Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 4.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION This chapter summarizes Existing (2006) and Future (2030) transportation conditions for the proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 project both in the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) region and in the Urban Ring Project Corridor. The purpose of this chapter is to describe existing and future baseline conditions against which the proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 services were evaluated. This chapter describes the impact of the nine Build alternatives, three Hybrid Build options and a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) on the transportation system and services, including traffic and parking, public and private transportation services, pedestrians and bicycles, freight, and water transportation. This chapter also discusses relevant local and regional plans and policies that may influence this project. The existing and future baseline conditions presented in this section are drawn from information and data developed by the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) of the Boston Region MPO, as well as new traffic and transportation data obtained and collected as part of the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS effort.1 4.1 Travel Patterns, Mobility and Accessibility For most travelers, public transit travel to and from the Urban Ring Study Corridor today is indirect and time­consuming, generally requiring one or more transfers. Studies indicate that the average number of transfers required to travel to and from the Urban Ring Study Corridor is almost twice the average number of transfers required per regional transit trip.2 The more transfers that are required, the more time­
consuming the trip and the worse the rider’s experience is of the transit services used. Similarly, average effective travel speeds for transit trips to and from the Urban Ring corridor are low in comparison to region wide averages. Previous studies indicate that average regional effective transit travel speeds are generally 2­3 times higher than average effective travel speeds for transit trips made to and from the Urban Ring corridor.3 In addition to the time penalties incurred by riders making transfers, many trips require travel on congested lines or routes for one or more segments. The Boston Inner Core of the subway system is currently at capacity resulting in slow travel times and reliability issues. Currently bus travel within the study area occurs on many of the most congested roadway areas in the region. This results not only in slow travel times and delay but air quality impacts as well. The Urban Ring project will provide positive travel time, delay, and air quality impacts in the study area. As discussed in Chapter 1, the existing higher number of transfers and slow speeds for Urban Ring corridor trips reflect the fact that many of these travelers travel longer distances via indirect routes between trip origins and destinations. Most transit paths from external locations to destinations in the Urban Ring corridor require travel into the congested subway transfer stations in the Boston Inner Core. These trips increase the burden on the Inner Core’s already constrained supply of transit services (see Sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 in Chapter 1). Origins within the Urban Ring corridor requiring at least the average number of transfers (1.2) to reach corridor destinations include North Point, Logan Airport, Downtown Chelsea and Mass Avenue/MIT.4 Urban Ring bus travel speeds will be faster overall than current bus speeds in the corridor. This is due to the amenities and facilities that will provide operating advantages for Urban Ring buses including tunnels and busways (30 mph), bus lanes (20 mph), queue­
jump lanes, and bus signal priority. 1 Additional details and source data are provided in the Urban Ring Phase 2 Technical Traffic Report, November 2008. 2 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Major Investment Study (MIS) of Circumferential Transportation Improvements in the Urban Ring Corridor, Final Report, July 2001. 3 MBTA and U.S. FTA, Ibid. 4 MBTA and U.S. FTA, Ibid. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­1 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION The magnitude of future growth projected for the Urban Ring corridor, combined with the relatively poor levels of existing transit service, provides a strong rationale for transit accessibility and mobility improvements. The Urban Ring corridor’s travel needs could be better satisfied by adding transportation services with a circumferential orientation, providing more direct routes between corridor origins and destinations. The Urban Ring service could also serve origins and destinations from outside the core. The transportation measures reported in this chapter were drawn from the transportation goals, objectives, and criteria established in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need. Such improvements would benefit not only travel to, from, and within the Urban Ring Study Corridor, but will also help relieve burdens placed on the existing radial transportation system. 4.2 Transportation Plans and Policies This section summarizes policies and plans in the Urban Ring Project Corridor. Proposed improvements must be coordinated with area land use planning in order to avoid conflicts with potential adverse impacts, and/or unintended consequences of other projects and policies. Coordination is also required to leverage project improvements, improve sharing of information across different agencies and institutions, and refine the proposed project to meet community needs. Local, institutional, regional, state and federal policies with importance to the Urban Ring are discussed below. 4.2.1 Plans and Policy Approach The wide range of government jurisdictions involved in the corridor made it necessary to organize policy­related information into categories. The locally­oriented planning priorities that have marked the Urban Ring planning process make it logical to present policy descriptions in similar order as follows: • Local Plans and Policies; • Institutional Plans; • Regional Plans and Policies; • State Plans and Policies; and • Federal Plans and Policies. This discussion focuses on those agencies and jurisdictions likely to have a direct role in the planning and/or implementation of Urban Ring transportation improvements, though other entities not specifically discussed here may also have some role. Plan and policy documents were obtained through local jurisdictions and regional, state, and federal agencies. Additional and updated information was gathered from Internet research. 4.2.1.1 Local Plans and Policies The chief executives of the six municipalities along the Urban Ring corridor have jointly put forth the policy that the economic vitality of their jurisdictions requires them to coordinate their land use planning with implementation of the Urban Ring project. Each of the six local jurisdictions in the Urban Ring Regional Planning Compact (Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett and Somerville) provided information concerning its transportation plans and policies. The six municipalities that formed the Compact in 1995 adopted a set of planning principles and committed themselves to working with the MBTA during the Urban Ring project (see Section 4.2.1.3). Policy information on Medford was also obtained, focusing on the Wellington Station area. Table 4­1 summarizes the plans and policies for each local jurisdiction relating to the Urban Ring project. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­2 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­1: Summary of Local Plans and Policies
Jurisdiction(1) Boston Plans and Policy Documents Access Boston 2000­2010 Boston’s City Wide Transportation Master Plan Boston’s Public Transportation and Regional Connections Plan, March 2003 Rutherford Avenue Corridor Study (1999) Roxbury Strategic Master Plan Civic Vision 2000 South Boston Transportation Study 2000 Fenway Neighborhood Transportation Plan 2001 Strategic Framework for Planning in North Allston Regulations to limit parking for new development Transportation Access Plan Agreements TDM measures Green Building Initiative Brookline Brookline Comprehensive Plan 2005­2015, January 2005 Cambridge Cambridge, State and Federal Policies Cambridge Policies, December 28, 2006 • • • • • • Encourage transit Encourage non­automotive travel Reduce automobile and truck through­traffic in neighborhoods Reduce congestion Reduce single­occupant vehicles Promote clean alternative vehicle technologies Chelsea Chelsea Transportation and Growth Policies • • • • • • • Reduce commuter cut­through traffic Consolidate and relocate Rout 1 off­ramps Possible relocation of Chelsea commuter rail station Improve maritime facilities at Chelsea Creek Improve access to Logan Airport Reconstruct Chelsea Creek Bridge Provide better public transportation to support waterfront development • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Goals/Policies Increase rapid transit system Air rights above Turnpike extension Integrated planning process for North Allston­Harvard Mixed­use development node at BU to accommodate Urban Ring Link bus system to commuter rail and trolley Create exclusive bus lanes Create a plan to connect residential and commercial area with transit lines Create a more integrated public transportation system Create better suburban connections by public transit Reduced parking ratios Developer commitments to transit pass subsidies Reduce single­occupant vehicles Reduce traffic impacts in neighborhoods Work with the State and Boston and Newton to create a long­term transportation strategy for the Route 9 corridor Work with the MBTA to explore near­term and long­term transit options Play an active role in advancing the Urban Ring, particularly Phase 3 Promote TDM measures to limit impacts on the roadway network Enhance accessibility of all town facilities (1)
Note: The six municipalities that formed the Compact in 1995 adopted a set of planning principles and committed themselves to working with the MBTA during the Urban Ring project. The six communities act as a regional collaborative in the Urban Ring corridor. (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­3 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­1: Jurisdiction(1) Everett Medford Somerville (1)
Summary of Local Plans and Policies (cont’d)
Plans and Policy Documents Growth Management and Development Study River’s Edge Master Plan(2) December 22, 2005 Assembly Square Mixed­Use District, March 2004 Assembly Square Transportation Plan, Final Report, May 13, 2003 Goals/Policies • • • • • • • • • • • Continue to implement recommendations of the Operation Industrial Uplift Study pertaining to parkway area Reconstruct Vale Street Close and abandon Vine Street S/O Garden Street and widen Vine Street between Parkway and Garden Explore increasing develop parcels adjacent to E. Summer St., Fourth St., Fifth St., and Beech St Relocate, extend, and reconstruct Terminal Street Develop 30­acre mixed­use development site consisting of office, retail, residential and instructional uses Encourage transit­oriented development New Orange Line Station at Assembly Square Implement TDM program Increase HOV at transit and reduce SOV Transform Inner Belt District to office and biotech Note: The six municipalities that formed the Compact in 1995 adopted a set of planning principles and committed themselves to working with the MBTA during the Urban Ring project. The six communities act as a regional collaborative in the Urban Ring corridor. Formed the Tri­City Mystic Valley Development Commission in conjunction with Everett and Malden. (2) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­4 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION The seven local jurisdictions in the study area have transportation and growth policies that, while exhibiting some variation, are consistent in their overall objectives and goals. One of the critical issues facing all compact communities is how to encourage, stimulate, and accommodate development and growth in an environmentally sensitive manner. Cambridge and Boston are trying to curb the increase in automobile travel while continuing to encourage development. Everett, Chelsea and Somerville are looking to revitalize areas, especially along the waterfront, which have traditionally been industrial sites. All communities have embraced public transportation as a key factor to achieving their goals of growth, revitalization, and decreased automobile use, and have undertaken planning efforts to address and guide future development and revitalization. Community and citizen involvement have been instrumental in focusing and guiding these planning efforts. Close coordination with each jurisdiction should allow Phase 2 of the Urban Ring to play a prominent role in each community’s growth. The City of Boston has been working with each of its neighborhoods to develop community master plans to guide future growth and development. The Urban Ring LPA alignment passes through several of these neighborhoods including Roxbury, Fenway (including Audubon Circle), Longwood Medical and Academic Area, East Boston, Allston, and South Boston. Other neighborhood communities such as Cottage Farm in Brookline have been active in the Urban Ring process. The Urban Ring has coordinated with these neighborhood groups throughout the planning process and will continue to as the project progresses. 4.2.1.2 Institutional Plans A large number of medical and educational institutions are located within the Urban Ring Project Corridor. Key medical institutions include: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Children’s Hospital Boston; Harvard Medical, Dental, and Public Health Schools; Massachusetts General Hospital; MGH Chelsea Healthcare Center; Dana­Farber Cancer Institute; Massachusetts College of Pharmacy & Allied Health Sciences; Joslin Diabetes Center and Boston Medical Center. Key academic and cultural institutions in the corridor include: Boston Latin School; Boston University; Emmanuel College; Harvard University; Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum; Massachusetts College of Art and Design; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Museum of Fine Arts; Northeastern University; Simmons College; University of Massachusetts at Boston (UMass Boston); Wentworth Institute of Technology; Wheelock College; and Winsor School. Large employers and other destinations in the corridor include Assembly Square Mall; Biomed companies such as Genzyme Corporation; Boston Red Sox; Fenway Cultural District; Gateway retail in Everett; Logan Airport; and Wellington Circle. The City of Boston requires that major educational and medical institutions in Boston prepare, amend, and periodically update and renew Institutional Master Plans (IMPs), which are comprehensive development plans that describe an institution's existing facilities and long­range planning goals. The process brings the City and community into institutional planning, creates the possibility for a truly collaborative approach to campus development, and offers institutions an opportunity to define their commitments to the community for an extended period of time through a single comprehensive process rather than negotiating such contributions and approval­by­approval. A summary of the relation between transportation plans for institutions and the Urban Ring project is provided in Table 4­2. Note that most of the institutions listed have current IMPs with planned projects and policies that are consistent with the goals of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project. Where appropriate the Urban Ring project has coordinated with and taken into account institutional master plans. Examples include: • Modification of a Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center project to accommodate Urban Ring Phase 3 alignment; • Coordination with Boston Medical Center regarding Phase 2 alignments; • Coordination with Boston University to accommodate Phase 2 alignments at BU Bridge; • Coordination with Harvard University regarding North Allston Phase 2 alignments; and • Coordination with MIT regarding Phase 2 alignments. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­5 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­2: Summary of Institutional Plans and Policies
Institutional Master Plan Planned Projects Policies Consistent with Urban Ring Project(1) � � � � Boston Medical Center � � � Boston University � � � Brigham and Women’s Hospital � � � Children’s Hospital Boston � � � Dana Farber Cancer Institute � � � Emmanuel College � � � Harvard Medical, Dental and Public Health Schools � � � Harvard University � � � Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum � � � Joslin Diabetes Center � � � Massachusetts College of Art and Design � � � Massachusetts College of Pharmacy & Health Sciences � � � Massachusetts General Hospital � � � Massachusetts Institute of Technology � � � Museum of Fine Arts � � � New England BioMed � � � Northeastern University � � � Simmons College � � � Wentworth Institute of Technology � � � Wheelock College � � � Institution Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston Latin School (1)
In addition to having consistent policies with the Urban Ring project, many of the institutions have language in their master plans that discuss and support the Urban Ring project. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­6 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 4.2.1.3 Regional Plans and Policies Several regional transportation organizations are significantly involved with the Urban Ring project. The following is a summary of the planning coordination activities between the project and the Circumferential Ring Regional Planning Compact, comprised of six of the municipalities along the Urban Ring Project Corridor; the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); the MBTA; and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). Circumferential Ring Planning Compact The six municipalities that formed the Compact in 1995 adopted a set of planning principles and committed themselves to working with the MBTA during the Urban Ring project. The six communities act as a regional collaborative in the Urban Ring corridor. By sharing information, working together to resolve transportation issues, and advocating for solutions that serve the interest of the entire corridor, their intent is to support the coordination of transportation and land use along the corridor in a manner which best serves each community as well as the whole. The Compact is also focused on protecting the environment and neighborhoods from negative growth impacts. The Compact has pledged to integrate land use, planning, and zoning initiatives with transit planning, and to support ridership on new transit services.5 The following major topics are discussed in the Urban Ring Compact Final Draft Report and MAPC’s MetroFuture Regional Plan:6 Existing Land Use and Projected Growth – The Urban Ring corridor is home to two major medical centers and 4
four universities. In 2001, the area provided 327,400 jobs and was home to 392,700 residents. Growth trends indicate that jobs and residents will continue to increase. MAPC projections suggest that jobs in the Boston Metropolitan Region may increase by 12.4 percent from 2000 to 2030, and 41 percent of this growth will occur within the “inner core” cities of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Revere, Everett, and Chelsea. Based on historic trends in birth rates, mortality and migration, MAPC anticipates a 13 percent increase in residents in the region between 2000 and 2030, with 35 percent of this growth occurring in the inner core cities. Transit use along the Urban Ring corridor would continue to be the highest in the 5
region. Corridor Land Use Policies – Land use policies along the Urban Ring Project Corridor have been established to help meet the needs of each community. While communities such as Everett, Chelsea and Somerville are looking to promote development in underutilized zones, Boston and Cambridge look to focus their growth in established economic areas, while preserving residential neighborhoods. Tools to Implement Land Use Policies – Federal, state and local governments have all made pledges to invest in targeted areas along the Urban Ring Project Corridor. Whether through infrastructure improvements or lease commitments, an effort has been made to focus funds along the corridor. Performance of Land Use Policies – The communities have distinguished four types of areas, each with specific land use policies: neighborhood business centers, established areas, emerging areas and residential areas. The performance of land use policies in each of these areas is analyzed and the potential impact of the Urban Ring project is assessed. Transit­Supportive Regulations Near Transit Stations – Through unique zoning and other regulations, each community has encouraged transit use along the Urban Ring system. For example, specific parking 5 Urban Ring Planning Compact, Urban Ring Compact Final Draft Report, September 2000, updated August 2001. 6 Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), MetroFuture Regional Plan, Making a Greater Boston Region, Goals, Objectives, and Draft Implementation Strategies, May 2008. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­7 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION regulations, transit­oriented development and other policies aimed directly at increasing transit ridership have been established to ensure that transit ridership will reach higher levels. Containment of Sprawl – The Compact communities are working to create a regional policy to contain sprawl. They support limiting suburban growth and focusing future economic development along and within the Urban Ring Project Corridor. Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) The Boston Region MPO has developed the current long­range transportation plan for the Boston region that includes the transportation policies that will help guide the development of the Urban Ring goals and objectives. The Boston Region MPO recently completed the Boston Region MPO Transportation Plan Journey to 2030,7 which consists of policies, topics, and visions for transportation in the region through the horizon year 2030. The Plan was prepared according to guidelines outlined under Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA­LU). The policy topics are related to the eight planning factors in the SAFETEA­LU and are also consistent with the objectives of the Patrick/Murray Administration. The Journey to 2030 document recommends the Urban Ring Phase 2 project. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) The MBTA has developed a 25­year capital planning document, Program for Mass Transportation (PMT), which sets forward the Authority’s vision for public transportation in eastern Massachusetts. The 2003 PMT defines a vision for regional mass transportation and sets priorities (high, medium, or low) for infrastructure investments in the areas of system preservation, service enhancement, and system expansion. The PMT is being updated in 2008. The Urban Ring Phase 2 and 3, the Silver Line Phase III expansion to South Station and Boylston via Chinatown, the Silver Line south extension to Ashmont and Mattapan, Green Line extension, and Red/Blue connector have been identified as the projects with the highest priority for implementation. Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) MAPC is the regional planning agency for the Boston metropolitan area. MAPC has recently completed a major regional planning effort called MetroFuture: making a Greater Boston Region. Initiated in May 2002 and completed in 2008, the MetroFuture vision for the Boston metropolitan area calls for planning and land use policies that reduce sprawl, concentrate residential and commercial development in existing urban areas, and protect open space and natural resources. These policies are consistent with and supportive of the proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 project. Regional Plans and Policy Summary The Compact municipalities have incorporated the Urban Ring project into their future transportation and growth plans. The Boston MPO has incorporated Phase 2 of the Urban Ring project into the Boston Region MPO Transportation Plan, Journey to 2030.8 The MBTA has identified the Urban Ring project as one of the projects with the highest priority for implementation, and the MAPC encourages “smart growth” tools for the Greater Boston Region. The Urban Ring Project Corridor will be used to encourage controlled growth, which will meet the criteria established by the entire region for smart growth. 7 CTPS, Journey to 2030, Transportation Plan of the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, (also referred to as the “RTP 2007”), April 12, 2007, Revised by Administrative Adjustment, June 28, 2007. Land use updated November 2007. 8 CTPS, Ibid. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­8 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 4.2.1.4 State Plans and Policies On September 1, 2000, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) entered into an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) with the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOTC, now EOT); that ACO and its subsequent amendments establish requirements and deadlines for environmental filings for the Urban Ring. The MEPA unit of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) is the regulatory body charged with ensuring that the Urban Ring filings are submitted by their deadlines and that they comply with state environmental laws and policies. State plans and policies relating to the Urban Ring project include: • Air Act Amendments – The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has implemented programs to attain the ambient air quality standards in the 1990 amendments to the federal Clean Air Act. The state is required to monitor ambient air to determine if it meets a standard. If it does not meet a standard, it must develop and implement pollution control strategies. State plans and control strategies constitute the State Implementation Plan (SIP). • State Implementation Plans (SIP) – MassDEP has SIPs for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and air pollution transport. The final Massachusetts SIP revision to meet Federal Clean Air Act Air Pollution Transport Requirements was completed in January 2008, The Urban Ring project would result in an overall improvement in air quality in the region. • Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies – In 2007, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) issued a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol to take all feasible measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate damage to the environment due to project greenhouse gas emissions.9 The Urban Ring project will reduce indirect greenhouse gas emissions by reducing overall traffic generation in the region. • State Rideshare Regulations – The Massachusetts Rideshare Regulation (310 CMR 7.16) is part of the Commonwealth’s plan to reduce air pollution and to achieve and maintain health­based federal air quality standards. It requires many businesses with 250 or more commuters and educational facilities with 1,000 or more commuters to develop commuter option programs aimed at reducing drive­alone trips. 10 The Urban Ring provides a viable commute alternative to the single occupant automobile. • Smart Growth and Sustainable Development Strategies – The current administration is promoting sustainable development through integrated energy and environment, housing and economic development, transportation and other policies, programs, investments, and regulations. The state will encourage the coordination and cooperation of all agencies and stakeholders, invest public funds wisely in smart growth and equitable development, give priority to investments that will deliver good jobs and good wages, transit access, housing, and open space.11 The Urban Ring Phase 2 project promotes these goals. • 2006 Economic Stimulus Bill – This legislation appropriated approximately $152 million to Massachusetts development and research/technology programs to “promote job creation, economic stability, and competitiveness in the Massachusetts economy.” The Urban Ring project provides improved transit access for such development. 9 Source: http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/misc/GHG%20Policy%20FINAL.pdf 10 Source: http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/approvals/mrpfacts.pdf 11 Source: http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pdf/patrick­principles.pdf Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­9 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION • Transportation Bond Bill – On April 17, 2008, Governor Patrick signed a $3.5 billion transportation bond bill to invest in road and bridge projects across the Commonwealth over three years. Portions of the Urban Ring alignment may benefit from this legislation. • Commonwealth Capital Programs – The recently updated Commonwealth Capital Policy coordinates state capital spending programs in order to invest in projects that are consistent with the Commonwealth’s Sustainable Development Principals and to partner with municipalities seeking to advance shared conservation and development interests.12 The policy encourages communities to site and build homes and businesses in ways that conserve energy and natural resources. The programs encourage local implementation by linking state spending programs to municipal land use practices. The Transit­Oriented Development Bond Program is a Commonwealth Capital Program. • Transit­Oriented Development (TOD) Guidelines – The TOD Bond Program was authorized by Massachusetts Legislature in 2004 and is intended to increase compact, mixed­use, walkable development close to transit stations by providing financing for pedestrian improvements, bicycle facilities, housing projects, and parking facilities within 0.25 miles of commuter rail subway, bus or bus rapid transit station, or ferry terminal.13 The Urban Ring project benefits from this legislation. • Commonwealth of Massachusetts Long­Range Transportation Plan – In 2006, EOT completed the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Long­Range Transportation Plan. The plan represents the state’s vision for providing its residents, visitors, and businesses with a world­class transportation system. The Plan establishes principals, policies, and recommendations that are designed to improve transportation mobility throughout the Commonwealth, and to facilitate economic vitality and enhanced quality of life.14 Urban Ring Phase 2 is among the recommended transit projects that meets the guiding principal of the Plan in the Boston region.15 4.2.1.5 Federal Plans and Policies With the mission to provide fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the lowest cost, the United States DOT has set policies to improve safety throughout the transportation network; reduce congestion for better performance of the Country’s transportation system; increase global connectivity to open international transportation markets and improve intermodal transportation linkages; address environmental challenges to provide safe and efficient transportation network; and provide security, preparedness and response to both expected and unexpected transportation challenges.16 Federal policies most relevant to the Urban Ring project are those of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) within the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). The FTA’s discretionary New Starts program is the Federal government’s primary financial resource for supporting locally­planned, implemented, and operated major transit capital investments. From heavy to light rail transit (LRT), from commuter rail to bus rapid transit (BRT) systems, the New Starts program has helped to make possible dozens of new or extended transit fixed guideway systems across the country. These rail and bus investments have improved the mobility of millions of Americans, helped to reduce congestion and improve air quality in the areas they serve, fostering the development of more viable, safe, and livable communities.17 12 Source: http://www.mass.gov/Agov3/docs/smart_growth/Commonwealth%20Capital%20Summary%2009.rtf 13 Source: http://www.eot.state.ma.us/todbond/ 14 Source: http://www.eot.state.ma.us/default.asp?pgid=content/longplanIndex&sid=level2 15 Executive Office of Transportation (EOT), The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Long­Range Transportation Plan, 2006. 16 United States Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation (DOT) Strategic Plan 2006 ­2011. 17 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Annual Report on Funding Recommendations, Proposed Allocations of Funds for FY 2009, Executive Summary, 2008. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­10 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION In late 2003, Congress passed a short­term extension of the 1998 Transportation Equity Act (TEA) for the st
21 Century (TEA­21) to February 29, 2004 as it continued to work on a new 6­year reauthorization. On May 22, 2006, The 1998 TEA­21 has since been replaced by the new act called Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA­LU). The SAFETEA­LU was signed into law by President Bush on August 10, 2005. On February 14, 2007, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FTA published the “Final Rule.” According to the Final Rule, statewide and metropolitan transportation planning and programming are required to implement the provisions of SAFETEA­LU.18 The SAFETEA­LU mandates that proposed transit New Starts projects must receive FTA approval to advance from alternatives analysis (e.g. the Urban Ring MIS) to preliminary engineering, and again from preliminary engineering to final design and construction. This approval will be based, in large part, on an evaluation of the proposed project against the FTA New Starts criteria.19 FTA issued updated New Starts and Small Starts guidance on policies and procedures on June 4, 2007, and New Starts/Small Starts Evaluation Measures on August 3, 2007.20 SAFETEA­LU requires this guidance be updated at least every two years.21 In 2008, the US DOT and FTA published its Annual Report on Funding Recommendations, Proposed Allocations of Funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. This document provides the U.S. Department of Transportation’s recommendations to Congress for the allocation of funds for the design and construction of fixed guideway New Starts and Small Starts capital investments for FY 2009. New Starts and Small Starts programs are part of the Capital Investment Grant Program provisions most recently reauthorized by the SAFETEA­LU in August 2005. As required by SAFETEA­LU, the annual report document also contains a summary of the allocation of funds made available in FY 2007 to assist qualified projects under the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands program.22 Additionally, the policies and criteria of several other federal agencies are also potentially relevant because of the relationship of the Urban Ring project to land use, economic development, and Brownfields redevelopment. The US DOT has developed a policy that encourages transportation officials to pay for the cleanup of environmental contamination that lies in the path of a transportation project, as well as continue a program of support for the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative. TEA­21/SAFETEA­LU also encourages, through the integrated planning process outlined in the statute, the integration of transportation projects with environmental and community revitalization goals. As such, TEA­21/SAFETEA­LU fits well with US DOT policy regarding Brownfields Redevelopment. There are several industrial areas within the Urban Ring Project Corridor, such as in Chelsea and Everett, which may be revitalized though the Brownfields initiatives to improve transportation access. US DOT agencies, including FTA, encourage transportation agency project sponsors to develop their transportation improvement programs in concert with contaminated site remediation and redevelopment efforts at targeted Brownfields sites. 4.3 Transit This section describes both existing and future transit conditions in the study area. The MBTA currently operates an extensive public transportation network of bus, bus rapid transit, radial transit, commuter rail and water ferry services. The network is comprised of local and express buses, one bus rapid transit line, 18 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Overview of the FHWA/FTA final Rule on Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning and Programming. February 14, 2007. 19 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Guidance on New Starts Policies and Procedures. May 16, 2006. 20 Source: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/SAFETEA­LU_Implementation_FY_07_Schedule_9­28­2007.pdf 21 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Introduction to New Starts. New Starts Project Planning & Development. January 16, 2007. 22 U.S. DOT and FTA, op. cit., 2008. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­11 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION three heavy rail rapid transit lines, one light rail rapid transit line with four branches, 12 commuter rail lines, and commuter boats. It is important to understand the existing transit services in the area to evaluate potential benefits and impacts of the proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 service. Figure 4­1 illustrates the existing public transportation system. Currently available data (2006) indicates that ridership (unlinked trips23) on the entire network of MBTA fixed routes is over 1.2 million daily. Ridership numbers are presented in tables in this section. The bus system has an extensive network of radial routes that feed downtown Boston and the major rail stations from areas to the north, west and south. Additionally, the bus system has a number of local bus services that originate in the Urban Ring corridor and connect to the Boston Core. The bus system includes radial express routes that cross, but do not stop within, the corridor. The existing bus system also includes three “Crosstown” (CT) routes that operate in mixed traffic through portions of the circumferential Urban Ring corridor. Many of these routes link a number of the Urban Ring corridor's activity centers and experience some of the highest ridership levels of all MBTA bus routes. All of the rapid transit and light rail lines cross the Urban Ring Project Corridor and have stations in many of the corridor's activity centers. The Silver Line bus rapid transit system, the newest rapid transit service, intersects the Urban Ring corridor at Washington Street in Roxbury and at World Trade Center station in South Boston. The commuter rail system also has a radial configuration, primarily to connect the Boston Core with suburbs beyond the Urban Ring. However, three of the commuter rail lines currently have no station stops where they cross the Urban Ring corridor, and others near important economic centers lack full service. This study compares existing, future No­Build and Baseline alternative systemwide operating results with Build Alternatives operating results. CTPS’s 2000 Base Year model was updated by adding projects that were completed between 2000 and 2007. The following projects were assumed for analysis of No­Build, Baseline, and Build conditions analysis, except where noted. Transit Projects Opened Since 2000:24 • North Station Improvements (complete); • Blue Line Modernization (ongoing, but most work is substantially complete, and six­car train service is expected to begin by the end of 2008); • 1,000 Additional Surface Park­and­Ride Spaces (complete); • Worcester Commuter Rail, Full Service including New Stations in Westborough, Southborough, and Ashland (complete); • Silver Line Washington Street, Phase I (complete); • Silver Line South Boston Piers Transitway, Phase II (complete); • Mattapan Car Refurbishment (ongoing); • Airport Intermodal Transit Connector (complete); • Industriplex Intermodal Center (Woburn) including parking and Amtrak station (complete); • New Commuter Rail Station at JFK/UMass Station (complete); and • Greenbush Commuter Rail Service (complete). 23 An unlinked transit trip is a trip on a single transit line or route (e.g. #1 Bus or Red Line). An unlinked transit trip is an overall, origin­to­destination transit trip (e.g. #1 Bus transfer to Red Line). Therefore, the number of linked transit trips is always higher than the number of unlinked trips; the ratio of unlinked trips to linked trips is a measure of the number the number of times a typical passenger must transfer to complete his/her journey. 24 CTPS, op. cit., Chapter 3, Appendix D. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­12 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Figure 4­1 Existing Public Transportation Network
Ur b an R ing P has e 2 RD EI R/ DEI S
Data provided by MBTA.
0
1
2
Miles
Existing Public
Transportation System
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­13 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION The public transportation network serving the metropolitan area will see a number of major improvements between now and the 2030 design year. The 2030 No­Build network includes future projects planned in the RTP, but not Urban Ring Phase 2. The No­Build 2030 network serves as a base for which to compare project impacts against. The 2030 Baseline includes the No­Build condition, plus an Urban Ring Phase 2 service that approximates the LPA, but without travel advantages such as tunnels, busways, bus lanes, etc. The Baseline condition is compared with the LPA and is required by FTA. 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. Expansion Transit Projects in the Recommended Journey to 2030 Plan25 • 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. The existing transit services and future transit improvements, including the proposed project, are described below. 25 CTPS, Ibid. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­14 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 4.3.1 Local and Express Buses This section describes the features of existing and future local and express bus networks. 4.3.1.1 Existing Bus Services The MBTA operates 179 bus and trolley routes which cover 763 route­miles and serve approximately 9,000 bus stops.26 The MBTA bus routes consist of radial services to downtown Boston and a number of other centers in the region, feeder routes to both the rapid transit and commuter rail system, and a large number of crosstown routes. Four of the bus routes are trackless trolleys powered by electricity from overhead catenary; these routes serve portions of Cambridge, Watertown and Belmont. Local Bus Network The MBTA operates an extensive network of local bus routes that serve most of the activity centers in the corridor. These routes include a number of cross town services that connect areas along the Urban Ring, as well as many radial routes which connect corridor areas to both the Boston Core and to locations to the north, west, and south of the corridor. Tables 4­3 and 4­4 provide a listing of the existing radial and crosstown bus routes, respectively, in the corridor. In addition, the tables present average weekday ridership statistics for each of the routes and for the MBTA’s total bus network (see Table 4­4). The study corridor is served by a total of 63 bus routes. Based on CTPS passenger count summaries and MBTA data updated in January 2008, these routes accounted for 227,246 daily riders, or 61 percent of the MBTA's total bus network ridership of 371,971 on 196 routes. Twenty­eight of these routes serve a predominantly crosstown function. These routes provide single route connections among a number of the corridor’s activity centers and carry approximately 88,610 daily riders. Three of these routes are limited stop Urban Ring CT buses: the CT 1 (701), CT 2 (747 and 748), and CT 3 (708). Table 4­5 provides additional information on recent ridership growth for these CT routes. The rising ridership measured on the CT routes indicates a growing demand for circumferential cross town transit service. Note that in year 2000, the CT 2 route was extended from Kendall/MIT to Sullivan Square via Union Square. The demand for crosstown service is expected to continue to grow in the future. Recent increases in fuel prices have resulted in shifts in travel mode from automobile to public transit. While fuel prices will fluctuate in the future it is reasonable to expect that they will continue to remain higher than in the past. This trend is likely to result in a permanent increase for transit services rather than a temporary shift away from automobile use. Express Bus Network Approximately 10 percent of the MBTA bus routes provide express services. These express routes provide direct or limited­stop service from Newton, Watertown, Waltham, Medford, Burlington, Woburn, Lynn, Marblehead, Salem, Saugus and Brighton to downtown stops at Haymarket, the Financial District and Park Square. One bus also terminates at Copley Square. No MBTA express buses currently serve the Urban Ring corridor. All current express routes are radial. In addition to the MBTA, Massport operates three express bus routes (Logan Express) that serve the Logan Airport portion of the corridor. These Logan Express routes originate in Braintree, Framingham and Woburn, where airport passengers and employees can park or be dropped off before riding the bus directly to airport terminals. This service operates from early in the morning to late at night. 26 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Investing in the MBTA’s Future: Capital Investment Program FY 2008 – FY 2012, May 1, 2007, www.mbta.com. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­15 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Existing Weekday Ridership for MBTA Radial Bus Routes in Study Corridor
Table 4­3: Route No.(1) 14 17 18 22 23 28 39 41 42 43 45 749 Silver Line 55 57 60 65 80 83 85 87 88 89 92 93 95 99 100 108 109 111 116 117 120 121 Route Name Roslindale Square – Heath Street Loop Fields Corner Station – Andrew Station Ashmont Station – Andrew Station Ashmont Station – Ruggles Station via Talbot Avenue Ashmont Station – Ruggles Station via Washington Street Mattapan Station – Ruggles Station Forest Hills Station – Back Bay Station Centre & Elliot Streets – JFK U Mass Station Forest Hills Station – Ruggles Station Ruggles Station – Park & Tremont Streets Franklin Park – Ruggles Station Dudley Square – Downtown (Silver Line Washington Street) Queensbury Street – Park & Tremont Streets Watertown Yard – Kenmore Station Chestnut Hill – Kenmore Station Brighton Center – Kenmore Station Arlington Center – Lechmere Station Rindge Avenue – Central Square Cambridge Spring Hill – Kendall MIT Station Clarendon Hill – Lechmere Station via Somerville Clarendon Hill – Lechmere via Highland Clarendon Hill – Sullivan Station Assembly Square Mall – Downtown via Main Street Sullivan Station – Downtown via Bunker Hill West Medford – Sullivan Station Boston Region Medical Center Stoneham – Wellington Station Elm Street – Wellington Station Linden Square – Wellington Station Linden Square – Sullivan Station Woodlawn or Broadway & Park – Haymarket Station Wonderland Station – Maverick Station via Revere Street Wonderland Station – Maverick Station via Beach Street Orient Heights Station – Maverick Station Wood Island Station – Maverick Station Total Average Weekday Ridership Average Weekday Ridership 1,359 2,781 740 7,047 12,910 12,071 14,405 2,212 3,171 2,648 3,600 14,709 847 8,665 970 1,462 1,872 2,154 397 3,373 3,785 3,431 1,055 4,210 1,253 1,060 622 2,600 2,988 8,692 4,388 4,058 2,718 384 138,637 Source: MBTA, Ridership and Service Statistics, Eleventh Edition, unlinked trips as of January 2008. The bus routes in this table are judged to serve primarily a radial function, although portions of individual routes may also provide limited crosstown connections. (1) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­16 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­4: Corridor Existing Weekday Ridership for MBTA Crosstown Bus Routes in Study Route No.(1) 1 5 8 10 15 16 19 44 46 47 64 66 69 70 86 90 91 97 101 104 105 106 110 112 119 701/CT 1 747/CT 2 748/CT 2 708/CT 3 Route Name Harvard Square – Dudley Station via Mass Ave. City Point – McCormack Housing Project Harbor Point/U Mass – Kenmore Station City Point – Copley Square via B.C.H. Kane Square – Ruggles Station Forest Hills Station – U Mass Fields Corner Station – Ruggles or Kenmore Station Jackson Square Station – Ruggles Station Heath Street – Dudley [NO LONGER IN SERVICE] Central Square, Cambridge – Broadway Station Oak Square – University Park, Cambridge Harvard Square – Dudley Station via Brookline Harvard Square – Lechmere Station Cedarwood – Central Square, Cambridge Sullivan Station – Cleveland Circle Davis Square Station – Wellington Station Sullivan Station – Central Square, Cambridge Malden Station – Wellington Station Malden Station – Sullivan Station via Medford Square Malden Station – Sullivan Station via Ferry Street Malden Station – Sullivan Station via Main Street Franklin Square or Lebanon Street Loop, Malden – Wellington Station Wonderland Station – Wellington Station Wellington Station – Wood Island Station Northgate Shopping Center – Beachmont Station Central Square, Cambridge – South End Medical Area Kendall MIT Station, Cambridge – Ruggles Station Sullivan Station – Kendall MIT Station(2) Longwood Medical and Academic Area – Andrew Station – BU Medical Center Total Crosstown Routes Total Radial Routes Total All Routes in Study Corridor Total All MBTA Bus Routes Average Weekday Ridership 12,758 118 3,217 3,121 6,951 4,350 3,376 3,791 0 2,831 1,268 11,088 2,985 4,654 5,139 920 1,482 565 4,116 3,360 893 2,317 2,392 1,213 784 2,268 976 660 1,016 88,609 138,637 227,246 371,971 Study Corridor Routes as Percentage of Total System 61% Source: MBTA, Ridership and Service Statistics, Eleventh Edition, unlinked trips as of January 2008. (1)
The bus routes in this table are judged to serve primarily a crosstown) function within the study area, although portions of individual routes may also provide radial connections. (2)
This portion of the CT 2 bus route represents an extension completed in year 2000. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­17 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­5: Ridership Trends for Study Corridor Circumferential Forecasts
Average Weekday Ridership by Date of Count Route 10/1994 11/1994 1/1995 4/1995 9/1995 Spring 1997(1) Fall 2000 8/2006 Ridership Growth (10/1994 – 8/2006) 701/CT1 1,557 1,801 2,039 2,033 2,295 2,192 2,507 2,268 46% 747/CT2 550 545 722 832 827 1,208 1,192 976 77% 748/CT2(2) na na na na na na na 660 na 708/CT3 644 688 778 846 1,201 1,294 1,029 1,016 58% 2,751 3,034 3,539 3,711 4,323 4,694 4,728 4,260 56% Total Sources: MBTA Operations Planning and Scheduling Department, 1997; CTPS/MBTA Ridecheck Program, Typical Boarding (unlinked trips as of August 2006). (1)
Includes surveys performed between Spring 1997 and 2000. (2)
This portion of the CT 2 bus route represents an extension completed in year 2000. The Ride The MBTA’s paratransit program has a fleet of 225 sedans and 228 lift­equipped vans. The MBTA owns 66 percent of the fleet, and the remaining vehicles are owned by four private firms. 4.3.1.2 Future Bus Services The MBTA bus system of the future is assumed to undergo continuous incremental improvement in technology and service consistent with results of the MBTA’s Bus Service Planning Process. In keeping with the MBTA’s commitment to upgrade its bus service, they have begun to take delivery of 155 ultra low sulfur diesel vehicles.27 The geographic coverage of the local bus system in the 2030 Baseline scenario is expected to be similar to the existing bus network previously depicted in Figure 4­1. A comprehensive, long­term strategy for transit improvements in the Urban Ring corridor was investigated in the Urban Ring Major Investment Study (MIS), which the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) completed in July 2001. The MIS defined the access and mobility problems in the corridor; evaluated a wide range of alternatives for addressing these problems; and recommended a three­phase approach to making public transit improvements in the Urban Ring corridor. Phase 1 would improve bus service in the Urban Ring corridor; Phase 2 would principally consist of bus rapid transit (BRT) service in the corridor with new and improved intermodal connections; and Phase 3 would add rail rapid transit in a portion of the corridor (generally from Wellington/Assembly Square/ Sullivan Square in the north, through Cambridge, across the Charles River, through the Kenmore/Fenway/LMA to Dudley Square in the south). The MIS proposal for Urban Ring Phase 1 entailed an expanded network of conventional bus routes to meet transit demand in the corridor in the near­term. These bus routes included additional “crosstown” routes (CT4, CT5, CT6, CT7, CT8, CT9, CT10 and CT11) and “express commuter,” or “EC,” routes (EC1 and EC2). These routes were proposed to provide principally circumferential service, although the EC routes and some of these CT routes 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. Estimated Phase 1 ridership according to the Phase 2 November 30, 2004 DEIR would have been 40,000 daily riders (for 2003).28 27 MBTA, Ibid. 28Source: MBTA and FTA, Urban Ring Phase 2 DEIR, November 30, 2004. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­18 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 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. Therefore, 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. Other expansion projects of the bus system within the Urban Ring corridor include construction of busway/bus lanes from Ruggles to Dudley, and operation of a Jitney van loop from Forest Hills to Longwood Medical and Academic Area to Coolidge Corner. The major infrastructure and expansion projects listed in the recommended plan also include addition of 100 new buses region wide to improve service on existing routes. 4.3.2 Silver Line The Silver Line represents the first Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operating service in the MBTA system. It is useful to understand the Silver Line BRT service for Urban Ring Phase 2 planning purposes. The current and future Silver Line operations are described below. 4.3.2.1 Existing Silver Line The Silver Line is a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system operating with an exclusive bus lane or busway in most sections. The Silver line operates a fleet of 17 buses powered by compressed natural gas (CNG). Phases I and II of the Silver line are complete. Phase I, which opened in July 2002, consists of articulated bus service along a reconstructed Washington Street between Dudley Square in Roxbury and downtown Boston. The route follows Washington Street to the Downtown Crossing area and improves radial transit service in portions of the CT/Ruggles section of the corridor. Phase I serves 14 stations and operates in an exclusive bus­only lane of traffic on portions of Washington Street. Phase II, which initially opened in December 2004, consists of a fixed guideway, dual­mode bus system extending from South Station to the areas of new development along the waterfront in South Boston, including the new Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. This segment includes a tunnel connection from South Station to the Fan Pier/Federal Court House and the World Trade Center. The South Boston service improves access to the South Boston Piers area for those portions of the corridor in Cambridge and the JFK/Morrissey Boulevard area served by the Red Line. Massport studied a series of alternatives to provide improved passenger circulation among the airline terminals, landside support facilities and the MBTA Blue Line at Logan Airport Station. The Silver Line service also links the airline terminals with the new Boston Convention and Exposition Center in South Boston, and the Red Line at South Station via the Ted Williams Tunnel. Phase II of the Silver Line added another three stations and 32 vehicles to the fleet. Silver line stations within the Urban Ring corridor include Dudley, Washington Street, WTC, Silver Line Way, and the Airport Terminals. Daily ridership for these stations is shown in Figure 4­2 in Section 4.3.3. In 2007, 19 percent of the Silver Line boardings occurred at these stations within the study corridor. 4.3.2.2 Future Silver Line Phase III of the Silver Line will consist of a tunnel connecting the Washington Street Silver Line service to the South Boston segment of the Silver Line. The rapid transit improvement projects listed in the Boston Region MPO’s Journey to 2030 and assumed for the future scenarios are summarized below. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­19 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Silver Line, Phase III – Phase III is a new subway alignment connecting South Station with Washington Street with intermediate stops at Boylston and Chinatown stations. Phase III of the Silver Line connects Phase I (which runs between New England Medical Center and Dudley Square in Roxbury) to Phase II (which runs from South Station to Logan Airport via the World Trade Center). This new segment will allow for direct transfers from all segments of the combined Silver Line with the Red Line (South Station), the Orange Line (Chinatown Station), and the Green Line (Boylston Station). This system would ultimately enable a single seat ride from Dudley Square to the South Boston Waterfront and Logan Airport. Silver Line Phase III is expected to be completed in 2017. 4.3.3 Rail Rapid Transit System The existing rapid transit system and future rapid transit improvements are described below. 4.3.3.1 Existing Rapid Rail Transit The MBTA rapid transit system is comprised of four separate rapid transit lines. The rail rapid transit lines have a total of 131 rapid transit and light rail stations, including six shared intermodal stations (North Station, Haymarket, State Street, Government Center, Park Street, and Downtown Crossing). The system has 64 route miles on the three heavy rail and one light rail line. The Orange, Red and Blue Lines are completely grade­separated, predominantly third­rail systems. The Green Line is a light rail system that operates in a combination of grade­separated ROW, at­grade reservations, and along city streets. All of these rapid transit lines are radial, focused on downtown Boston, and cross the Urban Ring corridor. Except for the Red Line and Blue Line, all of the lines intersect with each other at major transfer points in downtown Boston. Figure 4­2 (2007) and Table 4­6 (2007/2008) show total boardings by station and by line for the rapid transit and light rail system on an average weekday, including stations located within the Urban Ring corridor. Information is also included for the existing Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit system discussed above. In 2008, approximately 763,000 unlinked transit trips were made on the rapid transit and light rail system on an average weekday. This represents an 18 percent increase overall compared with 2003 ridership. It is noted that year 2008 rapid transit and light rail ridership is preliminary and that station level ridership is not yet available. The 2007 ridership, while showing lower levels than 2003,29 exhibits a higher percentage of trips made in the Urban Ring corridor than in 2003 (31 percent versus 25 percent). Ridership increases since 2003 have occurred for each line, with the most dramatic being the Silver Line (350 percent increase since 2003). The Urban Ring project will provide new and additional service that will help accommodate this rising transit demand. 4.3.3.2 Future Rail Rapid Transit As part of MBTA’s commitment to upgrade its rail rapid transit system, major component replacements are planned for the Green, Orange, and Red Lines. Furthermore, the purchase of 94 new cars for the Blue Line and a total of 18 funded subway station projects primarily for the Blue Line and Red Line will contribute to modernize and expand the subway fleet.30 Selected rapid transit improvement projects listed in the Boston Region MPO’s Journey to 2030 and assumed for the future Baseline scenarios for the Urban Ring Phase 2 are summarized below in greater detail. 29 The ridership drop in 2007 is recognized as being a short­term anomaly representing a period in 2007 immediately after a fare increase and before the escalation in fuel prices. 30 MTBA, op.cit. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­20 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Figure 4­2 Existing (2007) Rapid Transit and Light Rail Weekday Boardings by Station Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­21 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­6: Ridership Trends for MBTA Rapid Transit and Light Rail Line – Average Weekday Boardings Daily Boardings Transit Line Red Line Total Line Study Corridor Stations % In Study Corridor Orange Line Total Line Study Corridor Stations % In Study Corridor Blue Line Total Line Study Corridor Stations % In Study Corridor Green Line Total Line Study Corridor Stations % In Study Corridor Silver Line Total Line Study Corridor Stations % In Study Corridor System Totals Total Line Total Study Corridor Station Study Corridor Percentage of Line Total 2003(1) 217,891 60,880 28% 164,065 40,952 25% 57,301 15,603 27% 202,612 42,380 21% 7,330 5,370 73% 649,199 165,185 25% 2007(2) 174,036 63,266 36% 119,823 33,791 28% 47,809 15,956 33% 161,050 47,484 29% 42,012 7,931 19% 544,730 168,428 31% 2008(3) 248,646 na(4) 181,349 na 58,189 na 249,226 na 25,715 na 763,125 na Ridership Growth % 2003 to 2008 14% 11% 2% 23% 350% 18% (1)
Source: Urban Ring Phase 2 DEIR, November 30, 2004. Data from MIS Final Report, July 2001. (2) Source: CTPS, 2007 MBTA Subway Ridership, June 2007. (3)
Source: MBTA Subway Ridership by Station FY 2008, Data through June 2008. Note that 2008 ridership numbers are preliminary and ridership by station is not yet available. (4)
na = not available Blue Line Modernization – These projects will lengthen station platforms to accommodate six­car trains and purchase new vehicles in order to significantly increase capacity on this subway line that connects downtown Boston with East Boston and Logan Airport. This project is substantially complete, with station construction complete at all stations except State Street in downtown Boston, and vehicle procurement underway. North Shore Transit Improvements/Blue Line Extension – This would extend Blue Line service from its terminus at Wonderland Station in Revere to downtown Lynn. The Boston Region MPO’s RTP (Journey to 2030) assumes that this project would follow the commuter rail’s Eastern Route Main Line, but EOT is currently working on a DEIR/DEIS that also includes other alternatives. Orange Line Station at Assembly Square – This project would add a station on the existing Orange Line at the Assembly Square development in Somerville between Sullivan Square Station in Charlestown and Wellington Station in Medford. This new station would be located within the Urban Ring corridor and would enable a direct transit access to the Assembly Square Mall, the proposed IKEA, and other proposed developments in Assembly Square. Green Line Extension from Lechmere to Medford Hillside – The Green Line extension to West Medford would provide direct service between Cambridge and West Medford via Somerville. The Green Line Extension to Medford Hillside would follow the Lowell Commuter Rail ROW from Lechmere Station four miles north through Somerville to Medford. It also includes a spur to Union Square in Somerville. This project provides a significant improvement in radial transit service to portions of the corridor in Somerville and Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­22 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION East Cambridge. The extension would shorten travel times and eliminate the bus/rail transfer that is now required. Another transit project includes extension of Green Line from Medford Hillside to Davis Square to connect with the Red Line. Red Line/Blue Line Connector Design – This project entails completing the design for an extension of the Blue Line subway from its current downtown terminus at Bowdoin Station to the Charles/MGH Station on the Red Line. This project would improve access between the corridor activity centers along the Red Line (Mass General Hospital, JFK/Morrissey Boulevard, Kendall Square and Harvard) and Logan Airport and East Boston. Because the Urban Ring study corridor passes through portions of the blue, orange, green and red rapid transit lines, all of the rapid transit improvements discussed above would benefit the Urban Ring project. 4.3.4 Commuter Rail System The existing commuter rail system and future changes to the commuter rail system are described below. 4.3.4.1 Existing Commuter Rail The MBTA operates an extensive commuter rail system of 11 lines that connect much of eastern Massachusetts with downtown Boston at North and South Stations. The system provides commuter service to and from 131 downtown Boston and outlying rail stations using diesel locomotives pulling passenger coaches. Only five of the 131 commuter rail stations are located within the Urban Ring Corridor. The Fitchburg Line, Haverhill Line, and Lowell Line do not have station stops in the Urban Ring Project Corridor, and the Newburyport/Rockport Line has no station within the corridor between Chelsea and North Station. Based on a train passenger audit conducted on Thursday, September 14, 2006, the commuter rail system is estimated to carry approximately 68,630 passengers per day.31 Of the total daily ridership, the North System lines account for approximately 25,000 passengers per day (36 percent) and the South System lines approximately 44,000 passengers per day (64 percent). As a result of poor connectivity in the Urban Ring corridor, existing total commuter rail boardings in the Urban Ring corridor (see page 4­25 for future conditions) remain relatively small (approximately 0.6 percent of the total commuter rail boardings, or about 850 passengers per day). Commuter rail trains typically run on 25­ to 40­minute headways during the morning and evening peak periods and 1­ to 3­hour headways during off­peak periods. On a typical weekday, there are 475 daily trains provided. All lines except the Fairmount Line also operate limited weekend service. Figure 4­3 shows the existing (2006) commuter rail system, daily boardings at each station, and ridership for each line. Table 4­7 shows average weekday boardings for 2003 and 2006. Figure 4­3 and Table 4­7 also highlight commuter rail ridership at stations within the Urban Ring corridor. Note that commuter rail daily boardings decreased by approximately 1,090 between 2003 and 2006. This could be the result of fare increases, service reliability and other factors. Recent trends in 2008 have shown increases in transit ridership as commuters shift from auto travel to transit (see Table 4­6). Some of the reasons include congestion and delay on roadways and rising fuel costs. The Urban Ring project will provide new and additional service that will help accommodate rising transit demand. 31 Approximately 137,250 daily trips. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­23 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Figure 4­3 Commuter Rail Weekday Inbound Boardings by Station – Existing 2006 Conditions Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­24 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­7: Ridership Trends for MBTA Commuter Rail – Average Weekday
2006 Daily Ridership Growth 2003 Daily (2003 to 2006) Boardings(1) Boardings(2) Fairmont & Total Line 15,600 15,276 ­324 Franklin Study Corridor Stations 364 248 ­116 % In Study Corridor 2.3% 1.6% Fitchburg Total Line 8,536 10,018 1,482 Study Corridor Stations 0 0 0 % In Study Corridor 0% 0% Framingham/ Total Line 19,144 19,410 266 Worcester Study Corridor Stations 20 48 28 % In Study Corridor 0.1% 0.2% Haverhill Total Line 10,278 8,400 ­1,878 Study Corridor Stations 0 0 0 % In Study Corridor 0% 0% Kingston/ Total Line 19,492 19,310 ­182 Plymouth/ Study Corridor Stations 10 4 ­6 Middleboro % In Study Corridor 0.1% 0% Lowell Total Line 12,034 11,712 ­322 Study Corridor Stations 0 0 0 % In Study Corridor 0% 0% Needham Total Line 8,280 7,556 ­724 Study Corridor Stations 54 95 41 % In Study Corridor 0.7% 1.3% Newburyport/ Total Line 19,492 19,346 ­146 Rockport Study Corridor Stations 554 356 ­198 % In Study Corridor 2.8% 1.8% Providence/ Total Line 25,490 26,226 736 Stoughton Study Corridor Stations 54 95 41 % In Study Corridor 0.2% 0.4% System Totals Total Line 138,346 137,254 ­1,092 Total Study Corridor Station 1056 846 210 Study Corridor Percentage of Line Total 0.8% 0.6% Rail Line (1)
Source: Urban Ring Phase 2 DEIR, November 30, 2004. Source: MBTA Train Audit, Thursday, September 14, 2006. (2) 4.3.4.2 Future Commuter Rail Projects A number of improvements are planned over the next 22 years for the commuter rail system, including the extensions of Commuter Rail service on the Greenbush Line and the New Bedford/Fall River Line. Future plans include major midlife overhauls for large portions of the locomotive and coach fleets.32 The Journey to 2030 transportation plan includes several new commuter rail stations. The MBTA has programmed capital funding for platform, concourse, or access improvements for eight commuter rail 32 MTBA, op.cit. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­25 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION stations.33 The extensions will add ridership to the South system, but the 2030 Baseline provides no new commuter rail stations that will connect directly with the Urban Ring corridor. Fairmont Line Improvements – The Fairmont commuter rail line will be updated by adding new stations on the existing route and increasing the frequency of service. Park­and­Ride Lot Expansion – As part of the state’s SIP commitments, 1,000 new park­and­ride spaces would be added to the MBTA system. Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail Extension – This project would extend commuter rail service from Stoughton to Fall River and New Bedford, restoring the rail passenger service to Boston that was discontinued in 1958. These future commuter rail improvements are anticipated to increase commuter rail ridership along the existing Fairmont, Stoughton, and other commuter rail lines. Because there will be transfer locations for the Urban Ring service along these lines, this should indirectly result in ridership benefits for the Urban Ring project as well. 4.3.5 MBTA Reverse Commuting As employment has increased in the suburbs over recent decades, the transportation demand for people living in urban areas and working in suburban areas has also increased. One of the goals of the MBTA is to improve reverse commute opportunities from the Boston urban core to outlying suburbs. The Urban Ring Project Corridor crosses all rapid transit and commuter rail lines in the urban core area that provide radial access to outer core and suburban locations. While there are opportunities to provide improved reverse commuter opportunities, there are several challenges that need to be considered and met.34 These include: • Poor connections between residential neighborhoods and transit stations (such as some locations in North Allston and Everett) and; • For most reverse commutes, existing transit service does not match travel time and convenience 35
of driving (long headways and schedules that do not match commuter needs); and • Incentives for non­work reverse commuting trips are small for those who own an automobile. Over the last 10 years, the MBTA has implemented the extensions of the Worcester and Old Colony Rail Lines that have helped to improve reverse commute opportunities. 4.3.6 Water Transportation Existing and future water transportation features are described below. 4.3.6.1 Existing Water Transportation Several passenger ferry services are provided in the metropolitan area. The MBTA operates commuter boats (MBTA Harbor Express) from Rowes Wharf to Hingham, and Long Wharf to Hull and Quincy. These 33 Station improvements are planned for the following stations: Yawkey, North Station, Uphams Corner, Rockport, Attleboro, Littleton, Waltham, and Morton Street. 34 MBTA Reverse Commuting Report, 2001. 35 Responses to Comments on Client Draft of MBTA Reverse Commuting Study Final Report, March 30, 2001. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­26 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION commuter boats have a fare of $6.00. The MBTA also operates the F4 Inner Harbor ferry between Long Wharf and the Charlestown Navy Yard with 15­minute headways during peak periods and a fare of $1.70. “Boston Harbor Taxis” is a private water taxi service that stops at 16 locations, including the Boston Convention and Exposition Center, the World Trade Center, the Financial District, and the Boston Harbor Islands. The fare is $10 one­way. Other private companies include City Water Taxi and Rowes Wharf Water Taxi, which are on­call services, also with a standard one­way fare of $10. These services stop at over 20 locations within Boston Harbor, including Logan Airport, World Trade Center, Moakley Courthouse, the East Boston Piers, and various marinas. The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) runs a courtesy Water Transportation Bus Service (Route #66) at Logan Airport, which makes continuous regular trips between the Logan dock, the airport terminals, and the MBTA Blue Line Station. Route 66 operates on 15­minute headways. Downtown Boston is also served by seasonal water transportation services to Salem and to Provincetown. 4.3.6.2 Future Water Transportation Future ferry service improvements include an expansion for ferry service between Russia Wharf and South Station. This project would implement a new ferry route in Boston Inner Harbor from the existing terminal at the Charlestown Navy Yard to a new terminal at Russia Wharf in Fort Point Channel at Congress Street. This will allow commuters to access additional portions of the downtown Boston business district via ferry service and possibly eliminate the need to transfer to another transit mode. Ferry service between downtown Boston and Winthrop is planned for implementation, and EOT will continue to work with water transportation stakeholders to identify and implement other water transportation services. It is anticipated that the Fort Point and Seaport Districts, the East Boston waterfront, Charlestown Navy Yard and other locations posited for development growth could support additional water transportation services in the future. 4.3.7 Private Transportation Services Existing and future operations for private transportation services are described below. 4.3.7.1 Existing Private Transportation Services In addition to the extensive system of public transportation services, the corridor is served by a number of private transportation services. These consist primarily of shuttle and circulator bus routes provided by a number of the major institutions, employers, and in one instance, a major shopping mall. The private shuttles typically provide specialized connections for employees and students when those origins and destinations are generally not well­served by the MBTA. While MBTA bus routes may serve some origins and destinations served by shuttles, they may not provide a one­seat ride as many of the shuttles do. The services are focused primarily in the Boston and Cambridge portions of the corridor, and operate with fleets of both passenger vans and full size transit buses. Private shuttles are provided for several major employment areas in the Urban Ring corridor, including the Longwood Medical and Academic Area (LMA), Mass General Hospital, Kendall Square, UMass Boston, Boston University and Medical Center area, MIT, and Harvard. Employer shuttles are often provided as part of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs). Some of these in the corridor include MASCO, MIT, and Partners. Some shuttles, such as the MASCO M2 Route, are open to the public who are not employees patients or students, but may require payment. It is noted that in some instances tickets may not be sold on the vehicle. The private transportation systems in the corridor provide feeder service between activity centers and existing transit stations and line­haul service between major nodes. An example of the former is the UMass shuttle between the JFK Red Line Station and the nearby UMass­Boston campus. An example of the latter is the shuttle between the Harvard Medical School in the LMA of Boston and Harvard Square in Cambridge. The private shuttle providers have identified a need for service not currently provided adequately by public transit. With an absence of improved public transit service for crosstown trips in the corridor, it can be expected that travel demand for both types of private transportation service will Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­27 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION increase given the forecasted growth in corridor trip making between 45 and 55 percent over existing levels. Table 4­8 summarizes existing 2007 and projected 2030 daily ridership for private shuttles in the study area by owner. In 2007, the total daily ridership of the private shuttles in the study area is approximately 36,850 trips. The service provider with the highest ridership is UMass Boston (the shuttle between UMass and the JFK/UMass Red Line station), which has 13,000 daily riders, followed by MASCO (approximately 9,440 daily riders) Partners Health Care (6,540 daily riders), and Boston University (3,570 daily riders). It is noted that the shuttle ridership figures presented in Table 4­8 are only for those services which ridership figures could be documented. Actual ridership on private shuttles may be higher. 4.3.7.2 Future Private Transportation Services Ridership numbers were extrapolated to year 2030 by using an annual growth rate of approximately one­
half percent per year.36 This rate reflects the forecasted future increase in employment and population that has been developed by the Boston MPO and used in the current Regional Transportation Plan. The rate assumes current mode splits and does not assume an increased percentage of transit use in the future. If this occurs, the projected private shuttle ridership figures would increase. The estimated year 2030 daily ridership for private shuttles on existing routes in the area is approximately 42,250 daily riders (13 percent increase). The CTPS regional travel demand model used to develop ridership forecasts currently does not have the flexibility to account for private shuttle buses as a transit mode. As a result, it is difficult to estimate the number of riders that would shift from private shuttles to Urban Ring service when it becomes available. Table 4­9 shows the potential shift in daily 2030 ridership that could occur from private shuttles to the LPA. The number of riders anticipated to shift is based on the percentage overlap between the existing shuttle routes and the LPA. The analysis for 2030 ridership indicates that nearly 4,000 riders could shift from private shuttles to the Urban Ring service. With the implementation of the LPA, it may be possible to eliminate or reduce some private shuttle services with a high percentage of overlap, such as the BUMC Gillette Parking Lot shuttle and the BUMC All Day Medical Campus shuttle. 4.3.8 Proposed Bus Rapid Transit This section discusses the proposed project and coordination with other projects in the area. 4.3.8.1 Proposed BRT Project Alternatives Urban Ring Phases 1 and 2 To address transit deficiencies, the Urban Ring Phases 1 and 2 are listed as recommended projects in the 2007 RTP (Journey to 2030) in the transit expansion project list. The project includes a transit system following a circular route around the Boston inner core. Phase 1 includes expansion in the number of bus routes, and Phase 2 includes addition of five Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes through the Urban Ring corridor. Refer to Chapter 3 for a detailed description of Urban Ring Phases 1 and 2. Descriptions of No­
Build and Baseline scenarios and the RTP projects are provided on page 4­14 and Chapter 3. 36 Based on overall employment growth rate of 24 percent and population growth rate of 16.8 percent within the Urban Ring corridor between 2000 and 2030, Chapter 5, Section 5.3. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­28 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­8: Summary of Private Shuttle Daily Ridership by Owner for Selected Routes
Owner Shuttle Service Existing 2007 Ridership(1) 3,393 2030 Ridership(2) BU BU Shuttle Bus BU BUMC All Day Medical Campus Shuttle 44 57 BU BUMC Evening Shuttle 50 65 BU BUMC Gillette Parking Lot Shuttle 50 65 BU BUMC Inner Campus Shuttle 35 46 3,572 4,644 Subtotal: Children's Hospital Boston Office Shuttle Children's Hospital Boston Parking Shuttle Subtotal: CRTMA EZRide Shuttle Subtotal: Harvard Harvard University Shuttle MASCO/Harvard M2 Cambridge/LMA Subtotal: MASCO Crosstown Garage Park & Ride Shuttle MASCO Fenway Park & Ride Shuttle MASCO JFK/UMass MASCO Landmark­Longwood Shuttle MASCO M6 Chestnut Hill MASCO Mid­Day Shuttle MASCO Ruggles Express MASCO Wentworth Park and Ride Shuttle Subtotal: 4,411 200 226 1,000 1,130 1,200 1,356 974 1,101 974 1,101 150 170 2,902 3,279 3,052 3,449 739 835 1,207 1,364 763 862 75 85 403 455 83 94 2,491 2,815 779 880 6,540 7,390 478 MIT Northwest Shuttle 423 MIT SafeRide Boston 510 576 MIT SafeRide Cambridge 262 296 MIT Tech Shuttle Subtotal: 777 878 1,972 2,228 115 Partners BWH ­ 10 Brookline Place 102 Partners BWH ­ 111 Cypress Street 156 176 Partners BWH ­ Faulkner 89 101 Partners BWH ­ MIT 134 151 Partners MGH ­ 850 Boylston 240 271 Partners MGH ­ Chelsea Partners MGH ­ East Boston Health Center 88 99 124 140 Partners MGH ­ Everett 124 140 Partners MGH ­ MIT 124 140 4,800 5,424 472 533 Partners MGH ­ North Station ­ Charlestown Partners MGH ­ Prudential ­ BWH Partners MGH ­ Revere Subtotal: UMass Boston UMass Boston Route 1 (1)
(2)
88 99 6,541 7,391 13,000 14,690 Subtotal: 13,000 14,690 TOTAL: 36,851 42,249 Source: 2007 survey data from individual shuttle operators where ridership information was available. Based on data provided by BU, assumed growth for BU shuttle ridership between 2000 and 2030 is 30%. For all other locations, ridership forecasts based on average population and employment growth projected by MAPC between 2000 and 2030 (=13% of existing ridership). Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­29 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­9: Potential Shift in Daily Ridership – Private Shuttle to LPA – 2030
2030 Daily Shuttle Ridership % overlap with Urban Ring LPA(2) LPA BRT Route Potential Shift of Ridership from Shuttle to Urban Ring (2030) No. Shuttle(1) Owner 2 Landmark­Longwood MASCO(3) 85 5 20% 17 3 Ruggles Express MASCO 2,185 5,6,7 60% 1,311 4 JFK Umass MASCO 862 6 60% 517 5 BUMC Gillette Parking Lot Shuttle BU(4) 65 7 80% 52 6 BUMC All Day Medical Campus BU 57 7 80% 46 8 BU Shuttle BU 4,411 6 20% 882 9 EZRide Shuttle CRTMA(5) 1,101 5 60% 661 11 Crosstown Garage MASCO 835 7 20% 167 12 Tech Shuttle MIT(6) 878 5 20% 176 13 SafeRide Cambridge MIT 296 5 20% 59 14 Northwest Shuttle 48 15 Harvard University Shuttle(7) 16 SafeRide Boston MIT 478 5 10% Harvard 170 6 5% 9 MIT 576 5,7,6 5% 29 TOTAL: 3,974 (1)
Only shuttle services with overlap with Urban Ring LPA service are shown. The Cambridgeside Galleria shuttle is not shown because ridership data was not available. (2)
Numbers show the percentage of private shuttle routes covered by BRT routes in the Urban Ring Study Corridor. (3)
MASCO = Medical Academic and Scientific Community Organization, Inc. (4)
BU = Boston University. BU also operates a fleet of Healthnet buses that travel to neighborhood health centers in the Boston Area. This service is intended only for patients, therefore it is not included here. (5)
CRTMA = Charles River Transportation Management Association (6)
MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (7)
There are several Harvard University Shuttles that provide inner services. Here, only one shuttle, the “Soldier’s Field Road Shuttle” is considered as it overlaps with the Urban Ring services. The Baseline Alternative includes Urban Ring service without exclusive runningway and commuter rail station upgrades. Urban Ring Build Alternatives 1 through 4 and five additional variations on three of the original four Build Alternatives were evaluated (Alternatives 2A, 3A, 3B, 3C, and 4A). These alternatives include exclusive runningway and commuter rail station upgrades. The best performing features were drawn from these nine alternatives to maximize benefits and minimize costs of Urban Ring Phase 2. Based on preliminary analysis results of the variations and feedback from the EOTC, three new Hybrid Alternatives (Hybrids 1, 2, and 2T) were developed and evaluated. The three Hybrid Alternatives are surface options drawn primarily from Alternative 2. Hybrid 2T (H2T) is the same as Hybrid 2 (H2) with a tunnel through the LMA to isolate the benefits of a tunnel option. Analysis of the alternatives and variations, summarized in the sections below, was important for the development of a new Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), which is the result of this RDEIR/DEIS. Table 4­10 shows roadways potentially used by the Urban Ring Phase 2 project alternatives. The development of Urban Ring alternatives is described in greater detail in Chapter 3. 4.3.8.2 Coordination with Projects This section identifies planned and proposed transportation and development projects that are in the Urban Ring corridor and interact directly with the alternative alignments. For the most part, these projects are consistent with the proposed Urban Ring project, although many will require additional coordination with the Urban Ring alignment as the planning and design progresses Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­30 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION There are currently over 40 individual projects/programs in the vicinity of the alternative BRT alignments. Several of the development projects are institutional, and are within Boston’s Fenway and LMA neighborhoods. There are a dozen or fewer project/programs in the Urban Ring Project Corridor within the five Compact communities and Medford. Numerous meetings have been held with various communities, agencies, developers, and neighborhood groups to coordinate the Urban Ring alignments with projects in the area. A list of transportation and planning projects and programs within the Urban Ring Project Corridor is identified below. Logan Airport (Massport) – Urban Ring planning has been coordinated with Massport so as to be consistent with planned circulation and access needs at the airport. Service to Airport Blue Line Station was also coordinated. East Boston Haul Road (Massport, City of Boston) – Urban Ring planning has been coordinated with Massport and the City of Boston so as to be consistent with the proposed East Boston Haul Road. Bellingham Street/Griffin Way (Chelsea) – The alignment and location of the Bellingham Street/Griffin Way Station was coordinated with the City of Chelsea. Assembly Square (Somerville) – Coordination regarding access and circulation of the Urban Ring service is ongoing with the City of Somerville and the Assembly Square developer. Sullivan Square (Boston) – The City of Boston is undertaking a transportation and land use planning study to review roadway layout, circulation, and parcelization. This study is coordinated with Urban Ring planning. Inner Belt Road (Somerville) – Access and circulation of the Urban Ring service has been coordinated with the City of Somerville. Green Line Extension (Somerville, Medford) – The Green Line Extension project interacts directly with the Urban Ring project in the Inner Belt district and at Northpoint/New Lechmere. There is active coordination between the two projects. Northpoint/New Lechmere (Cambridge, Somerville and Boston) – This is a large development with several opportunities for improving transportation service for all modes, in particular the Green Line Extension and the Urban Ring. The Urban Ring is being coordinated with the Northpoint development. Kendall Station (Cambridge) – Coordination regarding access and circulation of the Urban Ring service is ongoing with the City of Cambridge and MBTA. Grand Junction Railroad (Cambridge and MIT) – The City of Cambridge has conducted a study for a multi­use path along the Grand Junction Railroad, and MIT will continue to advance development in this area in conjunction with its master planning efforts. EOT will continue to coordinate with the City of Cambridge and MIT on their respective plans. Memorial Drive Historic Parkway Rehabilitation (Cambridge) – EOT is coordinating with the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and has identified changes for the Memorial Drive Parkway. Charles River Basin Master Plan – DCR has developed this plan for the Charles River Basin and its parks and other historic elements. The Urban Ring Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), which crosses the Charles River at the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge, was developed to be consistent with that plan, particularly in the vicinity of the river crossing. EOT is coordinating with DCR on potential impacts of the LPA to the Charles River Basin and other DCR properties, and will continue to coordinate to minimize and mitigate any impacts. Some components of the Urban Ring LPA could be considered for early action to serve as mitigation for the BU Bridge and roadway reconstruction projects listed in the Charles River Basin Master Plan. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­31 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­10: Urban Ring Roadways by Alternative – Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Roadway Location Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt 2a Alt. 3 Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 3c Alt. 4 Alt 4a H1(1) H2 H2T LPA(2) Route 1A East Boston X X X X X X X X X X X X X Eastern Avenue Chelsea X X X X X X X X X X X X X Everett Avenue Chelsea X X X X X X X X X X X X X Second Street Everett X Revere Beach Parkway (Route 16) Everett X Revere Beach Parkway (Route 16) Medford X X X X Fellsway (Route 28) Medford X X X X X X X X X X X Fellsway (Route 28) Somerville X X X X X X X X X X McGrath Highway Somerville X X X X X X X X Broadway Somerville X X X Inner Belt Road Somerville X X Somerville Avenue Somerville X X X X X O'Brien Highway Cambridge X X X X X First Street Cambridge X X X X X X X X X X X X X Binney Street Cambridge X X X X X X X X X X X X X Galileo Way Cambridge X X X X X X X X X X X X X Broadway Cambridge X X X X X X X X X X X X X Main Street Cambridge X X X X X X X X X X X X X Vassar Street Cambridge X X X X Albany Street Cambridge X X X X X X X X X BU Bridge Cambridge X X X X X X X JF Kennedy Street Cambridge X X X X X X X X X Mountfort Street Brookline X X X X X (1)
H1 = Hybrid 1 Alternative; H2 = Hybrid 2 Alternative; H3 = Hybrid 2T Alternative (2)
LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­32 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­10: Urban Ring Roadways by Alternative – Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS (Cont’d)
Roadway Location Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt 2a Alt. 3 Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 3c Alt. 4 Alt 4a H1(1) H2 H2T LPA(2) Park Drive Boston X X X X Beacon Street Boston X X X X X X X X X X X Commonwealth Avenue Boston North Harvard Street Cambridge Street Boston X X X X X X Boston X X X X X X X Harvard Avenue Boston The Fenway Boston X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Brookline Avenue Boston X X Longwood Avenue Boston X X X X Avenue Louis Pasteur Boston X Huntington Avenue Boston X X X X X X X X X X X X X Ruggles Street Boston X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Melnea Cass Boulevard Boston X X Washington Street Boston X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Albany Street Boston X Hampden Street Boston X X X X X X X X X X X Dudley Street Boston Columbia Road Boston X X Massachusetts Avenue Boston X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Magazine Street Boston X South Boston Bypass Road Boston X X X X Mass Haul Road Boston X X Northern Avenue Boston X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Ted Williams Tunnel Boston (1)
H1 = Hybrid 1 Alternative; H2 = Hybrid 2 Alternative; H3 = Hybrid 2T Alternative (2)
LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­33 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Boston University Campus (Boston and Brookline) – Discussions with Boston University, the City of Boston, and the Town of Brookline have identified issues relating to roadway design, circulation, and station locations in the BU Bridge – Commonwealth Avenue – Mountfort Street segment of the corridor. Coordination will continue, and will include Boston University’s Institutional Master Plan update and further inter­agency coordination. North Allston (City of Boston and Harvard University) – EOT is coordinating with both the City of Boston and Harvard University regarding future planned development in North Allston. Urban Ring Phase 2 alignments, busways and bus lanes, and commuter rail station locations are being discussed. The EOT has attended several North Allston community meetings facilitated by the City of Boston. Parcel 7 Air Rights and Yawkey Station Improvements (City of Boston, Mass Pike, MBTA, Meredith Management) – Coordination regarding access and circulation of the Urban Ring service in the vicinity of Yawkey Station and the proposed Parcel 7 development is ongoing. Fenway Neighborhood Transportation Plan and Muddy River Restoration (DCR, Army Corps of Engineers, City of Boston, Town of Brookline) – Urban Ring alignments through the Sears Rotary and Park Drive have been coordinated with the various parties, and this coordination will continue. Fenway – Longwood – Kenmore Neighborhood Transportation Plan (City of Boston, Town of Brookline, MASCO, Neighborhood Groups) – Urban Ring alignments through Fenway and the LMA are being coordinated with the City of Boston’s Fenway – Longwood – Kenmore transportation study. Longwood Medical and Academic Area (City of Boston, MASCO, LMA Medical and Cultural Institutions, Fenway Alliance) – Numerous meetings have been held to discuss and coordinate Urban Ring tunnel and surface alignment issues through Fenway and the LMA. Continued coordination will be required. Roxbury Strategic Master Plan (City of Boston, Roxbury Strategic Master Plan Oversight Committee) – As part of the Roxbury Strategic Master Plan, economic development is planned for the Melnea Cass Boulevard (MCB) corridor. Meetings have been held with the City of Boston and the Roxbury Strategic Master Plan Oversight Committee, to develop a design concept that will serve the needs of the neighborhood, the City of Boston, and the Urban Ring for this corridor. Coordination is ongoing. BioSquare/BU Medical Center (City of Boston, TransComm) – Access and circulation of Urban Ring buses in this area has been coordinated with the various parties. Continued coordination will be required as the development of BioSquare proceeds. Fairmount Line Improvements (City of Boston, MBTA, Neighborhood Groups) – The location, circulation, and access of an Urban Ring connection to the soon to be improved Fairmount Branch Commuter Rail line have been evaluated and coordinated. Seaport District and World Trade Center (City of Boston, Massport) – Urban Ring service in the Seaport and World Trade Center areas was coordinated with the City of Boston and Massport. 4.3.9 Systemwide Performance, Mobility and Accessibility This section provides systemwide performance results for the 2030 No­Build, Baseline, LPA and Build Alternatives. Future No­Build and Baseline Alternative performance are discussed first, followed by a comparison of performance results for the LPA and the Build Alternatives. Mobility and accessibility issues related to the Urban Ring project are also summarized. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­34 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Transit passenger boardings are discussed in terms of unlinked and linked trips. Unlinked trips are total boardings on an individual vehicle. Linked trips include the number of total trips from origin to destination including transfers. The ratio of unlinked to linked trips indicates the amount of transfers in the system.37 The evaluation of unlinked and linked trips is typical for transit authorities who coordinate with the FTA. 4.3.9.1 Future No­Build and Baseline Transit Conditions Tables 4­11 (and 4­12) show 2030 transit daily ridership results for No­Build and Baseline Alternatives. The Baseline Alternative results in a 2 percent increase in system wide linked transit trips compared to the No­Build Alternative. The Baseline Alternative generates a total of 1,339,100 linked transit trips with a regional transit mode share of 8.08 percent, exceeding the No­Build Alternative transit mode share of 7.90 percent. The Urban Ring under the Baseline condition would carry approximately 64,700 daily CT bus passengers. The Baseline Alternative produces 1,925,000 total unlinked daily transit trips, which is a 3 percent increase over the No­Build Alternative (1,850,300 daily trips). Table 4­13 shows the 2030 ridership on the commuter rail and rapid transit lines. Under the 2030 Baseline Alternative, commuter rail would carry approximately 164,000 daily passengers compared to 153,400 daily passengers under the No­Build Alternative. Rapid transit ridership (see also Tables 4­11 and 4­12), however, decreases under the Baseline Alternative (1,021,400 daily riders) compared to the No­Build Alternative (1,069,400 daily riders). Under the 2030 Baseline Alternative, the Green Line would have the highest ridership with 443,500 daily passengers, representing 43 percent of the total rapid transit ridership. The increase of Green Line ridership over existing conditions is a result of increased population and employment in catchment areas, the planned Green Line extension project, and other planned improvements for the Green Line by the MBTA. Table 4­14 shows that AM peak hour peak load passenger points on the Rapid Transit System for the 2030 No­Build and Baseline Alternatives range between 6,800 and 9,300 passengers. AM peak hour peak load points for the Baseline Alternative are all within 200 passengers of peak load points for the No­
Build Alternative. Table 4­15 summarizes the Urban Ring transit operating statistics for the 2030 Baseline Alternative. The Baseline would generate a total of approximately 9,800 daily vehicle miles traveled, 860 vehicle hours, and 195,000 passenger miles on a daily basis. All transit services (The Urban Ring Baseline Alternative plus rapid transit, the Silver Line, the commuter rail and other bus services) would generate approximately 6,385,400 passenger miles under the Baseline condition. 4.3.9.2 Future LPA Transit Impacts and Benefits Table 4­12 (noted previously) shows 2030 transit daily ridership results for the LPA and Build Alternatives. Figures 4­4 and 4­5 demonstrate the difference between linked transit systemwide ridership (daily) for the Baseline versus Build and Hybrid alternatives, respectively. All of the Build Alternatives generate fewer linked transit trips and lower transit mode share percentages compared to the LPA. The LPA produces 1,376,800 system­wide linked transit trips per day, which is a 3 percent increase over the Baseline Alternative and a 5 percent increase over the No­Build Alternative. Transit mode share for the LPA is 8.29 percent, which is also higher than the No­Build, Baseline and all Build Alternatives. This represents 67,100 more linked transit trips in 2030 than the No­Build condition. The LPA produces 1 percent more total unlinked daily transit trips (1,947,000) than the Baseline Alternative and 5 percent more than the No­Build condition. These results demonstrate that the Urban Ring LPA has a positive benefit over the Baseline and many of the Build Alternatives in terms of system­wide ridership. 37 Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transit Ridership, Box 7­A, Linked and Unlinked Trips vs. Number of Passengers; and Boyle, D.B.,” Passenger Counting Technologies and Procedures”, TCRP Synthesis of Transit 29 (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 1998). Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­35 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­11: Urban Ring Phase 2 Systemwide Daily Ridership Forecasts – 2030 No­Build and Build
System Wide Linked Transit Trips No­Build 1,309,700 System Wide Auto Person Trips Walk Trips TOTAL TRIPS (ALL MODES) Transit Mode Share Unlinked Transit Trips by Sub­mode: Commuter Rail Rapid Transit 12,187,400 3,084,100 16,581,200 7.90 % 153,400 1,069,400 Silver Bus, AITC, Transitway, Washington Street Service Local Bus Express Bus Ferry Unlinked Transit Trip Sub­Total: Urban Ring Service: (3) CT buses BRT buses Urban Ring Total: TOTAL UNLINKED TRANSIT TRIPS: System Wide Transfers 144,800 462,100 17,100 5,000 1,851,800 8,500 0 8,500 1,860,300 550,600 Baseline(1) 1,339,100 Alt. 1 1,358,500 12,170,100 12,158,900 3,072,100 3,063,700 16,581,300 16,581,100 8.08% 8.20% 164,000 156,600 1,021,400 1,021,900 (2) 147,200 505,700 17,000 5,000 1,860,300 64,700 0 64,700 1,925,000 585,900 135,600 450,200 16,900 5,000 1,786,200 6,000 108,500 114,500 1,900,700 542,200 Alt. 2 1,363,800 2030 DAILY RIDERSHIP Build Alternative: Alt 2a Alt. 3 Alt. 3a Alt 3b 1,363,600 1,365,000 1,364,300 1,367,200 Alt 3c 1,365,800 Alt 4 1,369,600 Alt 4a 1,354,700 12,154,300 12,154,400 3,063,000 3,063,100 16,581,100 16,581,100 8.23% 8.22% 157,900 158,000 1,009,400 1,008,700 12,153,300 3,063,700 16,581,000 8.23% 157,500 1,001,600 12,153,800 3,063,100 16,581,200 8.23% 160,700 1,000,300 12,151,800 3,062,000 16,581,100 8.25% 156,800 1,001,800 12,152,200 3,063,200 16,581,200 8.24% 156,900 1,002,900 12,150,600 3,061,100 16,581,300 8.26% 158,500 1,004,600 12,158,400 3,068,100 16,581,200 8.17% 157,900 1,007,800 142,800 142,700 456,400 456,900 16,500 16,500 5,000 5,000 1,788,000 1,787,800 7,600 7,600 140,300 140,200 147,900 147,800 1,935,900 1,935,600 572,100 572,000 140,900 444,300 17,300 5,000 1,766,400 140,200 443,100 17,200 5,000 1,766,500 141,000 451,000 16,500 5,000 1,772,100 141,000 450,600 16,500 5,000 1,772,900 144,100 432,500 16,700 5,000 1,761,400 142,800 434,700 16,900 5,000 1,765,100 8,100 149,000 157,100 1,923,500 558,500 7,000 149,300 156,300 1,922,800 558,500 7,600 157,800 165,400 1,937,500 570,300 7,800 158,600 166,400 1,939,300 573,500 7,000 176,100 183,100 1,944,500 574,900 7,200 140,800 148,000 1,913,100 558,400 Source: CTPS transit demand model ridership forecasts, June 2007. The 2030 Baseline conditions include Urban Ring Phases 1 and 2 without exclusive bus running way. In the 2030 Build alternatives, some of the rapid transit trips that are made in the Urban Ring Project Corridor is being masked by the interaction of several transit projects such as the Red­Blue Connector, Phase 3 Silver Line, Medford Hillside extension, with the Urban Ring. (3) CT = Cross Town; BRT = Bus Rapid Transit (1)
(2)
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­36 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­12: Urban Ring Phase 2 Systemwide Daily Ridership Forecasts – 2030 No­Build and Build Hybrid Alternatives System Wide Linked Transit Trips No­Build 1,309,700 System Wide Auto Person Trips Walk Trips TOTAL TRIPS (ALL MODES) Transit Mode Share Unlinked Transit Trips by Sub­mode: Commuter Rail Rapid Transit 12,187,400 3,084,100 16,581,200 7.90 % 153,400 1,069,400 Silver Bus, AITC, Transitway, Washington Street Service Local Bus Express Bus Ferry Unlinked Transit Trip Sub­Total: Urban Ring Service: (6) CT buses BRT buses Urban Ring Total: TOTAL UNLINKED TRANSIT TRIPS: System Wide Transfers 144,800 462,100 17,100 5,000 1,851,800 8,500 0 8,500 1,860,300 550,600 (1)
(3)
(4)
(2)
(5)
(6) Baseline(1) 1,339,100 2030 DAILY RIDERSHIP Build Alternative: H2 H2T H1(2) 1,356,200 1,360,500 1,370,100 12,170,100 12,155,600 3,072,100 3,069,400 16,581,300 16,581,200 8.08% 8.18% 164,000 167,200 1,021,400 997,500 (4) 147,200 505,700 17,000 5,000 1,860,300 64,700 0 64,700 1,925,000 585,900 140,000 (5) 450,000 (5) 16,100 4,900 1,775,700 36,500 159,800 196,300 1,972,000 615,800 LPA(3) 1,376,800 12,153,500 3,067,100 16,581,200 8.21% 167,200 996,300 12,149,200 3,061,900 16,581,200 8.26% 167,100 996,200 12,145,900 3,058,500 16,581,200 8.29% 162,600 996,900 140,000(5) 450,000(5) 16,100 4,900 1,774,500 140,000(5) 450,000(5) 15,800 4,900 1,774,000 138,600 435,200 17,000 5,000 1,755,300 35,100 164,300 199,400 1,973,900 613,400 33,800 170,300 204,100 1,978,100 608,000 7,700 184,000 191,700 1,947,000 570,200 The 2030 Baseline conditions include Urban Ring Phases 1 and 2 without exclusive bus running way. H1 = Hybrid 1; Alternative; H2 = Hybrid 2 Alternative; H3 = Hybrid 2T Alternative LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative In the 2030 Build alternatives, the decrease in the number of rapid transit trips that are made in the Urban Ring Project Corridor is being masked by the interaction of several transit projects such as the Red­Blue Connector, Phase 3 Silver Line, Medford Hillside extension, with the Urban Ring. Adjusted based on forecasts of Build Alternatives CT = Cross Town; BRT = Bus Rapid Transit Table 4­13 (noted previously) shows commuter rail and rapid transit ridership for the LPA and the other Build Alternatives. Figures 4­6 and 4­7 show commuter rail ridership for Existing, No­Build and Baseline Alternatives compared to 2030 Build and Hybrid Alternatives, respectively. Commuter rail ridership increases for the LPA over the No­Build Alternative because better connections provided by the LPA result in increased transit ridership. Commuter rail ridership would be 162,600 daily passengers under the LPA, a slight decrease (1 percent) from the Baseline (164,000). This is due to different commuter rail connections assumed in the Baseline and LPA. However, the overall Urban Ring daily BRT 2030 ridership projection is much greater for the LPA (184,000 daily trips) compared with the Baseline (64,700 daily trips). Figures 4­8 and 4­9 show rapid transit ridership for existing, No­Build and Baseline Alternatives compared to 2030 Build and Hybrid Alternatives, respectively. The LPA reduces rapid transit ridership from 1,069,400 and 1,021,400 daily riders under the No­Build and Baseline Alternatives, respectively, to 996,900 daily riders. The Green Line would experience the largest reduction in daily riders (7 percent) between the Baseline and LPA. Rapid transit ridership decreases from the Baseline condition to the LPA by 2 percent because added/expanded circumferential service provides new connections that reduce the demand for rapid transit, especially for trips that currently need to first travel into the Boston central subway and then out to reach their destination. The Urban Ring would reduce ridership in the central subway system by 2,600 passengers during the AM peak hour alone. The reduction in rapid transit ridership due to the Urban Ring project is a significant benefit resulting in capacity improvements for the Boston central subway system. Reducing the number of riders in the central subway area would result in additional available capacity, which in turn could reduce operating costs by potentially reducing the number and size of trains. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­37 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­13: Urban Ring Phase 2 – 2030 Ridership on the Commuter Rail and the Rapid Transit System
2030 DAILY RIDERSHIP Build Alternative: No­Build Baseline Alternative Alternative H2 H2T LPA(2) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2a Alt 3 Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 3c Alt 4 Alt 4a H1(1) Transit Sub Mode Commuter Rail 46,000
49,200
47,000
4,7400
47,400
47,200
48,200
47,100
47,100
47,600
47,400
50,160
50,160
50,130
48,800 North Side Lines 107,400 114,800 109,600 110,500 110,600 110,200 112,500 109,800 109,800 111,000 110,500 117,040 117,040 116,970 113,800 South Side Lines 153,400 164,000 156,600 157,900 158,000 157,500 160,700 156,800 156,900 158,500 157,900 167,200 167,200 167,100 162,600 Total Commuter Rail Rapid Transit System 457,700 443,500 427,700 422,000 421,200 410,000 407,500 414,700 415,900 413,200 419,000 406,600 406,900 405,000 412,000 Green Line 341,300 326,400 329,000 327,200 327,400 327,100 327,500 325,300 324,600 322,800 321,800 325,200 329,200 326,400 324,500 Red Line 173,600 159,300 169,800 165,600 165,500 170,500 171,100 167,700 168,200 174,400 172,700 173,500 168,000 171,200 168,800 Orange Line 96,800
92,200
95,400
94,600
94,600
94,000
94,200
94,100
94,200
94,200
94,300 92,200 92,200 93,600 91,600 Blue Line 1,069,400 1,021,400 1,021,900 1,009,400 1,008,700 1,001,600 1,000,300 1,002,100 1,002,900 1,004,600 1,007,800 997,500 996,300 996,200 996,900 Total Rapid Transit (1)
H1 = Hybrid 1; Alternative; H2 = Hybrid 2 Alternative; H3 = Hybrid 2T Alternative LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative (2) Table 4­14: Subway Line (peak direction) Green (Central Subway northbound) Green (Central Subway southbound) Red (northbound) Orange (southbound) Blue (southwestbound) TOTALS: (1)
Rapid Transit Line Peak Load Points (AM Peak Hour Passengers) – 2030 Alternatives No­Build Baseline Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2a Alt 3 Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 3c Alt 4 Alt 4a LPA(1) 7,000 Copley to Arlington 6,900 Arlington to Boylston 7,300 Copley to Arlington 7,000 Copley to Arlington 7,000 Copley to Arlington 6,500 Copley to Arlington 6,400 Copley to Arlington 6,900 Copley to Arlington 6,800 Copley to Arlington 6,000 Copley to Arlington 6,300 Copley to Arlington 5,900 Copley to Arlington 8,300 Park to Boylston 8,100 Government Center to Park 6,700 Park to Boylston 6,700 Boylston to Arlington 6,600 Boylston to Arlington 6,000 Park to Boylston 6,100 Park to Boylston 6,300 Park to Boylston 6,300 Park to Boylston 5,700 Boylston to Arlington 6,700 Boylston to Arlington 6,800 Government Center to Park 9,200 Broadway to South Station 7,600 CC(2) to North Station 6,900 Maverick to Aquarium 39,000 9,500 9,300 Broadway to Broadway to South Station South Station 8,000 7,500 CC to North CC to North Station Station 7,200 6,800 Maverick to Maverick to Aquarium Aquarium 38,600 38,700 9,500 Broadway to South Station 7,800 Sullivan to CC 7,300 Maverick to Aquarium 38,300 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 Broadway to Broadway to Broadway to Broadway to South Station South Station South Station South Station 7,700 7,900 7,800 7,800 Sullivan to CC CC to North CC to North CC to North Station Station Station 7,200 7,300 7,200 7,300 Maverick to Maverick to Maverick to Maverick to Aquarium Aquarium Aquarium Aquarium 38,200 37,000 37,200 37,600 9,500 9,500 9,500 Broadway to Broadway to Broadway to South Station South Station South Station 7,800 7,900 8,200 CC to North State Street to DT Sullivan to CC Station Crossing 7,300 7,300 7,300 Maverick to Maverick to Maverick to Aquarium Aquarium Aquarium 37,700 36,400 38,000 9,400 Broadway to South Station 7,400 CC to North Station 6,900 Maverick to Aquarium 36,400 LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative CC = Bunker Hill Community College (2) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­38 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­15: Urban Ring Phase 2 – Daily Transit Operating Statistics – 2030 Alternatives
2030 Operating Characteristics Urban Ring: Vehicle Miles BRT CT UR Service Totals Urban Ring: Vehicle Hours BRT CT UR Service Totals Transit: Passenger Miles BRT CT UR Service Totals Rapid Transit Silver Line Commuter Rail Other Bus Service TRANSIT SERVICE TOTALS (UR, Rapid Transit, Silver Line, C Rail & Bus) Baseline (1)
2030 BUILD ALTERNATIVES Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2a Alt 3 Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 3c Alt 4 Alt 4a LPA(1) 0 8,650 8,760 8,640 8,430 8,605 8,555 8,535 8,335 8,255 7,620 9,770 940 940 940 940 940 940 940 940 940 940 9,770 9,590 9,700 9,580 9,370 9,545 9,495 9,475 9,275 9,915 8,560 0 700 660 655 585 610 605 590 560 550 520 860 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 860 820 780 775 705 730 725 710 680 670 640 0 268,805 352,180 350,245 366,423 388,825 409,525 409,155 422,505 365,165 441,590 194,945 9,335 11,030 11,050 12,715 10,315 11,745 12,420 10,285 10,695 10,770 194,945 278,140 363,210 361,295 379,138 399,140 421,270 421,575 432,790 375,860 442,360 3,136,139 3,173,719 3,120,477 3,118,133 3,108,656 3,106,962 3,099,502 3,099,727 3,092,677 3,120,095 3,053,956 229,447 228,462 221,512 221,470 219,847 219,332 219,890 219,768 224,162 225,867 212,909 1,377,282 1,328,752 1,322,381 1,322,441 1,327,212 1,232,199 1,324,841 1,324,205 1,327,691 1,322,445 1,401,954 1,447,554 1,237,172 1,243,683 1,245,078 1,226,234 1,224,752 1,239,536 1,238,155 1,187,577 1,208,824 1,205,477 6,385,367 6,246,245 6,271,263 6,264,417 6,261,087 6,282,385 6,305,039 6,303,430 6,264,887 6,253,091 6,316,656 LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­39 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Figure 4­4 Change in 2030 Systemwide Daily Linked Transit Person Trips – No­
Build Compared to Build Alternatives Change in 2030 Systemwide Daily Linked Transit Person Trips 80,000
67,100
Change in Daily Trips
70,000
60,000
54,100
53,900
55,300
57,500
54,600
59,900
56,100
48,800
50,000
45,000
40,000
29,400
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Baseline
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 2A
Alt 3
Alt 3A
Alt 3B
Alt 3C
Alt 4
Alt 4A
LPA
2030 Alternative
Figure 4­5 Change in 2030 Systemwide Daily Linked Transit Person Trips – No­
Build Compared to Hybrid Alternatives Change in 2030 Systemwide Daily Linked Transit Person Trips 80,000
67,100
70,000
Change in Daily Trips
60,400
60,000
46,500
50,000
50,800
40,000
29,400
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Baseline
H1
H2
H2T
LPA
2030 Alternative
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­40 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Figure 4­6 Commuter Rail Ridership by Alternative – Existing and Build Alternatives and the LPA Commuter Rail Ridership by Alternative
175,000
150,000
Daily Trips
125,000
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
20
30
L
PA
20
30
A
lt4
A
20
30
A
lt4
20
30
A
lt3
C
20
30
A
lt3
B
20
30
A
lt3
A
20
30
A
lt3
20
30
A
lt2
A
20
30
A
lt2
20
30
A
lt1
B
as
el
in
e
ui
ld
20
30
N
o­
B
20
30
20
06
E
xi
st
in
g
0
Alternative
Figure 4­7 Commuter Rail Ridership by Alternative – Existing and Hybrid Alternatives and the LPA Commuter Rail Ridership by Alternative
175,000
150,000
Daily Trips
125,000
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
20
30
L
PA
2T
20
30
H
2
20
30
H
1
20
30
H
e
B
as
el
in
20
30
ui
ld
o­
B
N
20
30
20
06
E
xi
st
in
g
0
Alternative
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­41 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Figure 4­8 Rapid Transit Ridership by Line by Alternative – Existing, No­Build, Baseline, Build Alternatives and the LPA Rapid Transit Ridership by Line by Alternative
500,000
450,000
400,000
Blue
Daily Trips
350,000
Orange
300,000
Red
Green
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
20
30
L
PA
t4
A
C
t4
20
30
A
l
20
30
A
l
B
20
30
A
lt3
t3
A
20
30
A
lt3
t3
20
30
A
l
20
30
A
l
t2
A
t2
20
30
A
l
20
30
A
l
20
30
A
l
20
07
E
xi
st
in
g
20
30
N
o­
Bu
il d
20
30
B
as
el
in
e
t1
0
Alternative
Figure 4­9 Rapid Transit Ridership by Line by Alternative – Existing, No­Build, Baseline, Hybrid Alternatives and the LPA Rapid Transit Ridership by Line by Alternative
500,000
450,000
D a il y T r ip s
400,000
350,000
300,000
Blue
250,000
Orange
200,000
Red
150,000
Green
100,000
50,000
20
30
L
H
30
20
30
20
PA
2T
2
H
1
20
30
H
ne
eli
as
20
30
B
N
30
20
20
07
E
xi s
o­
Bu
ti n
il d
g
0
Alternative
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­42 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­14 (shown previously) shows AM peak hour peak load passenger points on the Rapid Transit System for the 2030 LPA and Build Alternatives. Peak load passenger points range between 5,900 and 9,400 passengers for the LPA and between 6,000 and 9,500 passengers for the Build Alternatives. Among all of the 2030 Alternatives, the LPA has the smallest peak AM peak hour load point total (see bottom row of table). Compared to the No­Build condition, AM peak hour peak load points for the LPA decrease for the Green (15,300 to 12,700 passengers) and Orange (7,600 to 7,400 passengers) rapid transit lines. Table 4­15 (shown previously) summarizes the Urban Ring operating statistics for the LPA and the other Build Alternatives. The LPA generates a smaller number (8,560) of vehicle miles traveled compared to the other Build Alternatives (between 9,280 and 9,920 vehicle miles traveled), and the LPA generates the smallest number (640) of vehicle hours compared to the other Build Alternatives (between 670 and 860 vehicle hours). The LPA also results in the largest number of transit passenger miles (442,360 passenger miles for the LPA versus 194,945 to 432,790 passenger miles for the other Build Alternatives). These metrics portray the positive benefit of the Urban Ring compared with the Baseline and other Build Alternatives. A comparison of passenger miles for all transit types (the Urban Ring, rapid transit, the Silver Line, the commuter rail, and other bus service) demonstrates clear benefits for the LPA over Baseline Alternative. The LPA reduces rapid transit passenger miles by 82,183 (­3 percent), increases commuter rail passenger miles by 24,672 (2 percent), and reduces bus service passenger miles by 242,077 (­17 percent). Overall, the LPA results in a reduction of 68,711 passsenger miles (­1 percent) compared to the Baseline Alternative, which represents an important benefit of the LPA. Table 4­16 summarizes the BRT Urban Ring Phase 2 daily 2030 ridership by route. Figures 4­10 and 4­
11 show Urban Ring Phase 2 ridership for the Baseline versus Build and LPA Alternatives, and Baseline versus Hybrid and LPA Alternatives, respectively. BRT daily ridership for the LPA (184,000 daily boardings) is higher than for any of the other Build Alternatives. Table 4­16: Urban Ring Phase 2 – 2030 Daily BRT Boardings by Route Route Alt 1 Alt 2 No. BRT Route Description BRT 1 Kendall/MIT – Airport 13,600 23,300 Blue Line Station BRT 2 Sullivan – Logan 13,100 22,400 Square Airport West Garage BRT 3 Wellington – Kendall 5,900 16,400 BRT 5 Ruggles – Sullivan Station Square BRT 6 UMass – Harvard Campus Red Line BRT 7 Mystic Mall, – Yawkey Chelsea BRT Total 2030 BUILD ALTERNATIVE DAILY BOARDINGS(1) Alt 2a Alt 3 Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 3c Alt 4 Alt 4a H1(2) H2 H2T LPA(3) 23,400 23,700 22,400 24,400 23,700 25,000 25,600 27,000 24,600 23,100 26,000 22,400 15,100 15,600 15,200 15,100 12,700 14,500 23,800 18,400 17,800 21,200 16,300 10,300 12,400 11,600 10,300 13,500 10,600 n/a n/a n/a n/a 22,000 19,500 19,600 30,400 29,100 33,000 34,800 40,200 21,100 39,100 43,200 44,100 51,700 34,300 46,800 46,600 43,100 43,500 49,100 51,400 58,200 41,600 43,200 48,350 53,200 54,500 19,600 11,900 11,900 26,400 26,400 25,000 23,500 26,500 27,400 26,300 29,750 32,100 30,600 108,500 140,300 140,200 149,000 149,400 158,300 158,800 176,100 140,800 159,800 164,300 170,300 184,000 (1)
The 2030 Baseline Alternative is not shown because no BRT routes are associated with this alternative H1 = Hybrid 1; Alternative; H2 = Hybrid 2 Alternative; H3 = Hybrid 2T Alternative (3) LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative (2)
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­43 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Figure 4­10 Urban Ring Daily Ridership – 2030 Baseline, Build, and LPA Alternatives
Urban Ring Daily Ridership
225,000
200,000
Daily Trips
175,000
150,000
125,000
CT
100,000
BRT
75,000
50,000
25,000
L
P
A
A
20
30
A
lt4
20
30
A
lt4
20
30
t 3
C
20
30
A
l
A
l
t3
B
A
20
30
A
lt3
20
30
A
lt3
A
20
30
A
lt2
20
30
A
lt2
20
30
A
lt1
20
30
B
a
20
30
se
lin
e
0
Alternative
Figure 4­11 Urban Ring Daily Ridership – 2030 Baseline, Hybrid and LPA Alternatives Urban Ring Daily Ridership
225,000
200,000
175,000
D aily T rip s
150,000
125,000
CT
BRT
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000
0
2030 Baseline
2030 H1
2030 H2
2030 H2T
2030 LPA
Alternative
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­44 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Figure 4­12 shows Segments A, B and C for each alternative studied. Tables 4­17, 4­18, and 4­19 show BRT daily boardings by station for Segments A, B, and C, respectively. For the LPA, Segment B would have the highest daily BRT ridership with 116,500 daily riders, followed by Segment A (48,500 daily riders) and Segment C (19,000 daily riders).. Segments A and C have 10 stations each in the LPA, and Segment B has 15 stations. Each of the seven communities in the Urban Ring Project Corridor has at least one station with at least 5,000 boardings per day, which is the average daily boarding per station for the LPA. The following 13 stations would experience daily BRT boardings above the average of 5,000 boardings per station and represent almost three­quarters of the total 184,000 daily LPA boardings: Daily BRT Boardings above 5,000 Average Segment A (North) Downtown Chelsea (14,600); Everett (6,300); Wellington (5,600); Assembly Square (5,200); Segment B (Central) First Street/Galleria (5,500) Kendall/MIT (15,500); MIT/Mass Ave (5,700); BU Bridge (10,000); Fenway Station/Park Drive (9,200) Yawkey (5,900); LMA (27,100); Ruggles (21,500); and Segment C (South) Crosstown Center (5,500). The daily boardings at each station can be accommodated using the operating plan and capacities planned for the project. However, at high ridership stations such as those located within the LMA, peak period operations will need to be further identified to accommodate peak commuter demands. Capacity calculations are shown in Chapter 3, Section 3.4. Pedestrian access, safety, and circulation relating to station design will be addressed during the design phase of the project. Table 4­20 shows the AM peak hour peak load passenger points for the Urban Ring BRT routes for the 2030 LPA and other Build Alternatives. Peak hour load passenger points range between 560 and 1,600 passengers per hour for the LPA and between 320 (BRT 7 for Alternative 2) and 1,840 (BRT 6 for Alternative 4) passengers per hour for the Build Alternatives. Among all of the Build Alternatives, the LPA has the largest AM peak hour peak load point total (see bottom row of table) for the BRT routes. The highest AM peak hour peak load point for the LPA (1,600 passengers) is on BRT 6 between Ruggles and Tugo Circle in the LMA. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­45 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Figure 4­12 Overview of Corridor Segments
Me d f or d
Ev e re tt
A
3
2
S o merv i lle
Ch el sea
4
Ea s t
Bo s t o n
Ca mbri d g e
1
5
7
6
11
B
C
8
S o uth Bo sto n
9
Br o ok li n 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 4­46 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­17: Everett) Sector Urban Ring Phase 2 – 2030 Daily BRT Station Boardings – Segment A (Airport to Somerville via Chelsea and Routes(1) 2030 BRT STATION BOARDINGS FOR BUILD ALTERNATIVE: Station Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2a Alt 3 Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 3c Alt 4 Alt 4a H1(2) H2 H2T LPA(3) 1 2 Logan Terminals 2,500 na(4) na na na na na na na na na na na 1 2 Logan West Garage n/a 3,500 3,500 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,000 2,400 3,300 3,000 3,200 4,100 1 1,2,7 Airport 1,800 1,600 1,600 5,700 5,700 5,600 5,700 1,800 1,700 3,800 4,600 4,400 2,900 1 2 East Boston 1,400 3,300 3,300 n/a n/a n/a n/a na na 1,300 na na na 1 2 Wood Island na na na 300 300 300 300 200 100 na 200 200 na 2 1,2,7 Bellingham Street 1,700 na na na na na na na na na na na na 2 1,2,7 Griffin Way na 1,700 1,700 2,300 2,300 2,400 2,300 1,900 1,900 2,100 2,000 2,000 1,900 2 1,2,7 Downtown Chelsea 11,800 13,500 13,500 5,700 5,500 5,700 5,700 13,300 13,600 10,000 9,700 9,400 14,600 2 1,2,7 Mystic Mall 2,000 2,500 2,500 4,300 4,300 4,300 4,300 5,500 4,600 3,500 3,200 3,000 2,300 3 2 Revere Beach Parkway 400 na na na na na na na na na na na na 3 2 Broadway, Everett 1,700 na na na na na na na na na na na na 3 1,2 Everett na 2,700 2,700 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,300 2,900 5,100 2,600 2,600 6,300 3 1,2,3 Telecom, Everett na na na 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 2,900 na na 2,200 1,900 na 4 1 Chemical Way na na na na na na na 1,100 1,900 na na na na 4 1,2,3 Wellington 2,700 10,800 10,800 8,200 9,200 8,900 8,200 1,400 na 4,400 3,900 3,700 5,600 4 1,2,3 Assembly Square 700 3,900 3,900 3,400 3,900 3,700 3,400 na na 6,100 5,400 4,600 5,200 4 2,3 Broadway/Foss Park 100 800 800 na na na na na na 1,900 na na na 4 3 Gilman Square 200 na na na na na na na na na na na na 4 1,3 Union Square 1,400 na na 1,100 3,800 1,300 1,100 na na na na na na 4 1,3 Brickbottom na na na 200 600 200 200 na na na na na na 4 1,3 Washington Street na na na 300 900 1,200 300 na na na na na na 4 1,5 Inner Belt na na na na na na na na na na 2,200 2,100 2,900 4 1,2,3,5 Sullivan Square 600 1,000 1,000 3,200 3,400 3,300 3,200 1,300 2,500 5,100 6,800 6,000 2,700 4 1,3,5 Community College 1,100 4,100 4,100 1,600 na na 1,600 5,700 5,400 6,400 na na na 30,100 49,400 49,400 42,200 45,800 42,800 42,200 39,400 37,000 53,000 45,800 43,100 48,500 TOTALS – SEGMENT A: Source: CTPS Ridership forecasts June 2008. (1)
Not all routes apply to all Alternatives (2)
H1 = Hybrid 1; Alternative; H2 = Hybrid 2 Alternative; H3 = Hybrid 2T Alternative (3)
LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative (4) na = not applicable Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­47 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­18: Urban Ring Phase 2 – 2030 Daily BRT Station Boardings – Segment B (New Lechmere to Ruggles via Cambridge and Brookline) Sector Routes(1) Station 2030 BRT STATION BOARDINGS FOR BUILD ALTERNATIVE: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2a Alt 3 Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 3c Alt 4 Alt 4a H1(2) H2 H2T LPA(3) 5 1,3,5 New Lechmere 6,900 600 600 5,400 5,000 5,600 5,400 700 600 5 1,3,5 First Street/Galleria 3,300 6,400 6,300 2,400 2,000 2,400 2,400 7,800 5 1,3,5 Binney Street 600 600 600 700 500 600 700 600 5 1,3 0 100 100 1,600 1,500 1,600 1,600 5 1,3,5,7 Kendall/MIT 4,400 17,500 17,400 9,800 8,400 10,000 6 5,7 MIT/Mass Ave. 2,900 800 1,300 2,900 2,800 6 5,7 Cambridgeport 900 700 na(4) 1,000 1,000 6 5,6,7 BU Bridge 800 400 200 4,300 7 6 Comm Ave/PackCorner 2,100 1,000 1,000 na 7 6 Brighton Avenue 1,600 2,500 2,500 na na na na na na na na na na 7 6 Allston West Station na na na 2,700 2,600 2,700 2,800 4,500 3,700 2,000 2,900 3,000 3,500 7 6 North Harvard Street 900 3,200 3,200 4,400 4,700 4,600 5,100 na na 2,800 3,200 3,600 3,300 7 6 Western Ave 1,300 4,000 4,000 2,700 2,800 3,100 3,300 6,900 6,200 3,300 3,500 3,600 4,100 7 6 Harvard Square 1,700 2,200 2,200 na na na na 2,500 1,400 3,800 3,900 4,300 2,000 Fulkerson Street 3,100 2,800 2,600 600 7,800 3,700 3,200 3,000 5,500 600 1,000 800 800 400 0 0 1,300 1,100 1,000 200 9,700 22,100 18,400 14,100 13,300 12,600 15,500 2,600 2,900 2,400 4,100 4,500 4,600 4,400 5,700 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,400 1,500 1,500 1,500 2,000 4,600 2,400 2,600 6,600 7,700 3,000 3,400 2,900 10,000 na na na na na 2,100 na na na 8 5,6 8 5,6,7 Hawes Street na na na na na na na 13,000 na na na Na na Yawkey 0 2,000 2,100 7,400 7,300 4,100 1,200 na na 2,900 2,800 3,700 5,900 8 5,6,7 Kenmore 8 5,6,7 Fenway Station Park Dr na 13,700 14,100 na na 12,700 14,800 na na 10,700 13,100 16,100 na 1,500 100 100 na na na na na 14,700 na na na 9,200 8 5,6,7 Longwood/Chapel St na na na na na 8 5,6,7 Beth Israel Hospital 200 6,600 6,600 na na na na 1,100 na na na na na na na na na 2,900 8,600 na na 8 5,6,7 Brookline Ave/Longwood na na na na na na na 24,500 na na na na 8 8 5,6,7 5,6,7 19,700 1,700 1,700 20,600 6,000 7,000 7,000 na 8 5,6,7 na na na 8 5,6,7 LMA Huntington Ave/Ruggles St Huntington Ave/Longwood Ave Ruggles 20,100 22,000 22,900 na na 10,200 9,400 23,900 27,100 na na na na na 6,100 6,600 na na 3,400 3,300 3,100 3,300 6,303 11,900 na na na 11,300 9,800 TOTALS – SEGMENT B: 66,100 80,900 9,800 14,000 13,500 13,300 13,200 20,800 13,200 10,200 11,200 17,700 21,500 80,800 83,300 80,100 91,900 93,000 120,900 91,700 89,200 95,900 104,700 116,500 Source: CTPS Ridership forecasts June 2008. (5)
Not all routes apply to all Alternatives (6)
H1 = Hybrid 1; Alternative; H2 = Hybrid 2 Alternative; H3 = Hybrid 2T Alternative (7)
LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative (8) na = not applicable Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­48 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­19: Urban Ring Phase 2 – 2030 Daily BRT Station Boardings – Segment C and Grand Totals (Washington Street to Seaport District, Boston) Sector Routes(1) Station Washington Street/Silver Line Dudley Station 9 6,7 9 7 9 6,7 9 7 10 6 Magazine St/Mass Ave 10 6 Umass Boston 10 6 Blue Hill Ave/Dudley Square 10 6 New Market St 10 6 Fairmount/Uphams 10 6 10 10 2030 BRT STATION BOARDINGS FOR BUILD ALTERNATIVE: Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 2a Alt 3 Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 3c Alt 4 Alt 4a H1(2) H2 H2T LPA(3) 3,000 2,900 2,900 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,200 4,400 2,900 1,900 3,000 2,800 3,300 200 200 200 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,300 800 600 1,400 1,100 1,300 500 Crosstown Center 700 500 500 3,500 3,600 3,600 3,700 400 300 4,700 5,000 5,500 5,500 Boston Medical Center 700 600 600 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,600 2,000 1,700 2,200 2,800 2,400 1,900 na na 700 na na na na na na 1,200 1,000 1,200 na 200 400 400 500 500 500 500 500 500 300 na(4) na na 300 300 300 na na na na 2,800 2,200 500 na na na 1,800 na 700 na 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,600 na na na 700 800 2,100 500 500 na na na na 500 400 500 na na na Uphams Corner 800 1,100 1,100 na na na na 1,500 1,200 1,200 na na na 6 Edward Everett Square 800 800 800 2,700 2,700 2,800 2,900 1,100 900 200 2,100 2,400 1,900 6 DorchAve/Columbia Rd na na na na na na na na na 500 na na na 10 6 JFK/Umass 400 400 400 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 500 300 300 900 800 600 10 6 Mt Ver St /Harbor Point 400 800 800 600 600 600 600 900 800 400 na na na 11 7 Broadway Station na na na 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 na na na 2,500 2,000 500 11 7 A Street na na na 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 na na na 2,800 2,700 2,700 11 7 Wormwood St na 400 400 na na na na na na 900 na na na 11 7 South Boston 2,300 na na na na na na na na na na na na 11 7 World Trade Center 400 na na 2,500 2,400 2,400 2,500 400 300 na 700 600 300 11 7 Wharf Rd/Seaport Dist na 400 400 na na na na na na 1,400 na na na TOTALS – SEGMENT C: 12,300 10,000 10,000 23,500 23,500 23,600 23,600 15,800 12,100 17,600 22,600 22,500 19,000 TOTALS – SEGMENT B (from above): 66,100 80,900 80,800 83,300 80,100 91,900 93,000 120,900 91,700 89,200 95,900 104,700 116,500 TOTALS – SEGMENT A (from above): 30,100 49,400 49,400 42,200 45,800 42,800 42,200 39,400 37,000 53,000 45,800 43,100 48,500 GRAND TOTALS – SEGMENTS A, B, & C: 108,500 140,300 140,200 149,000 149,300 158,800 158,600 176,100 140,800 159,800 164,300 170,300 184,000 Source: CTPS Ridership forecasts June 2008. (9)
Not all routes apply to all Alternatives (10)
H1 = Hybrid 1; Alternative; H2 = Hybrid 2 Alternative; H3 = Hybrid 2T Alternative (11)
LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative (12) na = not applicable Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­49 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­20: BRT Peak Load Points (AM Peak Hour Passengers) on Urban Ring Services – 2030 Alternatives
BRT Route BRT 1 2030 AM PEAK HOUR PASSENGERS AT PEAK LOAD POINTS FOR BUILD ALTERNATIVES: Alt 1 360 CC(2) to New Lechmere BRT 2 680 Chelsea CR(4) to Broadway BRT 5 480 Huntington to LMAe BRT 6 840 Ruggles to Huntington Avenue 480 Ariport Blue Line to WTC(7) BRT 7 TOTALS: 2,840 Alt 2 Alt 2a Alt 3 Alt 3a Alt 3b 400 600 Wellington to Wahsington to AS(3) New Lechmere Alt 3c Alt 4 Alt 4a LPA(1) 560 Gateway, Everett to Wellington 1,120 480 680 960 960 960 960 1,760 1,760 EB(5) to Airport EB to Airport Chelsea CR to Chelsea CR to Chelsea CR to Chelsea CR to Chelsea CR to Chelsea CR to Chelsea CR to Broadway Broadway Broadway Broadway Broadway Broadway Broadway Blue Line Blue Line 720 920 1,120 880 800 840 440 400 1,160 BU(6) to Huntington to Huntington to Kenmore to Kenmore to LMA Huntington to Kendall to Mass Yawkey to Ruggles to Brookliine/ Yawkey LMA LMA Fenway Ave LMAe Cambridgeport Longwood 1,600 1,120 1,840 1,440 1,320 1,440 1,440 760 960 Brighton Ave to Huntington to Huntington to Huntington to Huntington to Huntington to Huntington to West Station to Ruggles to LMAe Stadium Way Brookline/ LMA LMA LMA LMAe LMA Allston Longwood 840 440 600 600 600 600 600 320 320 Ruggles to Ruggles to LMA Huntington to Ruggles to Ruggles to Ruggles to Ruggles to Ruggles to Ruggles to Huntington Brookline/ Huntington Huntington Huntington Huntington Huntington Huntington Longwood 4,000 3,840 4,320 4,200 4,360 4,400 5,160 3,680 5,280 560 CC to New Lechmere 560 CC to New Lechmere 480 CC to New Lechmere 480 CC to New Lechmere 920 Mystic Mall to Chemical Way 920 CC to New Lechmere (1)
LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative CC = Bunker Hill Community College. (3)
AS = Assembly Square. (4)
CR = Commuter Rail. (5)
EB = East Boston. (6)
BU = Boston University. (7) WTC = World Trade Center. (2)
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­50 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 4.3.9.4 Key Project Benefits of the LPA The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) identified existing transit service deficiencies as part of their Congestion Management System (CMS) evaluation. Services that experience passenger crowding and on­time performance deficiencies were identified as transit mobility concerns. The following transit services were identified by CTPS as transit mobility concerns: • Commuter Rail North and South Stations; • Green Line all branches; • Blue Line, Orange Line, Red Line at Ashmont and Braintree; and • Some local Bus Routes (complete list contained in CMS report). The level of congestion experienced on these services indicates a lack of capacity in the central subway, which is caused in part by circumferential transit demand needing to travel into and out of the downtown area. The Commuter Rail lines, Green Line (all branches except E­Line), Red Line, Orange Line, as well as many of the bus routes listed above would have a connection with the proposed Urban Ring BRT service, thereby reducing crowding and service deficiencies when the Urban Ring is operational. This section summarizes the potential benefits and impacts of the LPA on the future (Baseline) transit system in the area in year 2030. Key project benefits include serving existing trip origins and destinations, project travel time savings, and service reliability. Serving Trip Origins and Destinations Table 4­21 shows Urban Ring year 2030 trip origins and destinations by municipality. Communities within the Urban Ring Project Corridor would generate 91 percent of the total daily Urban Ring origins and destinations. Boston and Cambridge would generate almost three­quarters (71 percent) of the total origins and destinations. Other communities outside the Urban Ring Project Corridor would generate 9 percent of the total origins and destinations, with communities inside Route 128 accounting for 6 percent. Table 4­22 shows the mode of access (direct boardings or transfers) at Urban Ring stations having intermodal access for the LPA. The majority of passengers at the Downtown Chelsea, Wellington, Assembly Square, and Sullivan Square stations would board Urban Ring service via local access, i.e., without making a transfer. These stations represent locations where the Urban Ring is primarily serving the local land uses and would be within convenient walking distance. The majority of passengers at Kendall and Ruggles stations would board Urban Ring service via transfer from other transit service. These stations have excellent transit service and are considered major intermodal locations. The Assembly Square station shows a balance between local access and intermodal transfers. Project Travel Time Providing travel time for BRT service that is faster than existing services is important to attract and keep passenger ridership. Travel time is affected by many elements including running way, priority, congestion and delay, station dwell time, and waiting and transfer times, and station design. The incorporation of BRT features such as exclusive running ways, signal priority, station design, and fare collection have led to faster travel times for several BRT systems in the United States. The following cities have demonstrated travel time reductions ranging from 7 percent to 55 percent compared with system­wide travel times: Boston; Chicago; Honolulu; Las Vegas; Los Angeles; Oakland; and Pittsburgh38. 38 USDOT, FTA, Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation, Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision­Making, August 2004, Exhibit 3­5. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­51 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­21: Urban Ring Phase 2 – Trip Origins and Destinations by Municipality – BRT Daily Year 2030 LPA Urban Ring Municipalities Boston Chelsea Percent 57% Daily Trips(1) 104,880 8% 14,720 Cambridge 14% 25,,760 Somerville 4% 7,360 Brookline 2% 3,680 Everett 4% 7,360 Medford 2% 3,680 91% 167,440 Inside Route 128 6% 11,040 Outside Route 128 3% 5,520 Subtotal 9% 16,560 Grand Total 100% 184,000 Subtotal Other Municipalities (1)
Based on Origins. Origins and Destinations are comparable over the course of the day. Numbers rounded. Table 4­22: Urban Ring Phase 2 – Mode of Access at Major Intermodal Points – Daily Year 2030 Ridership – LPA Intermodal Station(1) Downtown Chelsea Total BRT Boardings Initial Boardings(2) Transfer Boardings(3) 14,600 70% 30% Wellington 5,600 79% 21% Assembly Square 5,200 54% 46% Sullivan Square 2,700 75% 25% Kendall 15,500 21% 80% Ruggles 21,500 31% 69% (1)
(3) (2)
Urban Ring station with at least one other transit mode, i.e., commuter rail or rapid transit. This represents the proportion of travelers that board at this location for the first portion of their transit trip (trip origin). This represents the proportion of travelers that board at this location for the second or third portion of their transit trip. Travel time was calculated for selected origin­destination pairs within the Urban Ring corridor for the LPA compared with the 2030 No­Build condition. The No­Build Alternative assumes service and routes between the origin­destination pairs for a 2030 condition without Urban Ring Phase 2 service. Travel times were calculated from the CTPS regional travel demand model for the weekday PM peak period. Travel times for the LPA assume that the proposed tunnels, busways, bus lanes, etc. will be operational. Table 4­23 compares 2030 travel times (including walk, wait, and in­vehicle times) for the No­Build and LPA alternatives for the PM peak period. Times for walk, wait, and vehicle times change between the No­
Build and LPA conditions due to improved LPA service (over No­Build) that create greater rider demand (lower average walk times), shorter wait times (shorter headways), and exclusive running ways (shorter Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­52 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION in­vehicle time). The table shows that within the Urban Ring corridor the LPA would produce travel time savings between 16 and 44 percent compared with the No­Build Alternative. This demonstrates that the proposed exclusive busways and bus lanes will result in substantial travel time savings for riders. This advantage in travel time results in increased ridership compared to the Baseline and No­Build as shown previously in Tables 4­11 and 4­12. Table 4­23: Urban Ring Phase 2, BRT Travel Time Savings Year 2030 PM Peak Period Origin­Destination Total Time Walk Time Wait Time In­
Vehicle Time Total Time Percent Travel Time Savings 2030 No­Build In­
Wait Walk Vehicle
Time(1) Time(2) Time(3) 2030 LPA Chelsea Commuter Rail – Airport Blue Line 11 4 10 25 10 2 9 21 16% Chelsea Commuter Rail – Wellington 10 7 24 41 10 3 10(4) 23 44% Sullivan Square – Kendall/MIT 10 4 13 27 9 2 8 19 30% Kendall/MIT – LMA(5) (6) 10 6 17 33 7 4 15 26 21% Boston Medical Center – LMA(5) 6 3 16 25 7 2 9 18 28% 12 5 31 48 9 5 29 43 10% Outside Urban Ring Corridor Alewife – LMA (via transfer at Harvard) Source: CTPS Regional Model. Data is for BRT vehicles. (1)
Walk Time represents average time in minutes to walk from origin to station (2)
Wait time represents average time in minutes from when person arrives at station until next desired bus arrives at station (3)
In­vehicle time (4)
Adjusted (5)
LMA = Longwood Medical and Academic Area (6) From Cambridgeport, BRT buses will travel via busway on GJRR Bridge access University Road via an underpass of BU property. Buses will then cross Commonwealth Avenue at a new signal at Carlton Street and continue to Mountfort Street. Service Reliability Reliability of BRT service is providing for a consistent level of service to passengers who can then 39
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. There are three main elements of Reliability40: • 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 following proposed operating features of the Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA will help to improve reliability: • Exclusive running ways for BRT buses (tunnels, busways, bus lanes, queue­jump lanes); 39 USDOT, FTA, Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation, Ibid., Section 3.2 Reliability. 40 USDOT, FTA, Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation, Ibid. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­53 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION • Bus signal priority; • Avoidance of highly congested intersections and roadways; • Standardized stations with acceptable spacing; • Fare collection techniques to minimize boarding and alighting times; • Adequate station pull­out areas; • Ability for buses to pass at stations; • ITS operations to track and schedule vehicles; • Ability for maintenance vehicles to access busways and bus lanes; • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) real­time information for passengers; • Multiple routes to reduce long route lengths and better control schedules; • Limited stops; • High frequency/short headways; and • Coordination with agencies and jurisdictions. Passenger perception of service reliability is summarized below for selected BRT systems in the United States41: • Silver Line, Boston – 65 percent of passengers rated reliability above average or excellent; • Metro Rapid Florence, Los Angeles – 92 percent of passengers rate reliability and on­time performance excellent or good (compared to 62 percent for all service); and • West Busway, Pittsburgh, ­ 68 percent of passengers perceive that the West Busway has improved schedule adherence. These results indicate that most respondents rated the reliability of BRT service above average or better. Reliability is expected to improve in the future as advances are made in technology and service. The Urban Ring LPA includes many of the reliability features of these successful systems. Through proper planning, design, and construction of an Intelligent BRT system, the service reliability of LPA will be maximized. The travel time and reliability features of Urban Ring Phase 2 project will continue to be developed and coordinated as the project progresses into preliminary engineering. 4.3.10 Summary of Project Transit Benefits The accessibility of the MBTA transit system to the Urban Ring Project Corridor residents and workers and beyond will be greatly increased as a result of Phase 2 service due to the location of 36 new and improved stations in the LPA. This will be achieved by providing an important feeder/distribution function and extending the reach of the higher quality Urban Ring service further into neighborhoods and employment centers. The Urban Ring Phase 2 LPA connects with every existing and planned rapid transit line in the MBTA system, nine out of eleven commuter rail lines, and approximately half the local bus routes in the MBTA system. The high degree of system connectivity provided by the LPA greatly improves 41 USDOT, FTA, Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation, Ibid Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­54 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION mobility because all transit users will be able to use the Urban Ring service as a fully integrated element of a multi­modal regional transit and commuter rail system. The Urban Ring ties together all the spokes of the system and enables convenient transfers among them outside of downtown Boston. The Urban Ring will improve existing transit travel times through a variety of measures shown to improve ridership including tunnels, exclusive busways, bus lanes, queue jump lanes, and Intelligent Transportation Systems technology including bus signal priority. These features will improve the schedule reliability of the Urban Ring BRT service in the corridor compared to the Baseline Alternative, thereby providing a service of higher quality and attractiveness. The Urban Ring project will reduce the need for many riders to travel into the Boston central subway and then out again to reach their destinations. The Urban Ring LPA would reduce passenger trips in the central subway by approximately 17 percent compared with Baseline conditions. The LPA would reduce daily passenger miles on the rapid transit (­3 percent) and bus systems (­17 percent) while increasing ridership on the commuter rail system (+2 percent) compared with the Baseline Alternative. In addition, it would reduce daily vehicle miles and vehicle hours compared with the Baseline condition. There are significant benefits to the LPA that would result in lower operating and maintenance costs for the MBTA. 4.4 Arterials, Local Streets, and Parking This section describes the potential impacts of the project on roadways, intersections, and parking. 4.4.1 Study Roadways Description Existing and future roadways in the study area are described below. 4.4.1.1 Existing Roadways There are approximately 23,000 miles of roadway within the Boston MPO region, about 60 percent of which are local roadways. Correspondingly, local communities have jurisdiction over the most lane miles in the MPO region. The Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) is the single government agency with jurisdiction over the most non­local roadway miles. MassHighway is also responsible for most of the bridges in the MPO region (62 percent). It is noted that the Central Artery, Ted Williams Tunnel, and the South Boston Bypass Road are all under the authority of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MassPike). Figure 1­2 in Chapter 1 shows the existing roadway network in the study area. An extensive network of arterial roadways and limited access highways serves the Urban Ring Project Corridor. Each of the major roadway facilities in the area cross the Urban Ring Project Corridor, including the Southeast Expressway (Interstate 93), The MassPike (Interstate 90), Storrow Drive, Memorial Drive, Route 28, Route 99, Interstate 93, Route 1A and the Ted Williams Tunnel. A number of major cross town arterial roadways (see Table 4­10 shown previously), such as Route 2A and Route 1, also cross the corridor. However, none of these roadway facilities connect more than a few of the identified Urban Ring activity centers. Additionally, except for the Ted Williams Tunnel, the Urban Ring is served by no cross town limited access facility. In many areas of the corridor, only local and collector streets are available for cross town trips. 4.4.1.2 Future Roadway Improvements by Others The 2030 No­Build Alternative includes the existing roadway system with recently constructed projects , projects that are currently under construction, and projects that were programmed in the first year of the 2007–2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). These include the following projects that have relevance in the study area: Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­55 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Infrastructure and Expansion Projects Opened Since 2000, Under Construction, and Included in the 2030 No­Build Projects in the Transportation Management Plan (TMP):42 • Central Artery Project (Boston); • Massachusetts Avenue/Lafayette Square Roadway Realignment (Cambridge); and • Cambridgeport Roadways Realignment. The Boston Region MPO’s Transportation Plan, Journey to 2030,43 is the primary source for identifying what new roadway improvements or expansions will occur by the project’s 2030 design year. The following infrastructure and expansion projects in the Plan are regionally significant, located in or near the Urban Ring Project Corridor, and were assumed for the 2030 future analysis scenarios: 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). These roadway projects (in addition to the transit projects discussed in the Transit Chapter, Section 4.3) were assumed for the CTPS regional travel demand model to develop future 2030 traffic and transit forecasts. The improvements associated with each of these projects were assumed for future condition intersection capacity analyses. In addition to the regionally significant projects, there are several local improvements proposed by local jurisdictions or projects that are tied in with development projects within the Urban Ring Project Corridor. Examples include: • Chelsea Residential Overlook Project – Sixth Street (Chelsea); • River’s Edge Boulevard (formerly Telecom City Boulevard) – Revere Beach Parkway (Everett); • NorthPoint – First Street (Cambridge); 42 CTPS, op. cit., Appendix D. 43 CTPS, op. cit. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­56 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION • MIT Master Planning – Grand Junction Railroad Corridor, Vassar and Albany Streets (Cambridge); • Boston University Master Planning – Commonwealth Avenue, University Road, Mountfort Street and Carlton Streets, BU Bridge (Boston); • Harvard­Allston Initiative – North Allston roadways and Beacon Yards (Boston); • Sears Rotary and Muddy River Restoration – Sears Rotary, Fenway, Park Drive (Boston); • City of Boston Roxbury Master Planning process – Melnea Cass Boulevard (Boston); • Massachusetts Turnpike Authority Parcel 7 Project – Maitland Street, Beacon Street (Boston); • Samuels Development – New West Fenway Roads between Brookline Avenue and Boylston Street (Boston); • LMA developments – Brookline and Longwood Avenue (Boston); • Boston University Medical Center – Albany and Harrison Streets (Boston); • Bio Square Development – Massachusetts Avenue Connector, Albany Street (Boston); and • Seaport District/Massport Area ­ Seaport Boulevard, Congress Street, and I­90 ramps (Boston). The level of development planned in the Urban Ring corridor is a key to the need for the proposed Urban Ring project. The planned/proposed improvements above were assumed for analysis of the future 2030 conditions, including the CTPS regional travel demand model future forecasts (ridership and traffic) and traffic capacity analysis. Analysis of future conditions has shown that the Urban Ring project will provide transportation operational benefits that will compliment other planned projects in the area. 4.4.1.3 Urban Ring Roadway Facility Improvements Roadway and intersection improvements and controls are proposed as part of the Urban Ring project to improve travel and reliability for BRT and CT buses within the corridor. The proposed improvements consist of measures to improve operations for bus travel (and in some cases general traffic and pedestrians) on existing roadways and at existing and or future intersections. These improvements are in addition to the regional and local improvements that are assumed completed by year 2030 by others . Proposed exclusive busway sections and tunnels are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. The roadway and intersection improvements proposed as part of the Urban Ring project have been discussed and reviewed with the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and members of the Compact traffic departments. Table 4­24 summarizes the surface roadway and intersection improvements and modifications proposed as part of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­57 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­24: Urban Ring Phase 2 – Proposed Intersection and Roadway Improvements/Modifications Location Jurisdiction Improvements/Modifications(1) East Boston Truck/Bus Route Chelsea St/East Boston Truck Route(3) Bellingham Street/Busway Sixth Street/Arlington Street/Busway Spruce Street Boston Boston Everett Avenue Chelsea Second Street Chelsea/ Everett Chelsea/ Everett Everett Busway Exclusive WB bus and truck approach lanes New unsignalized T­intersection Signal, coordination with railroad gates and flashers Signal, coordination with railroad gates and flashers, relocated Signal, coordination with railroad gates and flashers Signal, coordination with railroad gates and flashers Busway CSX ROW Second St/Revere Beach Parkway Telecom /Busway Wellington Assembly Square Washington­Cambridge St Broadway Somerville Avenue McGrath Highway EB/Somerville Avenue Somerville Ave/Municipal Parking Lot Driveway Carwash Busway NorthPoint First Street Third Street/Main Street Mid­Block Connector Main Street/Grand Junction Corridor Massachusetts Ave/Grand Junction Corridor Albany Street Waverly Street New Waverly Street/Brookline St Grand Junction Rail Road Bridge BU Bridge North Allston/Allston Area North Allston/Harvard Area Rutherford Ave Bus lane/Bypass bus
lane Ave Rutherford
Inner Belt Roadway Chelsea Chelsea Chelsea Build Alternatives: NB left­turn lane 1 √ 2 √ √ √ 2a 3 √ √ √ √ 3a 3b 3c 4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 4a H1 H2 H2T LPA(2) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Everett Medford Somerville Boston/ Somerville Somerville Somerville DCR(4)/ Somerville Somerville Bus lanes Busway Bus lanes Bus Lanes √ √ Bus lanes Bus lanes with friction NB left­thru and EB bus­only left­
turn lane from/to Somerville Ave BRT Station access improvements √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Somerville/ Cambridge Cambridge/ Somerville Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Busway √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Cambridge Signal, coordinated with Vassar and Albany Street, remove on­street parking EB & WB bus lanes WB Busway connector WB bus­only left­turn lane Busway √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge/ Boston DCR(4) Boston Boston Boston Boston Somerville Busway Bus lanes Two–way busway connector Busway WB bus­only turn pocket Bus lanes Busways Center bus lanes Bus lanes Bus lanes √ √ √ √ NOTE: NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; EB Eastbound; WB = Westbound; H1 = Hybrid Alternative 1; H2 = Hybrid Alternative 2; H2T = Hybrid Alternative 2T (Tunnel) (1)
Pedestrian and bicycle improvements will be coordinated with all improvements. List does not include interim surface improvements. (2)
LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative. (3)
East Boston Truck Route Design to be determined. (4)
Department of Conservation and Recreation. (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­58 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­24: Urban Ring Phase 2 Improvements/Modifications (Cont’d) Location Jurisdiction – Proposed Intersection and Roadway Build Alternatives: Improvements/Modifications(1) 1 2 2a 3 3a 3b 3c 4 4a H1 H2 H2T LPA(2) Mountfort St between Comm Ave and Carlton St Mountfort Street/ w/o Beacon Street Park Drive/Beacon Street Brookline/ Boston Brookline/ Boston Boston WB bus lane √ √ √ EB/WB bus lanes √ √ √ SB left­turn lane √ Boston EB/WB Bus lanes √ √ Boston Signal √ √ √ √ Beacon Street/Maitland Street √ √ √ Beacon Street √ √ √ √ Kenmore/Beacon Street Boston Bus lanes √ √ √ √ √ √ Yawkey Station Boston Bus lane √ √ √ √ Brookline Avenue Boston Bus lanes √ √ √ Fenway/Brookline Street DCR(3)/ Boston DCR/Boston WB bus­only slip ramp from contra­flow lane to Park Drive EB WB contra­flow bus lane √ √ √ Boston NB bus lane √ DCR/ Boston √ √ Fenway between Brookline Avenue and Avenue Louis Avenue Louis Pasteur between Fenway and Longwood Avenue Fenway/Avenue Louis Pasteur Fenway between Avenue Louis Pasteur and Louis Prang Longwood Avenue DCR/ Boston NB bus­only left­turn and right­turn lanes, signal EB bus lane Boston Bus lanes √ Tetlow Street Boston EB Bus lane √ Huntington Avenue/Ruggles Street/Louis Prang Street Ruggles Street between Huntington Avenue and Ruggles Ruggles Street/Parker Street Boston Bus­only EB through and WB left­turn lanes Bus lanes √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Boston Prohibit EB, NB and SB left turns √ Melnea Cass Boulevard Boston Busway √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Albany Street Boston Bus lanes √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Boston Bus lanes √ √ √ Massachusetts Avenue √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Dudley Street Boston Bus lanes √ √ Bus lane(s) √ √ √ √ √ Boston √ √ Clifton St between Dudley Stand Burgess St Burgess Street Dudley St/Clifton St/Alexander Street Columbia Road/Hamlet Street Boston Boston Bus lane Align as four­way intersection, signal √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Boston EB bus­only left­turn lane, signal √ √ √ √ √ Boston Bus lanes √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Boston Busway √ √ √ √ South Boston Haul Road/ Richards Street A Street Boston Signal, left turn pocket √ √ √ √ Boston Bus lanes √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Fort Point District Boston Roadway Modifications(4) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Mt. Vernon Street and UMass Boston South Boston Haul Road Boston Note: NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; EB Eastbound; WB = Westbound; H1 = Hybrid Alternative 1; H2 = Hybrid Alternative 2; H2T = Hybrid Alternative 2T (Tunnel) (1)
Pedestrian and bicycle improvements will be coordinated with all improvements. List does not include interim surface improvements. (2)
LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative. (3)
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation (4)
To be determined in coordination with Fort Point District development. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­59 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 4.4.2 Study Intersections Description This section includes a discussion of existing study intersections, future intersection improvements by others, and traffic signal and bus improvements proposed as part of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project. 4.4.2.1 Existing Intersections Critical intersections that could be potentially impacted by the Urban Ring project were identified throughout the study corridor. A total of 191 existing intersections were identified for analysis. Capacity analyses were performed for these locations and summarized in Section 4.4.6.1. Table 4­28 shows the location, jurisdiction, and control type for each study intersection. In addition to new intersection volume data, field inventories were performed at study intersections to determine geometrics, lane usage, parking, bus stops, crosswalks, control, and signal timing and phasing. Observations of study intersections were made during peak periods to record traffic operations and intersection performance, vehicle delay, and queuing.44 4.4.2.2 Future Intersection Improvements by Others New traffic signals and other roadway improvements are planned to be provided as part of other future projects within the Urban Ring corridor. Table 4­25 shows the intersection improvements planned by others at study intersections for future conditions in the Urban Ring Project Corridor. Each of these improvements was assumed to be implemented by 2030. 4.4.2.3 Urban Ring Traffic Signal Improvements In addition, new study intersections and newly modified signals were assumed as part of the 2030 Build conditions for analysis purposes. The final future 2030 turning movement volumes were combined with the future roadway and intersection improvements to create the traffic analysis model intersection analysis files for Build conditions. New Signals New traffic signals are proposed as part of the project (depending on Alternative) at the following locations: • East Boston Haul Road/BRT Busway (Boston); • East Boston Haul Road/Frankfort Street (Boston); • East Boston Haul Road/Chelsea Street Boston; • Sixth Street/Arlington Street/Busway (Chelsea); • Spruce Street/Busway (Chelsea); • Everett Avenue/Busway (Chelsea); • Second Street/Busway (Chelsea); • Commonwealth Avenue/University Road (Boston); and • Beacon Street/Maitland Street (Boston); 44 The summary results of the operating conditions at study intersections are provided in the Urban Ring Phase 2 Technical Traffic Report, November 2008. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­60 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­25: Future Intersection Improvements Planned by Others in Urban Ring Project Corridor (for 2030) City Planned Roadway and Transit Improvements (listed counterclockwise by region) East Boston • Chelsea Street Lift Bridge • East Boston Haul Road/Chelsea Truck Route* Chelsea • • • • Everett • River’s Edge Boulevard (formerly Telecom City Boulevard) (Everett, Medford, Malden) • Signal upgrade at Broadway Street and Second Street Medford • Revere Beach Parkway (Route 16) reconstruction and widening (Route 38 in Medford to Sweetser Circle in Everett), including Wellington Circle interchange/grade separation and realignment of the Route 38 and Route 16 ramps at I­93 Somerville • New geometry and circulation at Union Square • Geometric, safety and traffic flow improvements, and interconnect intersections of McGrath Highway with Pearl Street, Broadway and Medford Street • Signal upgrade and geometric improvements at Washington Street/McGrath Highway and Washington Street/Prospect Street • New signal at McGrath Highway and Blakely Street and connected to above intersections • Controller upgrade at McGrath Highway and Mystic Avenue and connected to above intersections • Assembly Square Roadway Improvements* • Interstate 93/Mystic Avenue/McGrath Highway grade separation/interchange and surface street signal coordination* Cambridge • • • • • New signal and geometry at Eastern Avenue and Griffin Way* Widening of Spruce Street at the rail Right­of­Way (between Everett Avenue and Sixth Street)* Geometric and signal timing improvements at Spruce Street and Everett Avenue Everett Avenue corridor improvements, including widening, installation of exclusive turning lanes at key intersections, and signal timing* • Geometric and signal timing improvements at Everett Avenue and Carter Street, including the widening of Everett Avenue and exclusive turning lanes from Carter Street to Everett Avenue • New roadway through the Mystic Mall site New configuration at First Street and O’Brien Highway* New movements at Cambridge Street and O’Brien Highway Reconstruction of O’Brien Highway from Third Street to Land Boulevard (North Point) Reconstruction of Vassar Street (west) with cycle track No EB left turn from Albany Street onto Main Street * Project to be coordinated with Urban Ring LPA. (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­61 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­25: Future Intersection Improvements Planned by Others in Urban Ring Project Corridor (for 2030) (Cont’d) City Boston Planned Roadway and Transit Improvements • Commonwealth Avenue safety improvements in the vicinity of Boston University* • Harvard transportation improvements in Allston: Western Avenue/Stadium Way and North Harvard Street/Stadium Way* • Fullerton Street will become a through street at Brookline Avenue (connect with Kilmarnock Street at Van Ness Street) as part of the Trilogy development • Ongoing signal improvement project for intersections along Tremont Street • Route 1A/Boardman Street Grade Separation • Rutherford Avenue reconstruction and new four­lane bypass road • Leverett Circle improvements • Sullivan Square signal improvements* • Roxbury Master Planning including Melnea Cass Boulevard* • Upgrade lane usage and signal at Commonwealth Avenue at BU Bridge roadway* • Upgrade at Park Drive and Beacon Street (Audubon Circle) • Sears Rotary Realignment* * Project to be coordinated with Urban Ring LPA. Signals at the above locations were assumed for the 2030 Build condition (depending on Alternative). Table 4­24 (shown previously) summarizes the surface intersection and roadway improvements proposed as part of the Urban Ring Phase 2 project. Bus Signal Priority Traffic signal priority will reduce delays for buses at signalized intersections and in some cases for general traffic on the intersection approach used by the buses, but it can also increase delays for traffic on cross street approaches. Based on discussions with the Traffic and Transportation Subcommittee of the CAC during the DEIR process, it was determined that the bus priority strategy should emphasize improvement of bus travel times without major impact on cross street traffic. It was recommended that the largest increment in bus green times be placed at the intersections with better Level of Service in order to minimize the effects on cross street traffic. Therefore, bus signal priority would not be recommended for locations where bus signal priority would exacerbate existing poor Levels of Service and long delays on side streets. Analysis of bus signal priority showed that intersection delay savings between 5 to 20 percent could be realistically achieved, with an overall average travel time savings of approximately 10 percent. Higher levels of travel time savings, and consequently longer green signal times, were rejected due to the negative impact on side street traffic delay and practicality of implementation. Signal Priority Coordination Among Multiple Jurisdictions In order to implement the proposed traffic signal bus priority operations strategy for Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT, it is necessary to provide new and upgraded traffic signal equipment at the signalized intersections (existing and proposed) within the Urban Ring Project Corridor. These intersections are controlled by a number of different jurisdictions including the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Chelsea; the Town of Brookline; Massport and the DCR. It is proposed that new and upgraded equipment at these Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­62 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION locations be provided as part of the Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT project, and that the various jurisdictions continue to be responsible for operations and maintenance of the signal systems. An agreement would be necessary between the MBTA and each jurisdiction to provide the desired traffic signal bus priority operation as well as continued maintenance of equipment necessary for providing such operation. Existing transit signal priority systems, including the one in place for the Silver Line Washington Street service in Boston, could serve as models for technical and procedural implementation. Bus signal priority for the Silver Line is currently in operation along Washington Street in Boston, including the intersection with Melnea Cass Boulevard. This operation extends the green time for buses on Washington Street that are running behind schedule. This is one type of bus signal priority that can be implemented in the Urban Ring corridor. The monitoring of when bus signal priority is activated under the current system is an area that can be improved for Urban Ring implementation.45 4.4.2.4 Urban Ring Bus Improvements Other improvements evaluated as part of the Urban Ring project include tunnels, bus lanes, busways, contra flow bus lanes; bus­only slip ramps, and bus queue jump lanes. These are described below. • Tunnels – Tunnels are limited­access underground busways (see below) for exclusive use of buses. Tunnels eliminate at­grade conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians, and provide the highest level of travel time savings and reliability. • Bus lanes – These are lanes along mixed traffic roadways that are exclusively used by buses. Bus lanes allow buses to increase travel time over general mixed traffic. • Busways – Busways are designated bus lanes that are removed and separate from mixed traffic. Busways generally provide greater travel time savings compared to bus lanes because they are not subject to delays experienced in mixed traffic. • Bus­only slip ramps – A slip ramp is a connector that allows a motorist to "slip" from one roadway to another. Slip ramps often provide access to and from highway express/mainline lanes. This improvement refers to slip ramps that would be designated for bus use only. • Bus queue jump lanes – These are short priority lanes for buses, and are typically combined with traffic signal priority improvements. They consist of an additional travel lane on the approach to a signalized intersection. This lane is often restricted to transit vehicles only, though some variations may permit taxis, bicyclists, mopeds, and/or motorcycles. The intent of the bus queue jump lane is to allow the higher­capacity vehicles to cut to the front of the queue, reducing the delay caused by the signal and improving the operational efficiency of the transit system. A queue jump lane is generally accompanied by a signal which provides a phase specifically for vehicles within the queue jump. Such a signal reduces the need for a designated receiving lane, as vehicles in the queue jump lane get a "head­start" over other queued vehicles and can therefore merge into the regular travel lanes immediately beyond the signal. Thus, the idea is to enable buses to by­pass queues of traffic waiting at a busy intersection, allowing faster travel times for buses. Ambulances and emergency vehicles would also be allowed to use queue jump lanes. Specific locations where these types of bus improvements are proposed are shown in Table 4­24 (shown previously). 45 Bus signal priority is described in detail in the Urban Ring Phase 2 Technical Traffic Report, November 2008. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­63 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 4.4.3 Roadway Traffic Volumes Existing and future traffic volumes are discussed below. 4.4.3.1 Existing Roadway Traffic Volumes Available Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) counts, where available from recent projects and local agencies, were reviewed for major study roadways along the proposed Urban Ring alignment in order to establish baseline daily volumes for each segment of the Urban Ring route. For each location, the percent of daily traffic occurring during peak hours (K­Factor) was identified by comparing peak hour traffic volumes with daily volumes, where available. For roadways where no counts were available, calculated K­Factors were applied to 2006 peak hour counts from a variety of sources (cities and local agencies) to estimate existing (2006) daily roadway traffic volumes. Table 4­26 summarizes daily and peak hour traffic volumes on selected study area roadways listed in descending order from highest volume to lowest volume. Key roadways were selected where recent traffic volume data were available or collected. Of the roadways monitored, Revere Beach Parkway (RBP) carries the most traffic with two­way volumes of over 81,200 vehicles per day (vpd). McGrath Highway is the next highest with over 45,300 vpd. Other study roadways carrying over 20,000 vpd or more include Melnea Cass Boulevard (32,000 vpd); Ruggles Street (20,900 vpd); and Park Drive (20,000 vpd). 4.4.3.2 Future Roadway Traffic Volumes The following sections summarize the forecast methodology for future No­Build and Build Alternatives. 2030 No­Build Traffic Volumes Year 2030 traffic and transit forecasts were developed by CTPS based on the MPO’s regional Transportation Plan, Journey to 2030. The land use, employment and demographics of the plan were used to develop travel forecasts in the region, including the Urban Ring study area. A three­step process was used by the Urban Ring study to develop year 2030 No­Build traffic volumes for capacity analysis purposes. The first step was to take the year 2030 CTPS traffic volume projections and compare those with the CTPS 2006 baseline traffic model volumes to develop annual traffic growth rates for each study intersection approach (northbound, southbound, eastbound, and westbound directions). While a wide range of traffic growth rates were observed, the annual traffic growth from 2006 to 2030 generally ranged between ­10 and +15 percent. Based on this information, traffic growth factors were developed to represent CTPS model growth between 2006 and 2030. The growth factor was applied to the year 2006 Existing Conditions traffic count volumes (both roadway and intersection turning movement volumes) to develop Future 2030 traffic volumes. To provide a conservative analysis, only positive growth rates were used for future volume projections. For intersection approaches showing negative or growth rates less than 6 percent between 2006 and 2030, a default growth rate of 6 percent (=0.25 percent per year for 24 years) was assumed. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­64 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­26: Roadway Traffic Volumes on Selected Links – Existing 2006 Conditions
RBP(2) East of Second St EB Everett 24­hour Traffic Volume 25,325 RBP East of Second St WB Everett 33,740 2,029 6% 1,883 6% McGrath Hwy South of Broadway NB Somerville 21,000 999 5% 2,202 10% McGrath Hwy South of Broadway SB Somerville 24,323 2,358 10% 1,504 6% MCB(3) South of Shawmut Ave NB Boston 17,519 1,027 6% 1,222 7% MCB South of Shawmut Ave SB Boston 14,475 951 7% 1,179 8% Ruggles Street North of Parker Street NB Boston 10,592 689 7% 776 7% Ruggles Street North of Parker Street SB Boston 10,331 681 7% 656 6% Park Dr North of Beacon Street NB Boston 9,101 617 7% 597 7% Park Dr North of Beacon Street SB Boston 10,744 674 6% 766 7% Columbia Rd West of Dorchester Ave EB Boston 8,983 525 6% 572 6% Columbia Rd West of Dorchester Ave WB Boston 9,183 524 6% 734 8% North Side of Chelsea Creek Bridge NB Chelsea 7,633 458 6% 649 9% North Side of Chelsea Creek Bridge SB Chelsea 9,457 667 7% 657 7% Rutherford Avenue North of Austin St NB 7,000 420 6% 812 12% 7,014 876 12% 491 7% Dudley St South of Blue Hill Ave NB Boston/ Charlestown Boston/ Charlestown Boston 8,720 609 7% 493 6% Dudley St South of Blue Hill Ave SB Boston 5,140 257 5% 416 8% Spruce St East of Everett Avenue EB Chelsea 6,625 330 5% 532 8% Spruce St East of Everett Avenue WB Chelsea 4,521 448 10% 365 8% Vassar Street West of Mass Ave EB Cambridge 4,605 394 9% 394 9% Vassar Street West of Mass Ave WB Cambridge 4,765 344 7% 318 7% Off­ramp from Wellington Station to RBP/Rte 16 Medford 3,855 391 10% 418 11% On­ramp to Wellington Station from RBP/Rte 16 Medford 5,161 398 8% 590 11% Study Roadways Rutherford Avenue North of Austin St SB City AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume 1,103 K­Factor(1) 4% Volume 2,026 K­Factor(1) 8% Source: 2006 traffic count volumes. (1)
K­factor is the percent of 24­hour traffic occurring during the peak hour. (2)
Revere Beach Parkway. (3) MCB = Melnea Cass Boulevard. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­65 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION The second step involved a post­processing procedure where projected turning movements were compared with existing and projected future volumes (from others) that reflect known potential developments in the study area. Based on these comparisons, adjustments were made to the projected year 2030 intersection turning movement volumes. The major sources for comparison of future traffic volumes in the project study area included: • Year 2011 Synchro Traffic Model, Boston Transportation Department, 2006; • Synchro Traffic Model, City of Cambridge; • Dana­Farber Cancer Institute Center for Cancer Care Study (2016 Build Condition); • Blackfan Research Center/New Blackfan LLC Study (2009 Build Condition); • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Longwood North Research Center Draft PIR (2013 Build Condition); • Harvard University Study for Stadium Way Extension in Allston; • North Point Final EIR (2014 Build Condition); • Northeastern University Institutional Master Plan (2010 Build Condition); • Fenway Neighborhood Transportation Plan (2007 traffic volume projections – 40 percent drive option); • Master Plan EIR, Everett Avenue Urban Revitalization and Development Project, Chelsea, April 30, 2001; • Assembly Square Impact Study (2025 preferred alternative); • Somerville Ikea Expanded ENF (2006 Build Condition project trips); • Boston University Charles River Campus Transportation Master Plan, 2002; and • BioSquare Phase II FEIT, 2004. Traffic volumes from these documents were extrapolated as necessary to be consistent with the Urban Ring’s 2030 future analysis year. CTPS model land use projections were updated in September and December of 2007, resulting in increased population and employment primarily in the LMA, Allston, and East Somerville. To account for these changes, intersection and roadway volumes at some locations required further adjustment. This was accomplished through a comparison of previous CTPS projections to the new CTPS projections. If total intersection volume change was greater than 20 percent (positive or negative), adjustments were made to traffic volumes based on the percent difference between previous and updated CTPS volumes. The third and final step in the process was reviewing traffic volume balance of adjacent intersections, and providing adjustments as appropriate. The process of developing the 2030 No­Build volumes was coordinated with and overseen by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Traffic Subcommittee. 2030 Baseline and Build Alternative Traffic Volumes The traffic volumes for the Urban Ring Baseline and Build Alternative conditions are based on projected growth in traffic demand throughout the corridor resulting from future population and employment projections, along with impacts from specific developments and traffic growth assumptions in certain congested areas of the corridor. The future Build traffic volumes were reduced slightly from the No­Build traffic volumes to account for mode shift from automobiles to Urban Ring service. The Build traffic volumes used in this RDEIR/DEIS are generally conservative, and represent a consistent and reasonable Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­66 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION basis for evaluating a range of future traffic conditions. The specific methodology to estimate future Urban Ring Phase 2 Baseline and Build Alternative traffic volumes follows. Urban Ring Phase 2­generated bus volumes were developed for the Baseline Alternative, the nine Build Alternatives, the three Hybrid Alternatives, and the LPA. Weekday commuter peak hour BRT and CT bus volumes were identified for the future study roadways and intersections based on the proposed routes and headways. The highest Urban Ring bus volumes occur on roadways where multiple BRT routes travel on the same alignment, plus CT routes. Roadway examples include Chelsea (Eastern Avenue), Cambridge (Kendall Square), and Boston (Melnea Cass Boulevard, and Ruggles Station). The following six study intersections would experience in excess of 36 BRT (60') buses during the weekday commuter peak hours: • Eastern Avenue/Chelsea Bridge (Chelsea); • Eastern Avenue Bellingham Street (Chelsea); • Eastern Avenue/Griffin Avenue (Chelsea); • Arlington Avenue/Sixth Street (Everett); • Ruggles Street/Station Entrance (Boston); and • Melnea Cass Boulevard/Washington Street (Boston). Projected Urban Ring bus volumes on roadways and at intersections vary (+/­) depending on the alternative. At tunnel locations in Alternatives 3 and 4, bus volumes are lower than the same locations with surface alignments (e.g., Alternatives 1 and 2). To be conservative, no replacement of existing bus or shuttle service by the Urban Ring was assumed for this analysis. It is important to note that the projected Urban Ring bus volumes would represent only a small proportion of the total traffic volume on study roadways, generally less than two percent. The volume of new buses would also be far below the general traffic growth projected on most roadways in the study area. Therefore, the proportion of bus traffic (including Urban Ring service) compared with total traffic volume may actually decrease. The next step in the development of Build Alternative traffic volumes was adjustment of the 2030 roadway volumes based on mode shift comparison from the CTPS model forecasts with and without the project. The travel demand forecasts showed that the Urban Ring LPA project would reduce the number of automobile trips in the region by approximately 24,000 auto trips per day compared with the Baseline. The percentage vehicle reduction due to the project was calculated for each study roadway and then applied to the corresponding intersections. At study intersections, the peak hour automobile trip reduction created by the project was generally between 0.25 and 0.33 percent. To create the 2030 Build (with project) peak hour traffic volumes, the 2030 No­Build traffic volumes were adjusted for mode shift and then added to the calculated Urban Ring bus volumes.46 The process of developing the 2030 No­Build and Build traffic volumes was coordinated with and overseen by the CAC Traffic Subcommittee. Table 4­27 shows roadway traffic volumes on selected links for the 2030 No­Build Alternative and the 2030 Build LPA. The table indicates that the 2030 Build LPA daily and peak hour traffic volumes on selected roadways are equal to or less than (about 1 percent) the 2030 No­Build volumes. This is a result of travelers shifting modes from automobile to BRT within the study area. This is recognized as a positive benefit of the Urban Ring project. 46 A detailed description of the traffic volume forecasting process for the No­Build and Build conditions is provided in the Urban Ring Phase 2 Technical Travel Demand Forecasting Report, November 2008. Figures showing the LPA study intersection traffic volumes used for the analysis are provided in the Urban Ring Phase 2 Technical Traffic Report, November 2008. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­67 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­27: Roadway Traffic Volumes on Selected Links – Future 2030 Conditions
RBP(1) East of Second St EB Everett 2030 No­Build Alternative 24­hour AM Pk PM Peak Traffic Volume Volume Volume 30,550 1,272 2,444 RBP East of Second St WB Everett 44,883 2,693 2,620 44,435 2,666 2,594 McGrath Hwy South of Broadway NB Somerville 29,580 1,382 2,958 29,580 1,382 2,958 McGrath Hwy South of Broadway SB Somerville 33,667 3,036 2,020 33,667 3,036 2,020 MCB(2) South of Shawmut Ave NB Boston 22,800 1,368 1,538 22,756 1384 1552 MCB South of Shawmut Ave SB Boston 26,363 1,291 2,109 26,284 1308 2118 Ruggles Street North of Parker Street NB Boston 16,557 1,159 1,093 16,060 1,124 1,060 Ruggles Street North of Parker Street SB Boston 21,333 940 1,280 20,693 912 1,242 Park Dr North of Beacon Street NB Boston 15,529 986 1,087 15,374 976 1,076 Park Dr North of Beacon Street SB Boston 15,800 945 1,106 15,642 936 1,095 Columbia Rd West of Dorchester Ave EB Boston 20,250 950 1,215 20,154 958 1221 Columbia Rd West of Dorchester Ave WB Boston 12,025 635 962 12,012 646 970 North Side of Chelsea Creek Bridge NB Chelsea 20,011 1,171 1,801 20,042 1195 1819 North Side of Chelsea Creek Bridge SB Chelsea 25,071 1,045 1,755 25,052 1070 1773 784 1,090 13,067 784 1,090 1,714 829 14,283 1,714 829 1,182 667 16,886 1,182 667 Study Roadways Rutherford Avenue North of Austin St NB Rutherford Avenue North of Austin St SB Dudley St South of Blue Hill Ave NB City Boston/ 13,067 Charlestown Boston/ 14,283 Charlestown Boston 16,886 2030 Build LPA Alternative 24­hour AM Pk PM Peak Traffic Volume Volume Volume 30,250 1,259 2,420 Dudley St South of Blue Hill Ave SB Boston 9,440 472 685 9,440 472 685 Spruce St East of Everett Avenue EB Chelsea 9,040 452 633 9,104 471 650 Spruce St East of Everett Avenue WB Chelsea 5,463 532 437 5,563 550 456 Vassar Street West of Mass Ave EB Cambridge 5,656 441 509 6,000 454 522 Vassar Street West of Mass Ave WB Cambridge 5,514 386 380 5,458 400 394 Off­ramp from Wellington Station to RBP/Rte 16 Medford 5,450 545 509 5,450 545 509 On­ramp to Wellington Station from RBP/Rte 16 Medford 7,664 473 843 7,742 485 855 Source: Earth Tech future traffic volume projections, 2007. (1)
RBP = Revere Beach Parkway. (2)
MCB = Melnea Cass Boulevard. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­68 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 4.4.4 Intersection Traffic Volumes Existing and future traffic volumes are discussed below. 4.4.4.1 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes A total of 191 existing intersections were analyzed in the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS. Most signalized intersections located along the Urban Ring alignment were included as study intersections. Other key unsignalized locations, including two­way, stop controlled intersections; round­abouts and rotaries; and ramps, merge and weave areas, were also selected. Some locations, such as rotaries, have more than one intersection point. The list of study intersections was distributed to the CAC Traffic and Transportation Subcommittee. Several study intersections were subsequently added as the result of the alternatives development process discussed in Chapter 3. The existing traffic volumes used for this study come from a combination of collected data and traffic data from CTPS, local municipalities, and agencies. Turning movement counts collected by others were used if the data was more recent than 2002. Any counts collected between 2002 and 2006 were adjusted upward to 2006 based on calculated traffic growth rates. Traffic growth rates were calculated by comparing new traffic volume data at nearby intersections with older data at the same location (generally 2002 vs. 2006 volumes), where available. Based on the comparison results, the following composite annual traffic growth rates were calculated for each community: Boston Brookline Cambridge Chelsea Everett Medford Somerville ­0.2%/year Not available ­0.2% Not available ­0.8%/year Not available ­1.8%/year As shown above, traffic volumes have decreased over the last several years. For intersections with older count data or where no counts were available, new traffic turning movement counts were collected or developed. New intersection turning movement counts were collected at 79 study intersections between December 14, 2006 and May 2, 2007. Intersection turning movement counts were performed between 7 and 9 a.m. and 4 and 6 p.m. on weekdays, which represent the peak commuting periods. Vehicle classification and pedestrian movements were simultaneously recorded at some locations. 4.4.4.2 Future Intersection Traffic Volumes A total of 194 intersections were analyzed, including three new intersections evaluated only under future conditions. Traffic growth rates for future analyses were primarily based on CTPS model projections per the methodology described above (see Section 4.4.3.2). Estimated CTPS model traffic growth rates between 2006 and 2030 were applied to 2006 study intersection volumes (by approach) to determine No­
Build year 2030 peak hour volumes. To provide a conservative analysis, only positive growth rates were used for future volume projections. The following represent average future annual growth rates used to project 2030 traffic volumes for intersections within each community: Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­69 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Boston Brookline Cambridge Chelsea Everett Medford Somerville 1.5%/year 0.5%/year 2.0%/year 1.9%/year 1.0%/year 0.9%/year 1.6%/year To create the 2030 Build (with project) peak hour traffic volumes, the 2030 No­Build (without project) traffic volumes were adjusted for mode shift and then added to the calculated Urban Ring bus volumes. 47 4.4.5 Roadway Capacity Analysis Existing and future roadway capacity analysis is discussed below. 4.4.5.1 Existing Roadway Capacity The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) of the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has evaluated arterials, partially limited­access, and limited­access roadways in the MPO region identified as being part of what is referred to as the 2004 Congestion Management System (CMS) network. Traffic volumes, vehicle travel speeds, and delays were monitored on these roadways for the a.m. and p.m. peak commuter periods. The following threshold criteria are used by CTPS to define roadway congestion: Arterial Roadways – Average travel speed equal or below 14 mph, speed index (ratio of observed speed to posted speed limit) below 0.70, average delay equal or greater than 55 seconds; Partially Limited­Access Arterial Roadways – Average travel speed equal or below 21 mph, speed index below 0.70, average delay equal or greater than 55 seconds; and Limited­Access Roadways – Average travel speed under 50 mph. The 2004 CMS Report48 documents the region’s mobility concerns. The report contains performance­
monitoring information on the regional transportation system, including arterial roadways and limited­
access highways, public transit systems, and park­and­ride lots. The report also presents information on roadway crashes, HOV lane travel time savings, TDM­related activities, bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to transit stations, and an assessment of the suitability for bicycling of the arterial roadways in the CMS network. The information compiled and general analysis provide the basis for CTPS to set forth recommendations to the MPO for congestion­reducing and mobility­enhancing actions to be considered in the MPO planning and programming processes, such as the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and long­range Regional Transportation Plan. The CMS Report shows that the following arterials located on or immediately adjacent to proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT routes have mobility concerns: 47 Detailed traffic volume calculations and existing and future traffic volume networks are provided in the Urban Ring Phase 2 Technical Traffic Report, November 2008. 48 Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) for the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Mobility in the Boston Region – Existing Conditions and Next Steps – The 2004 Congestion Management System Report, December 2004. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­70 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION • Rutherford Avenue (Route 99) – Sullivan Square (Boston); • Route 99 – at Second Street (Everett); • Revere Beach Parkway (RBP, Route 16) – (Medford, Everett, Chelsea); • Massachusetts Avenue – north of Melnea Cass Boulevard (Boston); • Massachusetts Avenue – at Albany Street (Boston); • Massachusetts Avenue – Albany Street to Vassar Street (Cambridge); • Mystic Avenue (Route 38) – north of Route 28 (Somerville); • Route 16 – at Broadway (Somerville); • Route 28 North – Fellsway (Medford/Somerville), McGrath Highway (Somerville/Cambridge), O’Brien Highway (Boston); and • Tremont Street (Route 28 South) – Ruggles Street to Columbus Avenue (Boston). 4.4.5.2 Future Roadway Analysis Year 2030 peak hour roadway volumes were developed by adding the proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 bus volumes to the No­Build roadway volumes (including slight adjustments for mode shifts). The Build Alternatives and the LPA would only marginally increase traffic volumes, if at all, on study area roadways, generally less than one bus every five to ten minutes during weekday peak commute periods in most areas of the corridor. As a result, the additional Urban Ring bus traffic would not significantly increase volume­to­capacity ratios in study roadways. Urban Ring buses would not cause any study roadway to deteriorate to over­capacity conditions. 4.4.6 Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing and future intersection capacity analyses are discussed below. 4.4.6.1 Existing Condition Capacity Analysis Traffic turning movement volume data and geometric and operational information collected for the study intersections were used to perform intersection capacity analysis calculations. A model of the study area roadway network was developed using the SYNCHRO traffic analysis program to evaluate study intersections along the Urban Ring BRT Phase 2 alignments. SYNCHRO models developed by the cities of Boston and Cambridge were incorporated in into the Urban Ring model. Due to the length of the study corridor (approximately 25 miles), the model network was separated into segments around the Urban Ring Project Corridor. Table 4­28 summarizes study intersection Level of Service (LOS) results for Existing (2006) conditions for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours by city or town. The intersection LOS results indicate that 65 study intersections are currently operating at deficient LOS E or F during the a.m. and/or p.m. peak hours. The remaining study intersections operate at acceptable LOS A–D overall during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Over half of the deficient operating locations are located in Boston. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­71 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­28: Intersection LOS Summary – Existing Conditions 2006
ID 1 Location Chelsea Bridge (north)/Eastern Avenue/Central Avenue/Marginal Street 2 Eastern Avenue/Bellingham Street 3 Eastern Avenue/Griffin Way 4 Arlington Street/Sixth Street 5 Everett Avenue/Spruce Street 6 Everett Avenue/Vale Street/Maple Street 7 Everett Avenue/Carter Street/Fifth Street 8 Everett Avenue/RBP 9 RBP/Vale Street 10 RBP/Vine Street 11 RBP/Ferry Street 12 RBP/Spring Street 13 RBP/Second Street 14 RBP/Lewis Street 15 Second Street/Route 99 16 Sweetzer Circle (Route 99, Route 16 and Main Street) 17 Santilli Circle East 18 Santilli Circle West 19 RBP WB On­ramp 20 RBP EP On­ramp 21 Corporation Way/RBP Ramp (north) 22a Wellington Circle East (Route 16/Fellsway) 22b Wellington Circle West (Route 16/Fellsway) 22c Wellington Circle North (Middlesex/Fellsway) 23 Route 28 Fellsway/Shore Drive/Assembly Square Dr. 24 Route 28 Fellsway/Middlesex Avenue 25 Route 28 Fellsway/Mystic Avenue (north) 26 Route 28 Fellsway/Mystic Avenue (south) 27 McGrath Highway/Blakely Street 28 McGrath Highway/Broadway 29 McGrath Highway/Pearl Street 30 Pearl Street/Walnut Street 31 Pearl Street/Medford Street 32 Medford Street/Walnut Street 33 Medford Street/Highland Avenue/Hamlet Street 34 McGrath Highway/Medford Street 35 McGrath Highway SB Ramp/Washington Street 36 McGrath Highway NB Ramp/frontage Road/Washington Street 37 McGrath Highway SB Ramp/ Somerville Avenue/ Medford Street 38 Washington Street/Prospect Street 39 Somerville Avenue/Prospect Street a.m. Peak Hour Existing 2006 LOS (1) Delay (2) C 23.5 p.m. Peak Hour Existing 2006 LOS (1) Delay (2) C 27.0 City Chelsea Signal Yes Chelsea Chelsea Chelsea Chelsea Chelsea Chelsea Everett Everett Everett Everett Everett Everett Everett Everett Everett Everett Everett Medford Medford Medford Medford Medford Medford Somerville Somerville Somerville Somerville Somerville Somerville Somerville Somerville Somerville Somerville Somerville Somerville Somerville Somerville No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rotary Yes Yes Merge Merge Flash Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes B C A F F C E A C A E F C F F B A F F F F F C D B E C B F F B D F F F C C 14.8 22.7 9.4 >180.0 111.1 21.7 73.4 8.7 27.1 7.0 74.2 148.2 23.2 97.4 78.6 14.1 5.5 >180.0 74.0 >180.0 165.0 137.7 23.3 29.9 10.2 73.4 31.4 11.3 >180.0 >180.0 13.6 25.3 73.7 106.0 110.7 27.4 30.8 C D B F F D F B D B F F F E F C B F F F F F B B D C B C F F B F F F C D D 15.8 29.2 13.6 >180.0 105.6 30.4 168.5 14.1 53.0 10.7 80.1 >180.0 85.5 57.7 >180.0 31.4 17.3 >180.0 >180.0 >180.0 169.4 156.1 15.9 14.3 44.7 28.2 19.5 16.2 >180.0 106.9 16.3 55.0 116.3 154.3 26.8 46.7 42.9 Somerville Yes F 88.4 C 32.9 Somerville Somerville No Yes (3) (3) (3) (3) F 106.1 F >180.0 (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­72 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­28: ID 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Intersection LOS Summary – Existing Conditions 2006 (Cont’d)
Location Lombardi Way/Mystic Avenue Broadway/Lombardi Way/Mt Vernon St Rutherford Ave./Broadway/Moffa Way/Cambridge St. Rutherford Ave./Charlestown Ave./Austin St. (North) Rutherford Ave./Charlestown Ave./Austin St. (South) Charlestown Avenue/O'Brien Highway/Land Boulevard/Charles River Dam O'Brien Highway/Twin City Plaza Drive O'Brien Highway/Third Street O'Brien Highway/Water Street O'Brien Highway/Gore Street (Second Street) O'Brien Highway/First Street O'Brien Highway/Cambridge Street First Street/Cambridge Street First Street/Thorndike Street First Street/Cambridgeside Way/Charles Street Binney Street/First Street Binney Street/Second Street Binney Street/Third Street Binney Street/Fulkerston Street Broadway Street/Third Street Broadway/Mid­Block Connector Broadway/Galileo Way Binney Street Main Street/Galileo Way/Vassar Street Main Street/Mid­Block Connector/Ames Street Main Street/Albany Street Mass Avenue/Albany Street Mass Avenue/Vassar Street Brookline Street/Waverly Street Brookline Street/Granite Street Brookline Street/Memorial Drive Rotary (North) Memorial Drive/Brookline Street/BU Bridge (East) Memorial Drive/BU Bridge (South) BU Bridge/Commonwealth Avenue Carlton Street/Commonwealth Avenue Mountfort Street/Carlton Street Mountfort Street/St. Mary's Street Park Drive/Beacon Street Beacon Street/Maitland Street Park Drive/Riverway/Fenway Riverway/Fenway Fenway/Brookline Avenue Park Drive/Boylston/Brookline Avenue Brookline Avenue/Fullerton Street Boylston Street/Kilmarnock Street Longwood Avenue/Brookline Avenue City Somerville Somerville Boston Boston Boston Cambridge Signal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Som/Cam Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Boston Boston Brookline Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes a.m. Peak Hour 2006 Existing LOS (1) Delay (2) B 16.7 A 8.7 D 47.4 F 115.6 F 101.8 E 59.9 p.m. Peak Hour 2006 Existing LOS (1) Delay (2) D 41.3 A 9.3 F 88.9 E 56.2 D 40.7 F 100.4 B E A B 18.0 102.9 9.3 10.8 C D B F 26.6 43.3 10.7 >180.0 (3) (3) (3) (3) F C B B D A F C C C D B C F B C A C F F E D B A D D C F E F A A E 165.9 31.3 14.3 10.3 49.7 9.7 109.7 15.5 34.8 23.0 38.9 14.3 32.1 111.2 17.0 24.0 9.2 17.4 >180.0 >180.0 57.9 42.8 16.3 6.8 37.7 32.0 20.7 >180.0 58.0 97.2 7.6 7.6 57.1 C D B B C F E B D B C C C F B C B E F F C D C A D D B F D F B B E 31.6 50.3 14.9 16.5 26.9 52.1 75.3 12.1 48.4 17.7 25.9 20.6 20.9 >180.0 12.8 21.1 16.3 48.7 >180.0 >180.0 34.7 36.8 22.2 9.3 38.7 34.8 19.9 >180.0 38.8 176.3 12.9 11.2 57.6 (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­73 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­28: Intersection LOS Summary – Existing Conditions 2006 (Cont’d)
ID Location City Signal Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes F B D F F F B D C 102.6 18.4 27.9 >180.0 >180.0 124.5 11.6 39.0 33.7 D F E F F F B C C 52.4 112.6 39.9 107.9 >180.0 129.8 11.4 23.9 32.5 Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes F A B A F B F 126.5 7.6 14.5 3.2 89.1 16.1 102.4 E B B A D B F 73.5 14.1 10.3 1.2 48.5 17.2 152.4 100 MCB/Kerr Way Boston Yes A 6.4 A 8.7 101 MCB/Shawmut Avenue Boston Yes B 13.8 D 38.2 102 MCB/Washington Street Boston Yes C 31.2 C 34.6 103 MCB/Harrison Avenue Boston Yes D 38.9 D 36.4 104 Massachusetts Avenue/Harrison Avenue Boston Yes D 44.4 E 66.9 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Longwood Avenue/Binney Street Longwood Avenue/Blackfan Street Blackfan Street/Avenue Louis Pasteur Fenway/Avenue Louis Pasteur Longwood Avenue/Avenue Louis Pasteur Longwood Avenue/Huntington Avenue Fenway/Evans Way Fenway/Louis Prang Street Huntington Avenue/Louis Prang Street/Ruggles Street/E­Line Ruggles Street/Parker Street Ruggles Street/Leon Street Ruggles Station Exit/Ruggles Street Ruggles Station Entrance/Ruggles Street Ruggles Street/Whittier Street/Tremont Street Columbus Avenue/MCB/Ruggles Station MCB/Tremont Street a.m. Peak Hour 2006 Existing Delay (2) LOS (1) p.m. Peak Hour 2006 Existing LOS (1) Delay (2) 105 Harrison Avenue/East Concord Street Boston Yes A 8.4 A 6.0 106 Harrison Avenue/East Newton Street Boston Yes C 30.5 C 30.5 107 MCB/Albany Street Boston Yes D 47.3 D 36.4 108 Albany Street/Hampden Street Boston No F >180.0 F 51.9 109 Albany Street/Northampton Street Boston Yes B 16.3 B 19.0 110 Massachusetts Avenue/Albany Street Boston Yes E 61.1 F 84.5 111 Albany Street/East Concord Street Boston No E 60.7 C 27.5 112 Albany Street/East Newton Street Boston Yes C 21.9 D 41.1 113 MCB/Hampden Street Boston Yes E 67.9 F 121.4 114 MCB/Massachusetts Avenue/Massachusetts Avenue Connector/Southampton Street Boston Yes F 105.7 F 111.1 115 Massachusetts Avenue Connector/East Concord Street Boston No ­­­ ­­­ ­­­ ­­­ 116 117 118 119 120 Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Yes Yes Yes Yes No F F A F B 84.2 88.2 9.6 86.8 10.2 Dudley Street/Hampden Street/Dudmore Street* Dudley Street/Blue Hill Avenue Dudley Street/East Cottage Street/West Cottage St Columbia Road/Dudley Street/Stoughton Columbia Road/Hamlet Street E E B F A 77.6 79.5 13.7 85.3 9.8 (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­74 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­28: Intersection LOS Summary – Existing Conditions 2006 (Cont’d)
ID Location 121 Columbia Road/Massachusetts Avenue/Boston Street/East Cottage Street 122 Columbia Road/Pond Street 123 Columbia Road/Dorchester Avenue 124 Columbia Road/I­93 SB Ramps 125 Columbia Road/I­93 NB Ramps 126 Columbia Road/Morrissey Boulevard (Morrissey Circle) 127 Mt. Vernon Street/Morrissey Boulevard NB 128 Mt. Vernon Street/Morrissey Boulevard SB 129 Morrissey Boulevard/Day Boulevard 130 Morrissey Boulevard/UMass Access Drive 131 Commonwealth Avenue/Babcock Street 132 Commonwealth Ave./Harry Agganis Way/Pleasant St 133 Commonwealth Avenue/Buick Street/St. Paul Street 134 Babcock Street/Ashford Street 135 Babcock Street/Gardner Street 136 Commonwealth Avenue/St. Mary’s Street 137 Commonwealth Ave./Blandford St/Sherborn St. 138 Commonwealth Avenue/Beacon Street/Brookline Avenue/Deerfield Street 139a Commonwealth Ave. (eastbound)/Charlesgate East 139b Commonwealth Ave. (eastbound)/Charlesgate West 140a Commonwealth Ave. (westbound)/Charlesgate East 140b Commonwealth Ave. (westbound)/Charlesgate West 141 Commonwealth Avenue (eastbound)/Mass Avenue 142 Commonwealth Avenue (westbound)/Mass Avenue 143 Commonwealth Avenue/Kenmore Street 144 Beacon St/Charlesgate West/Storrow Drive ramps 145 Beacon St/Charlesgate East/Storrow Drive ramps 146 Beacon Street/Mass Avenue 147 Beacon Street/Miner Street 148 Brookline Avenue/Yawkey Way 149 Brookline Avenue/Lansdowne Street 150 Mountfort Street/Essex Street 151 Brookline Avenue/Beth Israel Main Driveway 152 Longwood Avenue/Palace Road 153 Huntington Avenue/Tetlow Street a.m. Peak Hour 2006 Existing Delay (2) LOS (1) p.m. Peak Hour 2006 Existing LOS (1) Delay (2) City Signal Boston Yes C 30.8 D 46.1 Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston No Yes No No Rotary B C D F F 13.6 21.2 44.2 136.1 >180.0 A E C B F 8.8 67.0 32.9 13.7 >180.0 Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes B F F E C C E A B A B F 16.5 101.7 >180.0 74.0 24.2 22.2 63.5 9.2 10.9 7.4 14.8 160.4 C F F C C C F A B A C F 20.6 104.9 >180.0 29.4 32.5 20.8 118.8 9.2 10.9 5.9 24.0 99.6 Boston Yes Boston Yes Boston Yes Boston Yes Boston Yes Boston Yes Boston Yes Boston Yes Boston Yes Boston Yes Boston No Boston No Boston No Brookline No Boston Yes Boston No Boston Yes B A C C D B A B B C F D A F B A A 18.0 6.9 28.1 21.8 44.6 13.0 3.5 11.1 16.3 31.5 56.6 27.6 2.5 >180.0 10.6 7.7 8.9 C B C B C B A B C D F C A F B A A 31.6 13.2 33.1 13.1 28.4 13.9 4.1 18.9 22.3 38.2 82.9 18.0 2.0 >180.0 16.8 5.0 7.4 (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­75 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­28: Intersection LOS Summary – Existing Conditions 2006 (Cont’d)
ID Location City Signal Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Somerville Somerville Somerville Boston Boston No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No F F F F B B F D F D B C C B B B B D A D C A B A B >180.0 56.2 99.7 >180.0 13.5 14.6 >180.0 50.0 >180.0 34.5 12.4 18.1 17.2 15.0 11.0 12.7 13.9 34.1 9.0 48.1 25.4 9.4 19.4 0 13.6 F F F F C C F F F F C B B C B A A C F C C A C A B 114.0 95.1 >180.0 >180.0 15.6 16.1 >180.0 >180.0 >180.0 82.0 21.1 11.2 13.0 17.1 12.4 9.1 9.4 20.4 >180.0 31.0 29.9 8.6 20.4 0 11.4 E. Boston E. Boston S. Boston S. Boston S. Boston No Yes Yes No/Yes Yes C B C 28.0 14.5 24.2 C B D 23.4 12.6 38.0 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 Fenway/Palace Road (DCR) Ruggles Street/Annunciation Road Albany Street/East Brookline Street Albany Street//Malden Street Albany Street/Union Street Mass Avenue/Island Street Mass Avenue/Pompeii Street Mass Avenue/Magazine Street Mass Avenue/New Market Street Mass Avenue/Clapp Street Waverly Street extension/Sidney Street Waverly Street/Erie Street/Albany Street Albany Street/Pacific Street Albany Street/Cross Street Albany Street/Portland Street Waverly Street/Chestnut Street Waverly Street/Putnam Street Memorial Drive/Vassar Street (DCR) 172 Memorial Drive/Amesbury Street (DCR) 173 Mass Avenue/Sidney Street 174 Broadway/Cross Street 175 Broadway/Glen Street 176 Broadway/Franklin Street 177a Rutherford Ave/Bunker Hill College North Driveway 177b Rutherford Ave Off­Ramp/Bunker Hill College South Driveway 178 Frankfort Street/Neptune Road 179 Neptune Road/Route 1A 180 D Street/Summer Street 181 D Street/Fargo Street 182 D Street/Congress Street a.m. Peak Hour 2006 Existing Delay (2) LOS (1) p.m. Peak Hour 2006 Existing LOS (1) Delay (2) (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­76 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­28: Intersection LOS Summary – Existing Conditions 2006 (Cont’d)
ID Location City Signal 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 Cambridge Street/Windom Street Western Avenue/Stadium Way (Proposed) North Harvard Street/Stadium Way Soldiers Field Road EB/North Harvard Street Soldiers Field Road WB/Larz Anderson Bridge South Boston Bypass Road at Frontage Road NB South Boston Bypass Road at Frontage Road SB South Boston Bypass Road at West Service Road Mass Haul Road at C Street Mass Haul Road at Pumphouse Road Mass Haul Road at Northern Avenue South Boston Bypass Road at Ramp A a.m. Peak Hour 2006 Existing Delay (2) LOS (1) Boston Yes Boston Proposed Boston No Boston Yes Boston Yes South Boston Yes South Boston Yes South Boston Yes South Boston Yes South Boston Yes South Boston No South Boston Yes B ­­­ B B B B B A A B F p.m. Peak Hour 2006 Existing LOS (1) Delay (2) 13.9 ­­­ 13.5 19.1 11.6 11.6 11.6 9.6 9.1 11.2 153.5 A ­­­ B B B B F A A A C 8.2 ­­­ 11.9 16.6 11.4 14.6 172.2 7.6 3.7 8.7 24.5 NOTE: For unsignalized intersections, LOS is reported for the critical movement (generally the left turn from minor street approach). (1)
Level of Service (LOS). (2)
Delay in seconds. (3)
Analyzed in future conditions only. Congestion Management System Intersections with Mobility Concerns As part of the 2004 Congestion Management System (CMS) report, CTPS identified signalized intersections within the MPO region that experience 80 or more seconds of vehicle delay during the commuter peak periods under existing (2004) conditions (for monitored intersections). It is noted that this is not an exhaustive list and that many locations known to experience long delays have not been monitored for this CMS program. The following are Urban Ring Phase 2 study intersections that experience 80 or more seconds of delay in the morning and/or afternoon peak periods: • Route 99/Second Street (Everett) – AM/PM; • Route 60/Fellsway West/Route 28 (Medford) – AM/PM; • Route 28/Land Boulevard (Cambridge) – PM; • Route 28/East Street/Cambridge Street (Cambridge) – AM; • Route 28/Melnea Cass Boulevard (Boston) – AM/PM; • Route 28, Ruggles Street (Boston) – AM; and • Mass Avenue/Albany Street (Boston) – PM. Additional locations not included in the CMS but known to experience excessive delays include Wellington Circle (Medford), the BU Bridge (Cambridge/Boston), Sullivan Square (Boston), and Brookline Avenue/Longwood Avenue (Boston). Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­77 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 4.4.6.2 Future Traffic Condition Capacity Analysis Future traffic conditions were developed to compare with Existing (year 2006) conditions and to evaluate future conditions with and without the proposed Urban Ring BRT Phase 2 project. Future roadway and traffic conditions for year 2030 conditions are based on the assumptions and findings documented in the Boston Region MPO’s Transportation Plan, Journey to 2030.49 The 2006 Existing Conditions traffic model was updated to reflect future intersection geometric and traffic volume projections at each study intersection. The future traffic turning movement volumes and geometric and operational information were assumed for the intersection capacity analysis calculations for the 2030 No­Build condition. Then, future bus volumes associated with the project were added to the No­Build condition for analysis of the 2030 Build alternatives. As under existing conditions, the future intersection capacity analyses were performed using the SYNCHRO50 traffic analysis software. A summary of LOS results for the study intersections evaluated for the 2030 Baseline and Build alternatives are shown in Table 4­29 and Table 4­30 for a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Overall in the 2030 Baseline condition, 94 intersections will operate at acceptable conditions (LOS A­D) in the a.m. peak hour and 100 intersections will operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F). In the Baseline p.m. peak hour, 70 intersections will operate acceptably and 124 intersections unacceptably. Under the Build condition LPA, six additional intersections will operate at deficient conditions during the a.m. peak hour, and two additional intersections will operate acceptably during the p.m. peak hour compared with the Baseline. Generally, the addition of LPA buses will not impact the operation of study intersections. In some cases, overall intersection Level of Service will improve as a result of geometric and/or signal timing/phasing improvements. Intersections where LOS deteriorated were generally on the LOS E/F border for the Baseline condition. Urban Ring LPA bus volumes account for approximately two percent of total traffic volumes at study intersections system­wide.51 49 CTPS, op. cit., Journey to 2030, April 12, 2007, Revised by Administrative Adjustment, June 28, 2007. Land use updated November 2007. 50 SYNCHRO Version 6.14.2007 51 SYNCHRO traffic volume networks showing for existing and future condition traffic volumes are provided in the Urban Ring Phase 2 Technical Traffic Report, November 2008. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­78 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­29: Intersections by LOS Grade Summary – AM Peak Hour
LOS RANGE A­B City C­D E­F 2006 Existing A­B C­D E­F 2030 No­Build A­B C­D E­F A­B 2030 Baseline C­D E­F A­B 2030Alt 1 C­D E­F A­B 2030 Alt 2 C­D E­F 2030Alt 2a Boston 46 28 37 26 24 62 27 23 62 25 23 64 23 22 67 23 23 66 Brookline 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 Cambridge 17 12 7 12 15 9 12 15 9 10 14 12 8 16 12 8 16 12 Chelsea 2 3 2 2 1 4 2 1 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 Everett 4 2 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 3 3 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 Medford 0 1 5 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 Somerville 7 6 3 3 3 16 3 3 16 3 3 16 3 2 17 3 2 17 TOTALS 77 52 65 45 49 100 46 48 100 43 46 105 37 48 109 37 49 108 A­B C­D E­F A­B C­D E­F A­B C­D E­F A­B C­D E­F A­B C­D E­F A­B C­D E­F A­B C­D E­F City 2030Alt 3 2030Alt 3a 2030 Alt 3b 2030Alt 3c 2030 Alt 4 2030Alt 4a 2030 LPA Boston 26 23 63 25 23 64 25 22 65 24 23 65 38 22 52 23 23 66 23 23 66 Brookline 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 Cambridge 8 17 11 8 17 11 8 17 11 8 17 11 8 17 11 8 17 11 11 14 11 Chelsea 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 Everett 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 Medford 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 Somerville 3 3 16 3 3 16 3 3 16 3 3 16 3 3 16 3 3 16 3 3 16 TOTALS 51 33 104 39 51 104 39 50 105 38 51 105 37 51 106 37 51 106 40 48 106 (1)
(2) H1 = Hybrid 1; Alternative; H2 = Hybrid 2 Alternative; H3 = Hybrid 2T Alternative LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­79 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­30: Intersections by LOS Grade Summary – PM Peak Hour
LOS RANGE A­B City C­D E­F 2006 Existing A­B C­D E­F 2030 No­Build A­B C­D E­F A­B 2030 Baseline C­D E­F A­B 2030Alt 1 C­D E­F A­B 2030 Alt 2 C­D E­F 2030Alt 2a Boston 39 36 36 22 21 69 22 18 72 23 18 71 23 18 71 23 18 71 Brookline 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 Cambridge 13 14 9 5 12 19 5 12 19 5 11 20 5 10 21 5 10 21 Chelsea 1 4 2 1 1 5 1 0 6 1 1 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 Everett 3 2 6 0 3 8 0 3 8 1 2 8 0 3 8 0 3 8 Medford 1 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 Somerville 5 10 6 2 7 13 2 6 14 2 6 14 2 5 15 2 5 15 TOTALS 62 67 65 30 45 119 30 40 124 33 38 123 30 39 125 30 39 129 A­B C­D E­F A­B C­D E­F A­B C­D E­F A­B C­D E­F A­B C­D E­F A­B C­D E­F A­B C­D E­F City 2030Alt 3 2030Alt 3a 2030 Alt 3b 2030Alt 3c 2030 Alt 4 2030Alt 4a 2030 LPA Boston 24 20 68 24 20 68 24 20 68 23 20 69 22 19 71 22 19 71 23 19 70 Brookline 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 Cambridge 5 10 21 5 10 21 5 10 21 5 10 21 5 10 21 5 11 20 5 10 21 Chelsea 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 Everett 0 3 8 0 3 8 0 3 8 0 3 8 0 3 8 0 3 8 0 3 8 Medford 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 Somerville 2 6 14 2 7 13 2 6 14 2 6 14 2 7 13 2 7 13 2 7 13 TOTALS 31 42 121 31 43 120 31 42 121 30 42 122 29 42 123 29 43 122 30 42 122 (1)
H1 = Hybrid 1; Alternative; H2 = Hybrid 2 Alternative; H3 = Hybrid 2T Alternative LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative (2) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­80 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 4.4.7 Traffic Safety The Top 60 Crash Locations on arterial roadways in the Boston MPO Region for period 1997–1999 were identified in the 2004 Congestion Management System Report by CTPS. The following high crash locations occurred within or adjacent to the Urban Ring Project Corridor (listed by rank): 1 – Route 16 (Mystic Valley Parkway)/Route 28 (Fellsway) (Medford); 2 – Airport Road/Airport Road (Boston); 9 – Route 28 (McGrath Highway)/Washington Street (Boston); 12 – Route 16 (Revere Beach Parkway)/Route 99 (Sweetser Circle) (Everett); 19 – Route 16 (Santilli Circle)/Revere Beach Parkway (Everett); 21 – Kosciuszko Circle/Morrissey Boulevard (Boston); 23 – Route 2A (Mass Avenue)/Route 3 (Memorial Drive) (Cambridge); 34 – Somerville Avenue/Washington Street (Somerville); 39 – Everett Avenue/Route 16 (Revere Beach Parkway (Everett); 43 – Route 28 (Columbus Avenue)/Tremont Street (Boston); and 44 – Route 2 (Commonwealth Avenue)/Charlesgate West (Boston). Accident data for all study intersections were also obtained from MassHighway for the period from 2003 through 2006.52 Study intersections that averaged 15 or more accidents per year for this analysis period include: • RBP/Everett Avenue (Everett); • Sweetser Circle (Everett); • Santilli Circle (Everett); • Wellington Circle (Medford); • Route 28 Fellsway/Mystic Avenue north (Somerville); • Route 28 Fellsway/Mystic Avenue south (Somerville); • MCB/Mass Avenue/Southampton Street (Boston); and • Columbia Road/Morrissey Boulevard/Day Boulevard (Kosciuszko Circle) Boston. 4.4.8 Parking Impacts This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed project on on­street and off­street parking in the study corridor. Table 4­31 presents the locations of parking areas within the study area that would be potentially affected by one of the Build Alternatives. The table shows that up to approximately 800 parking spaces may be affected by the LPA. 52 Traffic accident data is summarized in the Urban Ring Phase 2 Traffic Technical Report, November 2008. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­81 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­31: Parking Impacts Summary
Mitigation Number of Parking Spaces Potentially Affected Municipality Location Type of Parking Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 LPA Chelsea Spruce Street Private Parking Lot and On­Street North Side 20 20 20 20 20 Chelsea Everett Avenue On­Street West Side 4 4 4 4 4 Everett Second Street On­Street Both Sides 117 n/a(1) n/a n/a n/a Coordinate with Everett Somerville Broadway Street 2­Hr Meters Both Sides n/a 97 n/a n/a n/a Coordinate with Somerville Somerville Somerville Avenue On­Street Both Sides 43 n/a 43 n/a n/a Remove Somerville Washington Street On­Street Both Sides n/a n/a 114 n/a n/a Coordinate with Somerville Cambridge First Street On­Street, West Side 37 37 37 37 37 Remove Cambridge Main Street 30­min/1 hr meters Both Sides 25 25 25 25 25 Coordinate with Cambridge Cambridge Albany Street (Cambridge) On­Street n/a n/a n/a n/a 172 Remove on­street parking Cambridge Grand Junction Railroad Off­Street Institutional 70 70 n/a n/a n/a Cambridge New Waverly Street Off­Street Private 56 n/a n/a n/a n/a Boston Malvern Street On­Street Meters, East Side n/a 26 n/a n/a n/a Boston North Harvard Street No Meters, No Restriction Both Sides 108 108 n/a 108 108 Boston St. Mary’s Street On­Street West Side 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a Boston Beacon Street 2­Hr Meters, Resident Permit n/a 162 n/a n/a n/a Coordinate with BTD Boston Mountfort Street No meters on both sides n/a n/a n/a n/a 90 Coordinate with BTD Boston Yawkey Station Off­Street Private Varies Varies Varies n/a varies n/a 8 n/a n/a n/a Brookline Avenue (Fenway On­Street, Metered parking to Longwood Avenue) (1)
n/a = Not applicable in the Alternative. (2)
BTD = Boston Transportation Department. Boston Reconfiguration of parking lot, remove on­street spaces Remove Reconfiguration of parking lot/remove Reconfiguration of parking lot Remove/Redistribute the on­street parking to adjacent streets Coordinate with BTD(2) Remove Coordinate with potential Development Remove (Table continued on next page) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­82 November2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­31: Parking Impacts Summary (Cont’d.)
Number of Parking Spaces in Alternatives Municipality Location Type of Parking Short­term Boston Latin School Drop­
Off/Pick­up Spaces South Side On­Street (DCR)(3) West Side Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Varies Varies n/a n/a n/a 26 n/a n/a n/a n/a Boston Avenue Louis Pasteur Boston Fenway Boston Albany Street (Boston) 2­Hr No Meters Both Sides 138 138 138 39(4) 138 Boston Massachusetts Avenue 2 –Hr No meters Both Sides n/a 58 175 n/a 175 Boston Dudley Street 2­Hr, No Meters Both Sides n/a 215 n/a 215 n/a Boston Clifton Street On­Street Both Sides 8 n/a n/a 8 n/a Boston Uphams Corner Off­Street Municipal 36 36 n/a 36 n/a 5 5 n/a 5 n/a n/a n/a 44 n/a 44 694 1,089 600 497 813 Boston Hamlet Street Boston A Street On­Street West Side Resident Permit Only Total Mitigation LPA Alt 1 Reconfiguration of Drop­Off/Pick­Up spaces Remove/redistribute into parking garages, Net Loss=0 Coordinate with BTD Coordinated with BTD Remove Redistribute in coordination with Community Center redevelopment Coordinate with BTD Redistribute in Municipal parking lot Coordinate with BTD (3)
DCR = Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. In Alternative 4, the parking impact area of the proposed Urban Ring Route on Albany Street is between Massachusetts Avenue and East Newton Street
(4)
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­83 November2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION The proposed LPA project would require the removal, relocation, redistribution, and reconfiguration of public and private parking spaces along the BRT routes. The proposed project could potentially impact on­street parking on 10 public roadways within the study corridor. The largest impact to on­street parking due to proposed bus lanes would occur on Albany Street in Cambridge; and Albany Street, North Harvard Street, Mountfort Street and Massachusetts Avenue in Boston. The spaces identified in Table 4­31 would the potential maximum number of parking spaces that may be affected by the LPA alignment. Details of parking impacts will be developed during continued coordination with communities and during the engineering phase of the project. Table 4­31 also shows proposed mitigation measures for on­ and off­street parking in the corridor. It is understood that many of the on­street spaces identified for removal could be accommodated in nearby off­
street parking facilities such as the parking garages located in the Boston Medical Area. In other locations, the proposed BRT route would require reconfiguration of existing public on­street, as well as private and municipal off­street facilities. The removal of parking on selected roadways in the along LPA alignment will allow better transit service in areas that are underserved today and will reduce the reliance on automobiles in these areas. The following two off­street parking facilities are likely to be impacted by the proposed LPA: Spruce Street Private Parking Lot, Chelsea – The proposed Everett Avenue/Mystic Mall BRT stations on Spruce Street and Everett Avenue may require using a portion of the private parking lot located northeast of these two stations. The parking layout and circulation will be redesigned to minimize the loss of off­street parking. Yawkey Station Private Parking Lot, Children’s Hospital and Red Sox Lots, Boston – For the LPA, the BRT 5 route is planned to access Yawkey Station through the existing private parking lot via Maitland Street. The alignment is being coordinated with the proposed Parcel 7 development in this area. The tunnel portion of the LPA will eliminate parking impacts between Ruggles Station and the Sears Rotary area. The issues of elimination/replacement of parking on public roadways has occurred with the transportation and planning departments of the Urban Ring Compact communities. Details will be further developed as the project progresses. 4.5 Regional Travel This section summarizes the impacts of the project on regional traffic in the study area. Impacts are evaluated in terms of transit ridership, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT) average travel speed, Urban Ring transit operating statistics, and transportation mode choice. 4.5.1 System­wide Travel Tables 4­11 and 4­12 (shown previously) compare daily system­wide ridership results for the year 2030 Alternatives. The LPA would generate 37,700 more system­wide linked transit trips than the Baseline, an increase of 3 percent. The LPA would remove a total of 24,200 auto person trips from the regional transportation network compared to the Baseline. Compared with the Baseline Alternative, the LPA would reduce daily ridership on the Rapid Transit system by 24,500 passengers, including elimination of 2,600 AM peak hour passenger trips on the Green Line in the central subway system. This represents a 17 percent peak hour rider reduction in the central subway system compared to the Baseline Alternative. In addition, ridership on the Silver Line and on local and express bus services would decrease as a result of the LPA. These indicators are required for transit projects and show significant project benefits. The relief of overcrowding in the Boston central subway will result in reduced transit congestion and lower operating and maintenance costs to the MBTA. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­84 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION System­wide, the LPA will eliminate 80,500 daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on regional roadways compared with the Baseline alternative and eliminate 6,700 daily vehicle hours traveled (VHT). This will result in a reduction of air pollution and fuel consumption. Due to the reduction in roadway VMT and VHT, the LPA will increase the average regional roadway travel speed slightly (29.88 mph) over the Baseline (29.85). Compared to the Baseline Alternative, the LPA would add 22,000 total daily unlinked transit trips and have 15,700 fewer system­wide transfers. 4.5.2 Urban Ring Transit Operating Statistics This section summarizes the LPA transit operating statistics in terms of vehicle miles traveled, vehicle hours, and passenger miles. Table 4­15 (shown previously) compares the transit operating statistics for the LPA and Baseline Alternative conditions. The LPA would generate a total of 8,560 daily vehicle miles traveled, a reduction of 1,200 miles compared to Baseline. The LPA would generate 640 vehicle hours, 220 fewer vehicle hours than the Baseline condition. Significantly, the LPA would result in an increase of approximately 250,000 passenger miles per day in the year 2030 compared to the Baseline Alternative. 4.5.3 Mode Choice The Urban Ring LPA is projected to result in a significant increase in regional transit mode share compared to the Baseline Alternative. Transit mode share, which is the percentage of regional trips made by transit, is an important measure of how effective an Alternative is expected to be at diverting automobile trips to transit. In the absence of the LPA, the regional transit mode share is projected to slowly increase due to other projects in the RTP and changes in the relative attractiveness of transit being pursued by the MBTA. The regional transit mode share in 2030 is projected to increase to an 8.29 percent share with the LPA compared to an 8.08 percent share with the Baseline Alternative. This is an absolute increase of 0.21 percent (2.6 percent when measured as a percentage of the Baseline) and represents an increase of 37,700 transit trips in the system, which is a significant benefit. 4.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Existing and future bicycle and pedestrian conditions are described below. 4.6.1 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities There are currently numerous bicycle and pedestrian facilities located and adjacent to the Urban Ring study corridor. These facilities are used both for recreational and commuting purposes. Approximately 0.59 percent of the residents in the Boston MPO region and 3.9 percent in the City of Cambridge bicycled to work in 2000.53 The following bicycle and pedestrian facilities are located adjacent to the study corridor: • The Dr. Paul Dudley White Bicycle Path multi­use path on both sides of the Charles River (Boston and Cambridge); • The Muddy River Path (Brookline and Boston); 53 Boston Region MPO. Regional Bicycle Plan, March 2007, Page 13. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­85 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION • Mixed­use path along Melnea Cass Boulevard (Boston); • Emerald Necklace (Boston); • Emerald Necklace Greenway paths in the Fenway and Longwood Medical and Academic Area (Boston); • Brookline Street, New Waverly and Waverly Street bicycle lanes (Cambridgeport); • Main Street, Broadway, Third Street, and Binney Street bicycle lanes in the Kendall Station area (Cambridge); • Bicycle lanes on Massachusetts Avenue and cycle track on Vassar Street (east) (Cambridge); • Mystic River Reservation Bike Path and the proposed Somerville Community Path (Somerville);54 and • Bicycle Path on Beacon Street – Town of Brookline to Audubon Circle (Boston). There are several bicycle and pedestrian projects being conducted by others along the study corridor. These include: • The East Boston Greenway (East Boston); • Chelsea Creek Greenway (Chelsea); • Amelia Earhart Dam path (Everett and Somerville); • Bike to the Sea (Everett); • South Bay Harbor Trail (Boston); • Bicycle lanes on Ruggles Street to connect Northeastern University (Boston); • Bicycle lanes on Commonwealth and Massachusetts Avenue (Boston); • Rutherford Avenue Corridor (Boston and Somerville); • Linking The Corridors (Boston­Brookline); • Fenway­Longwood­Kenmore Pedestrian Safety Action Plan recommendations (Boston): Pedestrian signal improvements and enhancements; o
Audubon Circle Improvements; o
Sears Rotary Improvements; and o
Multi­use paths Muddy River to Kenmore and Riverway to Yawkey. o
• East Chelsea path (East Chelsea); • Grand Junction Railroad ROW multi­use path (Cambridge); • Cycle track on Vassar Street (west) (Cambridge); • Necco Spur multi­use path (Cambridgeport); • New pedestrian facilities at North Point (Cambridge); • Pedestrian safety improvements proposed by Boston University along Commonwealth Avenue (Boston); and • Facilities in North Allston­Brighton. 54 Vollmer Associates for the City of Somerville, Somerville Community Path Feasibility Study: School Street to Cambridge Line, July 14, 2006. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­86 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION The busways and bus lanes featured in the LPA have been coordinated with existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian networks located around the corridor based on information provided by the municipalities. The busways in the LPA are located in each of the seven communities. • In East Boston, the LPA does not preclude the planned East Boston Greenway, though further coordination at the interface point beneath Route 1A is recommended as the project advances. • In Chelsea, the LPA accommodates the City of Chelsea’s plan for a Greenway reaching Chelsea Creek. • The LPA will not preclude the planned multi­use path within the Grand Junction Railroad corridor in Cambridgeport. • The proposed busways in Allston will not preclude development of mixed­use paths and bicycle lanes being planned as part of the Harvard development. • The Urban Ring project has coordinated with Boston University as part of its master planning effort which includes the improvement of safety and circulation for all modes, especially pedestrians. • Between Ruggles Station and Albany Street in the MCB corridor the busway planned as part of the LPA does not preclude the implementation of a multi­use path by others. There will need to be further coordination between the Urban Ring LPA and evolving local plans for community paths. These areas include: • The bus lanes in Somerville at Assembly Square and the Inner Belt Roadway; • In Cambridge along portions of First Street, Main Street, and Albany Street; • In Brookline along Mountfort Street; • In Boston along portions of, Maitland, Albany, and A Streets, Melnea Cass Boulevard, and Massachusetts Avenue; and • The proposed bus lanes in Allston will not preclude development of mixed­use paths and bicycle lanes being planned as part of the Harvard development. In many of these locations the bus lanes are being created within the existing curb lines of the street by eliminating on street­parking and/or revising lane designations. At these locations the pedestrian crosswalk distances do not change. As part of intersection improvements that will be necessary as part of the Urban Ring project, pedestrian improvements/enhancements will be made to accommodate and improve pedestrian safety and access (see Section 4.6.2 below). The proposed busways and bus lanes as part of the Urban Ring project are consistent with the City of Boston’s new Complete Streets initiative that considers equal treatment for all modes: pedestrians, bicycles, transit, motorists, and greenspace. 4.6.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Impacts The potential impact of the proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 project on pedestrians and bicyclists was evaluated within the study corridor. Areas where the project would have the greatest potential to impact pedestrian safety, access, and circulation, include the proposed BRT stations and locations where new busways/bus lanes create new pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­87 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­32 summarizes locations where the potential for pedestrian impact is greatest in the project study area. The location and width of sidewalks in relation to the BRT station platforms, canopies, and kiosks are issues to address at several of the proposed BRT station locations. The proposed prototypical BRT station dimensions for varying sidewalk widths are shown in Chapter 3. A desired 20­foot standard for BRT station sidewalks was developed, consisting of a 12­foot station area and an 8­foot sidewalk around the back of the canopy. For areas where this desired width is unachievable due to physical constraints, an acceptable minimum standard of 12 feet was identified, consisting of an 8­foot wide station area and a 4­foot sidewalk. Proposed sidewalk locations at BRT stations will be designed to meet these station and sidewalk standards. For example, the minimum station standards will be used at the First Street station in Cambridge. Pedestrian crosswalk distances will not increase at most locations with the addition of busways and bus lanes. This is because 1) busways will be located on exclusive right­of­way, such as CSX rail corridors and not impact pedestrian facilities, and 2) bus lanes will replace on­street parking and therefore not widen the roadway cross section. Signal timing will be adjusted as part of the LPA to provide sufficient time for pedestrians to safely cross the street at all locations. On Melnea Cass Boulevard (MCB), the LPA provides for center median BRT stations at the corner of Washington Street that will also serve to mitigate the number of continuous travel lanes pedestrians need to cross to get from one side of the street to the other at that intersection. The new accessible BRT and commuter rail stations associated with the LPA result in more significant benefits to the pedestrian and bicycle network within the corridor than would be possible with the Baseline Alternative. At locations where the existing or planned roadway network includes multi­use or bicycle lanes, such as MCB, the LPA will accommodate those bike lanes. Pedestrian and bicycle safety is a concern where new busways are proposed to cross an existing roadway and/or sidewalk. The provision of a busway at these locations will potentially increase the required distance for pedestrians to cross the intersection. The design of these locations will include minimizing crossing distances, providing storage or refuge areas as feasible, providing signage, markings, and delineation, and pedestrian signals as required. New and upgrades to existing traffic signals are planned as part of the LPA at several additional intersection locations around the study corridor. New traffic and pedestrian signals are proposed for the following locations: • Busway/Truck Route/Frankfort Street (East Boston); • Busway/Truck Route/Chelsea Street (East Boston); • Busway/Everett Avenue (Chelsea); • Busway/Spruce Street (Chelsea); • Busway/Arlington Street/Sixth Street (Chelsea); • Busway/Second Street (Chelsea); • Commonwealth Avenue/University Road (Boston); and • Beacon Street/Maitland Street (Boston). Many existing signals will also be upgraded as part of the LPA to 1) better accommodate pedestrians and improve safety, 2) accommodate BRT vehicles; and 3) improve operations for general traffic. Pedestrian crossing times at existing intersections will be designed to provide appropriate pedestrian crossing times and to meet industry and local standards. At the intersection of Commonwealth Avenue/University Road in Boston, the University Road southbound approach is proposed to be signalized as part of the Carlton Street signalized intersection. University Road is currently under Stop control and is recognized as a hazardous location for pedestrians. The proposed Urban Ring improvements are expected to improve pedestrian safety at this location and are being coordinated with Boston University as part of their master planning efforts. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­88 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Table 4­32: Potential Pedestrian Impact Locations of LPA
Station Number 2.2 Jurisdiction Chelsea Downtown Chelsea(1) 2.3 Chelsea Mystic Mall Everett 2.4 3.3 Chelsea Everett New Lechmere 5.1 Cambridge First Street/Galleria Binney Street Fulkerson Street Kendall/MIT MIT/Mass Avenue Cambridgeport 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.2 Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge Cambridge BU Bridge 6.3 Boston Allston West Station 7.3 Boston North Harvard Street 7.5 Boston Western Avenue 7.6 Boston Yawkey 8.2 Boston LMA Washington Street CrossTown Center Boston Medical Center New Market Edward Everett Square Broadway Station A Street World Trade Center 8.8 9.1 9.3 9.4 10.3 10.6 11.1 11.2 11.5 Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Boston Station/Location Griffin Way Potential Issue Platform­sidewalk BRT/CR platform design, provide ped signals at adjacent intersections Platform/sidewalk Access to RBP, busway crossing Platform/sidewalk, coordinate with Northpoint development Platform/sidewalk Platform/sidewalk Platform/sidewalk Platform/sidewalk Pedestrians crossing busway, Platform/sidewalk Access Platform/sidewalk, coordinate with Boston University Campus Master Planning Platform/sidewalk, coordinate with Harvard development Platform/sidewalk, coordinate with Harvard development Platform/sidewalk, coordinate with Harvard development Platform – sidewalk, busway crossing, coordinate with Parcel 7 Pedestrian access Platform/sidewalk, longer crossing distance on MCB Platform/sidewalk Platform/sidewalk Platform/sidewalk Platform/sidewalk Platform/ sidewalk Platform/sidewalk, coordinate with redevelopment Platform/sidewalk (1) Improvement of existing commuter rail station and integration of new BRT station.
The LPA includes a tunnel between Ruggles Station on the east through the LMA to the northwest of the Sears Rotary. In this area, conflicts with pedestrians will be eliminated and do not lengthen pedestrian crossing time. Tunnel portals will be designed to prevent pedestrians, bicyclists, and general traffic from entering. Devices such as gates, lights, signage, and video detection will be considered. There are several areas where proposed BRT stations will need to be coordinated with other development and redevelopment projects planned in the study corridor. Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations will also need to be coordinated and/or developed at these areas. These locations include: • Assembly Square; • New Lechmere; • Cambridgeport; Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­89 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION • BU Bridge; • Allston West Station; • North Harvard Street; • Western Avenue; • Yawkey; • LMA; • Crosstown Center; • Boston Medical Center; • New Market Street; and • South Boston. Handicap pedestrian access will be provided at each BRT station location. Provisions will include wheel­chair accessible low­floor buses, handicap ramps, and handicap parking spaces. No new pedestrian impacts are anticipated where BRT buses would serve existing transit and/or redeveloped commuter rail stations. For example, BRT riders would continue to use the pedestrian facilities provided at the following locations: • Logan Terminals; • Airport Blue Line Station; • Downtown Chelsea; • Wellington Station; • Sullivan Station; • Kendall/MIT; • Ruggles Station; • Dudley Station; and • JFK/UMass Boston. The proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT alignment will travel through the study corridor with a combination of tunnels, exclusive busways, bus lanes, and in mixed­traffic. Where BRT buses are restricted to exclusive busways the impact to bicyclists will be minimal. In a select few areas, such as the Grand Junction Railroad corridor (west), the busway may run adjacent to the planned multi­use path, in which case a barrier separation will be provided. BRT buses traveling in mixed­traffic lanes where MBTA bus service already exists will also have minimal impacts on bicyclists. BRT buses will be no wider than current MBTA buses, and the turning radius for the articulated buses is tighter than standard 40­foot buses. Designated bus lanes are proposed for several roadways for the LPA. When the bus lanes are located in the outside lanes, they will need to accommodate bicycle travel. Outside bus lanes are proposed at the following locations for the LPA: • Assembly Square vicinity (Somerville); • Inner Belt Road (Somerville); • First Street (Cambridge); Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­90 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION • Main Street (Cambridge); • Albany Street (Cambridge); • North Harvard Street (Boston); • Mountfort Street (Brookline); • Mass Avenue (Boston); • Albany Street (Boston); and • A Street (Boston). It is noted that at MCB, the City of Boston is developing plans for pedestrian, bicycle and green space uses on the north side of the MCB right­of­way, which will include continuation of the bikeway­to­the sea. The LPA will not preclude the development of a bike path along the MCB corridor. 4.7 Focused Areas of Study During the course of this study, agency and public interest regarding traffic, transit, and pedestrian/bicycle impacts in a number of specific areas within the Urban Ring corridor have brought about additional detailed study of potential impacts at these locations. In­depth study of project impacts has been undertaken for the following locations: • Malden River crossing (Everett); • Inner Belt Road and Lechmere Connection (Somerville and Cambridge); • Cambridgeport/MIT Corridor and Charles River Crossing (Cambridgeport); • North Allston Routing (Boston); • Commonwealth Avenue/Carlton Street/BU Bridge (Boston); • The Fenway/LMA/Back Bay Area (Boston); and • Melnea Cass Boulevard and Boston Medical Center (Boston). Coordination and of these areas are described below. 4.7.1 Malden River Crossing The Urban Ring Phase 2 route for crossing the Malden River in Everett and Medford was discussed and coordinated with The City of Everett and the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). It was determined that a continuous busway between Chelsea and Wellington Station was desirable from the standpoint of travel speed, reliability, and continuity. The current poor condition of the Route 16 bridge over the Malden River restricts trucks and buses to specific lanes. Future bus lanes could not be planned for on the existing structure. Several options were evaluated to provide exclusive busway over the Malden River. These included modifying the existing structure, a separate new bridge to the north and south of the current bridge, and a new bridge in its current location. The evaluation results and coordination with the city and DCR indicated that the best option was to build a new structure in its current location with an exclusive busway on the outside. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­91 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 4.7.2 Inner Belt Road and New Lechmere Connection Alternatives were evaluated for connecting Sullivan Square in Boston and New Lechmere in Cambridge. Alternatives were evaluated and coordinated with the MBTA; the cities of Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville; Bunker Hill Community College; and the New Lechmere development. Alternatives evaluated included: Rutherford Avenue with bus lanes, Rutherford Avenue bypass, McGrath and O’Brien Highways, and a new Inner Belt Road connection. Analysis showed that bus lanes provided on Inner Belt Road in Somerville would provide a nearly direct connection between Somerville Avenue (west of Sullivan) and New Lechmere. This route would avoid complications of a) routing between Rutherford Avenue (or bypass) and New Lechmere via Bunker Hill Community College and b) from McGrath/O’Brien Highways in Somerville/Cambridge. The Inner Belt Road will provide an extended length of uninterrupted bus lanes and busway. Consideration for providing additional bus lanes on Somerville Avenue between Inner Belt Road and Sullivan is ongoing with the City of Boston. 4.7.3 Cambridgeport/MIT Corridor and Charles River Crossing Coordination meetings were held with the City of Cambridge and MIT regarding the alignment and routing options through the Cambridgeport corridor and the Charles River Crossing. EOT is continuing conversations and negotiations with CSX concerning use of the Grand Junction Railroad right­of­way. Several alternatives were considered and evaluated for this corridor including: • Two­way busway on Grand Junction Railroad (GJR); • One­way westbound busway on GJR with one­way eastbound travel on Albany or Vassar Street; • Two­way travel (with some bus lanes) on Albany or Vassar Street; • Two­way busway on reconstructed GJR Bridge; • Travel in general traffic lanes on BU Bridge via A) Vassar Street/Memorial Drive (current CT2 route), and B) New Waverly, Waverly, and Brookline Streets; and • Travel in general traffic and/or bus lanes on Mass Avenue (Harvard Bridge). For each of these alternatives a two­way multi­use path was assumed to be constructed by the City of Cambridge in the future. The following critical issues were evaluated relating to the routing alternatives: • Busway and multi­use path crossing of Mass Avenue as a signalized intersection inter­connected with the adjacent signals at Albany and Vassar Streets. Analysis indicated that vehicle queuing on Mass Ave with the new signal would not impact traffic operations. • Implementation of bus lanes on Albany and Vassar Streets. Evaluation showed that alternating bus lanes can be provided on Albany Street if on­street parking is removed on one side. Bus lanes would not be possible on Vassar Street due to the width of the road which includes a cycle track on the east side and is proposed for the west portion. • Available right­of­way in GJR corridor and access to MIT buildings. It was determined that only a one­
way busway could be constructed within this corridor east of Fort Washington Park given the CSX railroad needs and the planned two­way multi­use path. West of Fort Washington Park, a two­way busway is feasible. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­92 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION • Preservation of Fort Washington Park and adjacent MIT development parcels. Several circulation options were evaluated in this area to connect BRT travel on the GJR corridor with Albany Street, including a number of options that considered the potential for a counter­flow bus lane on Waverly Street. The LPA includes an alignment in this area that preserves Fort Washington Park and does not preclude development of adjacent parcels owned by MIT, although further coordination will be required. • Connection with BU Bridge via existing roadways. Alignments and routings were evaluated assuming that the CSX GJR right­of­way was not available either on an interim basis or long term. For this scenario two options were considered: via A) Vassar Street/Memorial Drive (current CT2 route), and B) Cambridgeport roadways including New Waverly, Waverly, and Brookline Streets. Both options would share general traffic lanes. Option A would use the current CT2 routes via Vassar Street­
Memorial Drive. Option B would use Cambridgeport streets. Both options would travel through the BU rotary in general traffic lanes. Bus lanes and queue jump lanes were tested for both options, but were found to significantly impact general traffic. While both options would work either for an interim or long­term period, they would experience delay and reliability resulting from congestion at the BU Rotary and BU Bridge. 4.7.4 North Allston Routing There is ongoing coordination with the City of Boston and Harvard University regarding the alignment and routing of Urban Ring Phase 2 through Allston. A number of alignment and technology alternatives have been evaluated including: • Use of DMU technology; • Use of CSX right­of­way for busway; • Bus lanes and busways on North Harvard Street and internal Harvard roadways; • Travel on Commonwealth Avenue in general traffic lanes; • Connection from Commonwealth Avenue to Allston via Brighton Avenue, Harvard Street, Cambridge Street, North Harvard Street, and JFK Street to Harvard Square; and • Station locations at Allston West Station (commuter rail), Packard’s Corner, Brighton Avenue, North Harvard Street, and Western Avenue. These issues are currently be evaluated in coordination with the master planning efforts of Harvard in North Allston and Boston University. At this time, there is no one preferred alignment in this area. A preferred alignment will be developed as the project progresses. If the CSX railroad right of way is not available in the near­term, an interim alignment will need to be used to connect the BU Bridge area with Allston and Harvard Square. This would involve having Urban Ring buses use Commonwealth Avenue west of the BU Bridge in general traffic to Cambridge Street or Harvard Avenue. 4.7.5 BU Bridge/Carlton Street/Commonwealth Avenue Alignment The City of Boston, Town of Brookline, and Boston University (BU) have coordinated with the project regarding the alignment and routing of Urban Ring Phase 2 through BU Bridge/Carlton Street/Commonwealth Avenue area. As part of its master planning effort BU has developed concepts in this area that include re­alignment of roadways, redeveloped university parcels, green space and public realm benefits, and connections with commuter rail. The Urban Ring project team has coordinated with BU and the City of Boston and has evaluated several alternative alignments including: Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­93 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION • Allow new westbound bus lane and/or general traffic movement on Mountfort Street between Carlton Street and BU Bridge; • Bus tunnel west of University Road to Allston; • New slip ramp from BU Bridge to Commonwealth Avenue; • Bus lanes on University Road southbound and Carlton Street northbound; • New traffic and pedestrian signal at Commonwealth Avenue/University Road; • Connections with existing commuter rail; • Reconfiguration of Commonwealth Avenue/Essex Street; • Bus lanes on Mountfort Street; • Travel in general traffic on Mountfort Street, Carlton Street, and Commonwealth Avenue to and from BU Bridge; and • Station locations in the area. The LPA includes the proposed bus tunnel west of University Road connecting to Allston via the CSX railroad right of way. If this connection is not available in the short term then an interim routing would use general traffic lanes to travel to Commonwealth Avenue west (see Allston discussion above). 4.7.6 Fenway/Back Bay/Longwood Medical and Academic Area Coordination has been ongoing with the MBTA, City of Boston, DCR, MASCO, Parcel 7 developers, and institutions in the Fenway/Back Bay/LMA area. A number of alternatives and alignment/routing options were developed and evaluated to avoid congestion in the area that would impact travel times and reliability. The following subsurface and surface options were evaluated: • Long and short tunnel tight­turn and wide­turn options under the LMA with underground stations; • Surface options with and without bus lanes on Brookline Avenue, Longwood Avenue, Huntington Avenue, Ruggles Street, Fenway, Avenue Louis Pasteur, Louis Prang Street, and Tetlow Street; • Busway from portal on railroad right­of­way between proposed tunnel portal northwest of Sears Rotary and Yawkey Commuter Rail Station; • Circulation options to/from Yawkey that preserve planned circulation at Parcel 7 development and 819 Beacon Street owned by Children’s Hospital; and • Bus lanes on Maitland and Beacon Streets to Kenmore Square. Evaluation results showed that the tunnel alternative between Ruggles Station and northwest of Sears Rotary with an underground station in the LMA would: 1) ensure faster travel times, 2) improve service reliability, and 3) avoid surface congestion and conflicts on LMA roadways. As a result, this tunnel alternative has been included in the LPA. While the tunnel will provide for a superior service for the entire Urban Ring and through the LMA and Fenway, it will take several years to fund, design, and construct. Therefore, an interim alignment for Urban Ring buses will be needed before the tunnel is completed. An interim surface alignment has been developed and discussed with the City of Boston and other stakeholders. Some of the main elements that have been under discussion include: Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­94 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION • Two­way busway on Ruggles Street; • Northbound queue­jump lane on Brookline Avenue at Fenway; • Southbound queue­jump lane on Brookline Avenue at BIDMC Main Entrance; • Southbound queue­jump lane on Brookline Avenue at Longwood Avenue; • Westbound queue­jump lane and station on Longwood Avenue at Binney Street; and • Eastbound bus lane and station on Longwood Avenue eastbound at Tugo Circle. These and others elements of the interim surface alignment are currently under consideration. While the interim elements listed would provide travel and reliability advantages for Urban Ring and other buses, shuttles, and emergency vehicles, there are several potential impacts associated with these elements. These include: • Operation impacts to general traffic; • Increase of crossing distance for pedestrians; • Land taking and sidewalk narrowing; and • Turning radius issues. An interim surface plan has not been finalized. EOT will continue to coordinate with the City of Boston and affected stakeholders of this plan. 4.7.7 Melnea Cass Boulevard and Boston Medical Center The alignment and routing through the Melnea Cass Boulevard (MCB) and Boston Medical Center (BMC) areas has been coordinated through discussion with the City of Boston, Roxbury neighborhood group, and Boston University Medical Area, and MassHighway. Several alignment and routing options were developed and evaluated including: • Center busway on MCB; • Outside and two­way bus lanes on one side on MCB; • Bus lanes on Albany Street; • Travel on Harrison Avenue; • Busway connection to Mass Avenue Connector; and • Station locations. The LPA includes a proposed center busway on MCB with a station located at Washington Street and bus lanes on both sides of Albany Street in the vicinity of the Boston Medical Center. The median design will be coordinated with the City of Boston to be consistent with landscape policies in the Roxbury Master Plan. 4.8 Freight Movement The following is a summary of key aspects of the existing freight transportation network in the Urban Ring corridor, issues related to the Urban Ring’s potential needs for railroad right­of­way, and potential project impacts on the freight network. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­95 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION 4.8.1 Existing Freight System The Port of Boston is the leading port in New England and serves as the major entry point for products such as petroleum, liquid natural gas, containers, automobiles, and bulk goods. The Urban Ring corridor contains a number of major generators of freight and goods movement via air, trucks and rail. These freight generators are located throughout the corridor, including major areas to the north and northeast in East Boston (Logan Airport and supporting land uses, fuel tanks along Chelsea Creek), Chelsea and Everett (fuel tanks, produce handling, and numerous industrial businesses); to the northwest in Charlestown, East Somerville, and East Cambridge; to the west at Beacon Park Yards; to the south in the Newmarket industrial area; and the east in the South Boston Waterfront and the Boston Marine Industrial Park. One of the largest freight generators in the corridor is Logan International Airport, which serves as the primary airfreight center for all of New England and handles cargo destined to or originating from all corners of the globe. While the airport proper and portions of the surrounding areas in East Boston used to be the primary centers of airfreight forwarding activity, many of these uses are now moving to Chelsea. The area adjacent to Chelsea Creek has seen significant recent development of uses serving airfreight forwarders and distribution uses as the petroleum industry has started to relocate out of this area. In addition to the Chelsea and Logan Airport areas, a number of major distribution centers in the Urban Ring corridor that have freight rail and truck access are located in or adjacent to the corridor in Allston, the South Boston Waterfront, Everett, Somerville and, to a lesser extent, East Cambridge. The major products shipped by rail within Massachusetts include automobiles, containers, bulk products, and chemicals. Truck freight terminals in the Boston area are located at major highway interchanges including I­95/Route 128 and I­495. CSX’s Beacon Yards is an intermodal rail terminal located adjacent to the Massachusetts Turnpike Allston toll booths, and serves as the major freight transfer point between rail and truck freight for the Boston region. 4.8.2 Rail Right­of­Way Issues The Urban Ring Study Corridor is crossed by numerous active and abandoned rail right­of­ways (ROWs), some of which are potential alignments for future public transportation services. With the exception of the Grand Junction Railroad in Cambridge and the CSX rail line in Chelsea, the opportunities are limited by the radial orientation of the existing rail system, which offers limited circumferential ROWs for the Urban Ring BRT routes to use. Nearly all active or abandoned rail lines within or crossing the corridor are held by one of the following three owners: • CSX Corporation (formerly Conrail); • Pan American Railways (Pan Am); and • The MBTA. EOT is currently negotiating with CSX regarding the disposition and potential state acquisition of a number of CSX­owned properties and rail rights­of­way in eastern Massachusetts. These negotiations are expected to affect a number of proposed transit projects, including the Urban Ring. Key CSX­related issues for the Urban Ring include preserving the property as a continuous corridor along the portions of the Urban Ring, where routes are still under study; working with private and public sector owners where CSX has previously sold or otherwise transferred ownership to others (particularly in East Boston); coordinating with the East Boston Haul Road project; coordinating with Massport; coordinating with Harvard University on Beacon Park Yard and its Allston initiative and CSX; and coordinating with adjacent landowners. In Cambridge, an LPA busway is proposed to run through the western portion of the Grand Junction Railroad corridor (west of Fort Washington Park) including the bridge over the Charles River, which is owned and operated by CSX. In a limited number of locations, the proposed BRT facilities are adjacent to or cross over rail lines that Pan Am uses to operate freight rail service. These locations include the Newburyport/Rockport Line, over which Pan Am has track rights in Chelsea and Everett; and the busway viaduct that is proposed to cross the Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­96 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION Fitchburg commuter rail line and a Pan Am­owned lead track in making the connection from the Inner Belt district in Somerville to North Point in Cambridge. In portions of Chelsea, the proposed BRT busway will be located adjacent to the Newburyport/Rockport commuter rail line, which is owned and operated by the MBTA. The busway will be located primarily on a parallel abandoned rail line currently owned by CSX, but portions of the busway will be located on MBTA­
owned ROW. The ROW where the new and improved commuter rail stations are to be located includes land owned by the MBTA. However, portions of adjacent parcels owned by others will be needed to implement the LPA. The locations of new and improved commuter rail stations include Downtown Chelsea Commuter Rail, Sullivan Square, Allston West Station, Yawkey, Ruggles, and Newmarket Station on the Fairmount Branch. Additional evaluation will be undertaken on the existing potential of impact to MBTA, private owners, CSX, and Pan Am in Final EIR/Preliminary Engineering. 4.8.3 Project Impacts on Freight Movement The proposed Urban Ring project would travel adjacent to active freight rail tracks or share roadways used for freight transport at the following selected locations in the study corridor: East Boston Haul Road – The proposed East Boston Haul Road would provide a bypass for trucks between Logan Airport and the Chelsea Street Bridge. This bypass road is designed for use by air cargo industry freight trucks, rental cars, Park ‘n’ Fly buses, and MBTA buses. Improvements to separate truck and buses movements at intersections along the proposed road have been proposed as part of the LPA. As a result, the proposed project would not impact freight movement on this future roadway. The East Boston Haul Road represents a joint­development opportunity for the Urban Ring and haul trucks where a single investment will be more efficient serving multiple uses rather than a single use. Therefore, this represents a positive benefit of the Urban Ring project. Grand Junction Railroad Corridor – As part of the LPA, BRT buses would travel in the Grand Junction corridor ROW two­way west of Fort Washington Park in Cambridge. The proposed busway would be constructed on the north side of the rail corridor, and would require relocating or removing limited portions of the existing siding track in this area that is currently used for temporary storage of rail cars. Once each year, these rail sidings are used to store the circus train, and the busway will not preclude that use. The exact alignment of the busway and required mitigation of impacts on the storage track will be determined during the preliminary design stages of the project. The LPA alignment in this corridor would not impact freight movement by CSX. Beacon Park Yard – The Urban Ring project does not entail a final proposal for an alignment to Allston. However, one alternative alignment would connect beneath the Mass Pike viaduct and run along the northern edge of Beacon Park Yard at railyard level. This alignment would require relocation and/or consolidation of some operations in Beacon Park Yard, in particular the “teardrop” parcel to the northeast and the northern edge of the main railyard. The potential and/or timing for effecting these changes is uncertain. 4.9 Navigable Waterways Existing and future navigable waterways and anticipated project impacts on navigable waterways are described below. 4.9.1 Existing Navigable Waterways Navigable waterways along the Urban Ring Phase 2 corridor include the Charles River, the Mystic River, the Malden River, Chelsea Creek, and Boston Inner Harbor. United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­97 November 2008 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION federal navigation projects within the study area are located in Boston Harbor, the Mystic River, the Malden River, and Chelsea Creek. 4.9.2 Future Navigable Waterways Project impacts could occur with any updated or new bridges or tunnels above or under any of existing five navigable waterways in the study area. The proposed project will include new bridge construction over the Malden River, and bridge modification/expansion for the Grand Junction Railroad Bridge over the Charles River. For the remaining waterways, no new bridge or tunnel construction will occur as part of the LPA. For waterway crossings of these locations, BRT buses will use existing river and harbor crossings along the alignment, resulting in no project impacts to these waterways. Project impacts for the five study area waterways are summarized below. Malden River – As mitigation for this project, a new bridge will be constructed over the Malden River, resulting in some project impacts. The design and operational policies will be coordinated with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), the Coast Guard, and the ACOE. Charles River – As mitigation for the Urban Ring project, the existing Grand Junction Railroad Bridge will be modified, rebuilt, and expanded. Depending on the approved final design, there may be project impacts on the Charles River. The design and operational policies will be coordinated with the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), the Coast Guard, and the ACOE. Chelsea Creek – A bridge over Chelsea Creek is proposed and will be constructed by others. Therefore, the Urban Ring project will have no impact on Chelsea Creek. Mystic River – The Urban Ring project will utilize the existing Fellsway Bridge, resulting in no project impacts on the Mystic River. Boston Inner Harbor – The proposed project will not involve construction of any new structures under or over the Boston Inner Harbor. The project will not impact the Boston Inner Harbor waterways. Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS Page 4­98 November 2008