Medford
Everett
Chelsea
Somerville
Cambridge
Circumferential
Transportation
Improvements
in the
Urban Ring Corridor
Boston
Urban Ring
Phase 2
Brookline
TECHNICAL EMF / MOVING METAL REPORT
November 2008
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration
November 8, 2007
URBAN RING:
One-Page Summary of Potential EMF / EMI Impact Issues
What are EMF and where are they found?
EMF are typically characterized by (a) with the type of field: electrical (E) or magnetic
(M), (b) the intensity of the fields, and (c) the time variation (frequency) of the fields, which is
given in “hertz” (Hz; 1 hertz equals one cycle per second). Natural sources of electric fields
include the “static electricity” caused by materials rubbing against each other and the
atmospheric electric fields that result in strokes of lightning. Natural sources of static magnetic
fields include permanent magnets and the earth’s geomagnetic field. In the laboratory /
commercial environment, EMF are produced by a multitude of motors, electrical equipment,
magnets and electromagnets, electrical wiring, and moving metallic objects, e.g., elevators, etc.
What are sources of EMF in the Urban Ring?
For transit vehicles being considered for use in Urban Ring Phase 2 and Phase 3,
EMF/EMI are produced both (1) by the use of electric propulsion and its associated electric
supply lines, and (2) by the ferromagnetic materials in the vehicle chassis moving through the
earth’s magnetic field, a phenomenon called “moving metal.” Transit vehicles powered by
electrical land lines will produce EMF/EMI from both sources, while the source of EMF/EMI
from completely self-contained transit vehicles [e.g., Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Hybrid
Electric, and Emission-Controlled Diesel (ECD) buses] is limited primarily to “moving metal.”
How do the EMF produced drop off with distance?
The magnitude, and fall-off with distance, of the magnetic fields derives from different
sources of electromagnetic interference sources from each of the transportation technologies.
These categories basically separate into three components with different “magnitude-versusdistance” dependences: a line current source due to unbalanced currents, whose intensity drops
off with distance (r) as (1/r); a pair of balanced parallel currents, whose intensity drops off as
(1/r2); and a dipole (loop current) source, whose intensity drops off as (1/r3). For example,
“moving-metal” sources are basically magnetic dipoles, so these are in the 1/r3 category.
What are the approximate magnitudes of potential EMF impact?
Urban ring magnetic-field fluctuations are expected to have a frequency spectrum of 0 to
10 Hz and to occur approximately every few minutes due to the intermittency of bi-directional
transit service. The highest magnetic fields are expected at grade, at the edge of the corridor (~15
feet from the route centerline). For the various technologies, this maximum is ~210 mG for dualmode BRT, ~1.010 mG for LRT, and ~1,610 mG for HRT. These values should be compared to
the earth’s (steady) magnetic field, which is ~550 mG in Boston. Whereas the magnetic field of
the earth is constant with distance, the EMF/EMI fields drop rapidly with distance, as is
illustrated in the maps plotting the routes and impacts.
What are the mitigation strategies for EMF / EMI?
Fundamentally, there are three independent strategies: Increase separation distance,
decrease electric currents, and cancellation. EMF/EMI increases with the magnitude of the
currents in the source and decreases with the distance away from the source. Along the lines of
cancellation, opposing supply currents can be places as close to each other as possible to cancel
effects at greater distances, or local coils can be used to cancel disturbing magnetic fields.
Another type of EMF/EMI at the receptor location is placing high-permeability ferromagnetic
“mu-metal” sheets in locations that shunt the magnetic field lines away from sensitive areas.
M E M O
Date:
November 6, 2007
To:
Ned Codd, P.E., Project Manager,
Executive Office of Transportation (EOT)
cc:
Urban Ring Noise, Vibration, and EMF Working Group
From:
James A. Doyle, AICP, Project Manager
Peter Valberg, Gradient Corporation
Subject:
Urban Ring Phase 2 RDEIR/DEIS
Task 8 – Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference (EMF/EMI) – Technical Memorandum
Attached is a technical memorandum prepared by our subconsultant Gradient Corporation addressing
potential Electromagnetic Fields and Interference (EMF/EMI) and their impacts and mitigation associated
with the Urban Ring Phase 2 Alternatives.
At your request we have included the Urban Ring Noise, Vibration, and EMF Working Group on the
distribution of this memo and attachment so that they may review the materials in advance of the meeting
scheduled for November 8, 2007.
Please contact me at 978-371-4064 should you have any questions.
Attachment
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
October 31, 2007
Estimation of Electromagnetic Interference (EMI)
Generated by Urban-Ring Transportation Technologies:
Technical Memorandum
Introduction
The Urban Ring Phase 2 planning process is examining a range of alternative alignments and
vehicle technologies through a 15-mile long circumferential corridor. Earth Tech and Gradient evaluated
the impact of potential sources of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and electromagnetic interference (EMI)
arising from the different alignments and transportation technology alternatives for the Urban Ring Phase
2. The Urban Ring Phase 2 route will pass near several clusters of laboratories and medical facilities
where sensitive electronic instruments are used. These areas include the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) campus, the Boston University laboratories (BU), the Longwood Medical and
Academic Area (LMA), and the Boston City Hospital/Boston University Medical Center (BUMC). The
two distinct features of transportation technology that may give rise to EMF/EMI are (1) the “moving
metal” of the vehicle chassis, and (2) the EMF associated with the electrical currents that are used for the
propulsion system.
EMF/EMI Executive Summary
Wherever electric propulsion is used, the key determinants of EMF/EMI potential are: magnitude
of electric currents and voltages used by the vehicles, mass and size of the ferromagnetic material in the
vehicle (for "moving metal" fields), proximity of sensitive receptors to the transit corridor, pattern of
current and voltage time variations, spatial configuration of the conductors supplying electric power, the
quantity of traffic, and the degree of EMF/EMI isolation required by sensitive receptors.
The magnetic-field excursions from electric-propulsion currents are expected to have a frequency
spectrum of 0 to 10 Hz, and to occur at intervals determined by the intermittency of bi-directional transit
traffic (e.g., every two minutes). It is expected that the magnetic component of EMF/EMI produced by
the transit system is likely to be the most problematic in terms of interference with sensitive research
measurements. The highest magnetic fields are expected at grade, at the edge of the right of way (~15
feet from the route centerline). For the various technologies, this maximum is ~210 mG for dual-mode
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), ~1,010 mG for light rail technology (LRT), and ~1,610 mG for heavy rail
technology (HRT). These values should be compared to the earth’s (steady) magnetic field, which is
~550 mG in Boston. However, these EMF/EMI fields drop rapidly with distance.
The EMF/EMI associated with the transportation technology alternatives can be reduced by two
main types of mitigation: mitigation at the source and mitigation at the receptor location. Mitigation at the
source requires incorporating these features into the design prior to construction. The chief candidate for
such mitigation would be to ensure that the conductors carrying electric current to and from electric
propulsion motors travel as close to each other as feasible, and minimize sneak current paths, i.e.,
assuring that the supply and return currents are of equal magnitude. Mitigation using current-path
alignment has been used by the MBTA in other situations, and can achieve a several-fold attenuation,
depending upon details of current paths before and after alignment.
The chief candidate for mitigation at the receptor location is the placement of high-permeability
ferromagnetic “mu-metal” sheets in locations that shunt the magnetic field lines away from sensitive
areas. This approach can be laboratory-specific, can be undertaken after operation begins, and can be
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 2
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
implemented on an “as-needed” basis. Magnetic shielding is a common approach already used by many
laboratories doing sensitive measurements in electrically noisy environments. Depending upon the
number of shielding layers used, attenuation factors of 10 to 200 can be achieved. Another mitigation
method involves electronic detection of the interfering field and generation of a canceling magnetic field
that counteracts the EMF/EMI at the location that must be protected from interference. This active
electronic method has been used successfully in situations where power-line fields have caused problems,
but it is both expensive and maintenance-intensive.
Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) and Their Sources
Electromagnetic interference (EMI) derives from the presence of unwanted electric and magnetic
fields (EMF). EMF are produced by voltages and currents wherever wires distribute electric power and
wherever electrical equipment is used. EMF levels decrease with distance away from operating
equipment or away from current-carrying electric lines. Also, EMF levels can be decreased by a variety
of mitigation methods that are discussed in detail below.
EMF are typically characterized by (a) with the type of field: electrical (E) or magnetic (M), (b)
the intensity of the fields, and (c) the time variation (frequency) of the fields, which is given in “hertz”
(Hz; 1 hertz equals one cycle per second). Natural sources of electric fields include the “static electricity”
caused by materials rubbing against each other and the atmospheric electric fields that result in strokes of
lightning. Natural sources of static magnetic fields include permanent magnets and the earth’s
geomagnetic field. These natural EMF sources do not have the “60-times-per-second” (60 Hz) time
variation that characterizes the majority of electric-power-line magnetic fields.
In the residential and work environment, slowly-varying EMF are produced by moving magnetic
materials (e.g., elevators) or by slowly-varying electric currents (DC currents being turned on and off).
Higher frequency 60-Hz EMF are produced by the electric-power used in appliances (ranges, ovens,
refrigerators, washers, dryers, lights, televisions, toasters, vacuums, etc.). In the work (office,
manufacturing, and laboratory) environment, greater electric power use generally translates into higher
levels of EMF from building equipment (elevators, copiers, fluorescent lights, computers, video-display
terminals, tools, mixers, diagnostic equipment, motors, etc.).
Electric fields are equal to the “force per unit charge” and are measured in units of volts / meter
(V/m). Electric fields increase with increasing voltage on the source (e.g., wires), but decrease with
distance from the source. Electric fields are readily shielded by foliage, building materials, or electrically
conducting material. Magnetic fields are equal to “force per unit current,” and are measured in gauss (G)
or in milliGauss (1 mG = 0.001 G). Magnetic fields increase with increasing current in the source (e.g.,
wires or windings in a motor), but decrease with distance from the source. Magnetic fields are not easily
shielded, penetrate normal building materials, and are not attenuated by passage through soils.
The earth’s (DC) magnetic field ranges in strength from about 470 mG to 590 mG over North
America (and is approximately 550 mG in Boston). Permanent magnets generate strong, steady magnetic
fields, approximately 100 – 500 gauss (i.e., 100,000 – 500,000 mG). Operating appliances can produce
60-Hz (AC) magnetic fields of 40 – 200 mG at distances of 1 foot, but the fields diminish quickly with
distance. Computer video-display monitors create magnetic fields ranging from approximately 3 mG to
25 mG at a distance of 4 to 1 feet from the device.
For the MBTA rail system, the propulsion currents are distributed via either a “third-rail” or
overhead catenary wires, and they are direct currents (DC) that vary slowly in time, depending upon the
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 3
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
frequency of rail traffic. These currents are several thousands of amperes, and hence can produce
magnetic fields in their vicinity that are comparable to, and even larger than, the earth’s geomagnetic
field.
The magnetic-field excursions from MBTA electric-propulsion currents are expected to have a
frequency spectrum of 0 to 10 Hz ((Dietrich, et al., 1993), and to occur approximately every two minutes
(during the 6 AM to 9 PM time period) due to the intermittency of bi-directional rail traffic. It is expected
that the magnetic component of the electric and magnetic field (EMF) environment produced by transport
vehicles is what may be problematic in terms of interference with sensitive research measurements.
However, the fields produced drop rapidly with distance. This decrease of field strength with distance
also means that vehicles in tunnels will produce less EMF/EMI. The magnetic fields are not diminished,
however, by the mere presence of the intervening earth.
Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) due to Transit Vehicles
For transit vehicles being considered for use in Urban Ring Phase 2 and Phase 3, electromagnetic
interference (EMI) or electromagnetic fields (EMF) may be produced both (1) by the use of electric
propulsion and its associated electric supply lines, and (2) by the ferromagnetic materials in the vehicle
chassis moving through the earth’s magnetic field, a phenomenon called “moving metal.” Transit
vehicles powered by electrical land lines will produce EMF/EMI from both sources, while the source of
EMF/EMI from completely self-contained transit vehicles [e.g., Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Hybrid
Electric, and Emission-Controlled Diesel (ECD) buses] is limited primarily to "moving metal."
Technical Model for Predicting Magnitude of EMF/EMI
The anticipated Urban Ring Phase 2 EMF/EMI field impacts have been projected based on three
independent classes of contributors to the magnetic fields: matched (balanced) parallel electric currents,
unmatched (unipolar) electric currents, and loop (dipole) electric currents. "Moving-metal" contributions
to EMF/EMI fall in the last class. EMF/EMI impacts from each class vary distinctly as a function of
distance from the vehicle. We calculated the fluctuations in magnetic fields, which occur as the vehicle
approaches, passes nearby, and then recedes from the observation point. Fluctuations can be more
disruptive to sensitive experimental equipment than steady, static magnetic fields, such as the earth’s
magnetic field at ~550 mG. We examined the different sources in each of the three classes and analyzed
how these contributions may combine in a maximum anticipated EMF/EMI, or "worst case," scenario.
Matched Parallel Currents
In the case of electric propulsion, power is usually supplied by DC current either via an overhead
catenary wire or via a third rail. For example dual-mode BRT, trolley, light rail, and heavy rail vehicles
run on external DC current. In general, current going in one direction must be matched by current going
in the opposite direction. The return path for the current is through the vehicle and back along the rails of
the vehicle, or up to a 2nd catenary in the case of trolley cars. Matched current lines (of assumed infinite
length) produce a magnetic field (B) that is proportional to current and falls off as the inverse of the
distance squared. 1 That is
1
Equation holds for the far-field
(r >> a). The direction of the field has an angular dependence
r
B ∝ cos(2θ ) xˆ + sin(2θ ) yˆ when current paths are located in an overhead supply and return configuration.
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
of
Page 4
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Equation 1
B =
2 Ia
r2
where B is the magnetic field in milliGauss, I is the current in amperes, a is the distance between the two
wires (supply and return) in meters, and r is the perpendicular distance, in meters, from the center point of
the parallel wires. The strength of B depends linearly on the current through the lines and the distance
between the lines. Figure 1 provides a sketch of the magnetic field lines produced by two matchedcurrent wires. 2
Figure 1. For Opposing Currents, Magnetic Field Lines in Opposite Directions Encircle the
Currents
Estimating the matched-current contribution to the magnetic field as a function of distance
requires knowledge of the supply current magnitude and the distance separating the supply and return
current paths. For example, in the Seattle LRV system [1] where the supply is an overhead catenary, the
current is 2.3 kA and distance between the parallel supply and return conductors is 4.2 m. In the case of
the Boston LRV system (e.g., the Green Line), the distance between the catenary and rails was assumed
to be 6.1 m (20 ft), and the current was assumed to 2.65 kA.
Unmatched (Unipolar) Current
Another contributor to the magnetic field is unmatched current. In general, the supply and return
currents have to be balanced (equal) because electric charge cannot accumulate. However, it often
happens that the return path for a portion of the current is far away and well outside of the location at
which the magnetic field perturbation is being assessed. In this case, the contribution to EMF/EMI is that
of a magnetic field (B) due to a single current-carrying wire (of assumed infinite length)
Equation 2
B =
2I
r
where I is current in amperes, B is magnetic field in milliGauss, and r is the perpendicular distance from
the axis of the wire in meters. This unmatched current component of the net magnetic field is directed
2
http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/local/physical/mi167.gif
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 5
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
around the current carrying wire (as illustrated in Figure 2 3 ). Field strength decreases as a function of
inverse distance. The magnitude of the field depends only upon perpendicular distance from the source
and not on specific angular location relative to the source.
Figure 2. For A Single Current, the "Right Hand Rule" Gives the Direction of Magnetic Field
Lines
An estimate of unmatched current for an LRV system can be obtained from the Seattle LRV
analysis (reference [1]). In this spatial arrangement of supply and return currents and specific
measurement point, the components of magnetic field due to matched and unmatched currents were
orthogonal. B horizontal was due to matched currents and B vertical was due to an unmatched current.
Measurements of magnetic field to the side of the tracks allowed an estimation of the distinct
contributions to the magnetic field. For the Seattle LRV analysis, it was determined that the unmatched
current was 10-20% of the supply current, i.e., 230-460 amperes, compared to the 2.3 kA matched
current. For the Green Line LRV analysis, we used 20% of 2.65 kA (i.e. 530 amperes) to achieve a
conservative, upper-bound estimate of EMF/EMI.
Dipole Moments
Magnetic dipole moments are formed by current-carrying loops of wire or by actual
magnetization of material. There are several ways that magnetic dipole moments could exist in the
vehicles being evaluated for the Urban Ring. First, within the electric circuitry of the vehicles there are
currents flowing in closed loops. Second, any ferromagnetic material within the vehicle structure may be
magnetized. A primary source of such induced magnetization is the earth's magnetic field (~ 550 mG),
which is directed primarily vertically into the ground in the Northeast. This can cause ferromagnetic steel
in the vehicle to become magnetized (most other metals, e.g., copper, aluminum, chromium, zinc, and
even stainless steel are not ferromagnetic). Typical induced dipoles would be oriented upwards.
3
http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/local/physical/mi166.gif and
http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/1997spring/PHY232/lectures/ampereslaw/rhrthumb.gif
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 6
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The magnetic field from a magnetized dipole drops off as the inverse cube of distance. This
contributor to the magnetic field produces a field magnitude that varies not only as a function of distance
but also angular location. In calculating conditions for the worst case scenario, we will assume the
maximum magnetic field magnitude (which is within a factor of 2 of minimum field magnitude) at a
given distance regardless of the actual angular position of the measurement point. The maximal magnetic
field magnitude (B) due to a magnetic dipole is
Equation 3
2 Ia 2
B = 3
r
where B is the magnetic field in milliGauss, I is the current in amperes, a is either the diameter of the
current ring or the distance between the two magnetic poles in meters, and r is the distance away from the
magnetic dipole in meters. Alternatively, the combination of factors in the numerator of Eq. 3 can be
thought of as a constant that is proportional to the magnitude (strength) of the magnetic dipole.
We used field data to evaluate the magnetic dipole moment of MBTA buses. Earth Tech
collected field data [2] on the magnetic dipole moment for emission-controlled diesel (ECD) and
compressed natural gas (CNG) buses. These vehicles are similar to the BRT vehicles that are expected to
be in use for Urban Ring Phase 2. These vehicles produced a magnetic field in the range of 20-50 mG at a
distance of 10 meters. Because these vehicles are driven by internal sources of energy, the only sources
of magnetic field are internal currents and magnetizations. The magnitude of the magnetic dipole that
produces a field of this strength at this distance is 20,000-50,000 A-m2. For the sake of a conservative
analysis, we assumed that a BRT vehicle has a magnetic dipole moment of 50,000 A-m2. This
corresponds roughly to a 0.5 kA to 1.5 kA current flowing around the outer edge of the vehicle.
We also evaluated the expected magnetic dipole moment for an LRV based on field data and calculated
values. In the analysis of the Seattle LRV system (reference [1]), it was noted that "At the West Portal
site, horizontal B-fields were measured with the LRVs very near the measuring point, and with them
farther away. The 'away' horizontal B-fields were approximately 20% weaker than the 'near', a
difference possibly attributable to a dipole component of magnetic fields emanating from the LRV's
themselves." By attributing the noted difference in "near" and "away" horizontal magnetic fields to the
dipole moment of the LRV itself, we determined that the magnetic moment of the LRV was 98,000 A-m2
(taking into account the angular variation of dipole field.) This value is likely an overestimate, as other
sources may have contributed to this difference in measured field strength. In calculating the magnetic
dipole moment of the vehicle, we use the relative permeability of steel to calculate the magnetic dipole
induced in the vehicle by the earth's magnetic field. Using the approximate amount of steel in an LRV
vehicle and its susceptibility to an external applied magnetic field, 4 we find that the magnetic moment of
the vehicle is 30,000 A-m2. 5
Listing of Other Potentially Relevant Data
Heavy Rail: From reference [3], pg. 6-11, the observed fluctuations in the static (slowlyvarying) magnetic field due the passing of an Orange Line train is ~250 mG at a distance of ~5 m (~16
4
5
We estimated the volume of ferromagnetic steel in a vehicle (5,000 kg) and assumed this quantity of steel was 100%
polarized by the earth's magnetic field and behaved as a rectangular bar magnet. This is an upper-bound estimate.
As a point of reference, this induced magnetic dipole moment corresponds approximately to a 0.5 kA to 1.5 kA
"magnetization" current flowing around the outer edge of the vehicle.
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 7
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
ft) from the third rail. Our model predicts 1,610 mG at 15 ft, and hence this provides assurance that our
model has not underestimated EMF/EMI impact.
Amtrak Acela: In reference [4], pg. 76, wayside magnetic field measurements were performed
as various Amtrak and local trains passed by. It was found that the magnetic field readings were 83 mG,
15 mG, and 7 mG at distances of 5, 10, and 15 meters, respectively. However, because the Amtrak Acela
is powered by 60-Hz AC current, and not DC, the usefulness of these numbers is unclear.
MBTA Green Line: In reference [8], pgs. 15, 22, 28, and 34. This survey at a hospital showed
fluctuations in DC magnetic fields ranging in magnitude from about 60 mG to 200 mG at distance in the
range of about 200 ft from the Huntington Avenue MBTA Green Line, which appear to be larger than the
25 to 100 mG projected by the model.
Source Term Combination
In the "worst case" scenario, the vector components of the magnetic fields from the separate
perturbation sources will point in the same direction and add together. This represents a plausible spatial
orientation of currents and dipole positions. This would be the case if, looking along the tracks, the
matched currents existed in the rails with the positive current on the right and return current on the left, a
positive imbalance current flowed in the rail on the right, and the dipole moment of the vehicle pointed
upwards.
The final step is to estimate magnitudes of the proportionality constants for the three magneticfield sources for the vehicle types being considered in the Urban Ring. The general form for the magnetic
field (B) is as follows
Equation 4
B = C0 +
C1 C 2 C 3
+ 2 + 3
r
r
r
where B is in mG, r is in meters, and the dimensional units of the various constants are such as to be
consistent with these dimensions for the input parameters.
Table 1. Constants in Equation 4 for different Urban Ring Technologies
Transportation Mode
Train Rapid Transit
Heavy Rail Technology
Light Rail Technology
Bus Rapid Transit
Dual Mode
Hybrid Electric
Emission Controlled Diesel
Compressed Natural Gas
Baseline Background
Earth's Magnetic Field (fluctuations)
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
C1 (1/r)
C0
C2 (1/r2)
C3 (1/r3)
0
0
4,272
1,060
26,050
32,300
300,000
100,000
0
0
0
0
240
0
0
0
5,040
0
0
0
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
1 to 5
0
0
0
Page 8
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Results
The results for the different transportation technologies are displayed in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Magnetic Fields (mG) from Various Transportation Technologies, Variations with
Distance (given as radial distance, in feet)
↓Transportation Mode
Distance Band (ft)Æ
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Dual Mode
Hybrid Electric
Emission Controlled Diesel
(ECD)
Compressed Natural Gas
(CNG)
Rail
Heavy Rail Technology (HRT)
Light Rail Technology (LRT)
Magnetic Field Strengths (mG)
15 – 30
30 – 60
60 – 150
150 – 300
300 – 600
210
65
65
65
64
20
20
20
14
1.5
1.5
1.5
5
0.16
0.16
0.16
2
0.02
0.02
0.02
1,610
1,010
570
290
170
70
70
23
33
9
NOTE: Those values below 5 mG are shaded. 5 mG is approximately 10% of the earth’s magnetic field
(~550 mG), and a magnetic perturbation at this level will not likely be detectable.
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 9
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Geographic and Alternative Specific Summary and Discussion
Phase 2 BRT Transit Vehicles
Urban Ring Phase 2 is a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project utilizing rubber-tired bus vehicles. The
range of potential EMF/EMI caused by Urban Ring Phase 2 is within the BRT grouping in Table 2. The
upper range in the BRT vehicle group is the Dual Mode vehicle which is potentially applicable only to the
tunnel alternative being considered in the Longwood Medical Area (LMA). For purposes of our analysis
it is assumed that the Dual Mode BRT vehicle is comparable to the MBTA’s Silver Line Phase II dual
mode BRT vehicle, which has electrically powered drive train drawing power from overhead wires while
in the tunnel and an on-board diesel powered generator while on the surface. The use of overhead electric
catenary wires results in higher magnetic field strengths than the other BRT technologies.
The other electrically powered BRT vehicle considered for the Urban Ring is the Hybrid Electric,
which uses internal combustion powered drive train on the surface and portions of the tunnel, and battery
powered electric drive train when operating in station areas of the tunnel. The self-contained
configuration of the Hybrid Electric results in relatively low levels of EMF/EMI from the drive train, thus
its overall EMF/EMI profile is generally similar to non-electrically powered BRT, e.g., emissioncontrolled diesel compressed natural gas.
Due to the anticipated passenger volumes of the proposed Urban Ring Phase 2 service, it is
assumed that 60' long articulated BRT vehicles will be used, which presents a worst case from the
standpoint of potential BRT "moving metal" impact due to the larger vehicle mass compared to a
standard 40' transit bus.
Phase 3 Rail Transit Vehicles
An important criterion for the choice of a preferred Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT route alignment is
the ability of that alignment to be converted to rail transit service in Urban Ring Phase 3. Potential
EMF/EMI impacts of long-range Phase 3 rail transit service are being evaluated during Phase 2 because
of the permanence and high cost of any tunnel alignment and the significantly higher levels of EMF/EMI
from large electrically powered rail transit vehicles (either LRT or heavy rail) compared to any of the
Phase 2 BRT vehicles. For example, a Phase 2 BRT tunnel alignment may have little or no significant
levels of EMF/EMI, yet that same alignment operated in Phase 3 as an LRT or heavy rail transit could
result in many-fold higher levels of EMF/EMI.
Discussion of Estimated EMF/EMI Levels
The magnitude, and fall-off with distance, of the magnetic fields derives from different sources of
electromagnetic interference sources from each of the transportation technologies. These categories
basically separate into three components with different “magnitude-versus-distance” dependences: a line
current source due to unbalanced currents, whose intensity drops off with distance (r) as (1/r); a pair of
balanced parallel currents, whose intensity drops off as (1/r2); and a dipole (loop current) source, whose
intensity drops off as (1/r3). For example, “moving-metal” sources are basically magnetic dipoles, so
these are in the 1/r3 category. Table 2 (above) shows the results for the various categories of
transportation technology, where the contributions from all sources relevant to a particular technology
have been combined into a single result.
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 10
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Magnetic-field excursions are potentially the most troublesome for sensitive research
measurements. These magnetic-field fluctuations are expected to have a frequency spectrum of 0 to 10
Hz and to occur approximately every few minutes due to the intermittency of new bi-directional transit
service being proposed by the Urban Ring project. As shown in Table 2, above, the highest magnetic
fields are expected at grade, at the edge of the right of way (~15 feet from the route centerline). For the
various technologies, this maximum is ~210 mG for dual-mode BRT, ~1.010 mG for LRT, and ~1,610
mG for HRT. These values should be compared to the earth’s (steady) magnetic field, which is ~550 mG
in Boston. Whereas the magnetic field of the earth is constant with distance, the EMF/EMI fields drop
rapidly with distance.
MIT and LMA Corridors
The attached figures show the EMF/EMI results of the model plotted on a map of the route as it
goes through the MIT campus in Cambridge and as it passes through the LMA between Ruggles Station
and the Sears Rotary. Some of the alignments are above ground, and some are in tunnels.
The attached figures show the Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT EMF/EMI results of the model plotted
on a map of the route for each of the alternatives as it goes through the LMA in Boston between Ruggles
Station and the Sears Rotary. Following the LMA figures are the figures showing the alignments
through the MIT campus in Cambridge. Some of the alignments are above ground, and some are in
tunnels.
For the Urban Ring Phase 2 BRT above-ground alignments, peak fields in the near vicinity of the route
are higher than for underground alternatives. The attached figures show that the peak fields in the near
vicinity of the route depend on the technology used, and the magnetic field values for the colored bands
are shown on the figures. The above-ground alignments in LMA are shown in the figures for Alternatives
1, 2, 2A, H1, and H2. For the underground alignments in LMA, see the figures depicting Alternative 3,
3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 4A, and H2T
The MIT figures follow the LMA figures in similar order. The above-ground alignments through
MIT are shown in the figures for Alternatives 1, 2, 2A, 3, 3A through 3C, H1, H2, and H2T. For the
underground alignments through MIT, see the figures depicting Alternatives 4 and 4A.
Mitigation of EMF/EMI
EMF/EMI increases with the magnitude of the currents in the source and decreases with the
distance away from the source. Thus, the primary "mitigation" methods would be to lower the electric
currents, or to avoid the placement of sensitive facilities in the proximity of the mass transit routes.
Often, these "mitigation" methods are not available.
Aside from increased separation and reduced currents, the chief candidate for mitigation at the
receptor location is placing high-permeability ferromagnetic “mu-metal” sheets in locations that shunt the
magnetic field lines away from sensitive areas. This approach can be laboratory-specific, can be
undertaken after operation begins, and can be implemented on an “as-needed” basis. Magnetic shielding
is a common approach already used by many laboratories doing sensitive measurements in electrically
noisy environments. Depending upon the number of shielding layers used, attenuation factors of 10 to
200 can be achieved.
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 11
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Another mitigation method involves electronic detection of the interfering field and generation of
a canceling (i.e., opposing) magnetic field that counteracts the EMF/EMI at the location that must be
protected from interference. This active electronic method has been used successfully in situations where
power-line fields have caused problems, but it can be both expensive and maintenance-intensive.
In summary, the outline of the mitigation methods is:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
Reduce the effects of the source by making the source more distant.
Reduce the effects of the source by lowering the electric currents in the source.
Reduce the effects of electric currents by making the circuitry more compact.
Cancel the effects of the source by creating magnetic fields in opposition to those
produced by the source.
Shield the effects of the source by the placing of high-permeability “mu-metal” shielding
in locations that shunt the magnetic field lines away from sensitive areas.
Which option or which combination of options might work best for EMI produced by the Urban
Ring project requires further investigation. Basically, the implementation of the options could be
described as follows:
(1)
The EMF effects of rail vehicles and electric-power feeder lines could be reduced by moving the
proposed route farther away from sensitive buildings. Placing the transportation corridor
underground would also increase distances from above-ground facilities.
(2)
The EMF effects of the electric-power feeder lines could be reduced by bringing the individual
conductors closer together in a more compact configuration, so that their mutually opposing
currents would reduce the fields produced at a distance.
(3)
EMF could be reduced by adding a second set of parallel conductors near to the electric-power
feeder lines, but spaced an appropriate distance away from the existing set of conductors. The
total current in the circuit could be split over these two sets of conductors, but the currents would
be directed in such a way as to partially cancel the fields from the original set of conductors.
(4)
A set of conductors could be placed near the outer walls of sensitive buildings, and energized
with current in such a way that the fields produced by these added wires act to cancel the fields
from the electric-power feeder lines. The “slave” currents would have to be synchronized in
phase and magnitude to the primary currents so as to produce magnetic fields acting in such a
way as to mitigate overall magnetic-field impact.
(5)
Magnetic shielding material could be added to the interior walls and floors of sensitive buildings
in such a way as to shunt magnetic field lines away from areas that require low ambient field
levels. Shielding could also be used in a more localized fashion to surround individual pieces of
equipment.
(6)
If interference with certain types of laboratory electronics is the key consideration, the electronics
could be “hardened” to be immune to the interfering DC or power-line fields. For example,
liquid-crystal computer monitors are not affected by power-line magnetic fields in the way that
cathode-ray tube computer monitors are. It is likely that the trend in lab equipment will be to
make it increasingly immune to EMF/EMI. However, the nature of some types of research (e.g.,
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 12
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
magnetoencephalography) requires detection of minute electromagnetic signals, and these
experiments will always be susceptible to EMF/EMI.
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 13
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
APPENDICES: REFERENCES CITATIONS, TECHNICAL INPUTS, AND GRAPHS
References
[1]
Edelson, C. R., Holmstrom, F. R. "Magnetic Field Study – Impact of Proposed Light Rail Line on
University of Washington Physics Laboratories, August 30, 1998.
[2]
Earth Tech Field Test data – Earth Tech Phase 2 DEIS/R Urban Ring, (2003), J. Cipollone.
[3]
Dietrich, Papas, Ferro, Jacobs and Steiner. "Final Report on Magnetic and Electric Field Testing
of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Urban Transit System" January
1993.
[4]
Fugate, David, Jacobs, William. "EMF Monitoring on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor: PostElectrification Measurements and Analysis," October 2006.
[5]
Dietrich, Fred. "Static Magnetic Field Levels At the University of Washington Resulting from
Extension of the Sound Transit Subway System," June 7, 2000.
[6]
Jacobs, W. L., Robertson, D. C., Steiner, G. A. "Safety of High Speed Guided Grounded
Transportation Systems: Magnetic and Electric Field Testing of the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) Urban Transit System. Volume 2. Appendices." June 1993.
[7]
House, David. "Transit Vehicle Data." Document sent to Gradient via e-mail communication.
August 2007.
[8]
"Preliminary Site Survey for MRI Installation at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA:
AC & DC Electro-magnetic Fields." ETS-Lindgren Survey Report #T06866. October 27, 2006.
38 pp.
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 14
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Figure 3. Graph of Model predictions of magnetic field strength versus distance
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
Dual Mode
ECD / CNG / Hybrid Electric
B-field (mG)
1000
100
10
1
10
25
50
75
100
250
Distance (ft)
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 15
November 6, 2007
500
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Table A1: Model Parameters
Parameters
Heavy Rail
C1 min (per kA of current)
C1 max (per kA of current)
C1 (per kA of current)
C2 (per kA per distance between
current lines)
C3 (per car)
Current (kA per car)
Number of Cars
Distance between current lines (m)
1/r term numerator
1/r2 term numerator
1/r3 term numerator
Hybrid Electric /
dual mode
Light Rail
ECD/CNG
Citation Source
200
400
400
200
400
400
200
400
400
0
0
0
2000
2000
2000
0
50000
50000
50000
50000
1.78
1.33
0.6
0
6
2
1
1
1.22
4272
26050
300000
6.1
1060
32330
100000
4.2
240
5040
50000
0
0
50000
This row of numbers comes from Ref. 1
This row of numbers comes from Ref. 1
This row of numbers comes from Ref. 1
This row of numbers contains
conversion factors
B7 is uncertain; C7 is from [1]; D7 is
from [2]; E7 is from [2]
This row of numbers comes from
Transit Vehicle Data
This row of numbers comes from
Transit Vehicle Data
B10, PAV; C10 and D10 are from [1]
Table A2. Magnetic Field strengths in mG as a function of specific distances
Transportation Mode
Model
10 Meters
Magnetic Field Strengths (mG)
Model
Model
50 Meters
100 Meters
Rail
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
622
398
36.08
23.92
14.77
9.83
149.2
50
9.488
0.4
3.922
0.05
50
50
0.4
0.4
0.05
0.05
BRT
Dual Mode
Hybrid Electric
Emission Controlled
Diesel
Compressed Natural Gas
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 16
November 6, 2007
Technical Memo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Table 3. Magnetic field strengths in mG for different transportation vehicles at midpoint of various distance bands.
Transportation Mode
22 ft
Magnetic Field Strengths (mG)
45 ft
105 ft
225 ft
450 ft
Rail
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
1610
1010
566
288
168
67.7
68.7
22.6
32.6
9.48
213
65.3
63.6
19.4
13.9
1.52
4.72
0.155
2.04
0.0194
65.3
19.4
1.52
0.155
0.0194
65.3
19.4
1.52
0.155
0.0194
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Dual Mode
Hybrid Electric
Emission Controlled Diesel
(ECD)
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
Urban Ring Phase 2
Electromagnetic Fields and Interference Memo
Page 17
November 6, 2007
ST
DR
ER
RY
F21
S16
FEN
WA
Y
PILGRIM
P4
A6
A7
P1
J3
S3
A29
S2
S1
H1
H3
S10
PILGRIM
RD
AY
RW
ST
NT
KE
A23
D4
A20
D1
D3
A21
C5
D2
S14
B16 B15 B15
C4
C1
SHATTU
C K ST
F11
F9
F14
F8
F29
F25
F7
F30
F4
F10
F28
F3
F5
C2
C3
Q6
Q1
WARD ST
Q31
PRENTISS ST
Y
MCGREEVEY WA
F24
F12
C6
S13
F18
F19
F6
C12
D5
F27
F2
F1
F26
SMITH
ST
HORADAN WAY
SMITH ST
G5
LMA Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
150 - 300 Feet
1:4,800
0
60 - 60 Feet
60 - 150 Feet
Q33
Q32
STATION ST
Q1
ST
EY
KI
DL
NG
DU
W
ST
NE
GURNE
Y ST
Urban Ring Phase 2
Distance From Travel Lane
15 - 30 Feet
Q2
Q3
L11
L1
F15
JIMMY FU
ND WAY
Q8
Q10
L3
B17
F13
C9
C1
C15
D70
DEACONES
S RD
Q9 Q5Q4
TURQUOISE WAY
A27
D6
Q17
L4
L5
GTON ST
WORTHIN
E
RIV
JOSLIN RD
Q11
Q13
L9
J1
C 11 C10
C13
Q16
Q14
Q20
Q21 Q19
ST
CORNELIA
H2
J2
B20
C14
L 6 L7
SUS ST
SAINT ALPHON
A28
S11
BINNE
Y ST
AUTUMN
LONGWO
OD AVE
B18
F16
C16
ST
A1
A24
A22
S5
F17
I1
A26
A25
L8
F20
BLAC
KFAN
CIRC
LE
O1
TETLOW ST
L10
A2
A5
A3
Q22
Q26
Q24
Q28
Ruggles
Station
Q15
Q18
S15
PALACE RD
LSC
P5
G1
Q29
R ST
A4
A8
N2
VANCOUVE
P2
E1
E2
A11 A9
A14
M1
A10
A12
A15
A13
N7
N1
A17
RD
ST
T
A16
TI
ON
T
N6
S4
IER
NT
S
AVE
BROOKLI
NE
RD
ST
CH
ES
TE
R
CO
L
T
N9
G2
EDGAR ST
Q23
Q25
ST
N10
E4
TEUR
CHAP
EL S
E7
Q30
G3
N3
WH
ITT
CI A
E8
N12
N8
P3
E10
N11
AVE LOUIS PAS
SHORT
ST
N4
EVANS WAY
R1
N5
VANCOUVER
N14
LOUIS PRANG ST
E6
RUGGLES ST
ANN UN
N13
R2
E5
T
E9
E13
ST
N16
E12
T
E11
N15
PARKER
R4R3
R9
BILLS CT
MUSEUM RD
S
ON
LE
E14
N17
DS
R7
L
FIE
N18
R6
ST
TRE
MO
S9
MINDO
RO S
R8
HALLECK ST
CT
R5
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_LMA_Alt1.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 8:59:13 AM
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
PUBLIC ALLEY 1001
OU
TH
TAVERN RD
CA
RL
TO
N
S6
NM
EVANS WAY
OU
TH
M
O
NM
M
O
No nive
U
ST
HU
NT
I
HU NGT
ON
NT
IN
GT AVE
ON
AV
E
QU
EE
NS
B
ST
RO
UG
PE
TE
RB
O
DR
D
ST
UN
NA
ME
FO
RS
YT
H
PKase %Xs RaSiG T ransit %RT 1
± ± ± 1
1
± ST
5
FENCT
Dual Mode
210
64
14
FO
RS
YT
0.16
HW
Hybrid Electric
65
20
1.5
AY
0.16
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
65
20
1.5
0.16
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
65
20
1.5
GREE NLE A F ST
PKase Rail
70
Heavy Rail
1,610
570
170
23
Light Rail
1,010
290
70
ST
TO
N
ST
H
ST
CK
YL
S
ST
Sears
Rotary
LD
ST
BO
BE
AC
ON
AR
YS
IC
K
FI
E
M
M
ED
NT
ST
SA
I
AR
NO
ST
PA
RK
BE
AC
O
N
ST
ST
HEMENWAY
KE
SW
M
JE
RS
EY
WAY
FORSYTH
KI
L
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
n
ter
as ity
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs
P*
e
h
rt
rs
200
400
Potential EMF Levels - LMA
Proposed Route Centerline
Alternative 1
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
RDEIR/DEIS
November 2, 2007
ST
DR
ER
RY
F21
S16
FEN
WA
Y
PILGRIM
P4
A6
A7
P1
J3
S3
A29
S2
S1
H1
H3
S10
PILGRIM
RD
AY
RW
ST
NT
KE
A23
D4
A20
D1
D3
A21
C5
D2
S14
B16 B15 B15
C4
C1
SHATTU
C K ST
F11
F9
F14
F8
F29
F25
F7
F30
F4
F10
F28
F3
F5
C2
C3
Q6
Q1
WARD ST
Q31
PRENTISS ST
Y
MCGREEVEY WA
F24
F12
C6
S13
F18
F19
F6
C12
D5
F27
F2
F1
F26
SMITH
ST
HORADAN WAY
SMITH ST
G5
LMA Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
150 - 300 Feet
1:4,800
0
60 - 60 Feet
60 - 150 Feet
Q33
Q32
STATION ST
Q1
ST
EY
KI
DL
NG
DU
W
ST
NE
GURNE
Y ST
Urban Ring Phase 2
Distance From Travel Lane
15 - 30 Feet
Q2
Q3
L11
L1
F15
JIMMY FU
ND WAY
Q8
Q10
L3
B17
F13
C9
C1
C15
D70
DEACONES
S RD
Q9 Q5Q4
TURQUOISE WAY
A27
D6
Q17
L4
L5
GTON ST
WORTHIN
E
RIV
JOSLIN RD
Q11
Q13
L9
J1
C 11 C10
C13
Q16
Q14
Q20
Q21 Q19
ST
CORNELIA
H2
J2
B20
C14
L 6 L7
SUS ST
SAINT ALPHON
A28
S11
BINNE
Y ST
AUTUMN
LONGWO
OD AVE
B18
F16
C16
ST
A1
A24
A22
S5
F17
I1
A26
A25
L8
F20
BLAC
KFAN
CIRC
LE
O1
TETLOW ST
L10
A2
A5
A3
Q22
Q26
Q24
Q28
Ruggles
Station
Q15
Q18
S15
PALACE RD
LSC
P5
G1
Q29
R ST
A4
A8
N2
VANCOUVE
P2
E1
E2
A11 A9
A14
M1
A10
A12
A15
A13
N7
N1
A17
RD
ST
T
A16
TI
ON
T
N6
S4
IER
NT
S
AVE
BROOKLI
NE
RD
ST
CH
ES
TE
R
CO
L
T
N9
G2
EDGAR ST
Q23
Q25
ST
N10
E4
TEUR
CHAP
EL S
E7
Q30
G3
N3
WH
ITT
CI A
E8
N12
N8
P3
E10
N11
AVE LOUIS PAS
SHORT
ST
N4
EVANS WAY
R1
N5
VANCOUVER
N14
LOUIS PRANG ST
E6
RUGGLES ST
ANN UN
N13
R2
E5
T
E9
E13
ST
N16
E12
T
E11
N15
PARKER
R4R3
R9
BILLS CT
MUSEUM RD
S
ON
LE
E14
N17
DS
R7
L
FIE
N18
R6
ST
TRE
MO
S9
MINDO
RO S
R8
HALLECK ST
CT
R5
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_LMA_Alt2_2A.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 9:07:24 AM
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
PUBLIC ALLEY 1001
OU
TH
TAVERN RD
CA
RL
TO
N
S6
NM
EVANS WAY
OU
TH
M
O
NM
M
O
No nive
U
ST
HU
NT
I
HU NGT
ON
NT
IN
GT AVE
ON
AV
E
QU
EE
NS
B
ST
RO
UG
PE
TE
RB
O
DR
D
ST
UN
NA
ME
FO
RS
YT
H
PKase 2 %Xs RaSiG T ransit %RT ± ± ± ± ST
5
FENCT
Dual Mode
210
64
14
FO
RS
YT
0.16
HW
Hybrid Electric
65
20
1.5
AY
0.16
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
65
20
1.5
0.16
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
65
20
1.5
GREE NLE A F ST
PKase Rail
70
Heavy Rail
1,610
570
170
23
Light Rail
1,010
290
70
ST
TO
N
ST
H
ST
CK
YL
S
ST
Sears
Rotary
LD
ST
BO
BE
AC
ON
AR
YS
IC
K
FI
E
M
M
ED
NT
ST
SA
I
AR
NO
ST
PA
RK
BE
AC
O
N
ST
ST
HEMENWAY
KE
SW
M
JE
RS
EY
WAY
FORSYTH
KI
L
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
n
ter
as ity
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs
P*
e
h
rt
rs
200
400
Proposed Route Centerline
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
RDEIR/DEIS
Potential EMF Levels - LMA
Alternative 2/2A
November 2, 2007
DR
K
ST
ST
Y
TO
P2
P4
AV
E
GT
GT
IN
E2
A6
A7
P1
LE
A29
S2
E
S1
RD
PILGRIM
C6
T
TS
A20
D3
C5
D2
S14
SHATT
B16 B15 B15
C4
F14
UC K S T
C1
F8
F29
F25
F7
F30
F4
F10
F28
F3
F5
C2
C3
A
C12
F27
F2
F1
F26
ST
SM ITH
HORA DAN WAY
SMITH ST
G5
LMA Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
150 - 300 Feet
1:4,800
0
60 - 60 Feet
60 - 150 Feet
S2
A4
S3
Q33
A6
Q32
STATION ST
200
400
Proposed Route Centerline
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
65’
Tunnel
Centerline
Q1
GU R N E
Y ST
Urban Ring Phase 2
Distance From Travel Lane
15 - 30 Feet
135’
At Street
A2
F11
F9
C12
D1
293’ At Street
F24
F12
D5
Tunnel Cross-Section A-A’
Y
MCGREE VEY WA
F18
F19
F15
ND WAY
D4
A21
F6
F13
G TON ST
N
KE
A23
JIM M Y FU
WA RD ST
TURQUO ISE WAY
RD
Q1
ST
DEACONES
S
Q6
C13
C9
C1
C15
S13
PRENTIS S ST
ONSUS ST
Y
WA
ER
D70
Q2
Q3
L11
L1
WORTHIN
RIV
A27
D6
Q8
Q10
L3
J1
C 11 C10
C13
Q9 Q5Q4
Q31
L4
L5
B17
C14
Q17
Ruggles
Station
Q11
Q13
L9
J2
B20
Q16
Q14
Q20
Q21 Q19
CORNELIA
H2
JOSLIN RD
BINNE
Y
S10
F16
L 6 L7
SA INT ALPH
A28
S11
ST
H1
H3
A24
A22
KF AN
OO D AV
B18
BL AC
LO NGW
CIR C
C16
ST
A1
A26
A25
S5
J3
S3
TETLOW ST
L8
F20
Q22
Q26
Q24
Q28
L10
F17
I1
Q29
RD
Q15
Q18
S15
A2
A5
A3
P5
G1
PA LACE RD
LSC
N2
R ST
A4
A8
O1
E1
A’
A11 A9
A14
M1
A10
A12
A15
A13
N7
N1
A17
N
ST
ST
A16
IO
IE R
NT
N6
S4
T
ITT
EM
O
PILGRIM
N9
G2
Q25
WH
TR
RD
ST
TE
R
ES
CH
CO
L
EL ST
N10
E4
EDGAR ST
Q23
VA NCOUVE
CHAP
E7
Q30
G3
N3
TE UR
AVE LOU IS PAS
P3
E8
N12
N8
SHO RT
ST
E10
N11
ST
R1
N4
AY
EVANS W
R9
N5
CI A
N14
LOUIS PRANG ST
E6
RUGGLES ST
AN N U N
N13
R2
E5
VA NCOUVE R
BRO OK LI
N E AVE
E9
E13
ST
N16
E12
T
E11
N15
PA RKER
R4R3
AU TU MN
IN
NT
MUSEUM RD
N17
NS
E14
O
LE
R7
ST
LD
BILLS CT
R6
ST
AY
FIE
N18
O ST
S9
R5
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_LMA_Alt3Tunnel.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 9:09:07 AM
NT
S16
MINDO
R
R8
FE
NW
N
HU
F21
CT
PUBLIC ALLEY 1001
TH
S6
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
EVANS WAY
OU
TAVE RN RD
CA
RL
TO
NM
No nive
U
ST
HALLECK ST
ST
Sears
Rotary
H
UT
O
M
O
NM
M
O
YT
H
HU
D
RS
ON
ON
Q
RO
UE
UG
AV
E
EN
S
ST
BE
RR
YL
S
BO
DR
ER
NA
ME
PE
T
UN
FO
PKase %us RaSiG T ransit %RT ± 3
3
± ± ± 3
ST
5
FENCT
Dual Mode
210
64
14
FO
RS
YT
0.16
H
Hybrid Electric
65
20
1.5
WA
Y
0.16
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
65
20
1.5
0.16
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
65
20
1.5
GR EE N L E A F ST
PKase 3 Rail
70
Heavy Rail
1,610
570
170
23
Light Rail
1,010
290
70
ST
PA
R
ST
CK
H
ST
O
N
ST
ST
D
K
BO
BE
AC
O
YS
IC
EL
AR
N
ST
M
FI
NT
M
ED
SA
I
AR
N
RS
EY
WAY
KE
SW
M
FORSYTH
BE
AC
O
N
ST
ST
HEME NWAY
JE
KI
L
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
n
ter
as ity
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs
P*
e
h
rt
rs
W
NE
DU
DL
S
EY
KI
N
G
ST
RDEIR/DEIS
Potential EMF Levels - LMA
Alternative 3 Tunnel
November 2, 2007
T
ST
DR
ST
ER
RY
RO
UG
F21
S16
FEN
WA
Y
PILGRIM
P4
E2
A6
A7
P1
J3
S3
A29
S1
H1
H3
S11
S10
ST
NT
KE
PILGRIM
RD
AY
RW
DEACONES
S RD
A23
D4
A20
D1
D3
A21
C5
D2
S14
C4
B16 B15 B15
F11
F9
F14
C1
SHATTU
C K ST
F8
F29
F25
F7
F30
F4
F10
F28
F3
F5
C2
C3
A
Q1
WARD ST
Y
MCGREEVEY WA
D1 C12
150 - 300 Feet
135’
At Street
C13
S2
F27
F2
F1
F26
SMITH
ST
HORADAN WAY
SMITH ST
Q33
G5
LMA Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,800
0
200
400
Proposed Route Centerline
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
A4
S3
A2
Q32
STATION ST
Q1
GURNE
Y ST
Urban Ring Phase 2
60 - 60 Feet
60 - 150 Feet
293’ At Street
PRENTISS ST
Distance From Travel Lane
15 - 30 Feet
Tunnel Cross-Section A-A’
F24
C12
C6
Q6
F18
F19
F6
F13
F12
D5
S13
L11
L1
F15
JIMMY FU
ND WAY
Q2
Q3
Q31
L4
L5
J1
C9
C1
C15
D70
Q8
Q10
TURQUOISE WAY
D6
Q17
Q9 Q5Q4
Q13
L9
GTON ST
WORTHIN
E
RIV
JOSLIN RD
Q11
L3
B17
C14
C 11 C10
C13
Q16
Q14
Q20
Q21 Q19
ST
CORNELIA
H2
J2
B20
L 6 L7
SUS ST
SAINT ALPHON
A28
A24
A22
S2
BINNE
Y ST
AUTUMN
LONGWO
OD AVE
B18
F16
C16
ST
A1
A26
A25
S5
F17
I1
A27
L8
F20
BLAC
KFAN
CIRC
LE
O1
TETLOW ST
L10
A2
A5
A3
Q22
Q26
Q24
Q28
Ruggles
Station
Q15
Q18
S15
PALACE RD
LSC
P5
G1
Q29
R ST
A4
A8
N2
VANCOUVE
P2
E1
A’
A11 A9
A14
M1
A10
A12
A15
A13
N7
N1
A17
RD
ST
T
A16
TI
ON
T
N6
S4
IER
NT
S
AVE
BROOKLI
NE
RD
ST
CH
ES
TE
R
CO
L
T
N9
G2
EDGAR ST
Q23
Q25
ST
N10
E4
TEUR
CHAP
EL S
E7
Q30
G3
N3
WH
ITT
CI A
E8
N12
N8
P3
E10
N11
AVE LOUIS PAS
SHORT
ST
N4
EVANS WAY
R1
N5
VANCOUVER
N14
LOUIS PRANG ST
E6
RUGGLES ST
ANN UN
N13
R2
E5
T
E9
E13
ST
N16
E12
T
E11
N15
PARKER
R4R3
R9
BILLS CT
MUSEUM RD
S
ON
LE
E14
N17
DS
R7
L
FIE
N18
R6
ST
TRE
MO
S9
MINDO
RO S
R8
HALLECK ST
CT
R5
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_LMA_Alt3BTunnel.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 10:24:13 AM
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
PUBLIC ALLEY 1001
OU
TH
TAVERN RD
CA
RL
TO
N
S6
NM
EVANS WAY
OU
TH
M
O
NM
M
O
No nive
U
ST
HU
NT
I
HU NGT
ON
NT
IN
GT AVE
ON
AV
E
H
ST
QU
EE
NS
B
YL
S
Sears
Rotary
DR
D
FO
RS
YT
H
PKase Bus RaSiG T ransit BRT ± 3
3
± ± ± 3
ST
5
FENCT
Dual Mode
210
64
14
FO
RS
YT
0.16
HW
Hybrid Electric
65
20
1.5
AY
0.16
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
65
20
1.5
0.16
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
65
20
1.5
GREE NLE A F ST
PKase 3 Rail
70
Heavy Rail
1,610
570
170
23
Light Rail
1,010
290
70
ST
UN
NA
ME
ST
PE
TE
RB
O
ST
CK
TO
N
ST
LD
ST
BO
BE
AC
ON
AR
YS
IC
K
FI
E
M
M
ED
NT
ST
SA
I
AR
NO
ST
PA
RK
BE
AC
O
N
ST
ST
HEMENWAY
KE
SW
M
JE
RS
EY
WAY
FORSYTH
KI
L
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
n
ter
as ity
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs
P*
e
h
rt
rs
65’
Tunnel
Centerline
ST
EY
KI
DL
NG
DU
W
ST
NE
RDEIR/DEIS
Potential EMF Levels - LMA
Alternative 3B Tunnel
November 2, 2007
DR
K
ST
ST
Y
TO
P2
P4
AV
E
GT
GT
IN
E2
A6
A7
P1
LE
A29
S2
E
S1
T
TS
RD
PILGRIM
A20
D1
D3
C5
D2
S14
SHATT
B16 B15 B15
C4
F14
UC K S T
C1
F8
F29
F25
F7
F30
F4
F10
F28
F3
F5
C2
C3
A
Y
MCGREE VEY WA
150 - 300 Feet
135’
At Street
S2
F27
F2
F1
F26
G5
A10
A4
S3
ST
SM ITH
HORA DAN WAY
SMITH ST
Q33
A6
Q32
STATION ST
LMA Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,800
0
200
400
Proposed Route Centerline
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
65’
Tunnel
Centerline
Q1
GU R N E
Y ST
Urban Ring Phase 2
60 - 60 Feet
60 - 150 Feet
293’ At Street
PRENTIS S ST
Distance From Travel Lane
15 - 30 Feet
Tunnel Cross-Section A-A’
A2
F11
F9
C12
C6
WA RD ST
F24
F12
D5
Q1
F18
F19
F15
ND WAY
D4
A21
F6
G TON ST
N
KE
A23
JIM M Y FU
Q6
TURQUO ISE WAY
RD
S13
L11
ST
DEACONES
S
Q2
Q3
C13
F13
C9
C1
C15
Q8
Q31
ONSUS ST
Y
WA
ER
D70
Q9 Q5Q4
Q10
CORNELIA
D6
C13
Q11
Q13
L1
J1
C 11 C10
Q20
Q21 Q19
Ruggles
Station
L3
B17
C14
Q17
L4
L5
J2
B20
Q16
Q14
L9
WORTHIN
RIV
JOSLIN RD
A27
BINNE
Y
S10
H2
F16
L 6 L7
SA INT ALPH
A28
S11
ST
H1
H3
A24
A22
KF AN
OO D AV
B18
BL AC
LO NGW
CIR C
C16
ST
A1
A26
A25
S5
J3
S3
TETLOW ST
L8
F20
Q22
Q26
Q24
Q28
L10
F17
I1
Q29
RD
Q15
Q18
S15
A2
A5
A3
P5
G1
PA LACE RD
LSC
N2
R ST
A4
A8
O1
E1
A’
A11 A9
A14
M1
A10
A12
A15
A13
N7
N1
A17
N
ST
ST
A16
IO
IE R
NT
N6
S4
T
ITT
EM
O
PILGRIM
N9
G2
Q25
WH
TR
RD
ST
TE
R
ES
CH
CO
L
EL ST
N10
E4
EDGAR ST
Q23
VA NCOUVE
CHAP
E7
Q30
G3
N3
TE UR
AVE LOU IS PAS
P3
E8
N12
N8
SHO RT
ST
E10
N11
ST
R1
N4
AY
EVANS W
R9
N5
CI A
N14
LOUIS PRANG ST
E6
RUGGLES ST
AN N U N
N13
R2
E5
VA NCOUVE R
BRO OK LI
N E AVE
E9
E13
ST
N16
E12
T
E11
N15
PA RKER
R4R3
AU TU MN
IN
NT
MUSEUM RD
N17
NS
E14
O
LE
R7
ST
LD
BILLS CT
R6
ST
AY
FIE
N18
O ST
S9
R5
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_LMA_Alt3ACTunnel.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 10:28:38 AM
NT
S16
MINDO
R
R8
FE
NW
N
HU
F21
CT
PUBLIC ALLEY 1001
TH
S6
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
EVANS WAY
OU
TAVE RN RD
CA
RL
TO
NM
No nive
U
ST
HALLECK ST
ST
Sears
Rotary
H
UT
O
M
O
NM
M
O
YT
H
HU
D
RS
ON
ON
Q
RO
UE
UG
AV
E
EN
S
ST
BE
RR
YL
S
BO
DR
ER
NA
ME
PE
T
UN
FO
PKase %us RaSiG T ransit %RT ± 3
3
± ± ± 3
ST
5
FENCT
Dual Mode
210
64
14
FO
RS
YT
0.16
H
Hybrid Electric
65
20
1.5
WA
Y
0.16
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
65
20
1.5
0.16
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
65
20
1.5
GR EE N L E A F ST
PKase 3 Rail
70
Heavy Rail
1,610
570
170
23
Light Rail
1,010
290
70
ST
PA
R
ST
CK
H
ST
O
N
ST
ST
D
K
BO
BE
AC
O
YS
IC
EL
AR
N
ST
M
FI
NT
M
ED
SA
I
AR
N
RS
EY
WAY
KE
SW
M
FORSYTH
BE
AC
O
N
ST
ST
HEME NWAY
JE
KI
L
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
n
ter
as ity
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs
P*
e
h
rt
rs
W
NE
DU
DL
S
EY
T
KI
N
ST
RDEIR/DEIS
Potential EMF Levels - LMA
Alternatives 3A & 3C Tunnel
November 2, 2007
G
ST
DR
ST
ER
RY
RO
UG
S6
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
F21
S16
PILGRIM
P4
A6
A’
A7
P1
J3
S3
A29
S1
H1
H3
S11
S10
ST
NT
KE
PILGRIM
RD
AY
RW
DEACONES
S RD
A23
D4
A20
D1
D3
A21
D2
S14
C5
A
B16 B15 B15
C4
C1
SHATTU
C K ST
F11
F9
F14
F8
F29
F25
F7
F30
F4
F10
F28
F3
F5
C2
C3
Q1
WARD ST
Y
MCGREEVEY WA
D1
150 - 300 Feet
C12
135’
At Street
C13
S2
F27
F2
F1
F26
SMITH
ST
HORADAN WAY
SMITH ST
Q33
G5
LMA Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,800
0
200
400
Proposed Route Centerline
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
A4
S3
A2
Q32
STATION ST
Q1
GURNE
Y ST
Urban Ring Phase 2
60 - 60 Feet
60 - 150 Feet
293’ At Street
PRENTISS ST
Distance From Travel Lane
15 - 30 Feet
Tunnel Cross-Section A-A’
F24
C12
C6
Q6
F18
F19
F6
F13
F12
D5
S13
L11
L1
F15
JIMMY FU
ND WAY
Q2
Q3
Q31
L4
L5
J1
C9
C1
C15
D70
Q8
Q10
TURQUOISE WAY
D6
Q17
Q9 Q5Q4
Q13
L9
GTON ST
WORTHIN
E
RIV
JOSLIN RD
Q11
L3
B17
C14
C 11 C10
C13
Q16
Q14
Q20
Q21 Q19
ST
CORNELIA
H2
J2
B20
L 6 L7
SUS ST
SAINT ALPHON
A28
A24
A22
S2
BINNE
Y ST
AUTUMN
LONGWO
OD AVE
B18
F16
C16
ST
A1
A26
A25
S5
F17
I1
A27
L8
F20
BLAC
KFAN
CIRC
LE
O1
TETLOW ST
L10
A2
A5
A3
Q22
Q26
Q24
Q28
Ruggles
Station
Q15
Q18
S15
PALACE RD
LSC
P5
G1
Q29
R ST
A4
A8
N2
VANCOUVE
P2
E1
E2
A11 A9
A14
M1
A10
A12
A15
A13
N7
N1
A17
RD
ST
T
A16
TI
ON
T
N6
S4
IER
NT
S
AVE
BROOKLI
NE
RD
ST
CH
ES
TE
R
CO
L
T
N9
G2
EDGAR ST
Q23
Q25
ST
N10
E4
TEUR
CHAP
EL S
E7
Q30
G3
N3
WH
ITT
CI A
E8
N12
N8
P3
E10
N11
AVE LOUIS PAS
SHORT
ST
N4
EVANS WAY
R1
N5
VANCOUVER
N14
LOUIS PRANG ST
E6
RUGGLES ST
ANN UN
N13
R2
E5
T
E9
E13
ST
N16
E12
T
E11
N15
PARKER
R4R3
R5
R9
BILLS CT
MUSEUM RD
S
ON
LE
E14
N17
DS
R7
L
FIE
N18
R6
ST
TAVERN RD
FEN
WA
Y
TRE
MO
S9
MINDO
RO S
R8
HALLECK ST
CT
PUBLIC ALLEY 1001
OU
TH
EVANS WAY
NM
No nive
U
ST
HU
NT
I
HU NGT
ON
NT
IN
GT AVE
ON
AV
E
ST
QU
EE
NS
B
YL
S
Sears
Rotary
ST
OU
TH
M
O
NM
M
O
DR
D
FO
RS
YT
H
PKase %us RaSiG T ransit %RT ± ± ± ± ST
5
FENCT
Dual Mode
210
64
14
FO
RS
YT
0.16
HW
Hybrid Electric
65
20
1.5
AY
0.16
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
65
20
1.5
0.16
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
65
20
1.5
GREE NLE A F ST
PKase Rail
70
Heavy Rail
1,610
570
170
23
Light Rail
1,010
290
70
PE
TE
RB
O
UN
NA
ME
CA
RL
TO
N
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_LMA_Alt4Tunnel.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 10:30:00 AM
ST
H
ST
CK
TO
N
ST
LD
ST
BO
BE
AC
ON
AR
YS
IC
K
FI
E
M
M
ED
NT
ST
SA
I
AR
NO
ST
PA
RK
BE
AC
O
N
ST
ST
HEMENWAY
KE
SW
M
JE
RS
EY
WAY
FORSYTH
KI
L
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
n
ter
as ity
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs
P*
e
h
rt
rs
65’
Tunnel
Centerline
ST
EY
KI
DL
NG
DU
W
ST
NE
RDEIR/DEIS
Potential EMF Levels - LMA
Alternative 4 Tunnel
November 2, 2007
DR
K
ST
ST
Y
TO
P2
P4
AV
E
GT
GT
IN
E2
A6
A7
P1
LE
A29
S2
E
S1
T
TS
RD
PILGRIM
A20
D1
D3
C5
D2
S14
SHATT
B16 B15 B15
C4
F14
UC K S T
C1
F8
F29
F25
F7
F30
F4
F10
F28
F3
F5
C2
C3
A
Y
MCGREE VEY WA
150 - 300 Feet
135’
At Street
S2
F27
F2
F1
F26
G5
A4
S3
ST
SM ITH
HORA DAN WAY
SMITH ST
Q33
A10
A6
Q32
STATION ST
LMA Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,800
0
200
400
Proposed Route Centerline
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
65’
Tunnel
Centerline
Q1
GU R N E
Y ST
Urban Ring Phase 2
60 - 60 Feet
60 - 150 Feet
293’ At Street
PRENTIS S ST
Distance From Travel Lane
15 - 30 Feet
Tunnel Cross-Section A-A’
A2
F11
F9
C12
C6
WA RD ST
F24
F12
D5
Q1
F18
F19
F15
ND WAY
D4
A21
F6
G TON ST
N
KE
A23
JIM M Y FU
Q6
TURQUO ISE WAY
RD
S13
L11
ST
DEACONES
S
Q2
Q3
C13
F13
C9
C1
C15
Q8
Q31
ONSUS ST
Y
WA
ER
D70
Q9 Q5Q4
Q10
CORNELIA
D6
C13
Q11
Q13
L1
J1
C 11 C10
Q20
Q21 Q19
Ruggles
Station
L3
B17
C14
Q17
L4
L5
J2
B20
Q16
Q14
L9
WORTHIN
RIV
JOSLIN RD
A27
BINNE
Y
S10
H2
F16
L 6 L7
SA INT ALPH
A28
S11
ST
H1
H3
A24
A22
KF AN
OO D AV
B18
BL AC
LO NGW
CIR C
C16
ST
A1
A26
A25
S5
J3
S3
TETLOW ST
L8
F20
Q22
Q26
Q24
Q28
L10
F17
I1
Q29
RD
Q15
Q18
S15
A2
A5
A3
P5
G1
PA LACE RD
LSC
N2
R ST
A4
A8
O1
E1
A’
A11 A9
A14
M1
A10
A12
A15
A13
N7
N1
A17
N
ST
ST
A16
IO
IE R
NT
N6
S4
T
ITT
EM
O
PILGRIM
N9
G2
Q25
WH
TR
RD
ST
TE
R
ES
CH
CO
L
EL ST
N10
E4
EDGAR ST
Q23
VA NCOUVE
CHAP
E7
Q30
G3
N3
TE UR
AVE LOU IS PAS
P3
E8
N12
N8
SHO RT
ST
E10
N11
ST
R1
N4
AY
EVANS W
R9
N5
CI A
N14
LOUIS PRANG ST
E6
RUGGLES ST
AN N U N
N13
R2
E5
VA NCOUVE R
BRO OK LI
N E AVE
E9
E13
ST
N16
E12
T
E11
N15
PA RKER
R4R3
AU TU MN
IN
NT
MUSEUM RD
N17
NS
E14
O
LE
R7
ST
LD
BILLS CT
R6
ST
AY
FIE
N18
O ST
S9
R5
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_LMA_Alt4ATunnel.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 1:59:36 PM
NT
S16
MINDO
R
R8
FE
NW
N
HU
F21
CT
PUBLIC ALLEY 1001
TH
S6
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
EVANS WAY
OU
TAVE RN RD
CA
RL
TO
NM
No nive
U
ST
HALLECK ST
ST
Sears
Rotary
H
UT
O
M
O
NM
M
O
YT
H
HU
D
RS
ON
ON
Q
RO
UE
UG
AV
E
EN
S
ST
BE
RR
YL
S
BO
DR
ER
NA
ME
PE
T
UN
FO
PKase %us RaSiG T ransit %RT ± ± ± ± ST
5
FENCT
Dual Mode
210
64
14
FO
RS
YT
0.16
H
Hybrid Electric
65
20
1.5
WA
Y
0.16
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
65
20
1.5
0.16
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
65
20
1.5
GR EE N L E A F ST
PKase Rail
70
Heavy Rail
1,610
570
170
23
Light Rail
1,010
290
70
ST
PA
R
ST
CK
H
ST
O
N
ST
ST
D
K
BO
BE
AC
O
YS
IC
EL
AR
N
ST
M
FI
NT
M
ED
SA
I
AR
N
RS
EY
WAY
KE
SW
M
FORSYTH
BE
AC
O
N
ST
ST
HEME NWAY
JE
KI
L
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
n
ter
as ity
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs
P*
e
h
rt
rs
W
NE
DU
DL
S
EY
KI
N
G
ST
RDEIR/DEIS
Potential EMF Levels - LMA
Alternative 4A Tunnel
November 2, 2007
T
ST
DR
ER
RY
F21
S16
FEN
WA
Y
PILGRIM
P4
A6
A7
P1
J3
S3
A29
S2
S1
H1
H3
S10
PILGRIM
RD
AY
RW
ST
NT
KE
A23
D4
A20
D1
D3
A21
C5
D2
S14
B16 B15 B15
C4
C1
SHATTU
C K ST
F11
F9
F14
F8
F29
F25
F7
F30
F4
F10
F28
F3
F5
C2
C3
Q6
Q1
WARD ST
Q31
PRENTISS ST
Y
MCGREEVEY WA
F24
F12
C6
S13
F18
F19
F6
C12
D5
F27
F2
F1
F26
SMITH
ST
HORADAN WAY
SMITH ST
G5
LMA Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
150 - 300 Feet
1:4,800
0
60 - 60 Feet
60 - 150 Feet
Q33
Q32
STATION ST
Q1
ST
EY
KI
DL
NG
DU
W
ST
NE
GURNE
Y ST
Urban Ring Phase 2
Distance From Travel Lane
15 - 30 Feet
Q2
Q3
L11
L1
F15
JIMMY FU
ND WAY
Q8
Q10
L3
B17
F13
C9
C1
C15
D70
DEACONES
S RD
Q9 Q5Q4
TURQUOISE WAY
A27
D6
Q17
L4
L5
GTON ST
WORTHIN
E
RIV
JOSLIN RD
Q11
Q13
L9
J1
C 11 C10
C13
Q16
Q14
Q20
Q21 Q19
ST
CORNELIA
H2
J2
B20
C14
L 6 L7
SUS ST
SAINT ALPHON
A28
S11
BINNE
Y ST
AUTUMN
LONGWO
OD AVE
B18
F16
C16
ST
A1
A24
A22
S5
F17
I1
A26
A25
L8
F20
BLAC
KFAN
CIRC
LE
O1
TETLOW ST
L10
A2
A5
A3
Q22
Q26
Q24
Q28
Ruggles
Station
Q15
Q18
S15
PALACE RD
LSC
P5
G1
Q29
R ST
A4
A8
N2
VANCOUVE
P2
E1
E2
A11 A9
A14
M1
A10
A12
A15
A13
N7
N1
A17
RD
ST
T
A16
TI
ON
T
N6
S4
IER
NT
S
AVE
BROOKLI
NE
RD
ST
CH
ES
TE
R
CO
L
T
N9
G2
EDGAR ST
Q23
Q25
ST
N10
E4
TEUR
CHAP
EL S
E7
Q30
G3
N3
WH
ITT
CI A
E8
N12
N8
P3
E10
N11
AVE LOUIS PAS
SHORT
ST
N4
EVANS WAY
R1
N5
VANCOUVER
N14
LOUIS PRANG ST
E6
RUGGLES ST
ANN UN
N13
R2
E5
T
E9
E13
ST
N16
E12
T
E11
N15
PARKER
R4R3
R9
BILLS CT
MUSEUM RD
S
ON
LE
E14
N17
DS
R7
L
FIE
N18
R6
ST
TRE
MO
S9
MINDO
RO S
R8
HALLECK ST
CT
R5
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_LMA_Hybrid1.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 10:56:02 AM
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
PUBLIC ALLEY 1001
OU
TH
TAVERN RD
CA
RL
TO
N
S6
NM
EVANS WAY
OU
TH
M
O
NM
M
O
No nive
U
ST
HU
NT
I
HU NGT
ON
NT
IN
GT AVE
ON
AV
E
QU
EE
NS
B
ST
RO
UG
PE
TE
RB
O
DR
D
ST
UN
NA
ME
FO
RS
YT
H
PKase %Xs RaSiG T ransit %RT 1
± ± ± 1
1
± ST
5
FENCT
Dual Mode
210
64
14
FO
RS
YT
0.16
HW
Hybrid Electric
65
20
1.5
AY
0.16
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
65
20
1.5
0.16
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
65
20
1.5
GREE NLE A F ST
PKase Rail
70
Heavy Rail
1,610
570
170
23
Light Rail
1,010
290
70
ST
TO
N
ST
H
ST
CK
YL
S
ST
Sears
Rotary
LD
ST
BO
BE
AC
ON
AR
YS
IC
K
FI
E
M
M
ED
NT
ST
SA
I
AR
NO
ST
PA
RK
BE
AC
O
N
ST
ST
HEMENWAY
KE
SW
M
JE
RS
EY
WAY
FORSYTH
KI
L
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
n
ter
as ity
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs
P*
e
h
rt
rs
200
400
Potential EMF Levels - LMA
Alternative H1
Proposed Route Centerline
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
RDEIR/DEIS
November 2, 2007
ST
DR
ER
RY
F21
S16
FEN
WA
Y
PILGRIM
P4
A6
A7
P1
J3
S3
A29
S2
S1
H1
H3
S10
PILGRIM
RD
AY
RW
ST
NT
KE
A23
D4
A20
D1
D3
A21
C5
D2
S14
B16 B15 B15
C4
C1
SHATTU
C K ST
F11
F9
F14
F8
F29
F25
F7
F30
F4
F10
F28
F3
F5
C2
C3
Q6
Q1
WARD ST
Q31
PRENTISS ST
Y
MCGREEVEY WA
F24
F12
C6
S13
F18
F19
F6
C12
D5
F27
F2
F1
F26
SMITH
ST
HORADAN WAY
SMITH ST
G5
LMA Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
150 - 300 Feet
1:4,800
0
60 - 60 Feet
60 - 150 Feet
Q33
Q32
STATION ST
Q1
ST
EY
KI
DL
NG
DU
W
ST
NE
GURNE
Y ST
Urban Ring Phase 2
Distance From Travel Lane
15 - 30 Feet
Q2
Q3
L11
L1
F15
JIMMY FU
ND WAY
Q8
Q10
L3
B17
F13
C9
C1
C15
D70
DEACONES
S RD
Q9 Q5Q4
TURQUOISE WAY
A27
D6
Q17
L4
L5
GTON ST
WORTHIN
E
RIV
JOSLIN RD
Q11
Q13
L9
J1
C 11 C10
C13
Q16
Q14
Q20
Q21 Q19
ST
CORNELIA
H2
J2
B20
C14
L 6 L7
SUS ST
SAINT ALPHON
A28
S11
BINNE
Y ST
AUTUMN
LONGWO
OD AVE
B18
F16
C16
ST
A1
A24
A22
S5
F17
I1
A26
A25
L8
F20
BLAC
KFAN
CIRC
LE
O1
TETLOW ST
L10
A2
A5
A3
Q22
Q26
Q24
Q28
Ruggles
Station
Q15
Q18
S15
PALACE RD
LSC
P5
G1
Q29
R ST
A4
A8
N2
VANCOUVE
P2
E1
E2
A11 A9
A14
M1
A10
A12
A15
A13
N7
N1
A17
RD
ST
T
A16
TI
ON
T
N6
S4
IER
NT
S
AVE
BROOKLI
NE
RD
ST
CH
ES
TE
R
CO
L
T
N9
G2
EDGAR ST
Q23
Q25
ST
N10
E4
TEUR
CHAP
EL S
E7
Q30
G3
N3
WH
ITT
CI A
E8
N12
N8
P3
E10
N11
AVE LOUIS PAS
SHORT
ST
N4
EVANS WAY
R1
N5
VANCOUVER
N14
LOUIS PRANG ST
E6
RUGGLES ST
ANN UN
N13
R2
E5
T
E9
E13
ST
N16
E12
T
E11
N15
PARKER
R4R3
R9
BILLS CT
MUSEUM RD
S
ON
LE
E14
N17
DS
R7
L
FIE
N18
R6
ST
TRE
MO
S9
MINDO
RO S
R8
HALLECK ST
CT
R5
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_LMA_Hybrid2.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 10:57:28 AM
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
PUBLIC ALLEY 1001
OU
TH
TAVERN RD
CA
RL
TO
N
S6
NM
EVANS WAY
OU
TH
M
O
NM
M
O
No nive
U
ST
HU
NT
I
HU NGT
ON
NT
IN
GT AVE
ON
AV
E
QU
EE
NS
B
ST
RO
UG
PE
TE
RB
O
DR
D
ST
UN
NA
ME
FO
RS
YT
H
PKase 2 %Xs RaSiG T ransit %RT ± ± ± ± ST
5
FENCT
Dual Mode
210
64
14
FO
RS
YT
0.16
HW
Hybrid Electric
65
20
1.5
AY
0.16
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
65
20
1.5
0.16
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
65
20
1.5
GREE NLE A F ST
PKase Rail
70
Heavy Rail
1,610
570
170
23
Light Rail
1,010
290
70
ST
TO
N
ST
H
ST
CK
YL
S
ST
Sears
Rotary
LD
ST
BO
BE
AC
ON
AR
YS
IC
K
FI
E
M
M
ED
NT
ST
SA
I
AR
NO
ST
PA
RK
BE
AC
O
N
ST
ST
HEMENWAY
KE
SW
M
JE
RS
EY
WAY
FORSYTH
KI
L
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
n
ter
as ity
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs
P*
e
h
rt
rs
200
400
Potential EMF Levels - LMA
Alternative H2
Proposed Route Centerline
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
RDEIR/DEIS
November 2, 2007
DR
K
ST
ST
Y
TO
P2
P4
AV
E
GT
GT
IN
A6
A7
A’
P1
O1
LE
A29
S2
E
S1
RD
PILGRIM
D4
T
TS
A20
D1
D3
A21
C12
C6
C5
D2
S14
SHATT
B16 B15 B15
F14
UC K S T
C1
F8
F29
F25
F7
F30
F4
F10
F28
F3
F5
C2
C3
A
C4
F11
F9
F12
D5
150 - 300 Feet
C12
D1
135’
At Street
C13
S2
F27
F2
F1
F26
ST
SM ITH
HORA DAN WAY
SMITH ST
Q33
G5
LMA Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,800
0
200
400
Proposed Route Centerline
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
A4
S3
A2
Q32
STATION ST
65’
Tunnel
Centerline
Q1
GU R N E
Y ST
Urban Ring Phase 2
60 - 60 Feet
60 - 150 Feet
293’ At Street
Y
MCGREE VEY WA
Distance From Travel Lane
15 - 30 Feet
Tunnel Cross-Section A-A’
F24
F15
ND WAY
WA RD ST
F18
F19
G TON ST
N
KE
A23
JIM M Y FU
Q1
ST
RD
Q6
PRENTIS S ST
ONSUS ST
Y
WA
ER
DEACONES
S
F6
F13
C9
C1
C15
S13
TURQUO ISE WAY
D6
D70
Q2
Q3
L11
L1
WORTHIN
RIV
JOSLIN RD
A27
C13
Q8
Q10
L3
J1
C 11 C10
Q9 Q5Q4
Q31
L4
L5
B17
C14
Q17
Ruggles
Station
Q11
Q13
L9
J2
B20
Q16
Q14
Q20
Q21 Q19
CORNELIA
H2
BINNE
Y
S10
F16
L 6 L7
SA INT ALPH
A28
S11
ST
H1
H3
A24
A22
KF AN
OO D AV
B18
BL AC
LO NGW
CIR C
C16
ST
A1
A26
A25
S5
J3
S3
TETLOW ST
L8
F20
Q22
Q26
Q24
Q28
L10
F17
I1
Q29
RD
Q15
Q18
S15
A2
A5
A3
P5
G1
PA LACE RD
LSC
N2
R ST
A4
A8
E1
E2
A11 A9
A14
M1
A10
A12
A15
A13
N7
N1
A17
N
ST
ST
A16
IO
IE R
NT
N6
S4
T
ITT
EM
O
PILGRIM
N9
G2
Q25
WH
TR
RD
ST
TE
R
ES
CH
CO
L
EL ST
N10
E4
EDGAR ST
Q23
VA NCOUVE
CHAP
E7
Q30
G3
N3
TE UR
AVE LOU IS PAS
P3
E8
N12
N8
SHO RT
ST
E10
N11
ST
R1
N4
AY
EVANS W
R9
N5
CI A
N14
LOUIS PRANG ST
E6
RUGGLES ST
AN N U N
N13
R2
E5
VA NCOUVE R
BRO OK LI
N E AVE
E9
E13
ST
N16
E12
T
E11
N15
PA RKER
R4R3
AU TU MN
IN
NT
MUSEUM RD
N17
NS
E14
O
LE
R7
ST
LD
BILLS CT
R6
ST
AY
FIE
N18
O ST
S9
R5
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_LMA_Hybrid2T.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 10:58:58 AM
NT
S16
MINDO
R
R8
FE
NW
N
HU
F21
CT
PUBLIC ALLEY 1001
TH
S6
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
EVANS WAY
OU
TAVE RN RD
CA
RL
TO
NM
No nive
U
ST
HALLECK ST
ST
Sears
Rotary
H
UT
O
M
O
NM
M
O
YT
H
HU
D
RS
ON
ON
Q
RO
UE
UG
AV
E
EN
S
ST
BE
RR
YL
S
BO
DR
ER
NA
ME
PE
T
UN
FO
PKase 2 %us RaSiG T ransit (%RT )
± ± ± ± ST
5
FENCT
Dual Mode
210
64
14
FO
RS
YT
0.16
H
Hybrid Electric
65
20
1.5
WA
Y
0.16
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
65
20
1.5
0.16
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
65
20
1.5
GR EE N L E A F ST
PKase Rail
70
Heavy Rail
1,610
570
170
23
Light Rail
1,010
290
70
ST
PA
R
ST
CK
H
ST
O
N
ST
ST
D
K
BO
BE
AC
O
YS
IC
EL
AR
N
ST
M
FI
NT
M
ED
SA
I
AR
N
RS
EY
WAY
KE
SW
M
FORSYTH
BE
AC
O
N
ST
ST
HEME NWAY
JE
KI
L
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
n
ter
as ity
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs
(P*)
e
h
rt
rs
W
NE
DU
DL
S
EY
T
G
ST
RDEIR/DEIS
Potential EMF Levels - LMA
Alternative H2(T) Tunnel
November 2, 2007
KI
N
ST
T
T
T
RT
S
ALBANY ST
N4
N10 N9
46
N16
RD
41
48
44
42
43
VASSAR ST
NE30
38
34
32
NE25
31
W32
ST
24
S
26
9
W35
68
E48
FOWLER LN
ERPASS
MEMORIAL DR
Urban Ring Phase 2
MIT Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,200
0
60 - 60 Feet
OR
TH
ST
AMHERST ST
1
E40
175
350
E5
RDEIR/DEIS
Alternative 1
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
E53
Potential EMF Levels - MIT
Proposed Route Centerline
November 2, 2007
E55
W AD
SW
W1
DR
G5
MAIN ST
ST
E34
HA
YW
AR
D
ST
TO
N
PRINCE
E39
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
Distance From Travel Lane
150 - 300 Feet
E38
E42
MEMORIAL DR UNDERPASS MEMOR
IAL DR UND
60 - 150 Feet
ST
ST
DANFORTH ST
ENDICOTT
ST
E25/23
W13
5
15 - 30 Feet
E28
E28
DE
AC
ON
7
TON AVE
W11
MEMORIAL
E19
12
7/7A
CA
RL
E
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_MIT_Alt1.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 11:00:30 AM
W20
AMHERST
NE20
ST
3333/17
39
C
AM
E
W33
W31
37
LO
OR
CT
NE
DO
CK
35
W79
36
ON
KC
MI
D
W59
-B
W45
W79
NPL
A
NW20
NW15
N16A
NW13 NW12
NW12
JO
NW30
NW14
NW21
ST
W
AY
AY
DW
BR
NW10
ST
ST
EO
NW16 NW10
G
AL
IL
AVE
NW17
70
23
170
70
ST
OS
BO
RN
ST
ER
IE
NW22
T
N
ST
S
ETT
US
CH
SA
ST
S
RLY
VE
WA
SM
A
S
MA
S
OS
CR
IA M
RR
ME
PURRINGTON ST
570
290
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
LANSDOWNE ST
MA
I
1,610
1,010
EY
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
FRO
NT S
T
FU
LK
ER
SO
N
ST
AG
E
ST
NN
BI
NS
EEN
GR
ST
ST
AT
E
VI
LL
T
LI
NK
FRA
T
S
RIM
PILG
S
HE
NC
BLA
± ± 1
1
± 5
64
14
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
ST
CH
ER
RY
ST
T
T
S
ILY
EM
RS
DO
TU
ST
1
± 210
65
65
65
E ST
SHIR
HAMP
PKase %Xs RaSiG T ransit
%RT ST
IS
AV
D
Dual Mode
ST
ND
LA
T
Hybrid Electric
R
PO
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
PKase Rail
Y
NE
BIN
S
IFIC
PAC
ST
Y
NE
SID
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs P*
ST
ST
R
SO
D
N
I
W
N
TO
T
T
T
C
T
G
SC
HO
OL
S
E
OR
MO
D
AR
RV
HA
ST
ST
N
HI
AS
W
ST
IM S
GR
PIL
EZ
LOP
RS
ATU
DEC
E
TIN
LEN
VA
NE
K LI
OO
BR
C
H
ER
R
Y
ST
T
T
T
RT
S
ALBANY ST
N4
N10 N9
46
N16
RD
41
48
44
42
43
VASSAR ST
NE30
38
34
32
NE25
31
W32
ST
24
S
26
9
W35
68
E48
FOWLER LN
ERPASS
MEMORIAL DR
Urban Ring Phase 2
MIT Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,200
0
60 - 60 Feet
OR
TH
ST
AMHERST ST
1
E40
175
350
E5
RDEIR/DEIS
Alternative 2
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
E53
Potential EMF Levels - MIT
Proposed Route Centerline
November 2, 2007
E55
W AD
SW
W1
DR
G5
MAIN ST
ST
E34
HA
YW
AR
D
ST
TO
N
PRINCE
E39
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
Distance From Travel Lane
150 - 300 Feet
E38
E42
MEMORIAL DR UNDERPASS MEMOR
IAL DR UND
60 - 150 Feet
ST
ST
DANFORTH ST
ENDICOTT
ST
E25/23
W13
5
15 - 30 Feet
E28
E28
DE
AC
ON
7
TON AVE
W11
MEMORIAL
E19
12
7/7A
CA
RL
E
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_MIT_Alt2.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 11:03:13 AM
W20
AMHERST
NE20
ST
3333/17
39
C
AM
E
W33
W31
37
LO
OR
CT
NE
DO
CK
35
W79
36
ON
KC
MI
D
W59
-B
W45
W79
NPL
A
NW20
NW15
N16A
NW13 NW12
NW12
JO
NW30
NW14
NW21
ST
W
AY
AY
DW
BR
NW10
ST
ST
EO
NW16 NW10
G
AL
IL
AVE
NW17
70
23
170
70
ST
OS
BO
RN
ST
ER
IE
NW22
T
N
ST
S
ETT
US
CH
SA
ST
S
RLY
VE
WA
SM
A
S
MA
S
OS
CR
IA M
RR
ME
PURRINGTON ST
570
290
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
LANSDOWNE ST
MA
I
1,610
1,010
EY
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
FRO
NT S
T
FU
LK
ER
SO
N
ST
AG
E
ST
NN
BI
NS
EEN
GR
ST
ST
AT
E
VI
LL
T
LI
NK
FRA
T
S
RIM
PILG
S
HE
NC
BLA
± ± ± 5
64
14
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
ST
CH
ER
RY
ST
T
T
S
ILY
EM
RS
DO
TU
ST
± 210
65
65
65
E ST
SHIR
HAMP
PKase 2 %Xs RaSiG T ransit
%RT ST
IS
AV
D
Dual Mode
ST
ND
LA
T
Hybrid Electric
R
PO
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
PKase Rail
Y
NE
BIN
S
IFIC
PAC
ST
Y
NE
SID
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs P*
ST
ST
R
SO
D
N
I
W
N
TO
T
T
T
C
T
G
SC
HO
OL
S
E
OR
MO
D
AR
RV
HA
ST
ST
N
HI
AS
W
ST
IM S
GR
PIL
EZ
LOP
RS
ATU
DEC
E
TIN
LEN
VA
NE
K LI
OO
BR
C
H
ER
R
Y
ST
T
T
T
RT
S
ALBANY ST
N4
N10 N9
46
N16
RD
41
48
44
42
43
VASSAR ST
NE30
38
34
32
NE25
31
W32
ST
24
S
26
9
W35
68
E48
OR
TH
ST
AMHERST ST
FOWLER LN
1
ERPASS
MEMORIAL DR
Urban Ring Phase 2
MIT Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,200
0
60 - 60 Feet
E40
175
350
E5
RDEIR/DEIS
Alternative 2A
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
E53
Potential EMF Levels - MIT
Proposed Route Centerline
November 2, 2007
E55
W AD
SW
W1
DR
G5
MAIN ST
ST
E34
HA
YW
AR
D
ST
TO
N
PRINCE
E39
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
Distance From Travel Lane
150 - 300 Feet
E38
E42
MEMORIAL DR UNDERPASS MEMOR
IAL DR UND
60 - 150 Feet
ST
ST
DANFORTH ST
ENDICOTT
ST
E25/23
W13
5
15 - 30 Feet
E28
E28
DE
AC
ON
7
TON AVE
W11
MEMORIAL
E19
12
7/7A
CA
RL
E
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_MIT_Alt2A.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 11:05:15 AM
W20
AMHERST
NE20
ST
3333/17
39
C
AM
E
W33
W31
37
LO
OR
CT
NE
DO
CK
35
W79
36
ON
KC
MI
D
W59
-B
W45
W79
NPL
A
NW20
NW15
N16A
NW13 NW12
NW12
JO
NW30
NW14
NW21
ST
W
AY
AY
DW
BR
NW10
ST
ST
EO
NW16 NW10
G
AL
IL
AVE
NW17
70
23
170
70
ST
OS
BO
RN
ST
ER
IE
NW22
T
N
ST
S
ETT
US
CH
SA
ST
S
RLY
VE
WA
SM
A
S
MA
S
OS
CR
IA M
RR
ME
PURRINGTON ST
570
290
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
LANSDOWNE ST
MA
I
1,610
1,010
EY
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
FRO
NT S
T
FU
LK
ER
SO
N
ST
AG
E
ST
NN
BI
NS
EEN
GR
ST
ST
AT
E
VI
LL
T
LI
NK
FRA
T
S
RIM
PILG
S
HE
NC
BLA
± ± ± 5
64
14
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
ST
CH
ER
RY
ST
T
T
S
ILY
EM
RS
DO
TU
ST
± 210
65
65
65
E ST
SHIR
HAMP
PKase 2 %Xs RaSiG T ransit
%RT ST
IS
AV
D
Dual Mode
ST
ND
LA
T
Hybrid Electric
R
PO
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
PKase Rail
Y
NE
BIN
S
IFIC
PAC
ST
Y
NE
SID
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs P*
ST
ST
R
SO
D
N
I
W
N
TO
T
T
T
C
T
G
SC
HO
OL
S
E
OR
MO
D
AR
RV
HA
ST
ST
N
HI
AS
W
ST
IM S
GR
PIL
EZ
LOP
RS
ATU
DEC
E
TIN
LEN
VA
NE
K LI
OO
BR
C
H
ER
R
Y
ST
T
T
T
RT
S
ALBANY ST
N4
N10 N9
46
N16
RD
41
48
44
42
43
VASSAR ST
NE30
38
34
32
NE25
31
W32
ST
24
S
26
9
W20
68
E34
E48
FOWLER LN
ERPASS
MEMORIAL DR
Urban Ring Phase 2
MIT Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,200
0
60 - 60 Feet
OR
TH
ST
AMHERST ST
1
E40
175
350
Proposed Route Centerline
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
E55
W AD
SW
W1
DR
G5
MAIN ST
ST
ST
TO
N
CA
RL
E
PRINCE
E39
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
Distance From Travel Lane
150 - 300 Feet
E38
E42
MEMORIAL DR UNDERPASS MEMOR
IAL DR UND
60 - 150 Feet
ST
ST
DANFORTH ST
ENDICOTT
ST
E25/23
W13
5
15 - 30 Feet
E28
E28
DE
AC
ON
7
TON AVE
W11
MEMORIAL
E19
12
7/7A
AMHERST
NE20
HA
YW
AR
D
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_MIT_Alt3ABC.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 11:06:27 AM
W35
ST
3333/17
39
C
AM
E
W33
W31
37
LO
OR
CT
NE
DO
CK
35
W79
36
ON
KC
MI
D
W59
-B
W45
W79
NPL
A
NW20
NW15
N16A
NW13 NW12
NW12
JO
NW30
NW14
NW21
ST
W
AY
AY
DW
BR
NW10
ST
ST
EO
NW16 NW10
G
AL
IL
AVE
NW17
70
23
170
70
ST
OS
BO
RN
ST
ER
IE
NW22
T
N
ST
S
ETT
US
CH
SA
ST
S
RLY
VE
WA
SM
A
S
MA
S
OS
CR
IA M
RR
ME
PURRINGTON ST
570
290
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
LANSDOWNE ST
MA
I
1,610
1,010
EY
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
FRO
NT S
T
FU
LK
ER
SO
N
ST
AG
E
ST
NN
BI
NS
EEN
GR
ST
ST
AT
E
VI
LL
T
LI
NK
FRA
T
S
RIM
PILG
S
HE
NC
BLA
3
± ± ± 3
5
64
14
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
ST
CH
ER
RY
ST
T
T
S
ILY
EM
RS
DO
TU
ST
± 3
210
65
65
65
E ST
SHIR
HAMP
PKase BXs RaSiG T ransit
BRT ST
IS
AV
D
Dual Mode
ST
ND
LA
T
Hybrid Electric
R
PO
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
PKase 3 Rail
Y
NE
BIN
S
IFIC
PAC
ST
Y
NE
SID
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs P*
ST
ST
R
SO
D
N
I
W
N
TO
T
T
T
C
T
G
SC
HO
OL
S
E
OR
MO
D
AR
RV
HA
ST
ST
N
HI
AS
W
ST
IM S
GR
PIL
EZ
LOP
RS
ATU
DEC
E
TIN
LEN
VA
NE
K LI
OO
BR
C
H
ER
R
Y
E53
E5
RDEIR/DEIS
Potential EMF Levels - MIT
Alternatives 3, 3A, 3B, 3C
November 2, 2007
ST
T
T
T
RT
S
ALBANY ST
N4
N10 N9
46
N16
RD
41
48
44
42
43
VASSAR ST
NE30
38
34
32
NE25
31
W32
ST
24
S
26
9
W35
68
E48
FOWLER LN
ERPASS
MEMORIAL DR
Urban Ring Phase 2
MIT Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,200
0
60 - 60 Feet
OR
TH
ST
AMHERST ST
1
E40
175
350
E5
RDEIR/DEIS
Alternative 4
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
E53
Potential EMF Levels - MIT
Proposed Route Centerline
November 2, 2007
E55
W AD
SW
W1
DR
G5
MAIN ST
ST
E34
HA
YW
AR
D
ST
TO
N
PRINCE
E39
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
Distance From Travel Lane
150 - 300 Feet
E38
E42
MEMORIAL DR UNDERPASS MEMOR
IAL DR UND
60 - 150 Feet
ST
ST
DANFORTH ST
ENDICOTT
ST
E25/23
W13
5
15 - 30 Feet
E28
E28
DE
AC
ON
7
TON AVE
W11
MEMORIAL
E19
12
7/7A
CA
RL
E
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_MIT_Alt4.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 11:11:36 AM
W20
AMHERST
NE20
ST
3333/17
39
C
AM
E
W33
W31
37
LO
OR
CT
NE
DO
CK
35
W79
36
ON
KC
MI
D
W59
-B
W45
W79
NPL
A
NW20
NW15
N16A
NW13 NW12
NW12
JO
NW30
NW14
NW21
ST
W
AY
AY
DW
BR
NW10
ST
ST
EO
NW16 NW10
G
AL
IL
AVE
NW17
70
23
170
70
ST
OS
BO
RN
ST
ER
IE
NW22
T
N
ST
S
ETT
US
CH
SA
ST
S
RLY
VE
WA
SM
A
S
MA
S
OS
CR
IA M
RR
ME
PURRINGTON ST
570
290
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
LANSDOWNE ST
MA
I
1,610
1,010
EY
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
FRO
NT S
T
FU
LK
ER
SO
N
ST
AG
E
ST
NN
BI
NS
EEN
GR
ST
ST
AT
E
VI
LL
T
LI
NK
FRA
T
S
RIM
PILG
S
HE
NC
BLA
± ± ± 5
64
14
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
ST
CH
ER
RY
ST
T
T
S
ILY
EM
RS
DO
TU
ST
± 210
65
65
65
E ST
SHIR
HAMP
PKase %Xs RaSiG T ransit
%RT ST
IS
AV
D
Dual Mode
ST
ND
LA
T
Hybrid Electric
R
PO
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
PKase Rail
Y
NE
BIN
S
IFIC
PAC
ST
Y
NE
SID
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs P*
ST
ST
R
SO
D
N
I
W
N
TO
T
T
T
C
T
G
SC
HO
OL
S
E
OR
MO
D
AR
RV
HA
ST
ST
N
HI
AS
W
ST
IM S
GR
PIL
EZ
LOP
RS
ATU
DEC
E
TIN
LEN
VA
NE
K LI
OO
BR
C
H
ER
R
Y
ST
T
T
T
RT
S
S
ETT
US
CH
SA
NW10
ALBANY ST
N4
N10 N9
ST
46
N16
RD
41
48
44
42
43
VASSAR ST
NE30
38
34
32
NE25
31
W32
ST
24
A’
9
W35
S
26
68
MAIN ST
ST
MEMORIAL DR
Urban Ring Phase 2
MIT Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,200
0
175
350
Proposed Route Centerline
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
OR
TH
ST
FOWLER LN
ERPASS
E40
W AD
SW
AMHERST ST
1
60
300
HA
YW
AR
D
ST
TO
N
PRINCE
DANFORTH ST
ENDICOTT
ST
W1
DR
G5
E48
E42
Distance From Travel Lane
150
E34
ST
MEMORIAL DR UNDERPASS MEMOR
IAL DR UND
30
135’
At StreetE38
ST
E39
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
5
MEMORIAL
E25/23
293’ At Street
W13
W11
AMHERST
E28
DE
AC
ON
7
TON AVE
Tunnel Cross-Section
A-A’
E28
E19
12
CA
RL
E
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_MIT_Alt4A.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 11:23:22 AM
W20
7/7A
NE20
ST
3333/17
39
C
AM
E
W33
W31
37
LO
OR
CT
NE
DO
CK
35
W79
36
ON
KC
MI
D
W59
-B
W45
W79
NPL
A
NW20
NW15
N16A
NW13 NW12
NW12
JO
NW30
NW14
NW21
ST
W
AY
EO
AY
DW
BR
G
AL
IL
NW16 NW10
ST
A
AVE
NW17
70
23
170
70
ST
ST
ST
ER
IE
NW22
T
N
OS
BO
RN
ST
S
RLY
VE
WA
SM
A
S
MA
S
OS
CR
IA M
RR
ME
PURRINGTON ST
570
290
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
LANSDOWNE ST
MA
I
1,610
1,010
EY
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
FRO
NT S
T
FU
LK
ER
SO
N
ST
AG
E
ST
NN
BI
NS
EEN
GR
ST
ST
AT
E
VI
LL
T
LI
NK
FRA
T
S
RIM
PILG
S
HE
NC
BLA
± ± ± 5
64
14
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
ST
CH
ER
RY
ST
T
T
S
ILY
EM
RS
DO
TU
ST
± 210
65
65
65
E ST
SHIR
HAMP
PKase %us RaSiG T ransit
%RT ST
IS
AV
D
Dual Mode
ST
ND
LA
T
Hybrid Electric
R
PO
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
PKase Rail
Y
NE
BIN
S
IFIC
PAC
ST
Y
NE
SID
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs P*
ST
ST
R
SO
D
N
I
W
N
TO
T
T
T
C
T
G
SC
HO
OL
S
E
OR
MO
D
AR
RV
HA
ST
ST
N
HI
AS
W
ST
IM S
GR
PIL
EZ
LOP
RS
ATU
DEC
E
TIN
LEN
VA
NE
K LI
OO
BR
C
H
ER
R
Y
65’
Tunnel
Centerline
E53
E5
RDEIR/DEIS
Potential EMF Levels - MIT
Alternative 4A Tunnel
November 2, 2007
E55
ST
T
T
T
RT
S
ALBANY ST
N4
N10 N9
46
N16
RD
41
48
44
42
43
VASSAR ST
NE30
38
34
32
NE25
31
W32
ST
24
S
26
9
W20
68
E34
E48
OR
TH
ST
AMHERST ST
FOWLER LN
1
ERPASS
MEMORIAL DR
Urban Ring Phase 2
MIT Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,200
0
60 - 60 Feet
E40
175
350
E5
RDEIR/DEIS
Alternative H1
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
E53
Potential EMF Levels - MIT
Proposed Route Centerline
November 2, 2007
E55
W AD
SW
W1
DR
G5
MAIN ST
ST
ST
TO
N
CA
RL
E
PRINCE
E39
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
Distance From Travel Lane
150 - 300 Feet
E38
E42
MEMORIAL DR UNDERPASS MEMOR
IAL DR UND
60 - 150 Feet
ST
ST
DANFORTH ST
ENDICOTT
ST
E25/23
W13
5
15 - 30 Feet
E28
E28
DE
AC
ON
7
TON AVE
W11
MEMORIAL
E19
12
7/7A
AMHERST
NE20
HA
YW
AR
D
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_MIT_Hybrid1.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 11:24:56 AM
W35
ST
3333/17
39
C
AM
E
W33
W31
37
LO
OR
CT
NE
DO
CK
35
W79
36
ON
KC
MI
D
W59
-B
W45
W79
NPL
A
NW20
NW15
N16A
NW13 NW12
NW12
JO
NW30
NW14
NW21
ST
W
AY
AY
DW
BR
NW10
ST
ST
EO
NW16 NW10
G
AL
IL
AVE
NW17
70
23
170
70
ST
OS
BO
RN
ST
ER
IE
NW22
T
N
ST
S
ETT
US
CH
SA
ST
S
RLY
VE
WA
SM
A
S
MA
S
OS
CR
IA M
RR
ME
PURRINGTON ST
570
290
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
LANSDOWNE ST
MA
I
1,610
1,010
EY
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
FRO
NT S
T
FU
LK
ER
SO
N
ST
AG
E
ST
NN
BI
NS
EEN
GR
ST
ST
AT
E
VI
LL
T
LI
NK
FRA
T
S
RIM
PILG
S
HE
NC
BLA
± ± 1
1
± 5
64
14
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
ST
CH
ER
RY
ST
T
T
S
ILY
EM
RS
DO
TU
ST
1
± 210
65
65
65
E ST
SHIR
HAMP
PKase %Xs RaSiG T ransit
%RT ST
IS
AV
D
Dual Mode
ST
ND
LA
T
Hybrid Electric
R
PO
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
PKase Rail
Y
NE
BIN
S
IFIC
PAC
ST
Y
NE
SID
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
MaJnetiF FielG 6trenJtKs P*
ST
ST
R
SO
D
N
I
W
N
TO
T
T
T
C
T
G
SC
HO
OL
S
E
OR
MO
D
AR
RV
HA
ST
ST
N
HI
AS
W
ST
IM S
GR
PIL
EZ
LOP
RS
ATU
DEC
E
TIN
LEN
VA
NE
K LI
OO
BR
C
H
ER
R
Y
ST
T
T
T
RT
S
ALBANY ST
N4
N10 N9
46
N16
RD
41
48
44
42
43
VASSAR ST
NE30
38
34
32
NE25
31
W32
ST
24
S
26
9
W20
68
E34
E48
FOWLER LN
ERPASS
MEMORIAL DR
Urban Ring Phase 2
MIT Building and Identifier (refer to directory of buildings)
1:4,200
0
60 - 60 Feet
OR
TH
ST
AMHERST ST
1
E40
175
350
Proposed Route Centerline
Feet
Data supplied by MassGIS and LMA.
E55
W AD
SW
W1
DR
G5
MAIN ST
ST
ST
TO
N
CA
RL
E
PRINCE
E39
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology
Distance From Travel Lane
150 - 300 Feet
E38
E42
MEMORIAL DR UNDERPASS MEMOR
IAL DR UND
60 - 150 Feet
ST
ST
DANFORTH ST
ENDICOTT
ST
E25/23
W13
5
15 - 30 Feet
E28
E28
DE
AC
ON
7
TON AVE
W11
MEMORIAL
E19
12
7/7A
AMHERST
NE20
HA
YW
AR
D
Map Document: (M:\work\UrbanRing\maps\TabloidEMF_MIT_Hybrid2.mxd)
11/2/2007 -- 11:26:44 AM
W35
ST
3333/17
39
C
AM
E
W33
W31
37
LO
OR
CT
NE
DO
CK
35
W79
36
ON
KC
MI
D
W59
-B
W45
W79
NPL
A
NW20
NW15
N16A
NW13 NW12
NW12
JO
NW30
NW14
NW21
ST
W
AY
AY
DW
BR
NW10
ST
ST
EO
NW16 NW10
G
AL
IL
AVE
NW17
70
23
170
70
ST
OS
BO
RN
ST
ER
IE
NW22
T
N
ST
S
ETT
US
CH
SA
ST
S
RLY
VE
WA
SM
A
S
MA
S
OS
CR
IA M
RR
ME
PURRINGTON ST
570
290
Note: Values below 5mG (shaded) are less than 10% of the earth’s magnetic field.
Electromagnetic perturbations in these areas will not likely be detectable.
LANSDOWNE ST
MA
I
1,610
1,010
EY
Heavy Rail
Light Rail
FRO
NT S
T
FU
LK
ER
SO
N
ST
AG
E
ST
NN
BI
NS
EEN
GR
ST
ST
AT
E
VI
LL
T
LI
NK
FRA
T
S
RIM
PILG
S
HE
NC
BLA
± ± ± 5
64
14
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
0.16
20
1.5
ST
CH
ER
RY
ST
T
T
S
ILY
EM
RS
DO
TU
ST
± 210
65
65
65
E ST
SHIR
HAMP
PKase 2 %Xs RaSid T ransit
(%RT )
ST
IS
AV
D
Dual Mode
ST
ND
LA
T
Hybrid Electric
R
PO
Emission Controlled Diesel (ECD)
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
PKase Rail
Y
NE
BIN
S
IFIC
PAC
ST
Y
NE
SID
DistanFe IroP T ravel Lane
MaJnetiF Field 6trenJtKs (P*)
ST
ST
R
SO
D
N
I
W
N
TO
T
T
T
C
T
G
SC
HO
OL
S
E
OR
MO
D
AR
RV
HA
ST
ST
N
HI
AS
W
ST
IM S
GR
PIL
EZ
LOP
RS
ATU
DEC
E
TIN
LEN
VA
NE
K LI
OO
BR
C
H
ER
R
Y
E53
E5
RDEIR/DEIS
Potential EMF Levels - MIT
Alternative H2 and H2(T)
November 2, 2007