffic. The one­way pair joins again at Massachusetts Avenue before crossing the Charles River and utilizes the Massachusetts Avenue Bridge to cross the River. There is an intermediate stop at MIT/Massachusetts Avenue. South of the Charles River, the route continues to Commonwealth Avenue and reaches Kenmore (with connection to Green Line B/C&D) and Yawkey Station (with connection to Framingham/Worcester Commuter Rail Line) via mixed traffic, then joins Beacon Street in bus lanes. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­54 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­12 Build Alternative 2A
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­55 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.13.5 Build Alternative 3 – Shorter Tunnel Build Alternative 3, shown in Figure 3­13, features an all­surface alignment on the north side of the Charles River and a mainline tunnel through the LMA between Ruggles Station and the MBTA commuter rail station at Yawkey Way. The design goal of Alternative 3 is to achieve the greatest travel time and ridership benefits from a low cost option tunnel investment. Tunnel sections for Alternative 3 are limited to the most highly congested areas of the corridor. Tunnel section lengths are minimized to reduce costs and the number of underground stations required. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 increases the percentage of exclusive running way for BRT compared to Alternative 1 primarily by continuing the busway adjacent to the Rockport commuter rail line all the way from Chelsea through Everett. At Gateway/Everett, the route follows a Telecom Boulevard alignment with an additional station stop at Telecom/Everett before crossing the Malden River on a new bridge (to be built by others) and following Corporation Way to Wellington Station. All of the tunnel sections of Build Alternative 3 are located on the south side of the Charles River. The Fenway/LMA tunnel would be located to the west of the existing Ruggles Station. The portal approach ramp would begin at Leon Street and descend in a westerly direction parallel to Ruggles Street and run along the existing MBTA right of way in front of several Northeastern University residence halls. The tunnel portal would be located to the east of Field Street to enable reinstatement of Field Street. The cut and cover section of the tunnel would extend from the portal to a point immediately east of Parker Street, from which the bored tunnel section would commence. A section of tangent, level track would be provided along Huntington Avenue to accommodate a cut and cover station in the vicinity of the Green Line “E” Branch station. Immediately after the underground station, the bored tunnel would make a turn to align with Longwood Avenue and pass underneath the building on the northern corner of Huntington and Longwood Avenues. The preferred location for the Huntington Avenue station is assumed to be as close as possible to this intersection at the southern end of the length of tangent track beneath Huntington Avenue. This would place the southern end of the platform approximately 450 feet from the intersection. From this point, the bored tunnel would generally follow the existing alignment of Longwood Avenue from Huntington Avenue until a point near Binney Street towards the west. A section of tangent, level track would be provided through Longwood Avenue in the region of Avenue Louis Pasteur to accommodate an underground station. Foundation constraints limit the length of tangent track that can be provided through Longwood Avenue, and building constraints limit the location of a cut and cover station. Therefore, the Longwood Station proposed as part of this alternative would begin in the vicinity of Avenue Louis Pasteur and extend west along Longwood Avenue. At Binney Street, the alignment would curve in a northerly direction to pass underneath the Shapiro Center and Brookline Avenue and connect with an alignment that follows the existing path of Pilgrim Road. From Pilgrim Road, the tunnel would pass underneath the Muddy River, avoiding the planned location of the proposed new bridge across the river, and follow Brookline Avenue. The bored tunnel section would end beneath Brookline Avenue immediately to the north of Fullerton Street, and a cut and cover tunnel section would resume, extending north along Brookline Avenue to its intersection with Yawkey Way. From this intersection, the cut and cover tunnel would curve west into the air rights Parcel 7 development site through an approach ramp structure, and up to a station that would be at approximately the same elevation as the existing Yawkey Commuter Rail station. The location of the BRT station would be aligned as close to parallel as possible with the Yawkey Commuter Rail Station. A widened section of the Beacon Street over­bridge would accommodate BRT vehicles approximately parallel with the Commuter Rail, emerging to the west of Beacon Street. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­56 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Although much of the section of alignment between Brookline Avenue and Beacon Street would be at existing grade, the site is likely to be built up as part of the Parcel 7 development proposals (by others) and, therefore, would be effectively underground. At Mountfort Street, there are two possible tunnel alignments for Build Alternative 3: a. Mountfort Street Tunnel – Boston University Bridge Alignment: The portal structure in Mountfort Street would descend from existing grade level in a westerly direction down through an open approach ramp to a cut and cover tunnel that would extend to a portal located within the parking lot of the Cadillac Building located on Commonwealth Avenue. The alignment would meet perpendicular to Commonwealth Avenue such that an at­grade intersection would allow the BRT service to cross Commonwealth Avenue and continue over the Massachusetts Turnpike to cross the Grand Junction Railroad bridge, thereby allowing surface routing across the Charles River. b. Mountfort Street Tunnel – Allston Alignment: The portal structure in Mountfort Street would descend from existing grade level in a westerly direction down through an open approach ramp to a cut and cover tunnel, with a bored tunnel commencing to the east of St Mary’s Street. The bored tunnel would pass underneath the Mass Turnpike and roughly follow the alignment of Storrow Drive before crossing underneath the Mass Turnpike viaduct to connect with a portal structure in the CSX rail yard. Other key features of Alternative 3 include the following: a. A two­way alternative on Vassar Street in Cambridge; b. Options for the shorter tunnel portal locations with the goal of identifying the shortest tunnel clear of the Emerald Necklace and Muddy River; c. A station in Allston; d. Moving a station slightly on Mass Avenue near the Fairmont Line; and e. Using a new northern loop in Everett instead of Route 16. Following are descriptions of the Build Alternative 3 alignment and stations in each of 11 geographic analysis sectors of the project corridor. Sector 1 – East Boston – Logan Airport terminals through Chelsea Creek. The route begins at a single stop at the Logan West Garage then follows the Airport Exit Road and Route 1A in mixed traffic to the Airport Blue Line Station. It then continues to Wood Island Blue Line Station and Chelsea Creek via the East Boston Haul Road (limited to buses and commercial vehicles only), and meets Chelsea Street on its approach to the bridge. Sector 2 – Chelsea – Chelsea Creek through Mystic Mall in Chelsea. Same as Alternative 2. Sector 3 – Everett – Mystic Mall Chelsea through Wellington. The route follows a busway adjacent to the commuter rail line west of Second Street, where the busway crosses under the tracks and Route 99 and turns northward into the Saugus Branch alignment and the Telecom Boulevard alignment, crossing the Malden River to Corporation Way and then into Wellington Station. There are intermediate stops at Gateway/Everett and Telecom/Everett. Sector 4 – Wellington – Wellington through Somerville/Charlestown. The route travels over the Orange Line rail yard via a busway viaduct connecting to Constitution Way and Presidents Landing and into Somerville via existing Fellsway bridge over Mystic River. The route serves Assembly Square and Sullivan Square, where the service splits with one route via a Rutherford Avenue in bus lanes/busway to Community College and a North Point busway viaduct. The other route follows Washington Street in bus lanes from Sullivan Square and serves Cobble Hill, Brickbottom, and Union Square on the way to North Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­57 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Point. The BRT routes have connections with Orange Line at Wellington station, Assembly Square, Sullivan Square and Community College. The second route has connections with the proposed MBTA Green Line stations at Union Square and Washington Street Stations. In addition to the rapid transit connections, Sullivan Square station makes a connection with Rockport Commuter Rail Line and Union Square with a new commuter rail station on Fitchburg line. Sector 5 – East Cambridge – New Lechmere through Kendall/MIT. Same as Alternatives 1 and 2. Sector 6 – Cambridge/Boston – Main Street through Yawkey. The route through Cambridge is two­way via Vassar Street in mixed traffic. In Lower Cambridgeport, the route connects into the railroad right before crossing the Charles River on a busway as part of a modified Grand Junction Railroad Bridge. There are intermediate stops along Vassar Street at MIT/Massachusetts Avenue and at Cambridgeport opposite Fort Washington Park (accessed via the existing pedestrian crossing of the railroad tracks). South of the Charles River, the route ramps up to cross Commonwealth Avenue, stops at BU Bridge Station, and reaches Yawkey Station via a tunnel beneath Mountfort Street from near the BU Bridge to just west of Beacon Street, where it connects at grade with the Framingham/Worcester Commuter Rail Station. The BU Bridge Station is located within the Green Line B branch stations on Commonwealth Avenue. Sector 7 – Allston/West Cambridge – BU Bridge through Harvard Square. The route is via a tunnel that starts beneath Mountfort Street and continues west beneath the Turnpike and surfaces in the rail yard. It then travels via surface busway along the perimeter of the yard and along Cambridge Street, to bus lanes along the proposed Stadium Way to Western Avenue. Intermediate stops are located at West Station Commuter Rail station, North Harvard/Cambridge Street in Allston, and near the corner of Western Avenue and Stadium Way. Sector 8 – Boston/LMA – Yawkey through Ruggles. The route from Yawkey Station toward LMA and Ruggles is via tunnel beneath Brookline Avenue, Longwood Avenue, Huntington Avenue, and Ruggles Street, to a portal near Leon Street and into the existing surface bus loop at Ruggles Station. There are intermediate underground stations on Longwood Avenue and Huntington Avenue. Green Line “E” station (Longwood Medical Area Station) at Huntington Avenue and Orange Line station at Ruggles Station provide connection to MBTA rapid transit system. There is also a direct commuter rail line connection with Attleborough/Stoughton at Ruggles. Sector 9 – Roxbury – Ruggles through Boston University Medical Center. Same as Alternatives 1 and 2. Sector 10 – Dorchester – Crosstown Center through UMass Boston. The route is via Massachusetts Avenue and Edward Everett Square. BRT vehicles would travel along Massachusetts Avenue in mixed traffic making its first stop on Massachusetts Avenue at Newmarket Square near the existing Fairmount Commuter Rail Line. It then continues to Edward Everett Square via bus lanes and stops at Edward Everett Square. The route then resume mixed traffic operation to JFK Red Line Station where it also connects with the Old Colony Commuter Rail Lines. The route then continues in a bus lane and stops at the Mount Vernon Street and UMass Boston. Sector 11 – South Boston – Boston University Medical Center through World Trade Center. The route is through Broadway Station in mixed traffic, then along A Street with bus lanes in a portion of the Fort Point District. It then continues to the World Trade Center in mixed traffic. The route makes stops at the Red Line Broadway Station at Dorchester Avenue, at A Street near the Gillette parking lot and World Trade Center where it connects with Silver Line Phases I and II. The route then runs through the Ted Williams Tunnel to Logan Airport. Several variations on Build Alternative 3 were also considered to minimize the cost and potential disruption of constructing either of the Mountfort Street tunnels described under Alternative 3. Options 3A, 3B, and 3C and are described below. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­58 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­13 Build Alternative 3
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­59 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Build Alternative 3 Option 3A Option 3A, shown in Figure 3­14, was developed to minimize the cost and disruption involved in constructing either of the Mountfort Street tunnel options described in Alternative 3, while still achieving the primary service goals and objectives of the project. To accomplish this, the Mountfort Street tunnel options in Alternative 3 are replaced with surface routes. The extent of tunneling under Option 3A would be the Fenway/LMA tunnel from Leon Street to Yawkey Station. This portion of the route would follow the same alignment as the Fenway/LMA tunnel described in Alternative 3. In the areas north of the Charles River (Sectors 1­3) and south of Ruggles Station, Option 3A is identical to Alternative 3. Below are descriptions of the features that distinguish Option 3A from Alternative 3. Sector 4 – Wellington – Wellington through Somerville/Charlestown. The route travels over the Orange Line rail yard via a busway viaduct connecting to Constitution Way and Presidents Landing and into Somerville via existing Fellsway bridge over Mystic River. The route serves Assembly Square and Sullivan Square then continues on Cambridge Street and Washington Street in bus lane and serves Brickbottom, and Union Square on the way to North Point. The BRT routes have connections with Orange Line at Wellington station, Assembly Square and Sullivan Square and with Green Line stations at Union Square and Washington Street Stations. In addition to the MBTA rapid transit connections, Sullivan Square station makes a connection with Rockport Commuter Rail Line and Union Square with a new commuter rail station on Fitchburg line. Sector 6 – Cambridge/Boston – Main Street through Yawkey. North of the Charles River, the route for Option 3A is the same as Alternative 3. South of the Charles River, the route ramps up to cross Commonwealth Avenue and stops at BU Bridge Station, which is within a walking distance to Boston University Green Line Stations. The route then travels in short section of bus lane along Mountfort Street between Carlton and Essex Streets. It then continues on Mountfort Street in mixed traffic and reaches Yawkey Station to just west of Beacon Street to connect at grade with the Yawkey Commuter Rail Station. Option 3A is identical to Alternative 3 in Sectors 8 ­11. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­60 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­14 Build Alternative 3A
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­61 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Build Alternative 3 Option 3B Like Option 3A, Option 3B was developed to minimize the cost and potential disruption of constructing either of the Mountfort Street tunnels described under Alternative 3. Compared to Alternative 3 and Options 3A and 3C, Option 3B involves the least amount of tunnel construction. Option 3B, which is shown in Figure 3­15, was designed to: • Minimize the impacts on the air rights Parcel 7 development by relocating the position of the northern tunnel portal; • Minimize the impact to Beacon Street traffic flow by avoiding reconstruction of the Beacon Street bridge; and • Shift the location of the Longwood Avenue station to be closer to the intersection with Brookline Avenue. Option 3B is identical to Alternative 3 from East Boston to Sullivan Square. From Sullivan Square to North Point, the route follows the Washington Street alignment. At this point, the BRT service splits: one branch follows Inner Belt Road and a new busway viaduct to North Point, and the other continues on Washington Street via Cobble Hill and Brickbottom. With Option 3B, no Urban Ring service is provided on Rutherford Avenue or at Community College. South of the Charles River, the Mountfort Street tunnel options in Alternative 3 are replaced with surface routes for Option 3B. The tunnel alignment from Leon Street through Longwood to Binney Street would be common with the Fenway/LMA tunnel described in Alternative 3. At Binney Street, the alignment would depart from the Alternative 3 alignment and make a relatively wide turn to the north. The Option 3B alignment would run beneath the Winsor school, the Riverway, and the Muddy River before rising up to a portal structure located parallel with the Green Line “D” Branch at Fenway Station (no station would be provided here) in the vicinity of Park Drive. The alignment would then surface at Miner Street and allow a surface BRT route through the proposed Parcel 7 development and connect with Commuter Rail at Yawkey Station. Following are descriptions of Option 3B in sectors that differ from Alternative 3. Sector 4 ­ Wellington – Wellington through Somerville/Charlestown. The route travels over the Orange Line rail yard via a busway viaduct connecting to Constitution Way and Presidents Landing and into Somerville via existing Fellsway bridge over Mystic River. It serves Assembly Square and Sullivan Square. From Sullivan Square, one route follows Inner Belt Road to North Point, and another route serves Cobble Hill, Brickbottom, and Union Square on the way to North Point. The BRT routes have connections with Orange Line at Wellington station, Assembly Square and Sullivan Square and with Green Line stations at Union Square and Washington Street Stations. In addition to the MBTA rapid transit connections, Sullivan Square station makes a connection with Rockport Commuter Rail Line, and Union Square makes a connection with a new commuter rail station on Fitchburg line. Sector 6 – Cambridge/Boston – Main Street through Yawkey/Kenmore. North of the Charles River, the route within Sector 6 is the same as Alternative 3. South of the Charles River, the route ramps up to Commonwealth Avenue and reaches Kenmore and Yawkey on the surface in mixed traffic, and then west on Beacon Street in bus lanes where it connects at grade with the Yawkey Commuter Rail Station. It then continues at grade along the former CSX right of way to a tunnel portal just east of Park Drive between the Landmark Center and the Green Line D branch. The route stops at BU Bridge on Commonwealth Avenue, which is accessible from Green Line B Branch stations in the Boston University area. The route also makes connections with Green Line B, C and D Branches at Kenmore Square. Sector 7 – Allston/West Cambridge – BU Bridge through Harvard Square. The route is via a surface busway from the BU Bridge area beneath the Turnpike viaduct to the rail yard. It then travels via a surface busway along the perimeter of the yard and along Cambridge Street to bus lanes along the proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­62 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Stadium Way to Western Avenue. Intermediate stops are located at West Station Commuter Rail, North Harvard Street/Cambridge Street in Allston, and near the corner of Western Avenue and Stadium Way. The route connects with Red Line at Harvard Square Station. Sector 8 – Boston/LMA – Yawkey/Kenmore through Ruggles. The route from Yawkey Station toward the LMA and Ruggles is in tunnel starting at a portal east of Park Drive. It runs beneath Pilgrim Road, Longwood Avenue, Huntington Avenue, and Ruggles Street to a portal near Leon Street, and into the existing surface bus loop at Ruggles Station. There are intermediate underground stations on Longwood Avenue and Huntington Avenue. Green Line “E” Station (Longwood Medical Area Station) at Huntington Avenue and Orange Line station at Ruggles Station provide connection to MBTA rapid transit system. There is also a direct commuter rail line connection with Attleborough/Stoughton at Ruggles. Option 3B is identical to Alternative 3 in Sectors 9­11. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­63 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­15 Build Alternative 3B
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­64 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Build Alternative 3 Option 3C Option 3C, shown in Figure 3­16, takes the two­tunnel concept of Alternative 3 and connects these tunnels into one slightly longer overall tunnel. The design goals of this alternative are to: • Eliminate the need for additional tunnel portals by extending the length of bored tunnel; and • Minimize the impacts upon the air rights Parcel 7 development by reconfiguring the proposed location of the BRT station at Yawkey. The tunnel alignment from Leon Street through Longwood Avenue and up Brookline Avenue to Yawkey Way would be common with the Fenway/LMA tunnel described under Alternative 3. Under Option 3C, from Brookline Avenue and partially beneath the Massachusetts Turnpike, there would be provision for a deep underground station. As it heads toward Commonwealth Avenue, the alignment would make a sharp turn to the left to align with Commonwealth Avenue and proceed toward to the BU Bridge. There would be a split portal arrangement near the BU Bridge and the roughly triangular plot of land to the west to accommodate a surface route across the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge and a tunnel alignment toward Allston. This split portal arrangement presents several operational concerns related to rapidly changing grades, lane separation, and horizontal curves. Option 3C is identical to Alternative 3 north of the Charles River. South of the river, Option 3C follows a tunnel alignment beneath Commonwealth Avenue to Kenmore and Yawkey, rather than a Mountfort Street tunnel. Option 3C retains the tunnels and other features serving Allston and LMA proposed in Alternative 3. Following are descriptions of Option 3C in sectors where it differs from Alternative 3. Sector 6 – Cambridge/Boston – Main Street through Yawkey/Kenmore. North of the Charles River, the route within Sector 6 is the same as Alternative 3. South of the river, the route enters a tunnel portal near the BU Bridge where the tunnel heads east beneath Commonwealth Avenue to Kenmore and Yawkey, which are served by a deep underground station. The route stops at BU Bridge on Commonwealth Avenue, which is accessible from Green Line B Branch stations in the Boston University area. The route also makes connections with Green Line B, C and D Branches at Kenmore Square. Sector 7 – Allston/West Cambridge – BU Bridge through Harvard Square. The route is via a tunnel beneath Commonwealth Avenue that continues west beneath the Turnpike and surfaces in the rail yard. It then travels via surface busway along the perimeter of the yard and along Cambridge Street to bus lanes along proposed Stadium Way to Western Avenue. Intermediate stops are located at West Station Commuter Rail, North Harvard Street/Cambridge Street in Allston, and near the corner of Western Avenue and Stadium Way. The route connects with Red Line at Harvard Square Station. Sector 8 – Boston/LMA – Yawkey/Kenmore through Ruggles. From the deep station beneath Kenmore, the route heads toward LMA and Ruggles in a tunnel beneath Brookline Avenue, Longwood Avenue, Huntington Avenue, and Ruggles Street to a portal near Leon Street, and then into the existing surface bus loop at Ruggles Station. There are intermediate underground stations at Longwood Avenue and Huntington Avenue. Green Line “E” Station (Longwood Medical and Academic Area Station) at Huntington Avenue and Orange Line station at Ruggles Station connect the MBTA rapid transit system to the BRT route. There is also a direct commuter rail line connection with Attleborough/Stoughton at Ruggles. Option 3C is identical to Alternative 3 throughout Sectors 9­11. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­65 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­16 Build Alternative 3C
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­66 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.13.6 Build Alternative 4 – Longer Tunnel Alternative 4, shown in Figure 3­17, was developed primarily to help determine the incremental travel time and ridership improvements that a longer tunnel could provide relative to the increased cost. Build Alternative 4 includes a significantly longer tunnel through the LMA that splits into two branches: one heading north beneath the Charles River to Cambridge, and one going northwest beneath the Massachusetts Turnpike and the Beacon Park Rail yards to Allston. This longer tunnel and its branches would require six to eight underground transit stations. There would also be new stations in Dorchester at Blue Hill Avenue and Dudley Street, as well as in Everett at Route 99 and the Gateway Plaza by the MBTA Station. This alternative retains an all­surface alignment from Logan Airport to Sullivan Square, thereby increasing the percentage of exclusive BRT running way (as compared to Alternative 1) by continuing the busway adjacent to the Rockport commuter rail line all the way from Chelsea through Everett to Wellington. It connects with Sullivan Square via Route 99 and then uses Rutherford Avenue to access Bunker Hill Community College. The longer tunnel for Alternative 4 would be a bored structure commencing at Melnea Cass Boulevard. The portal to the east of Ruggles Station would be located to pick up the proposed center median surface BRT route along Melnea Cass Boulevard. The tunnel would then pass beneath the existing boat section of Ruggles Station in an alignment approximately parallel and to the north of Ruggles Street. A mined station would be constructed beneath the existing Ruggles Station. The proposed station would require shafts at each end for tunnel ventilation, mechanical and electrical equipment, and passenger access. In the vicinity of Huntington and Longwood Avenues, the Alternative 4 alignment is the same as Alternative 3. From Ruggles Station, the alignment continues in a bored tunnel to Huntington Avenue, where a section of tangent level track would be provided to accommodate a cut and cover station in the vicinity of the Green Line E Branch station. As under Alternative 3, the preferred location for the Huntington Avenue station is assumed to be as close as possible to the intersection of Huntington and Longwood Avenues. Therefore, the station would be located at the southern end of the length of tangent running way beneath Huntington Avenue, placing the southern end of the platform approximately 450 feet from the intersection. As in Alternative 3, immediately after the underground station, the bored tunnel would make a turn to align with Longwood Avenue, passing underneath the building on the northern corner of Huntington and Longwood Avenues. The bored tunnel for Alternative 4 would then follow the existing alignment of Longwood Avenue with a section of tangent, level running way located at the intersection of Longwood and Brookline Avenues to accommodate an underground station. The alignment would continue in a westerly direction, passing beneath the Emerald Necklace and the Muddy River. A section of tangent, level running way would be provided beneath the Muddy River to allow construction of a mined station beneath the river in the vicinity of the Green Line “D” Branch Longwood Station. The proposed mined station would require shafts at each end for tunnel ventilation, mechanical and electrical equipment, and passenger access/egress. The tunnel would follow approximately the alignment of Borland Street, and cross Beacon Street toward the Amory Playground. A section of tangent, level running way across Beacon Street would accommodate an underground station in the vicinity of the existing Green Line “C” Branch Hawes Street station. At the northern end of the proposed station, a split would be constructed to allow two routes—one to Allston and one to Cambridge: • Allston Route: From the bifurcation point, the tunnel would follow the alignment of Cottage Farm Road to meet with Commonwealth Avenue. An underground station would be constructed within Commonwealth Avenue between St. Paul Street station and Boston University West station on the Green Line B Branch. The alignment would continue west along Commonwealth Avenue before turning north to pass beneath Alcom Street and the Commuter Rail and CSX rail yard. Another underground station would be provided beneath the storage area to the north of the rail tracks and south of the Turnpike toll plaza. The tunnel would pass beneath the plaza to emerge from a portal that runs parallel and to the east of the houses along Windom Street. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­67 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION • Cambridge Route: From the split, the tunnel would follow the alignment of Essex Street. An underground station would be provided along Essex Street to the south of Commonwealth Avenue before the tunnel alignment heads beneath the Charles River to Cambridge. The portal in Cambridge would be located relatively close to the river, immediately to the north of the Grand Junction Railroad. Following are descriptions of Alternative 4 in the various geographic sectors of the project corridor. Sector 1 – East Boston – Logan Airport terminals through Chelsea Creek. Same as Alternative 3. Sector 2 – Chelsea – Chelsea Creek through Mystic Mall in Chelsea. Same as Alternatives 2 and 3. Sector 3 ­ Everett – Mystic Mall Chelsea through Wellington. Same as Alternative 3. Sector 4 ­ Wellington – Wellington through Charlestown. Wellington is the terminus point for one route. The other route continues on a busway adjacent to the Rockport commuter rail line further south parallel to Route 99, then connects with Route 99 at Chemical Lane in Everett. At this point it follows mixed traffic on Route 99 to Sullivan Square, then uses the Rutherford Avenue alignment to reach Community College and the North Point busway viaduct. The BRT routes have connections with Orange Line at Wellington station, Sullivan Square and Community College. In addition to the MBTA rapid transit connections, Sullivan Square station makes a connection with Rockport Commuter Rail Line. Sector 5 – East Cambridge – New Lechmere through Kendall/MIT. Same as Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Sector 6 – Cambridge/Boston – Main Street through Boston University. The route through Cambridge is via two­way Albany Street in mixed traffic. In Lower Cambridgeport, the route connects into the railroad right before entering a tunnel portal and passing beneath the Charles River and continuing in tunnel beneath Brookline toward the LMA and Ruggles. There are intermediate underground stations at Boston University (Green Line B) and Hawes Street (Green Line C). Sector 7 – Allston/West Cambridge – BU Bridge through Harvard Square. The route is via a tunnel that branches off near BU and heads west beneath Commonwealth Avenue, the rail yard, and Cambridge Street to a portal on or near the proposed Stadium Way. The route then travels along bus lanes on Stadium Way and North Harvard Street, and in mixed traffic on JFK Street to Harvard Square Red Line Station. Intermediate stops are located at West Station Commuter Rail (underground) and near the corner of Western Avenue and Stadium Way. Sector 8 – Boston/LMA – Boston University through Ruggles. The route continues in tunnel from Sector 6 toward LMA and Ruggles beneath Longwood Avenue, Huntington Avenue, Ruggles Street, and Ruggles Station, to a portal in the center median of Melnea Cass Boulevard just east of Ruggles Station. There are intermediate underground stations on Longwood Avenue near Chapel Street (Green Line D, Longwood Station), at the intersection of Longwood Avenue and Brookline Avenue, and at the crossing of Longwood and Huntington Avenue (Green Line E, Longwood Medical Area Station). The route connects with Orange Line and Attleborough/Stoughton Commuter Rail Line at Ruggles Station. Sector 9 – Roxbury – Ruggles through Boston University Medical Center. The route is via Melnea Cass Boulevard center median busway to a connection with the Silver Line at Washington Street (with one Urban Ring BRT route serving Dudley Square directly via Washington Street). It then continues along Melnea Cass Boulevard center median busway to Albany Street and Crosstown Center in mixed traffic, then along Albany Street in bus lanes east of Massachusetts Avenue to the Boston Medical Center Station located on Albany Street between East Concord and East Newton Streets. Sector 10 – Dorchester – Crosstown Center through UMass Boston. Routing is the same as in Alternative 1 except it provides some sections of bus lanes. The route is via Hampden Street in mixed traffic and Dudley Street in bus lanes until it reaches Fairmount/Uphams. Then the route continues to JFK/UMass Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­68 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Red Line and Old Colony Commuter Rail Station in mixed traffic with intermediate stops at Blue Hill/Dudley Street intersection, Fairmount/Uphams Commuter Rail Station, Uphams Corner and Edward Everett Square. The route proceeds to its final stop at UMass Boston via bus lanes along Mount Vernon Street and loops back to JFK/UMass. Sector 11 – South Boston – Boston University Medical Center through World Trade Center. The route travels through highway interchanges I­90 and I­93 in mixed traffic to World Trade Center (Sliver Line) without making any intermediate stops. The route then runs through the Ted Williams Tunnel to Logan Airport. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­69 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­17 Build Alternative 4
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­70 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Build Alternative 4 Option 4A Option 4A, shown in Figure 3­18, is similar to Alternative 4 with the key differences being a Park Drive tunnel alignment between the LMA and BU, as well as the extension of the tunnel in Cambridge beneath Vassar Street to the vicinity of the Volpe Center near Kendall/MIT. The tunnel extension in Cambridge is as a means of mitigating noise, vibration and electromagnetic field impacts in the event these impacts cannot be reduced to acceptable levels using other mitigation measures. Option 4A also explores the possibility of maintaining connectivity with the Green Line branches, as Alternative 4 accomplishes, but with fewer stations. In addition, a longer length of tunnel in Cambridge would pass beneath the Red Line and surface at Binney Street. Option 4A follows the same route as for Alternative 4 from Melnea Cass Boulevard through to Longwood Avenue. However at the western end of Longwood Avenue, the Option 4A tunnel follows Brookline Avenue. From Brookline Avenue, the Option 4A tunnel would turn onto Park Drive and an underground station would be provided along Park Drive to the south of Beacon Street. This station would allow connection with the Green Line C Branch St Mary’s Street station and D branch Fenway station. The tunnel would continue along Park Drive and split at Mountfort Street to provide the following routes to Allston and Cambridge: • Allston Route: From the split, the tunnel would pass beneath the Mass Turnpike and follow the alignment of Commonwealth Avenue. An underground station would be provided in the vicinity of the Green Line “B” Branch Boston University West station. The tunnel would then follow the same alignment as the Alternative 4 alignment, with a station in the CSX rail yard and a portal in Allston. • Cambridge Route: From the split, the tunnel would pass beneath the Mass Turnpike. The tunnel would then pass beneath the Charles River to Cambridge, where it would emerge through a tunnel portal to surface level and follow the alignment of the Grand Junction Railroad. The alignment would then dive down in tunnel prior to Main Street to pass underneath the Red Line at Kendall Square and surface through a portal onto Binney Street. Option 4A is identical to Alternative 4 from Logan Airport to East Cambridge. Descriptions of Option 4A elements that differ from Alternative 4 are summarized below. Sector 5 – East Cambridge – New Lechmere through Kendall/MIT. The route starts from New Lechmere Station (Green Line “D” and “E” Branches) and travels via First Street in bus lanes and mixed traffic along Binney Street. The through route heading west enters a tunnel portal near the Binney Street side of the Volpe Center and continues in tunnel beneath the Red Line. Routes that terminate at Kendall/MIT Red Line Station from the north would use Binney Street in mixed traffic all the way around to Main Street eastbound, and then return via the bus­only connection across Broadway to Third Street. There are intermediate stops for all routes on First Street near the Galleria, for two routes at Binney Street/Third Street, and for one route at Fulkerson Street. Sector 6 – Cambridge/Boston – Main Street through Boston University. The route through Cambridge is via a tunnel beneath Vassar Street that passes beneath the Charles River. The tunnel continues beneath Mountfort Street and Park Drive toward the LMA and Ruggles. There is an intermediate underground station at BU (Green Line B) and other underground stations when the route reaches Sector 8. Sector 7 – Allston/West Cambridge – BU Bridge through Harvard Square. Same as Alternative 4. Sector 8 – Boston/LMA – Boston University through Ruggles. The route continues in tunnel toward LMA and Ruggles beneath Park Drive, Brookline Avenue, Longwood Avenue, Huntington Avenue, Ruggles Street, and Ruggles Station to a portal in the center median of Melnea Cass Boulevard just east of Ruggles Station. There are intermediate underground stations at Park Drive (Green Line C/D). The Huntington Avenue/Longwood Station is located at a close distance to the MBTA Green Line E, Longwood Medical Area Station. The route also connects with Orange Line and Attleborough/Stoughton Commuter Rail Line at Ruggles Station. Option 4A is identical to Alternative 4 within Sectors 9­11. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­71 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­18 Build Alternative 4A
Med fo r d
Ev e re t t
S om er vi ll e
Ch el se a
Eas t
Bos t on
Cam br i dg e
Br o ok li n e
S ou th Bo sto n
Ro xb u ry
Mixed Traffic
Buslane
Busway (Surface)
Busway (Tunnel)
Proposed Stop
Tunnel Portal
Base map data provided by MassGIS.
0
0.5
1
D or ch e ste r
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Alternative 4A
Miles
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­72 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.13.7 Hybrid Alternatives Considered As the development and technical evaluation of the nine Build Alternatives and options proceeded, it became evident that the length and complexity of the project corridor required an even greater level of flexibility in determining which routes and stations would be best suited to various geographic sections of the corridor. Therefore, in addition to evaluating each Build Alternative and option as a whole, the project team also assessed the potential independent utility and effectiveness of each alternative and option in all of the 11 individual geographic sectors. EOT worked closely with the CAC to eliminate the least effective elements of the Build Alternatives and options, thereby creating a family of three preliminary “Hybrid Alternatives” that contained the best­performing elements of the nine Build Alternatives and options within each sector. This hybrid exercise was a crucial step in the development of the LPA, as it identified the best­performing and cost­effective segments among the nine alternatives and options, thereby helping the project design to better respond to local and site­specific conditions with the most effective technical solutions available. The preliminary hybrid alternatives preserved all portions of the previous nine Build Alternatives and options that were feasible and effective. The Hybrid Alternatives allowed design and engineering to advance to an even more detailed technical level, which facilitated a more focused public and agency review for the selection of the LPA for the RDEIR/DEIS. During the hybrid evaluation process, the key differentiating factors in determining which elements from the Build Alternatives and options should be retained included: a. Performance in high ridership areas. The most promising components maximize ridership in segments of the corridor with strong travel demand characteristics and higher ridership, including: • Logan Airport / East Boston / Chelsea / Everett / Wellington Station. This is a four­mile segment of the Urban Ring that achieves high ridership. This is largely due to fast, frequent rapid transit service connecting Chelsea (and to a lesser degree Everett), which do not currently have rapid transit service, to the Orange Line at Wellington Station and to the Blue Line at Airport Station. This segment of the Urban Ring also provides a more direct transit connection from the north to Logan Airport (mostly employees). • Sullivan Square/New Lechmere/Kendall Square. There is a major concentration of research and technology jobs in the Kendall Square/East Cambridge/MIT area, but this area does not currently have good transit access to and from the north. Transit access requires a downtown transfer, and bus transfers are not convenient. The Urban Ring Phase 2 would provide fast, frequent connections from Sullivan Square to the Kendall Square/East Cambridge/MIT area for riders on the Orange Line, Haverhill Line commuter rail, Newburyport/Rockport Line commuter rail, and 12 MBTA bus routes. • North Allston. A number of alternative routings from the BU Bridge area through North Allston to Harvard Square have been identified and evaluated. The options evaluated are shown below with daily ridership for the BRT system. o
Busway to Stadium Way (184,000); o
Commonwealth Avenue Surface Route to Cambridge Street in mixed traffic to Stadium Way (170,900); o
Busway to North Harvard Street to Barry’s Corner (182,200); and o
Busway to Lincoln Street to Holton Street at Brighton Mills to Barry’s Corner to North Harvard Street (184,400). Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­73 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION EOT has been coordinating with the City of Boston and Harvard University regarding the Urban Ring alignment, dedicated right­of­ways, station locations and commuter rail locations. A series of public workshops and meetings have been held recently to discuss the options. The options are continuing to be refined and analyzed. • Boston University/Kenmore Square/Fenway/LMA/Crosstown/Boston University Medical Center. With its concentration of cultural, educational, medical, and research facilities, this segment of the corridor has high travel demand. The four branches of the Green Line, the Orange Line, the Needham Line commuter rail, the Franklin Line commuter rail, the Providence/Stoughton Line commuter rail, the Silver Line, the Fairmount Line commuter rail, and the Red Line all pass through this 4.5­mile segment of the corridor. However, a traveler’s destination within this corridor may be a significant distance from the most convenient radial transit line. The Urban Ring Phase 2 would provide fast, frequent and reliable connections from the radial transit lines to destinations within this segment of the corridor. b. Performance in weak ridership areas. An important factor is the potential for improved ridership in segments of the corridor that demonstrate weak ridership in some of the Build Alternatives. This ridership weakness is generally attributable to indirect, circuitous routing on congested roadways, with a reliance on mixed traffic operations, and it can be seen in several Build Alternatives in (route alignments through Gilman and Union Squares); north Dorchester (route alignments serving Dudley Street, Uphams Corner, Columbia Point, and UMass Boston); and South Boston. c. Cost. Costs, especially costs related to tunnel sections, since differences in tunnel length, number of underground stations, and alignment result in major cost differences. d. Cost­effectiveness. This is especially important in areas with significant traffic congestion on general traffic roadways. e. Proportion of dedicated right­of­way. This is especially important in areas with significant traffic congestion on general traffic roadways. f. Constituency of riders. This includes service to environmental justice and transit­dependent populations. g. Regional consistency. This is based on a review of each alternative’s consistency with and support for municipal and abutter plans, including land use plans, zoning, development proposals, institutional master plans, and transportation projects. h. Neighborhood and environmental impacts. It is important to minimize negative impacts to the greatest extent possible. The relative benefits of each of the evaluation factors were reviewed and compared. No quantitative weighting of factors was used in this process. The evaluation of these key factors resulted in a set of three preliminary Hybrid Alternatives that enabled the proponent to conduct more detailed technical analysis focusing on the most promising alignments. The proponent conducted thorough conceptual design and engineering for the Hybrid Alternatives, including the important transition points between different segments. Following is a summary of the key distinctions among the three preliminary hybrid alternatives: 3.13.7.1 Hybrid 1 Alternative Hybrid 1, shown in Figure 3­19, is most similar to Build Alternative 2, with the following exceptions: a. In Cambridge, Hybrid 1 utilizes the Alternative 1 pairing of the Grand Junction/Albany Street. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­74 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION b. Hybrid 1 uses the Mountfort Street surface routing in Brookline. c. In the northern arc of the project corridor (Segment A), Hybrid 1 is identical to Build Alternative 2, except that it incorporates the Wellington Circle routing from Build Alternative 1. d. In Segment B, Hybrid 1 includes the features of Build Alternative 2, except in Cambridgeport, where the routing follows the Grand Junction Railroad right­of­way westbound and Albany Street eastbound, as in Alternative 1. e. Hybrid 1 does not have bus lanes in the Fenway/LMA, and it follows Brookline Avenue (not Park Drive). f. In Segment C, Hybrid 1 has the features of Alternative 2, except that it eliminates the previously proposed bus lanes on Dudley Street and Mount Vernon Street. 3.13.7.2 Hybrid 2 Alternative Hybrid 2, shown in Figure 3­20, blends Build Alternatives 2 and 3 and their sub­options. The following are its principal differences from Hybrid 1: a. In East Boston, Hybrid 2 includes a station at Wood Island instead of at Neptune Road. b. West of Route 99, Hybrid 2 follows the Saugus Branch to Telecom Boulevard and crosses the Malden River via the proposed Telecom Boulevard Bridge. c. Hybrid 2 would implement a Wellington busway viaduct across the Orange Line and take a direct route via Assembly Square to Sullivan Square. d. Hybrid 2 would traverse an Inner Belt route to reach New Lechmere, as under Build Alternative 3B. e. In Cambridgeport, Hybrid 2 traverses Albany Street in both directions, with the aid of bus lanes. f. On the south side of the Charles River, Hybrid 2 connects to a surface busway beneath the Massachusetts Turnpike viaduct in Allston. g. The LMA routing for Hybrid 2 does not use the Fenway, but instead follows segments of bus lanes on Brookline Avenue; short sections of bus lane on Longwood Avenue (principally to accommodate station stops); and a bus­only connection via a new roadway known as the “Tetlow Street Extension;” this roadway, which had been previously proposed as a general traffic roadway, would require use of private property. h. In Dorchester, BRT traverses Massachusetts Avenue (with bus lanes) to Columbia Road, and service terminates at the JFK/UMass Red Line station. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­75 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­19 Hybrid Alternative 1
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­76 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­20 Hybrid Alternative 2
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­77 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.13.7.3 Hybrid 2T Alternative Hybrid 2T, which is shown in Figure 3­21, is identical to Hybrid 2 except in the area of the Longwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA), where it includes a 1.5­mile BRT tunnel between Yawkey Station and Ruggles Station. (The “T” designation in “Hybrid 2T” is for this tunnel.) 8
Sub­options that have also been evaluated for the tunnel section in the LMA include: a. The inclusion of an underground BRT only station adjacent to the Green Line “D” Branch in the vicinity of the existing Fenway Station (surface station). b. Tunnel beneath Park Drive, with a station beneath Park Drive to connect with the Green Line “C” and “D” Branches. A split portal arrangement along Mountfort Street would bring the BRT service back to ground level. c. Tunnel beneath Park Drive and the Mass Turnpike with a portal to the west of the Boston University bridge, allowing the BRT to connect with the Grand Junction Railroad bridge. Two underground stations would be provided, one at Park Drive and one immediately to the north of the Mass Turnpike, to connect with the Green Line “B”, “C” and “D” Branches. 3.13.7.4 Hybrid Evaluation Results The technical evaluation of these three preliminary hybrid alternatives resulted in the following findings and conclusions: • Alternative H1 produces higher ridership in the northern arc of the corridor (between Logan Airport and Medford) due to longer sections of dedicated busway; a more direct connection between Chelsea, Everett and the Orange Line at Wellington Station; and faster travel times resulting from these factors. • Alternative H2 is more effective through Somerville and Cambridge because it provides a more direct route between Sullivan Square and New Lechmere. It has significantly lower costs due to shorter viaduct sections and fewer railroad conflicts, and it provides new transit access for the Inner Belt district of Somerville, a major development opportunity and municipal priority. • Alternative H2 provides superior travel time and proportion of dedicated ROW from the BU Bridge to Allston Landing as a result of the busway alignment at the rail yard grade level. • The Alternative H2T tunnel provides the best service, travel time, reliability, and ridership due to a higher proportion of dedicated right­of­way and avoids the very high levels of traffic congestion in the Fenway and Longwood Medical and Academic Area. • Alternative H2 provides far superior travel time, proportion of dedicated ROW, ridership, and efficiency in the Dorchester segment (due to its use of a direct routing with bus lanes on Massachusetts Avenue) and the South Boston segment (due to its use of a direct routing with Red Line connection at Broadway Station). Additional alignment options were evaluated after the identification of alternatives and hybrids. These options came about from continued discussions with the Urban Ring communities and stakeholders regarding ongoing issues and concerns. One of these options included truncating the BRT 7 route at Yawkey Station so it would not continue to Kenmore Station. In addition, a new underground station at the Green Line D Branch between Sears Rotary and Parcel 7 was evaluated as an option. The evaluation results of these options are provided in Chapters 2 and 4. 8
Sub­options are discussed further in the Urban Ring Phase 2 Tunnel Alternatives Summary Report for the RDEIR/DEIS, November 2007. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­78 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­21 Hybrid Alternative 2T
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­79 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Data regarding evaluation criteria such as ridership and travel time are provided in Tables 4­12 and 4­23 and in Chapter 4 (Transportation Impacts and Mitigation). 3.14 Additional Tunnel Options Considered In response to input from the Citizen’s Advisory Committee and other stakeholders regarding the need for improved connectivity of the Preliminary LPA with the C and D Branches of the Green Line, the project team explored a number of options for modifying or extending the west end of the tunnel and moving or adding stations to improve Green Line connectivity and overall service. This section reviews the engineering feasibility for these additional tunnel options, and evaluates them relative to key measures of engineering feasibility, Green Line connectivity, commuter rail connectivity, ridership, cost, and compatibility with Phase 3. 3.14.1 Summary Descriptions The following is a summary of the three additional tunnel options that were evaluated. These are the “Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option,” the “Mountfort Street Split Portal Option,” and “BU Bridge Portal Option,” each of which has different portal and station characteristics at its northwestern end. The Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option would retain the tunnel alignment adjacent to the Green Line D Branch and would provide an underground additional station. The new underground station would be located near the western portal, at the Landmark Center adjacent to the Green Line D Fenway Station. This would require extending the portal slightly northward beneath Miner Street. In this option, service at Yawkey would have all three routes serving Yawkey station directly for connection with commuter rail. Direct connection with the Green Line D Branch would occur at the Fenway Station, and connection with the Green Line C Branch would be via walk connection to St. Mary’s Station. A Green Line B Branch connection would be at the BU Central Station on Commonwealth Avenue. BRT Route 7 in this option would terminate at Yawkey rather than at Kenmore Square. The Mountfort Street Split Portal Option would realign the tunnel beneath Park Drive and extend it to the Mountfort Street corridor. This option would have one additional underground station, which would be located beneath Park Drive, roughly between Beacon Street and the Green Line D Branch. This station would have headhouse access from the C Branch at Beacon Street (near St. Mary’s Station) and the D Branch at Fenway Station. It would surface in Mountfort Street in a split portal configuration, with a westbound portal surfacing just west of St. Mary’s Street and the eastbound portal surfacing just west of Carlton Street. The BU Bridge Portal Option would significantly extend the tunnel alignment and would add two new underground stations. It would extend the tunnel beneath Park Drive and the Massachusetts Turnpike, and portal near the BU Bridge. One new underground station would be located beneath Park Drive between the Fenway D Branch station and Beacon Street (a short walk to the St. Mary’s C Branch station). The other new underground station would be beneath Commonwealth Avenue near the BU Central B Branch Station. This option would bypass Kenmore Station (providing a more direct alignment). It would also bypass Yawkey Station (eliminating the direct connection to the Framingham/Worcester commuter rail, which would become a walk connection from the new underground Park Drive Station). 3.14.2 Engineering Feasibility Over the course of the RDEIR/DEIS planning process a wide range of different tunnel alignments, station locations, and portal configurations were reviewed, including six of the nine Build Alternatives. A key element of the tunnel alternatives evaluation has been a review of engineering feasibility, from the perspective of constructability as well as basic physical configuration. The following is a summary of the engineering feasibility of the three options under study. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­80 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option This option would modify the LPA by extending the proposed portal structure at the Landmark Center to include a shallow underground BRT station parallel to the Green Line “D” Branch. The portal structure would be extended to meet with the re­alignment of Maitland Street proposed by others. The following are principal issues with this option: • The available corridor width adjacent to the Landmark Center is relatively narrow, constrained by the Landmark Center to the south and the Green Line “D” Branch incline to the north. Construction of a station in this area would require the station walls to be located very close to both abutting structures. As a result, additional ground treatment and support measures may be required to enable construction. • This option would entail construction impacts, ventilation structures, and station access at the D Branch Fenway Station. • The relatively narrow corridor between the Landmark Center and the Green Line “D” Branch requires that the station platforms be staggered through this area to minimize the width of the station structure. • A pump house associated with the Green Line portal in the vicinity of Miner Street would need to be relocated. This may have temporary impacts on the parking lot at this site. • The gradient through the portal structure will be less than the maximum allowable gradient and would tie in with the surface grading plans proposed by others as part of the Parcel 7 Air Rights development. • The BRT route in this option would avoid the need to cross Miner Street at grade. The portal structure would prevent future surface roadway connection between existing Munson Street and Burlington Street. Mountfort Street Split Portal This option is based on input submitted to EOT by project stakeholders, and would require a realignment of the LPA tunnel to align with Pilgrim Road. The tunnel would follow the alignment of Pilgrim Road, making a turn to the west to pass beneath Park Drive and the Green Line D and C Branches. An underground BRT station would be constructed beneath Park Drive between the C Branch at Beacon Street and the Green Line D Branch with headhouses located to the north end (south side of Audubon Circle) and south end (immediately south of Fenway Station). The tunnel alignment would then continue north beneath Park Drive, making a turn to the west beneath Mountfort Street where a split portal arrangement would bring the northbound and southbound tunnel lanes up to existing grade in separate structures. The routing of the BRT service would need to include an additional length of tunnel and underground station. In addition, further surface routing modifications would be required to incorporate northbound BRT service over Carlton Street with a surface station over the Mass Turnpike, and southbound BRT service along Mountfort Street with a surface station to the south of Commonwealth Avenue. Construction of the portal structures and connecting tunnels would take place within Mountfort Street. The crossing beneath St Mary's Street would be relatively shallow as the alignment is just inside the portal at this location. This may conflict with the foundations of the St Mary's Street bridge, requiring protective works to the bridge or possibly re­construction. Construction work would also need to accommodate the topography to the north of Mountfort Street, including a steep drop to the Commuter Rail line, and maintenance and protection of traffic along Mountfort Street, Carlton Street, and St Mary’s Street. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­81 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION If an additional station were to be constructed on the “C” Branch to allow a direct vertical connection with the Urban Ring, the construction would likely cause major disruption to Audubon Circle. In any case, proximity of the proposed tunnel portals in this option to the existing Commuter Rail line may offer opportunities for the removal of excavated material and supply of materials during construction. However, the narrow, constrained alignment of Mountfort Street and the adjacent historic residential neighborhood of Cottage Farm would pose challenges to a tunnel servicing operation. The following are principal issues with this option: • The southbound portal would be inaccessible from the future southbound BRT route that uses the BU Academy and University Road alignment; this would necessitate Urban Ring use of the BU Bridge for crossing the Charles River, or the so­called “slip ramp” option to connect from the Grand Junction Railroad up to Commonwealth Avenue west of the BU Bridge. • The proposed portal structures would occupy a significant portion of Mountfort Street’s width. Mountfort Street currently accommodates four narrow lanes in approximately 40­45 feet; each of the two proposed portal structures would occupy at least 20 feet, which would reduce Mountfort Street to 20­25 feet. This means that if Mountfort Street were to remain in its current alignment, it would be reduced to one lane in each direction between St. Mary’s Street and Essex Street. Furthermore, these lanes would be offset from each other by approximately 20 feet in the vicinity of Carlton Street (due to the fact that the eastbound portal is along the south side of the street and the westbound portal is along the north side of the street). This would either result in significant roadway design and traffic operations impacts or else it would require a major reconstruction and widening of Mountfort Street. • Construction of the Urban Ring tunnel in this option between the Green Line C Branch tunnel and the D Branch would likely require additional ground treatment and protective works. • This option would entail construction impacts, ventilation structures, and station access at Audubon Circle, as well as at the D Branch Fenway Station. • The proximity of the proposed tunnel portals in this option to the existing Commuter Rail line may offer opportunities for the removal of excavated material and supply of materials during construction. However, the narrow, constrained alignment of Mountfort Street and the adjacent historic residential neighborhood of Cottage Farm would pose challenges to locating and operating construction laydown and removal of tunnel excavate. • The portal structures are inconsistent with any future re­alignment of Mountfort Street, such as the one proposed by Boston University. • The portal structures would have permanent impacts and construction phase impacts on the historic Cottage Farm neighborhood. • The proposed tunnel alignment would eliminate the direct BRT connection with the Framingham/ Worcester commuter rail line at Yawkey Station. • The station platform shown on Mountfort Street is very close to the intersection and is also on a curve. The location of this station platform is limited by the gradient required to enter the tunnel. • This option reduces the utility of tunnel alignments for Urban Ring Phase 3. A large portion of the tunnel would be inconsistent with a Phase 3 alignment through Kenmore Square because it passes beneath Park Drive toward the BU Bridge/Allston. In addition, a large portion of the tunnel would be inconsistent with a Phase 3 alignment toward the BU Bridge/Allston because it ascends to portal in Mountfort Street, while a Phase 3 tunnel would need to descend to pass beneath the Mass Turnpike. In summary, the engineering, construction, and compatibility issues with municipal and institutional plans seriously impact the feasibility of this option. For this reason, it was concluded that this option should not Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­82 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION be pursued in its current configuration. Instead, this option was modified to achieve the objectives of the proposal in a feasible configuration that would extend the tunnel to the BU Bridge; this is described below as the BU Bridge Portal Option. BU Bridge Portal Option This option is a reconfiguration of the Mountfort Street Split Portal Option. Instead of the tunnel surfacing along Mountfort Street, it would stay at depth, pass beneath the Mass Turnpike and head toward the BU Bridge where the alignment would connect with the Grand Junction Railroad (GJRR) through a portal structure emerging from beneath the Boston University Bridge approach road. Two underground stations would be provided, one beneath Park Drive (as in the option to extend the tunnel to Mountfort Street) and one adjacent and to the north of the Mass Turnpike between St Mary’s Street and Carlton Street. The routing of the BRT service would be modified from the LPA to include the additional length of tunnel and underground stations. Construction of the underground station between Carlton Street and St Mary’s Street would be relatively straightforward, but it relies on the BU buildings within the footprint being demolished as part of BU’s institutional master planning. Construction of the portal beneath the BU Bridge approach road would require careful phasing to ensure maintenance of traffic. The short length of tunnel between the portal and the underground station between Carlton Street and St. Mary’s Street would like be constructed using the sequential excavation method or by extending the cut and cover structures for the portal and station. The following are some of the key issues related to the BU Bridge Portal Option: • As with the Mountfort Street Split Portal option, construction of the Urban Ring tunnel between the Green Line C Branch tunnel and the D Branch would likely require additional ground treatment and protective works; • This option would entail construction impacts, ventilation structures, and station access at Audubon Circle, as well as at the D Branch Fenway Station; • As with the Mountfort Street Split Portal, this option also reduces the flexibility of tunnel alignments for Urban Ring Phase 3; • The proximity of the proposed tunnel portal in this option to the Commuter Rail line and the Grand Junction Rail Line and Beacon Park Rail Yard may offer opportunities for the removal of excavated material and supply of materials during construction; • As with the Mountfort Street Split Portal option, the proposed tunnel alignment would eliminate the direct BRT connection with the Framingham/ Worcester commuter rail line at Yawkey Station; and • Operationally, this route offers a direct connection with the GJRR busway bridge without entering mixed traffic. 3.14.3 Performance The benefits of the Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option include a direct connection with the Green Line D Branch and an improved walk distance to the Green Line C Branch St Mary’s Street Station (500’ shorter than walking to the C Line at Kenmore). The Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option provides somewhat higher ridership than the Landmark Portal Option because of improved Green Line D Branch and C Branch connections. It also eliminates the need for a connection into the congested Kenmore Square bus terminal. The BU Bridge Portal Option also provides a direct connection with the Green Line D Branch, and does so by providing a headhouse from the south end of its Park Drive underground station. The north end of Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­83 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION the same station can provide a headhouse at Audubon Circle with walk access to St. Mary’s station on the C Branch. The BU Bridge Portal Option provides no station stop at Yawkey. It achieves a faster travel time due to a combination of more direct routing and the higher speed of extending the busway tunnel. Ridership is higher than the Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option due primarily to the higher travel speed. While the BU Bridge Portal Option provides better Green Line connectivity, it provides no direct connection with commuter rail and requires a longer walk distance to reach Yawkey Station from Audubon Circle. 3.14.4 Costs The added capital cost of the different options compared to the current LPA is shown in Table 3­12 below. The BU Bridge Portal Option is significantly higher cost than the Landmark Portal Option or the Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option due to additional length of tunnel and underground stations. Table 3­12: Summary Comparison of Additional Tunnel Options with Preliminary LPA Preliminary LPA Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option BU Bridge Portal Option Base Same 2,080 1 2 3 Infrastructure Added Tunnel Length (feet) Underground Stations Green Line Connectivity B Branch (walk distance/time) 1010’/3.8 min 1010’/3.8 min 790’/2.9 min C Branch (walk distance/time) 1,640’/6.2 min 1,150’/4.4 min 840’/3.2 min D Branch (walk distance/time) 1,640’/6.2 min 220’/0.8 min 220’/0.8 min direct direct 1270 ft/5 min LMA Station to Kendall Station 13 min 14 min 11 min LMA Station to Harvard Square 18 min 19 min 16 min 135,320 +5% (approx.) +12% (approx.) Base $160 million $683 million Kenmore or Park Drive Kenmore or Park Drive Park Drive Commuter Rail Connectivity Yawkey (walk distance/time) Travel Time Ridership 2030 BRT5, BRT6, BRT7 daily riders Cost Capital Cost above Prelim LPA ($2007) Phase 3 Alignment Choices 3.14.5 Phase 3 Compatibility The Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option is same as the Landmark Portal Option: both could accommodate either Kenmore or Park Drive Phase 3 alignment. The BU Bridge Portal Option would only be consistent a Park Drive alignment for Phase 3, but would provide a longer tunnel for future conversion to Phase 3 operation. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­84 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Conclusions and Recommendation The Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option provides a significantly improved Green Line connection, particularly for the D Branch, and provides increased ridership for a much lower incremental cost than the BU Bridge Portal Option. It preserves the options of either a Kenmore or Park Drive alignment for Urban Ring Phase 3. However, the additional station stop does add to the travel time for some trips. By comparison, the BU Bridge Portal Option provides a further improvement to the Green Line connectivity for the C Branch, while being essentially the same as the Landmark Portal Option and the Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option for Green Line D and B. It requires a longer walk distance to the commuter rail at Yawkey Station compared to either the Landmark Portal Option or the Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option. The routing beneath Park Drive provides for more direct and faster travel times for key O/D pairs compared to the Landmark Portal Option or the Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option, which route further east to reach Yawkey. However, the BU Bridge Portal Option has a significantly higher capital cost, limits the Phase 3 alignment to Park Drive and presents a significant engineering and construction challenge for tying in the relatively shallow profile of the Phase 2 west portal with a future Phase 3 tunnel alignment under the Charles River. Therefore, it is recommended that the Landmark Portal with Fenway Station Option be included in the recommended LPA. 3.15 Busway Tunnel Alternatives 3 and 4 and their various options described in the previous section (including the Hybrid Alternatives) contain tunnels and underground stations. This section provides background information related to the tunnel elements of those alternatives, and presents the key design criteria used in developing the tunnels and a brief narrative of the key tunnel features. This section also outlines some of 9
the main issues in relation to constructability, operation, and potential conversion to Phase 3 (rail). 3.15.1 Tunnel Background The provision of dedicated right­of­way (ROW) in the form of busways and bus lanes is central to effective and efficient operation of the Urban Ring Phase 2. Wherever possible, surface busways or bus lanes have been proposed for the Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT service. In areas where busways or bus lanes are not feasible, the Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT service may need to operate in mixed traffic. There are, however, some areas in the Urban Ring Phase 2 corridor where significant segments of dedicated ROW are not available and heavy traffic congestion limits the speeds that are possible for BRT vehicles operating in mixed traffic. In order to address these challenges, the Urban Ring Phase 2 project investigated the potential travel time improvements, ridership benefits, construction impacts, and cost implications of tunnels in certain segments of the corridor. The tunnel analysis encompassed a range of different tunnel lengths and connections, but all of the tunnel options include a segment beneath the Longwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA). The LMA has a very high density of travel demand, making it an important hub for Urban Ring Phase 2 service, but also very high levels of traffic congestion and limited opportunities for dedicated ROW at the surface. Given the high (and growing) travel demand in the LMA, frequently severe traffic congestion, and the potential negative impacts that LMA traffic congestion could have on Urban Ring surface operations, the alternatives analysis has included a thorough review of the potential benefits, impacts, and challenges of tunnel segments. 9
Additional Tunnel information is provided in Urban Ring Phase 2 Tunnel Alternatives Summary Report for the RDEIR/DEIS, November 2007. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­85 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.15.2 Tunnel Definitions The following is list of definitions relevant to the discussion of tunnels in this section. • Tunnel portal approach ramp = Open retained cut that takes the alignment from grade level to the tunnel portal. • Tunnel portal = The interface point of the open cut and the cut and cover tunnel. • Cut and cover tunnel = The tunnel where an open cut is deep enough to be covered over with a roof. • Tunnel eye = The interface point of a cut and cover tunnel and a bored/mined tunnel. • Tunnel portal structure = All structural elements associated with the transition from a grade level alignment to a bored/mined tunnel alignment. 3.15.3 Physical Context and Constraints The physical context and constraints associated with the tunnel alternatives are described in the Environmental Chapter (Chapter 5). 3.15.4 Tunnel Standards and Characteristics In order to develop alignments and conceptual designs for the Urban Ring Phase 2 tunnel, it was necessary for the project team to set certain technical parameters and assumptions. These include a wide range of design criteria, including appropriate tunnel dimensions and alignment criteria. In the course of developing technical parameters and tunnel alignment options for Urban Ring Phase 2, the project team also gave significant consideration to the potential for converting the tunnel for use in Urban Ring Phase 3, which would use rail, either light rail or heavy rail, as the mode of transport. In analyzing the various Urban Ring Phase 2 tunnel options, the project team has taken care to ensure that the Urban Ring Phase 2 proposals accomplish the following, where possible: • Do not preclude the development of Urban Ring Phase 3 in any form that may reasonably be expected (e.g. light rail or heavy rail, in a range of potential alignments); and • Include some minor alterations where possible to Urban Ring Phase 2 that would facilitate the transition to Urban Ring Phase 3. 3.15.4.1 Tunnel Design Criteria This section provides a summary of the design criteria used in the development of tunnel alternatives for Urban Ring Phase 2. These design criteria helped to inform choices and assumptions about tunnel geometry, design, alignment, and construction assumptions for the tunnel alternatives. The tunnel design criteria include the following: • Spatial Requirements; • Alignment; • Underground Stations; • Tunnel Systems and Operation; and • Fire Life Safety. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­86 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Each of these design criteria is discussed separately below. Tunnel Spatial Requirements The vehicular clearance envelope required for a single lane uni­directional tunnel busway is shown in Figure 3­22. This design is based on a preferred lane width of 12.0­ft and a 14.5­ft minimum vertical clearance to any structure. The clear vertical distance to any tunnel services or signage suspended above the roadway is taken to be 15.0­ft, allowing an additional 0.5­ft vertical clearance. In addition to these dimensions, 3­ft wide walkways would be provided along each side of the roadway, where practicable. Alternatively, the walkway width may be reduced to 2­ft with 1­ft deep niches (7.5­ft high and 2­ft long at 20­ft centers). In all of the alternatives examined, walkways are provided throughout the tunnel, either with or without niches, to allow for safe access during routine maintenance operations, without the need to close the tunnel. Further analysis of the spatial provisions will be required during preliminary engineering to confirm that the operational and emergency response requirements can be accommodated. Figure 3­22 BRT Clearance Envelope (One­way Tunnel Busway) 16'­0"
15'­0"
1'­0"
12'­0"
MINIMUM WITHOUT NICHE
MINIMUM WITH NICHE
1'­0"
6'­0"
CL
7'­6"
14'­6"
STRUCTURE
GAGE
NICHE
(1'­0" DEEP)
ROADWAY SURFACE
Additional elements that need to be incorporated in the tunnel cross section but are not yet defined at this stage may include: signaling and signage; lighting; fire­life safety systems; and drainage. Some of these items can be incorporated within the required tunnel cross section. Other elements would require special design and construction accommodation. Phase 3 would involve conversion of the BRT tunnels for use by either light rail or heavy rail. The clearance envelope for Phase 3 has been based on those for the MBTA Green Line and Orange Line for light rail and heavy rail, respectively. The clearances are shown in Figure 3­23. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­87 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­23 Phase 3 Clearance Envelope (Rail)
8'­6"
PREFERRED
8'­0"
6'­6"
3'­9"
MINIMUM WITHOUT NICHE
MINIMUM WITH NICHE
7'­6"
STRUCTURE
GAGE
10'­3"
14'­6" (GREEN LINE)
15'­0" (ORANGE LINE)
CL TRACK
NICHE
(1'­0" DEEP)
TOP OF RAIL
Tunnel Alignment The horizontal and vertical alignment criteria used to set out the alternative tunnel alignments are summarized in Table 3­13. The criteria are presented with respect to Phase 2 BRT and Phase 3 light rail/heavy rail. The tunnel alignments have been developed, as far as practicable, to be in conformance with the requirements of Phase 3. However, there are certain locations where compliance with Phase 3 criteria has not been achieved for reasons relating to constructability, Phase 2 operability, or for other technical reasons. Where Phase 3 compatibility has not been achieved for a specific tunnel alignment, this fact has been noted, along with remedial actions that would need to be taken in order to enable Phase 3 implementation. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­88 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­13: Summary of Tunnel Alignment Criteria
Horizontal Alignment
Minimum tangent length
General
Beyond station platform
Minimum radius
General
Approaching station
Absolute minimum
Minimum length of curve
Reverse curves
Minimum tangent length between curves
Vertical Alignment
Gradients ­ general
Minimum grade
Preferred maximum grade
Absolute maximum grade
Preferred minimum length
Absolute minimum length
Gradients ­ stations
Preferred grade
Maximum grade
Vertical curve
Minimum length ­ crest
Minimum length ­ sag
Absolute minimum length
L = length of curve in feet
D = algebraic difference in grade (%)
V = train speed in miles per hour
* Based on 30 mph design speed
BRT
Light Rail
Heavy Rail
­
­
75 ft
­
75 ft
65 ft
250 ft
­
100 ft
­
250 ft
­
150 ft
­
1800 ft
700 ft
700 ft
75 ft
­
75 ft
­
­
5.0%
8.0%
­
­
­
5.0%
7.0%
200 ft
75 ft
­
3.0%
4.0%
200 ft
75 ft
­
­
­
1.0%
0.0%
0.5%
L = 32.8 D *
L = 39.4 D *
­
L = 0.034 DV
2
L = 0.034 DV
70 ft
2
L = 0.0344 DV
2 × L
100 ft
2
It is acknowledged that allowing for future conversion to heavy rail imposes certain restrictions on horizontal radii and on gradients. For current planning purposes, a minimum horizontal radius of 700­ft has been assumed to allow for Phase 3 rail conversion. Sharper horizontal radii (less than 700­ft) can be achieved, and some alignment options that have been developed with tighter radii are compatible with light rail vehicles only as a result. In general, however, options are being developed to be heavy rail compatible in order to keep open all potential Phase 3 recommendations from the MIS. Underground Stations The controlling factors for the overall length of the station construction will be the platform length required; the vertical circulation elements (passenger access and egress); and the ventilation equipment to be located at each end of the station. An underground platform length of 220­ft has been assumed for Phase 2, which is comparable to the MBTA Silver Line platform length. Additional factors affecting the final station dimensions will include the requirements for plant and equipment rooms and vertical circulation elements and site constraints. The platform lengths for Phase 2 and Phase 3 underground stations are shown in Table 3­14. Additional factors affecting the final station dimensions will include the requirements for plant and equipment rooms, substations, communications equipment, machine rooms, fare collection facilities, vertical circulation elements, and site constraints. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­89 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­14: Tunnel Station Platform Lengths
Phase Platform Length Phase 2 – BRT 220­ft Phase 3 – Light Rail 300­ft Phase 3 – Heavy Rail 410­ft The major items to be considered for conversion of the stations from Phase 2 to Phase 3 will be: • Extension of the station and platforms; • Installation of track; • Installation of rail systems and signaling; • Modifications to the tunnel ventilation and fire life safety systems; • The elevation of the station platform; • The potential requirement for crossovers; • Impacts to private property and park; land • Environmental impacts, including noise, vibration and electro­magnetic field interference. The project team reviewed different options for accessing the underground station platforms, either from a central location along the platform (center­loaded) or from the end of the platform (end­loaded). In general, spatial constraints in relation to buildings, foundations, and other existing infrastructure would be a governing factor in the arrangement of access to the platforms. Depending on the alternative alignment developed, potential station locations were investigated at the following locations: • Ruggles; • Huntington Ave (Green Line “E” Branch); • Longwood Ave – at Avenue Louis Pasteur or at Brookline Avenue; • Yawkey Commuter Rail; • Boston University Bridge (west, east and central); • Longwood (Green Line “D” Branch); • Hawes Street (Green Line “C” Branch); • Park Drive (Green Line “C” and “D” Branches); and • West Station (Allston). A summary table comparing the stations provided by each alternative and the approximate tunnel lengths is given in Table 3­15. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­90 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­15: Tunnel Alternatives Summary Comparison
Hu
Ru
gg
le
s
n
(G ti n g
re to
en n
L o L i Av
ng ne e
(A w o " E
"
ve o
L d B r
L o o u A ve an c
is n
h)
n
( B gw o P a s u e
ro o
t
o k d e u
Y a l i n A v e r)
e n
w
(P ke y A ve u e
ar
)
ce
Y a l 7)
w
ke
y/
Ke
nm
Lo
or
ng
e
(G w o
re o
en d
Ha L i
ne
w
(G es " D
re St
"
en re Br
an
P a L i et
ch
ne
rk
)
(G Dr "C
" r e iv
B
e
en
ra
Bo L i
nc
h)
st n e
o
"
(G n
re U C" &
e n ni
B o L i v er " D "
st n e si ty B r
(s o n “ B W an
ou U
” e
B r s t ch e
t h ni
s)
B o o f v er an c
st B U si ty h )
o
(G n
B C
r e
re U
en ni idg ntr
v
e ) al
L e
W
es ine rsi
t
t S
“ y
ta B ” C e
tio B nt
r a ra
n
nc l
h)
Alter native 3 (Opt ion 1 )
�
�
�
Ruggles ­ Yawkey
Mountfort Street ­ BU Bridge
Alter native 3 (Opt ion 2 )
�
�
�
Ruggles ­ Yawkey
Mountfort Street ­ Allston
Alter native 3 A
�
�
�
Ruggles ­ Yawkey
Alter native 3 B
�
�
Ruggles ­ Park Drive
Alter native 3 C
�
�
�
�
Ruggles ­ Allston
Alter native 4
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Ruggles to Cambridge
Allston Branch
Alter native 4 A
3
1 2 ,5 0 0
3
0
9,800
2,700
3
1 7 ,1 0 0
3
0
9,800
7,300
3
9 ,8 0 0
3
9,800
2
7 ,9 0 0
2
7,900
4
1 7 ,7 0 0
4
17,700
8
2 3 ,3 0 0
6
2
15,500
7,800
7
3 0 ,5 0 0
5
2
22,200
8,300
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Ruggles to Cambridge
(& Kendall Sq)
Allston Branch
Total Number of Underground Stations
Total Length of Tunnel *
(feet)
* length of tunnel is approximate and includes portal structures and underground stations
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­91 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION Tunnel Systems and Operation There will be a number of systems required within the tunnel and associated structures to enable the safe operation of BRT services. These include tunnel ventilation, tunnel lighting, electrical and safety equipment, drainage, and vehicle recovery. Tunnel ventilation and fire life safety are described below. Tunnel Ventilation The general objective of a tunnel ventilation system is to ensure a safe and tenable environment under reasonably anticipated operating conditions for passengers and employees, covering normal, congested, and emergency scenarios. The tunnel ventilation system will need to address the implications of vehicle engine choice for the BRT vehicles. The four main options considered are: • Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD); • Compressed Natural Gas (CNG); • Dual Mode (electrified trolley bus in the tunnels); and • Hybrid Electric (battery powered in the tunnels). Ventilation of the tunnels may be broadly classified as natural, vehicle­induced, and mechanical. Natural ventilation relies on the pressure difference between the tunnel portals and shafts created by changes in elevation, air temperature, and wind. Vehicle­induced ventilation is due to the piston effect of vehicles moving through the tunnels. It is assumed that both dual­mode and hybrid vehicles will be 100 percent electrically operated within the tunnel (the diesel engines will be completely shut­off), and as such underground emissions are not applicable to these vehicle choices. The ventilation implications (both operational and emergency) associated with BRT vehicle engine choice are summarized below: • The size of the emergency ventilation plant will likely be similar for all four vehicle engine options. Further investigation will be necessary to more accurately estimate the peak fire heat release rate and fire growth associated with the selected vehicle. • The presence of combustion engines for ECD and CNG options introduces pollutants in the tunnels and stations. It is considered likely that mechanical ventilation will be required during normal and/or congested bus operations to provide sufficient control and removal of contaminants. This may consist of operating the emergency/primary ventilation systems at a reduced mode, or may require that discrete ventilation be available in the stations. Normal mode operation will result in higher costs due to power and maintenance. • Mechanical ventilation may be required for normal/congested operation to ensure adequate removal of heat from all vehicle choices (such as engines and air conditioning) and to provide sufficient air exchange for passengers and employees. For ECD and CNG, this would be combined with the pollutant control requirement. For electrically driven vehicles, this may mean some operation of system fans, however the requirement will certainly be less than that for buses equipped with internal combustion engines (ICEs). Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­92 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION • The ventilation system will need to be designed for the ultimate peak fire size considering both the BRT and the Phase 3 rail vehicle technology. Preliminary assessments of the tunnel ventilation system requirements were performed. Assuming a single bored tunnel with a central dividing wall, jet fans would not be required in the running tunnels (such a single bored tunnel is the assumed tunnel configuration). If twin bored tunnels were implemented, ventilation requirements may be different. The conceptual tunnel ventilation system would require fan plants to be located at each end of underground stations and at tunnel portals. For longer sections of tunnel, ventilation shafts may be required at intermediate locations. Based on the design criteria and assumptions, none of the alignment alternatives identified would require ventilation ducting within the running tunnels. Fire Life Safety The fire life safety and fire protection of the tunnel require assessment of and planning for the following features: • Emergency egress; • Emergency ventilation; • Fire protection of structures; • Fire detection; • Fire fighting equipment and systems; • Communication systems; • Traffic control; • Drainage; and • Emergency response plans. Fire detection systems and communication systems can typically be accommodated within the tunnel structures without impacting upon the required tunnel cross section. The project team has determined that there is potential for this accommodation at a conceptual design level; more specific details of these systems would be developed at a later stage in design. The key criteria at this stage in the planning process are the emergency egress requirements for road tunnels (defined in the Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways, NFPA 502, 2004) which state that the spacing between emergency exits should not be more than 1000­ft. Where tunnels are divided by a minimum of 2­hour fire­rated construction or where the tunnels are in twin bores, cross passageways can be used instead of emergency exits. Cross passageways should have a maximum spacing of 656­ft. These requirements impact different tunnel configurations to varying degrees and are discussed later in this chapter. 3.15.5 Construction Methodology There are a number of potentially feasible construction methodologies that could be used to construct the Urban Ring tunnels. They can be grouped into three main types: cut and cover tunnels (including the top­down method); tunnel boring machine (TBM) bored tunnels; and sequential excavation method (SEM) mined tunnels with a sprayed concrete lining. Each has advantages and disadvantages and some are more suited to particular ground types, tunnel configurations, and environments than others. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­93 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION Any tunneling method will cause ground movements and the ground movements will be affected by tunnel depth, tunnel diameter, geology, and the quality of construction. Some methods produce larger ground movements than others, but in all cases, building settlement assessments should be carried out as necessary to determine the potential for unacceptable movements. The outcome of the building settlement assessments should assist in determining the need for underpinning, ground treatment or other protective measures. The cost and disruption of such measures should be balanced with the cost and disruption of alternative construction methods. The three tunneling methods were evaluated to determine which method or methods would be appropriate for the Urban Ring Phase 2 tunnel, given the requirements and constraints of the project and the corridor. The intent of this evaluation process was to make an initial recommendation of viable construction methods to be used for alignment alternatives analysis. The primary purpose of making this initial recommendation was to allow a more transparent comparison of the numerous alignment alternatives. This initial selection of construction methodology has not precluded the development of a viable alignment alternative. The decision on which construction methods to be used to build the preferred busway tunnel, including portals, running tunnels, and stations, remains open. This decision will depend on the final alignment and will require a much greater level of geotechnical information than currently exists for any alignment, and will therefore be evaluated during future planning and preliminary engineering processes. Cut and Cover Tunnel The cut and cover technique will require earth support systems to be installed prior to the main excavation. There are different methods that can be used to provide the earth support, including: slurry walls; bored pile walls; and sheet pile walls. Ground treatment is likely to be required at the base of the main excavation to reduce the insitu permeability and minimize groundwater flows. The traditional cut and cover method requires the ground to be open for the duration of construction and the main excavation takes place with full surface access. Temporary propping and intermediate slabs are installed and the structure is subsequently backfilled to restore the ground surface. In urban environments, the use of the top­down method (i.e. installing the perimeter walls and roof prior to main excavation beneath) of cut and cover tunneling is advantageous over other cut and cover techniques in relation to minimizing impacts to the general public during construction. The top­down method requires installation of the perimeter walls and a roof deck prior to commencement of the main excavation. The roof deck allows traffic flows to be restored while construction takes place beneath. The major advantages and disadvantages of the cut and cover tunnel construction method with respect to planning a tunnel within the Urban Ring Phase 2 corridor are: Advantages • Generally less expensive than underground tunneling methods for shorter lengths and relatively shallow depths because of simpler excavation methods; • Generally shorter overall construction duration for shorter lengths of tunnel; • Underground obstructions can usually be handled without excessive increases in cost and schedule; • Flexibility in terms of horizontal alignments if other constraints allow (e.g. building foundations etc) and in tunnel cross section; and Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­94 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION • Construction in close proximity to existing buildings is achievable with good control of ground movements. Disadvantages • Major construction phase impacts and disruption due to open excavation, including lane closures, temporary relocation of building access points, and diversion of traffic. • Impacts will be experienced along the full length of the tunnel due to open excavation; • Less economical for longer lengths of tunnel; • Major right­of­way and property requirements for excavation; and • Major utility diversions likely to be required. SEM Mined Tunnel The sequential excavation method (SEM) involves excavation of the tunnel using standard construction equipment. The tunnel is usually lined in two steps: an initial lining of sprayed concrete provides immediate support and a subsequent secondary or permanent lining is then placed using either sprayed concrete or cast insitu concrete. A waterproof membrane is usually installed between the primary and secondary linings. The SEM relies on the insitu ground having suitable properties to remain stable following excavation and until such time as the initial support can be placed – known as stand­up time. Where the stand­up time is not sufficient, then additional ground pre­support methods or ground treatment methods are required to stabilize the excavation. In addition, the tunnel heading can be sub­divided into a number of smaller excavation headings to minimize the size of the exposed face. Closure of the tunnel lining ring is important in controlling ground movements and ensuring stability of the excavation. The major advantages and disadvantages of the SEM mined tunnel construction method with respect to planning a tunnel within the Urban Ring Phase 2 corridor are: Advantages • Flexibility in terms of horizontal alignments if other constraints allow (e.g. building foundations etc) and in tunnel cross section. The tunnel cross section does not need to be circular as for a TBM bored tunnel and this can lead to optimization of the tunnel cross section and reduced costs; • Generally shorter overall construction duration for shorter lengths of tunnel; • Underground obstructions can usually be handled without excessive increases in cost and schedule; • Minimizes surface disruption as the majority of the construction work takes place below ground (with the exception of portal and station locations); • Limits the material handling (supply and removal) to discrete locations rather than the entire length of the tunnel; and Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­95 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION • Minimizes the need for utility diversions. Disadvantages • Significant ground treatment may be required to stabilize the excavation during tunneling, as the tunnel is not sealed off from the ground water pressure as it is with a pressurized face TBM driven tunnel; • Less economical for longer lengths of tunnel; and • Shallow vertical tunnel alignments may result in ground movements that pose potential for structural damage to nearby buildings, thereby requiring protective works (e.g. compensation grouting). TBM Bored Tunnel Tunnel boring machine (TBM) bored tunnels require the procurement of a custom­made TBM – a specialized and expensive piece of construction equipment. The TBM is then assembled within a launch chamber at one end of the tunnel alignment from which it is launched to bore through the ground. The front of the TBM is equipped with a cutterhead on which a number of cutting tools are mounted. The cutting tools are designed to suit the geological conditions anticipated to be encountered during the tunnel drive. The cutting tools excavate the ground and the resulting excavated material is then removed from behind the cutterhead. The excavated material is transported back through the tunnel to the launch point where it can be raised to the surface and removed from the site by rail or by truck. As the tunnel is bored, reinforced precast concrete segments are installed behind the TBM to form the tunnel lining. The annular void between the outside of the segmental lining and the ground is filled with grout to ensure full contact between the ground and the lining and to minimize ground surface settlements. The major advantages and disadvantages of the TBM bored tunnel construction method with respect to planning a tunnel within the Urban Ring Phase 2 corridor are: Advantages • Efficient for longer tunnels – in terms of both cost and schedule – as economies of scale are realized for the capital investment in the TBM and precast concrete lining assembly; • Good control of ground movements through the use of pressurized face TBMs with gasketted precast concrete linings and continuous grouting operations; • Suitable for construction in soft ground below the water table; • Minimizes surface disruption as the majority of the construction work takes place below ground (with the exception of portal and station locations); • Limits the material handling (supply and removal) to discrete locations rather than the entire length of the tunnel; and • Minimizes the need for utility diversions. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­96 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION Disadvantages • More expensive for shorter lengths of tunnel owing to the capital investment in the TBM and the precast concrete lining assembly; • Dealing with underground obstructions can potentially be costly and time­consuming; • Shallow vertical tunnel alignments may result in ground movements that pose potential for structural damage to nearby buildings, thereby requiring protective works (e.g. compensation grouting); • Horizontal tunnel alignments are potentially limited by the capability of the TBM (this can be mitigated through the use of short cut and cover sections to negotiate tighter horizontal radii); • Tunnel material handling (supply and removal) will be concentrated in discrete locations. Although it is a benefit to avoid disturbance along the entire alignment, as would be the case for cut and cover tunneling, focusing the work in discrete locations will intensify the impacts as these points; and • Changes in tunnel diameter are not achievable without other construction methods. Running Tunnels The three construction methods described above were considered for the construction of the running tunnels. The evaluation of each technique and the selection of a viable method for current planning purposes is described below. The cut and cover method was not recommended for use in planning the Urban Ring Phase 2 running tunnels for the following reasons: • Physical constraints and heavy traffic demand make it impossible to allow extended roadway closure on the principal Huntington Avenue – Longwood Avenue – Brookline Avenue tunnel alignment. Even if the open excavation period were minimized through phasing and expedited roadway restoration (which would increase costs), traffic on these roadways, and access to buildings, would still be severely affected for extended periods. • Cut and cover construction would have major impacts on sensitive environmental and open space resources (in particular the Emerald Necklace parkway system) on and near the proposed tunnel alignment. Outside of the more environmentally sensitive zones, environmental impacts would still be significant (e.g. noise, dust etc.). • Lack of available public right­of­way corridors for key components of the corridor would require significant land takings to allow cut and cover construction, resulting in additional cost and disruption. • The cut and cover method could be appropriate for discrete lengths of some tunnel options where surface impacts would be more tolerable or where site constraints, alignment geometry, project requirements or other factors favor this method of construction. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­97 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION The SEM mined tunnel method was not recommended for use in planning the Urban Ring Phase 2 running tunnels for the following reasons: • The potential need for a significant amount of costly and time­consuming ground treatment could reduce potential benefits of shorter construction duration and minimized surface disruption. The very limited amount of geotechnical information currently available results in the SEM mined tunnel being at greater risk of significant cost increases at this stage in the project than does a TBM bored tunnel. This was a primary reason for the rejection of this alternative at this stage in the planning process. Once further geotechnical information is available and the tunnel alignment is finalized, this decision should be reviewed. • The significant lengths of some tunnel alignment alternatives do not favor construction using SEM for the entire length. • SEM mined tunnel could be appropriate for discrete lengths of some tunnel options where changing cross sections are required or where site constraints, alignment geometry, project requirements or other factors favor this method of construction. The TBM bored tunnel method was recommended for use in planning the Urban Ring Phase 2 running tunnels for the following reasons: • The TBM bored tunnel option offers the potential to minimize surface disruption and reduce environmental impacts. These are considerable benefits for any alignment alternative, but are of particular importance in the more densely developed sections of the corridor with heavy traffic demand. While this may be true also of the SEM mined tunnel, it will be heavily dependent on the extent and nature of ground treatment required. • Pressurized face TBMs can safely construct tunnels in soft ground conditions, while minimizing impacts on surrounding structures. Developments in cutterhead design mean that TBMs can be equipped to deal with variable ground conditions, from soft ground to hard rock, and boulders. Machine diameters in the region of 50­ft have been manufactured to build urban tunnels in Spain (Madrid Calle M30) and in China (Shanghai Yangtze River tunnel). • The majority of the tunnel alternatives are of sufficient length to enable a TBM drive to be an economically viable method. • Consideration of environmentally sensitive zones (e.g. Emerald Necklace, Muddy River, and Charles River) would favor methods that do not require excavation from the surface or ground treatment methods. Noise and vibration impacts relative to the SEM and TBM methods will require further assessment once geotechnical information is available and the extent and type of ground treatment has been better established. As a result of this review, it was determined that TBM construction was an environmentally acceptable solution offering the potential to minimize disruption and provide the most cost­
effective approach for the planning of the Urban Ring Phase 2 running tunnels. Recommendation of a tunnel construction method should not be considered to preclude other methods from being considered during subsequent stages of the planning and design process. As highlighted earlier in this chapter, the decision on construction methodology remains open. The final choice of Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­98 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION running tunnel construction method and configuration will depend on the final busway tunnel alignment chosen; the geology and hydrogeology; the vertical alignment; the anticipated ground movements and building settlement assessments; and noise and vibration impacts on sensitive hospital and research operations. These issues will need to be addressed during subsequent engineering studies as more information becomes available. Tunnel Cross Section Twin bored tunnels with a single lane in each tunnel bore, and a single bored tunnel with two lanes separated by an internal dividing wall were both considered. The single bored tunnel option was selected given the spatial constraints along key sections of the alignment with respect to existing foundations, in particular through the LMA, as this option provided a minimized plan footprint both for the running tunnels and for the stations. In addition, the single bore option simplifies provision of cross passage connections and offers flexibility for vehicle rescue operations in the event of a breakdown. An over­sized single bore solution that accommodates an upper an lower deck was also assessed, but rejected in favor of the single bored tunnel with central dividing wall. Typical tunnel cross sections were developed for the Urban Ring Phase 2 bored tunnels, making allowance for the following items: • Required vehicular clearance envelope; • Tunnel ventilation and fire life safety systems; • Drainage; • Communications; • Power supply; and • In­tunnel lighting, fixtures and fittings. The typical cross section for the single bored running tunnel is shown in Figure 3­24. The tunnel cross section developed for Phase 2 BRT is also compatible with the required clearances and tunnel walkway requirements of Phase 3 light rail and heavy rail. Excepting the rail, traction power, and other operating system elements, the primary structural differences in cross­sectional requirements between light rail and heavy rail are the vertical clearances required (see Figures 3­
22 and 3­23, shown previously). The tunnel walkway requirements for the MBTA Green Line (light rail alternative) are for a low level walkway, as shown in Figure 3­25. The existing infrastructure for the MBTA Orange Line (heavy rail alternative) generally provide a low level walkway, with some discrete sections of elevated walkway. The tunnel cross section required for Phase 2 BRT provides sufficient space to include either a low level or elevated walkway for heavy rail, as shown in Figure 3­26. At this stage in the planning process, it is considered that assumption of a 41.8­ft single bored tunnel configuration has not precluded the development of a viable alignment option, and that alternative construction methods and configurations (e.g. twin bored tunnels, cut and cover tunnels, or SEM mined tunnels) would be re­assessed 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 3­99 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION Figure 3­24 Typical Tunnel Cross Section
Dividing wall Escape doors Zone for architectural finishes Pre­cast concrete segmental lining Lighting Traffic envelope Space for
CCTV,
signs and
sensors
Inlet box Walkway Drainage Backfill Service Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­100 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION Figure 3­25 Typical Tunnel Cross Section – Phase 3, Light Rail
Low­level walkway Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­101 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION Figure 3­26 Typical Tunnel Cross Section – Phase 3, Heavy Rail
Elevated walkway (if required) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­102 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION Tunnel Boring Machine Launch and Reception Areas At the launch point for the TBM, there would need to be sufficient space for the following main tunneling operations and facilities: • TBM assembly; • Storage of tunnel segments; • Grout batching plant; • Storage of TBM consumables and supplies; • Logistics to enable supply of tunnel segments to the advancing tunnel face; • Removal, storage and handling of excavated material (may require slurry separation plant if a slurry TBM is selected for tunnel construction); and • Site offices and support facilities. The reception point for a TBM will require a suitably sized reception shaft or chamber into which the TBM can be driven, for subsequent disassembly and removal. Several of the alignment alternatives that have been developed have limited space for launching and servicing a TBM to drive the running tunnels. However, potential construction staging areas have been identified for the various alignment alternatives that are considered to provide the 10
minimum required space for this function. Although the staging areas may not be ideal in terms of their size and layout, it is not uncommon in the tunneling industry to have to work from confined construction sites, as urban areas are increasingly seeking to exploit underground space while minimizing the impacts on the existing environment. Underground Stations Alternatives for station construction using cut and cover, the SEM, and TBM tunnel methods were investigated. The selected method would depend on a number of factors, including the location of the station, the site constraints, and the geology and groundwater conditions. The use of an over­sized TBM which would accommodate station platforms was rejected owing to spatial constraints, right­of­way issues, impacts on portal structures and difficulties converting to Phase 3 rail use. The SEM method is a viable solution, and can reduce surface impacts. However, the SEM method will still require two large shafts at each end of the station to accommodate ventilation equipment and vertical circulation elements. Given the lack of geotechnical information, the desire to keep the stations relatively shallow, and the relatively short length of the stations, it was considered prudent at this stage in the planning process to adopt cut and cover for the full length of the station. For current planning purposes, the conceptual design of a typical station is a cut and cover construction and requires a plan footprint of approximately 550­ft by 60­ft, with some local enlargements for vertical circulation elements. This structure includes allowance for the tunnel ventilation fans and damper layouts. However, a detailed assessment of associated mechanical and electrical equipment rooms, substations, communications, machine rooms, etc. has not been performed at this stage. 10
Potential worksite locations are described in the Urban Ring Phase 2 Tunnel Alternatives Summary Report for the RDEIR/DEIS, November 2007. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­103 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION This typical station has been developed based on the most constrained site locations along Longwood Avenue that would require the station platforms to be end­loaded, thereby limiting the width of the station while increasing the station length. Further refinements to station design on a location by location basis will be required in subsequent engineering studies to determine whether a more economical and efficient structure could be accommodated. Traditional cut and cover or the top­down method, where the main excavation occurs below a temporary roof deck, are both viable methods for the station construction. The current thinking is that in the densely developed and heavily trafficked areas such as the LMA, the top­down method would help to minimize disruption to the surrounding communities. The increase in cost and construction duration associated with this method need to be balanced with the perceived minimization of disruption. 3.16 Systemwide Evaluation Transit improvements implemented to date in the Urban Ring corridor have been limited to transit bus connections, which are constrained by the existing roadway network and by traffic congestion on that network. The purpose of Phase 2 of the Circumferential Transportation Improvements in the Urban Ring Corridor (approximately 25 miles long and 1 mile wide) is to significantly improve transit access and mobility for numerous residential, commercial, and institutional activity centers in the circumferential project corridor located outside the downtown core of Boston. Specific goals of the project include: • Enhance transit mobility; • Improve environmental quality; • Support regional and local land use goals and objectives; • Improve transit operating efficiency; • Support phased implementation of an integrated transportation and land use vision; and • Achieve financial feasibility. The following section summarizes how the Urban Ring Phase 2 project meets these project goals and objectives. Transportation Goal: Enhance Transit Mobility Improve access for all corridor origins and destinations. The existing rapid transit and commuter rail system in the Boston region is radially­oriented toward a hub in downtown Boston, resulting in inadequate transit accessibility and mobility in the densely developed and growing Urban Ring corridor. Trips to and from the activity centers in the corridor, such as the Longwood Medical and Academic Area, Kendall Square, and Chelsea Center, currently require indirect travel on rapid transit to downtown Boston and back out; travel by bus on congested roadways; or travel by automobile on congested roadways. The Urban Ring Phase 2 would provide more direct transit connections, reduce transit travel times between the activity centers located within the Urban Ring corridor, and improve the effectiveness of the existing radial rapid transit and commuter rail system. Aside from the Urban Ring Phase 2 Project, the Boston Region MPO’s 2030 RTP does not include any projects that directly address transit access and mobility needs in this corridor. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­104 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION Reduce congestion on the existing radial transit network. The Urban Ring Phase 2 reduces transit congestion in the Boston core. Through circumferential transportation improvements, the Phase 2 directs the vehicle loads from the central portion of the Boston rapid transit system to the circumferential transit system. This minimizes the impact on transit travel patterns and service levels caused by the growth in transit travel demand. Environmental Goal: Improve Environmental Quality Contribute to the attainment of national, state, regional and local community environmental goals. The environment in the Urban Ring corridor is negatively affected by high vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and congestion. Travel demand from established activity centers in the corridor results in heavy traffic, congestion, and air quality impacts in the corridor’s neighborhood’s. The goal of Urban Ring Phase 2 is to improve environmental quality by reducing the vehicle miles traveled in and among activity centers. The proposed BRT service would address this problem by improving the transit system in the neighborhoods and employment centers that are located outside Boston’s downtown core. Pursue state and regional Environmental Justice goals and policies. The project corridor contains a high percentage of environmental justice (EJ) and transit dependent populations. The Urban Ring Phase 2 would address the environmental justice and transit dependent populations by improving transit networks and providing transportation access to the neighborhoods that lie within the corridor. At the same time, the project would improve air quality and quality of life for EJ populations in the project corridor by reducing automobile traffic and congestion in the corridor. Land Use Goals: Support Regional and Local Land Use Goals and Objectives Reduce transportation­related impediments to economic development. Economic development in the Urban Ring corridor is constrained by traffic congestion and poor access, which threaten to limit the development capacity of established areas and constrain growth of emerging areas in the corridor. The Urban Ring Phase 2 project would improve transit access, increase transit capacity, and ease traffic congestion in established areas with dense residential neighborhoods and major clusters of economic sectors that are critical to the regional and state economy, such as educational, medical, research, and cultural sectors. At the same time, the Urban Ring Phase 2 would help to facilitate development of emerging areas of the Urban Ring corridor, including environmental justice neighborhoods and Brownfield sites. Support local, regional, state and federal development goals. Many areas of the Urban Ring corridor are growing quickly, with rates of residential and job growth significantly higher than regional averages. Other areas in the corridor also include urban Brownfields and large areas of land suitable for redevelopment. While the Urban Ring corridor is generally less dense than the downtown core, it is still a dense urban environment. Nevertheless, many areas of the Urban Ring corridor suffer from poor transportation access and high levels of congestion because the existing roadway and transit networks currently have such a strong radial orientation. As the distance between the existing “spokes” of the radial transit lines increase further form the core, the extent of areas not served or underserved by radial transit increases. Improved transit access and capacity would facilitate increased development in the Urban Ring corridor. Because of dense development patterns, existing transportation and utility infrastructure, and the newly­enhanced transit access and capacity, new development in this corridor would be sustainable, smart growth development. In addition, existing federal, state, municipal, and Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­105 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION institutional planning efforts strongly support the Urban Ring Phase 2 project as well as smart growth development in the Urban Ring corridor. These efforts include transit­supportive zoning, institutional master plans, economic target zones, and other district and development­oriented plans. Transit Goal: Improve Transit Operating Efficiency Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of buses and other rubber tire transit services. The regional activity centers and the high intensity land uses in the project corridor are not well connected by the existing transportation network. Moreover, the transportation network in the corridor (transit system and roadways) is not keeping pace with anticipated changes in land use and growth in travel demand. The level of public transit services provided within the corridor is insufficient to meet the growing mobility needs of the corridor workforce, visitors, and transit­
dependent population. The proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 project directly addresses these issues. Roadways in the corridor that provide circumferential access, both for private automobile travel and transit bus travel, tend to be discontinuous and congested. Current transit service providing connections among points in the corridor consists of a network of local buses along with three limited stop crosstown buses, the CT1, CT2, and CT3. Phasing and Implementation Goal: Support phased implementation of an integrated transportation and land use vision Support a phased implementation of strategies that will integrate transportation and land use goals for the corridor. The development of the Urban Ring project has been planned in three phases with the goal of meeting the combined transportation and land use needs in the region. Urban Ring Phase 2 will be designed in anticipation of the implementation of Phase 3 improvements (rail). Financial Goal: Achieve Financial Feasibility Develop a cost­effective, implementable preferred investment strategy for mobility improvements. Several iterations and variations of alternatives were studied to identify mobility improvements that provide significant ridership benefits within federal cost­effectiveness thresholds. Extensive input from agencies, the public, and other stakeholders was incorporated to develop a financially feasible Urban Ring corridor alignment that maximizes transportation operating goals to the greatest extent possible. 3.17 Comparative Analysis To ensure that the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS alternatives were analyzed in a consistent and productive manner, evaluation criteria were formulated to compare the Build Alternatives and Hybrid Alternatives to the No­Build Alternative, the Baseline Alternative, and to each other. Evaluation criteria were defined consistent with the project purpose and need described in Chapter 1. The evaluation criteria also reflect the project’s goals and objectives and the Federal Transit Administration’s guidelines and criteria for the New Starts funding program. The evaluation criteria are summarized in Table 3­16. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­106 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALAUATION Table 3­16: Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Criteria
Criterion New Starts Measures Other Measures – Local Priorities • Ridership o Urban Ring ridership o Systemwide change • Mode share change • Travel time savings/User benefit • Systemwide transfers • Low­income, minority, and zero­auto­
ownership access • Consistency with Urban Ring Phase 3 proposals • Noise, vibration, and electro­
magnetic field impact • Daily VMT change • Change in auto­person trips • Construction impacts • Impacts on parkland • Support of transit­oriented development and smart growth policies • Connections to non­motorized transportation network Transit Mobility Improvements • Normalized travel time savings (transportation system user benefit per project passenger mile) • Low­income households served Employment near stations Environmental Benefits • Change in regional pollutant emissions • Change in regional energy consumption • EPA air quality designation Transit Supportive Land Use and Development • Existing land use • Transit supportive plans and policies • Performance and impacts of policies Cost­Effectiveness • Incremental cost per hour of transportation system user benefit • Project costs o Capital costs o Operating costs o Maintenance costs • Incremental cost per transit trip • Incremental cost per new transit trip Transit Operating Efficiencies • System operating cost per passenger mile • Transit system efficiency o Average number of transfers o Average trip duration to Urban o Ring corridor destinations • Transit system congestion • Constructability/feasibility • Funding and financing Phasing and Implementation The alternatives are described in detail in Section 3.13 of this chapter. The comparative alternatives analysis evaluated each alternative as well as segments of alternatives. The project segments and sectors are shown in Figure 3­3 (shown previously). Segment A includes East Boston, Chelsea, Everett, Medford, Somerville and Charlestown. Sector B includes East Cambridge, Boston (Allston/Brighton), and Brookline to Ruggles Station, and Segment C includes Roxbury, Dorchester, and South Boston. Table 3­17 provides an overall summary of the evaluation of Build Alternatives. Table 3­18 further breaks down the evaluation of Build Alternatives into Segments A, B, and C. The evaluation analysis helped identify the best components and most productive segments of various alternatives for inclusion in the LPA, which is discussed in Chapter 2. See Chapter 4: Environmental Impacts and Mitigation for further information on environmental and land use and economic development. Below are summaries of the evaluation of Baseline, Build, and Hybrid Alternatives. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­107 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­17: Evaluation of Build Alternatives compared to FTA Baseline
CRITERIA Transportation Segment Travel Time (CCW­CW) Average travel speed (mph)(CCW­CW) NO­BUILD FTA BASELINE ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 2A ALT 3 ALT 3A ALT 3B ALT 3C ALT 4 ALT 4A NA 163 – 160 min 141 – 140 min 131 – 120 min 130 – 121 min 114 – 106 min 122 – 116 min 118 – 111 min 115 – 106 min 110 – 103 min 108 – 101 min 10 mph 11 mph 14 mph 16 mph 16 mph 17 mph 16 mph 16 mph 17 mph 17 – 16 mph 17 mph Travel Time Savings NA N/A 22 – 20 min 32 – 40 min 33 – 39 min 49 – 54 min 41 – 44 min 45 – 49 min 48 – 54 min 53 – 57 min 55 – 59 min Daily Ridership (1) NA 0 108,500 140,300 140,200 149,000 149,300 157,800 158,800 176,100 140,800 Service to EJ Community NA Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High High High High Consistency with Urban Ring Phase 3 Proposals NA No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Air Quality Improvement NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Noise & Vibration NA NA Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium Low High Low High Low Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Change Systemwide (1) +108,900 125,757,400 ­21,800 ­23,700 ­24,900 ­29,600 ­29,800 ­37,600 ­32,400 +24,400 ­33,800 Auto Person Trips Change (1) +17,300 12,170,100 ­11,200 ­15,800 ­16,800 ­16,800 ­16,300 ­18,300 ­17,900 ­19,500 ­11,700 Change in Regional Energy Consumption (2) None Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Section 4(f) Impacts/Parklands None None Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Environmental EMF Population 2030 NA 318,001 330,200 300,900 295,100 272,700 255,100 262,000 267,300 269,700 262,900 Employment 2030 NA 379,558 340,800 350,400 348,400 346,200 328,100 331,800 334,400 292,000 291,000 EJ Community NA 215,036 267,600 237,300 233,200 214,800 204,500 209,100 209,100 215,800 207,300 Land Use and Economic Development TOD Support No Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium None Low Medium High High High High High High s High High Capital Costs NA $ 350 mi $ 708 mi $ 802 mi $ 755 mi $ 3,756 mi $ 2,465 mi $ 2,089 mi $ 4,254 mi $ 6,669 mi $ 7,614 mi Operations and Maintenance Costs NA $ 43 mi NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Incremental cost per user benefit NA NA $6 ­ $8 $5 ­ $7 $5 ­ $7 $36 ­ $40 $26 ­ $30 $23 ­ $25 (3) $32 ­ $36 $38 ­ $43 $43 ­ $46 Non­Motorized Transportation Network Cost Effectiveness Analysis Daily average number of transfers systemwide NA 585,900 542,200 572,100 572,000 558,500 558,500 570,300 573,500 574,900 558,400 Transit congestion relief NA Low Medium Medium Medium High High High High High High NA High Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Transit Oriented Efficiencies Phasing and Implementation Constructability/ Feasibility NA = Not available (1) Based on calculations from the CTPS Regional Travel Demand Model. Daily ridership refers to BRT buses only. (2) Change in BTU’s/day (millions) compared to No­Build Alternative. (3) One underground station Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­108 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­18: Evaluation of Build Alternatives: Segments A, B, & C
Segment Segment A
(Sectors 1, 2, 3, 4)
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ Population
East Boston ­ Key Environmental Issues
Somerville/Charlestown (Sectors 5, 6, 7, 8)
ALT 2
ALT 2A
ALT 3
Build Alternatives
ALT 3A
ALT 3B
ALT 3C
ALT 4
30,100
49,400
49,400
42,200
45,800
42,800
42,200
39,400
43
14
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ Population
44
15
37
20
32
20
37
20
32
20
38
19
49
18
47
17
43
18
39
18
42
19
38
19
37,000
32
19
30
19
32
19
30
19
85,197
50,918
67,206
Coordination with East Boston Greenway 83,583
50,000
67,134
Coordination with East Boston Greenway 91,783
56,180
72,596
Coordination with East Boston Greenway 85,511
56,218
71,799
Coordination with East Boston Greenway 85,511
56,218
71,799
Coordination with East Boston Greenway 90,447
57,816
71,801
Coordination with East Boston Greenway 74,571
47,880
58,015
Coordination with East Boston Greenway 73,235
49,516
57,220
Coordination with East Boston Greenway Chelsea ­ construction noise & vibration
Chelsea ­ construction noise & vibration
Chelsea ­ construction noise & vibration
Chelsea ­ construction noise & vibration
Chelsea ­ construction noise & vibration
Chelsea ­ construction noise & vibration
Chelsea ­ construction noise & vibration
Chelsea ­ construction noise & vibration
Chelsea ­ construction noise & vibration
Everett ­ construction noise & vibration
Everett ­ construction noise & vibration
Everett ­ construction noise & vibration
Everett ­ construction noise & vibration
Everett ­ construction noise & vibration
Everett ­ construction noise & vibration
Everett ­ construction noise & vibration
Everett ­ construction noise & vibration
Everett ­ construction noise & vibration
Malden River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
Malden River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 92
Malden River ­ potential wetland Malden River ­ potential wetland Malden River ­ potential wetland Malden River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 96
impacts & Chapter 95
impacts & Chapter 94
impacts & Chapter 93
NA
NA
$ 388.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 444.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 444.0 mi
66,100
80,900
80,800
49
13
51
12
49
13
143,519
186,017
112,853
46
13
48
12
NA
NA
NA
$ 443.0 mi
$ 443.0 mi
83,300
47
13
32
17
NA
NA
$ 443.0 mi
80,100
31
17
33
16
Malden River ­ potential wetland Malden River ­ potential wetland Malden River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 98
impacts & Chapter 97
impacts & Chapter 99
NA
NA
$ 443.0 mi
91,900
32
16
35
16
NA
NA
$ 432.0 mi
93,000
35
16
33
17
NA
NA
$ 432.0 mi
120,900
31
17
91,700
32
17
29
17
30
18
27
18
145,996
188,712
112,657
141,849
120,810
117,938
124,777
125,243
128,005
122,922
187,882
167,018
165,161
168,894
169,850
177,001
174,489
108,677
95,173
93,481
98,068
98,100
100,295
92,852
Busway at private Steam Busway at private Steam Busway at private Steam Busway at private Steam Busway at private Steam Busway at private Steam Busway at private Steam Fountain Busway at private Steam Fountain Busway at private Steam Fountain Fountain park east end of Hotel Fountain park east end of Hotel Fountain park east end of Hotel Fountain park east end of Hotel Fountain park east end of Hotel Fountain park east end of Hotel park east end of Hotel at Kendall park east end of Hotel at Kendall park east end of Hotel at Kendall at Kendall at Kendall at Kendall at Kendall at Kendall at Kendall Cambridgeport ­ construction noise Cambridgeport ­ construction noise Cambridgeport ­ construction & vibration
noise & vibration
& vibration
Fort Washington Park ­ construction noise
Fort Washington Park ­ construction noise
Fort Washington Park ­ operation Fort Washington Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
bus traffic adjacent
East Cambridge ­ Key Environmental Issues
Boston/Ruggles Station 42
19
ALT 4A
116,346
64,540
96,594
Coordination with East Boston Greenway Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
Segment B
ALT 1
(1)
Measures Cambridgeport ­ construction noise & vibration
Cambridgeport ­ construction noise & vibration
Cambridgeport ­ construction noise Cambridgeport ­ construction & vibration
noise & vibration
Cambridgeport ­ construction noise & vibration
Cambridgeport ­ construction noise & vibration
Fort Washington Park ­ construction noise
Fort Washington Park ­ construction noise
Fort Washington Park ­ construction noise
Fort Washington Park ­ construction Fort Washington Park ­ noise
construction noise
Fort Washington Park ­ construction noise
Fort Washington Park ­ construction noise
Fort Washington Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Fort Washington Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Fort Washington Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Fort Washington Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Fort Washington Park ­ operation Fort Washington Park ­ operation Fort Washington Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
bus traffic adjacent
bus traffic adjacent
Charles River Reservation ­ construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation ­ construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation ­ construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation ­ construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation ­ construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation ­ construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation ­ construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation ­ construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation ­ construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation ­ operation bus traffic through
Charles River Reservation ­ operation bus traffic through
Charles River Reservation ­ operation bus traffic through
Charles River Reservation ­ operation bus traffic through
Charles River Reservation ­ operation bus traffic through
Charles River Reservation ­ operation bus traffic through
Charles River Reservation ­ operation bus traffic through
Charles River Reservation ­ operation bus traffic through
Charles River Reservation ­ operation bus traffic through
Charles River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
Charles River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 92
Charles River ­ potential wetland Charles River ­ potential wetland Charles River ­ potential wetland Charles River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 95
impacts & Chapter 96
impacts & Chapter 93
impacts & Chapter 94
Allston ­ construction noise & vibration
Allston Yards ­ potential hazardous Allston Yards ­ potential materials issue
hazardous materials issue
Riverway/Fenway ­ operation bus Allston ­ construction noise & traffic through
vibration
Riverway/Fenway ­ operation bus traffic through
Charles River ­ potential wetland Charles River ­ potential wetland Charles River ­ potential impacts & Chapter 97
impacts & Chapter 98
wetland impacts & Chapter 99
Allston Yards ­ potential hazardous materials issue
Allston Yards ­ potential hazardous materials issue
Allston Yards ­ potential hazardous Allston Yards ­ potential materials issue
hazardous materials issue
Allston Yards ­ potential hazardous materials issue
Allston Yards ­ potential hazardous materials issue
Allston ­ construction noise & vibration
Allston ­ construction noise & vibration
Allston ­ construction noise & vibration
Allston ­ construction noise & vibration
Allston ­ construction noise & vibration
Allston ­ construction noise & vibration
Allston ­ construction noise & vibration
Riverway/Fenway ­ operation bus traffic through
Riverway ­ construction noise & vibration
Riverway ­ potential wetland impacts
Riverway ­ construction noise & Riverway ­ construction noise & vibration
vibration
Riverway ­ potential wetland Riverway ­ potential wetland impacts
impacts
Riverway ­ construction noise & vibration
Riverway ­ potential wetland impacts
Riverway ­ construction noise & vibration
Riverway ­ potential wetland impacts
Riverway ­ construction noise & vibration
Riverway ­ potential wetland impacts
Fenway, LMA & Longwood ­ construction noise & vibration Fenway, LMA & Longwood ­ construction noise & vibration Fenway, LMA & Longwood ­ construction noise & vibration Fenway, LMA & Longwood ­ construction noise & vibration Fenway, LMA & Longwood ­ construction noise & vibration Fenway, LMA & Longwood ­ construction noise & vibration Park Drive Landmark Center Portal ­ construction impacts
Park Drive Landmark Center Portal ­ construction impacts
Park Drive Landmark Center Portal ­ Leon Street Portal ­ construction Leon Street Portal ­ construction Leon Street Portal ­ construction construction impacts
impacts impacts impacts Leon Street Portal ­ construction Leon Street Portal ­ construction Leon Street Portal ­ construction impacts impacts impacts Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
NA
NA
$ 174.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 210.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 163.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 3,165.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 1,874.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 1,498.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 3,663.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 6,089.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 7,034.0 mi
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­109 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­18: Segment Segment C
(Sectors 9, 10, 11)
Evaluation of Build Alternatives: Segments A, B, & C (Cont’d)
Measures ALT 1
ALT 2
ALT 2A
ALT 3
Build Alternatives
ALT 3A
ALT 3B
ALT 3C
ALT 4
12,300
10,000
10,000
23,500
23,500
23,600
23,600
15,800
(1)
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ Population
49
15
45
15
45
16
42
16
70,293
69,697
90,308
110,809
58,136
57,439
Coordination with planned Harbor Coordination with planned Harbor Trail
Trail
Mary A. Hannon Plgd ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Richardson Sq ­ operation bus Roxbury ­ South Boston Key Environmental Issues
traffic adjacent
45
16
42
16
69,697
110,539
57,439
Coordination with planned Harbor Trail
40
14
37
14
60,136
122,925
46,992
Coordination with planned Harbor Trail
40
14
37
14
40
14
37
14
51,662
106,659
39,227
Coordination with planned Harbor Trail
51,662
106,659
39,227
Coordination with planned Harbor Trail
40
14
37
14
Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
Grand Total
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ Population
Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
46
14
44
13
Mary A. Hannon Plgd ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Mary A. Hannon Plgd ­ operation Richardson Sq ­ operation bus bus traffic adjacent
traffic adjacent
Richardson Sq ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Richardson Sq ­ operation bus traffic Richardson Sq ­ operation bus adjacent
traffic adjacent
Mary A. Hannon Plgd ­ operation Mary A. Hannon Plgd ­ bus traffic adjacent
operation bus traffic adjacent
Richardson Sq ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Richardson Sq ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Columbia Rd Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Columbia Rd Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Richardson Sq ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Richardson Sq ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Columbia Rd Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Columbia Rd Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Columbia Rd Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Columbia Rd Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
South Boston Bypass Road ­ notice South Boston Bypass Road ­ of project change
notice of project change
$ 146.0 mi
$ 148.0 mi
$ 148.0 mi
$ 148.0 mi
$ 148.0 mi
$ 148.0 mi
$ 148.0 mi
$ 148.0 mi
108,500
140,300
140,200
149,000
149,400
158,300
158,800
176,100
141
14
12,100
44
13
51,662
67,121
66,815
106,659
67,066
67,025
39,227
57,457
57,159
Coordination with planned Harbor Coordination with planned Harbor Coordination with planned Trail
Trail
Harbor Trail
Columbia Rd Park ­ operation bus Columbia Rd Park ­ operation bus Columbia Rd Park ­ operation traffic adjacent
traffic adjacent
bus traffic adjacent
South Boston Bypass Road ­ notice of project change
46
14
ALT 4A
140
14
131
16
120
16
130
16
121
16
114
17
106
17
122
16
116
16
118
16
111
16
115
17
106
17
110
17
$ 148.0 mi
140,800
103
16
108
17
101
17
330,158
340,865
267,583
300,890
350,439
237,302
295,129
348,421
233,250
272,729
346,123
214,761
255,111
328,038
204,507
261,950
331,771
209,094
267,352
334,325
209,128
269,697
291,947
215,767
262,972
291,030
207,231
NA
NA
$ 708.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 802.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 755.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 3,756.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 2,465.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 2,089.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 4,254.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 6,669.0 mi
NA
NA
$ 7,614.0 mi
NOTE:
(1) ­ Travel time and average speed represent AM peak period.
­ Sector level population, employment and EJ population 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 3­110 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION 3.17.1 Baseline Alternative Comparison The evaluation criteria were used to evaluate the Baseline Alternative as it compares to the No­Build and Build Alternatives. The “Baseline Alternative” is the term used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to describe a relatively lower cost alternative against which the benefits of an LPA may be compared. As described earlier in Section 3.13.2, the RDEIR/DEIS Baseline Alternative includes a network of surface CT bus routes that provides the same market coverage and service frequency as the Build Alternatives. This alternative provides benefits over the No­Build Alternative in terms of mobility, transit supportive land use and development, and transit operating efficiencies. Improved bus routes result in improved passenger service, as well as environmental benefits (fewer auto trips). See Figure 3­9, FTA Baseline Alternative (shown previously), for the alignments of CT routes. See Table 3­17 (shown previously) for evaluation criteria for the Baseline Alternative. The Baseline Alternative has 125, 757,400 daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the 12,170,100 auto person trips change. The change in regional energy consumption will be lower in the Baseline Alternative. Since the Baseline Alternative only runs in mixed traffic there will be no Section 4(f) impacts in this alternative. The Baseline Alternative will serve stations similar to the Build Alternatives except there will be no travel time advantages that are attractive for transit oriented developments. Because there is no exclusive right­of­way planned as part of the Baseline Alternative the capital cost will be lower than the Build Alternatives. The Baseline Alternative will serve a study corridor that has 318,000 persons and approximately 380,000 jobs. These numbers are higher than any of population and employment numbers for the Build Alternatives. 3.17.2 Build Alternatives Comparison Alternatives 1 and 2 are all­surface alternatives that introduce bus lanes, busways, and new Urban Ring stations to the Urban Ring corridor. With capital cost for each in the $700­800 million range, these two alternatives result in travel time savings, increased daily transit ridership, and air quality improvements compared to the No­Build Alternative. Therefore, in terms of evaluation criteria, Build Alternatives 1 and 2 represent improvements in mobility, operating efficiency, and environmental benefits compared to the No­
Build Alternative and Baseline Alternative. See Figure 3­10, Build Alternative 1 (shown previously), for route details. Alternative 1 is similar to the LPA from the November 30, 2004 DEIR, but includes some slight modifications based on subsequent agency, public, and stakeholder comments. In terms of the evaluation criteria, Alternative 1 retains many of the same issues as the DEIR LPA. These issues include a low percentage of exclusive bus running way; Section 4(f) impacts on the Emerald Necklace; and a slow, unreliable Charles River Crossing via the existing BU bridge. Although Alternative 1 results in 20­22 minute travel time savings over the Baseline Alternative for the length of the corridor, 108,500 additional daily riders, and fewer daily automobiles on the road compared to the No­Build Alternative, specific segments of this alternative could be improved. Alternative 2 provides further modifications to Alternative 1 based on these issues and more recent local agency and public input for the RDEIR/DEIS. The primary differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 occur in the northern half of the Urban Ring corridor. For example, Alternative 2 provides a dedicated busway through Everett and Medford compared to buses in mixed traffic in Alternative 1. Also, the Alternative 1 alignment in mixed traffic along McGrath Highway, Medford Street, and Somerville Avenue in Somerville is eliminated in favor of a shorter alignment with bus lanes along Broadway under Alternative 2. See Figure 3­11, Alternative 2 (shown previously), for route details. In terms of evaluation criteria, Alternative 2 is much improved compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 provides additional benefits over Alternative 1 in terms of transit­supportive land use and future development patterns. Alternative 2 results in a 29 percent increase in ridership over Alternative 1 while retaining a relatively low percentage of exclusive busway and bus lanes. In general, Alternative 2 provides a more compact and efficient route structure. Specifically, Alternative 2 includes a dedicated busway across Charles River, it eliminates most of the Alternative 1 impacts on the Emerald Necklace, Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­111 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION and it reduces impacts on Ruggles Street. These improvements results in overall higher travel speeds (16 mph versus 14 mph for Alternative 1) and travel time savings (32­40 minutes of time savings compared to 20­22 minutes of time savings for Alternative 1). Most of the travel time savings (up to 20 minutes) for Alternative 2 occurs in Segment A through East Boston, Somerville, and Charlestown. One major concern related to Alternative 2 is that it retains surface routing through the congested LMA. Option 2A crosses the Charles River on a busway on a modified Grand Junction Railroad Bridge, then travels to Commonwealth Avenue and reaches Kenmore and Yawkey via mixed traffic. Although this is a 11
shorter route (and therefore less expensive) compared to Alternatives 1 and 2 within this segment, Commonwealth Avenue in the vicinity of Kenmore is frequently so congested that this route is not as favorable in terms of travel times. Although Alternative 2A experiences travel time savings that are comparable to those of Alternative 2, there are significant concerns about congestion and reliability on Massachusetts Avenue and through Kenmore Square (see Figures 3­12 for Build Alternative 2A, shown previously). Alternatives 3, 4, and their various sub­options introduce different length of tunnel segments into the Urban Ring corridor. Tunnels significantly improve mobility and operating efficiencies compared to the Alternative 1 and 2 surface­only options. Tunnels better address land use and economic goals of the project than the surface alternatives. However, tunnel alternatives introduce additional environmental and significant construction impacts that are not a factor for the surface alternatives. Tunnel options also introduce major cost increases. Alternative 3 includes a short tunnel segment through the highly congested LMA. The exclusive running way through the LMA provides mobility and operating efficiency benefits that result in increased ridership over the previous surface alternatives. Several different extensions of tunnel to the west were also tested: Options 3A, 3B, and 3C are variations of Alternative 3 to minimize the cost and disruption involved in constructing the tunnel options in Alternative 3, while still achieving the primary service goals and objectives of the project. Alternative 3 and its sub options include tunnel between the BU Bridge area and the Beacon Park Yard with the busway extending to Cambridge Street. In the Boston Medical Center area, Alternative 3 includes extended bus lanes on Albany Street (see Figures 3­13 through 3­16 for Build Alternatives 3, 3A, 3B and 3C, shown previously). Evaluation of Alternative 3 and its sub­options indicated that they produced marginal increases in ridership while significantly increasing construction impacts and capital costs. For Alternative 3, ridership within Segment B (which includes the LMA) increases from 80,900 daily riders under Alternative 2 to 83,300 daily riders under Alternative 3. Segment B also experiences significantly higher travel speeds (17 mph for Alternative 3 compared to 13 mph for Alternative 2) and significantly shorter travel times (31­32 minutes for Alternative 3 compared to 46­49 minutes for Alternative 2). Compared to Alternative 3 and Options 3A and 3C, Option 3B involves the least amount of tunnel construction. As such, it provides slightly longer travel times compared to the other Alternative 3 options (adding 2­4 minutes through Segment B). However, Option 3B provides important mobility and operational improvements in the LMA, while minimizing environmental and construction impacts compared with the other Alternative 3 options. Alternative 4 and Option 4A were considered to determine the incremental benefits of providing longer segments of uninterrupted bus service using longer underground tunnels than provided in Alternative 3 and its sub­options. Alternative 4 and its sub­option 4A include a longer tunnel length through the LMA extending further to the west. These alternatives represent the longest tunnel segments of all the Build Alternatives considered (see Figures 3­17 and 3­18 for Build Alternatives 4 and 4A, shown previously). 11
Through this segment, Alternatives 1 and 2 travel via Essex and Mountfort Streets with short sections of queue jump lanes along Mountfort Street between Carlton and Essex Streets. The route then travels via Park Drive and Beacon Street in mixed traffic to connect with Yawkey commuter rail station with walk access to reach Kenmore Square. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­112 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Evaluation of Alternatives 4 and 4A revealed similar results to the analysis of Alternative 3 and its sub­
options. The two longer tunnel alternatives provide considerable improvements in terms of mobility (travel time and ridership). Ridership under Alternative 3 jumps from 149,000 daily riders to 176,100 daily riders 3
under Alternative 4. Compared to Baseline Alternative, overall travel time savings for Alternative 4 is higher (53­57 minutes) than for Alternative 3B (45­49 minutes). However, capital costs for Alternatives 4 and 4A are $6,669 and $7,614 million, respectively, compared to $2,089 million for Alternative 3. The financial reality may make it infeasible to pursue this option. The incremental cost for Alternative 4 ranges between $38 to $46. Table 3­17 (shown previously) provides user benefit comparison to other alternatives which range between $5 and $40. Alternatives 4 and 4A also involve substantial environmental and construction impacts. The mobility and operational benefits of these alternatives would not justify the added environmental and financial costs associated with these alternatives compared to any of the first three Build Alternatives. Reliability and travel time savings are an important component of each of the Urban Ring alternatives. Reliability of BRT service is providing for a consistent level of service to passengers who can then 12
continue using the service as something they can depend on . For a BRT system to maintain loyal ridership it must provide reliable service in addition to reasonable travel times and system amenities. 13
There are three main elements of Reliability : • Running Time Reliability – The ability to maintain consistent travel times; • Station Dwell Time Reliability – The ability for passengers to board and alight in a consistent time; • Service Reliability – The ability of consistent service regardless of conditions. The Urban Ring Alternatives have been developed to generally avoid frequently congested roadways and intersections that could negatively impact reliability and travel time savings. Areas recognized as experiencing severe traffic congestion include the BU Bridge and BU rotary, the Longwood Medical and Academic Area and Fenway, Wellington, Ruggles Street, and Melnea Cass Boulevard. Exclusive running ways have been included in the alternatives to improve reliability and travel time savings for BRT buses. Key areas where busways and tunnels are included in the alternatives are Grand Junction Railroad Bridge, LMA tunnel, North Allston area and CSX right of way near Revere Beach Parkway. These areas are critical to maintaining reliability for Urban Ring service. Figure 3­27 below compares estimated daily boardings per capital cost dollar for the four Build Alternatives and their various sub­options. 12
Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision­Making. Section 3.2 Reliability. USDOT, FTA, Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation, August 2004. 13
Ibid Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­113 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Figure 3­27 Daily Boardings per Capital Cost Comparison – Build Alternatives
100
75
ratio of
daily
boardings/
capital cost
(millions)
50
25
4A
lt A
lt 4
A
3C
A
lt 3B
A
lt 3A
lt A
lt 3
A
2A
lt A
lt 2
A
A
lt 1
0
Build Alternatives
NOTE: 100 represents the Alternative with highest ratio of daily boardings per capital cost. Among these nine alternatives, Alternative 2A provides the highest ratio of ridership per capital cost dollar spent. With this in mind, the best features of surface alternatives were mixed and matched in some areas to create two versions of “Hybrid Alternatives” (discussed below). As demonstrated in Figure 3­27, Alternative 3B provides the greatest ridership benefit per unit capital cost among the tunnel alternatives. This most cost effective version of the tunnel alternatives was then added to create a Hybrid Tunnel Alternative for further evaluation. See the discussed below for the evaluation of the Hybrid Alternatives. 3.17.3 Hybrid Alternatives Comparison As described in further detail in the earlier sections, the Hybrid Alternatives were created by identifying the best­performing and cost­effective segments among the nine alternatives and options, thereby helping the project design to better respond to local and site­specific conditions with the most effective technical solutions available. The preliminary Hybrid Alternatives preserved all portions of the previous nine Build Alternatives and options that were feasible and effective. They contain the best­performing elements of the nine Build Alternatives and options within each sector. Table 3­19 provides an overall summary of the evaluation of Hybrid Alternatives. Table 3­20 further breaks down the evaluation of Hybrid Alternatives into Segments A, B, and C. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­114 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­19: Evaluation of Hybrid Alternatives compared to FTA Baseline
CRITERIA Transit Mobility Improvements Segment Travel Time (CCW­CW) HYBRID 1 HYBRID 2 HYBRID 2T 113 – 107 min NA 163 – 160 min 135 – 126 min 120 – 113 min 11 mph 16 mph 16 mph 16 mph Travel Time Savings NA N/A 28 – 34 min 43 – 47 min 50 – 53 min Daily Ridership (1) NA 0 159,800 164,300 170,300 Service to EJ Community NA Medium Medium Medium High Consistency with Urban Ring Phase 3 NA No Yes Yes Yes Air Quality Improvement NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Noise & Vibration NA Low Low Low Medium Environmental EMF NA Low Low Low Low Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Change +108,900 125,757,400 ­10,800 ­25,600 ­32,800 Auto Person Trips Change (1) +17,300 12,170,100 ­14,500 ­16,600 ­20,900 Change in Regional Energy Consumption (2) ­648 NA NA NA NA Section 4(f) Impacts/Parklands None None Low Low Low Population 2030 NA 318,001 341,400 255,200 257,100 Employment 2030 NA 379,558 381,800 377,800 378,500 EJ Community NA 215,036 235,700 303,200 221,400 TOD Support No Low Low Medium Medium None Low High High High $2,126.0 Land Use and Economic Development Non­Motorized Transportation Network Cost Effectiveness Analysis Capital Costs NA $ 350 mi $783.0 $723.0 Operations and Maintenance Costs NA $ 43 mi NA NA NA Incremental cost per user benefit NA NA $4 ­ $6 $4 ­ $6 $16 ­ $18 (3) Daily average number of transfers NA 585,900 615,800 613,400 608,000 Transit congestion relief NA Low Medium Medium Medium NA High Medium Medium Medium Transit Oriented Efficiencies Phasing and Implementation Constructability/ Feasibility FTA BASELINE 10 mph Average travel speed (mph)(CCW­CW) NO­BUILD NA = Not available (1) Based on calculations from the CTPS Regional Travel Demand Model. Daily ridership refers to BRT buses only. (2) Change in BTU’s/day (millions) compared to No­Build Alternative. (3) One underground station. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­115 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­20: Evaluation of Hybrids: Segments A, B, & C
Segment Segment A
(Sectors 1, 2, 3, 4)
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ Population
East Boston ­ Key Environmental Issues
Somerville/Charlestown Segment B
(Sectors 5, 6, 7, 8)
Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ Population
East Cambridge ­ Boston/Ruggles Key Environmental Issues
Station (Sectors 9, 10, 11)
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ Population
Key Environmental Issues
Roxbury ­ South Boston H2T
53,000
45,800
43,100
33
19
Daily Boardings
Travel Time, min (ccw/cw)
Avg. Speed, mph (ccw/cw)
Population
Employment
EJ Population
Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
41
19
94,500
60,500
67,200
39
18
41
19
84,700
60,100
61,800
39
18
84,700
60,100
61,800
Coordination with East Boston Greenway Coordination with East Boston Greenway Coordination with East Boston Greenway Chelsea ­ construction noise & vibration
Chelsea ­ construction noise & vibration
Chelsea ­ construction noise & vibration
Everett ­ construction noise Everett ­ construction noise Everett ­ construction noise Malden River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
Malden River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
Malden River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
$316.0
$116.0
$432.0
89,200
46
15
$268.0
$116.0
$384.0
95,900
46
14
46
14
154,600
192,200
110,700
$268.0
$116.0
$384.0
104,700
42
15
39
16
147,900
190,400
107,500
36
17
149,900
191,100
108,500
Busway at private Steam Fountain park east end of Hotel at Kendall Cambridgeport ­ construction noise & vibration
Busway at private Steam Fountain park east end of Hotel at Kendall Busway at private Steam Fountain park east end of Hotel at Kendall Fort Washington Park ­ construction noise & vibration
Cambridgeport ­ construction noise & vibration
Cambridgeport ­ construction noise & vibration
Fort Washington Park ­ operation bus traffic through and adjacent
Fort Washington Park ­ construction noise & vibration
Fort Washington Park ­ construction noise & vibration Charles River Reservation ­ construction noise & vibration
Fort Washington Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Fort Washington Park ­ operation bus traffic through and adjacent
Charles River Reservation ­ operation bus traffic through
Charles River Reservation ­ construction noise & vibration
Charles River Reservation ­ construction noise & vibration
Charles River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
Charles River Reservation ­ operation bus traffic through
Charles River Reservation ­ operation bus traffic through
Allston Yards ­ potential hazardous materials issue
Charles River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
Charles River ­ potential wetland impacts & Chapter 91
Allston ­ construction noise & vibration
Allston Yards ­ potential hazardous materials issue
Allston Yards ­ potential hazardous materials issue
Riverway ­ construction noise & vibration
Allston ­ construction noise & vibration
Allston ­ construction noise & vibration
Riverway ­ potential wetland impacts
Riverway/Fenway ­ operation bus traffic through & adjacent
Riverway/Fenway ­ operation bus traffic through
Fenway, LMA & Longwood ­ construction noise & vibration Leon Street Portal ­ construction impacts $131.0
$116.0
$247.0
$119.0
$116.0
$235.0
17,600
52
15
$1,522.0
$116.0
$1,638.0
22,600
47
16
33
14
92,300
129,100
57,800
22,500
32
14
33
14
22,600
127,300
133,900
32
14
22,500
127,300
51,100
Coordination with planned Harbor Trail Mary A. Hannon Plgd ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Coordination with planned Harbor Trail Coordination with planned Harbor Trail Richardson Sq ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Richardson Sq ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Richardson Sq ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Columbia Rd Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Columbia Rd Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
Columbia Rd Park ­ operation bus traffic adjacent
South Boston Bypass Road ­ notice of project change
Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
Grand Total
Alternatives
H2
37
19
Cost (millions)
Construction Total
Systemwide
Capital Cost Total
Segment C
H1
(1)
Measures $17.0
$87.0
$104.0
$17.0
$87.0
$104.0
159,800
135
16
$17.0
$87.0
$104.0
164,300
126
16
120
16
170,300
113
16
113
16
107
16
341,400
381,800
235,700
255,200
377,800
303,200
257,100
378,500
221,400
$464.0
$319.0
$783.0
$404.0
$319.0
$723.0
$1,807.0
$319.0
$2,126.0
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 3­116 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Similar to the Build Alternatives, the Hybrid Alternatives include bus lanes, busways, and new Urban Ring stations to the Urban Ring corridor. These improvements result in increased travel speeds, decreased travel times, and increased daily ridership compared to the No­Build and Baseline Alternatives. The Hybrid Alternatives also result in air quality improvements compared to the No­Build and Baseline Alternatives. Hybrid Alternatives 1 and 2 (H1 and H2) are both surface­only alternatives. Alternative H1 is similar to Build Alternative 2, with a few exceptions where Alternative 1 alignments are used. Alternative H2 blends the most attractive portions of Build Alternatives 2 and 3 and their sub­
options. Alternative H2T is identical to Alternative H2, but it includes a 1.5­mile BRT tunnel through the LMA between Yawkey Station and Ruggles Station. (See Figures 3­19 through 3­21, shown previously, for maps and detailed descriptions of the Hybrid Alternatives.) The technical evaluation of these three preliminary hybrid alternatives resulted in the following findings and conclusions: • Alternative H1 produces higher ridership in the northern arc of the corridor (between Logan Airport and Medford) due to longer sections of dedicated busway; a more direct connection between Chelsea, Everett and the Orange Line at Wellington Station; and faster travel times resulting from these factors. In Segment A (East Boston, Somerville, and Charlestown), Alternative H1 has 53,000 daily riders compared to 45,800 daily riders for Alternative H2 and 43,100 daily riders for Alternative H2T. Travel times in Segment A are 33­37 minutes for Alternative H1 compared to 39­41 minutes for Alternatives H2 and H2T. • Alternative H2 is more effective through Somerville and Cambridge because it provides a more direct route between Sullivan Square and New Lechmere. It has significantly lower costs due to shorter viaduct sections and fewer railroad conflicts. The overall estimated capital cost for Alternative H2 is $723 million compared to $783 million for Alternative H1. Alternative H2 also provides new transit access for the Inner Belt district of Somerville, a major development opportunity and municipal priority. • Alternative H1 provides the best service to the Boston University/Yawkey/Kenmore Square area due to a higher proportion of dedicated right­of­way (ROW); a more direct routing; and avoidance of the worst congestion on Commonwealth Avenue and Kenmore Square. • Alternative H2 provides superior travel time and proportion of dedicated ROW from the BU Bridge to Allston Landing as a result of the busway alignment at the railyard grade level. Travel time for Alternative H2 in Segment B (East Cambridge to Boston and Ruggles Station) is 42­46 minutes compared to 46 minutes for Alternative H1. • The Alternative H2T tunnel provides the best service, travel time, reliability, and ridership, and avoids the very high levels of traffic congestion in the Fenway and LMA. Tunnels better address land use and economic goals of the project than the surface alternatives. Segment B, which includes the LMA, experiences travel times of 36­39 minutes for Alternative H2T, compared to 42­46 minutes for Alternative H2 and 46 minutes for Alternative H1. Estimated overall ridership for Alternative H2T is 170,300 riders per day compared to 159,800 and 164,300 riders per day for Alternatives H1 and H2, respectively. On top of the improvement to travel time during a typical peak period, the Alternative H2T tunnel promises tremendous improvement in transit reliability over Alternatives H1 and H2. Although the Alternative H2T tunnel is only 1.5 miles long, it removes the BRT service from a critically congested area that has a very limited roadway network, significant environmental and parkland constraints, and frequent events (e.g. Boston Red Sox games) that result in traffic surges and extreme congestion. • Alternative H2 provides far superior travel time, proportion of dedicated ROW, ridership, and efficiency in the Dorchester segment (due to its use of a direct routing with bus lanes on Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­117 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Massachusetts Avenue) and the South Boston segment (due to its use of a direct routing with Red Line connection at Broadway Station). Figure 3­28 compares the ratio of estimated daily boardings per capital cost dollar for the three Hybrid Alternatives. Among Hybrids, H2 provides the largest ridership per capital cost dollar spent. Modifications of this alternative were made within specific areas to develop a the LPA. Figure 3­28 Daily Boardings per Capital Cost Comparison – Hybrid Alternatives 100
75
50
ratio of
daily
boardings/
capital cost
(millions)
25
0
H1
H2
H2T
Hybrid Alte rnativ e s
NOTE: 100 represents the Alternative with highest ratio of daily boardings per capital cost. 3.17.4 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Table 3­21 summarizes the major critical elements of the Build, Hybrid, and LPA Alternatives, and the selection process for the LPA. The table lists advantages and disadvantages associated with each alternative, and highlights the key elements that were retained for the LPA (see grey shading). The most beneficial portions of the Build and Hybrid Alternatives were combined to formulate a Preliminary LPA alignment for the Urban Ring Phase 2 project. The preliminary LPA alignment closely resembles the Hybrid 2T Alternative. Modifications to the Preliminary LPA were then made to incorporate input from the EOT, regional agencies, local jurisdictions, and public comments. Three more tunnel options for the west portal area were then evaluated to address additional input from the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) and other stakeholders as described in Section 3­14 above, resulting in the inclusion of the Fenway station stop and modified west portal location in the recommended LPA. The recommended LPA is described in detail and evaluated in Chapter 2. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­118 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­21: Alt ID 1 LPA Selection Process Comparison of Alternatives
Alternative DEIR Surface Alignment 2 Revised Surface Alignment 2A Same as #2 with Harvard Bridge Charles River Crossing 3 Tunnel Alignment through LMA 3A Same as #3 with Shorter Tunnel with No BRT South of Sullivan Square (1) Major Critical Elements • All Logan Terminals served • E. Boston Haul Rd busway • Rutherford Ave By­pass • GJRR(1) busway • BU Bridge Route in mixed traffic • Melnea Cass Blvd busway • S. Boston Haul Rd busway • Logan West Garage Station • E. Boston Haul Rd busway • Chelsea­Everett busway • Rutherford Ave bus lanes • GJRR Bridge busway • N. Allston busway/lanes • Melnea Cass Blvd busway • S. Boston Haul Rd busway Same as #2 except: • Cross Charles River in mixed traffic on Mass Ave • Logan West Garage Station • East Boston Haul Rd busway • Chelsea­Everett busway • Telecom Blvd routing • Rutherford Ave bus lanes • GJRR Bridge busway • N. Allston busway/lanes • Tunnel between Ruggles and Yawkey and Mountfort St and Beacon Park Yard • Melnea Cass Blvd busway • Mass Ave bus lanes • A Street bus lanes Same as #3 except: • Tunnel ends at Landmark Center • BRT terminates at Sullivan Square Advantages • All Logan Terminals Served • Implementable • Moderate cost Disadvantages • Surface Conflicts in LMA(2) and N. Allston • Slow airport travel time • Slow travel time to Dorchester • Faster travel times around Logan, in north section, across Charles River, and in N. Allston • Implementable • Moderate cost • Commonwealth Ave in mixed traffic • Surface conflicts in LMA • Slow travel times to Dorchester Same as #2 plus: • More direct connection between MIT/Mass Ave and Kenmore Square Same as #2 plus: • Slow travel times in mixed traffic across Charles River • Poorer connection to N. Allston • Implementation • Cost • No Kenmore connection • Faster travel times between Ruggles and N. Allston • Reduces surface friction • Lower cost than #3 • Reduces Surface friction in LMA • Mostly in mixed traffic on Mountfort St • Slower connection between Sullivan Square and New Lechmere • No Kenmore connection GJRR = Grand Junction Railroad (2) LMA = Longwood Medical and Academic Area NOTE: Elements retained in LPA are shaded (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­119 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­21: LPA Selection Process Comparison of Alternatives (cont’d)
Alt ID 3B Alternative Same as #3A with Inner Belt and Kenmore Square Connection 3C Same as #3B with Longer Tunnel and Without Inner Belt Road Tunnel Alignment and Rt. 99 Crossing of Malden River 4 4A Long Tunnel and Rt. 99 Crossing at Malden River H1(3) Hybrid Surface Alignment (1) Major Critical Elements Same As #3A except: • Inner Belt Rd connection • Connection between Kenmore and BU via Commonwealth Ave in mixed traffic Same as #3B except: • Longer tunnel between Ruggles, BU, and N. Allston • Rutherford Ave connection instead of Inner Belt Rd • Logan West Garage Station • E. Boston Haul Rd busway • Chelsea­Everett busway • Telecom Blvd routing • Rutherford Ave bus lanes • N. Allston busway/lanes • Tunnel between Ruggles and Cambridgeport and Beacon Park Yard • Melnea Cass Blvd busway • I­93 in S. Boston Same as #4 except: • Longer tunnel from Ruggles to Kendall Square • No Telecom Blvd connection • Logan West Garage Station • E. Boston Haul Rd busway • Chelsea­Everett busway • Rutherford Ave bus lanes • GJRR(1) and GJRR Bridge busway • Commonwealth Ave in mixed traffic • N. Allston busway/lanes • Beacon­Kenmore bus lanes • LMA routing in mixed traffic • Ruggles St bus lanes • Melnea Cass Blvd busway • Albany St (Boston) bus lanes • S. Boston Haul Rd busway • Eliminates BRT 3 Advantages • Direct connection between Sullivan Square and New Lechmere • Kenmore connection • Longer tunnel reduces delays and conflicts • Kenmore connection Disadvantages • In mixed traffic on Commonwealth Ave • Slower connection between LMA(2) and N. Allston • Cost • Implementation • Fast travel times between LMA, N. Allston, and Cambridgeport • Direct connection to Assembly Square • No Kenmore or Yawkey connection • Cost • Implementation • Slow travel times to Dorchester • Reliability issue on I­93 • No Wellington connection • Fast travel times between LMA, N. Allston, and Kendall Square • Direct connection to Assembly Square • Fast travel times in the north • Implementable • Moderate Cost Same as #4 plus: • No Telecom Blvd connection • Poor connection to N. Allston • Surface conflicts in LMA • Slow travel times to Dorchester GJRR = Grand Junction Railroad (2) LMA = Longwood Medical and Academic Area (3) H1 = Hybrid Alternative 1 NOTE: Elements retained in LPA are shaded (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­120 November 2008 Chapter 3 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION Table 3­21: LPA Selection Process Comparison of Alternatives (cont’d)
Alt ID H2(3) Alternative Hybrid Improved Surface Alignment H2T(3) Hybrid Tunnel Alignment LPA(3) Locally Preferred Alternative Major Critical Elements • Logan West Garage Station • E. Boston Haul Rd busway • Chelsea­Everett busway • Telecom Blvd connection • Inner Belt Rd busway • Albany St (Cambridge) bus lanes • GJRR(1) and GJRR Bridge busway • Beacon Park Yard busway to N. Allston • LMA bus lanes • Ruggles St bus lanes • Melnea Cass Blvd busway • Mass Ave bus lanes • Albany St (Boston) bus lanes • A Street bus lanes Same as Hybrid #2 except: • Tunnel between Ruggles and Landmark Center • No UMass Boston connection Advantages • Telecom Blvd connection • Direct connection between Sullivan Square and New Lechmere • Improved connection to N. Allston • Faster travel times in LMA(2) • Faster travel time to Dorchester • Implementable • Moderate Cost Disadvantages • Slower travel time between Kenmore and BU in mixed traffic • Slower travel times to S. Boston • Faster travel times in LMA • Logan West Garage Station • E. Boston Haul Rd busway • Chelsea­Everett busway • Assembly Square in mixed traffic • Inner Belt Rd bus lanes • Albany St (Cambridge) bus lanes • GJRR(1) & GJRR Bridge busway • Busway between BU and N. Allston • Mountfort St bus lanes • Tunnel between Ruggles and Landmark Center • No Kenmore connection • Melnea Cass Blvd busway • Mass Ave bus lanes • Albany St (Boston) bus lanes • A Street bus lanes • No UMass Boston connection • Eliminates BRT 3 • Fast travel times in the north and between LMA, N. Allston, and across Charles River • Direct connection between Sullivan Square and New Lechmere • Reduces surface friction • Fast travel times to Dorchester • New Green Line connection at Fenway • Slow travel time between Kenmore and BU in mixed traffic • Cost • Implementation • No UMass Boston connection • No Assembly Square travel lanes • No Kenmore Station • No UMass Boston connection • Cost • Implementation (1) GJRR = Grand Junction Railroad (2) LMA = Longwood Medical and Academic Area (3) H2 = Hybrid Alternative 2; H2T = Hybrid Alternative 2 with Tunnel; LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative NOTE: Elements retained in LPA are shaded Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 3­121 November 2008