|
The Transportation Plan for the Boston Region - Nov 15, 1993
Click HERE for graphic. The Transportation Plan for the Boston Region November 15,1993 Central Transportation Planning Staff Directed by the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) which comprises: Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Advisory Board Massachusetts Highway Department Massachusetts Port Authority Metropolitan Area Planning Council Click HERE for graphic. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME ONEþþPOLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ES-1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Chapter 2 BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 Chapter 3 GOALS AND POLICIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 Chapter 4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 Ongoing Public Involvement Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 Other Public Involvement Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 Public Involvement in the Transportation Plan. . . . . . . 4-6 The Future of Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 Chapter 5 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION. . . . . . . 5-1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-11 Open Space Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-13 Transportation Enhancement Program . . . . . . . . . . . .5-14 Energy Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-15 Chapter 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEFICIENCIES. . . . . . . . . 6-1 Regional Travel Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5 Transit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-16 Rail: Intercity, Passenger and Freight. . . . . . . . . .6-26 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . .6-31 Air: Passenger, Freight, Ground Access. . . . . . . . . .6-36 Water: Ports, Harbors, and Inland Waterways . . . . . . .6-39 Status Report on Projects in the 1983 Transportation Plan.6-47 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Chapter 7 FUTURE CONDITIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES . . . . . . . . . 7-1 Projected 2020 Travel Characteristics: The Base Case. . . 7-2 The Future Role of the Transportation System: Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 Transit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-10 Rail Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-12 Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-13 Air Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-16 Ports and Water Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-18 Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 Development and Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios for 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-21 Chapter 8 THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND STRATEGIES 8-1 Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 Ongoing Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4 Current Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7 Short-term Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-10 Long-term Recommendations and Studies. . . . . . . . . . .8-14 Total Cost of Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-17 Future Approaches to Priority Setting. . . . . . . . . . .8-18 Chapter 9 THE FINANCIAL PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 Forecasting Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 Past and Present Funding Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2 Funding Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9 Comparison of Costs and Anticipated Funds. . . . . . . . .9-13 Chapter 10 CHALLENGES AND NEXT STEPS. . . . . . . . . . . .10-1 Appendix A GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Appendix B AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DETERMINATION . . . . . . B-1 VOLUME TWOþþRESOURCE PAPERS (Separately Bound) A Commuting Patterns B The Transportation and Land Use Models C History of Mass Transit Planning in the Boston Region iv VOLUME THREEþþTECHNICAL APPENDIX (Separately Bound) Appendix to: Chapter 2 Legislative Mandates: ISTEA, ADA, CAAA Chapter 3 Documents used in developing Goals and Objectives Chapter 4 JRTC Membership Meeting Summary of MAPC Subregions Chapter 5 Interim Conformity Guidelines Chapter 6 Bridge Ratings Pavement Information Private Bus Carriers Paratransit Plan Timeline RIDE Service Area - Proposed Expansion Key Station Plan - Transit Key Station Plan - Commuter Rail Bicycle/Pedestrian Mode Splits Cargo Handled at Ports in 1992 Status Report of Projects in 1983 Plan Chapter 7 MetroPlan Assumptions and Travel Demand Model Results Chapter 8 PROJIS list of Maintenance, Bridge, and Safety Projects List of Ongoing Maintenance Projects in the TIP List of Suggested Enhancements List of Suggested Bikeways VOLUME FOURþPUBLIC COMMENTS (Separately Bound) Part 1 Overview of Comments Part 2 Comment Letters VOLUME FIVEþTRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY93-95 (Separately Bound) VOLUME SIXþEOTC PROGRAM FOR MASS TRANSPORTATION (Separately Bound) v LIST OF TABLES Table Description Page 2-1.a Comparison of ISTEA Requirements and the Boston MPO Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2-1.b Comparison of Supplemental ISTEA Requirements and the Boston MPO Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 3-1 ISTEA Metropolitan Plan Requirements Roster . . . . .3-11 6-1 1990 Travel Model: Transit and Person Trips by Trip Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 6-2 Comparison of Average Daily Passengers to Average Weekday Travel at Logan Airport: 1980 - 1990. . . . . . . . .6-36 7-1 Highway Vehicle Trips and VMT Percent Change from 2020 Base Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-28 7-2 VHT and Average Speed Percent Change . . . . . . . .7-28 8-1 Current Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-12 8-2 Projects Awaiting Implementation. . . . . . . . . . .8-15 8-3 Short-term Recommendations (1996-2000). . . . . . . .8-18 8-4 Long-term Recommendations (2001-2020) . . . . . . . .8-21 9-1 Advertised Highway Contracts in Boston MPO by Funding Category Under STURAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3 9-2 Highway Funds Programmed by the Boston MPO under ISTEA9-6 9-3 Transit Funds Spent by Boston MPO Under STURAA. . . . 9-7 9-4 Transit Funds Received/Programmed by the Boston MPO Region Under ISTEA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8 10-1 Current Studies Underway in the Boston MPO Region . .10-5 10-2 Proposed Studies for the Boston MPO Region. . . . . .10-8 vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Federal law requires that all metropolitan areas prepare a long-range transportation plan. In the Boston region, the responsibility for preparing this plan is vested with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) encompassing the 101 cities and towns of the Boston metropolitan area. The most recent regional Transportation Plan was completed in 1983. In the ten years since that last plan was prepared, demographic, economic, environmental, and travel conditions have changed. The capacity and condition of the transportation system have changed as well. Moreover, passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires a re-evaluation of the Boston region's transportation goals, policies, fiscal resources, and project priorities. In addition, this Transportation Plan recognizes that local and regional plans, such as MetroPlan 2000, must also be considered in evaluating the region's transportation goals. What This Transportation Plan Seeks to Achieve _____________________________________________ This Transportation Plan represents the MPO's effort to craft a document and a process that meet the challenges of preserving and expanding a truly intermodal transportation system. Following the directives of the law, it includes the policies, goals, analyses, and recommendations necessary to build and maintain an efficient, effective, and affordable regional transportation system. It is the intention of the MPO to build on the current system, working to make it comprehensive and fully integrated. The goal is a balanced range of well-connected transportation options that will use the best of each travel mode: auto, transit, air, rail, truck, boat, foot, and bicycle. To reach that goal, the MPO has established the following policies: - preserve the existing system; - integrate the various elements of the system; - reduce congestion; - reduce air pollution; - improve physical accessibility; - promote public involvement in the planning process; - stimulate economic development; - promote efficient land use policy; ES-1 - enhance the attractiveness of the region's communities; - identify and preserve corridors; - ensure safety and security of system users; - minimize water, soil, and noise pollution; - efficiently use financial resources; - coordinate plan with management systems; and - analyze at corridor/sub-area level. These policies cannot be implemented without cost, and our financial resources are limited. Therefore, the overarching objective of this Transportation Plan is to begin to establish the policy framework and the knowledge base for decision-makers to use when selecting among projects, programs, and facilities that have different and sometimes conflicting objectives. The value of this Plan will be measured by how well it meets this challenge. Existing Conditions and Identified Needs Our region and its transportation system are mature and complex. The transit system complements the highway network, Boston Harbor provides safe transit for most forms of water transport, and Logan Airport serves as an important passenger and freight link to the region and the world. Intercity rail provides frequent service to points south and west. The close proximity of locations within the Boston core allows for ease of movement by pedestrians and bicycles. Even taking into account the existing limitations of the system, the Boston region is well-served by its transportation network. Though Boston's regional transportation network is well developed and healthy, a number of improvements are needed. Therefore we must: - recognize interdependencies between the modes; - eliminate operational barriers; - improve the connections between our transportation modes. Second, one of the consequences of having a well-established transportation network is the need to invest regularly in it. This Plan emphasizes: - physical maintenance; - preservation of capacity; and - improving the efficiency of our traditional systems through the use of innovative and evolving technology. ES-2 Third, although our principal modes of transport are well established, we will need to frame new choices for the traveling public. The following travel options and programs will feature prominently in the future and must be considered now: - bikeways; - high-occupancy vehicle lanes; and - transportation demand management measures. Fourth, while there is clearly a close relationship between transportation and land use, we must recognize that it is not a simple relationship. Our growth patterns are well established, and our existing development is substantial. This plan promotes: - a transportation system which supports existing and well- planned mixed use, sustainable development; and, - development of local and regional land use policies that result in more efficient use of the regional transportation system to the extent desired by communities in the region. Fifth, the multimodal and intermodal directions of ISTEA are beneficial for the Boston region. We need all modes of transport. We recognize that: - intermodal facilities and operations must be strengthened; - each mode performs a different task well; each has its limitations; and - the Boston MPO should follow a balanced approach to modal investment. Finally, we know that no long-range plan can be static. This Plan will, therefore, be updated by January 1, 1995, so that we can incorporate what we learn as we proceed. Analysis and Recommendations To help identify the appropriate direction for this Plan, the MPO directed its staff to analyze seven different transportation and land use scenarios for the year 2020. Implicit in all the scenarios is the assumption that the physical transportation system will be preserved and maintained to continue to meet travel needs safely and efficiently. Preliminary estimates of future financial resources and needs indicate that the region will need to spend a substantial amount of expected financial ES-3 resources on maintaining the existing system for repair, reconstruction and rehabilitation.1 Funds will also be needed to implement actions mandated by the Clean Air Act Amendments, Department of Environmental Protection regulations (including those relating to the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel), and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus, only a limited amount of future financial resources will be available to expand and improve the system between now and 2020. Chapter 9 of the Plan presents details on estimated future funding. The analysis found generally that the model runs that adjust transportation supply by adding highway and transit capacity - Highway Emphasis , Transit Emphasis, and Multimodal - show only slight differences among them in system-wide performance and impacts. The model runs also showed that land use decisions can have a significant effect on travel choices and environmental impacts. This plan recognizes that among the transportation choices available to us, a balanced transportation system is best for the region. A balanced system is integrated among modes and provides the public with efficient transfer points between modes. The Boston MPO is already committed to building the projects in the Base Case scenario. The Multimodal Scenario model run in this Plan is the MPO's first attempt to illustrate an integrated intermodal system to be in place by the year 2020. Further analyses at the corridor level will begin in October 1993 in order to identify transportation needs and alternate ways of meeting travel demand in those corridors. These analyses will contribute to the update of this Plan by January, 1995. By that time, the mix of major recommendations in the Plan will change in order to develop a refined balanced system. The initial focus of a balanced transportation future was to improve radial highway capacity outside of Route 128, improve capacity on Route 128, and upgrade radial transit facilities both inside and outside of Route 128. The preferred approach to highway capacity increases is the construction of high-occupancy vehicle lanes, with construction of general purpose lanes viewed as a last resort, to be used, if necessary, as part of congestion management solutions. As this Plan was developed, other issues have surfaced in meetings of the SSC and through public involvement. These issues also are integral to providing the region with an integrated and intermodal transportation system by 2020. For example, the regional transportation system must consider and support bicycle and pedestrian trips, as well as freight movement, far better than presently. In addition, though the regional transit system accommodates radial travel ___________________________ 1As the transportation system expands, additional resources will be needed for maintenance and preservation. ES-4 comparatively well, there is a need to improve circumferential travel alternatives. Finally, the difficulty of adapting transit to suburb-to-suburb commuting has been reviewed in the Plan and has been identified as a major focus for plan updates. Next Steps _____________________________________________ The purpose of the Transportation Plan is to set policy goals and objectives and then to recommend studies and project priorities that will help achieve a balanced, safe, and affordable system. There are five steps that will follow this Plan and that will shape the way this Plan is further developed and implemented: the Boston-region Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the management systems prescribed by ISTEA, the revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality, and the update process for the Transportation Plan itself. The principal way in which Transportation Plan recommendations will be translated into action is through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP is a multimodal list of projects for which federal surface transportation funds will be used. The TIP covers a three-year period and is updated at least every two years. The inter-agency Capital Finance Review Committee will provide guidance on the TIP, including whether the frequency of TIP updates should change. Recent changes in federal law require that the TIP be fiscally constrained. That is, it must not simply be a "wish list" of desired projects. Rather, it must be based on a reasonable estimate of funds that will actually be made available to the region during the years covered by the TIP. The TIP for the Boston region will be combined with similar documents from the Commonwealth's other metropolitan areas into a State Transportation Improvement Program, or STIP. The STIP is a comprehensive program that addresses needs statewide. Before the next required update of this Transportation Plan, the state will be implementing six management systems: pavement, bridge, intermodal, congestion, public transportation, and safety. The purpose of these systems is to help identify needs, monitor conditions, and evaluate performance. When these systems come on line in 1994, the MPO will use them as a source for decision-making in the region and will specifically incorporate them in the 1995 revision to this Plan. Before 1995, the Commonwealth will also be revising the SIP which is designed to enact programs that will improve air quality in accordance with the mandates of the Clean Air Act. The transportation sector is expected to play an important part in the SIP, and revisions to the SIP will guide the process and context of future updates to the Transportation Plan. ES-5 Finally, almost immediately upon endorsement of this Transportation Plan, the process of updating it will begin. For that purpose, the MPO will be conducting additional model runs and identifying multimodal corridor studies that will lead to a better needs assessment. The MPO, together with the Joint Regional Transportation Committee (JRTC), which acts as an advisory committee to the MPO, will also outline and implement an ongoing public participation program so that all citizens of the region will be aware of and invited to join in the planning process as is proceeds. Chapter 10 of the Plan contains a timeline and a full description of the goals of the update process. The timeline on the following page summarizes the continuing nature of the transportation planning process for the Boston region up through 2001. Conclusion _____________________________________________ This is the first Transportation Plan for the Boston region since 1983. It is also the MPO's first plan since the adoption of ISTEA. It contains new and updated policies for the region, recognizes the importance of all modes, explicitly examines the effects of transportation and land use, deals with the needs of the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Americans with Disabilities Act, is intermodal, and presents the framework for a long-range financial plan. These are all significant accomplishments for the MPO. However, not every policy and technical issue can be resolved in this first Plan. Further public debate as well as technical, financial, and policy analysis must occur in the months following endorsement of this Plan. The MPO will use the results of this further discussion and analysis to amend and amplify the Plan. The MPO will thus continue to strive towards better decision-making and a better transportation system. ES-6 Click HERE for graphic. ES-7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Federal law requires that all metropolitan areas produce a long-range transportation plan. In the Boston region, the responsibility for preparing this plan is vested with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). This chapter describes the MPO agencies and how they prepared this Transportation Plan. The 101 cities and towns in the MPO are shown on page ii. The MPO is a cooperative board of six state and regional agencies. Its primary purpose is to carry out the continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation planning process first set out in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962. This act required that approval of any federal-aid highway project in an urbanized area of 50,000 or more in population be based on an urban transportation planning process. Section 9 of the Act became Section 134 of U.S. Code 23, which stated that after July 1, 1965, the Secretary shall not approve . . . projects in any urban area unless he finds that such projects are based on a continuing, comprehensive transportation planning process carried out cooperatively by states and local communities. . . . In January of 1973, a framework for regional transportation planning in the Boston area was institutionalized through a Memorandum of Understanding signed by representatives from the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, Massachusetts Department of Public Works, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, and Metropolitan Area Planning Council. These four agencies agreed that they would: - Work together on the federally required transportation planning process; - Establish a Joint Regional Transportation Committee (JRTC) to ensure citizen participation in regional transportation planning; - Work together to ensure compliance with federally mandated planning documents; and - Establish a joint technical staff (Central Transportation Planning Staff, or CTPS) to support decision making. 1-1 In 1974, the MBTA Advisory Board joined the original four agencies, and in 1976, Massport joined the group of signatories. This group of six agencies was designated the Metropolitan Planning Organization in 1975 and redesignated in 1980 as properly constituted with adequate representation of local elected officials through the MAPC and the Advisory Board. Figure 1-2 on the following page illustrates the current MPO structure. A description of the role of each of the six signatory agencies is presented on the following pages. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOTC) was established under M.G.L. Chapters 6A and 161A. It is a cabinet-level agency that oversees the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of public transit services, general aviation programs, and the state and local highway network in the Boston metropolitan region and throughout the Commonwealth. EOTC, as the lead state transportation agency, sets policy and coordinates activities among the various departments, commissions, and authorities. Secretary James J. Kerasiotes is the chair of the MPO. The Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) is responsible for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of state highways and bridges. The MHD directs activities on a transportation network comprised of 72,261 lane-miles of highway throughout the state and 3,000 state-owned bridges. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) provides mass transit service by commuter rail, rapid transit, trolleys, buses, and boats to the 78 cities and towns that comprise the MBTA district service area. Some service is also extended to communities outside the service area. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) is the regional comprehensive planning agency for the Boston metropolitan area, an area that consists of 101 cities and towns. It was established in 1963 by the legislature as an autonomous public agency comprised of municipal officials, state agency representatives, and independent gubernatorial appointees. The Advisory Board to the MBTA was created by the legislature in 1964 as part of the legislation creating the MBTA. The Advisory Board consists of representatives of the 78 cities and towns that comprise the MBTA service district. The Advisory Board has specific powers related to MBTA budget and fare review, appointment of three MBTA board members, appointment of the MBTA General Manager, and approval of the Program for Mass Transportation (PMT). 1-2 Click HERE for graphic. 1-3 The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) was created by the legislature as an independent authority in 1956. Massport operates and develops major commercial maritime and aviation facilities and promotes the economic development of the entire region. As a primary mover of people and products to and through New England, Massport's mission has been to manage daily operations of Logan International Airport, Hanscom Field, Maurice J. Tobin Memorial Bridge, Conley and Moran container terminals and several other seaport properties. The Joint Regional Transportation Committee (JRTC) is composed of representatives of municipalities, community groups, subregions, and various state and regional agencies. It is responsible for providing overall policy advice on regional transportation issues. Specifically, the JRTC advises the six signatory agencies and the MPO on policy issues and reviews certification documents, such as the Transportation Plan, the Transportation Improvement Program, and the Unified Planning Work Program. The JRTC plays a key role in providing for citizen involvement in the MPO urban transportation planning process. Although not members of the MPO, there are several agencies that are also closely involved in transportation issues. These are the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA), the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC), and the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC). The 1993 Transportation Plan Process _____________________________________________ The Boston MPO intends to use this long-range Plan to carry out a new mission for transportation in the Boston region. The role of the Transportation Plan is to identify policies and investments to support a balanced multimodal system. This Plan will be used to help evaluate proposed projects and programs and to identify areas (substantive and geographic) requiring further and more detailed analyses. The current transportation system evolved in response to many factors: changes in economic conditions, relocation of jobs and housing to the suburbs, environmental constraints, demographic changes, and advances in technology. It is a mature transportation system that requires ongoing reinvestment in order to preserve its capabilities. The Transportation Plan must also evolve in response to changes in the economy, financial resources, land use patterns, and legislative mandates. The process used to develop the 1993 Plan will provide a good basis for future updates. The elements of the Plan are presented below. First, the Plan specifies the goals and policies for the regional transportation system. Chapter 3 presents a comprehensive set of goals and 1-4 policies for the various transportation modes. The chapter identifies how the transportation system should help to support economic development, reduce air pollution, and provide physical accessibility. Second, the Plan describes the process and institutions that will be key to ensuring significant public involvement (Chapter 4). The structure of the Boston MPO predates ISTEA but corresponds to the proposed ISTEA regulations (23 CFR Part 450; 49 CFR Part 613) in that it includes representation of local elected officials (MAPC and the MBTA Advisory Board), state officials (EOTC) and officials of agencies that administer or operate major transportation systems (MHD, MBTA and MassPort Authority).1 If the proposed ISTEA regulations are adopted, they will likely contain provisions both affirming the validity of previously established MPOs and detailing the procedures for changing an MPO's designation or membership. Third, the Plan assesses how each mode functions individually and then how each fits into the overall transportation system. Chapter 6 presents a summary of systemwide operating statistics, as well as background information on the components of the regional transportation system: highways, transit, rail, ports, air travel, freight movement, and bicycle and pedestrian travel. Fourth, the Plan estimates future transportation needs and fiscal resources. Chapter 7 describes future conditions and identifies opportunities that will be available for decision- makers. Chapter 9 examines the financial element. Finally, the Plan presents recommendations to improve the transportation system and to address the multiple requirements enumerated by federal and state laws and regulations. Environmental responsibility, a hallmark of these regulations, is expressly addressed in Chapter 5. The recommendations presented in Chapter 8 emphasize preservation of the existing system. They also consider environmental, economic-development, and intermodal needs within a financially feasible program. This acknowledges that transportation systems are not designed for a single function but for many parallel ones: commuting, freight movement, economic development, emergency services, recreation, and tourism, among others. After this Transportation Plan is endorsed, the MPO will review it anew, beginning in October 1993. While the Plan will be amended frequently over the coming decades, one particularly important revision will be completed by January 1, 1995. By that date, this Plan must be updated to reflect the six Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) management systems, to ensure consistency with the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ___________________________ 1 As discussed in proposed ISTEA regulations 23 CFR 4 450.106 and 450.108 1-5 air quality, and to incorporate additional project analyses from the regional travel and land use models. Chapter 10 discusses these items in more detail. A five-page glossary is included as Appendix A in this volume, following Chapter 10. It defines frequently used terms and also explains all acronyms used in this Plan. 1-6 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND One hundred years ago, the Massachusetts legislature, encouraged by coach drivers and bicyclists, established a Highway Commission for the state - the first such organization in the country. Starting in 1893, the new agency began a continuing process of providing local aid for road building and the coordination of the construction and expansion of a highway system based on the network of dirt roads and trails that had served the Commonwealth since the seventeenth century. The 1890s were also an important decade for public transportation in the Boston region. In the preceding decades, a large number of companies had been founded to serve the high demand for transit. As the most popular mode of transportation in a densely constructed metropolitan area, streetcars were used for commuting, local shopping, and errands. To improve operations and coordination, the individual streetcar lines were combined by the legislature into a private corporation called the Boston Elevated Railway Company. Commuter rail lines serving the booming 1890s suburbs were gradually merged into two railway companies over several decades. At the end of the nineteenth century, rail transit patronage was so heavy in downtown Boston that a public agency was organized to construct subways and elevated lines for rapid transit trains. By 1897, this agencyþthe Boston Transit Commissionþhad opened the first subway in America under Tremont Street in Boston. By the turn of the century, the automobile had been discovered by the public. Automobile registration in Massachusetts grew from 600 in 1900 to 5,422 in 1905, to 24,000 in 1909, to 90,500 in 1915, and exceeded 200,000 in 1918. In the 1920s, demand for public transportation services began a long downward trend, interrupted only by the Second World War, as the automobile emerged as the dominant travel mode. Highway construction gained a strong impetus from a 1948 master plan for metropolitan expressways, and construction soon began on the proposed network. A fifty-mile stretch of Route 128 was opened in 1951, and construction began on the Central Artery, the Southeast Expressway, and the Massachusetts Turnpike; all were largely completed by 1959. Reinforcing the move toward expressway construction was the Interstate Highway Program enacted by Congress in 1956; this helped finance construction of I-95, I-93, and I-495. 2-1 In the 1960s the federal government instituted new requirements for "continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive" urban transportation planning. The first example of this in the state was the Eastern Massachusetts Regional Planning Project (EMRPP). This planning effort took the highways not yet built from the 1948 plan, refined them, and then combined them with public transportation projects developed by the MBTA. By the 1970s, however, growing concern over highway projects led to the Boston Transportation Planning Review (BTPR), which restudied the need for the expressways called for in the EMRPP. As a consequence of the BTPR, Governor Francis W. Sargent made a watershed decision to reorient regional transportation priorities. Thus, transportation planning and implementation has been in a developmental stage in the Boston region for one hundred years. It has been marked by a series of significant events led by public demands for change. Today, the rewards of extensive transportation planning based on community involvement are evident. The largest project in the Commonwealth's history - the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel - is now under construction. Public transit facilities in the city and suburbs show the significant benefits of the continuous attention that has been paid to carefully upgrading them through a series of well-planned improvements. South Station has emerged as a truly intermodal facility, combining intercity and commuter rail, express bus, and Red Line operations in one location. And Logan Airport is undergoing modernization based on new connections both to the Third Harbor Tunnel and to transit facilities. All of these physical improvements derive from a planning process that has been evolving over time. This 1993 Transportation Plan continues that evolution by introducing a new era of transportation planning for the Boston region. Careful assessments of transportation systems, connectivity between modes, and fiscal consciousness will be hallmarks of this planning process. It is an era that explores the interaction between land use, transportation, environmental quality, and economic development. It is an era that demands a plan with not only the breadth to encompass policies at a regional scale, but also the depth to present specific programs and projects. A guiding principle for this plan is the belief that the purpose of a transportation plan is not only to estimate what can happen, but also to identify what should happen. ___________________________ *For a full discussion of the history of mass transit planning in the Boston region, see Resource Paper C in Volume Two of the Plan. 2-2 The plan must recognize both our ambitions and our limits; it must extend beyond a narrow transportation focus to embrace land use, air quality, and other social and economic issues; it must enhance the region's stature as an economic, cultural, and educational center; and it must recognize the importance of maintaining strong international linkages, particularly with Europe. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) _____________________________________________ ISTEA was signed into law in December 1991. It requires that fifteen factors be considered in developing a transportation plan. They are identified in 23 U.S. Code 134 and are reproduced below in Table 2-1.a, paralleled by the Boston MPO's responses to the factors. Table 2-1.a Comparison of ISTEA Requirements and the Boston MPO Planning Process ISTEA Metropolitan Transportation The Boston MPO 3C Transportation Planning Requirements Planning Process 1. Preservation of existing trans- 1. The Boston region Trans- portation facilities and, where -portation Plan places a practical, ways to meet transpor- high priority on the tation needs by using existing full and efficient use of transportation facilities more existing transportation efficiently. facilities. The programming process seeks to emphasize system preservation. 2. Consistency of transportation 2. The Transportation Plan planning with applicable Federal, recommends programs that State and local energy conser- support ridesharing, non- vation programs, goals, and motorized transportation, objectives. and transit. 3. The need to relieve congestion 3. The Boston 3C process in- and prevent congestion from occur- cludes regional-level ring where it does not yet occur. quantitative analysis of the highway and transit systems, using the CTPS travel demand model. This model, currently being updated, is used to identify existing and forecast congestion. The MPO also has congestion management and Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems studies underway to address this factor. 4. The likely effect of transpor- 4. The MPO is preparing tools tation policy decisions on land necessary to evaluate the trans- use and development and the con- portation-land use relationship. sistency of transportation plans These include an enhanced travel and programs with the provisions demand model and a land use of all applicable short- and long- model. The Plan contains goals term land use and development and objectives reflecting the plans. regional land use plan, MetroPlan 2000. 2-3 5. The programming of expenditures 5. The products of current bike- and transportation enhancement way and pedestrian planning ef- activities as required in section forts will be incorporated into 133. a transportation enhancements section of the Transportation Plan. CTPS, at the request of MHD and affected towns, is preparing a MetroWest bikeway study. 6. Effects of all transportation 6. The Transportation Plan con- projects to be undertaken within siders all significant projects the metropolitan area, without whether funded with federal, regard to whether such projects state, local, or private are publicly funded. resources. 7. International border crossings 7. The Transportation Plan in- and access to ports, airports, cludes polices and data regard- intermodal transportation facili- ing this element. This will be ties, major freight distribution coordinated with the intermodal routes, national parks, recrea- management systems work. The tion areas, monuments and historic Plan explicitly addresses high- sites, and military installa- way and transit access to tions airports. 8. The need for connectivity of 8. As a member of the MPO, the roads within the metropolitan area MHD works to coordinate high- with roads outside the metropoli- way planning and functional tan area. classification between the Boston area and adjacent regions. The recent functional classification work will contribute to this element. 9. The transportation needs iden- 9. The Transportation Plan will tified through the use of the man- be updated to incorporate recom- agement systems required by sec- mendations from the pavement, tion 303 of title 23. bridge, safety, intermodal, congestion, and public transportation management systems. Proposed federal guidelines have recently been published for these systems. 10. Preservation of rights-of-way 10. The Transportation Plan up- for construction of future trans- date identifies potential future portation projects, including transportation corridors and the identification of unused rights- associated right-of-way needs. of-way that may be needed for future transportation corridors and identification of those cor- ridors for which action is needed to prevent destruction or loss. 11. Methods to enhance the move- 11. The Transportation Plan in- ment of freight. cludes policies and recommendations for integrating regional and interregional freight movement. 12. The use of life-cycle costs 12. Where appropriate, the in the design and engineering of Transportation Plan recommends bridges, tunnels, or pavement. an evaluation of life-cycle costs when comparing facility or program alternatives. 13. The overall social, economic, 13. The Transportation Plan in- energy, and environmental effects cludes a systems and sub- of transportation decisions. regional assessment of environmental implications, particularly air quality. 14. Methods to expand and enhance 14. The transit section of the transit services and to increase Plan includes a comprehensive the use of such services. analysis of transit options. 15. Capital investments that 15. A site has been identified would result in increased secur- and funding approved for the ity in transit systems. new MBTA Police Headquarters. 2-4 In addition to the basic fifteen factors, the ISTEA legislation describes five supplemental considerations that should be reflected in a transportation plan; these are shown in Table 2- 1.b. Table 2-1.b Comparison of Supplemental ISTEA Requirements and the Boston MPO Planning Process ISTEA Metropolitan Transportation The Boston MPO 3C Transportation Planning Requirements Planning Process 16. Provisions to ensure early 16. The Joint Regional Transpor- and continuing public involvement tation Committee and Metropoli- in the development of plans and tan Area Planning Council meet TIPs. regularly to review draft planning and programming documents. 17. Consistency with the Civil 17. The Plan and implementation Rights Act. process are consistent with the Civil Rights Act. 18. Identify actions necessary 18. This Plan endorses the MBTA to comply with the Americans with Key Station plan, which is in- Disabilities Act of 1990. tended to make the system physically accessible. 19. Provide for involvement of 19. The Plan development process traffic, ridesharing, parking, included ridesharing providers airport, port and toll authori- and Massport. ties, and private providers. 20. Provide for involvement of 20. There was close coordination local, state and federal environ- between the development of this mental resource and permit agen- Plan and the development of the cies as appropriate. Transportation Element of the SIP. ISTEA requires states to develop six management systems: congestion, pavement, intermodal, bridges, public transportation, and safety. The primary purpose of these systems is to provide information needed to make effective decisions in improving the efficiency of, and protecting the investment in, the nation's existing and future infrastructure at all levels of jurisdictional control. Each state is to take the lead in establishing the management systems and is to coordinate with metropolitan planning organizations. States must begin implementing each management system in federal fiscal year 1995 (October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1995) and must certify annually to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that they are implementing each of the management systems. A more extensive discussion of ISTEA is in the Technical Appendix to this Transportation Plan. The appendix also discusses the legislative mandates of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 2-5 CHAPTER 3 GOALS AND POLICIES In 1948, the Commonwealth's Department of Public Works published the Master Highway Plan for the Boston Metropolitan Area. That document, reinforced by Federal funds made available beginning with the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, set forth a vision for a comprehensive expressway network in the Boston Region. That vision, carried out to a large extent over the following 25 years, affected the movement of people and freight; influenced the location of homes and businesses; changed the quality of air and water resources; and altered social interactions and the quality of the region's cities. The Boston Transportation Planning Review (BTPR) in the early 1970s marked a dramatic shift in transportation priorities of the region. Governor Francis W. Sargent, the state transportation agencies and a broad-based, active coalition of community and environmental interests forged a new transportation vision with a strong emphasis on revitalizing the public transportation system of the Boston area. Hundreds of millions of dollars, previously allocated for highway projects, were transferred to major transit investments such as the Red Line extension from Harvard to Alewife and the Orange Line Relocation in the Southwest Corridor. ISTEA now presents an opportunity to express and carry out a new transportation vision for the Boston region in this and succeeding Transportation Plan. This vision should build on the current system, working to make it comprehensive and fully integrated, and emphasizing the need for a balanced range of transportation options comprised of many modes, including auto, transit, foot, rail, truck, bicycle, boat and air. Vision __________________________________________ It is the vision of this Transportation Plan to maintain, manage, and operate a multimodal transportation system in the Boston region that provides a high level of mobility for all people and economic activity consistent with environmental and fiscal resources. __________________________________________ This vision reflects the close relationship between transportation and land use. The transportation investments and land use patterns of the quarter-century 3-1 following World War II were not sustainable, and the quarter- century following that sought to right the balance. In the twenty- five years covered by this Plan, the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) will seek to carry out this vision of a balanced and affordable transportation system that sustains the economic vitality of the region. Goals _____________________________________________ This Plan advocates six goals which have been based on the vision statement and on information provided in federal and state legislation, as well as plans and recommendations developed by state and regional agencies. A list of the legislation and plans is provided in the Technical Appendix. The six goals are presented below: - Establish the framework and guidelines for decision- makers to use when selecting among projects, programs, and facilities that meet different and sometimes conflicting objectives. This framework should include measures to ensure that limited financial resources are used in the most effective manner. - Ensure the mobility of people and goods by implementing repair/maintenance programs, transit capacity improvements, intelligent vehicle systems, and congestion management programs which increase highway capacity for single-occupant vehicles only when no better alternative can be found. - Use investments in transportation infrastructure to improve the economic and environmental sustainability of the region by supporting existing and planned mixed-use development concentrations. - Improve the economic competitiveness of the region by encouraging the location of new development in urban cores, thereby best utilizing existing infrastructure while protecting natural resources and providing increased economic opportunities to all the region's citizens. - Minimize the costs in time and money of transporting people and goods in the region. - Ensure that the transportation program adequately meets appropriate legal mandates governing transportation investment and environmental protection. 3-2 Policies __________________________________________ In order to achieve the above vision and goals, this Plan endorses 15 policies described below. These policies reflect Federal requirements, the Commonwealth's economic growth strategy, and the regional land use plan. A table summarizing how each of these policies addresses the metropolitan transportation plan requirements of ISTEA is found at the end of the chapter. Policy 1. Preserve and upgrade the existing system. Past investment in transportation facilities in the Boston region totals many billions of dollars. This investment has resulted in a system that people and businesses rely on every day. Protecting that investment by preserving and upgrading facilities and services that meet a demonstrated need is the top priority. Maintenance is one of the most cost-effective uses of today's dollars, since a relatively small amount of money is needed to keep the system in good condition, compared to the amount that was spent to build it. Deferred maintenance may save money in the short run, but in the long run it may be more expensive than regular preventive maintenance. The value of regular maintenance resides not only in smoother, faster rides, but also in safety, longer equipment life, and fewer breakdowns. The Plan's recommendations emphasize ongoing maintenance for all transportation facilities. Policy 2. Effectively and efficiently integrate the various components of the transportation system. The Transportation Plan promotes a multimodal and comprehensive approach to planning, building and operating transportation systems. Planning efforts should include a needs assessment for each travel corridor to determine the most effective combination of transportation services, whether by roadway, transit, rail, air, water, bicycle, or foot. The planning process should also include freight movement and intercity travel. This integration results in greater mobility and accessibility because the various modes complement each other; the whole may become greater than the sum of its parts. Investment choices should be based in part on the way in which an improvement to a single transportation mode can make the entire system work better. Policy 3. Reduce congestion on existing services and facilities. Congestion on existing facilities results in wasted time, reduced efficiency, high levels of dissatisfaction among the public and aggravation of the air quality problems associated with transportation. It also interferes with "just-in-time 3-3 delivery" to and from manufacturing facilities and impedes urban goods movement. To reduce congestion, transportation improvements should be directed towards relief of users of existing facilities and services, without restricting mobility or causing problems to occur at other locations. Examples of how this can be done are as follows: A. Operate existing facilities more effectively. Existing facilities can and should be improved by providing better intermodal connections and through operational and technological improvements. Rail systems can be operated more efficiently by improving signal systems to allow higher speeds, by operating at more frequent headways, and by making other operational improvements. Bus lanes and traffic signal preemption for transit vehicles would help to reduce delays and congestion on individual buses and trains as would the identification and enforcement of truck routes connecting major freight cemters. Better operation of the highway system is now being addressed through congestion management efforts, including incident management and ramp metering. These operational management tools will continue to be useful. Finally, technological advances in intelligent vehicle highway systems (IVHS), such as automatic vehicle identification at toll booths, could improve management of fleets and user operation. B. Encourage use of more efficient travel modes by improving the attractiveness of mass transportation services and providing facilities for High Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs). The attractiveness of various modes of travel depends on a number of factors including time, cost, comfort, reliability, security, convenience, flexibility, and physical attractiveness. Improvements in these areas will help to make HOVs and mass transportation more attractive and will reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel. C. Improve regional facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians to encourage non-motorized transportation. Improved conditions for bicycle travel on streets and highways, additional bicycle parking, and improvements to the pedestrian environment will encourage people to use these alternative ways to travel. There should be cooperation among state, regional, and local agencies to create a regional Greenways system that will include an expansion of the bikeway network. 3-4 D. Encourage employers to participate in congestion reduction programs. Reduction of travel demand through employer-based ridesharing efforts can be very effective in alleviating congestion while maintaining economic growth. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a Rideshare Regulation that could, and should, be strengthened. It is important to work with appropriate state agencies to provide the support facilities and marketing services that are necessary to make these programs successful. Through CARAVAN, the state provides employers with ongoing technical assistance to support worksite commuter service initiatives. The new and consistently enforced State Park and Ride policy will complement these efforts. E. Expand existing facilities. Expanding existing facilities is often the most direct way to alleviate congestion. Transit capacity can be expanded by providing more frequent service, by adding parking at suburban stations, or by operating longer trains and higher capacity buses. Highway capacity can be expanded by adding incentives for HOVs, such as head- of-queue privileges or HOV lanes, or by increasing the capacity of specific ramps or interchanges. Adding capacity by building general purpose lanes should be considered only when no demonstrably better solution can be found. F. Develop programs to reduce demand for transportation services and facilities. In addition to developing programs to meet present and future transportation demand more efficiently, programs should be developed to reduce travel demand, especially during peak commuting periods. These can include land use policies that support sustainable development and the creation of incentives for employer-sponsored commuter mobility programs. G. Develop guidelines and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of transportation services and facilities. In order to optimize the benefits of transportation investments, guidelines and quantitiative criteria should be developed that will facilitate comparisons among projects. Points of comparison should include, at a minimum, the following: - Cost-effectiveness - Change in vehicle miles traveled - Change in vehicle hours traveled - Change in emissions 3-5 - Change in auto trips - Change in accidents - Change in system operating costs - Change in energy use - Change in productivity Policy 4. Reduce air pollution A. Achieve and maintain mandated air quality standards. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) provide new guidance on how reductions in air pollution will be achieved. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) require compliance for carbon monoxide (CO) by 1995. Levels of CO may not exceed a concentration of 9 parts per million over an eight hour period. The milestone year of 1995 for ozone standards requires a reduction of ozone levels by 15% from 1990 levels. By 1999, the levels of ozone may not exceed a maximum hourly average concentration of .12 parts per million. Consistent with these standards, a new State Implementation Plan (SIP) will be developed by November 15, 1993. The Transportation Plan will recommend policy directions and projects that will complement and support programs identified in the SIP designed to achieve compliance with the Clean Air Act Amendments. The Transportation Plan will be revised to reflect future changes to the SIP. To ensure that regional transportation actions are consistent with targets adopted in the SIP for VMT growth and emissions reductions, projects in the Transportation Plan will be evaluated on the basis of their air quality benefits and land use implications. Air quality and land use will also be important criteria in evaluating the results of any studies recommended in the Plan. The Plan should promote projects that reduce congestion and/or reduce the percentage growth of vehicle miles of travel. This plan recognizes that long-term air quality, energy consumption, natural resource protection, and quality of life requires reduced reliance on single-occupant vehicles and the sprawl which reinforces single-occupant vehicle use. B. Encourage use of low pollution fuels and engine technology. Alternative fuels and new engine technologies, which emit fewer air contaminants, should be developed and used wherever possible. Alternative fuel experimentation with fleet vehicles should continue and be implemented when it is judged to be feasible. Use of alternative fuels 3-6 and alternate technologies will help in energy conservation and in reducing our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Policy 5. Make existing services physically accessible to people with disabilities. The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) provides comprehensive civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. Something as simple as a poorly maintained sidewalk or a badly designed building entrance can deny access to many citizens. Facility design should incorporate features developed in accordance with the ADA and similar state statutes. Transit systems particularly must be made accessible and paratransit service should be available to persons with physical or other disabilities. Policy 6. Promote public involvement in all phases of transportation planning and development. This includes developing and using procedures that allow for continuous, timely, and meaningful public participation. A. Implement continued coordination among the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Joint Regional Transportation Committee (JRTC) in the development of the regional Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program. Identify ways to expand and enhance the role of individual citizens as well as cities and towns in MPO decisions. B. Promote increased coordination with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and the MBTA Advisory Board to reflect local and regional concerns in the transportation planning process. C. Ensure that decisions are made through an open and participatory process that includes a broad representation of interested persons and groups by enhancing the role of the JRTC. D. Incorporate the Program for Mass Transportation (PMT) into the Transportation Plan. The PMT represents a regional consensus on transit priorities within the MBTA district, based on extensive review by agencies and the public. Moreover, because this plan is being submitted for the approval of the MBTA Advisory Board, it reflects the goals of the cities and towns that are required to help fund these projects through the assessment formula. Linking these documents will ensure consistency and coordination in the region's transportation planning efforts. 3-7 Policy 7. Stimulate and sustain regional economic development through timely transportation investments. The transportation system is fundamental to and intertwined with economic activity. Choosing to Compete, A Statewide Strategy for Job Creation and Economic Growth, developed by the Executive Office of Economic Affairs and the University of Massachusetts, provides a blueprint for economic development for the state, and this strategy will need to be supported by the regional transportation system. Choosing to Compete states that development should be guided to appropriate locations where infrastructure is in place, where the environmental conditions are sufficiently stable to sustain further growth and where energy efficient and environmentally sound transit services will be available. Choosing to Compete charges transportation agencies to work with the Executive Offices of Environmental and of Economic Affairs, and local and regional authorities to adopt guidelines which define appropriate economic development growth locations while discouraging infrastructure improvements in environmentally sensitive areas. Policy 8. Promote the development of local land use policies that result in more efficient use of the regional transportation system. Transportation facilities should support concentrations in land development that help bring jobs, housing, shopping and services closer together. This will encourage increased transit, walking, and bicycling trips. This can be accomplished through targeting transportation investments to areas identified in local and regional plans as being suitable for concentrated development. In addition, the Commonwealth can provide incentives to developers who locate in city and town centers. Transportation projects and programs which are inconsistent with approved regional development plans, or which are inconsistent with other state policy or regulatory programs, should be modified. Policy 9. Use transportation enhancement activities to preserve and improve the natural and built environments, making communities and the region more healthy and attractive. A vibrant natural environment and a historic and aesthetic built environment are important to a metropolitan area. Consideration of enhancements during the planning and design phases of new transportation facilities will improve the livability and appeal of the communities in the region. Enhancements include safe and scenic facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, increased and improved landscaping of rights-of-way, and acquisition of easements for scenic or historic sites. 3-8 Policy 10. Identify and preserve corridors for future transportation activities. In an area as densely developed as the Boston metropolitan region, an existing right-of-way is a precious commodity. Piecing together a new right-of-way for a future transportation facility would likely be extremely expensive and disruptive. Existing rights-of-way, such as abandoned railroad corridors, should be preserved for future public use. Policy 11. Ensure the safety and security of transportation system users. Before using a part of the transportation system, travelers must be confident of a safe and secure trip, whether by highway or transit. Physical safety can be enhanced through careful attention to design, redesign, and upgrading of facilities. Operational safety can be ensured through adherence to proper operating procedures and effective maintenance. Policy 12. Minimize water, soil, and noise pollution. Proposed transportation projects should undergo early environmental scrutiny for impacts upon the land, air and water resources. An early identification of adverse impacts will allow for a wider range of alternative plans to be explored which should result in more environmentally-sensitive projects. Design and construction of facilities should assure that materials used in operations and maintenance, such as road salt, as well as runoff containing petroleum products, trace metals, and particulate matter will not have detrimental impacts on soil and water. In addition, cars and trucks on expressways make a significant amount of noise, trains make their presence known with track noise and a rumble of vibrations, and airport operations generate noise. These impacts should be mitigated with engineering and design techniques. Policy 13. Secure, and apply efficiently, financial resources for the maintenance and modernization of existing facilities and for system expansion. The regional Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) should be developed to ensure adequate and timely funding of all projects included in the Plan. All projects should be evaluated using objective and rigorous financial assessment techniques to ensure that the most cost-effective and beneficial projects are identified. In addition, life-cycle costs should be used in the design, engineering, and maintenance of all projects, consistent with the requirements of the management systems. 3-9 Policy 14. Coordinate the development of the Transportation Plan with ISTEA-mandated management systems. Develop and apply the necessary technical tools and management systems to monitor the performance of the regional transportation system. Policy 15. Continue to analyze transportation needs on a corridor and/or sub-area basis, using a multimodal approach. The Transportation Plan identifies the need for further, more detailed multimodal needs analyses for corridors and sub-areas. This information will be used to specify the precise nature of major metropolitan transportation investments. Such studies must evaluate the cost-effectiveness and operating effects of alternative investments or strategies as well as their social, economic, environmental, and energy effects, and land use and economic development impacts. Transportation Plan Policies Support ISTEA Objectives _____________________________________________ This chapter has put forth the transportation vision for the Boston metropolitan region and the goals and policies that have been adopted to fulfill that vision. The chart on the following page shows how the fifteen Transportation Plan policies enumerated in this chapter support the twenty Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) objectives which were described in Chapter 2. Each of the ISTEA objectives is supported by at least one of the Boston region's transportation policies and in most cases is supported by multiple policies. 3-10 Click HERE for graphic. 3-11 CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Introduction _____________________________________________ Public involvement is at the very heart of what it means to be a citizen. Our government, through legislative acts such as ISTEA, affords all citizens the ability to participate in shaping its institutions and infrastructure so that they serve the community's needs and reflect its goals and values. To be effective, the community must believe that it is engaging in one of the most important activities of community life. At best, the public involvement process deals responsibly with issues that combine technical, social and political elements. At worst, public involvement efforts become mired in skepticism and complexity. If all professions are "conspiracies against the laity," then transportation planners and policy-makers must ensure that the public involvement process does not become entangled in jargon and arcane debates. The public participation process used for this Transportation Plan update is illustrated by the flow chart on page 4-3. The chart provides an overview of the mechanisms that are used to elevate public involvement to its proper role in establishing transportation policies, goals, and priorities. The opening section of this chapter presents the details of those mechanisms and how they have functioned in the update process thus far. It is followed by a section that explores ways to enhance the current process to attract a wider level of participation that is more representative of the general population and which fulfills the public participation requirements of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking implementing ISTEA. Ongoing Public Involvement Mechanisms _____________________________________________ The primary mechanism for ongoing public involvement in transportation is participation in any of the following organizations: the Joint Regional Transportation Committee (JRTC), the Access Advisory Committee to the MBTA (AACT), the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), and the MBTA Advisory Board. 4-1 These organizations hold regularly scheduled meetings open to the public, on various aspects of transportation. MAPC and the MBTA Advisory Board provide for broad-based geographic representation, while the JRTC is representative not only of cities and towns, but of citizen groups as well. AACT is a focused consumer group comprised of individuals who advise the MBTA on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other transportation concerns of people with disabilities. Each organization's mission, structure, and role in the MPO process for endorsing plans and programs are described below. - Joint Regional Transportation Committee The Joint Regional Transportation Committee (JRTC) is the Transportation Policy Advisory Group for the Boston region. The Memorandum of Understanding of January 1973 that established the Metropolitan Planning Organization also created the Joint Regional Transportation Committee and defined its composition and purpose. The JRTC has adopted by-laws that establish operating procedures. The JRTC is recognized by the federal government as the mechanism for providing the required policy guidance in matters of areawide concern in transportation decision making. As such, the JRTC advises the six MPO signatory agencies on transportation policy issues, programs, and plans, and on the "continuing, cooperative, comprehensive transportation planning process" (the "3C" process) for the Boston region. The 3C process, which is federally mandated for all metropolitan areas, calls for wide participation at the local level, both public and private, municipal and regional. Its purpose is to create a balanced planning effort by integrating the planning for all modes of transporta-tion and also including non-transportation elements of comprehensive planning. The JRTC is composed of 52 voting members who represent state agencies with transportation related responsibilities, municipalities that are members of MAPC and the MBTA Advisory Board and citizen designees who represent a wide range of transportation- related civic and private associations. The six MPO signatory agencies are non-voting members. The current membership is listed in the Technical Appendix. The full JRTC meets monthly while special subcommittees meet as necessary. With the recently added responsibility of advising the MPO regarding the compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the JRTC is seeking to establish a new subcommittee which draws on the expertise of the Access Advisory Committee to the MBTA (AACT). The JRTC is involved in the development of the Transportation Plan through the presentation of status reports at its regular monthly meetings and 4-2 Click HERE for graphic. through an ongoing dialogue with its Steering Committee and Planning, Operations and Policy Subcommittee members. As with all certification documents, the JRTC will forward its recommendation regarding endorsement of the Transportation Plan to the MPO for inclusion in the transmittal to the Federal government. - Metropolitan Area Planning Council The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) is the regional planning agency for the Boston metropolitan area. It was established in 1963 by the legislature as an autonomous public agency composed of municipal officials, state agency representatives, and independent gubernatorial appointees. MAPC has statutory responsibility for comprehensive regional planning. MAPC is also the Boston clearinghouse under Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and Title VI of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968.1 MAPC also has been designated an economic development district under Title IV of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended.2 It is composed of 136 members, with 101 representatives from cities and towns, 14 representatives from state agencies and City of Boston agencies, and 21 gubernatorial appointees. In addition to the full council, a 25-member executive committee meets once a month to discuss and act on policy issues. MAPC works closely with local communities on a continuing basis. This is accomplished through a system of subregional committees that meets regularly to discuss issues of importance affecting their specific subregion and their impacts on the region as a whole. Early in the development of the Transportation Plan, staff members visited the MAPC sub-regional committees in order to introduce the project and brief the members on the ISTEA and CAAA requirements. These meetings were also valuable for identifying perceived local and sub-regional deficiencies. A summary of each meeting is provided in the Technical Appendix. As a member of the MPO, MAPC will vote on endorsement of the Transportation Plan prior to submittal to the federal government. - Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Advisory Board The MBTA Advisory Board was created by the legislature in 1964 as part of the legislation creating the MBTA. The Advisory Board consists of representatives of the 78 cities and towns that comprise the MBTA district. Cities ___________________________ 1MGL Chapter 40B. 2As codified in 42 USCS Section 3334. 4-4 are represented by either the city manager or mayor, and towns are represented by the chairperson of the Selectboard. The Advisory Board has been designated by the Governor to be one of the agencies that is representative of local elected public officials for purposes of constituting the MPO. Advisory Board meetings are open to the public and provide an opportunity for the public, through the community representatives, to comment on issues relating to transit service. In addition, the findings of staff research on key transit issues such as fare policy and management practices are available to communities and members of the public. Like MAPC, as a member of the MPO, the Advisory Board will vote on endorsement of the Transportation Plan prior to its transmittal to the federal regulatory agencies. - The Access Advisory Committee to the MBTA (AACT) The AACT is an advisory group which meets monthly with MBTA staff to discuss the transportation concerns of people with disabilities and to develop recommendations on ADA compliance. Because of the wide range of needs among people with disabilities and the variety of ways to meet those needs, a number of subcommittees have been established to explore access issues in depth and to develop specific recommendations on accessibility provisions: the RIDE Subcommittee focuses on the MBTA's paratransit service; the Fixed Route Access Subcommittee deals with systemwide concerns regarding station and vehicle access; and the Auditory/Visually Impaired Subcommittee explores ways to make the system more usable by people with vision and hearing impairments. Several satellite subcommittees meet outside the core area to address access concerns specific to their areas. The MPO staff presented a summary of ISTEA to the AACT at its meeting on February 18 and encouraged AACT participation in the Transportation Plan's development as part of its work on the JRTC subcommittee. Other Public Involvement Mechanisms _____________________________________________ In addition to ongoing representation through the above organizations, public meetings and project specific citizen advisory committees provide an opportunity to participate in the development of specific plans and programs. The meetings are scheduled on an as needed basis such as in the development of this Transportation Plan. Citizen advisory committees are usually established as part of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Environmental Impact Review process on a major project. The MPO sends a representative to these and other meetings on other topics, as needed. 4-5 The purpose of these mechanisms is to provide a way to hear the concerns of the public directly and to build consensus in resolving potential conflicts. They differ from participation through the JRTC, MAPC, and the MBTA Advisory Board in that they are outside the MPO endorsement process. Public Involvement in the Transportation Plan _____________________________________________ ISTEA emphasizes the importance of ensuring adequate public participation in the preparation of transportation plans. As described earlier, the first round of public involvement for this plan occurred via the JRTC and MAPC. The preparation of the draft Transportation Plan by the Sub- Signatory Committee (SSC) of the Boston MPO initiated the second round of public participation. This entailed publication of an informational brochure by MAPC and JRTC with a wide distribution. Then, a presentation of the plan was scheduled for the JRTC. Five additional presentations held throughout the metropolitan area in August 1993. The dates, locations a summary of issues, and copies of all comment letters are included in the Volume Four Appendix to this plan. Based on the comments received at these presentations and in follow up letters, the staff prepared revisions for the SSC to consider. While the public comment period on the draft had to be limited to 30 days to meet the federal deadline for plan endorsement, the volume of comments received indicates that the public outreach effort was successful. The SSC reviewed the proposed changes and developed the final Transportation Plan draft for circulation to MPO agencies. After the JRTC's recommendation on MPO endorsement in September and MAPC review in mid-September, the MPO is to convene in late September to adopt the 1993 Transportation Plan Update in advance of the October 1, 1993 deadline. The Future of Public Involvement _____________________________________________ Section 450.116 (15)(v) of the ISTEA regulations states that "citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation and other interested parties shall have full access to plans and programs, their supporting materials and an opportunity to participate in all stages of the planning process." The March 1993 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) further requires the publication of the public participation process allowing a 45 day period for written comment prior to its adoption. Any changes to the adopted procedure would also require a 45 day review period. 4-6 The proposed rules provide an opportunity to re-examine the public involvement process to see if it fully reflects the intent of the ISTEA and to see if there are ways to enhance the current modus operandi. This is especially important given the nature of flexible funding decisions now confronting transportation agencies. A strong sense of what the public wants will provide decision- makers some degree of assurance that they are indeed acting in accordance with the public will when deciding, for example, whether to allocate funds to transit services or to highway projects. The second round of public involvement in the development of this Transportation Plan that included the distribution of a brochure and evening Town Hall meetings are part of an effort to enhance the current public involvement process by beginning what is hoped to be an ongoing, direct dialogue with communities. When the Transportation Plan is updated or a new Transportation Improvement Program is developed, there will already be an established relationship between the MPO and the communities as well as an understanding of the context in which these documents are presented. Community education about transportation issues is more vital now than ever before because, with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, public participants need to consider factors influencing transportation decisions that reach beyond the community to the region and the state. Citizens need a solid grounding in these issues, so that expanded public participation enhances the process. To address this issue, it makes sense to consider such things as linking the JRTC, MAPC and the Advisory Board, with their history and overall understanding of the transportation issues, directly to the public through hosting periodic transportation forums on local radio and television programs as well as providing trained facilitators at public meetings to create a cooperative atmosphere in which all voices can be heard. In addition, the MPO may want to consider such activities such as keeping local newspapers abreast of transportation policy issues on an ongoing basis, and publishing regular newsletters for distribution at local universities, libraries, and civic organizations. Greater public meeting participation can also be encouraged through the use of radio and television public service announcements, local newspapers and community bulletin board postings such as those in shopping malls. The Americans with Disabilities Act, among other things, requires that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in the public process. Public meetings must be held in places that are wheelchair accessible and notices for meetings need to include information regarding access accommodations. 4-7 The notices themselves need to be accessible, i.e., given out on telephone tape as well. To be useful, these notices must be distributed well enough in advance to make arrangements for sign language interpreters and assistive listening devices and to provide meeting materials in accessible formats (large print, Braille, and tape) when requested. Expanding ways to enhance participation for people with disabilities can lead to greater participation for the general public as well. For instance, an emerging computer technology known as CART (Computer Aided Real-time Translation) expands on the use of stenographers who, with special equipment, are able to provide a nearly simultaneous English translation of meeting proceedings which is then projected onto a screen. It is now primarily used by people who are deaf; however, with further technological advances, it will allow anyone unable to attend a public meeting, regardless of disability, to participate from a remote location if they have access to a computer and a modem. As in other areas of transportation planning, the public participation process is in a state of transition and there are many avenues to explore as the MPO develops a revised process for publication. The concluding chapter of this Plan, Challenges and Next Steps, explicitly addresses the need for an ongoing public participation program. The timeline in the Challenges and Next Steps chapter includes direct references to this need. 4-8 CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND TRANSPORTATION Introduction _____________________________________________ The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) reinforces the need to incorporate environmental values in the transportation planning process. Moreover, ISTEA complements other federal environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Energy Policy Act. Protection of the environment should be considered a priority from the inception of a transportation project or program to its completion and operation. The Boston-region MPO is committed to full support of federal and state environmental laws. The Boston MPO's support for proper environmental practices fits into the overall EOTC commitment to full compliance with environmental regulations, within its statewide mission of providing cost-effective transportation systems. This Transportation Plan contains four key environmental goals and policies. They are: - Reduce air pollution to achieve and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). - Encourage the use of low-pollution fuels and engine technology. - Use transportation-enhancement activities to preserve and improve the natural and built environments, making communities and the region more healthy and attractive. - Minimize water, soil, and noise pollution. The MPO agencies are committed to using all practicable means to limit the adverse environmental impacts from existing and new transportation projects or programs proposed in this Transportation Plan. This is done through compliance with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. Both of these acts require that all potential environmental impacts of a project be reviewed, and if there are impacts, that mitigation measures be identified. MEPA requires that agencies take all feasible means and measures to avoid or minimize damage to the environment when they take action on public and private projects. This is done through the issuance of a permit or through the issuance of a section 61 finding that documents the steps to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. The MHD is in the process of developing an environmental manual that will include policies on environmental issues including wetlands, air quality, 5-1 soils, water quality, runoff, and noise impacts. In addition, the Transportation Enhancement Program provides funding for activities that enhance the environment. Programs that are eligible for funding under this category include mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff, acquisition of scenic easements, landscaping, and control and removal of outdoor advertising. This program is discussed later in this chapter. Both the Massachusetts Clean State Program and the pending 1993 Transportation Bond Bill are additional examples of the Commonwealth's commitment to environmental quality. The Boston- region MPO will build on these two initiatives. The Massachusetts Clean State Program was prepared by the Massachusetts Clean State Coordinating Council in July of 1993. It is based on Governor Weld's Clean State Executive Order #350. This order requires all Commonwealth agencies to develop compliance schedules for correcting environmental violations at state facilities. It also requires agencies to develop a pollution prevention plan that includes management practices for reducing pollution on site and the education of employees in these pollution prevention practices. The 1993 Transportation Bond Bill will propose expenditures to correct environmental problems at transportation facilities. Specifically, it will call for $90.4 million for hazardous-waste elimination and clean-up at MBTA sites and $4 million for the removal and replacement of fuel tanks at MHD sites. An additional $403.2 million will be proposed for transit improvements related to the Clean Air Act and CA/T SIP commitments. The balance of this chapter discusses issues and programs related to bicycle and pedestrian programs, air quality, water quality, land use, open space, transportation enhancements, and energy conservation. Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs _____________________________________________ Bicycle and pedestrian travel have emerged as increasingly popular forms of recreation and commuting. Bicycles and foot travel are essentially pollution-free, use no fossil fuels, are quiet, and take up very little spaceþin operation and in storage. From an air quality perspective, it is particularly important to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to intermodal facilities. Engine cold starts and short vehicle trips contribute significantly to air pollution. Many short-automobile or park-and-ride- facilities trips could be switched to the bicycle or pedestrian modes by the provision of new or improved access to such facilities. 5-2 The proposed transportation bond bill will recognize the important role of bicycle and pedestrian movement. The bill will propose a joint MHD-MBTA program to improve and promote on-street bicycle commuting to urban cores and support bicycle access to transit, rail, and HOV facilities. Although the basic components of the program are detailed later in this Plan1, it is important to note here that the bill will propose $6 million statewide for a bicycle/pedestrian commuting program. An additional $6 million would be slated for off-street bikeways and rails-to-trails projects. The Boston region MPO supports programs intended to make the road system compatible with and suitable for bicycle transportation. Key in this approach will be the state's Bicycle/Pedestrian Commuting Program described below. This bicycle and commuting program will have five basic components. First, metropolitan area bike commuting corridors will be developed on or along radial roadways and other arterials. Second, bicycle and pedestrian routes will be developed leading to terminals for other modes. Third, bicycle locking facilities including bike lockers, will be installed at MBTA, other regional transit authority, commuter rail, bus and ferry park and ride locations. These bicycle locking facilities should be high quality, safe, and weather protected. Fourth, there will be an improvement program designed to provide widened roadways and paths, to smooth railroad grade crossings, to install "bicycle friendly" storm sewer grates, and to improve signs and roadside graphics. Fifth, there will be a promotional campaign to encourage bike and pedestrian commuting and intermodal travel. And sixth, the state transportation agencies will establish a program to train engineers, designers, planners and others in bicycle and pedestrian transportation program design and delivery. This should lead to the development of a MHD design manual compatible with current AASHTO standards.2 Federal funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects may be available through a variety of sources: - ISTEA Transportation Enhancements Program3 - Symms National Recreational Trail funding - ISTEA Congestion Mitigation Program - Public Lands Highway funding. The Scenic Byways program will provide funding for the planning, design, and development of bikeways associated with scenic byways, and Public ___________________________ 1 Chapters 6 and 7 provide expanded discussions of existing and proposed bicycle initiatives. 2 AASHTO is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 3 The Transportation Enhancements Program is detailed in Chapter 8 - The Transportation Plan & Strategies. 5-3 Lands funding may be used for a variety of projects, including byways programs and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In general, all new roadway projects and all reconstruction projects should be planned, designed, and constructed so as to provide increased safety and mobility for all users, including people who walk and bicycle. Air Quality _____________________________________________ CONFORMITY WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT The entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts is classified as in serious nonattainment for ozone, and nine cities in the Boston area are classified as in moderate nonattainment for carbon monoxide. Because of the nonattainment classification, the Transportation Plan for the Boston MPO must conform with the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Commonwealth is required to revise the 1982 SIP to include programs that will achieve the required 15% reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by 1996 mandated in the Clean Air Act. In addition, the SIP must be revised to include projections of VOCs, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and projections of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). These revisions are currently in the public comment phase and must be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by November 15, 1993. The draft status of these programs means that they can not officially be incorporated into this version of Transportation Plan as required programs. Transportation-related programs submitted for consideration by the public that will contribute to the 15% reduction in emissions of VOCs include the following: - Stage II Vapor Recovery at motor vehicle filling stations - Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance for automobiles - Federal Reformulated Gasoline - California Low-Emission Vehicle Program* - High-occupancy vehicle lanes* - Substantial additional fringe parking underway or planned* - Incident management and Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems* - Traffic flow improvements* - Transit service quality performance measures - Reviews of fare policies to maintain and enhance ridership - Transit extensions and capacity increases being developed as part of the Program for Mass Transportation* - Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access program* 5-4 Although these programs have not formally been submitted to EPA as an SIP revision, the programs that are identified above with an asterisk (*) have been included in this Transportation Plan. There are no other specific transportation control measures targeted at the Boston MPO region that are being considered as measures to meet the 15% reduction in VOC emissions by 1996. In reviewing the calculations for the 15% reduction in emissions of VOCs, DEP has proposed a 2.4% growth rate in vehicle miles traveled to determine future emissions from motor vehicles. This Plan has shown an increase in vehicle miles traveled of only 1.4% per year from 1990 through 1999 with an increase of 0.5% per year from 1999 through 2020. In addition, new transportation conformity regulations were issued in January of 1993. However, these regulations will not be finalized until November 1, 1993. There is considerable debate among private environmental organizations, state transportation officials, state air pollution control officials, and EPA as to the appropriate content of the proposed regulations. They can not, therefore, be incorporated into this Plan. In accordance with the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the Boston MPO has determined that the 1993 Transportation Plan for the Boston region complies and conforms with the 1982 Massachusetts State Implementation Plan for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide. The MPO has used U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and EPA Interim Conformity Guidelines criteria and procedures to make the following determinations: 1. The policies, goals, and objectives of the Transportation Plan support the commitments and goals outlined in the 1982 SIP. 2. The recommendations and projects identified in the Transportation Plan do not contradict any specific requirements or commitments of the 1982 SIP. 3. The Transportation Plan provides for the expeditious implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) of the 1982 SIP and the 1991 proposed Amendments to the SIP. 4. The Transportation Plan does not increase the frequency or severity of existing violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, but in fact contributes to a reduction in carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides. The comparison of ozone attainment year 1999 No Build to attainment year 1999 Build conditions shows a decrease in emissions of VOC, CO, and NOx over No Build. In addition, in comparing attainment year 1999 Build conditions to 1990 Base Year conditions, there also is a reduction in emissions of the three 5-5 pollutants over Base Year conditions. A summary of those comparisons is provided below. Change in VOC Emissions: % Change 1999 No Build to 1999 Build (kg/day) -443 -0.51% 1990 Base Year to 1999 Build (kg/day) -69,892 -44.58% Change in CO Emissions: 1999 No Build to 1999 Build (kg/day) -4831 -0.58% 1990 Base Year to 1999 Build (kg/day) -1,065,561 -56.12% Change in NOx Emissions: 1999 No Build to 1999 Build (kg/day) -795 -0.60% 1990 Base Year to 1999 Build (kg/day) -46,645 -26.01% The full conformity determination is presented in the Appendix B in this volume. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Transportation demand management (TDM) is the implementation of actions and strategies that directly affect the way people make choices in commuting to work. Examples of TDM actions are carpool and vanpool programs, subsidized transit passes, flextime policies, ridesharing coordinators, bicycle facilities, and shuttle services. TDM actions are usually implemented directly by employers or areawide ridesharing agencies. TDM strategies refer to a higher- level government policy or program consisting of ways to encourage or require intermediaries (employers, developers, or transportation management organizations) to carry out TDM actions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a number of cities and towns, and private organizations are currently implementing transportation demand management actions and strategies. As part of a SIP revision in 1978, the Commonwealth enacted a Ridesharing Regulation to reduce the number of work-related vehicle trips. The regulation requires that all employers with 250 or more employees reduce single-occupant-vehicle commuters by 25% by making transit passes available, posting transit schedules, providing bicycle incentives, negotiating improved bus schedules with local regional transit authorities, and conducting a carpool program. Employers of 1000 or more employees are also required to set up a vanpool program in addition to the other programs. This program, however, was not enforced. As part of the 1993 revisions to the SIP, the Commonwealth is required to enforce the existing regulation or replace it with a program of equal benefit. 5-6 The recommended actions in this Transportation Plan will help in achieving a rideshare goal by increasing the service area of the mass transit system to allow for additional ridership, providing transit facility improvements for a safer, more efficient transportation system, and providing other transportation control measures in the Boston MPO area. MAPC is working with EOTC, CARAVAN, local transportation management areas, and private Massachusetts companies to implement a transportation voucher program. DOER will implement a pilot program with five to ten Massachusetts companies to promote incentives for employees to commute by ridesharing, transit, foot, or bicycle. It is also committed to promote telecommuting and improved computer networking, video conferencing, and other telecommunications technology, as well as Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems. It will implement three to five pilot or demonstration projects that will be evaluated for their impacts on transportation, air quality, energy savings, productivity, costs, and employee morale. The Clean Air Act Amendments include a list of 16 transportation control measures (TCMs) to be implemented where feasible in areas that are classified as in severe and extreme nonattainment for ozone. Massachusetts is not in this classification; however, some of these measures are currently being implemented throughout the Boston MPO region to actively promote the reduction in single-occupant-vehicle travel. Examples of these activities include: - Construction and upgrading of bicycle paths and the provision of bicycle-related facilities in the Boston region by the MHD, MDC, and MBTA. - Reduction of tolls for high-occupancy vehicles and provision of preferential toll booths by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) to provide economic incentives to shift from single-occupant vehicles. - Promotion of transit and ridesharing by providing services for both employers and commuters throughout the Commonwealth via the state-sponsored program CARAVAN for Commuters. - Expansion of the MBTA's marketing department to help promote the shift to transit and the continuing expansion of the number of parking spaces at its suburban transit stops. At the local level, the cities of Boston and Cambridge are implementing TDM actions in their communities. Parking freezes are in effect in both cities because of SIP commitments in the 1970s. Boston's parking freeze affects the downtown, South Boston, and East Boston and limits the number of commercial parking spaces in these areas. It does not, however, include employer-provided 5-7 parking spaces. Cambridge currently has a comprehensive parking freeze in effect for the entire city. Both cities also have a residential parking permit program which limits the number of spaces available for commuters traveling into those cities. In addition, Boston implements two other programs to reduce vehicle miles traveled and travel time delay--an access management program and a congestion management program. The private sector has also become involved in TDM practices. Private developers have implemented employer-sponsored programs, which include preferential parking for high-occupancy vehicles, computer ride matching, flexible work schedules, and subsidization of transit fares. These programs were implemented to help in reducing the impacts of new developments on air quality and the transportation system. The state and the Boston MPO have also encouraged the formation of private, employer-sponsored transportation management associations or organizations (TMAs or TMOs). TMAs are private nonprofit groups formed to facilitate private sector involvement in addressing transportation issues on a subregional or local basis. The primary focus of TMAs is to serve as the private sector's voice on transportation planning, provide marketing and educational support to encourage reduction of vehicle miles traveled, and provide transportation services to their members. The measure of TMAs' success is not their formation, but rather the results they accomplish in policy change and service provision. They represent an organizational approach to accomplishing transportation demand management goals. Currently the Boston MPO region has seven TMAs in various stages of formation. They are: - 128 Transportation Council - businesses in six communities bordering Route 128 between Routes 2 and 20 - CommuteWorks - Longwood Medical Area in Boston - Back Bay TMA - Boston's Back Bay area - Interinstitutional TMA - Boston's South End medical area at Massachusetts Avenue and Albany Street - North Suburban TMA - businesses in nine communities along Route 128 between Routes 2A and 129 - 495-West Commuter Options - Marlborough - MetroWest TMA - focusing on Framingham and Natick TMAs are important in ensuring effective programs in the implementation of the Ridesharing Regulation. CARAVAN has played and will continue to play an important role in the implementation of these programs and provide an important link to the private business sector. In addition, when the revised regulation is passed, any new support programs and projects required to implement the program will be included in the revised Transportation Plan. 5-8 Water Quality _____________________________________________ Protecting water resources is important for a better quality of life, recreational activities, wildlife and plant protection, and public and private water supplies. The Boston MPO recognizes the importance of these issues and is committed to the protection of these resources. The MHD has specific guidelines which will be outlined in the environmental manual it is developing. These guidelines should be widely distributed to local departments of public works as guidance in maintaining and designing local roadways. The policies are related to the protection of wetlands, control of stormwater runoff, and judicious use of road salt. In addition, Massport is addressing environmental concerns related to dredging activities in Boston Harbor that will maintain the usefulness of designated port access, improve safe navigation, and avoid environmental degradation. These water quality policies and practices have been developed to ensure compliance with the federal Clean Water Act, Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA), Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act, Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review, and Chapter 91, which addresses public waterfront use. WETLAND PROTECTION The protection of wetlands is important to the protection of public and private water supplies, groundwater, shellfish, wildlife, and plant life, as well as for protection against floods, storm damage, and pollution. The MHD recognizes their importance and has developed a specific policy regarding the protection of this resource during highway planning, design, and construction. The specific policy is that there should be no net loss of wetlands due to the construction of a new highway project. Every effort will be made to avoid the loss of wetlands. If this is unavoidable, then the impact should be minimized to the fullest possible extent. In any case, if mitigation measures are required there must be a replacement of a ratio of at least 1:1 for size and function. SECTION 6217 OF THE CZARA This section of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) requires that states develop Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs to implement management measures for nonpoint source pollution by more fully integrating federal, state and local authorities. A specific example of the type of integrated planning recommended in Section 6217 is the "Program to protect and restore shellfish beds impacted by storm drain discharge" by the Mass Bays Program, Division of Marine Fisheries and the US Soil Conservation Service. 5-9 The management measures to be developed will consist of programs to address: - Siting roads, highways and bridges - Construction projects for roads, highways and bridges - Construction site chemical control for roads, highways and bridges - Operation and maintenance for roads, highways and bridges - Runoff systems for roads, highways and bridges The basic intent of the Section 6217 requirements is that the management measures will become routinely incorporated early on into the planning process for every transportation project. CONTROL OF STORMWATER RUNOFF Direct runoff of stormwater from highways can be harmful to water resources and public water supplies within the vicinity of the highway facility. Since 1983, DEM has found that 70% of the rivers and coastal waters and almost 100% of the lakes that have been assessed were found to be affected to some degree by nonpoint source pollution including stormwater runoff from roads and parking lots. The current policy of the MHD is that all roadway improvement projects that have stormwater drainage systems should be rebuilt according to the best management practices and the pending regulations of the Clean Water Act. The MHD will avoid building culverts that empty directly into wetlands. Sedimentation basins and natural filtration systems will be used, to the extent practicable, to filter stormwater runoff from highway systems. In addition to upgrading and building new stormwater drainage systems to be more sensitive to water resources affected by highway facilities, the MHD will be working with the Department of Environmental Management's (DEM) Areas of Critical Environmental Concern program and with local conservation commissions in the Boston MPO region to identify areas where protection from stormwater runoff is critical to preserve wildlife, plant life, recreational value, and/or other public and private resources in the area. Once identified, these areas will become priority locations for remediation using state-of-the-art sedimentation and natural filtration systems. The MHD is working with the Department of Environmental Protection and the Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) to develop these stormwater management techniques and develop a methodology for identification of priority locations for remediation. It will incorporate the techniques into its general practices, taking the lead in the hope that local communities will incorporate these practices into their policies for local roadways. 5-10 USE OF ROAD SALT The use of roadway salt during the winter to keep roadways clear of snow and ice can have adverse effects on sensitive areas adjacent to the roadway. To reduce the impacts of roadway salt, the MHD is identifying these sensitive areas and using techniques to reduce salt use in such areas. The sensitive areas include reservoirs, wetlands, watershed protection areas, and aquifer recharge areas. Another method of reducing the amount of salt on the roadways is the calibration and regular maintenance of the salt-spreading machines. DREDGING ACTIVITIES IN THE BOSTON HARBOR The maintenance of the navigability of Boston Harbor is necessary for ensuring the continued economic vitality of the port of Boston. As demonstrated in Chapter 6, deep-water shipping is a vital link in the movement of freight throughout the region. Dredging must be done on a periodic basis to allow for these vessels to move safely in and out of the harbor. In recent years, the lack of suitable sites for the disposal of dredged materials containing contaminants has become a constraint in maintaining the harbor and has caused delays in dredging activities. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and Massport are currently working on a Navigation Improvement Project for Boston Harbor. The Environmental Impact Review process for this project is addressing the disposal issue. As part of the review, a forum of regulatory agencies has been set up to attempt to resolve this issue. Land Use _____________________________________________ RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE The transportation network guides development patterns statewide, and subsequently determine the opportunities for job creation, economic growth, and the environment. The land use implications of transportation decisions that promote new roads or the widening of existing roads, highways, and bridges cannot be ignored. The transportation agencies have agreed to work with state environmental, energy, and economic development agencies to develop a strategy which will encourage development to occur in areas well served by transportation facilities. This can be accomplished in several ways. First, the Commonwealth can target state infrastructure investments (that is, transportation, water, and sewer facilities) to areas that are identified in local and regional plans as being suitable for concentrated development. 5-11 Second, the Commonwealth can provide a variety of incentives for commercial developers to locate in higher-density areas, such as traditional city and town centers and along or at the end of public transit or commuter rail lines, where there already is good public transportation infrastructure. These incentives could take the form of low-interest loans, property tax abatement, and worker training. Third, energy efficiency can be obtained through supporting initiatives which reduce passenger miles traveled and increase miles per gallon of fuel consumed. The Boston MPO intends to build upon the work done for the Massachusetts Energy Plan, particularly that Plan's recommendations to use transportation investments to increase the energy efficiency of land development patterns. In addition, the Clean Air Task Force for Transportation recommended that a comprehensive strategy be developed for encouraging new development which is located near existing alternative transportation infrastructure and which promotes the highest feasible average vehicle occupancy. However, there was disagreement on what such a strategy should contain. The Boston MPO will cooperate with the Division of Energy Resources, the Governor's Office, and the Executive Office of Economic Affairs to develop an improved understanding of the relationship between transportation investment and land development. Short trips can often be accomplished by walking or bicycling, especially if appropriate paths are available. Certain land use patterns, clustering techniques, and good urban design foster non motorized personal travel. For example, as noted in the state energy plan, design and location of commuter parking facilities should ensure that park-and-ride lots and intermodal facilities are accessible for bicyclists and pedestrians. Moreover, energy efficient transit service is fostered by compact development around transit stations, especially if this development features clustering of services for transit station users. The Boston MPO will work with local, regional, and state agencies to match transportation improvements with energy efficient land development patterns. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND ACCESS POLICY GUIDELINES In Massachusetts, zoning and land use decisions are the jurisdiction of local governmentþthat is, cities and towns. For those projects that occur along state-controlled highways, the MHD has the access control authority to grant curb cuts. Developments of a sufficient size that are located along state highways are required to complete an environmental review process by MEPA under the direction of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA). 5-12 The transportation agencies work with the EOEA in assessing the transportation impacts of projects and help in determining proper mitigation measures for those projects that require state permits. By identifying and implementing mitigation measures, the state can ensure that additional development does not adversely affect the existing environment. In order to ensure consistency in the information and procedures used in the review of proposed developments, EOTC and EOEA issued joint guidelines for preparing traffic impact assessments. State highway and transit improvement projects are subject to these same environmental regulations. Proposed projects are usually submitted early in the design phase so as to allow for a review of alternatives. This environmental review process gives the public a chance to comment on the scope of the project, possible alternatives, and potential environmental impacts of the new transportation project. As a result of the public environmental review process, the project should emerge as a better, more environmentally sensitive transportation project. It is important to note that each of the projects recommended in this Transportation Plan must first complete this environmental review process before construction on the project may begin. The inclusion of a project in this Transportation Plan is only the first phase in public review before a project is undertaken. Open Space Program _____________________________________________ The Boston region is enhanced by vistas of natural beauty and historic significance. These natural and historic resources help define the region and serve to promote tourism and economic development. In order to maintain the quality of life of the region it is important to protect the existing vistas as seen from the region's highways and transit corridors. EOTC and the MHD are actively pursuing an Open Space Program designed to protect views along transportation corridors that are deemed to have significant scenic, historic, or cultural value. The 1993 Transportation Bond Bill will request $10 million for the purchase of open-space land along transportation corridors. The Boston MPO will work in conjunction with local communities, regional conservation agencies and other interested parties in developing a program to identify potential sites, particularly those parcels that are threatened. After identification of parcels of significance, the state will try to acquire the land either outright or through a conservation restriction on the parcel. All of the land acquisitions will be done in conjunction with other state, regional, local, or private non profit conservation agencies. Once acquired, the maintenance of the properties will be overseen by regional agencies or private non profit groups, such as Trustees for the Reservation. In addition to funding for open-space 5-13 parcels through the State Transportation Bond Bill, federal ISTEA funds within the enhancements category may be used for acquisition purposes. Currently, potential acquisition sites in the Boston region include parcels along Route 128 from Beverly to Gloucester and parcels along Route 3 in Marshfield. The Commonwealth was recently selected as a recipient for a grant to carry out eligible projects under the Interim Scenic Byways program. The grant award, for nearly $380,000, will be used for two projects: a Route 6A corridor management plan to include traffic improvements for safety, scenic turn-outs, and pedestrian enhancements; and a Route 60 corridor preservation project that will include conceptual designs for a bike/pedestrian pathway and designs for highway safety and amenities. Transportation Enhancement Program _____________________________________________ A new funding category has been established under ISTEA requiring that a minimum of 10% of all Surface Transportation Program funds be dedicated to transportation enhancement activities. Ten categories of projects are eligible under this program, including: - bicycle and pedestrian facilities; - acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites; - scenic or historic highway programs; - landscaping enhancements; - rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities; - preservation of abandoned transportation corridors, as in rails-to-trails programs; - archeological planning and research; - control and removal of outdoor advertising; - mitigation of water pollution due to stormwater runoff. One example of an innovative activity in the region consistent with the spirit of ISTEA enhancements is a program proposed by the Joint Commission on the Future of Boston Harbor Beaches. Communities in the region originally depended upon the shoreline for food and transportation as well as recreation. But by the 1960s, for various reasons, use of the beaches had declined. The Beach Commission has proposed a comprehensive program for the region's beaches, including the Harbor Island beaches. In order for the public to continue to use beach resources, there must be effective access to and from the shoreline. Properly planned and located pathways and water transportation can provide the connections necessary to enhance the public's use of beaches. EOTC is in the process of developing guidelines for evaluating enhancement project eligibility and priority. The purpose of the guidelines is to 5-14 assist applicants as they go through the project review process. The guidelines will also be used to establish enhancement priorities for the State Transportation Plan and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The process will rely on regional planning agencies for project screening and ranking. The RPA (in this region, the MAPC) will use objective criteria to evaluate each project and then will submit recommendations to an EOTC steering committee that will make final recommendations to the Secretary of EOTC. The criteria are intended to help evaluate a project's significance and effectiveness. Enhancements funding anticipated to be available to the state is estimated as follows: Fiscal Year Federal Funding Total * 1994 $ 650,000 $ 812,500 1995 650,000 812,500 1996 18,150,000 22,687,000 1997 18,150,000 22,687,000 TOTAL $46,999,000 *Including state match. Source: Capital Expenditures Programming Office The selection process, which is being developed, will give priority to those proposals which can best establish the merit of a project, its linkage to broader regional planning objectives, and the breadth of public support. The effort will seek to provide a fair balance of different types of projects across the Commonwealth. Energy Use _____________________________________________ ENERGY CONSERVATION In the 1970s and 1980s, the consumption of fossil fuel was a concern because of the need to import fuel at increasingly high prices. The concern now also focuses on environmental problems associated with emissions of VOCs and NOx, as they relate to ozone formation, and CO. The transportation program, in response to this, needs to ensure that conservation and the efficient utilization of energy resources occurs in both the operation of facilities and in the development of new infrastructure. In addition, there is the need for a system that is adaptable and flexible in the event of future energy shortages. 5-15 There has been a substantial increase in demand for petroleum fuels in the transportation sector over the last decade because of inexpensive gasoline, urban sprawl, and the convenience of automobile usage. Many projects and programs in this Transportation Plan emphasize actions that decrease fuel consumption per trip. For example, this Plan recommends development in higher density areas that are suitable for transit and walking trips. The Plan also seeks the creation of secure bicycle facilities at transit stations to encourage people to bike instead of drive to the train on daily commutes. The Plan supports increasing auto occupancy rates and transit usage. A reduction in fuel consumption does not have to affect the total number of trips in the region. The Plan considers a number of project studies for extending transit service to areas not previously served. It also includes measures to reduce automobile dependence, to improve traffic flow (e.g. intersection improvements that eliminate pollution causing bottlenecks), and to promote alternative forms of travel (e.g. bicycle facilities, water shuttle to Logan Airport). All of these programs help to reduce inefficient travel, particularly by the single-occupant vehicle, and therefore help reduce fuel consumption. The Boston MPO also intends to build upon work done by the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources (DOER) in their Massachusetts Energy Plan. Their plan proposes to diversify the transportation fuel mix, reduce air pollution, increase the use of alternative fuels, and promote public transportation modes. They are hoping to implement programs with a combination of incentives and investments that will result in a reduction in traffic congestion and improved energy efficiency. A discussion of some of their proposed programs was presented under the Transportation Demand Management section of this chapter. Other programs will be discussed below. ALTERNATIVE FUELS A different method of reducing fossil fuel consumption is the use of alternative fuel vehicles. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is pursuing a number of programs to encourage the use of alternative fuels. The Boston MPO supports these programs. Legislation has been passed to implement the California Low Emissions Vehicle Program. This program establishes stringent new low emission vehicle standards through four new categories of vehicles adhering to increasingly stringent emission standards. Beginning with model year 1995, all vehicles sold in Massachusetts must conform with the California low emission vehicle standards. The vehicles include transitional low emission vehicles, low emission vehicles, ultra-low emission vehicles and zero emission vehicles. Compliance with these standards will have to be achieved through a combination of advanced vehicle emission control technology and clean burning fuels. 5-16 Alternative fuels include methanol, ethanol, liquefied petroleum gas, compressed and liquefied natural gas, and electricity. The Commonwealth is also implementing a demonstration project promoting electric vehicles for commuting purposes. Twenty electric vehicles will initially be purchased by the state (with the potential of an additional thirty vehicles, possibly by the spring of 1994) to be leased by commuters who will use park-and- ride facilities equipped with recharging stations and take transit into the metro area. The recharging stations will be at the park and ride facilities at the MBTA Red Line station in Braintree and the MBTA Red Line Alewife station in Cambridge. A third facility, the MHD Newburyport park-and-ride facility, will have reserved parking spaces for the electric vehicles. Recharging stations will not be installed at this site because it will be servicing a smaller geographic area and recharging will not be required. The Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources will be working with the private sector and with local and state agencies to stimulate the market for alternative fuel vehicles. In addition to the electric vehicle program described above, the Division will be working with the appropriate organizations to lift the "travel- through-tunnel" restrictions on alternative fuel vehicles. They will also be working with the MHD, MBTA, Regional Planning Agencies and the State Police to develop workable regulations and operation guidelines giving preferential treatment to alternative fuel vehicles in parking lots and other transportation facilities. In addition to state initiatives, two pieces of federal legislation promote the use of alternative fuels. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments call for a clean-fuel-fleets program in all serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas. Fleets are defined as 10 or more vehicles owned and operated by a single person and having the capability to be centrally fueled. Fleet owners must maintain a certain percentage of clean-fueled vehicles. The Commonwealth is currently reviewing this regulation with EPA to determine if the California Low Emission Vehicle program will be an adequate substitute for the federally mandated program. The National Energy Policy Act of 1992 also provides incentives for fuel conservation and use of alternative fuels. The act provides incentives to employers to offer more valuable commute benefits to employees. It also allows employees to exclude from gross income up to $60 per month of qualified transportation benefits that are received from an employer. Benefits include van- pooling arrangements, bus tokens, and transit passes. A further incentive is offered in the National Energy Act, which allows a tax deduction of up to $2000 of the cost of a clean- fuel car or light truck purchased after June of 1993. Larger deductions apply to larger vehicles such as buses and heavy trucks. Electric vehicles purchased after June 30, 1993, are 5-17 eligible for a credit of 10% of their cost, with a maximum of $4000. These incentives have been provided in the hope that they will encourage the development of cars and trucks meeting the clean vehicle criteria. The National Energy Policy Act also requires that federal, state, and local governments and private fleet owners must maintain a certain percentage of their fleets as alternatively fueled vehicles. A fleet is defined as 10 or more light-duty vehicles. The act mandates that the following percentages of new vehicles purchased must be alternatively fueled vehicles: - Municipal and private fleet vehicles 20% in model year 1999 up to 70% in model year 2006 - State fleet vehicles 10% in model year 1996 up to 75% in model year 2000 - Federal fleet vehicles 5,000 nationwide in model year 1993 7,500 nationwide in model year 1994 10,000 nationwide in 1995 25% of federal fleet in model year 1996 - Alternative fuel providers fleet vehicles 30% in model year 1996 up to 90% in model year 1999 The MBTA is required to rebuild bus engines to comply with new standards that have been set by the Clean Air Act Amendments. As part of that requirement, the MBTA is experimenting with ceramic linings of engines to increase fuel economy. The MBTA is also looking into vehicle replacement with vehicles that use alternative fuels, such as liquid natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG). In addition, a federal defense-conversion grant has just been awarded to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) for electric vehicle research focusing on issues of importance in the Northeast. The grant will be used for the following projects: - build and crash test completely new (as opposed to converted) electric car. - bring electric vehicles and charging stations to Hanscom Field in Bedford. - develop and test electric cars in all six New England states. - develop hybrid-electric vehicles, using motors powered by natural gas, connected to an electric generator, to provide additional range for electric cars. 5-18 To complement this Transportation Plan's recognition of the need to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips, increased use of alternative fueled vehicles should be encouraged. The MPO agencies will take an active role in that effort. As regulations and programs are developed to achieve that goal, those initiatives can be incorporated into Plan updates. 5-19 CHAPTER 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEFICIENCIES Introduction _____________________________________________ The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of the conditions and characteristics of the existing Boston region transportation system. The challenge facing the Boston MPO is to recognize the deficiencies of the existing system and strive to integrate the various modes in a complementary manner. The existing system faces issues of accessibility, congestion, financial constraint, and environmental quality. Even taking into account the existing deficiencies within the system, the Boston region is well served by its transportation network. The transit system complements the highway network, Boston harbor provides safe transit for most forms of water transport and Logan airport serves as an important passenger and freight link to the region and the world. Intercity rail provides frequent service to points south and west. The close proximity of locations within the Boston core allows for ease of movement by pedestrians and bicycles. One of the strengths of the system, the extensive network of transportation facilities developed over the past three centuries, makes it necessary to allocate significant resources to maintaining this system. The age of the existing infrastructure demands constant attention and the programming of capital funds. The Policy section of Chapter 3 places a priority on funding maintenance projects. The Recommended Projects chapter, Chapter 8, discusses the ongoing capital needs to maintain the system. This chapter also contains a summary of regional travel characteristics. By understanding the demands on the various parts of the system, it is possible to note potential problems. After the discussion of regional travel characteristics, the chapter discusses the existing conditions and deficiencies of the individual components of the transportation network. Those components are: - Highway - Transit - Rail - Pedestrian and bicycle facilities - Air travel - Water travel 6-1 While the discussion of these modes is done independently, there is the recognition of the need to develop an interdependent system of travel that contains efficient intermodal connections. Boston is a major transportation connection point both within the New England area and to other areas of the world. Intermodal facilities such as Logan Airport, Boston Harbor, the Massachusetts Turnpike, the MBTA, Fort Devens, the local highway network, and intercity passenger and freight lines all provide a high level of transportation connections within the Boston area. This chapter discusses the management systems specified by ISTEA. The six management systems outlined in ISTEA will provide the region with a framework for achieving better integration of the different modes and for making better choices on where to spend transportation funds. By building upon the existing system and using the management systems as a guide, this Transportation Plan hopes to provide responsible choices for the public and elected officials to use in selecting future projects. In order to meet the future needs of the Boston region, the interconnectivity of the system will need to go beyond the provision of physical intermodal connections among the modes. The system needs to also ensure the efficient operation of each of the links in the system. Timed transfers between both passenger and freight connections is a crucial component of the intermodal system. Regional Travel Characteristics _____________________________________________ This section presents information on systemwide regional travel characteristics. The information is from the interim regional travel demand model. All of the model estimates are for 1990, the base year for travel demand forecasting; the estimates are for the 101 MPO cities and towns. It is important to note that these are not actual counts but estimates from a computer model. The model is calibrated so that it approximates the actual travel characteristics observed through traffic counts. Overall use of the roadway system in the Boston region is summarized by Average Weekday Traffic (AWDT), Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT), Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT), and average operating speed of passenger vehicles (MPH): - AWDT 7,260,000 vehicle trips - VMT 61,063,000 miles per day - VHT 1,963,000 hours per day - MPH 31.1 miles per hour 6-2 AWDT is the number of vehicle trips made on an average weekday. These are one-way trips, and so a trip to the grocery store and home again would count as two trips. (Note that a walking trip to the grocery store would be zero trips.) VMT is the total mileage traveled by all road vehicles in the region. VHT is the sum of the time spent on the road by those vehicles. VMT divided by VHT yields the average speed at which those vehicles are traveling. About two-thirds of VMT occur at a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of less than 0.75, and about 15% of VMT occur at a V/C ratio greater than 1.25. There are an estimated 8,950,000 daily person trips in the Boston region for all trip purposes. About 7% of these are transit trips; the rest are auto trips. Of these daily person trips, about 2,540,000 are work related. Transit serves about 13% of these work trips; the balance of work trips are auto, walk, or bike trips. Table 6-1 1990 Travel Model: Transit and Auto-Person Trips by Trip Type Transit Auto Trip Type Person-Trips Person-Trips Totals Home Based Work 334,980 2,203,799 2,538,779 Home Based Other 128,162 3,120,280 3,248,442 Home Based School 107,337 349,762 457,099 Non Home Based 79,959 2,624,897 2,704,856 Total 650,438 7.3% 8,298,738 92.7% 8,949,176 100% Compared to national estimates, a relatively large proportion of Boston regional travel is made by transit. Use of public transit, nationally, was 2.5% of all person trips in 1990, compared with about 7.3% for the Boston region. Figure 6-1 shows the estimated total number of trips in the region by trip purpose. Home-based work trips (HBWork) account for about 28% of total trips and Non-Home-based trips (NHB) another 31%. Non-home based travel is a rapidly growing trip purpose. About half of this type of travel is work related, such as leaving the office during the day to attend a meeting and then returning to the office. The rest is attributable to trip "chaining", such as leaving work at the end of the day and making a side trip to do an errand before returning home. Recurring congestion related to work travel contributes to delay, lost productivity, frustration, and air pollution. However, non work travel comprises about 72% of daily trips. This type of travel tends to be more difficult to serve with typical transit service, and does not lend itself to ridesharing. 6-3 Click HERE for graphic. 6-4 The regional travel model computes total emissions for the region based on VMT and Environmental Protection Agency emissions factors. Regionwide estimates for current emissions are: - 156,800 kg/day for volatile organic compounds (ozone precursor), - 1,898,700 kg/day for carbon monoxide, and - 179,300 kg/day for nitrogen oxides (also an ozone precursor). Estimated average trip length (one-way) in miles, by trip purpose is displayed below: Home-Based Work 12.0 miles Home-Based Shop 7.8 miles Home-Based Social 9.2 miles Home-Based School 7.1 miles Non Home-Based 8.4 miles For all trips: approx. 9 miles Nationally, there has been an increase in average trip length from 7.9 miles in 1983 to 9.0 miles in 1990.1 In this respect the Boston region is similar to national estimates. The greater decentralization of the metropolitan area contributes to increased trip distances. Highways _____________________________________________ The highway section of this chapter will: - provide a brief historical overview - discuss the functional classification of the region's highways - detail existing deficiencies in the system - discuss on-going efforts to address those deficiencies, and - outline the highway management systems required by ISTEA HISTORICAL OVERVIEW In 1639, Massachusetts enacted its first highway law, intended to help construct and improve the colony's rudimentary highway system. Until the late seventeenth century, the Massachusetts public road system was sparse, consisting mostly of dirt paths, except the roads constructed near population ___________________________ 1Source : 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey, U.S. DOT 6-5 centers to carry horse-drawn carts and wagons. Many of the old roads in the region followed the routes of Native American trails. After the Revolutionary War, private turnpike companies improved roads leading from the coast into the interior of the Commonwealth. The turnpike companies were given the right of eminent domain in constructing these roads and were allowed to charge tolls. One of the stated aims of the turnpike companies was to build straight roads, replacing the curving alignment of the existing paths. Remnants of this turnpike system still exist, including Washington Street near Dedham, the Newburyport Turnpike (Route 1), and portions of the Worcester Turnpike (Route 9). In 1893, the legislature created the State Highway Commission, and by 1900, the Commission developed a plan to connect the major cities with high-quality roads. In 1916, the first federal funds for road building became available with the adoption of the Federal Road Act. Through the 1920s, 1930s, and much of the 1940s, the Commission (renamed the Department of Public Works in 1919), gradually added mileage to the highway system. After a hiatus during World War II, "The Master Highway Plan" was published, which called for a system of radial and circumferential expressways linking Boston to its suburbs and to other major New England metropolitan areas. Route 128, the circumferential highway, was one of the first off the drawing board and into construction, being nearly completed by 1951. Highway planning and construction continued through the 1960s until early in 1970, when Governor Francis W. Sargent halted work on a number of highway projects in the Boston area that had become controversial. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION The highway system of the Boston region is composed of a large number of roads of varying width, length, and access characteristics. It is standard practice to organize the road inventory into a functional-classification system, using criteria such as trip length, degree of access control, and ratios of through traffic to local traffic to classify highways along a spectrum. The "higher" classified facilities (expressways and arterials) have complete access control and serve long distance trips with a high ratio of through traffic; at the other end of the spectrum, collector and local streets have almost unlimited access to adjacent property and typically are used for shorter trips. The functional classification of the Boston region's highway system is shown in Figure 6-2. After all metropolitan areas and the state have completed their functional classifications, the information will be used to identify the links in the proposed National Highway System. 6-6 Click HERE for graphic. 6-7 EXISTING HIGHWAY DEFICIENCIES Existing deficiencies within the highway system include: - highway congestion during peak hour periods - lack of intermodal freight connections - lack of intermodal passenger connections - highway and bridge safety needs - highway and bridge maintenance needs In order to address the problems of congestion on the roadways, the MHD has a number of on-going projects to encourage the use of alternative travel options and to increase the number of passengers per vehicle. Efforts include transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, HOV lanes, park and ride lots, support to programs such as CARAVAN, incident management, the "*SP" program and SmarTraveler. TDM Strategies Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies are used in the Boston area to help reduce congestion on the region's highways. Measures include a parking freeze for Cambridge and areas of Boston, auto-restricted zones in the Downtown Crossing area, employer-subsidized transit passes, and preferential parking for high occupancy vehicles. The region is presently involved in an expansion of the TDM program. HOV Lanes An HOV lane is in use on I-93 southbound, north of the southern bank of the Charles River. MHD is studying options for extending this HOV lane north, adding additional HOV lanes on I-93 from the I-90 interchange to the Route 3 interchange in Braintree, and an HOV lane system as part of the Charles River crossing for the Central Artery project. Commuter Parking The Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) and the MBTA provide 152 park-and-ride facilities for commuter rail, rapid transit, bus, boat, and carpools. Nearly 39,0002 parking spaces are provided throughout eastern Massachusetts, of which approximately 3,700 are provided at 22 lots by the MHD for bus and/or carpooling trips. Future plans call for adding 20,000 new spaces by 1999. Parking for bicycles will also be increased. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority has plans to add approximately 1,300 new park and ride spaces within ___________________________ 2Total park-and ride spaces by mode: Rapid Transit, 15,789; Commuter Rail, 17,947; Bus, 194; Boat, 1,350. MHD provided spaces, 3,712 6-8 the Boston area to help serve carpools, vanpools and transit riders. In addition, the MBTA provides over 1,000 bicycle parking spaces at rapid transit and commuter rail stations. CARAVAN Service CARAVAN for Commuters, Inc., Massachusetts' private nonprofit commuter services company, provides comprehensive transportation services to commuters and their employers in order to facilitate transit and shared-ride transportation alternatives to drive-alone commuting. Acting as a liaison between the public and private sectors, CARAVAN serves a client base of nearly 1,000 corporations, with 150 active projects, to create transportation programs for employers, developers, and communities. In addition, CARAVAN works with public and private decision- makers in forming Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) to improve commuter mobility on an areawide basis. As of early 1993, seven TMAs in various stages of formation were in existence in the Commonwealth. Acting as a central resource for national, state, and local information on transportation demand management initiatives, CARAVAN collaborates with government agencies, business leaders, and transportation-service providers to meet the Commonwealth's goals for improving air quality, increasing energy conservation, and reducing traffic congestion. CARAVAN also forms vanpools, recruits riders, and administers company-sponsored, owner-operator, and multi-vendor vanpool programs. Current ridership on 215 vans totals 3,010 round trips per day, with an average round trip length of 85 miles. For commuters without access to transportation services at the work site, CARAVAN provides commute planning assistance directly with its statewide commuter-information line. It serves as the single source for information for over 40 public and private transportation providers. Incident Management Accidents and other nonrecurring roadway hazards are responsible for as much as sixty percent of all vehicle hours lost to congestion. To address this problem, the state has instituted an incident management program that consists of a centrally organized effort of detection, response, clearance, and recovery of traffic incidents. *SP Program As a part of the incident management effort, the state has instituted the *SP program. This program encourages the reporting of accidents and congestion by motorists passing the scene of an incident. The program allows 6-9 callers from cellular phones to make a toll-free call to the State police to report accidents or other problems on the highway. IVHS Intelligent vehicle highway systems (IVHS) is a federally sponsored set of programs that involve integrated applications of advanced surveillance, communications, display, and control technologies. IVHS includes programs for advanced traffic management systems, advanced traveler information systems, commercial vehicle operations, advanced public transportation systems, and advanced vehicle control systems. One such program underway in the Boston area is SmarTraveler. SmarTraveler SmarTraveler is an IVHS project conducted in partnership with the MHD, MBTA, the Turnpike Authority, Massport, the State police, and SmartRoute Systems of Cambridge. The aim of the project is to provide real-time travel conditions on highway and transit systems to the general public. Programs like these enable the region to use the existing system in a more efficient manner. Another program underway by the MassPike is the traffic management program for the installation of an electronic toll and traffic management system (ETTM). Electronic tolls will be installed at the Sumner Tunnel and along the Boston Extension to help reduce the congestion along this busy stretch of highway. MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS MHD and the MBTA are in the process of implementing the six management systems required by ISTEA: - Congestion management system - Highway safety management - Bridge management system - Pavement management system - Public transportation management system - Intermodal management system By January 1, 1995, and annually thereafter, Massachusetts must certify that the state is implementing the six management systems. These systems are being developed and implemented in cooperation with metropolitan planning organizations. 6-10 The next version of Transportation Plan, as discussed in Chapter 10, will use the management systems as a guide for: - Investment need - Choice of investments - Conditions and requirements for implementation - Performance evaluation The idea of performance must be expanded beyond traditional level of service measures. A variety of indicators must be used in order to evaluate system performance; no single measure is desirable or possible. Considerations such as reliability, security, affordability, access to jobs, health care, and recreation, and environmental impacts must be included to create a user-based performance system. Congestion ISTEA requires the development and implementation of a Congestion Management System (CMS) by October 1, 1995. Although the definition and utility of a CMS are still evolving, clearly the CMS is intended to be a system that provides information on transportation systems performance to decision-makers for selecting and implementing cost-effective strategies to manage new and existing facilities, so that traffic congestion is alleviated and the mobility of persons and goods is enhanced. The CMS must cover the entire state but be implemented in sub-regions and be part of the metropolitan planning process in Transportation Management Areas, defined by ISTEA as all urban areas over 200,000 in population. Further, the CMS must be coordinated with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) in nonattainment areas. For example, traffic flow improvements, IVHS, transit system improvements, HOV lanes, and highway capacity increases are possible elements of a Congestion Management System. Thus, the CMS has the potential to be a central tool in the transportation planning and programming process. The program structure of the CMS is summarized as follows: - Establish performance measures to provide for identification and monitoring of recurring and nonrecurring congestion and for evaluation of effectiveness of congestion reduction and mobility enhancement strategies. - Identify geographic areas where the CMS will apply, based on existing or anticipated problems and the impact shed of potential mitigation strategies. 6-11 - Establish a continuous program of data collection and system monitoring so the duration and magnitude of congestion can be determined. - Identify strategies and evaluate anticipated performance based on strategies that will ensure the most efficient use of existing and future systems. Highway Safety ISTEA established the Highway Safety Management Program (HSMP) with an overall goal of reducing the number and severity of highway accidents. The HSMP must apply to all public roads. Roadway, human, and vehicle safety elements are to be incorporated into the program. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not have a formal highway safety management program currently in place. However, the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction will be coordinating this program in accordance with the ISTEA implementation deadline of October 1, 1994. The program must include four main areas: 1. The program must ensure that safety is considered and implemented in all phases of highway planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operations. 2. There are five major areas to be addressed in structuring the state program. These include: a. Coordinating and integrating broad-based safety programs into a comprehensive management approach for highway safety. b. Identifying and investigating hazardous or potentially hazardous highway safety problems and roadway locations and features; establishing countermeasures and setting priorities to correct the identified or potential hazards. c. Ensuring early consideration of safety in all highway transportation programs and projects. d. Identifying safety needs of special user groups in the planning, design, construction, and operation of the highway system. e. Routinely maintaining and upgrading safety hardware, highway elements, and operational features. 6-12 3. Plans, processes, procedures, and practices must be established to implement, coordinate, and evaluate programs, projects, and activities for the five previously outlined areas to be addressed. 4. The program must apply to all public roads. However, the requirements for local and rural minor collectors may be tailored to be consistent with the functional classification of the road. Bridge The bridge management system (BMS) includes formal procedures for collecting, processing, and updating data, predicting deterioration, identifying alternative actions, predicting costs, determining optimal policies, performing short- and long-term budget forecasting, and recommending projects and schedules within policy and budget constraints. A BMS provides decision makers with the information for making informed decisions on budget program expenditures. The BMS database enables the state efficiently to evaluate bridge needs, develop recommendations, and assess the short- and long-term impacts of bridge policies and alternative courses of action. The state's current bridge management system was developed in 1971 and consists of a computerized database and an ongoing program for collection and maintenance of inventory, inspection, cost, and supplemental data. The program was established using FHWA recommendations, so that information can be directly sent to FHWA for use in the National Bridge Inventory. The state must formally establish objectives and have system design underway by October 1, 1994, to meet ISTEA requirements. There are 1,518 bridges included in the state's inventory in the Metropolitan Boston area. All have been given a sufficiency rating and status under the highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program. The bridge ratings are contained in the Technical Appendix. An analysis of the existing inventory of bridges by MHD indicates that approximately $2.1 billion would be required for the rehabilitation, replacement, and maintenance of all the currently deficient bridges in the Boston MPO area. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority has begun a $50 million program for the repair and reconstruction of nine bridges between Framingham and Boston and a resurfacing of most of the roadway within the Boston region. Federal funding is available for rehabilitation and replacement of bridges on and off the Federal-aid system. Federal funding is available for 80% of the project and must be matched with 20% state funds. Routine maintenance of 6-13 bridges must be done with state funding. The projected 1993 expenditures for bridge rehabilitation, replacement, and maintenance in the Boston MPO area is approximately $31 million, of which $24.3 million is Federal funding and $6.5 million is state funding. Pavement ISTEA requires that the existing pavement management program by the state to be expanded to include all federal-aid highways by January 1, 1995. The two objectives of the state's pavement management system (PMS) are to manage the state's highway pavements in order to provide a safe level of serviceability and to supply MHD with the information needed to make decisions and allocate funds. The MHD has spent an average of $18.5 million per year over the past four years on pavement management for the Boston metropolitan area. The PMS is a systematic process that collects and analyzes data on pavement. This information is then used as input in selecting cost-effective strategies for providing and maintaining pavements in a serviceable condition. The Massachusetts PMS consists of four features: network inventory and evaluation, creation of a computerized database, development of safety, performance and economic models, and ranking of pavement rehabilitation projects. A detailed discussion of these features is provided in the Technical Appendix. MAPC is responsible for working with communities to develop comprehensive pavement condition assessments. These assessments assist communities in establishing programmatic needs and priorities for locally maintained-federal aid eligible roads, expenditures of Chapter 90 state gasoline tax revenues earmarked for community expenditure, and for raising local budget revenues. MAPC's most recent pavement management efforts illustrate that, while federal aid eligible roads are in better condition than other local roads, local road conditions represent a backlog of maintenance of about $1 billion, $150 million of which is eligible for federal aid. A current assessment of pavement maintenance needs in the region indicates that 29% of the state-maintained roadways and 25% of locally maintained roadways are in either fair or poor condition. A budget of approximately $25.9 million is required over the next six years to maintain the state-maintained roadway in the Metropolitan Boston area at its current level. In addition to actual road maintenance, specific mandates in ISTEA require the state to update and enhance their pavement management program. The program will require additional coordination with MAPC to include the local roadways in the expanded pavement management program. 6-14 Intermodal The purposes of the IMS system component of the Transportation Plan are to identify intermodal facilities in the region, prepare a coordinated plan for upgrading existing facilities, provide new facilities, and provide improved future connections among these facilities. The IMS system will be a key part of the MPO's efforts to improve connections between all the modes in the region. The IMS will provide the MPO with a way to track and measure the integration of transportation facilities and systems within the Boston region. The IMS will help in the integration of planning and implementation among the various travel modes. The Boston MPO has undertaken a work program to: - identify the intermodal facilities in the region - identify a data collection system for monitoring the network - define measures of effectiveness and performance standards. From these elements the MPO will be able to assess the efficiency of the existing system and develop recommendations for improvements in the intermodal system. As suggested by FHWA, categories to be addressed in the intermodal management system will include: - Physical limitations to intermodal movement - Accessibility of intermodal facilities - Transferability and coordination between modes - Legal and regulatory constraints to intermodal transportation - Delivery and collection systems for intermodal facilities - Safety of intermodal facilities and systems - Economic and environmental tradeoffs between modes Movement of Freight There is currently a lack of comprehensive data on the movement of freight into, through, and out of the region. This is to some extent attributed to the fact that most freight is moved by private trucking or rail carriers in a competitive environment. In order to address the deficiency of information on freight movement, the MHD has submitted a proposal to the FHWA for a study of the feasibility of developing an intermodal freight model for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The work will focus on specific needs in developing a model for intermodal freight and will include a commodity movement survey. Further work will include identifying specifications for the model including impedance functions, path and intermodal transfer choices, and information on network link flows for use in calibration of models. Despite this lack of data, trucking is a key method for moving goods within the region. Virtually every commodity sold in stores in Massachusetts travelled (at least in part) by truck, and long haul carriers link this state's 6-15 manufacturers to markets in the East Coast and in Canada. The trucking industry also has an important role to play in intermodalism as well as in the region's economic vitality. Trucks, including those carrying flammable cargo, need adequate access to the area's factories, railheads, ports, and Logan Airport, as well as to downtown Boston's offices, retail centers, and medical establishments. In addition, many motor carriers have been working cooperatively with public and private counterparts in a number of areas. First, the industry is working closely with railroads in developing new markets. Second, the trucking industry is helping to meet CAA requirements by switching to low sulphur diesel fuel. Third, the industry is participating in incident management programs. Transit _____________________________________________ The public transportation system in Greater Boston is composed of four primary modes: rapid transit (including light rail), railroad, bus, and boat. Each of the four modes developed independently. Each component, segment, and route of each mode has its own history, in most cases beginning with some private company. During the twentieth century, the pieces of the system were gradually absorbed into the public realm, the major exception being the several private bus companies that still operate fixed-route commuter service. See Resource Paper C in Volume Two of the Plan for a full description of the history of mass transit planning in the Boston region. Service and ridership statistics presented in this chapter were gathered from various sources including the MBTA's Ridership and Service Statistics (November 1991), the Program for Mass Transportation Phase 2 Report, and the Central Artery/Tunnel Project Regional Transit Mitigation Program, prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. for the MBTA (September 1991). EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS Rapid Transit and Light Rail The MBTA rapid transit and light rail systems are composed of 125 stations on four lines: the Red Line, the Orange Line, the Blue Line and the Green Line. All lines provide service to downtown Boston and all lines directly connect with each other, except for the Red and Blue lines. Figure 6-3 shows a schematic map of the rapid transit lines. Daily ridership on the rapid transit/light rail system is approximately 562,000 trips per weekday. (All 6-16 Click HERE for graphic. ridership data are composite averages for FY 1991 and are reported as unlinked trips.3) Red Line Of the three rapid transit lines (not including the Green Line), the Red Line is the longest (21 miles) and the most heavily used, generating an average 185,000 trips per weekday. It has 22 stations, 14 of which are wheelchair accessible (improvements to Andrew station are underway). The southern end of the Red Line has two branches: to Ashmont in South Dorchester, and to Braintree. Throughout most of the day, service is split equally between the two branches. Mattapan High Speed Line The Mattapan High Speed Line connects with the Red Line at Ashmont and operates between Ashmont and Mattapan, using transit cars from the 1940s. The line can be considered an extension of the Red Line in most respects, but its vehicles are maintained and operated as part of the Green Line fleet. Orange Line The Orange Line is 11 miles long and operates between Oak Grove in Malden and Forest Hills in Jamaica Plain. At 19 stations, 13 of which are wheelchair accessible, 127,000 trips are generated each weekday. The segment between Chinatown and Forest Hills, which was relocated in 1987, is 4.7 miles long with nine new stations. This portion shares most of its right-of-way with the commuter rail, which also stops at three of the stations. Blue Line The six-mile Blue Line is the shortest of the three rapid transit lines and operates between Wonderland in Revere and Bowdoin in the Government Center area of Boston. Twelve stations, two of which are wheelchair accessible, generate 54,000 weekday trips. Green Line The Green Line, which uses light rail vehicles, generates approximately 189,000 trips per weekday over 23 miles of track. The line has 13 stations in subways and along the elevated viaduct, and 57 surface stops on four branches to the west and southwest of downtown Boston: the Boston College branch (B Line), the Cleveland Circle branch (C Line), the Riverside branch (D Line), and the Arborway branch (E Line). None of the stations or stops is accessible. All branches operate to their named terminals with the exception of the Arborway branch that now terminates at the intersection of Heath Street and South Huntington Avenue. The northern terminus of the Green Line is at Lechmere ___________________________ 3An unlinked trip is one trip on a single vehicle. If a trip involves a transfer, each vehicle boarded would count as a single trip. For example, a trip that involves both a ride on the Green line and the Red line would involve two unlinked trips. 6-19 station in Cambridge, but only Heath Street/Arborway trains operate that far. Because ridership north of downtown Boston is much lower than to the west and southwest, Boston College and Riverside trains turn around at Government Center, and Cleveland Circle trains turn around at North Station. Bus and Trackless Trolley The MBTA operates 159 bus routes throughout the MBTA district, including four trackless-trolley lines in Cambridge, Watertown and Belmont. In FY 1991, total bus ridership was approximately 360,000 trips per weekday. Nearly all routes connect with the rapid transit system at least at one location. In areas closer to Boston, buses provide crosstown service, feeder service to rapid transit stations, and line haul service in heavily congested areas. Further out, buses provide local service and connections to rapid transit and some commuter rail lines. There are 952 buses and 38 trackless trolleys in the MBTA's active fleet, of which 473 are lift equipped. The MBTA operates express bus routes service from 11 communities. In 1991, typical weekday boardings on all express routes totaled 25,300 trips. The present MBTA bus network consists mostly of routes taken over from several previous operators. Most of these routes have long histories, and many had their origins as streetcar lines built before 1900. Schedules and route alignments have been revised gradually over the years, but most continue to operate along the same general alignments in response to continuing demand. Commuter Rail The 265-mile commuter rail network is composed of 11 radial lines with 101 stations, 39 of which are wheelchair accessible. In FY 1991, daily ridership was approximately 74,600 trips per day. Figure 6-4 displays the commuter rail network. The commuter rail system is split into two sides by the Massachusetts Turnpike: all routes north of the Massachusetts Turnpike þ the Rockport, Ipswich, Haverhill, Lowell, and Fitchburg lines operate to and from North Station; lines along the Massachusetts Turnpike or to the south þ the Framingham, Needham, Franklin, Attleboro/Providence, Stoughton, and Fairmount lines þ operate to and from South Station. All southside lines except the Fairmount Line also serve Back Bay Station. Suburban Bus The suburban bus program is geared toward low density communities where regular MBTA service would not be cost effective. Through this program, the MBTA provides funding and technical assistance to suburban communities that operate local transit services. The program, begun in 1979, subsidizes 10 6-20 Click HERE for graphic. communities: Bedford, Beverly, Burlington, Dedham, Framingham, Lexington, Lynn, the Mission Hill neighborhood of Boston, Natick, and Norwood. Average weekday ridership in FY 1991 totaled 1,875 trips. Cape Ann Transportation Authority The Cape Ann Transportation Authority provides transit service for the city of Gloucester, and the towns of Essex, Ipswich and Rockport. Gloucester and Rockport receive fixed-bus route and paratransit services, the towns of Essex and Ipswich receive paratransit services only. Private Carrier Bus Service A total of 20 private bus carriers provides commuter service on 34 routes within the study area, the majority of which are radial trips to downtown Boston. These carriers provide fixed-route service to communities that, for the most part, are not directly served by MBTA bus or rail. A list of these carriers and the towns they serve are contained in the Technical Appendix. In FY 1991, daily ridership on state subsidized routes by private carriers averaged 6,000 trips. Private Taxicab Service The taxicab industry provides a form of public transportation for those people who do not have access to an automobile. The City of Boston recently expanded the number of taxi medallions to provide handicapped-accessible taxis as part of the citywide taxi fleet. Paratransit The MBTA provides three specialized accessible service programs: The RIDE, wheelchair-lift bus routes, and Call-a-Lift Bus. In addition, there are a number of accessible services operated by cities and towns, Councils on Aging, and charitable operations. To supplement the partially accessible public transportation system, the MBTA contracts out for a paratransit service strictly for people with disabilities. The RIDE, in existence since 1977, provides door-to-door service within any of its six service areas at the standard fare of $1.00, which includes the ability to transfer from the satellite areas to the Core areas. A trip between the Northwest service area and the Core area, which includes a transfer, costs $2.00. It is anticipated that travel to and from all areas will be available by July of 1994. (The paratransit plan timeline is included in Technical Appendix.) In 1977, service began with 2 vans serving 6 communities, and by the end of the year, 550 people had registered for the service. The RIDE now serves 51 cities and towns with 129 MBTA vehicles and 120 contractor supplied vehicles. 6-22 (See map in Technical Appendix). To date, 22,327 people have registered for The RIDE with an average of 10 new registrants being approved daily. Roughly half of these people are subscription riders. That is, they use the service 3 or more days a week to go to work or school. 112,846 rides were completed in 1984. In 1992, 458,652 trips were completedþan increase of 306%.4 While The RIDE fulfills an important role in providing mobility to persons with disabilities, there is a drawback: all trips on The RIDE must be planned well in advance. Funding cutbacks in human services programs have caused human-services agencies to reduce their transportation budgets, creating an increase in demand for The RIDE. Therefore, a customer may request a trip, but be told that the requested space is "not available." Although the MBTA's Paratransit Plan expects to comply with the ADA requirement that the "not available" rate for trips requested 24 hours in advance be less than 1% by FY 1996, the MBTA currently recommends that trips be requested a full week in advance to guarantee the greatest likelihood of receiving the trip. Trips can be requested on shorter notice, but then it becomes a matter of chance whether there will be a van available. TRANSIT SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES There are a number of deficiencies with the existing public transportation system. Deficiencies being addressed include providing an accessible system, ensuring adequate funding to maintain the infrastructure of the existing system, alleviating congested sections of the system, and improving intermodal connections. Accessibility Deficiencies The MBTA rapid transit system is the oldest in the country and until 1977, with the opening of Oak Grove Station on the Orange Line, was not built with accessibility for people with disabilities in mind. Since 1977, the system has been undergoing a slow conversion to full accessibility through station renovation and modernization. In response to the requirements of the ADA, the MBTA submitted a Key Station plan to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on January 26, 1992. ADA requires that stations designated as key stations be made fully wheelchair accessible, including elevators, ramps and platforms as necessary, and also accessible to people with visual or hearing impairments, including audio announcements of stations and train arrivals, visual readouts of announcments, and tactile stripping on platform edges. ___________________________ 4As of June, 1993. Figures courtesy of the MBTA's Office for Transportation Access. 6-23 The MBTA convened a task force composed of individuals representing a broad range of disabilities to develop key station plans for the heavy and light rail and for the commuter rail. The heavy and light rail key station plan calls for a total of 27 out of 52 rapid transit and 29 out of 78 light rail stations to be designated as key stations. (Approximately 52% and 37% respectively). (See map in Technical Appendix). The key station plan for commuter rail calls for a total of 22 out of 112 stations to be designated as key stations (approximately 20%), with 11 located to the north of Boston and 11 located to the south. (See map in Technical Appendix). Although key stations are identified, the MBTA has applied for variances in meeting the July 1993 deadline for ADA accessibility, because in some cases the estimated completion dates are as far away as ten to eighteen years. Full accessibility, however, lies much further in the future. The Green Line light rail system is even older than the heavy rail system. Because it operates in four distinct environments (underground, elevated, on the surface with its own right-of-way, and at grade with mixed traffic), it has proved architecturally challenging to address the access issues. After conducting a three- year accessibility feasibility study, the MBTA decided the best approach is to operate low-floor cars and raise platforms approximately eight inches. Although the MBTA has developed a light rail key station plan, it has been determined that some surface stops in particular may never be accessible because of environmental and architectural constraints. If the public transportation system were fully accessible, many more of the people currently dependent on "The RIDE", the MBTA's paratransit system, could have the option of riding public transit without being restricted by time or destination. Providing full accessibility to people with disabilities has many other benefits for the system. Parents with baby carriages and people carrying large packages or suitcases would find a physically accessible system much easier. Elderly people would benefit from having fewer stairs to climb. Improved lighting, clear signage, tactile platform edge warnings, TDD's, and auditory/visual announcements make the system safer and more "user friendly" to the vast numbers of visitors, tourists, students, and people who use the system less frequently. Furthermore, when the Green Line becomes accessible, it will operate more efficiently due to reduced dwell times at stations because people will no longer need to climb the vehicle stairs in the current Green Line cars. While it may take at least 30 years to comply with the full accessibility requirements of the ADA, the bus fleet will become fully lift-equipped within a few years, and the rapid transit system, including the Green line, should be ADA compliant by 2011. At the same time, The RIDE service will continue and expand, for it will always be necessary to have this complementary service for 6-24 people with severe disabilities and for those people who do not live near rapid transit lines or bus routes. These accomplishments will be necessary to make sure that public transit is accessible to all members of the public. Maintaining the System A top priority of the MBTA is to ensure that the existing system is well maintained to serve existing patrons. The MBTA has developed a method of life-cycle costing in order to value the financial needs to maintain the system. The Public Transportation Facilities Management System will use this life-cycle costing information, as well as data on the condition of all parts of the system infrastructure, to help the MBTA maintain its system in a timely and rational manner. Congestion Future congestion in the central subway portion of the rapid transit system is a concern. Many times a congested condition can be alleviated by making improvements at other points in the system. As an example, there are a number of different projects that would help to relieve congestion at Park Street station. These projects include a connection between the Blue line and the Red line at Charles Street station, the inner circumferential transitway, and the North Station-South Station commuter rail connector. The critical concern is to identify those projects that will provide the greatest benefit to the transportation system as a whole. Intermodal Connections A key element of the MBTA's transit system is the provision of connections among its different modes: bus, rapid transit, commuter rail, trolley, and water transit. In addition park and ride facilities at the intersections of rail lines and major highways provide transfers between the auto and transit. An efficient transfer of people between auto and rail will increase the number of transit users, which will in turn reduce the total amount of vehicle miles of travel for the region. The restoration of the Old Colony commuter rail line will provide improved transit options to commuters from the South Shore area. Included will be over 5,000 new parking spaces at commuter rail stations as well as improved parking lots for private carrier buses serving the South Shore area. 6-25 Rail: Intercity Passenger and Freight _____________________________________________ The Boston region is served by an extensive network of freight and intercity passenger railroad operations. Freight rail service is provided by a number of carriers, and intercity passenger service is provided by Amtrak. Under MGL Chapter 161, EOTC is to preserve, improve, and develop an adequate, safe, and efficient rail system for passengers and goods. The office serves as the source of rail transportation planning for the state. EOTC has the ability to purchase rail property and expend money to upgrade rail lines. Intercity Passenger In 1971, Congress established the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, known as Amtrak, to operate a nationwide network of intercity passenger trains. Figure 6-5 shows the four lines operated by Amtrak that serve the Boston area: - Northeast Corridor - Inland Route - Lake Shore Limited - Cape Codder Northeast Corridor The Northeast Corridor trains run from Boston to New York City by way of Providence and New Haven with continuing service to Washington, D.C. Twelve round trip trains depart from South Station on a daily basis. The Massachusetts portion of this line is owned by the MBTA and maintained by Amtrak. A current operational deficiency in the Northeast corridor passenger service is that the Northeast Corridor rail line is electrified only as far north as New Haven, CT. The Federal Railroad Administration is studying ways to electrify the line from New Haven to Boston. In 1991, Congress appropriated $443 million for the electrification of the corridor and the purchase of new vehicles. The electrification of the line from New Haven to Boston would enable faster average running speeds and eliminate the delay of switching between electric and diesel locomotives in New Haven. Reducing the total trip time for a trip between Boston and New York would make rail travel within the Northeast corridor more competitive with auto and airplane trips. A shift to the rail mode would help reduce the congested conditions on I-95 and the busy New York-Boston air corridor. 6-26 Click HERE for graphic. Inland Route In addition to the Northeast Corridor shore line route, Amtrak operates service from Boston to New York City by way of the Inland Route. In Massachusetts, this service runs from Boston to Framingham, Worcester and Springfield and then south to Hartford and New Haven, CT. Lake Shore Limited In 1975, Amtrak instituted the Lake Shore Limited that makes one run daily from South Station through Framingham, Worcester and Pittsfield with a final destination of Chicago. This service operates on the Conrail New England Division main line. Cape Codder Since 1986, Amtrak has provided weekend seasonal summer service to Cape Cod. The Cape Codder operates from Hyannis to Taunton, and then to Providence where it follows the Northeast Corridor route south to New York City. Intercity Terminals Amtrak serves three Boston area rail stations: - South Station - Back Bay Station - Route 128 Station Both South Station and Back Bay Station have undergone extensive renovations in the past decade. The recently completed Phase 1 of the South Station renovations included twelve tracks, a refurbished ticketing and waiting area with shops and food services, and a direct connection to the Red Line. Phase 2, which is in progress, will include a new parking garage and a bus terminal serving both suburban and intercity buses. A related joint development project between the state and Tufts University will use the South Station air rights for a medical research/biotech development. Route 128 Station provides service to the suburbs west of Boston with a long-term parking lot and convenient roadway access to Route 128. Rail Lines and Abandonment A priority of the state and region is the retention of existing railway corridors. To preserve abandoned railroad corridors for potential future 6-28 transportation or other public use, the state instituted a program that requires permission from the Secretary of Transportation before a building permit may be issued to build on former railroad right-of-way. This is codified into law under MGL chapter 40, section 54A. As another measure to preserve existing right-of-way, the state requires that any railroad company intending to sell or dispose of railroad right-of-way must offer the state the right of first refusal. This is codified into law under MGL chapter 161C, section 7. Rail Freight The two predominant freight rail carriers in Eastern Massachusetts are the Consolidated Railroad Corporation (Conrail) and the Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M). Figure 6-6 shows the lines on which Conrail and B&M operate freight service within the region. In addition to the two Class 1 rail carriers, the Boston region is served by three Class 3 railroads. These are the Bay Colony Railroad Corp., Quincy Bay Terminal Railroad and Grafton & Upton Railroad Company. Most of the rail freight carried in Massachusetts is interstate in nature. Because of the proximity of intrastate destinations, the trucking industry tends to dominate the movement of freight within the state borders. An existing constraint to efficient freight movement is the lack of proper bridge clearance for the shipment of double-stack railcars. The state is working with the rail carriers to address this problem. Increasing the clearances for rail freight equipment under highway bridges to allow for standard double-stack freight containers will reduce shipping time and costs. The development of an intermodal freight facility at the soon-to-be decommissioned Fort Devens is being developed by the B&M . There may be an upgraded rail link to Moran Terminal in the port of Boston. 6-29 Click HERE for graphic. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities _____________________________________________ COMMUTER AND RECREATIONAL ROUTES Walking and Bicycling Statistics Although bicycle and pedestrian modes have been joined together as the "non-motorized modes," there are significant differences that warrant separate discussions. Bicycles are legal vehicles on almost all streets and highways and therefore need to be considered in the design of such facilities. Pedestrian issues in regard to these facilities are usually either how to cross them or how to use space adjacent to them. Chapter 5, Environmental Quality and Transportation provided a preliminary discussion of bicycle and pedestrian issues and funding potential through the 1993 Transportation Bond Bill. This chapter gives a more in-depth discussion of existing conditions. In the Boston metropolitan area, when separate facilities are built for bicycles, invariably more pedestrians and joggers will be found on them than bicyclists. Conflicts can be significant. Most bicycle commuting in this region takes place on the street system. Present conditions for bicycling vary widely due to differences in roadway width and other design considerations, as well as traffic volume. Bicycle and pedestrian mode splits from the 1990 United States Census are found the in Appendix. Listed for each MPO community is population, number of workers, number bicycling to work, percentage bicycling to work, number walking to work, and percentage walking to work. These data are for residents of the given town who work anywhere and are over 15 years of age. This means that students, even those over 15 years of age, are not reflected in these figures. It should be noted that these national census data are collected in very early spring, based on commuting patterns at that time of year. Bicycle counts done in the Boston area since the mid-1970's indicate significant seasonal variations. Counts in March, when census data are being collected, are about one-quarter as high as counts done in peak bicycling season. Likewise, bicycle volumes in January are even lower than the census data would indicate. No comparable pedestrian data for the Boston region are available. It is probable, however, that seasonal pedestrian variations do exist, but that they are not as great as those for bicyles. For the purposes of this discussion, the actual census figures will be used, keeping in mind that they reflect about 25 percent of the peak bicycle-commuting volumes. It should also be remembered that these census figures are estimates, based on approximately a 15-percent sample of the population. And finally, the question on the census form asked the respondent to identify the mode used for 6-31 the longest distance. Someone, therefore, who bicycled two miles to a train station and took a seven-mile train trip should have identified the railroad, not the bicycle as the mode of travel. For these reasons, most of those who bicycled or walked to an intermodal facility were not likely be identified in the census figures as bicyclists or walkers. Nevertheless, the U. S. Census estimates that there are aproximately 8,000 bicycle commuters overall in the Boston MPO region, just over one-half of one percent of the working population. Over twelve times that number, or almost 100,000 commuters, are estimated to walk to work. The walkers constitute almost seven percent of the total commuting population. According to the U. S. Census estimates, communities with a bicycling mode-split over one percent are Cambridge (3.05%), Somerville (2.01%), and Brookline (1.83%). Communities with bicycle mode splits under one percent and over 0.60 percent are Lincoln (0.96%), Boston (0.89%), Bedford (0.87%), Marblehead (0.83%), Concord (0.70%), Belmont (0.65%), Chelsea (0.65%), and Manchester (0.61%). In the more urban communities, such as Boston, Chelsea, Somerville, and Cambridge, shorter average trip lengths are generally accompanied by more traffic congestion. In the communities further from the core, such as Lincoln, Bedford, Marblehead, Concord, and Manchester, average trips might be longer, accompanied by less traffic and a different type of road network. Belmont and Brookline fall in-between these groups, closer to urban characteristics of travel and road conditions. Communities with Census-estimated walk shares over ten percent are Cambridge (25.02%), Wenham (17.29%), Boston (14.28%), Wellesley (12.01%), Brookline (11.88%), and Somerville (10.93%). As is the case with the bicycle mode, these are a mix of urban (Cambridge, Boston, Brookline, Somerville) and much less densely-developed (Wellesley, Wenham) communities. The bicycle mode splits are low for almost all communities according to these estimates. Even if the bicycle-mode share were to be multiplied by four to reflect peak-seasonal volumes, the share would remain low. There is some disagreement as to how significant the bicycle mode share could be in terms of sheer volumes. It is true that the bicycle is not conducive to the needs of many individuals. Parents dropping off children at day-care or school would be hard-pressed to use a bicycle. Some physical impairments prohibit the use of the bicycle. In other cases, the sheer distance of a trip makes the bicycle alternative infeasible. It is true, however, that with significant publicity, education, enforcement, and physical facilities, there is potential for significant increases in the use of this mode. Some of that increase could come in the form of bicycle-only trips. Probably an even larger market is available for the bicycle as a feeder mode. 6-32 Given the nature of the Boston area, most commuters are within bicycling distance of some form of public transportation or a park and ride facility. Intermodal Access Increasing the bicycle share as a feeder mode makes sense for at least two reasons. The first is that the air quality benefits of eliminating short automobile trips is much more significant than the distances would seem to suggest. This is because starting an automobile in and of itself produces a disproportionate amount of air pollution, the so-called "cold-start" effect. For this reason, eliminating two three-mile automobile trips, for example, can be more significant than eliminating one ten-mile trip. Another reason to encourage the bicycle as a feeder mode is that it reduces the traffic congestion and parking problems associated with stations. Many communities are opposed to public transportation within their borders, partially because of the associated traffic problems. Likewise, people bicycling to stations would not be constrained by getting there before the parking spaces are gone. Bicycle parking is inexpensive and compact; enough could easily be provided to meet demand. The above pertains to the pedestrian mode as well. It is assumed that a higher proportion of those within walking distance of a station, actually walk to it compared to the bicycling mode. There is room, however, to increase the walk share as a feeder mode. The most important step would be to do a station-by-station assessment, to identify any physical barriers that discourage this mode. For the bicycle, this type of access analysis would need to be accompanied by a parking needs analysis as well. The easiest and least expensive parking alternative is the bicycle rack. The bicycle locker is a more expensive alternative that makes sense in areas that have little activity during the day, such as commuter- rail stations. A bicycle on a rack is subject not only to theft, but also to vandalism. The extra cost of lockers could be recovered through rental charges. Bicycle racks have been installed at both rapid transit and commuter rail stations throughout the MBTA system. As of April 1991, racks had been installed at more than 50 percent of the Red Line and Orange Line stops, 35 percent of the Green Line stops, 25 percent of the Blue Line stops, and 35 percent of commuter rail stations. In addition to parking a bicycle at a station, it is possible, at certain times of the day, to take a bicycle onto MBTA trains. The "Bikes on the T" Program was initiated as a demonstration project 1985 and "Bikes on the Commuter Rail" began in 1988. It allows bicyclists to purchase a four-year pass to carry a bicycle during non-peak periods on all commuter rail lines. Bikes are allowed on all rapid transit lines except the Green Line, although hours of access are more restricted. Bicycles may not be taken onto MBTA buses. 6-33 Since 1989, Massport has provided a taped message for bicyclists as part of its 1-800-23-LOGAN information program. Bicycles are permitted on airport shuttle buses and the Logan Express buses from Framingham and Braintree. Parking is available at the Maverick Station gate area. Three commuter boat carriers, i.e., Boston Harbor Commuter Service, Mass. Bay Lines and Bay State Cruises, operating service between the South Shore and downtown Boston, accept bicycles on a space-available basis at no extra charge. Private bus company policies vary, and some require the bicycle to be boxed. Bike Paths The Boston metropolitan area is currently served by a number of bicycle/pedestrian paths maintained by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), the City of Boston, the MBTA, and local communities. The longest facility is the Minuteman Commuter Bikeway, scheduled for completion in Fall 1993 at a cost of $2.2 million. This eleven-mile path begins near Alewife Station on the Red Line and continues through Arlington, Lexington, and Bedford on the former Lexington Branch railroad. The path's design and construction were overseen by the Department of Environmental Management and financed by MHD, and the path will be operated by the towns of Arlington, Lexington, and Bedford. The MBTA owns the right-of-way and leases it to the communities, which are responsible for policing and maintaining the path. A line map of the existing bicycle paths for the Boston region is shown in Figure 6-7. A regional map of existing and proposed paths is included with the discussion of bicycles and pedestrians in Chapter 7. The Charles River (Paul Dudley White) Bike Paths, which form a 14-mile loop from Watertown to Cambridge and Boston, are located on both sides of the Charles River. This path begins at the Museum of Science Bridge and extends to Watertown Square. On the south side, the path goes through the Esplanade in Boston on through to Newton and Watertown. On the north side, the path follows the river through Cambridge to Watertown. The only long-distance recreational route in this region was dedicated in 1978. The Claire Saltonstall Bikeway is a 140-mile signed route from Boston to Provincetown, with a spur from the Cape Cod Canal to Falmouth. This route primarily uses streets and incorporates paths where feasible. Information for bicyclists has been provided in the past by maps. The first Boston Bikemap was funded by EPA in 1978 and has since been produced and sold by a private company. The Claire Saltonstall Bikeway had an accompanying public and privately funded map that has now been taken over by American Youth Hostels. The first Massachusetts Bike Map was funded by the Federal Highway Administration in 1987. A new edition is being produced by a private company. 6-34 Click HERE for graphic. Air: Passenger, Freight, Ground Access _____________________________________________ Logan International airport provides extensive air connections for both passenger and freight movement in the Boston region. It serves both domestic and international flights, cargo shipments and general aviation aircraft. Logan is the 10th busiest passenger airport in the world handling about 23 million passengers in 1990. The airport handled about 680 million pounds of cargo in 1990. The airport is located on 2,400 acres of land across Boston Harbor from downtown Boston. The urban location of the airport and its proximity to downtown Boston makes it convenient by both rapid transit and water transit. At present it is served by a stop on the Blue Line and a water shuttle from Rowes Wharf with shuttle bus links to the terminals. For suburban areas, Massport operates express bus service from Framingham, Braintree, and Woburn. The main roadway access to Logan is from Route 1A, the McClellan Highway. This roadway connects with the Sumner and Callahan Tunnels to downtown Boston. Massport is studying ways to improve ground access at Logan airport which experiences congestion problems daily. Average weekday vehicle trips to Logan in 1990 were approximately 86,000 vehicle trips per day. While the number of average daily passengers at Logan increased by 54% from 1980 to 1990, average daily vehicle trips increased by only 14.5 percent from 1980 (see Table 6-2). This relatively small increase in vehicle trips can be partially attributed to Massport's aggressive campaign to promote alternatives to single vehicle occupancy (SOV) trips to the airport. The pricing structure for parking at Logan Airport has been designed to discourage short-term parking for drop-off and pick-up. Massport is studying additional ways to encourage the use of multiple occupancy vehicles. The planned MBTA Airport station renovations will provide improved transit access to Logan Airport. The improvements to the station will realign the station so that a cross-platform transfer would be possible between the Blue Line and the airport shuttle buses. Table 6-2 Comparison of Average Daily Passengers to Average Weekday Travel at Logan Airport - 1980 to 1990 Average Daily % Change Average Annual % Change Year Passengers þ80 to þ90 Weekday Traffic þ80 to þ90 1980 40,500 75,100 1990 62,700 54.5% 86,000 14.5% Since 1975, Logan airport has been subject to a federally mandated and state sponsored parking freeze. There are a total of 19,315 on-airport commercial and employee parking spaces at Logan. The requirements of the parking freeze 6-36 stipulate that no more than 7,100 parking spaces may be for employees and no fewer than 12,215 spaces for commercial use. In addition to the on-site airport parking lots, there are a number of privately operated off-airport shuttles that serve airport passengers. Despite the presence of rapid transit, water shuttles and express bus services, the predominant mode of travel to the airport is auto. Mode share for 1990 was: Drop-off/pick-up 23% Taxi 19% Long-term parking 17% Rental cars 15% Door-to-door services 7% Scheduled HOV services 9% Transit 10% The proximity of Logan airport to densely populated residential neighborhoods constrains its ability to accommodate its anticipated future growth in passenger and freight shipments through physical expansion. Because of the physical and environmental constraints present at Logan airport, Massport is committed to serving the future needs of the region without imposing additional adverse impacts on the local communities. The Logan Growth and Impact Control (LOGIC) study and the Logan Airport Modernization Projects (LAMP) study are two ongoing studies by Massport to plan for future growth and operation of the airport. Massport also owns and operates Hanscom Field located in Bedford. It is primarily a general aviation airport with some military aircraft use. In addition to Logan and Hanscom airports, eastern Massachusetts has 10 municipally owned airports and ten privately owned airports. There are three military airports in eastern Massachusetts and a heliport in Boston proper. Refer to Figure 6-8 for a map of existing Eastern Massachusetts municipal and military airports. The state is currently exploring the need for a "Second Major Airport" for the Boston region. This study, commissioned by the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission, is looking at future demand for a new airport and considering the potential impact of a high- speed rail connection serving the Northeast corridor, which may influence the need for a second major airport. 6-37 Click HERE for graphic. Water: Ports, Harbors, and Inland Waterways _____________________________________________ The Boston metropolitan area is fortunate to have a number of port facilities that support shipping, as well as fishing, water transportion and maritime recreational needs. Deep water ports with good rail and highway access are a scarce resource and are difficult to replace once allowed to develop for non-maritime uses. To protect this resource, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (CZM) established nine areas, shown in Figure 6-9, within the Boston MPO region as Designated Port Areas (DPA) in its 1978 Master Plan. These nine areas were identified as locations in which maritime industry would be encouraged as a matter of state policy. DPAs are reserved primarily for water-dependent industrial uses or uses that do not diminish the capacity of these areas to accommodate water-dependent industry in the future. The DPAs are Gloucester, Salem, Beverly, Lynn, the Mystic River, the Chelsea Creek, East Boston, South Boston, and the Fore River. CZM is in the process of updating the Designated Port Area program. The marine terminals of Boston Harbor provide facilities for passenger ferries and ships, fishing vessels, bulk freight, break- bulk freight, and containerized cargo vessels. A map of Boston harbor showing existing facilities with highway and rail access is shown in Figure 6-10. New small vessel docking facilities in the harbor, such as at Rowes Wharf and Long Wharf, have increased docking space for commuters and recreational users of the waterways. Recent infrastructure improvements by Massport to its terminals have increased the capacity for handling ocean-going cargo and passenger vessels. Massport operates a number of the port facilities in the harbor, including: - Conley Terminal - Moran Terminal - Massport Marine Terminal - Black Falcon Terminal In addition to Massport facilities, the harbor contains numerous private terminals and cargo facilities that handle most of the bulk cargo, including oil products, liquified natural gas, salt and cement. In 1992, over 16,350,000 tons of cargo was shipped through the Port of Boston in over 2,000 cargo vessels. The major bulk commodity in the Port is petroleum. The petroleum tank farms along the Chelsea Creek supply over three-quarters of the home heating oil and over two-thirds of the gasoline for the region. The Technical Appendix contains a summary of the cargo handled at port facilities in 1992. It is crucial that infrastructure improvements continue to be made to the Boston harbor port facilities to ensure its viability as a commercial and passenger 6-39 Click HERE for graphic. port both now and into the future. Competition from other ports and technological advances in vessel design will require that the port be able to handle larger vesselsand their cargo, in a safe and efficient manner. EXISTING DEFICIENCIES The major deficiencies that currently restrict port operations are: - the need for dredging in parts of Boston harbor - the need for increased cargo off-loading capacity - the need for improved intermodal connections (rail and highway) - the need for alterations to the Chelsea Street bridge Dredging Needs The U S Army Corps of Engineers and Massport are partners in a project to dredge three areas of the harbor. The dredging of these three areas will allow vessels that are larger in length, beam and draft to utilize the port than are currently able. The three areas are the Reserved Channel, the Inner Confluence Area, and the Chelsea Creek. The work entails dredging the Reserved Channel and the Inner Confluence Area to 40 feet and Chelsea Creek to 38 feet. The partners are developing an environmental impact report/statement to identify the positive and negative impacts of the dredging work. Increased Off-Loading Capacity to Port Terminals Both Moran container terminal and Conley container terminal are undergoing improvements to increase the capacity of its terminals to allow for larger vessels and an increased volume of cargo. Massport is sponsoring a four year plan that will double the capacity of Conley terminal. This work includes the extension of the wharf, increased storage space, renovations to the two existing cranes and the installation of two new cranes. Dredging Moran Terminal will allow for renewal of service to deep draft vessels, with rail connections to Fort Devens and the Midwest. Lykes Line, an international shipping company, is expected to operate from Moran Terminal by the end of the year. It will provide direct outbound service to northern Europe from the port of Boston, a day closer than equivalent service from the port of New York. The Intermodal Connections of Ports For the port facilities to operate efficiently, there must be connectivity between the land-side and water-side facilities. Landside, there must be adequate highway and rail access for the efficient movement of people and goods to and from the water related facilities. Waterside, there must be an 6-41 Click HERE for graphic. 6-39 adequate navigation channel and sufficient port facilities to serve the ships of the future. It is important to note that for the port to operate efficiently, each of the links must operate properly. The operation is dependent on deep water for larger vessels to call, modern off-loading equipment, adequate storage capacity, and good access by rail and highway. If any link in this chain fails, then the viability of the port will suffer. Port-Landside Freight Access At present, the port is served almost exclusively by truck carriers. An existing deficiency is the lack of adequate rail facilities serving the port area. Canadian Pacific/Guilford has begun rail service between Moran container terminal and Ayer-Ft. Devens. Future plans call for upgrading the rail connections to Moran terminal to allow for the shipment of double-stack rail cars. The Seaport Access Road and the South Boston By-Pass, both of which are part of the Central Artery project, will provide for improved truck access to the MassPike and the Southeast Expressway from Conley container terminal. An existing constraint on the Moran container terminal is that it is connected to the highway network by a series of local roads. A proposed Medford Street Bypass might separate the current mix of traffic, allow for more direct connection to I-93 and remove truck traffic from the local streets. Improvements to the Chelsea Creek The oil and gas facilities along the Chelsea Creek supply over two-thirds of the Boston region's gasoline and over three-quarters of the region's home heating oil. Two projects, the replacement of the Chelsea Street bridge and the dredging of the channel have been proposed to improve the navigation of the waterway. Built in 1936, the Chelsea Street bridge crosses the Chelsea Creek at its narrowest point. The bridge has an opening of only 96 feet, which restricts vessel traffic. In 1992, in connection with the U.S. Coast Guard's analysis of the need for a replacement of the Chelsea Creek Bridge, the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources (DOER) issued a report that concludes that a replacement bridge will help to ensure a safe and efficient delivery of oil and gas. The new bridge would provide a horizontal clearance of 380 feet versus the 96 feet clearance at present. Because of the constraints of the depth and width of the channel, most modern tankers are not able to navigate the channel. The dredging of the Chelsea Creek channel would result in a navigation channel of 38 feet in depth and 220 feet in width. This would allow newer, environmentally safer tankers with double hull/double bottoms to navigate the creek. The two projects are complementary and necessary to allow for the future shipping needs of the area. 6-45 PASSENGER SERVICES Water shuttle and ferry service were at one time a major travel mode in the Boston area. Before tunnels and bridges were built and before bays and coves were filled in, boats provided the only fast means of transport for freight and passengers between the cities of East Boston, Charlestown, Chelsea, Cambridge, and Boston. Because of roadway congestion, water transit is once again becoming a viable option for commuting. Commuter boat service operates between Hingham and Rowes Wharf (Boston), between Rowes Wharf and Logan Airport, the Charlestown Navy Yard and Long Wharf (Boston), and from Point Pemberton in Hull. The majority of service between Hingham and Boston is operated by Boston Harbor Commuter Service using five vessels. Operating between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., average daily ridership, in FY 1991 approximated 2,200 trips. A second operator, Mass Bay Lines provides unsubsidized service along the same route. Approximately 1,350 parking spaces are provided among several lots at the Hingham Shipyard. Currently there are plans by the MBTA to increase the parking capacity by an additional 500 spaces. Ferry service from the Charlestown Navy Yard to Long Wharf is operated by Boston Harbor Cruises for the MBTA with funding provided by the Massachusetts Highway Department. Two 38-passenger vessels handle approximately 611 passenger trips per weekday. Within the Navy Yard, Reliable Bus Lines operates a free shuttle bus service with connections to the ferry. Another private commuter boat service between the South Shore and Boston is provided by Bay State Cruises, which operates one inbound and one outbound trip per day from Point Pemberton in Hull. The state has made commitments as part of the mitigation package for the Central Artery project, to construct a number of new docking facilities in the harbor area to help promote an increase in water transit. Finally, Boston is once again becoming a popular port of call for cruise ships. In 1992, thirty-four cruise ships docked at Black Falcon Terminal. Beginning in 1994, a cruise line will begin every other week cruises to Bermuda. Massport is also exploring a Boston to Nova Scotia ferry service. 6-46 Status Report on Projects in the 1983 Transportation Plan _____________________________________________ Until the adoption of this 1993 Transportation Plan, the 1983 Transportation Plan serves as the current plan for the Boston Region. The projects in the 1983 Plan are divided into four categories depending on the degree of change to the physical plant involved in the project. The largest degree change is plant expansion, "any development and construction or acquisition of facilities or equipment for the purpose of increasing physical capacity." Lesser degrees of change are denoted as plant replacement, plant renovation and plant enhancement. The Technical Appendix to this Plan contains an update on the status of each of the projects listed in the 1983 Transportation Plan. The discussion below is intended to give an overview of the work in progress since the 1983 Plan. Plant expansion: The Cross Harbor Access project and the South Boston Seaport Access Road project referred to in the Plan are now under construction as part of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. The extension of I-95 from Route 1 to Route 128 in Peabody has been completed. The first phase of the Dudley Street extension is complete and the second phase is being prepared for advertising. On the transit side, the past decade has seen the completion of the Red Line extension from Harvard to Alewife, the restoration of commuter rail service to Needham and the institution of commuter boat service from Boston Harbor to Hingham. Several other plant expansion projects are still under active study and are included in the 1993 Plan. This includes the extension of the Blue line to Charles Street station to connect with the Red line and the extension of the Green line to Medford Hillside. Plant Replacement: This category contains projects that require replacement because the existing structure is too obsolete or worn out to be renovated. Since 1983, the improvements to I-93 from Boston to Braintree have been completed and work is underway for the replacement of the existing Beverly-Salem bridge with a new fixed span bridge with connector road. Transit improvements have included reconstruction of the Everett Shops Complex and the Green line carhouse at Reservoir. Vehicles have been replaced on the Red, Orange, and Blue lines. Plant Renovation: The projects in this category are ones that require physical restoration, through rebuilding, reconstructing or rehabilitating some part of the system. The renovation of the Central Artery North Area (CANA) is almost complete. Alternatives to connect to the Central Artery Charles River crossing are under study. Renovations to the Alewife area were completed to 6-47 complement the opening of the Alewife Red line station. Route 2 improvements from Acton to Lexington are in varying stages of completion. Four of the five phases of this project have been completed and design work is underway for the remaining section. Transit improvements include improvements to the electrical power system, signal and communication system and track systems. Transit stations underwent a modernization program and the commuter rail system underwent extensive renovations. Plant Enhancement: The main thrust of the enhancement category is to provide safety improvements and to increase the efficiency of the existing system. Examples of projects completed include the improvements to the Lechmere area in Cambridge, the Route 128/Winter Street area in Waltham, and the Five Corners area in Braintree. Transit projects include trackbed improvements to the Green Line Arborway branch as far as Heath Street and improvements in the fare pass system. In addition to the four capital categories, the 1983 Plan contains a fifth category: Operation Improvement Projects. Most of these projects involve changes in the operation of the system or are Transportation Demand Management strategies (TDM). These projects are ongoing and will continue to be stressed in the future. 6-48 CHAPTER 7 FUTURE CONDITIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES Future Role of the Transportation System _____________________________________________ A transportation plan prepared for a twenty year time-frame must not only address existing deficiencies, but also anticipate problems. Although there is no shortage of present problems in the region, good planning requires us to look at the future, to see what transportation needs will be, and to create ways to meet those needs. This chapter discusses travel trends and the changing demands that various components of the transportation system will serve in coming years. This discussion, as well as the prior chapter describing existing conditions, provides a foundation for the next chapter which gives many recommendations for studies and projects that will both relieve existing deficiencies and also seek ways to satisfy future needs. Commuter travel to and from the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) region extends well beyond its borders. In fact, the area used for travel forecasts is a large portion of eastern Massachusetts, consisting of 164 cities and towns. This region encompasses the 101 cities and towns of the Boston Region as well as parts (or the whole) of six adjoining metropolitan areas: Merrimack Valley (Lawrence-Haverhill), the Northern Middlesex area (Lowell), the Montachusett region (Fitchburg-Leominster), Central Massachusetts (Worcester), Southeastern Massachusetts (Attleboro- Taunton), and the Old Colony region (Brockton-Plymouth). The analysis of the 1990 Journey-to-Work1 data (discussed in Volume 2 - Resource Papers) indicates that the commuter source area for the Boston region has grown to encompasses four states - Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island - in addition to Massachusetts. The changing shape of the Boston urban area has implications for the transportation system. Once, the standard metropolitan development pattern consisted of a central business district ringed by residential suburbs. Suburb-to-central city work trips were efficiently served by "hub and spoke" transit lines that converged downtown. But suburban development now includes commercial and industrial uses. The work trip is now more likely to start and end in a suburban location. This type of trip is more difficult to serve with transit. ___________________________ 1This is detailed U.S. Census information on worker travel patterns and modes. 7-1 Commuting is not the only type of travel that links this region with others. Freight movement extends well past the borders of the MPO, into adjoining regions, other states, and even to other countries. Non-work trips for recreational travel and personal business also reach past the MPO boundary. The transportation system must be capable of adequately meeting a wide range of needs. But there are often different ways of meeting these needs, some of which are more or less efficient than others, and some of which are more or less expensive than others. This chapter will briefly review future travel characteristics projected for the year 2020, and then discuss how the individual components of the system can meet future needs. The components are: - Highways - Transit - Rail Freight - Pedestrian and Bicycle travel - Air Travel - Ports & Water Travel These individual components can be discussed separately, but must operate as an interdependent system. ISTEA will ultimately force recognition that the transportation system is, fundamentally, a system of interdependent parts. This interdependency has not only physical dimensions, but also temporal, fiscal, and behavioral ones as well. Projected 2020 Travel Characteristics: The Base Case For context, it is useful to present information on projected highway and transit system operations. Overall use of the roadway and transit system is summarized in Figure 7-1. This figure compares the simulation for the 2020 Base Case with baseline year (1990) conditions (see Figure 7-4 for the projects included in the Base Case). Population in the 101 MPO cities and towns is expected to decline, but households show growth due to a continued reduction in average household size.12 Because of job creation, employment should increase by about 15% by the year 2020. Compared to the 1980s, this is a modest growth projection. The forecast for the 2020 Base Case estimates that auto person and transit passenger trips will increase by about 11%, but highway vehicle trips will increase by more than 17%. This is attributed to continued decreases in auto occupancy. This trend of increases in single-occupant vehicle commuting is 7-2 Click HERE for graphic. Fig 7-1 discussed in Resource Paper A, Commuting Patterns, in Volume Two, and is based on an analysis of US Census Journey-to-Work data. Vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in the 2020 Base Case are forecast to increase by approximately 25%, far greater than the increase in highway vehicle trips. Much of this increase in VMT is due to longer distance trips. Over the forecast period, this is an annual growth rate of about 0.9%. Vehicle hours of travel (VHT) are forecast to grow by 35% in the Base Case, evidence of growing system-wide congestion. In the 2020 Base Case this level of highway delay could not lead to mode shifts to transit for two reasons. People are either traveling to job sites that are not well-served by transit; or much of the transit market share has already been captured in certain corridors. Another way to examine the future quality of highway travel is to examine VHT and congestion together, as shown in Figure 7-2. This figure compares 1990 and 2020 VHT, but shows the amount of VHT that occurs at different volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. V/C ratios are a measure of highway congestion. A ratio of 1.00 or greater means that traffic volumes exceed road capacity. This measure is closely related to delay and increased auto emissions. Figure 7-2 shows that the 2020 Base Case estimates a larger percentage of VHT in 2020 occurring at higher V/C ratios than in 1990. This indicates that there will be more travel happening under congested conditions. VMT exhibits a similar relationship to V/C ratios, with a higher proportion of VMT occurring at higher V/C ratios in 2020. Despite the increases in VMT and delay estimated by the 2020 Base Case, emissions are forecast to diminish. This reflects the benefits of: - Centralized, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance: The Clean Air Act requires nonattainment areas to institute stricter monitoring of vehicle emissions by January 1997. This will reduce the number of vehicles that have poorly or improperly functioning emissions control systems. - Use of reformulated fuel: Reformulated gasoline is a refined fuel that can be used in all gasoline-powered vehicles. It has been altered to lower the total exhaust emissions from these vehicles. This fuel will be available in Massachusetts in 1995. - Increase of cleaner vehicles in the vehicle mix: Newer vehicles pollute less than older ones. As these newer vehicles enter the fleet, they will emit fewer pollutants on a per-mile basis. New car standards will begin for model year 1994. 7-4 Click HERE for graphic. One of the objectives of this Transportation Plan is to identify a transportation strategy (beyond these technological improvements) which will improve upon the 2020 Base Case performance by maintaining mobility while reducing the negative environmental impacts of travel activity. The Transportation Scenarios which the MPO modeled and which are described at the end of this chapter begin to examine some of the ways that that goal could be achieved. COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM This section discusses the individual components (highways, transit, rail, pedestrian, bicycle, air, water) that comprise the region's multimodal transportation system and the ways in which each mode can meet future needs. However, this section starts with a description of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. While this project is already in construction, its impacts will affect our transportation system throughout much of the period covered by this plan. The Role of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel The Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project is a $6.4 billion project designed to improve access to and through downtown Boston. The project will completely replace the elevated section of the I-93 Central Artery with a new depressed roadway. The new Charles River crossing will provide new connections from the Central Artery to I-93 North and Route 1 North. The Massachusetts Turnpike will be extended to Logan Airport by way of a new Seaport Access Road extending from the present terminus through South Boston and crossing the harbor in the Third Harbor Tunnel, a four lane tunnel, to East Boston and Logan Airport. Important elements of the project are the ancillary improvements to almost all of the other forms of transportation in the City of Boston. The project scope goes beyond the mere rebuilding of an inadequate highway structure. The project will help restore the physical continuity of downtown Boston by removing the existing structure which bisects neighborhoods and areas of Boston, and restoring land taken by the Artery project into parks and community use. A major highlight of the project will be the creation of over 150 acres of open space and park land, including 30 acres downtown. An important feature of the project is the relocation and modernization of the existing communications and public works network of pipes and cables that provide power, communications and water to the downtown area. Further, as part of the commitments made when the project was going through the 7-6 permitting process, state transportation agencies are now pursuing complementary projects in other modes, particularly transit. The Central Artery, in design before the passage of ISTEA, embodies the spirit of intermodalism. The project is the last major element needed to complete the US Interstate Highway System, but it will go far beyond a typical roadway project. In conjunction with the improvements to the highway are numerous upgrades to the transit system and public amenities. Both the Blue line modernization project and the proposed South Boston Piers transitway will utilize economies of construction by coordinating construction with the Central Artery project. South Station, which already serves as a hub for commuter rail and rapid transit, will provide intermodal access with direct connections to the Artery and the Third Harbor Tunnel for high occupancy vehicles (HOV) and commuter buses. Construction will occur in phases; the existing elevated Central Artery will remain in use until the new underground facility is completed and carrying traffic. The environmental benefits of the Central Artery project will include improvements in air quality for the region and a reduction in the amount of congestion experienced by drivers on a daily basis. Commitments made in association with the project will provide for expansion of MBTA service. A portion of the dirt removed from the project will be used to cap an abandoned dump on Spectacle Island located in Boston Harbor. The result will be the conversion of Spectacle Island from an island leaching waste into Boston harbor into an island park providing recreational opportunities to the residents of the Boston area. The project schedule for the next few years is ambitious: 1993 - The South Boston Haul Road opens. 1994 - The South Boston Bypass Road opens to commercial vehicles, linking I-93 to the waterfront. - Mainline tunnel construction begins in the downtown area. - The new Central Artery North Area connection to I-93 opens. 1995 - The Third Harbor Tunnel opens for commercial use. The Central Artery project can serve as a model for future transportation improvement projects. It highlights the interdependencies between highway and transit travel, and illustrates how a transportation project can help create a more livable and robust urban area. 7-7 The Future Role of Highways The regional highway system will continue to carry the vast majority of person-trip travel and will be an important part of the freight movement system. Roads also will be the routes for buses, carpools, and vanpools, making the highway network an integral part of the public transportation system. It will also serve the needs of tourist travel and recreational travel. If the highway system is to continue to provide reasonable service throughout the plan period, it is essential to keep it well-maintained. It is also important to plan for capacity increases only where future traffic will exceed capacity and where highway expansion is determined to be the best solution. That is, the addition of general purpose lanes should be considered only when necessary to address intractable problems. The functional classification system will be an important guide for road improvements and for designating the National Highway System. The region and state will need to identify which arterials are of strategic importance for commerce, tourist, and commuter purposes. From a traffic service perspective, the purpose of these strategic highways will need to be tailored to their location in the metropolitan area. In highly urbanized areas, this type of system will, for the most part, be comprised of existing routes with little opportunity for expansion. There should be improvements to relieve bottlenecks at intersections and an effort to eliminate low clearance on structures. This will particularly help urban goods movement, which is a commercial lifeline for the region's businesses. The ability to receive and send deliveries in a timely fashion is essential if the area is to remain competitive. Therefore, it is important to plan for trucks carrying a variety of cargos (manufactured goods, raw materials and fuels) to have direct and safe access to the region's principal arterials, ports and railheads. Improving the road access to port and rail terminals may require new construction or expansion of existing roads. It will be particularly important to preserve rights-of-way for expansion in order to serve these terminals. The identification of a strategic system should also be used to distinguish between local congestion and access needs and regional passenger and freight needs. One of the uses of functional classification is to support an access management program. The consolidation of driveways and adequate spacing of intersections improves safety and allows for signal synchronization. Access management preserves the functional integrity of the arterial system, and allows for efficient movement of private autos and commercial vehicles. 7-8 In all cases, highway design will need to be compatible with adjacent communities. This means using landscaping, noise barriers, and other techniques to soften the impacts of highway use. Highway travel to and from the Boston and Cambridge core area is currently at or over capacity under current conditions. If vehicle travel increases as expected, it will be necessary to make better use of existing facilities as well as alternate modes. It is likely that commuters will adjust their departure and arrival times to avoid peak hours. This spreading of the peak utilizes capacity that would otherwise go unused. Transportation technology will also help squeeze more efficiency and productivity out of the existing system. EOTC recognizes the need to take a comprehensive approach towards transportation technology. The EOTC program to achieve an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) will go beyond a highway- oriented Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS) and will adopt an intermodal approach to using transportation technology. It looks at opportunities for efficiency from point of origin to point of destination, no matter what the mode of transport. Automatic vehicle identification and real-time travel information technology can help travelers avoid disruptions on the transportation system and use alternate modes or routes. Of course, these alternate modes and routes must be available and connections must be easy; hence the importance of a balanced intermodal transportation system. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, reserved for buses as well as carpools and vanpools which meet occupancy requirements, can encourage ridesharing, thereby reducing the total number of vehicles on the highway system. HOV lanes can be used on expressways oriented to Boston, and can supplement existing traditional transit service. HOV facilities, in conjunction with CARAVAN activities may be the best way of bringing alternatives to suburban travelers. As noted earlier in this chapter, highway travel will increase over the period of this plan, and much of that increase will be outside the core area. One way to slow that increase will be through demand management programs that rely on cooperative public and private actions. For example, HOV options for Route 128 and Route 3 south are being evaluated; an HOV option that has already been identified as the preferred alternative for expanding the capacity of Route 128. HOV facilities hold great promise for travel to the core, and three specific recommendations for project implementation on I-93, both south and north of Boston, are made in this plan in Chapter 8. In recognition of the potential of HOV facilities, the Boston MPO will be doing a comprehensive regional HOV 7-9 study in late 1993 and 1994. The results of this planning effort will be reflected in the next transportation plan to be completed by January 1,1995. The Future Role of Transit The Boston region has one of the best transit systems in the United States; it is also one of the oldest. The advanced age of many components of the system means that preservation and reinvestment will be needed to keep it running efficiently. Future challenges largely consist of maintaining and upgrading the existing system. In addition, some selected expansions and improvements will be desirable to make the individual components of the system work together better. For the future, increased use of public transit will be needed to support economic development, to help manage congestion, to provide travel options, and to help meet air quality standards. Increased use of transit will be needed for economic development because most of the highways of the region, especially those in the urban core, are at capacity and cannot readily be expanded. Planned management systems should improve the operation of the highway system and may increase practical capacity, but further lane additions for single-occupant vehicles will be extremely rare. Therefore, most of the new peak hour trips to the core area will need to be carried on transit and other forms of high occupancy vehicles, such as vanpools and carpools. Transit is needed to manage traffic congestion. There is no way that the highway system can support all of the travel demand in the region. The state and the region are now developing congestion and incident management plans, as well as intermodal management plans. The public transit management system will be incorporated into this process. The result will be an overall system that provides the balance needed to accommodate a variety of travel needs. No single mode can satisfy a region's wide range of mobility needs. While transit is not practical for some people due to their type of employment, the location of their residence or their destination, many other people cannot drive a car due to age or disability, or because they do not have a car available. Therefore, the transportation system should provide multiple options to accommodate those that must use transit, as well as those that choose that mode out of preference. The Clean Air Act requires that regional emissions be reduced by 15% between 1990 and 1996, and by three percent per year between 1996 and 1999. 7-10 Increased use of public transit results in cleaner air by shifting travelers out of single-occupant automobiles. Also, mass transportation facilities can support a higher density of development, especially along major transit corridors. This, in turn, leads to more trips made by transit and walking, which improves air quality and reduces traffic congestion and energy consumption. With few exceptions, the geographical extent of the existing mass transportation system and the levels of service provided are directly related to the density of development, both commercial and residential. The higher the number of residents and jobs, the more trips that are made, and where large numbers of trips are made, high levels of transit service can be supported. This makes transit attractive by making it convenient. For trips to downtown Boston and other core areas, transit is very attractive compared to the automobile because the parking costs are high, while the convenience and time savings of a car are often relatively small. The combination of a high market share and a large market results in a high demand for service. The high demand, in turn, supports the high levels of service which sustain and attract new ridership from among those with a choice. For trips in or to the suburbs, out-of-pocket automobile costs are low because parking is abundant and free (or inexpensive), and the convenience and time savings of automobile travel are great. As a result, transit is not attractive. Less dense development also means fewer trips, which cannot support high levels of service, making transit service less convenient. The lack of a cost incentive to use transit coupled with the inconvenience of infrequent service deters most of those with a choice from using transit. The result is that transit services in less densely developed areas are utilized mostly by those who are transit dependent. This situation generally becomes more pronounced with distance from downtown Boston. For the future, downtown Boston will continue to be the primary market for transit trips and the one that can be most effectively served. The downtown Boston market is projected to grow by approximately 7.5% between now and 2020, and additional transit service will be needed to support this growth. This could be done by operating more service on existing lines, by increasing targeted fringe parking supply and feeder bus service, by adding new services, by providing better connections between existing services, and/or by extending existing services into more of downtown Boston. In addition, it is likely that mass transportation services from the suburbs to the core area will continue to be provided by a large number of carriers. Increased coordination and more consistent fare policies between carriers, both public and private, could make the existing system function more effectively as a whole, and thus provide better travel opportunities. 7-11 Trips within the suburbs are more difficult to serve with transit. Given a continuation of existing development and land use patterns in the suburbs, this market will continue to be expensive to serve with traditional transit. Consequently, it will be necessary to be particularly creative in developing new approaches to serving and shaping suburb-to-suburb travel. Demand management, coupled with clustered land development, a circumferential HOV system and CARAVAN programs, is one promising path to better suburban mobility. At the same time, there may be opportunities to connect trunkline transit services with employer-operated shuttles in order to provide direct connections to worksites, and to coordinate suburban services with MBTA services. While these types of improvements would not be expected to carry a large share of the total number of trips, they would provide additional travel options that could provide some congestion relief. Also, especially in the suburbs, better coordination could make the existing system function more effectively as a whole, by providing more options and extending the range of service coverage. This means, for example, a comprehensive approach to service along the Route 128 corridor, involving CARAVAN, commuter parking facilities at most interchanges, and frequent private shuttle service, in addition to some MBTA line haul service. The Future Role of Rail Freight Boston was founded as a port city and much of its growth has revolved upon international trade. Marine port facilities are just the gateway, however, to a national (and international) goods movement network made up of highways and railroads. After many years of decline due to increased competition from trucks, rail freight is reasserting itself as an important component of the transportation system. While cartage by truck will remain an important component of a competitive and multimodal freight network, an efficient, high capacity freight rail system is also essential to ensure the seamless movement of goods between the Port of Boston and to markets and manufacturers in the Northeast and the Midwest. To this end, plans are underway to construct an intermodal freight facility at Fort Devens in Ayer. There is a direct rail line from Moran Terminal in Charlestown to Fort Devens, and from there to major freight lines to the west. In order to improve the carrying capacity of trains along this corridor, the Commonwealth is considering alterations to overpasses to allow for double- stacked container cars. 7-12 While local freight distribution within the Boston region will continue to be handled mostly by trucks, railroads will serve some industries along the railroad lines. Improvements made to rail rights-of-way, generally for passenger travel, should also help the freight railroads by allowing faster, smoother travel. The Future Role of Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel The Boston region MPO recognizes that increased bicycling and walking can reduce traffic congestion, air and noise pollution and fuel consumption. Thus, these two modes effectively contribute to the quality of life in the region. Bicycle travel has emerged as an increasingly popular form of recreation and commuting. Bicycles are essentially pollution-free, use no fossil fuels, are quiet, and take up very little space either in operation or in storage. Bicycling is of interest to the individual because it promotes health, is enjoyable and inexpensive, and, in some congested areas, is the fastest mode available. All of the above, with the exception of speed, hold true for the pedestrian, who, of course, has no vehicle to park or maintain. Disadvantages for the bicycle and pedestrian modes include almost no protection in case of collision, limited carrying capacity, increased travel time for longer trips, and direct exposure to inclement weather. From an air quality perspective, it is particularly important to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to intermodal facilities. Engine cold starts and short vehicle trips contribute significantly to air pollution. Many short automobile or park and ride facilities trips could be switched to the bicycle or pedestrian modes by the provision of new or improved access to such facilities. The Clean Air Task Force final report noted the need to implement enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access programs, particularly to reduce shorter-distance vehicle trips. How an individual feels about these advantages and disadvantages will determine his or her own individual mode choice. It is likely that many people who might be able to commute by bicycle have never seriously considered it. To increase the bicycle mode share, in particular, significant publicity and marketing efforts are necessary, as well as a new approach by transportation agencies to planning facilities for both bicyclists and pedestrians. This approach increases attention to these modes and focuses on intermodal connections. As indicated in the recently proposed EOTC Bicycle Policy, the emphasis in Massachusetts is to make the road system compatible for bicycle and pedestrian transportation. State transportation agencies will be working to improve and promote on-street bicycle commuting to urban cores and to support bicycle access to transit, rail, and HOV terminals. To further the use of bicycles 7-13 as a legitimate transportation mode, the 1993 Transportation Bond Bill will identify $6 million for a Bicycle Commuting Program. This bicycle and commuting program will have six basic components. First, metropolitan area bike commuting corridors will be developed on or along radial roadways and other arterials. Second, bicycle and pedestrian routes will be developed leading to terminals for other modes. Third, bicycle locking facilities including bike lockers, will be installed at MBTA, other regional transit authority, commuter rail, bus and ferry park-and-ride locations. These bicycle locking facilities should be high quality, safe, and weather protected. Fourth, there will be an improvement program designed to provide widened roadways and paths, to smooth railroad grade crossings, to install "bicycle friendly" storm sewer grates, and to improve signs and roadside graphics. Fifth, there will be a promotional campaign to encourage bike and pedestrian commuting and intermodal travel. And sixth, the state transportation agencies will establish a program to train engineers, designers, planners and others in bicycle and pedestrian transportation program design and delivery. Later, this should lead to the development of a MHD design manual compatible with current AASHTO standards.3 While most bicycle travel will occur on the road system, trails can provide attractive and safe alternatives and supplements. It is noteworthy that many potential rail-trails provide direct access to commuter-rail stations. They are attractive possibilities for both commuter and recreational uses. The Claire Saltonstall Bikeway, for example, while ostensibly a long-distance recreational route intended for the "touring" cyclist, is also used for shorter recreational rides and for commuting. The second major component of the state and regional bicycle planning effort focuses on the development of non-street bikeways, including rails-to-trails projects. Among the projects which are already moving forward in the design process are an extension of the Minuteman Bikeway form Alewife terminal to the Charles River bike path system and development of a bike/pedestrian rails-to- trails path between Davis Square in Somerville to Cedar Street. More projects like these will be encouraged. The MHD and the MDC are jointly developing an exciting bikeway system along Boston Harbor and up the Neponset River. Extensive study is underway in the MetroWest area of bicycle options, and other bicycle trails are being planned in Salem, Marblehead, Danvers and along the Bay Circuit. The Hanscom Area Towns Committee has done exploratory work for a "Minuteman Historic Regional Bikeway" that would build on the area's recreational and historic resources. This path could potentially be linked with a new National Park Service path to be called the "Battle Road Bike Path" along Route 2A. The ___________________________ 3AASHTO is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 7-14 Commonwealth expects to spend $6 million on such off-street projects over the next two years. EOTC and MHD will work with MAPC and bicycle advocacy groups in the development of a comprehensive bicycle plan for the Boston region during next year's refinement of the Transportation Plan. The goal of this planning exercise will be to identify bike commuter routes and potential bike/pedestrian paths that can be listed by priority. Because the regional demand is greater than the dollars, as for other modes, there is a need to develop such priorities and to move forward with the most needed improvements. Federal funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects may also be available through a variety of sources, though again, these funds are limited until 1996 and will also be necessary to help meet the needs of other regions. These programs are: - ISTEA Transportation Enhancements program4 - National Recreational Trail funding - ISTEA Congestion Mitigation program Funding may also be available through the NHS and STP programs. Two other federal programs may also provide funds: the Scenic Byways program may provide funding for the planning, design and development of bikeways associated with scenic byways, and Public Lands Funding may be used for a variety of projects, including byways programs and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. For example, funding to study further the Hanscom proposal discussed above could come from one of these programs. A recent FHWA manual presents the concept of the "design bicyclist." Bicyclists are put into three major categories: the advanced bicyclist, the basic bicyclist, and the child bicyclist. The advanced bicyclist is capable of using most roads, including busy arterials. The basic bicyclist will trade off the ability to go at high speeds for the comfort of minor roads with less traffic and more stops. Children under the supervision of parents will use paths, sidewalks, and some neighborhood streets. The latter two groups usually prefer the sense of security of a trail, while the former group often prefers the directness and higher operating speeds afforded by the street system. It is necessary to provide for all of these groups, with significantly different emphases. Improving the pavement and drain grating configurations on a two-foot shoulder of an arterial will not attract child cyclists, nor is it intended to. Nor will building a mile-long trail meandering through a town forest attract racers or commuters trying to get to work in the morning. Yet as children grow up and as the basic bicyclists gain proficiency, some will venture ___________________________ 4The Transportation Enhancements program is detailed in Chapters 5 and 8. 7-15 further onto the system, which by its sheer size and scope, will ultimately serve most trips. There are several strategies that will serve to improve conditions for existing pedestrians and to induce others to join them. These measures include: (1) routine maintenance of existing sidewalks and curbing, including smoothing uneven surfaces, improving drainage, trimming vegetation, removing intrusive street furniture, including signs, sweeping and shoveling, (2) building new sidewalks to provide continuity, (3) providing 'pedestrian- friendly' intersection design (appropriate signal-head placement, signal intervals, curb ramps, signed and painted crosswalks, adequate lighting, etc.), and (4) increased emphasis on access to transit. On the last point, pedestrian circulation within stations is addressed as a matter of course, but not pedestrian access to stations. In all these areas, access for the physically disabled must also be part of the program. In general, all new roadway projects and all reconstruction projects should be constructed so as to provide increased safety and mobility for all users, including people who walk and bicycle. Figure 7-3 displays existing and proposed bicycle facilities within the MPO region. Several of these proposals were identfied by private citizens during the 30-day public comment period on the draft Plan. The Future Role of Air Travel The continuing vitality of downtown Boston can be partly attributed to its proximity to Logan International Airport. The airport has been described as a magnet for business in the downtown area, slowing the further exodus of firms to suburban locations. Of course, the airport is crucially important for the health of the entire region, not just the urban core. The growth in air travel, both passenger and freight, experienced over the past decades is expected to continue into the future. The Logan Growth and Impact Control (LOGIC) study commissioned by Massport used a forecast 2010 passenger volume of 37.5 million, a 63% increase over the 1990 volume of 23 million. The physical constraints of Logan make any significant increase in air and ground traffic a serious operational challenge. Of the major airports in the nation, Logan is one of the smallest in total land area, and there is scant possibility for it to expand. Handling more flights, more passengers and more cargo depends on the ability of Massport to use its existing space more efficiently. As is discussed in Chapter 8, Massport is preparing to embark on a major reconstruction of the airport terminal facilities. The project will proceed in phases over several years extending into the next decade. Each phase is designed 7-16 Click HERE for graphic. to allow for incremental increases in passenger and cargo handling capacity with minimal effect on the environment. There have been many discussions about a second major airport in eastern Massachusetts. Recent studies indicate that Logan may be able to handle future travel demand when supported by a combination of increased use of regional airports spread throughout the region, high speed rail and advances in telecommunications. The Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission has commissioned a strategic assessment report (SAR), a parallel planning study, to identify future demand for high-speed intercity transportation, including an estimation of future capacity constraints at Logan Airport. The principal findings and potential future initiatives identified as part of the SAR will be evaluated as the Boston MPO formulates future revisions to the Transportation Plan for public consideration. Ground access to Logan is as serious a challenge as coping with the air side demand. The ground access problem should be eased substantially by the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project as well as improvements to the mass transit connections to the airport. Consideration should be given to developing a more unified airport strategy for eastern Massachusetts. This could involve closer coordination between the different agencies that plan for air transportation. The Future Role of Ports and Water Travel Progress in international trade talks, the consolidation of the European market and a shift in the locus of manufacturing from the Pacific Rim and Southeast Asia all point to an increased role for the port of Boston in the coming years. Boston is the closest major American port to Northern Europe - a full day closer than New York in sailing time. With improvements to the land side freight system, especially through the railroads and the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, Boston can offer a real time advantage in moving goods to and from inland markets. There is a need to reinforce the innerconnectivity of the various modes that converge at the port. The land-side modes are rail and truck. Rail improvements would include upgrading track and increasing bridge clearances to enable the use of double stack rail freight cars. Highway improvements would include upgrading truck access to the port area without affecting the residential areas, and the inclusion of port access routes in the National Highway System (NHS). Since the Port is the principal point of entry for the Commonwealth's supply of heating oil, gasoline, liquid natural gas and jet fuel, safe and efficient routes for this cargo should be 7-18 identified. The South Boston By-Pass road and the Seaport Access road should dramatically increase access to the Conley container terminal area. A Medford Street Bypass that separates the auto/truck traffic stream would reduce the truck traffic on local streets and improve access to Moran container terminal. On the water-side improvements are also needed to sustain the usefulness of the Port. Chief among them will be the dredging project sponsored by Massport and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This project will make navigation safer and forestall vessel casualties which could damage the environment. It will also permit the Port to accommodate the larger double-hulled vessels which carry an increasingly large share of the world's trade. Other improvements to the navigability of Boston harbor will also be desirable. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard, working closely with the cities of Boston and Chelsea, has proposed a replacement Chelsea Street Bridge because the present bridge constrains both vessel and automobile travel. On the passenger side, ferry service has emerged as a viable commuter transportation option for some communities in response to highway congestion and anticipated construction activity. Recent studies5 have examined the market for this service, as well as the associated operational and capital considerations. It is important to distinguish among different types of water transportation services. There are water shuttles, water taxis, commuter ferries and excursion services. Each plays a different role and serves different trip types. Commuter service to and from Hingham and Quincy to downtown is competitive with land-based transit. Service from the North Shore would be less attractive, since land transit usually results in shorter travel times and open sea weather conditions can easily disrupt service. The MWRA is currently using water shuttles to transport workers to the Deer Island facility. If this service could be interlined with MBTA, there is a potential for cost savings. Passenger ferry service has been proven effective in a short- term role designed to meet interim needs. In fact, water transportation should be considered on an interim basis during the construction of any major highway and construction project in the region. The salient question for the future is what its long-term role should be. The passenger forecasts and operational analyses done in the 1989 study suggest a significant and growing South Shore market for passenger ferry travel to both downtown Boston and Logan Airport. ___________________________ 5Logan Airport/Boston Harbor Study (1988) and Boston Inner Harbor Water Transportation Study (1989) prepared for Massport, EOTC, and the Legislative Special Committee on Marine Transit. 7-19 The long-term viability of other types of ferry service depends on the demand created by new waterfront development in such areas as the Charlestown Navy Yard and the South Boston Piers, the competitiveness of alternate modes, and the availability of funds to create support facilities such as parking lots, terminals and docks. At a minimum, there should be coordinated marketing and promotion of water transit services, including better signing, graphics, brochures, and incorporation of water transit information into all transit and highway timetables, maps, and brochures. It is also desirable to create more effective links with other modes - bicycles, rapid transit, commuter rail, and buses - both by physical accommodation and by fare policy, ticketing, and marketing, with an emphasis on intermodal efficiencies. In addition, the physical accessibility of ferry services is a complex issue, due to the large tidal variations in the Harbor. Smaller scale Inner Harbor shuttle services have proven valuable for non-home based travel to and from Logan Airport. Given the current and proposed waterfront attractions (particulalrly cultural facilities such as the Children's Museum and the New England Aquarium) and work sites, there is the potential to establish Inner Harbor service. Such an operation could serve work related travel during the week, and then be available on weekends for excursion travel such as harbor tours, music cruises, harbor island and cultural destinations and private charters. This could be supported by remote parking areas for buses transporting school groups and to the Boston harbor museums. The remote lots could also be used by Central Artery construction workers as well as for special event shuttles to Boston Garden and World Trade Center events. Two additions to the transportation network may have a long- term effect on ferry patronage. The opening of the Third Harbor Tunnel (estimated for 1995) may reduce some South Shore demand for ferry service to Logan Airport by reducing auto travel time. The demand for South Shore to Downtown Boston service probably will not be affected. The primary trade-off for downtown bound commuters will be the relative attractiveness of the Old Colony Commuter rail extension. The future passenger ferry network will need to provide short headways, good average operating speeds (about 7.5 knots), reasonable terminal times, and adequate commuter parking and facilities for servicing of ferries. A separate, but related, issue is growing congestion on the Inner Harbor. The problem is most acute during summer afternoons and evenings, when recreational, shipping and commuter traffic all compete for limited water space. Finally, the Boston region MPO will need to re-examine the language of ISTEA and work with federal transportation agencies to determine which ferry-related activities may be eligible for ISTEA funding. Also, the public-private partnership model offered by current commuter boat arrangements should be 7-20 evaluated to see what institutional arrangement makes the most sense for the harbor in the long run. Summary The preceding discussion of the components of the regional transportation system helps to frame the choices that must be made in this plan. The system is mature and will require regular investments to preserve its capabilities, but there will be opportunities to improve efficiency through the use of technology and increased emphasis on intermodal operations. Other additionsþsuch as bikeways and HOV lanesþwill assume greater importance in the future system. Clearly, each mode has an important role to play in the current and future system. A role of the Transportation Plan is to identify investments and projects that can support a multimodal system. Development and Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios for 2020 _____________________________________________ This section describes how combinations of the various modes discussed in the previous section can relate to future regional travel patterns and development. The MPO analyzed a series of transportation and land use scenarios in an effort to identify projects that would best correspond to the travel needs and environmental considerations described in this chapter and the preceeding one. Much of the discussion in this chapter and in Chapter 8 is based on the MPO's land use and transportation models. These models are used to analyze the relationship between changes in transportation supply and changes in land use patterns and density. The transportation model can reflect operating improvements and capital investments such as rapid transit extensions or highway add-a-lane projects. It may also be useful in identifying the effects of more compact land development patterns. There are other actions that alter travel demand, but which cannot be effectively modeled on a regional basis. Examples of these are parking management strategies, and aggressive transportation demand management programs. Future modeling efforts will improve our ability to analyze these actions. Transportation models only offer a simplified representation of transportation system conditions. While models are certainly helpful, travel forecasts are only general estimates of future conditions. Consequently, one of the best uses of a model is to conduct a sensitivity analysis. That is, the model may not be accurate in forecasting the effect in absolute terms of some change to the system, but it can provide a good deal of useful information on the relative 7-21 magnitude of various changes to the system. A complete description of the model development process is the subject of Resource Paper B in Volume Two. Transportation Scenarios In order to help identify the most balanced and effective set of projects for this plan, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) directed the Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) to perform seven different transportation and land use model runs for the year 2020. The analysis: - Examined the relationship between land use and transportation; - Evaluated system-wide air quality impacts; and - Estimated system-wide delay. Figure 7-4 summarizes the transportation and land use scenarios. It displays the transportation network assumptions for each scenario, and is a useful reference for the following discussion. The model runs were an effort to determine the relative effects of scenarios with broadly different policy emphases. A model run is not and cannot be synonymous with the plan's recommendations. The projects that are in the model runs are not necessarily the projects that get built. This is because many components of a transportation plan cannot be modeled, and more importantly, because other factors (financial feasibility, community acceptance) are part of the project selection process for the plan. The following paragraphs briefly discuss the transportation and land use scenarios. A complete description of each is found in the Technical Appendix. Transportation-Related Scenarios To determine the theoretical impacts of different transportation and land use strategies, CTPS modeled four different transportation networks for the year 2020. These are displayed in Figure 7-4. The first network, Base Case, includes projects which are certain to be completed by 2020.6 The projects in the Base Case network were also included in all other networks which were modeled. After defining and modeling the Base Case, the SSC identified two broad concept packages. These are the "Highway Emphasis" and "Transit Emphasis" scenarios. The Sub-Signatory Committee (SSC) selected projects for the Highway Emphasis model run based on a general quantitative analysis of congested ___________________________ 6Another Base Case network was developed and is called MetroPlan Base Case; this is discussed later in this chapter. 7-22 Click HERE for graphic. conditions in the region. Bridge rehabilitations, urban reconstruction projects, and intersection and safety improvements are not included because they do not affect regional travel in a way that can readily be modeled. The Transit Emphasis scenario hascommuter rail extensions, improved commuter rail running times, and physical improvements to the existing rapid rail system in addition to those of the Base Case. Most of the 25 projects used in this model run also were evaluated (along with over 40 others) at some stage of the Program for Mass Transportation. The SSC used the results of these first three model runs to select projects for the "Multimodal Scenario" which contains: Highway: - Central Artery/THTþBase Case - I-93 Industriplex InterchangeþBase Case - Beverly-Salem BridgeþBase Case - Route 3 North Add-a-lane7 - Route 3 South Add-a-lane7 - Route 128 Add-a-lane7 - Route 1/114 corridor improvements - I-495 Marlboro interchange Transit: - Old Colony Restoration (3 lines)þBase Case - South Boston Piers TransitwayþBase Case - RTIS Washington StreetþBase Case - Improved running speeds on the Rockport, Haverhill, Lowell and Franklin commuter rail lines - Blue line extension to Lynn - Green line extension to Medford Hillside - Blue line/Red line connector - Four commuter rail extensions - Other commuter rail system improvements Land Use-Related Scenarios Both the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) and ISTEA encourage metropolitan areas to maintain and enhance mobility without building projects or supporting programs that will contribute to increases in vehicle miles of travel and air pollution. Mobility is affected by changes in the ___________________________ 7An HOV option must be evaluated as part of the planned improvement to this road. In addition, any project that results in a significant increase in capacity for single-occupant vehicles must be included in the region's congestion management system. However, due to the model's limitations, it was not possible to analyze that alternative as part of the scenarios. To that extent, the model results thus reflect a "worst case" forecast. 7-24 transportation system and by changes in land use. This is a complicated relationship that can be analyzed with the help of a land use model. To help with this analysis, the Boston MPO is developing an integrated transportation-land use model. That land use model, called DRAM/EMPAL, will improve the ability of regional decision- makers to test the effects of different transportation and land use policies. The DRAM/EMPAL model and the regional travel demand model will be important tools for analyzing the policies of MAPC's MetroPlan 2000. For the present Plan, the SSC used the interim version of this model to examine land use alternatives developed by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). The scenarios are based on MAPC's MetroPlan 2000. The goals of MetroPlan are to attempt to reverse the trends toward longer commutes, reduce reliance on single-occupant vehicles and improve options for auto-free commuting. The action recommendations in MetroPlan emphasize a strong economic regional core and concentrated development centers in certain non-core locations. This "compact development" emphasis is intended to promote transit and pedestrian accessibility. The details of the three land use scenarios are presented in the Technical Appendix. The first MetroPlan scenario ("MetroPlan Base" ) distributes housing and population using a continuation of existing trends to the year 2020. The 1990 estimated population for the MPO region is 2,922,000 and the 1990 estimated total employment is 1,715,000. MAPC's extended trends forecast shows a population decrease to 2,906,000 in the year 2020 and an employment increase to 1,980,000 by the year 2020. The MetroPlan Base Case Scenario is a transportation network alternative, emphasizing urban transit through the implementation of major transit projects inside of Route 128. These projects also were evaluated in the PMT process. These transportation projects were held constant for all three land use scenarios. The second MetroPlan scenario is "Land Use Intervention." This strategy encourages growth in the Urban areas and discourages it in the Multi-Service and Suburban/Rural areas.8 The scheme would remove open space from the developable land inventory and restrict development in Suburban/Rural areas to densities below those which would require sewer service. ___________________________ 8Urban areas are defined as those areas which are within 1/2 mile of the rapid transit system or areas with densities of at least 7 dwelling units per acre or 4200 persons per square mile. Multi- Service areas are those areas with public sewer service not included in Urban areas. Suburban/Rural areas are those areas without public sewer service. 7-25 The third MetroPlan 2000 scenario is "Land Use Forced." This strategy allocates future population and employment growth by a strict formula: Population Employment Urban Areas 67% 67% Multi-Service Areas 25% 28% Suburban/Rural Areas 8% 5% In other words, two-thirds of the growth regionwide would be forced into the Urban Areas, while the remaining growth would be distributed between the Multi-Service and Suburban/Rural areas. This scenario tests higher development densities than either of the other MetroPlan scenarios. The population and employment estimates for each MetroPlan scenario are in the Technical Appendix. Analysis of Results A comparison of results of the 2020 scenarios begins to suggest how the performance of the transportation system reacts to changes in either travel demand or transportation supply. Generally, the model runs that adjust transportation supply by adding highway and transit capacityþHighway Emphasis, Transit Emphasis and Multimodalþshow only slight differences in system-wide performance. These differences may, in fact, be within the model's margin of error. The land use scenarios assume more compact land development patterns and thereby produce lower auto travel and emissions and higher transit use. Each of the following graphs and tables shows that the differences attributable to each of the 2020 alternative scenarios will be far less than the difference between 1990 existing conditions and the assumed 2020 Base Case. Figure 7-5 displays changes in transit and auto use. Compared to the Base Case, both the Multimodal and Transit Emphasis model runs show increased transit person trips. However, the MetroPlan Intervention and Forced model runs, which re-distributes households and employment to the central areas, where transit services are extensive, lead to the greatest increase in transit trips, about 15% and 17%, respectively. Table 7-1 presents Highway Vehicle Trips and Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT). Highway vehicle trips are computed by applying an auto occupancy factor to auto person trips, and then adding through trips, taxi trips, and truck trips to the result. VMT is calculated as the product of vehicle trips and average trip length, which is estimated at 10 miles. All scenarios produce very similar 7-26 Click HERE for graphic. 7-27 results, with the exception of MetroPlan Intervention which shows an increase in highway vehicle trips. Table 7-1 Highway Vehicle Trips and VMT Percent Change from 2020 Base Case Scenario Hwy Vehicle Trips % Change VMT % Change 1990 Existing 7,260500 -17.0 61,063,100 -25.4 2020 Base Case 8,524,000 N/A 76,599,800 N/A Highway Emphasis 8,560,500 0.43 77,199,300 0.78 Transit Emphasis 8,484,900 -0.46 76,139,300 -0.60 Multimodal 8,523,300 -0.01 77,231,800 0.83 MAPC Base Case 8,494,400 -0.35 76,166,500 -0.57 MAPC Intervention 8,624,700 1.18 74,707,000 -2.47 MAPC Forced 8,474,200 -0.58 74,607,000 -2.60 Vehicle Hours of Travel and Average Speed, shown in Table 7-2 again show the same pattern. All the scenarios are very similar in their effect on performance, except for MetroPlan Intervention and Forced. Table 7-2 VHT and Average Speed Percent Change Scenario VHT % Change Ave. Speed % Change 2020 Base Case vs. 1990 2,655,800 +35.0 28.8 -7.3 Highway vs. 2020 Base Case 2,622,700 -1.3 29.4 2.1 Transit vs. 2020 Base Case 2,627,000 -1.1 29.0 0.5 Multimodal vs. 2020 Base Case 2,645,800 -0.4 29.2 1.2 MAPC Base Case vs 2020 Base Case 2,628,900 -1.0 29.0 0.5 MAPC Intervent. vs 2020 Base Case 2,575,000 -3.0 29.0 0.5 MAPC Forced vs. 2020 Base Case 2,580,800 -2.8 28.9 0.2 In terms of emissions, which is important for estimating the air quality effects of the different scenarios, the Highway, Transit and Multimodal scenarios each show similar effectiveness. In Figure 7-6, the effect of the 2020 Base Case is most dramatic, showing decreases in VOC, CO and NOx over 1990 conditions of 58%, 58% and 33%, respectively. Pivoting off of the 2020 Base Case, the transportation-based scenarios show effects ranging from a decrease of 1.64% to an increase of 0.95%. The Intervention and Forced scenarios result in the most substantial estimated reductions in emissions. 7-28 Click HERE for graphic. 7-29 Conclusions The modeling effort presented in this chapter is only a first step. Time constraints limited the modeling effort to seven fixed scenarios. Model availability also limited the extent to which DRAM/EMPAL could be used to understand the land use implications of the transportation scenarios. The MPO is committed to updating this plan no later than January 1995. The update will carefully consider the output received from these scenarios and prepare additional model runs, particularly with DRAM/EMPAL, to better measure potential changes in mobility, environmental quality and land use associated with a specific set of transportation network assumptions. The MPO will give particular attention to developing scenarios that may be effective in reducing not only VOC and CO emissions, but also NOx emissions. Special notice should also be taken of the fact that the effect of land use change is dramatic. For almost every measure of system performance, the MetroPlan Intervention and Forced scenarios appeared to have much greater impact than any combination of transportation improvements. These preliminary results suggest that land use strategies can be very effective in reducing travel demand and air pollution, as well as facilitating efficient movement of people and freight in the region. The analysis also demonstrates that transportation system investments cannot be the sole solution to the region's air quality problems. Two of the transportation model runs were performed to see whether a strong transit emphasis or a strong highway emphasis would make a significant difference in VMT and emissions. The Highway Emphasis and Transit Emphasis model runs produce very similar performance. In addition, the effects on air quality of each of these is very small. Comparing the change in Base Case VOC emission reductions due to fuel and vehicle improvements (see Figure 7-6) with the change caused by the transportation system expansions, the 2020 Base Case shows that that change is far greater than any of the other scenarios. For all intents and purposes the transportation supply scenarios are equal with respect to air quality. The model clearly indicates that the changes in transportation supply represented by the Highway, Transit and Multimodal scenarios have marginal regional effects at best. Some differences may, in fact, be within the model's margin of error. Because the Boston region is "mature" in terms of its transportation system and land development patterns, supply side changes will have a limited role in substantially changing system-wide performance. The Multimodal scenario is a combination of transit and highway projects. The travel model analysis indicated that a mix of highway and transit projects 7-30 would be reasonable in terms of VMT and air quality. Although the benefits of the combination of individual projects contained in this scenario may be difficult to discern in a region-wide analysis, they are likely to show significant benefits on a corridor basis. Including them in this plan is a strong indication that the projects should undergo further and more detailed analysis. In the next update of this plan, the mixture of projects in the model runs will be different. This will be the result of further corridor analysis which will identify alternate ways of meeting future travel demand. What is known now is that an integrated, balanced and intermodal transportation system is needed for the regional transportation system to meet the gaols and policies of this plan and to satisfy the conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act. It is important to note that local, corridor, and sub-area improvements above and beyond those represented in the Multimodal Scenario will still be necessary, but they are better identified using different techniques such as bridge sufficiency ratings and accident analyses. The six ISTEA management systems, once they are implemented, will be a regular and rational source of supplemental projects. Consequently, the recommendations outlined in Chapter 8 go beyond the results of the initial model runs described in this chapter. A significant amount of work with respect to financial analysis also awaits the 1995 revision. Development of a multimodal investment strategy requires analysis encompassing federal, state, local and private funds. Fiscal constraints will force tough decisions regarding the need to maintain and upgrade the existing transportation network versus the expansion of the system. The results of the comprehensive fiscal analysis should be used to help shape the content of future model runs. The computer-based analysis dealt with changes in supply and demand. That is, on the supply side, the region can decide whether or not to build a project. Similarly, on the demand side, the region can either concentrate land use or continue existing patterns. This assumes that the choices are limited to either transportation projects or land use controls. However, the range of options is quite a bit broader. As demonstrated by the Clean Air Task Force for Transportation9, there are other mechanisms by which travel demand can be managed. Transportation demand management is the general term used to define these actions. For example, the Commonwealth's ridesharing regulation, in conjunction with CARAVAN's efforts and physical improvements such as HOV lanes and park and ride lots will be effective in reducing single occupant automobile travel. Parking strategies attempt to manage the availability and cost of long-term parking. And, parking freezes have already ___________________________ 9This task force, appointed by the secretaries of EOTC and EOEA, is preparing the Transportation Element of the state air quality plan. 7-31 been used in Boston and Cambridge to help reduce automobile travel. The Clean Air Task Force will be completing its work this Fall and its recommendations will be reflected in a future draft of this plan. Given its mix of transit and highway projects, the Multimodal model run represents the balance of diverse elements necessary to achieve the goals and policies presented in Chapter 3. It is multimodal, will meet Clean Air Act requirements, and will help reduce congestion. Certainly, a land use strategy, not just a transportation plan can be pivotal to good decision-making. Equally clear is the fact that there are other transportation and land use variations beyond those tested for this plan. Over the next planning period, the MPO will analyze additional variations in order to define a balanced plan in greater detail and specificity. 7-32 CHAPTER 8 THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND STRATEGIES This chapter has two purposes. The first is to introduce and discuss the project recommendations of the Plan. The second is to include the procedures for revising the Plan, and reviewing how projects are evaluated. The Boston Regional Transportation Plan will provide the reader with a guide of which projects the MPO supports for construction, projects which are undergoing comprehensive evaluations, projects which are in early stages of the planning process, and candidates for project studies nominated by local governments, MPO agencies and other transportation agencies that serve the public. Context _____________________________________________ The Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) expects this Plan to be a living document subject to periodic reexamination. Although this chapter contains a list of recommendations for either implementation or study, this list is intended to be only part of the first iteration in a continuing series of planning efforts. The timeline shown in the Executive Summary (Figure ES-1) indicates that the Plan will be evaluated and revised at least three times over the coming eight years, the first revision scheduled to be completed in January 1995. Project recommendations in the Plan may be amended between scheduled revisions. Following the initial revision to the Plan (in January 1995), the MPO will develop an amendment procedure to be effective between the three year required comprehensive revisions. A clear amendment procedure will assure that the Plan remains responsive to changing conditions between three year revisions, and that changes to the Plan will be openly discussed, subject to public participation, and voted on by the MPO in a systematic manner. The policies of the Transportation Plan described in Chapter 3 are the broad basis for the Plan. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the next version of which will be adopted by the Boston MPO in 1994, will be the immediate precursor to implementation. This chapter describes some of the foreseeable milestones as projects in the Boston MPO region move from policy to action. Those milestones are referred to here as recommendations. With the exception of those projects already in the TIP and those called for by 8-1 the ADA or existing commitments related to improving air quality, the recommendations in this chapter are generally for further study. Some of these recommended studies will lead to implementation and be constructed as presently envisioned; some will be significantly changed before they are built; some will not be built. The recommendations in this Transportation Plan have been chosen on the basis of four priorities: 1) preservation of the existing system, 2) compliance with clean air goals, 3) continued enhancement of system accessibility, and 4) expansion of the system consistent with the policies and goals enumerated in Chapter 3. Procedures for Selecting Recommendations for the Plan The August 2nd to September 3rd public comment period produced a vigorous discussion on how projects should be evaluated in the Transportation Plan, and the role of the Transportation Plan in setting project priorities for an integrated multimodal system. The MPO has set a goal for the Transportation Plan to be, by January 1995, a guide of projects that the MPO intends to construct, projects which are undergoing comprehensive evaluations, and those projects which are in early stages of the planning process. The Plan is not yet at this level of clarity. The MPO is working to implement a crisp review of projects so that the Transportation Plan will be the basis for systemwide improvements. This Transportation Plan takes steps to identify: - The need for ongoing maintenance of the transportation system. - Projects identified by communities or through needs assessments of transportation agencies. - Projects that pass initial feasibility analysis, showing that these projects may meet goals in the transportation plan, and/or have significant public support. - Projects that are being subjected to rigorous study, including full environmental review and land use and transportation modeling that integrates proposed project with the existing transportation network and land use patterns - Project that have completed the environmental review process and are eligible for construction through the TIP process. 8-2 This is a beginning. Future versions of this Plan will refine project lists at each of the Levels, and provide more detailed analyses of air quality impacts and financial feasibility. Procedures for Amending the Plan Procedures for MPO approval for revisions to the Plan require MAPC notifications to communities and a 30 day public review period. The community notifications will be coordinated with the MBTA Advisory Board, and the public review will be coordinated by the JRTC. Organization of the Recommendations Project development has been ongoing during the ten years since the last adopted transportation plan for the Boston region. Although the MPO does not program certain types of projectsþfor example MassPort dredging projectsþthey are included in this Plan for informational purposes. The recommendations for projects in the Transportation Plan are divided into six categories that reflect both time periods for planning purposes and the degree of support, analyses and benefits associated with each project. Also included is a summary of ongoing maintenance and current projects. - Ongoing: This category spans all of the other time periods. It covers routine maintenance and infrastructure replacement and safety projects that occur on an ongoing basis. - Current: This category covers non-maintenance projects that are in construction, and therefore are funded or at least partially funded (such as the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel). - Level 1, Awaiting Implementation: This category covers projects that have MEPA approval and are ready to be included in the TIP but are awaiting funding. - Level 2, Short-term Projects (FY 1996-FY2000): This category includes projects that are undergoing detailed environmental, feasibility, and alternative analyses. Level 2 covers most SIP and ADA transportation commitments as identified by the MBTA, MHD, Massport , MTA, and EOTC. It also includes the study of projects for which short-term implementation appears feasible and/or desirable. 8-3 - Level 3, Long-term Projects (FY 2001-FY2020): This category covers transportation solutions which appear desirable given current analyses but which need further review and analyses in the regional planning and modeling processes to determine if the benefits justify further expenditures in Level 2. - Level 4, Future Projects: These projects are the result of transportation plan analysis or other systems level needs analyses and are nominated by local governments, MPO agencies and other transportation agencies that serve the public. The MPO will review projects in this list to determine if they are consistent with the goals and policies of the Transportation Plan before they are advanced towards feasibility analysis and eventual implementation. The Multimodal Scenario introduced in Chapter 7 includes recommendations for both construction and further study. Recommendations for construction are made to support projects that have completed all environmental reviews and show favorable results when modeled as part of the regional transportation system. These projects are the complete Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel, Beverly-Salem Bridge and the Old Colony restoration. Many of the remaining projects in the Multimodal Scenario have not completed environmental review and alternative analyses, and therefore at this time are recommended for additional or initial studies only, and are proposed as Level Two recommendations. Certain projects that are in both the Base Case and Multimodal Scenario are not ready for the TIP because they are still in the study phase. The agencies of the MPO are committed to these projects, including the Washington Street Replacement and the I-93 Industriplex Interchange. These projects are designated at Level Two, and will be evaluated for environmental and transportation impacts along with other projects at that Level. Ongoing projects are undertaken continually as facilities in the system reach the end of their useful life. These projects are necessary to preserve and maintain the existing infrastructure and structure. The management systems mandated by ISTEA are designed to be a tool to help carry out maintenance and other improvements necessary for the preservation and safety of the transportation system in a rational and timely manner. The Ongoing category is broad and will need to be defined at a finer level of detail. Further work needs to be done to identify the costs and benefits of these projects and how best to establish priorities and select projects from this category. Funding for the projects in the Current period has already been identified, and, in most cases, final design or construction are already underway. 8-4 Funding for projects in Level 1, Awaiting Implementation has been identified, but is not yet available. When funding becomes available, the projects will be moved into the TIP. Funding for recommendations in the Level Two Short-term period is less clearly defined, although much of the planning is well advanced. Beyond the end of the decade, in Levels 3 (Long-term) and 4 (Future), the funding picture becomes far less certain, and thus it is harder to say what the region will be able to afford. Further, recommendations in this category require much more study and design before being considered and costed as projects ready for construction. Past Transportation Plans have typically divided projects into two modesþhighway and transit. This Plan includes an Intermodal category in recognition of the many points of connection between the road and rail systems as well as between ports, airports, and land-side transportation. In addition, the Plan covers transportation enhancements as well as bicycle and pedestrian improvements. MPO agencies will apply screening criteria based on the goals and policies in Chapter 3 when considering whether a project should advance between levels. Also, screening projects between levels should, if practicable include modeling for transportation demand and land use impacts. To move projects between levels the SSC and/or the MPO will schedule a 30 day public comment period and vote on the propose change(s) following the comment period. The criteria below are general guidelines, and will be refined in detail as the MPO continues to improve the Plan. Screen Between Level 4 and 3 - Addresses identified need in the regional transportation network - General compliance with the goals and policies of the Transportation Plan and SSC/MPO approval of work scope/UPWP for feasibility study - Positive result from systems level planning analysis Screen Between Level 3 and Level 2 - Contributes to an integrated transportation system consistant with financial feasibility - Supports compact development - Compatible with state energy and economic development plans - Demonstrates compliance with Clean Air Act - Complies with American with Disabilities Act 8-5 Screen Between Level 2 and Level 1: - Completed environmental and alternatives analyses - The project is the preferred alternative to meet an identified deficiency based on project studies and transportation demand modeling - Availability of funds for construction Figure 8-1 on page 8-7 shows the relationship among the four levels and the TIP for the region. ONGOING PROJECTS Highway The MHD administers ongoing safety, bridge, and pavement programs. All of these programs will be modified to include all of the ISTEA management system requirements.1 The broad category of system maintenance covers many items: - Repaving and resurfacing - Guardrail repair - Highway lighting maintenance - Sign maintenance - Bridge repair and rehabilitation - Signal updating - Right-of-way maintenance - Safety improvements. The Pavement Management Program requires an inventory of pavement conditions for all state roadways every two to three years. The most recent MHD analysis, done in 1992, indicates that approximately 29% of the state-maintained roadways in the Boston MPO area require some degree of rehabilitation or restoration. Of those roads needing attention, approximately 34% require minor maintenance, 35% require surface treatment, 30% require structural overlay, and 1% require reconstruction. This work will cost approximately $26 million over six years to complete. Over the past four years, approximately $18.5 million has been spent annually for ongoing maintenance. MAPC estimates locally maintained roads will require annual expenditures of about $180 million, including about $27 million for federal aid eligible roads, over the next ten years. There is a substantial gap between MAPC's estimate of local road needs and currently available Chapter 90 funds. A list of proposed maintenance projects (as of June 30, 1993) is included in the Technical Appendix. ___________________________ 1ISTEA requires states to develop six management systems: pavement, bridges, safety, intermodal, congestion, and public transportation. 8-6 Click HERE for graphic. 8-7 The Bridge Management Program requires the inspection of all bridges at least every two years for structural adequacy and safety. The MHD is responsible for 1,518 bridges in the Boston MPO area. About 20% of these bridges are currently structurally deficient and require rehabilitation or replacement, and about 40% are functionally obsolete and are candidates for upgrade. The remaining 40% are in satisfactory condition and are sufficient to handle current loads. The cost to rehabilitate, replace, or maintain the current backlog of bridges is estimated by the MHD to be $2.1 billion. A review of past expenditures shows that over the past four years expenditures on federal-aid bridges has averaged $44 million per year and $10 million per year on non-federal aid bridges for a total bridge expenditure of approximately $54 million per year. ISTEA provides more funding in the bridge maintenance funding category beginning in 1996. A list of the number of bridges by community and their rating (as of June 30, 1993) is provided in the Technical Appendix for Chapter 6. In addition to the bridge work being done by MHD, Massport is completing a major bridge rehabilitation project for the Mystic River-Tobin Memorial bridge. To better identify proposed safety projects, the EOTC Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development (BTP&D) is currently developing a Safety Management Program. The current program includes the development of a listing of the 1,000 locations with the greatest number of accidents. In addition, the MHD, working with its district offices, establishes a priority listing of safety projects to be reviewed each year for construction. Safety projects include signalization of intersections, signal upgrades, and intersection improvements such as widening and channelization. Expenditures on safety projects for the past five years have been $15 million annually. Under ISTEA, funding for safety projects comes from a 10% set-aside within the Surface Transportation Program. Funding in this program increases by a factor of ten in 1996, making more funds available for safety projects. In addition to the MHD, ongoing roadway maintenance projects are underway by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the Metropolitan District Commission. The Turnpike Authority has begun a bridge rehabilitation project extending the length of the Turnpike. In addition, the Authority is currently undertaking the first phase of its program for the reconstruction of the Sumner and Callahan tunnels. This $47 million first 8-8 phase will replace the ceilings, electrical system and lighting system, upgrade the ventilation system and repair the road slab. In summary, MHD expenditures on highway maintenance, consisting of the bridge, safety, and pavement programs, are approximately $77.5 million per year (an average of $44 million per year for bridges, $15 million for safety and $18.5 million for pavement). Future funding years contain increased federal funds for the bridge and safety programs. The estimated annual funding for the bridge program for the Boston MPO is approximately $79 million. The funding for the safety program will increase due to the increase in Surface Transportation Program funding for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. As bridge and roadway improvements are planned, bicycle and pedestrian considerations should be integrated into the project planning and design process. Transit Since its inception in 1964, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) has been working to rehabilitate and modernize the physical plant it inherited from the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the private railroad companies. The effort to keep the rail infrastructure, power, signal and communications systems, and vehicle fleet in good working order has lasted for thirty years and will continue. According to the MBTA's Five-Year Capital Program (FY93 to FY97), the MBTA plans to spend over $1.2 billion through FY 1997 on infrastructure reinvestment, including several major investments listed below: Project Description Total Cost Blue Line Modernization Station renovation, power $466,800,000 upgrade Boston Engine Terminal Rebuild facility, improve $92,000,000 track Red Line vehicles Purchase 86 cars to replace $153,900,000 old fleet Fare collection Replace equipment systemwide $112,500,000 equipment TOTAL $825,200,000 The broad category of infrastructure reinvestment covers many items: - Track replacement - Bridge rehabilitation - Power system upgrades 8-9 - Signal/communication upgrades - Station modernization - Sign maintenance and updating - Garage and maintenance facility upgrades - Tunnel and ventilation repairs and improvements - Vehicle maintenance and replacement - Drainage and other right-of-way maintenance - Vehicle replacement and non-revenue equipment - Computer system upgrades - Building replacement and yard improvements In anticipation of the Public Transportation Facilities Management System, required by January 1995 in ISTEA, the MBTA has calculated the average annual cost of maintaining its plant and equipment. Based on the life-cycle costing method prescribed by ISTEA, the MBTA would have to expend an average of $303 million per year to replace its existing system over time. Actual spending in any given year could be significantly higher or lower than this figure, because expenditures for replacement of capital tend to take place in lumps, rather than smoothly over time. For example, when purchasing rapid transit vehicles, it is less expensive to purchase many at once, rather than a few each year. Thus, a fleet replacement project would be a large expense for a short period, and then very little expense for a long period. For the purpose of estimating future expenditures, it was assumed that the MBTA would spend $303 million annually beginning in 1998, after the $1.2 billion in planned spending up to that time. Intermodal The MBTA, MHD, Massport, and the Turnpike Authority each maintain park and ride lots in the Boston area. These facilities require ongoing maintenance, such as patching and resurfacing, striping and painting, lighting, fencing, and grounds keeping. It will be important to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to park and ride lots and to transit terminals. The harbor and port areas of Boston require periodic maintenance. To ensure safe and efficient passage through the harbor, shipping channels must be dredged. The docking and loading facilities of Moran and Conley container terminals also require ongoing maintenance. Massport maintains Logan Airport on an ongoing basis to ensure safe and efficient access to both the land- side and air-side of the airport. Enhancements Created as part of the ISTEA legislation, transportation enhancements encompass bike and pedestrian facilities, historic preservation, mitigation of 8-10 storm water runoff from highway projects, scenic beautification, landscaping, and other actions related to enriching the transportation system. ISTEA requires that 10% of the Surface Transportation Program funds be used for these purposes. Maintenance activities for these facilities are not yet well- defined. City streets and bike paths which serve as the main routes for bicyclists need regular maintenance. Cities and towns are responsible for local roads, while the Metropolitan District Commission is responsible for the bikeway system. Occasional resurfacing, widening and restriping is needed on these facilities to keep them safe for cyclists. Sidewalks and pedestrian signals are also generally the responsibility of cities and towns. Maintenance is usually undertaken on an ad hoc basis as the authorities are notified of problems. B. CURRENT PROJECTS Highway As of September 30, 1993,2 the Highway Element of the FY93-95 Boston MPO TIP had 201 projects. These include bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction and replacement, intersection improvements, demonstration projects, resurfacing, and safety projects. The great majority of these projects belong to the Ongoing maintenance category (listed in the Technical Appendix), but sixteen projects, which account for 92% of the total spending in the TIP ($2.5 billion out of a total of $2.73 billion), involve some expansion of the capacity of the system. Of the $2.5 billion, $2.38 billion is earmarked for the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project. The Current highway projects from the Boston MPO TIP are listed below in Table 8-1. Transit Beyond the estimated $1.2 billion dollars of infrastructure investment scheduled for the next few years, the MBTA has a long list of capital projects for new and/or upgraded service. This list, as well as other projects, will be reviewed in the Program for Mass Transportation (PMT) which will be submitted by EOTC to the MBTA Advisory Board in accordance with the MBTA's enabling act. Table 8-1 shows the projects which are scheduled to commence within the next three years, according to the MBTA's Five-Year Capital Program. While the PMT has not yet been finished, the list also includes two projects which the PMT studies have identified as promising and easy to implement in the immediate future. ___________________________ 2As of the writing of this chapter, the TIP was being amended. The figures in this section and the projects listed on Table 8-1 reflect the TIP assuming the current amendments are approved. 8-11 Click HERE for graphic. Several of the transit projects will not be finished within the time span defined as Current, but will extend through the Short-term. The dollar cost shown on Table 8-1 is the projected expenditure for 1993-1995 contained in the MBTA Five-year Capital Program. The investment required for all of the transit projects over the next three years is nearly $609 million. Intermodal The Current projects in the intermodal category include those listed in the FY 1993-1995 TIP as well as projects funded without ISTEA money. Table 8-1 shows four intermodal projects being implemented by Boston MPO agencies. In addition to these projects, there are two other projects which affect transportation in the region, but which come under the jurisdiction of non-MPO agencies: electrification of the Northeast Corridor by the Federal Railroad Administration, and park and ride lot expansions by the Mass. Turnpike Authority. Enhancements Two projects are listed on Table 8-1 specifically as transportation enhancements. Funds have also been programmed for enhancement activities in the rehabilitation of commuter rail stations as part of the Old Colony commuter rail service restoration project. It will not be until 1996 that significant funds are available for enhancement activities (see Short-term). C. LEVEL 1 - AWAITING IMPLEMENTATION The Implementation Level will provide the "project-specific feed" from the Plan to future TIPs. The principal sources for projects in this category are road maintenance, bridge and safety improvement activities, ADA accessibility improvements, projects developed as a result of a corridor or subarea study, follow- through on State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Vent Stack commitments, and projects in the Program for Mass Transportation which have met the criteria to advance to this level. There are an estimated 2,700 commitments associated with the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel (CA/THT), ranging from major transportation improvements to minor project enhancements. This Transportation Plan supports the timely completion of this important project and its related commitments. As the CA/THT progresses, it is expected that the data 8-13 developed through the transportation planning process will be useful in assessing the utility, cost-effectiveness and impact of some of the CA/THT commitments. The process being carried out by the Boston MPO as part of ISTEA, as well as the development of the PMT, will inform and guide decisions with respect to the CA/THT project's further implementation. Aside from ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), this Plan supports the concept that the transportation system must be managed in an environmentally sensitive fashion and must carry a fair share of the burden of improving the region's air quality. But in the rush to redress past neglect of air quality, a host of requirements have been developed. Some of these requirements were imposed without extensive analysis having been undertaken to determine that they are the best choices. In further iterations of this plan, the Boston MPO will be examining these requirements and commitments in more detail. It is important to note that the environmental regulations which incorporate many of these mitigation requirements (310 CMR 700 et seq.) state that if a project is shown to be not feasible due to adverse engineering, environmental or economic impacts, then a substitute project that achieves equal or greater emissions reductions may be submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection for approval. The MPO will consider these factors, as well as other objectives and issues, that may be identified through the design, environmental and community review process. MPO support of substitutions will be governed by the policies of this Plan, especially factors such as air quality benefit, cost- effectiveness, other transportation impacts, land use impacts and economic growth impacts. The following criteria will be used by the MPO to advance a project to the TIP: - Reasonable notification to all communities for public comment - MPO approval to move to TIP - Availability of funds for the defined three year period of the TIP Table 8-2 is a list of projects included in Level 1. D. LEVEL TWO - SHORT TERM RECOMMENDATIONS AND STUDIES Level 2 includes projects that satisfy preliminary planning requirements for basic feasibility, but require detailed environmental studies and financial analyses. Projects at this level are eligible to be programmed in the TIP for environmental study, review and design. 8-14 Table 8-2: Projects in Level 1 Awaiting Implementation Project TIP Status Studies Highway Central Artery/Tunnel Construction SFEIS for Charles River Crossing Beverly-Salem Bridge Advertised Environmental review complete Transit Systemwide Accessibility1 Construction Implementation underway Arborway Restoratio ENF-EIS Old Colony Commuter Rail Advertised Environmental (2 lines) review complete Express Bus routes from Route 128 Under study in PMT 1. Continued from Current 8-15 These studies will be undertaken to specify the precise nature of the project and, properly conducted, would take the place of FTA-required alternatives analyses. Further, such studies would provide critical information for the conformity analyses required by the Clean Air Act. Projects included in this level will be evaluated in various combinations with Level 1 projects to advance goals of the Plan. At the same time, projects may advance on their own schedules through design and engineering studies, financial analyses and environmental reviews. Because many projects have already advanced past Level 3 prior to this Transportation Plan, an interim guideline is needed. Therefore, projects in Level 2 that have never received formal MPO endorsement will retain their status as Level 2 projects, but will need a positive vote by the MPO to advance to Level 1. Level 2 projects would not be considered commitments of the Plan, and identified transportation needs may be addressed by more than one "trial" project in this Level. It is reasonable to expect that a project will be elevated to Level 1 as it emerges from environmental review, a preferred alternative is defined, a public review is conducted, and that the project carries MPO support. If applicable, the SSC and/or the MPO may move a project directly from Level 2 to the TIP if it makes sense to bundle the design and construction activities. An example of a project in this category is the I-93 Southeast Expressway HOV project. Following are the procedures and criteria that will be applied to advance a project from Level 2 to Level 1. - Complete environmental study and MEPA approval - Complete alternatives analysis - Modeled as part of the regional transportation system and found in compliance with goals and policies of the Transportation Plan - Consistent with state and regional development plan - Financially feasible and cost effective - Public Support - Notification to all communities - Best project based on studies above to meet an identified deficiency 8-16 Highway The span of time covered by both Level 1 - Awaiting Implementation and Level 2- Short-term is about the same period when Central Artery construction will be at its peak. As a result, there are relatively few other major highway projects anticipated to occur in this period in the Boston MPO region. The MHD maintains a project information system ("PROJIS") and MAPC maintains a community based Project Needs Data Base. Projects on these lists are generally smaller-scale bridge, maintenance, and safety projects, some of which fall into the Short-term period. These projects have merit and are feasible but need further development before they can be considered for advertising. The complete PROJIS list is shown in the Technical Appendix. It is likely that some of these small-scale projects will be completed in the Short-term period. Transit Three of the projects in the Short-term category are continuations from projects begun in the Current period. Four others are SIP commitments, while the other two are projects which appear to be cost-effective investments according to PMT analysis. The projects are summarized in Table 8-3. Projects and service improvements used in the modeling of the Multimodal Scenario are also to be considered for this Short-term category, subject to further definition from the PMT. These are improvements in commuter rail frequency and travel time, improvements in Green Line travel time, and increases in rapid transit frequency. Intermodal The intermodal projects in Table 8-3 encompass airport and marine port improvements, a transportation center, and a large increase in the parking supply at park and ride lots outside of the urban core. The bridge modifications to allow for double stacked rail freight cars are also in this time period. Additional projects in the transit and intermodal categories will be defined as part of the region's ongoing Transportation Demand Management initiatives. As described in Chapter 5, ISTEA Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds as well as private resources will be used to help reduce single-occupant vehicle travel in an effort to meet air quality standards. 8-17 Table 8-3 Projects in Level 2 Short-term Projects Project TIP Status Studies Highway Route 128 Add-a-Lane HOV NO DEIS in process Route 3 Add-a-Lane HOV NO SDEIS in process I-93 Southbound HOV Construction 1995 Feasibility study lane extending towards & Environmental Route 128 Assessment I-4956 Marlbourough New interchange FEIS in progress Transit Washington Street Replacement No ENF South Boston Transitway Construction 1994 DEIS (South Station to World Trade Center Worcester commuter rail Construction 1995 DEIS in process Old Colony Greenbush Construction 1994, 1995 SFEIS in process Newburyport commuter rail No Environmental completed Express service to Rockport, Haverhill, Franklin and Attleboro/Stoughton Air Logan Airport Terminals No ENFs in progress Logan Airport ground access No Under environmental review Other Boston Harbor channel dredging No DEIR/EIS pending Bridge clearance program No Unknown Park and Ride Bike Path - Arlington to Boston No Under study TIP Status: No - Not in TIP ROW - Right of Way Eng. - Engineering Env. - Environmental Review 8-18 Enhancements The transportation enhancements program has generated much interest throughout the MPO region. MAPC has assembled a list of 27 candidate projects for the Short-term period, including 9 proposed bikeways and several pedestrian paths. In addition, suggestions received from bicycle advocates during the public comment period identified several more bikeway proposals. Some of these are listed in Chapter 10. The complete lists of MAPC proposals and other public suggestions are included in the Technical Appendix. EOTC is developing guidelines for the evaluation of proposed transportation enhancement projects. Project proposals will be reviewed by MAPC, and then forwarded to an EOTC steering committee. Projects will be evaluated according to merit, linkage with the surrounding landscape and transportation network and public support. On Table 8-3, one bike path is listed in the enhancement category. As the evaluation process takes shape, this list will expand to take full advantage of the opportunities for enhancement afforded by ISTEA. Enhancement funding for FY 1994 and 1995 will be relatively limited but will increase in FY 1996 and 1997. Statewide funds are estimated as follows: Fiscal Year Federal Funding Total* 1994 $650,000 $812,500 1995 650,000 812,500 1996 18,150,000 22,687,000 1997 18,150,000 22,687,000 TOTAL $37,600,000 $46,999,000 *Including state match Source: Capital Expenditures Programming Office E. LEVEL 3 - LONG TERM RECOMMENDATIONS AND STUDIES Recommendations for this category were the most difficult to identify, because of financial uncertainties and current limits of the regional travel model. While future finances are projected in Chapter 9 based on past patterns of funding, those figures cannot be treated as either a limit or a guarantee. Further, the present travel model provides only systemwide measures and cannot be used to analyze individual projects. In the next planning period, the Boston MPO will need to do a more detailed needs review and a project-by-project analysis of proposed Long-term recommendations. 8-19 It is important to note that the Ongoing category, with its maintenance activities and infrastructure replacement, continues through this period. A principal source of initial recommendations for this category is the Multimodal Scenario model run described in Chapter 7, supplemented by projects from the preliminary analysis of the PMT. The Multimodal Scenario model run was used as a starting point for the development of Long-term recommendations since it acknowledges that both highway and transit projects are legitimate additions to the system. Further analysis is essential before the next Plan update and adjustment to the mix of recommendations is likely before a final balanced plan is specifically defined. Projects are summarized in Table 8-4. Each is recommended for additional study to identify further capacity enhancements, environmental benefits, engineering feasibility, preferred alignments and costs. Projects in this level generally includes those that have been analyzed in the regional comprehensive planning process, including both transportation and regional development studies.. Following are the procedures and criteria that will be applied to advance a project from Level 3 to Level 2. - Project must be analyzed in the regional plan and found to: - support the state and regional development plans - have a positive result from a feasibility study or major metropolitan investment study, including financial analysis - Notification to all communities - MPO approval only if requested by two SSC members. Highway The improvements to the highway system shown in Table 8-4 should be studied to determine their ability to improve access, address congestion and safety problems. When additional highway capacity is necessary, the preferred option will be the HOV alternative. General purpose lanes would be added only if they are included in the Congestion Management Plan, due in January 1995. 8-20 Click HERE for graphic. Transit Two of the recommendations on Table 8-4 would represent significant expansions of the regional transit system: - North Station/South Station Rail Link: EOTC and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are continuing to study potential corridors for the alignment, analyzing future ridership projections, and beginning the environmental process for this connection of North and South stations. The estimated cost for this project, including electrification of the regional commuter rail system and a new fleet of electric locomotives, is $3.6 billion. - Inner Circumferential Transit: There is a need to further refine ridership estimates, technical options, and the alignment of a proposed new public transportation project that would connect some or all of Cambridge, the Longwood Medical Area, Dudley Square, and the South End Medical Area. A feasibility study would be required and cost estimates would have to be refined to reflect land acquisition expenses. Both of these have long lead times for implementation and could be completed, at the soonest, early in the next century. With respect to North and South stations, a planning study prepared for EOTC in May 1993 by the Rail Link Task Force determined the feasibility of constructing the North Station-South Station Rail Link. In addition, Governor Weld has instructed the Central Artery Design Team to make provisions in key Artery construction contracts to be advertised during 1993 for certain design changes that would allow for later Rail Link construction. The other project, Inner Circumferential Transit, is currently being studied in the PMT and by the MBTA. Land use projections and careful consideration of alternative technologies and routes will be key issues in assessing these analyses. Simultaneous with the development of this Transportation Plan, EOTC has been directing the study and evaluation of a large number of transit projects through the PMT. Some of the preliminary PMT analysis has been used as a basis for including some of the transit projects in the Plan, but there are several more long-term recommendations for which further study is needed. An illustration of the type of analysis being conducted in the PMT is the MBTA study of the transit needs of the North Shore communities. Possibilities include improvements in running times on Commuter rail, an extension of the Blue Line to Lynn or enhanced bus service. 8-22 Other long-term PMT recommendations that will need further study are improved Needham Line commuter rail service with new stations, improved bus and rail connections to Logan Airport, extension of the Red Line to Mattapan, and Route 128 circumferential bus service. The MPO will incorporate the PMT in this Plan. Intermodal and Enhancements The Intermodal recommendations in Table 8-4 encompass improvements in access to the airport and marine port, access improvement to transit stations for pedestrians and bicyclists and a further increase in the parking supply at Park and Ride lots outside of the urban core. Additional recommendations in the Transit and Intermodal categories will be defined as part of the region's ongoing Transportation Demand Management initiatives. As further described in Chapter 5, ISTEA Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds as well as private resources will be used to help reduce single-occupant vehicle travel in an effort to meet air quality standards. There are no separate recommendations for enhancements as yet, although the access improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists would count as an enhancement. The lists of potential enhancements referred to in the Short-term section and provided in the Technical Appendix would be among the sources of enhancement projects for the Long-term. F. LEVEL 4 - FUTURE PROJECTS This will contain projects that are identified through systems level regional and sub-regional analyses. Projects in this Level will be nominated by local governments, MPO agencies, and other transportation agencies serving the region. Specific sources for this Level include the Highway Department's PROJIS listing and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's Project Needs Data Base. These projects would require at least a preliminary feasibility and financial analysis before advancing toward detailed study and construction. As an example, projects such as extension of commuter rail to Millis and from Franklin to Milford could be placed in this level. Following is the outline of procedures and criteria that will be applied to advance a project from Level 4 to Level 3: - Finding by the MPO that the project is a reasonable solution to an existing or anticipated condition. - SSC determines that project is consistent with the goals of the state and regional development plans. 8-23 - Notification to all communities - MPO Approval only if requested by two or more SSC members Recommendations in the Multimodal Scenario The multimodal scenario includes projects in Level 1 - Implementation and Level 2 - Short term. Recommendations for implementation are made to support projects that have completed all environmental reviews and show favorable results when modeled as part of the regional transportation system. These projects are the complete Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel, Beverly-Salem Bridge, the Old Colony restoration, ADA Systemwide Accessibility and Express Bus Routes from Route 128. The remaining projects in the Multimodal scenario have not completed environmental review and alternative analyses and are included in Level 2 - Short term and found in Table 8-3. The MPO is committed to testing benefits these projects and alternatives through additional modeling between January 1993 and January 1995. As noted earlier the SSC and/or the MPO must approve the transfer of projects between most Levels. This Multimodal scenario represents a reasonable first step for a regional transportation plan but additional environmental review, modeling and financial feasibility analysis is required before existing Level 2 projects are moved to Level 1. Total Cost of Recommendations Ongoing maintenance for the highway and transit systems is projected to cost between $320 and $380 million annually.3 Combining this ongoing expenditure with the project costs given above in Tables 8-1, 8-2 and 8-3 yields total expenditures by time period. Although the Short-term and Long-term recommendations in Tables 8-2 and 8-3 consist entirely of studies, and the preferred alternatives and construction costs of the projects which are the subjects of these studies generally are not well-defined, for the purpose of providing a bottom line total, the following discussion includes the costs that would result if all recommendations were implemented and if the initial estimates in Tables 8-2 and 8-3 were correct. ___________________________ 3The maintenance cost for port facilities and other intermodal facilities has not yet been calculated. The Intermodal Facilities Management System will provide this estimate. 8-24 For the Current period, 1993-1995, total highway expenditures, including Ongoing maintenance projects, will be $2.73 billion, while total transit expenditures will be $1.34 billion. Intermodal expenditures will be $75.6 million, including $50 million in Massport funds for the Conley Container Terminal. Enhancements will account for $3.5 million in the Current period. Total expenditures encompassing all modes will be $4.2 billion. Level 2 recommendations for the highway system, including Ongoing maintenance, cost $4.68 billion4, while the transit recommendations cost $2.23 billion. The Intermodal category is projected to cost at least $684 million, with additional expenditures for Logan ground access improvements, as well as the ongoing maintenance of intermodal facilities. $3 million is set aside for enhancements with another $5 to $10 million available for other potential enhancements. Total expenditures in this period would be $7.54 billion. At this time, Level 3 recommendations contain only one "mega- project" in the highway category, HOV lanes on the Southeast expressway, and thus, with a range of $1.97 to $2.79 billion, costs less than the current and short-term periods. Transit expenditures in this period would be high, at $11.46 billion, because of $6.06 billion in ongoing maintenance and replacement (calculated according to life-cycle cost formulas) and $5 billion for two mega-projects, the North-South Rail Link and Inner Circumferential transit. The Intermodal and Enhancement categories for the long-term are less well-defined, and thus have a cost estimate of only $70 million for park and ride spaces. Total expenditures in the long-term period would be at least $13.5 billion. This figure, again, assumes that the studies recommended in this Plan all have positive findings, that the decision is made to go ahead with all the projects recommended for study, and that the cost estimates presented here are correct. Relationship of the Transportation Plan to the TIP The region is in a period of transition from independent TIPs to TIPs that are based on ISTEA and the Transportation Plan. This Regional Transportation Plan comes at the beginning of the second year of the three year Fiscal Year 1993-1995 TIP. Planning for the scheduled FY 1995-1997 TIP will begin in January of 1994 to take effect October 1, 1994 (the beginning of FY 1995). This Transportation Plan is effective October 1993. It will be revised in 1994, and the goal is to adopt a revised Plan January 1995. The MPO may then ___________________________ 4For simplicity, it is assumed that the Central Artery/Tunnel project will be completed by 2000. 8-25 consider if amendments to the TIP or a new TIP are warranted. Beginning with the FY 1995-1997 TIP: - Projects that preserve and upgrade the existing system and comply with legal mandates will continue to be the first priorities of future TIPs. - Other construction projects in the TIP will be drawn from the First Level 2020 Transportation Program projects in the Transportation Plan. Subsequent TIPs will be developed based on the then current First Level of the Plan. - Projects identified in TIPs for study will be drawn from Level 2 of the Transportation Plan. Projects in the First Level of the Transportation Plan are projected improvements to the Year 2020, in addition to ongoing preservation, upgrading and safety needs. Therefore, the entire First Level probably will not be financially feasible in the context of a three year TIP, requiring funding priorities. Culling projects from the Top Level to a three year TIP will require setting priorities through an extensive public participation process, a strong needs assessment and a financial analysis for the life of the TIP. Project Selection in the Transportation Improvement Program ISTEA's requirement that the Transportation Plan be more substantive and specific than in the past highlights its closer relationship to the TIP. Ideally, the Plan contains a list of projects for the long term (20 years) from which each TIP selects for the shore term (3 years). In effect, the TIP will function as the ultimate Level for the Transportation Plan. Therefore, the TIP process will have to be even more rigorous than that for the Plan, because the financial constraints on the TIP are stricter. The long term funding picture is necessarily vague, and thus it is nearly impossible to have tight fiscal constraints for out-year projects. In the short term, funding is much more clear, and the MPO must be able to show precisely how it is using the available funds. Once projects have been selected for the three-year TIP and included in the Statewide TIP, it should be possible for the state transportation agencies to make administrative adjustments in scheduling and minor project changes without a formal amendment or approval process by the Federal government. Proposed Federal regulations state that "expedited selection procedures for the advancement of projects from the second or third years of the STIP may be used if agreed to by all the parties involved in the selection" (S450.222d). 8-26 Future Management Systems Mandated by ISTEA ISTEA does not specify exactly how the MPO should set priorities or select projects, but the six management systems will inform project selection and decision-making beginning in late 1994. The bridge, pavement, safety, public transit, intermodal and congestion management systems will begin to provide the data and performance measures necessary for more objective project selection. It is also important to note that in metropolitan areas that are non attainment for carbon monoxide and/or oz1, federal funds can not be programmed for a project that will result in a significant increase in capacity for single occupant vehicles unless the project is part of an approved congestion management system. The Boston MPO promotes the development of a formal project selection process. An improved process should pass the following tests: 1. Meet the legal requirements of ISTEA; 2. Be acceptable to and understood by all involved parties; 3. Be administratively feasible; and 4. Use a strong analytical basis for project selection. In order for the process to be acceptable to the interested parties, the analytical basis for project selection would have to be open to examination and debate. The criteria on which projects are evaluated must be determined in an open, public process. In ongoing discussions with citizens groups and local governments, transportation agencies will formulate a full-fledged transportation policy. This policy could then become the basis of the project selection procedure. The policy would define the primary goals of transportation system investments. Some examples would be: 1) preserve the existing system, 2) expand the system to under-served areas, 3) facilitate economic development, 4) improve service to existing riders, 5) bring new riders onto the system, 6) reduce air pollution and congestion. The policy would choose which of these or other goals were the most important, and thereby indicate how much of the pool should be allocated to pursuing that goal. The MPO has already established preservation of the existing system and satisfaction of legal obligations as its top priorities. Once the full set of goals was decided upon, the next task would be to determine which of the possible investments were the most efficient in attaining those goals. In some cases, it will be clear which investments are the most beneficial, but in others, the answer will not be obvious. At that 8-27 point, a debate would ensue among the interested parties in order to come to some compromise decision. The flexibility of ISTEA allows the MPO to make such choices among possible investments, and the limitations on funding force it to make such choices. Regions around the country have struggled with "cross-cutting criteria," 1s which facilitate choices between differing projects. These are not merely technical decisions but require an open discussion as to what the priorities should be for the regional transportation system. The Boston MPO will strive toward such a process, seeking to involve representatives from as many interests in society as possible. 8-28 CHAPTER 9 FINANCIAL PLAN ISTEA requires that metropolitan Transportation Plans contain a financial plan that demonstrates that known and projected sources of revenue are adequate to fund the proposed transportation investments. This chapter attempts to project funds that might be available to the Boston region up to 2020. This financial plan incorporates the cost figures developed in Chapter 8. Although this financial plan contains estimates of future funds available, it is important to note that past 1997, these are merely theoretical projections. Past experience has shown that funding can vary widely, depending on the state of the economy and the Congressional budget. The forecasts presented here are to be taken as one of many possible future funding scenarios. Forecasting Procedure _____________________________________________ Estimating the amount of funds available in the future is an inexact science, at best. One approach is to chart past funding experience and attempt to discern a trend. This trend could then be extrapolated to future years. The problem with such an approach is that funding levels are set by the legislative process, not by statistical probabilities. As can be seen in the tables in this chapter, the amount of money available changed dramatically between 1991 and 1992, when ISTEA replaced its predecessor, STURAA (Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act). In addition to uncertainties at the Federal level, the amount of funding available from the state (from bond sales and fuel taxes) may fluctuate. Furthermore, the distribution of both Federal and state funds among the thirteen regions of the Commonwealth does not adhere to a strict formula. The Boston region could take a bigger or smaller share of the statewide total depending on a number of factors. In fact, one of the difficulties of ISTEA is that the regulations implementing it state that ISTEA funds should be spent within the state according to needs established in the regional Transportation Plans, but do not give clear guidance on how statewide apportionments should be suballocated at the regional level. Until final rules are promulgated, financial forecasts for metropolitan areas will be on unsure footing as they try to demonstrate the financial feasibility of the recommended program. 9-1 For the purpose of the forecasts in this chapter, it was assumed that the Boston region would receive a share of statewide funds similar to what it has received in the past. Excluding the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, the Boston region has received approximately 42% of statewide highway funds between 1987 and the present. This figure was used to calculate the Boston region's share of future statewide allocations. Recognizing the many uncertainties associated with projecting future funding, a level forecast is provided in this chapter. All figures are in constant 1991 dollars.24 The scenario assumes that Congress will maintain the level of funding provided for in ISTEA in real terms; that is, funding will increase over time to maintain pace with inflation. The scenario also assumes that the state will provide matching funds to continue to leverage Federal dollars. Historical data are presented below for informational purposes. Following the summary of past and present funding experience, the chapter continues with forecasts of future funding. Past and Present Funding Experience _____________________________________________ HIGHWAYS Highway funding from the 1987-1991 STURAA and the 1992-1997 ISTEA is shown in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, respectively, broken down by funding category. Federal highway funds in Table 9-1 were estimated by calendar year based on advertised contracts, rather than actual Federal funds distributions, because of the organization of EOTC's Capital Expenditures Programming Office (CEPO) database. State highway money has been used predominantly as a match for the Federal funds; traditionally, few highway projects are carried out with 100% state funds. State highway funds come from bonds sales, fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees. Over the five years of STURAA, highway funding for the Boston region, including state funds, averaged $125.4 million per year. Funding categories changed between STURAA and ISTEA to a more flexible, block-grant approach. To help regions attain the various goals of ISTEA in the most efficient way, new ISTEA funding categories allow some funds to be used for highways or transit. It is also possible to shift funds around within the five primary categories, described below: 9-2 Click HERE for graphic. The Interstate Maintenance program replaces the Interstate-4R program of STURAA. It provides funds at a 90/10 ratio for the maintenance of interstate highways. The National Highway System program replaces the Federal Aid Primary category. Funds in this category may be used for: construction activities on the NHS system; operational and safety improvements to NHS segments; improvements to federal aid roads or transit projects not on the NHS, but which would improve the level of service on the National Highway System; and other transportation planning, research, traffic management, carpool and van-pool, fringe parking, and management systems projects which would have positive impact on the NHS. Funds for projects in this category will be based on a Federal share of costs at 80 percent, and a state share of 20 percent. The Highway Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation category funds projects in urban or rural areas for the replacement or repair of bridges, based upon structural adequacy and safety, serviceability and functions, public use and age. Federal share of costs is 80 percent, and state share is 20 percent. This program is largely the same as the prior federal bridge funding program. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) replaces the other Federal Aid funding categories and allows states a great deal of latitude for setting transportation priorities by providing funding for a broad range of transportation uses such as those listed below. 9-3 - Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, and operational improvements to highways (including Interstates) and bridges (including bridges on public roads of all functional classifications). - Capital costs for transit projects eligible for funding under the Federal Transit Act, and publicly owned and operated intercity bus terminals and facilities. - Carpool projects, fringe parking, bicycle transportation, and pedestrian walkways. - Highway safety improvements, hazard elimination, and railroad grade crossings, (10% of the STP apportionment per Federal Fiscal Year must be allocated for this use). - Highway and transit research and development, and technology transfer projects. - Transportation enhancement activities (10% of STP apportionment per FFY must be allocated for this use). Transportation enhancement activities are defined as provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles near a project area, acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites, landscaping, rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings, preservation of abandoned rail corridors, including their conversion to bikeways and pedestrian trails. - Wetlands and other environmental mitigation. The Federal/state matching ratio for STP is 80/20. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program is intended to help urban areas achieve the air quality standards mandated by the Clean Air Act. A state may obligate CMAQ funds for transportation projects or programs as follows: - Programs or projects which are part of the State Implementation Plan or which, based on the findings of the EPA, will contribute to the attainment of the national ambient air quality standard. - Programs or projects which, although not in the State Implementation Plan, the USDOT Secretary determines are part of a program, method or strategy developed by the EPA to improve air quality. CMAQ funds are also matched at an 80/20 Federal to state ratio. 9-4 A sixth category figures prominently into the Boston region's present transportation finances. Interstate Construction funding is available solely for projects that will complete the Interstate Highway system in the country. The only incomplete portion in Massachusetts is the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel. The federal share of the cost in this category is 90%, and the state share is 10%. It is not considered to be part of the core ISTEA program because its funds are earmarked specifically for the Central Artery project. The other categories shown in Table 9-2 are holdovers from STURAA and will expire by FY 1995. In Table 9-2, Federal highway funds for 1992 were estimated using advertised contracts for that year. In addition, the State matching funds figure for 1992 includes $16 million in highway projects funded with 100% state money; the figures for the other years are matching funds only.2 Federal highway and flexible (highway or transit) funds for FY93-95 were identified in the Boston MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) allocated funds to the state in each of the funding categories. Each MPO in the State then assembled a list of projects. As part of this process, the Boston MPO voted to use a portion of the flexible funds for transit. All MPOs submitted TIPs to the state, and the state reconciled the programming requests to the available funds, allowing for some over-programming as permitted by the FHWA. The regional TIPs were compiled into the Statewide TIP, or STIP. The amended TIP for Boston utilized the figures shown in Table 9-2 for highway and transit projects. At the writing of this document, the TIP was in the process of being amended further, with changes to all five core programs. The figures shown below are therefore a snapshot of the TIP, as of August 30, 1993. HIGHWAY FUNDING TRENDS Highway funding does not exhibit a smooth trend over the years. Since most of the funding has been done on a project basis rather than a formula, there can be fluctuations from year to year, making it difficult to identify discernible patterns from which to forecast. For example, the single largest project during the STURAA time period, the Central Artery North Area Project (CANA), was funded through Federal Aid Interstate funds. It is responsible for the single-year jump in Federal Aid Interstate funds from $1.8 million in 1987 to $198 million in 1988. Likewise, under ISTEA, funding for the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project is responsible for the increase in the Interstate Construction fund, ___________________________ 2Consistent with assumptions stated above, the future year forecasts do not include any state funding other than matching funds. The possibility of funding projects with 100% state money thus exists as a source of funds in addition to the forecasts in this chapter. 9-5 Click HERE for graphic. from $9.2 million in 1991 to $349 million in FY92 to $709 million in FY93. Highway funding averaged $752 million over these four yearsþmuch higher than the $125 million annual average of the previous five yearsþmainly because of the Central Artery. 9-6 TRANSIT The MBTA receives most of its capital funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and from the state. Since 1987, most federal funding has consisted of a mix of Section 3, 9 and 23 funds. Section 3 is discretionary capital funding allocated by FTA on the basis of project merit, with projects competing on a nationwide basis. Section 9 is allocated to MPOs on a formula basis for capital expenditures, and to a limited extent, for operations. Section 23 is interstate transfer funding, which consists of funding initially earmarked for interstate highway projects but subsequently transferred to transit. This source will expire in FY 1994. In addition to the FTA funds, transit projects can be funded under the flexible FHWA programs described above. Such transfers to transit are made at the discretion of the MPO. State capital funding is largely in the form of bond sales. The sale of bonds by the MBTA is authorized by the state, with repayment funded by the state through the MBTA's operating budget. Table 9-3 shows annual transit funding amounts for 1987-1991. From FY 1987 to FY 1991, the MBTA received between $315 and $384 million per year in total capital funding During these years federal funding ranged from a high of $171 million in FY 1988 to a low of $76 million in FY 1991. The high amounts of federal funding in FY 1987 and 1988 largely reflected receipts of interstate transfer funding for the new Orange Line. State funding was somewhat more stable, ranging from a low of $145 million in FY 1987 to $245 million in FY 1989. The average annual amount of total federal and state capital funding received during this period, in 1991 dollars, was $343 million. Click HERE for graphic. 9-7 For FY 1992 through FY 1995, the MBTA has received or expects to receive between $124 million and $230 million in Federal funds. These fluctuations are due to changes in discretionary funding, with the higher Section 3 amounts representing funding for Old Colony restoration and the South Boston Piers Transitway. Section 9 figures include capital grants to the Cape Ann Transportation Authority, a separate regional transit authority within the Boston MPO region. In the flexible funding categoriesþSTP and CMAQþthe Boston MPO transferred money from the Federal Highway Administration to FTA for two large projects, the South Station Bus Terminal and the Old Colony Railroad restoration, as well as a number of small projects. These transfers are made on a case-by-case basis. With respect to state funding, the MBTA's Board of Directors has adopted a cap on state bond funds of $1.5 billion from FY1993- 1997 (or roughly $300 million per year). This figure represents the maximum amount of funding that could be available. In practice, the highest amount of bonds sold by the MBTA in any given year was $275 million in FY 1992 ($267 million in 1991 dollars). The MBTA bond figures for FY 1993-1995 represent the amounts needed to match the expected Federal funds. Under the bond cap, significantly more state funding would be available, but it is impossible to predict, at this point, how much bond money would be used by the MBTA for these years.3 Table 9-4 Transit Funds Received/Programmed by the Boston MPO under ISTEA (All figures in 1991 dollars) Funding Categories FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 FY1995 Section 3 $49,496,669 $ 80,236,421 $140,275,077 $91,761,324 Section 9 $34,030,622 $ 24,941,932 $ 34,871,755 33,811,596 Section 23 $ 5,200,549 $ 952,610 $ 3,466,332 Flexible Funds $26,405,132 $ 30,242,421 $ 34,801,975 32,224,160 Total Federal Funds $115,132,972 $136,373,384 $213,415,138 157,797,080 MBTA Bonds* $267,293,769 $ 34,093,346 $ 53,353,785 39,449,270 Total Transit Funds $382,426,741 $170,466,730 $266,768,923 197,246,350 Sources: MBTA, Boston MPO TIP * Figure for 1992 is actual bond sales. Figures for 1993-1995 are matching funds only. ___________________________ 3Consistent with assumptions stated earlier, the future year forecasts reflect only those bond sales needed to match the expected Federal funds. Utilization of additional bonding capacity under the bond cap thus exists as a source of funds in addition to the forecasts in this chapter. 9-8 TRANSIT FUNDING TRENDS For the future, the largest source of federal transit capital funding will continue to be Section 3, which as described above, is distributed by the FTA among competing transit systems nationwide on a project-by-project basis. As a result, the amounts received vary from year to year. For example, from FY 1987 to FY 1992, the MBTA received between $39.6 and $77.1 million in Section 3 funds. However, in FY 1993 and FY 1994, the MBTA will receive $80 million and $140.3 million respectively due to the Old Colony restoration and the South Boston Transitway. The uneven nature of such a funding process makes it difficult to discern trends. Annual changes in funding ranged from a drop of 52 percent from FY88-89 to an increase of 75 percent from FY93-94. Section 9 funds are formula grants distributed annually on a percentage basis. After a sharp increase from $1 million in FY87 to $43 million in FY88, funding declined somewhat and has now entered a period of relative stability. The appropriation by Congress is the main factor affecting changes in funding levels from year to year. The MBTA expects Section 9 funding to remain in the range of $25 to $30 million for the foreseeable future. Section 23 Interstate Transfer funds have been steadily diminishing and will end after FY94. The transfer of funds in the flexible categories were made specifically for the South Station Bus Terminal and Old Colony. It is not possible to predict whether the MPO will make future transfers of the same magnitude. The amount of future bond sales is impossible to predict, although the cap on state bonds of $300 million sets an upper limit. Funding Forecasts _____________________________________________ Without prior knowledge of Congress' intent in 1997, when the current transportation legislation expires, it is difficult to predict what Federal funding levels will be. For the sake of forecasting only, this Plan assumes that the future will look like the present. The forecast presented below assumes that Congress will increase funding with each successive transportation bill so that funding levels maintain pace with inflation. The funding forecasts divide the timespan of the Transportation Plan into two periods corresponding to the periods in the Recommended Plan in Chapter 9-9 8: 1996-2000 (Short-term) and 2001-2020 (Long-term).4 Within the first period, funding levels are relatively certain for 1996 and 1997 since these years are encompassed by ISTEA. Funding levels for the years after 1997 were estimated using the following procedure: FHWA PROGRAMS The first step in forecasting Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds was calculating the amount of money the Boston region will receive over the span of ISTEA. Because the magnitude of Central Artery/Tunnel project is far beyond the "normal" program of the Boston MPO, it was desirable to figure out how much the Boston region would have received if there were no Artery/Tunnel project within ISTEA. Besides taking out the Interstate Construction funds, it was necessary to recalculate the apportionment of STP funds that the state would have received. The Hold Harmless provision in ISTEA, which sought to ensure an equitable distribution of funds across the states, gave Massachusetts an unusually large increase in STP funds for FY 1996 and 1997 and a relatively large share of the national total (4.36%). Massachusetts typically receives about 2% of nationwide apportionments. The amount of Hold Harmless money is artificially high because the Artery/Tunnel project was included in the calculation of Massachusetts' "normal share" of Federal funds; it is likely that such funding would not continue at such a high rate in future legislation. The forecasts presented below reduce the STP funding in line with Massachusetts' "normal" share as defined by the Commonwealth's percent share of NHS funds (1.9%). In addition, the Interstate Reimbusement portion of STP in 1996 and 1997 ($96 million per year) was not included for the purpose of the forecast.5 The interstate reimbursement is likely to expire with the end of ISTEA and not be renewed in the next Act. Having downscaled STP, it was possible to calculate that the Boston region would have received $827.5 million (1991 dollars) from FHWA in ISTEA if there were no Artery project. This level of funding became the basis for the forecast. It is important to note that there is no fixed formula for suballocating statewide apportionments to the thirteen regions in Massachusetts. However, ___________________________ 4The earlier years (Current Period) are encompassed by the TIP which is financially constrained in accordance with Federal requirements. Funding has already been identified for Current Period projects. 5Should the predictions as to future Congressional action on a distributive recalculation of these categories not prove out, significant funding might be available beyond that assumed in the following forecasts. 9-10 over the past eight years, the Boston MPO region has received approximately 42 percent of the Statewide total FHWA funds, excluding the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. After the forecasts were made for the statewide receipts from the FHWA, these figures were therefore multiplied by 42 percent in order to reach the $827.5 million estimate for the Boston region. As noted earlier, the Boston region could receive a greater or lesser share of statewide funds in the future. A second important issue is determining what portion of the FHWA program could be used flexibly. It was assumed that the levels of flexibility allowed in ISTEA would continue in the next Act. The flexibility allowed without special Federal approval is as follows:6 Interstate Maintenance 20% National Highway System 50% Bridge 40% Surface Transportation Program 100% CMAQ 100% Using the distribution of funds among the five categories during the span of ISTEA as a basis, it was calculated that 67% of the total FHWA program is flexible without special Federal approval. This percentage was assumed to remain constant in future periods. The forecast of FHWA funds is presented presented below with only two "categories," Highway and Flexible. The specific categories of ISTEA are expected to become less important over time, and thus it makes sense to treat the projected funds as a block grant. FTA PROGRAMS The most difficult issue in forecasting transit funds was how to handle the large amount of Section 3 New Start funds the MBTA had received because of the South Boston Transitway project. ISTEA earmarked $278 million for the Transitway. There is no guarantee that the Boston region will receive similar grants in the future. Thus to be conservative, the forecasts assume that there will be no New Start funding after ISTEA.7 ___________________________ 6Technically, only STP and CMAQ funds can be transferred directly to FTA for transit use. However, funds from the other three categories are transferrable to STP and then become flexible. In some categories, special Federal approval would allow for higher percentages of funds to be transferred (up to 100% for Interstate Maintenance and NHS) 7The forecasts also do not assume any replacement category or other special funding which might be comparable to the New Start funding and available for rail and transit projects. 9-11 The other element of Section 3, Rail Modernization, became a formula grant in ISTEA, and is therefore more stable. The Boston MPO received $47.6 million in Rail Modernization funds in FY 1993, and it expects to receive funding at a similar level for the foreseeable future. Section 9 is a formula grant, and although it can fluctuate depending on the annual appropriation by Congress, it is relatively stable. The Boston MPO received $26.6 million in Section 9 capital funds in FY 1993 and it expects to receive funding at a similar level for the foreseeable future. Note that Section 9 also includes funds for operating assistance; these funds were not included in this financial plan. Section 9 funds are flexible, but the MPO is not allowed to transfer these funds to highway purposes unless it can document that all the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have been carried out. This stipulation virtually guarantees that Section 9 funds will be used for transit, because of the huge investment needed to satisfy the conditions of the ADA. It was thus assumed that all Section 9 funds would be used for transit for the foreseeable future. Rather than assuming that future legislation will preserve the categories in ISTEA, funds from FTA are presented as a single line item, combining Section 3 and Section 9. ANTICIPATED FUNDING The level funding scenario assumes that Congress will increase the amount of funding in future transportation legislation to maintain pace with inflation. Thus future transportation funds for the Boston region will retain their value in real terms. All figures are given in 1991 dollars. Once again, these forecasts are based on several assumptions which may not be borne out in the future. They are intended to serve as baseline estimates for funding availability. Under the above assumptions, the Boston region would receive $1.009 billion from FHWA and $476 million from FTA in the 1996-2000 period.8 Of the FHWA funding, over $745 million would be flexible, while $264 million would be reserved for highway use. Assuming that the 80/20 Federal/state matching ratio continues, the state would have to contribute $253 million to match the FHWA funds from 1996-2000, and $119 million to match the FTA funds. ___________________________ 8The FHWA figure excludes any Interstate Construction money carried forward from the Current Period, as well as any other future funds outside of the core program for the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. 9-12 Assuming no state expenditures beyond the matching funds, $1.262 billion in highway and flexible funds and $595 million in transit funds would be available in this period. Continuing the above projections to the following twenty-year period from 2001-2020, the Boston region would receive $3.31 billion from FHWA and $1.3 billion from FTA. Of the FHWA funding, over $2.2 billion would be flexible, while $1.1 billion would be reserved for highway use. Assuming that the 80/20 Federal/state matching ratio continues, the state would have to contribute $826 million to match the FHWA funds from 1996-2000, and $325 million to match the FTA funds. The baseline amount available for this period, assuming no state expenditures beyond the matching funds, would be $4.136 billion in highway and flexible funds and $1.625 billion in transit funds. Comparison of Costs and Anticipated Funds _____________________________________________ Chapter 8 included totals of the costs associated with the recommendations for the short and long term. Bearing in mind that these recommendations, particularly for the long term, are for further study and therefore may or may not be built in their present conceptual form (or at all), the following comparison of costs and available funds gives a rough idea of how much of what now appears desirable the region could afford during the period leading up to 2020 under the above funding forecasts. Funding for projects in the Current Period has already been identified and thus will not be discussed here. In the Short-term period, Chapter 8 identified a total cost of $4.68 billion for the highway system, $2.23 billion for the transit system and at least $684 million for intermodal recommendations. Of the highway total, the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project is responsible for $4.02 billion. Since the majority of the funding for this project comes from the Interstate Construction category, outside of the core FHWA programs which were used for the forecast, this project should be treated separately in terms of funding. Excluding the Artery/Tunnel project, the bottom line for the Short-term period becomes $3.57 billion. Taking the forecast of anticipated funds from above, and including the Massport funds which will be used for the large intermodal projects at the airport and the seaport, nearly 60% of the total could be paid for. If all of the studies in the short term recommendations were to prove out and the decision were made to go ahead with all of these projects, there would be a shortfall. Setting aside the possibility of unforecast federal sources, the region could postpone or reevaluate some of the projects, seek additional state expenditures through bond sales or disbursements from the highway fund, and explore other innovative funding sources. 9-13 In the Long-term period, Chapter 8 identified studies which could result in projects with a total cost of $1.97 to $2.79 billion for the highway system, $11.46 billion for the transit system and $70 million for one intermodal project. Taking the forecast funds from above, between 40 and 43% of these possible costs could be paid for. Both the cost side and the revenue side are so tentative at this point in time, that this comparison is not particularly meaningful. During the Long-term period, many things will change in terms of project priorities as well as funding. Certainly, the history of transportation planning shows that projects envisioned for the future often are not built because they prove infeasible or less desirable than originally believed. Further, the previous discussion of funding levels and categories under STURAA and ISTEA demonstrate the variability of traditional financial sources over a time period shorter than that encompassed within the Long-term element of this Plan. While it is clear that additional funding from the state and from other innovative funding sources, as well as special Federal appropriations, would be needed to address all the transportation issues raised in this Plan, it appears that the MPO will have a good financial basis from which to fund its first priorities, particularly preservation of the existing system and satisfaction of legal obligations. 9-14 CHAPTER 10 CHALLENGES AND NEXT STEPS This is the first Transportation Plan for the Boston region since 1983. It is also the MPO's first Plan since the adoption of ISTEA. It contains new and updated policies for the region, begins to examine the effects of transportation and land use, is intermodal, and outlines a long-range financial approach. These are all significant accomplishments for the MPO. However, not every policy and technical issue could be addressed and not each of the ISTEA factors could be treated to the extent desired. Therefore, it is important to identify outstanding issues with candor, and commit to examining them further in the next Plan. This Plan represents only a first response to recent federal legislation. The MPO recognizes that there is a need for more in- depth study and evaluation of the region's transportation needs. The short time span between the promulgation of regulations requiring the Transportation Plan and the due date restricted the ability of the region to do as detailed a needs assessment of existing and future conditions as desired. This chapter summarizes the many tasks that will need to be accomplished as part of the update to the Transportation Plan. A large number of these tasks are related to improving the MPO's technical tools; others are related to expanding the public outreach process and implementing the management systems required by ISTEA. This is the first Plan to deal with intermodal issues that influence the seaport, the airport, freight movement, intercity rail, and bicycle and pedestrian movements. Because of the need to expand the view of transportation to include intermodal connections for people and goods, each of these modes needs additional work in gathering data on existing conditions, assessing the role of each in the transportation network, and projecting future conditions. A number of the proposed studies listed in this chapter deal with improving the database for and identifying constraints on the movement of goods, whether by truck, rail, or water. In addition, the Enhancement program that will be instituted by the MPO members will be essential to identifying and evaluating appropriate candidate projects, particularly those which will increase bicycle and pedestrian usage. To address unmet needs, the Boston MPO is committed to updating the Transportation Plan within the next fifteen months, by January 1995. Figure 10-1 shows a timeline of activities that the MPO will pursue leading up to reendorsement. 10-1 Click HERE for graphic. This additional fifteen month period will allow the MPO to: - Expand the public outreach process to help further refine the stated vision in this Plan; - Incorporate runs of the improved travel demand/land use model; - Incorporate the products of significant current transportation studies and public forums dealing with transportation; - Undertake a needs analysis by corridor and/or sector and identify corridors of concern; - Incorporate and analyze proposed future studies and ideas gathered during the public comment period; - Incorporate the funding principles established by the interagency Capital Finance Review Committee; - Incorporate the results of Major Metropolitan Transportation Investment Studies; - Reflect the 1993 State Implementation Plan for air quality as well as final regulations for determining conformity; and - Coordinate with the statewide transportation plan and incorporate the products of the required six management systems. EXPAND THE PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS During the preparation of this Plan, the MPO staff met with the MAPC subregional committees as well as other groups interested in the Plan update process. During the month of August the MPO held five public meetings in the region. Draft copies of the Transportation Plan were distributed to all attendees. There was a thirty-day period for public comment on the draft. This document has been extensively revised to reflect the suggestions and concerns expressed in the comment period. The results of this public participation effort are summarized in Volume Four. There is a keen interest throughout the region in gaining a better understanding of transportation issues, especially those related to the programming of projects. There is also a need to dispel the confusion created by the technical and bureaucratic terms that transportation planners often use. For the 1995 update, the MPO will support efforts that produce continuing and broad public involvement in transportation planning. The MPO, with the assistance of the JRTC, must educate the public in an effort to de-mystify transportation planning. The scope of work for the next update to the Transportation Plan will include a section on measures to increase public participation in the identification of transportation needs and will try to develop techniques to involve the public earlier on in the decision-making process. To ensure public participation from the beginning of the update process, a draft of the proposed scope of work will be presented during the fall of 1993 to the 10-3 JRTC. That scope of work for the Plan update will include topics such as new model runs, corridor needs analyses, and the development of the management plans mandated by ISTEA. The MPO is committed to working with interested agencies and groups in expanding the public outreach process and maintaining it as a continuing process throughout the update. INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL MODEL RUNS Transportation and land use have a reciprocal relationship; a change in one tends to result in a change in the other. This Plan starts to examine the systemwide nature of those changes. The principal tool for this is a set of travel demand and land use models. However, the MPO developed this Plan during the transition from one set of models to a more advanced set. Therefore, this Plan is based on the results of an interim model. In coming months, the MPO will complete the model update, allowing for more detailed analysis of corridors and projects. This 1993 Transportation Plan evaluated a limited number of alternative transportation land use scenarios because of the limited time the interim regional travel demand model was available. In 1994, the MPO's regional travel model will be calibrated more precisely than it is now. This will allow reporting of more specific information from model runs. For example, the modelers will be able to estimate roadway volumes for specific roadway links and transit boardings at individual stations with much greater confidence. They will be able to use the land use allocation model component to more accurately estimate the impact of population and employment change on transportation and to better test how transportation might, in turn, shift the patterns of those variables across the region. New and upgraded elements in the model will allow better modeling of transportation system/land use interaction and better testing various policies such as those that affect the time of day at which people travel and their trip destinations. With the completion and calibration of the final model sets, it will be possible to test additional transportation and land use alternatives. One element of the additional modeling to be done will be a further defining of transportation scenarios to shape a balanced plan. There will also be a specific effort made to identify plans and programs designed to further reduce projected nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. INCORPORATE THE PRODUCTS OF CURRENT STUDIES AND FORUMS The MPO is undertaking studies that can lead to the more efficient use of the transportation system. The regional High- Occupancy Vehicle study, Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems projects, and the congestion and intermodal 10-4 management system projects will lead to specific recommendations on how to make better use of the system. Other studies will produce information for specific corridors. Table 10-1 lists current transportation studies which will be used in updating the Transportation Plan. Table 10-1 Current Studies Underway in the Boston MPO Region Study Lead Agency Description Highway: Regional HOV planning study MHD A study underway to examine potential highway facilities for HOV lanes. The study will include the development of a regional HOV model. MetroWest Bicycle/ Pedestrian Study MHD A study to inventory existing facilities and propose new or improved facilities within the MetroWest area. Route 3 South of Route 128 MHD A corridor study in the towns of Burlington, Woburn and Winchester as part of a congestion management program. Route 1/114 Corridor MHD A study of the corridor bounded by Route 1 and Route 114 area in Danvers and Peabody. The corridor study is near completion and a series of recommendations is being developed. Route 28 Somerville MHD A corridor study of signalized intersections along Route 28 in Somerville. I-93/Route 28 interchange MHD A study to identify potential improvement options for the Route 28/ I93 interchange. Route 9 Brookline, Newton MHD A corridor study to identify improvement options for the Route 9 corridor in Brookline and Newton. Route 1 Dedham MHD A study of Route 1 from Dedham south to Walpole. Route 2 Crosby Corner MHD A request for proposals (RFP) is being developed for the Crosby Corner section of Route 2. A grade separation of the intersection is proposed. Transit: Program for Mass Transportation EOTC A capital planning document for the MBTA submitted to the MBTA Advisory Board in September 1993. 10-5 North Station- South Station Connector EOTC/ FRA This project is being reviewed by the Federal Railroad Administration as well as the Commonwealth. An initial study by the Commonwealth found a rail connector to be feasible. Inner Circumferential Transitway Study MBTA Phase 1 of a proposed inner circumferential transitway is under study. This phase will look at short-term "rubber tire" alternatives for near-term implementation. The Boston Society of Architects is sponsoring a symposium in the Fall of 1993 on more expansive plans for an inner circumferential transitway. Key Station Plan MBTA A plan to designate key stations on the MBTA system for accessibility needs. Worcester Commuter Rail Citizens Advisory Committee MBTA A citizens advisory committee to help review the Worcester commuter rail extension. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been released in September 1993. North Shore Transit study MBTA A study underway by the MBTA to look at increased transit or commuter rail alternatives for the North Shore communities. Interdisciplinary: Regional Transit Mitigation Study MBTA A Central Artery funded study to examine construction period traffic mitigation measures. Downtown Boston Circulation Study City of Boston A study of traffic, transit and pedestrian strategies for downtown Boston post Central Artery construction. Water Ferry Study FTA A water ferry study conducted by UMASS/Boston Urban Harbors Institute that looks at among other issues, a water taxi along the Charles River from Newton to Boston Joint Bridge Review Committee MHD/ MBTA The formation of a joint Bridge review committee to standardize the evaluation of the conditions of the MBTA and the MHD bridges according to the Bridge Management System (BMS) guidelines issued under ISTEA. Regional Travel Demand Model updating EOTC This work will upgrade the regional model set. The results should provide more accurate travel demand estimates. 10-6 The Cambridge Service area agreement EOTC The study is looking at proposed commuting options in the Cambridge area including express bus service from the Mass Turnpike and Route I- 93. Massachusetts Airport System Plan (MASP) MAC A state required plan produced by MAC that will identify plans and projects necessary to provide a system of airports adequate to anticipate and meet the needs of civil aviation. Strategic Assessment Report MAC A MAC study to improve the information base for reaching judgments on intercity high-speed transportation in the New England region. Logan Airport Generic EIR Massport An ongoing study of the needs of Logan airport. NETI: New England Transportation Initiative EOTC This initiative is an intermodal, interstate effort within the New England region to develop a program of regional cooperation to address intermodal transportation issues. The project will develop a strategic data base about the transportation of goods and people within, to and from the six state region. It will identify specific institutional issues that currently interfere with regional (cross state boundaries) solutions and initiatives. Coalition of New England Governors/ Northeast Corridor High Speed Rail EOTC A consortium of New England states working to improve intercity passenger rail service on the Northeast corridor with the electrification of rail north of New Haven and the purchase of high speed train sets. Over the course of the next fifteen months there will be a number of forums for public participation that will help in defining the future shape of the transportation system. One such forum is "The Boston Project: Shaping the Livable Region," sponsored by the Boston Globe, MIT, and Harvard University, which will engage a broad range of policy makers and citizens in laying out options for increasing regional intermodal transportation capacity in the first decades of the 21st century. Forums could also be convened to look at the future potential for improved water transport, the need to design facilities to ensure the safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists, and other issues related to creating 10-7 a more seamless transportation network. The principal findings of and potential future initiatives recommended as part of the Boston Project and the other forums will be evaluated as the Boston MPO formulates future revisions to the Transportation Plan. BEGIN A NEEDS ANALYSIS BY CORRIDOR OR SECTOR It is a goal of the MPO to use the updated modeling techniques to produce more in-depth corridor needs assessments. The initial screening will be at the corridor level. The corridor assessments will begin with a compilation of data and will try to look at existing and future deficiencies from a mode-neutral position. Corridors that are projected by the additional model runs to experience increases in congestion and vehicle emissions will be given a priority. This needs assessment may serve as the first step in a screening process for identifying potential studies and projects. Several future studies are already in the planning stages and are listed in Table 10-2. The need for additional studies is a function of federal requirements, and regional and local needs. Proposals derived from the public comments are listed in the following section of this chapter. Table 10-2 Proposed Studies for the Boston MPO region Proposed Study Proposed Lead Agency Description Comment Intermodal ISTEA Management EOTC 1. Identify facilities for and impediments to intermodal connections; 2. Review regional Transportation Centers, such as those proposed for Woburn and Framingham. Intermodal FHWA request freight model MHD A proposal to the FHWA to study the feasibility of developing an intermodal freight model for the Commonwealth, including a commodity travel study. Bicycle/ Public involvement Pedestrian master plan MHD A continuing corridor by corridor study for future bicycle and pedestrian needs. The MetroWest Bicycle study is the first element. The intent of the study is to com-bine local knowledge and skills with the Boston MPO's technical skills. As a result of public comments, MAPC is forming an advisory committee to study bicycle and pedestrian issues in the MPO region. 10-8 Intelligent Vehicle ISTEA Highway Systems MHD Intelligent Vehicle Highway System is a federally sponsored set of programs that involve advanced technologies. One component is the SmarTraveler program. High-speed rail to Transp. Bond Bill Springfield EOTC A proposed study to look at the viability of high- speed intercity rail service from Boston to Springfield. Incident Mgmt. MHD MHD request A federally funded study to increase available options to reduce the congestion related to accidents on the highway. I-95 Initiative EOTC ISTEA A federally designated corridor along Rte. I-95 from New Jersey to Maine to allow for better coordination of IVHS innovations Waltham Bear Hill MHD and town request Road/Rte. 20 Corridor MHD A potential study to look at a service road paralleling I-95 (Route 128) that may include a new commuter rail park & ride lot and station. Medford Street City of Boston Bypass TBD A study to look at the long-term benefits of a Medford Street Bypass that would improve truck access to the Charlestown - Boston Harbor water area and remove truck traffic from the local streets. INCORPORATE AND ANALYZE IDEAS GATHERED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD The public comment period elicited over 100 written comments. The MPO has reviewed those comments and identified some suggestions that will need further analysis and study. These studies will help increase current knowledge about certain modes and may serve to bring together perspectives from various agencies and interested parties. Interesting proposals received from the public to date include: - Improved water transport for Boston Harbor as well as high-speed service to the North Shore, the Cape, and the Islands - Greenways study to identify potential alignment for a regional greenways system for eastern Massachusetts - Route 128 north from Beverly to Gloucester safety needs analysis - North Shore bicycle trail to study a connection to MDC trails, Wellington Station and Revere Beach Station - Bicycle route-marking program to map and mark bike routes leading into Boston and throughout the region - Waltham bicycle trail to provide access to Kendall Green Station - Hingham bicycle trail to provide access from Hingham to MDC Nantasket Beach 10-9 INCORPORATE THE FUNDING PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY THE CAPITAL FINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE The Capital Finance Review Committee, an interagency, multimodal transportation committee chaired by EOTC, will establish a screening process for scheduling capital transportation projects and assessing funding availability for the Commonwealth. The Capital Finance Review Committee hopes to establish a rational allocation of resources among the priorities. INCORPORATE THE RESULTS OF MAJOR METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STUDIES An additional tool in building a basis for deciding the priority of a large-scale facility will be the Major Metropolitan Transportation Investment study. This is envisioned as a cooperative process involving the MPO, the State, public transit operators, environmental resource and permit agencies, the FHWA, and FTA. These studies are intended to determine the precise nature of a transportation investment. The objective is to consider a wide range of alternate multimodal strategies aimed at meeting mobility needs while establishing the relative benefits and costs of a particular investment. Such studies, properly conducted, would serve as the core of draft environmental impact analyses, and would provide critical information for conformity determinations required by the Clean Air Act. REFLECT THE 1993 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR AIR QUALITY AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATES The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require a State Implementation Plan (SIP) by November 15, 1993. The Transportation Element of the SIP will propose a set of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) intended to reduce mobile source emissions and help the region attain national air quality standards. The Transportation Plan will need to be updated to explicitly reflect the content of the SIP. A major challenge facing the Boston region is encouraging economic growth while reducing the adverse impacts of air and water pollution caused by transportation. As discussed in this chapter, the new regional model will be able to look at changes in transportation and the resulting changes in land use. Additional work needs to be done to improve the livability of the region and ensure that non-motorized movements (pedestrian and bicycle) are encouraged in a safe, efficient manner. More work needs to be done to better 10-10 coordinate the integration of these modes into the design and construction of all new highway and transit projects. The enhancements funding category of ISTEA presents the Boston region with the opportunity to use federal funding to maintain and improve the livability of the region. MAPC will work with local communities and interested organizations to identify and prioritize potential enhancement projects within the Boston region. These enhancements encompass projects that can include the purchase of open space to preserve significant vistas, the construction of bicycle and pedestrian paths as well as the preservation of abandoned transportation corridors. INCORPORATE THE PRODUCTS OF THE SIX MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND COORDINATE WITH THE STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The review will coincide with the implementation and certification of the six management systems: 1) congestion, 2) highway safety, 3) bridge, 4) pavement, 5) public transportation facilities, and 6) intermodal facilities. The performance measures for each of these systems will be established in 1993 and 1994. The first certification is due no later than January 1, 1995. Thus, the products of the six systems, which are currently unavailable, will become available for incorporation into the regional transportation plan throughout 1994. The primary purpose of management systems is to improve the efficiency of the nations' existing and future transportation infrastructure. The management systems will help supply the MPO with the tools to recognize and establish priorities on capital needs for the transit system, intermodal facilities, safety needs, pavement management, congestion management and bridge rehabilitation. The management systems will require a set of performance measures to be developed and tested to better direct the programming of capital and operating funds. In addition, the state must prepare a comprehensive statewide transportation plan, reflecting the twenty factors contained in ISTEA. The recommendations of this new state plan, due by January 1, 1995, should be coordinated with the Boston region plan. AFTER JANUARY 1995 _____________________________________________ After January 1, 1995, the Transportation Plan should be reaffirmed annually. This should include a review of the plan's policies, goals and objectives, and a determination that these items are still relevant. Moreover, the status of the plan's proposed projects, programs, and facilities should be evaluated, with an indication of where there has been significant progress or delay. The financial element must also be reviewed to determine whether the financial assumptions and forecasts are reasonable. 10-11 The results of the review will be documented in a report to the Sub-Signatory Committee (SSC), which will then approve the report for wide distribution and allow public comments. Each report, after SSC approval, will be forwarded to the MPO. The review will also be used to identify issues to be addressed in the required triennial update of the transportation plan. This process will foster a continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation planning process for the Boston region. 10-12 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY AACT (Access Advisory Committee to the MBTA) - Consumer group that meets with MBTA staff to discuss the transportation concerns of people with disabilities and to ensure ADA compliance. Accessibility - Ability to reach a destination or use a facility or service without being impeded by physical, economic, or other barriers due to auditory, visual, mobility, and cognitive disabilities. ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) - Federal legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability, requiring accessible transportation services. See paratransit. Advisory Board (to the MBTA) - Group of representatives of 78 cities and towns served by the MBTA. Powers relate to MBTA budget review and appointment of MBTA board members and general manager. Arterial - A class of street or highway serving major through traffic, usually on a continuous route. AVI (Automatic Vehicle Identification) - A type of IVHS, AVI generally signifies the recognition and recording of motor vehicles, usually automobiles, as they pass through facilities for automatic collection of tolls, thus eliminating stops. See IVHS. BMS - Bridge Management System. BTPR - Boston Transportation Planning Review. CAAA (Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) - Federal legislation that sets allowable levels, which are known as NAAQS, for various pollutants. Where these standards are not attained, officials must take specified actions within a set time frame or face sanctions, such as loss of federal highway funds. CANA - Central Artery North Area project. CARAVAN for Commuters, Inc. - A public, non-profit organization that promotes ridesharing and assists in establishing transportation management associations. CA/THT - Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project for the reconfiguration of Interstates 90 and 93. Centerline - The middle of a right-of-way, not considering direction or number of lanes. CMS - Congestion Management System. CO (Carbon monoxide) - A colorless, tasteless gas produced primarily by inefficient combustion of organic fuels in transportation and industrial activities. Overly high levels of CO reduces oxygen in the bloodstream, preventing normal respiration. CO emissions are regulated by the CAAA. Commuter rail - Generally applies to multi-car, high-speed rail transport utilizing exclusive frequently at-grade rights-of-way with service between urban areas or between outlying suburbs and the urban core. Usually involves greater distances and fewer stops than those normally found with light and heavy rail transit within urban areas. Conformity - The requirement that the state or metropolitan transportation plan, programs, and projects are consistent with the purpose of the SIP. The CAAA does not pen-nit federal approval of A-1 funding of any project that does not meet this test. See SIP (state implementation plan). Consultation - One party conferring with another identified party and, prior to taking action(s), considering that party's views. (Source: U.S. DOT, "Statewide Transportation Planning: Proposed Rules," March 2,1993.) Cooperation - Means that actions taken are subject to the concurrence of the identified parties. (Source: U.S. DOT, "Statewide Transportation Planning- Proposed Rules," March 2, 1993.) Coordination - Comparison of transportation-planning materials of one agency with those of other agencies and subsequent adjustment of these materials to reduce omissions, duplications, and conflicts. (Source: U.S. DOT, "Statewide Transportation Planning: Proposed Rules,' March 2, 1993.) Core - For the Boston metropolitan area, defined as the six communities of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Chelsea, and Everett. Crosstown service - Non-radial transit service that does not enter the central business district (CBD). DEP - Department of Environmental Protection. Discretionary funds - Funds whose distribution is not automatic and not by formula but depends on the decision of some agency or party. EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) - Document that studies all likely impacts that will result from major federally assisted programs. Impacts include those on the natural environment, as well as impacts on the economy and society, and those on the built environment of historical and aesthetic significance. EMRPP (Eastern Massachusetts Regional Planning Project) - First example of the "3C" urban transportation planning process in the Boston region. Took the highways from the 1948 transportation plan not yet built, refined them, and combined them with MBTA public transportation projects. See "3C" Process. EOEA (Executive Office of Environmental Affairs) - A cabinet-level agency that oversees environmental issues for the state and is responsible for SIP adoption. Established under M.G.L. Chapter 6A, 2. EOTC (Executive Office of Transportation and Construction) - A cabinet-level agency that sets state policies and plans for all modes of transport and that oversees public transit services, general aviation programs, and the state and local highway network. Established under M.G.L. Chapters 6A and 161A. EPA - Environmental Protection Agency. Feeder service - Local transport providing passengers with connections to a longer, line-haul service. FHWA - Federal Highway Administration. Flexible funds - ISTEA funding categories that may be used for highway and/or transit programs. Formula grants - Funds distributed according to some legislated or regulated scheme. FRA - Federal Railroad Administration. FTA - Federal Transit Administration. A-2 Heavy rail (transit) - Generally applies to higher-speed, multi-car rail transport utilizing exclusive, grade-separated rights-of-way in subway tunnels, on the surface, or on aerial (elevated) structures. The Red Line is a heavy rail transit facility. See LRT (light rail transit). HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) - Applied to vehicles carrying two or more people. Roads may have lanes uniquely for HOV use, such as carpools, vanpools, and other ridesharing modes, and buses. HSMP - Highway Safety Management Program. IMS - Intermodal Facilities and Systems Management System. Intermodal - Planning that reflects a focus on connectivity between modes as a means of facilitating linked tripmaking. It emphasizes connections, choices, coordination, and cooperation. (Source: U.S. DOT, "Statewide Transportation Planning: Proposed Rules," March 2, 1993.) ISTEA (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991) - Federal legislation that restructures and authorizes increased funding levels for transit and highway programs and mandates a necessary role for MPOs in ISTEA planning and funding decisions, requiring comprehensive regional transportation plans to the year 2015. IVHS (Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems) - Computer and communications technology that provides real-time information to operators of vehicles about transportation system conditions. Also includes technologies that identify, monitor, or control vehicles. See AVI. JRTC (Joint Regional Transportation Committee) - Citizen group that advises the MPO and its six signatory agencies on transportation issues and reviews the Transportation Plan, TIP, and the UPWP. Key Station Plan - A document designating critical transit facilities needed to expand accessibility for individuals with disabilities and to meet the ADA requirements. Land use - The purpose for which land or the structures on the land are being utilized: for example, commercial, residential, retail. Also used as a description of activities found throughout an urban area. Line-haul service - Transport along a single corridor without branches. Local service - Transit service involving many stops and low operating speeds with the purpose of picking up or delivering passengers as closely as possible to origins and destinations. LRT (light rail transit) - Generally applies to single- or double- car rail transport that uses mostly mixed, but not usually grade- separated, rights-of-way. LRT is an intermediate-capacity, intermediate-speed mode with service capabilities between heavy rail transit and local bus. The Green Line is an LRT facility. See heavy rail (transit). MAC (Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission) - Agency that is responsible for airports, mostly municipal, not managed by Massport. Established under M.G.L. Chapter 6, 57. Management system - As required by Section 303 of ISTEA, states (in coordination with metropolitan areas) must develop and begin implementing by October 1, 1994, six management systems: congestion, intermodal, public transportation, pavement, bridges, and safety. The purpose of these systems is to provide information needed to make effective decisions on the use of limited resources to improve the efficiency of, and protect the investment in, the nation's existing and future infrastructure at all levels of jurisdictional control. A-3 MAPC (Metropolitan Area Planning Council) - Regional comprehensive planning agency for the Boston metropolitan area, covering 101 communities. Comprised of officials from cities, towns, and state agencies, and independent gubernatorial appointees. Established under M.G.L. Chapter 40B, 24. Massport (Massachusetts Port Authority) - Agency charged to operate and develop major commercial maritime and aviation facilities and the Tobin Bridge. Created as an independent authority in M.G.L. Chapter S73, 2. MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) - Authority that provides mass transit service in eastern Massachusetts. Established under M.G.L. Chapter 161B. MDC (Metropolitan District Commission) - Agency that maintains 15,000 acres of park land, numerous public beaches, and 650 miles of parkways. Established under M.G.L. Chapter 28, 1. MEPA - Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. MHD (Massachusetts Highway Department) - Agency responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of state highways and bridges. Established under M.G.L. Chapter 16, 2. Mode - A particular means of transportation (e.g, rail, automotive, bicycle, walking). MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) - Specified by ISTEA as the organization responsible for comprehensive transportation planning and programming for urbanized areas. MTA (Massachusetts Turnpike Authority) - Agency responsible for the operation of the Massachusetts Turnpike (a component of Interstate 90) and the Sumner and Callahan Harbor Tunnels. Established under M.G.L. Chapter S75, 3. Multimodal - Planning that reflects consideration of more than one mode to serve transportation needs in a given area and is included in the meaning of intermodal. (Source: U.S. DOT, "Statewide Transportation Planning: Proposed Rules," March 2,1993.) NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards) - Federal standards that set allowable concentrations and exposure limits for ozone, CO, and PM10. Nonattainment area - A geographic region that the U.S. EPA has designated as not meeting the NAAQS. The Boston area has been designated as being in serious nonattainment for ozone and moderate nonattainment for CO. See NAAQS. NOx (nitrogen oxides) - Precursor emission that forms from high- temperature combustion processes. React with VOCs in the presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone. Ozone - A colorless gas with a sweet odor that is not a direct emission from transportation sources, but is formed when VOCs and NOx from car exhausts and certain industrial emissions combine in the presence of sunlight. Ground-level ozone is associated with smog conditions and initiates damage to lungs, trees, crops, and materials. Regulated by the CAAA. Paratransit - A demand-responsive system that applies to a variety of smaller, flexibly scheduled and routed transportation services using low-capacity vehicles. Used by persons, such as the elderly and other persons with disabilities, for whom use of standard mass transit services may prove difficult. PMS - Pavement Management System. PMT (Program for Mass Transportation) - A plan prepared by EOTC describing scheduled MBTA capital projects. A-4 ROW (right-of-way) - Priority paths for the construction and operation of modes of transportation. SAR (Strategic Assessment Report) - A report initiated by the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission to reassess the long-term needs for high-speed intercity transport demand to and from the Boston region. SIP (State Implementation Plan) - A document that contains procedures to comply with the NAAQS, as specified in the CAAA. Prepared by states and submitted to the U.S. EPA for approval. SOV - Single-occupant vehicle. SSC (Sub-Signatory Committee of the MPO) - Designees of MPO members. They review and approve distribution of reports and other documents related to the transportation plan, TIP, and UPWP. STIP - State Transportation Improvement Program. See TIP. TCM (Transportation control measure) - Actions, which are usually found in a SIP, that improve traffic flow, or reduce vehicle use or congestion with the objective of reducing air pollutant emissions. See SIP. TDDs (Telecommunications Display Devices) - Apparatus that converts telephoned information to visual form on a computer screen. Useful to hearing- or speech-impaired individuals. TDM (Transportation Demand Management) - In its most general form, any action or actions that attempt to control or alter existing travel patterns or use. Included in this group are a wide range of strategies, such as promoting ridesharing, requiring alternative work hours or flextime, or increasing travel costs for certain modes, mainly automobile, through parking controls or fees, or fuel taxes. "3C" process - A continuing, comprehensive transportation planning process carried out cooperatively by states and local communities. TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) - A program of transportation projects consistent with the Transportation Plan. Shows projects to be funded under federal programs for a three-year period. TMA (Transportation Management Association) - A voluntary association of public and private agencies and firms joined to develop cooperatively transportation programs in a given area. Appropriate organizations to manage transportation demand in congested suburban communities. TMA (Transportation Management Area) - Defined by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) as any urban area over 200,000 in population. Within a TMA, all transportation plans and programs must be based on the 3C process. The TMA boundary affects the responsibility for the selection of transportation projects that receive federal funds. Transit (mass or public) - Generally refers to urban passenger transportation service, local in scope, provided to the public along established routes with fixed or variable schedules at published fares. Transportation Plan - Required by ISTEA, a long-range document that identifies facilities and programs that should function as an integrated metropolitan transportation system and includes a financial plan that demonstrates how the long-range plan can be implemented. UPWP (Unified Planning Work Program) - Document required by the ISTEA regulations that contains a description of all proposed transportation-related planning activities and air quality planning activities. VOCs (volatile organic compounds) - A group of chemicals that react in the atmosphere with NOx in the presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone. Examples include gasoline fumes and oil-based paints. A-5 APPENDIX B AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DETERMINATION The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require that all Transportation Plans developed by Metropolitan Planning Organizations be certified as to its conformity with the State Implementation Plan for the Attainment of Air Quality Standards. This requirement has been mandated because mobile sources have been found to be among the major sources of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO). The enactment of the CAAA has led to the following chain of events to ensure its implementation: - November 15,1990 - Enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments - June 7, 1991 - Interim Regulations on Conformity Issued Jointly by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Transportation (DOT) - January 11, 1993 - Proposed Transportation Conformity Regulations published in Federal Register - March 15, 1993 - Proposed General Conformity Regulations published in Federal Register - [October 1, 1993 - MPO Transportation Plan Required for Submission to DOT] - November 1, 1993 - Final Transportation Conformity Regulations slated for promulgation - November 15, 1993 - Revised State Implementation Plan (SIP) with emissions budgets and reduction programs required for submission to EPA Section 176 of the Clean Air Act Amendments defines conformity to a State Implementation Plan to mean conformity to the plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. The Boston MPO must certify that all activities outlined in the Transportation Plan will not: B-1 - cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area; - increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or - delay the timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is classified as serious nonattainment for ozone and moderate nonattainment for carbon monoxide in the communities of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Medford, Revere, Somerville, Waltham, Malden, and Everett. The Boston MPO area is required to reduce its emissions of VOCs and NOx to achieve attainment of the ozone standard by 1999. The areas in nonattainment for CO must achieve attainment by 1995. The Massachusetts 1990 Emissions Inventory indicates that on road mobile sources emit approximately 34% of the total VOCs, 47% of the total NOx, and 63% of the total CO emissions in the state. The conformity determinations are required to ensure the elimination or reduction in the severity and number of violations of the national ambient air quality standards by mobile source emissions. The Commonwealth is required to revise its current 1982 SIP to include programs that will achieve the required reductions in pollutants. In addition, the SIP must be revised to include projections of VOC, NOx, and CO emissions and projections of vehicle miles traveled. These revisions are currently in the public comment phase and do not have to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) until November 15, 1993. Therefore, these programs can not officially be incorporated into the Transportation Plan. As noted above, the proposed transportation conformity regulations issued in january of 1993 are not slated for promulgation until November 1, 1993. This date is one month after the required October 1, 1993 submission deadline of this Transportation Plan. In addition, there is still considerable debate among private environmental organizations, state transportation officials, state air pollution control officials, and EPA as to the appropriate content of the proposed regulations. Therefore, with no final conformity regulations in place, the Interim Conformity Guidelines issued jointly by the US EPA and the US DOT in June of 1991 are the only set of guidelines that can reasonably be used for this conformity determination with the 1982 State Implementation Plan. A copy of these guidelines with the letter of transmittal is provided in the Technical Appendix. B-2 As outlined in the interim guidance, this conformity determination has shown that: 1. the policies, goals, and objectives of the 1993 Transportation Plan support the commitments and goals outlined in the adopted 1982 SIP; 2. the recommendations and projects set forth in the 1993 Transportation Plan do not contradict any specific commitments and requirements outlined in the adopted 1982 SIP; 3. the 1993 Transportation Plan has provided for the expeditious implementation of the transportation control measures detailed in the adopted 1982 SEP; and 4. the 1993 Transportation Plan does not increase the frequency or severity of existing violations of the NAAQS, but in fact contributes to a reduction in carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides emissions. The EPA also requires that the most up to date information be used. The population and employment data for the Plan is from 1990 Census Data. Land use data is the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's latest estimates. Emission factors used for calculating emission changes were determined using MOBILE 5A, the most recent working model available. Emission factors for motor vehicles are specific to each model year, pollutant type, temperature and travel speed. MOBILE 5A requires a wide range of input parameters including inspection and maintenance program information and other data such as anti-tampering rates, hot/cold start mix, emission failure rates, vehicle fleet mix, fleet age distribution, etc. The input variables used in the model runs for analysis of this Plan are shown in Figure B-1. The model output provides an estimate of emissions in grams per mile for varying speeds and at varying temperatures for a variety of vehicle types. B-3 B-4 B-5 Click HERE for graphic. B-6 1. The Policies, Goals and Objectives of the Draft 1993 Transportation Plan Support the State Implementation Plan The overall vision of this draft 1993 Transportation Plan is to maintain, manage and operate the transportation system in the Boston region to provide a high level of mobility for people and commercial activity consistent with environmental and fiscal resources (see page 3-1 of the Transportation Plan). More specific goals have also been developed to ensure that this primary goal is achieved (see page 3-2 of the Transportation Plan). The goals are to: - Establish the framework and guidelines for decision.-makers to use when selecting among projects, programs, and facilities that meet different and sometimes conflicting objectives. This framework should include measures to ensure that limited financial resources are used in the most effective manner. - Ensure the mobility of people and goods by implementing repair/maintenance programs, transit capacity improvements, intelligent vehicle systems, and congestion management programs which increase highway capacity for single-occupant vehicles only when no better alternative can be found. - Use investments in transportation infrastructure to improve the economic and environmental sustainability of the region by supporting existing and planned mixed-use development concentrations. - Improve the economic competitiveness of the region by encouraging the location of new development in urban cores, thereby best utilizing existing infrastructure while protecting natural resources and providing increased economic opportunities to all the region's citizens. - Minimize the costs in time and money of transporting people and goods in the region. - Ensure that the transportation program adequately meets appropriate legal mandates governing transportation investment and environmental protection. The 1982 SIP outlines programs to improve the air quality in the state by reducing vehicle miles traveled through two types of programs. The first is the promotion of ride-sharing and improvements to public transportation. The second is by reducing congestion, and thereby, increasing travel speed B-7 and reducing travel time. The goals of the Transportation Plan outlined above support programs outlined in the SIP and are therefore, found to fulfill the first requirement in conformity determination. The policies, goal, and objectives of the Transportation Plan support the commitments and requirements outlined in the SIP. 2. The Draft 1993 Transportation Plan's Recommendations and Projects Are Supportive of the State Implementation Plan The 1993 Transportation Plan recognizes the need to focus beyond a narrow transportation focus and embrace air quality, land use and other social and economic issues. With the passage of ISTEA has come dramatic changes in transportation systems planning, programming, and management. A new emphasis has been placed on the effective management of the existing transportation system with new categories of funding available for activities that enhance the environment and contribute-to meeting air quality standards. The Transportation Plan has recommended projects which respond to the following needs: 1. Maintain and preserve the existing system. 2. Meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. 3. Meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4. Expansion of the transportation system where warranted. The Draft 1993 Transportation Plan listing of projects is more extensive than those listed in the 1982 SIP. However, it is not inconsistent with the SIP, it is simply more inclusive of potential projects to develop in the future. A listing of transportation control measures (TCMs) in the SIP with a reference as to whether it is included in the Transportation Plan is shown in Table B-4 included at the end of the conformity determination. The SIP contains a number of commitments to implementation and further study, outlining various TCMs which individually and collectively will have a positive effect on reducing the local and regional degradation of air quality. In addition to the 1982 SEP projects listed in Table B-4, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has drafted an Amendment to the 1982 SIP which has been submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. This Amendment was developed as part of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project currently under construction in the Boston area. The Amendment has not been approved by the EPA, but a number of the projects in the Amendment are included in the Transportation Plan. A list of the projects included in the B-8 Amendment as well as their status or proposed completion date is shown after the conformity determination in Table B-5. The commitments contained in both the 1982 SIP and the Amendments to the SIP have served as a basis for programming and setting priorities of projects in this Transportation Plan. The projects included in the Transportation Plan have been analyzed to ensure that both the transportation control measures and highway projects will have positive air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. The projects listed in Chapter 8 reflect the need to maintain and expand public transportation and reaffirm the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel (CA/THT) commitments as codified in CMR 7.10, 7.16, 7.36, 7.37 and the Vent Stack approval letter. Changes are proposed by EOTC/MHD to 7.36, 7.37, and the Vent Stack letter and are subject to pending DEP review and public hearing. Therefore, the recommendations and projects set forth in the Transportation Plan support the specific commitments and requirements outlined in the SIP, and, therefore, do not contradict the SIP. 3. The Transportation Plan Allows for the Expeditious Implementation of the Transportation Control Measures in the State Implementation Plan As shown in Table B-4, the majority of the transportation control measures outlined in the SIP have been accomplished through construction or through implementation of ongoing programs. The only exceptions are the bus immersion heater program, the Rider bus service and the private bus insurance discount concept which have all been abandoned. In reviewing Table B-5 all construction projects included in the SIP Amendment are included in the Transportation Plan. The studies outlined in the SEP Amendment have been addressed in the Transportation Plan as projects which will require further study. In addition to transportation control measures (TCMs) listed in the 1982 SIP and the SEP Amendments for the CA/THT, the Clean Air Act Amendments include a list of TCMs to be considered for implementation in severe and extreme nonattainment areas.* That listing is shown below: - Traffic flow improvements (e.g. signal timing and coordination, turning lanes at intersections, etc.) - Local programs and ordinances to reduce the need for single- occupant vehicle travel. ___________________________ *Massachusetts is in the "serious" nonattainment category and is not mandated to implement these programs. B-9 - Long-range transit improvements. - Park & Ride facilities serving multiple-occupancy vehicles. Exclusive high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. - Employer-based management plans with commuting options, to increase average vehicle occupancy, including transportation coordinators, ride-matching services, carpool and vanpool programs, showers and lockers for bicyclists, preferential parking, subsidized transit passes, guaranteed ride home. - Bicyclists and pedestrian facilities and programs (e.g. bike lanes, bicycle parking facilities). - Flexible work hours. - Marketing and promotion of transportation alternatives to single-occupant vehicles. - Trip reduction ordinances. - Restrictions on vehicle use in downtown areas or other areas of emission concentration, especially during periods of peak use. - Controls on extended idling of vehicles. - Programs to reduce cold start conditions. - On-street parking controls. - Area-wide ridesharing programs. - Scrappage program for pre-1980 vehicles. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been working through two committees to recommend programs for implementation in the SIP for the reduction of VOCs, NOx, and CO to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EOTC has been a member of both committees - the SIP Steering Committee and the Clean Air Task Force for Transportation. B-10 The Commonwealth's revision to their 1982 SIP is currently in the public comment phase and must be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency by November 15, 1993. Transportation-related programs that have been submitted for public comment that will contribute to the 15% reduction in emissions of VOCs include the following: - Stage II Vapor Recovery at motor vehicle fuel dispensing facilities - Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance for automobiles - Federal Reformulated Gasoline - California Low-Emission Vehicle Program* - High-occupancy vehicle lanes* - Substantial additional fringe parking underway or planned* - Incident management and Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems* - Traffic flow improvements* - Transit service quality performance measures - Reviews of fare policies to maintain and enhance ridership - Transit extensions and capacity increases being developed as part of the Program for Mass Transportation* - Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian access program* Although these programs have not formally been submitted to EPA as a SEP revision, the programs that are identified with an asterisk(*) have been included in this Transportation Plan. The transit service quality performance measures and review of fare policies to maintain and enhance ridership have not specifically been addressed in this Transportation Plan, but are included in the Program for Mass Transportation for the Boston region. There are no other specific transportation control measures identified for at the Boston MPO region that are being considered as measures to meet the 15% reductions in VOC emissions. The SIP contains some state-level TCMs which, although not applicable solely to the Boston MPO, are beneficial to the region and have therefore been encouraged by the Boston MPO. A prime example is the state and federally-funded CARAVAN for Commuters, which runs a wide-ranging set of programs to promote ride sharing, carpooling and ride matching capabilities. Through the state environmental review process, the state transportation agencies have received commitments from private developers to implement employer-sponsored programs which include preferential parking for high-occupancy vehicles, computer ride matching, flexible work schedules, and subsidization of transit fares. The state and the Boston MPO have also encouraged the formation of private employer- sponsored transportation management associations (TMAs), such as the Longwood Medical Area TMA, which provide wide-ranging commuting options. B-11 The region's planning process has been conducted in accordance with the EPA conformity guidelines for ensuring the consistency of the process with the aims of the SIP. These guidelines set forth the approach to be used in each step of the process of planning, programming and implementation, including the necessary commitments to providing funds and technical resources and the appropriate method of modeling projects' impacts on air quality. The MPO works to move projects from the Transportation Plan into the Transportation Improvement Program. This process is based on a list of criteria, including input from local communities. However, it is guided by the need to remain in conformity with the SEP and meet specific requirements of state law. All development projects which meet certain criteria set out in Massachusetts 301 CMR 11.00 (the MEPA Act) must be submitted for environmental review to the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA). This submittal is required to include an analysis and comparison of build versus no-build scenarios. The analysis must use a build scenario which includes projected future background growth and any additional trips generated by other proposed developments within the study area. In order to gain certification from the EOEA, each proposed project must be shown to have included all feasible means and measures to avoid or minimize damage to the 'environment. The MPO affirms that the Transportation Plan has provided for the expeditious implementation of the transportation control measures detailed in the 1982 SIP and its proposed amendments. 4. The Draft 1993 Transportation Plan and Reductions in Pollutants The Central Transportation Staff (CTPS), acting on behalf of the Boston MPO, maintains a computer model of the region's transportation system. It is used to forecast the demand for new transportation projects. The regional model was used to estimate the daily emissions of VOCs, CO and NOx for the 1990 Base Conditions of the transportation system, 1999 and 2020 No Build conditions of the transportation system, and the 1999 and 2020 Transportation Plan Build conditions of the transportation system. This information has been provided for the 101 communities in the Boston MPO area only. Transportation assumptions for both the 1999 No Build and Build conditions are shown below: 1999 No Build Conditions - 1990 base case network (i.e. existing network) - Completed Central Artery and Third Harbor Tunnel B-12 - Beverly-Salem Bridge - Old Colony Rail Restoration: Plymouth & Middleborough 1999 Build Conditions - Additional 20,000 parking spaces (12,000 plus an additional 8,000 that were included in the Old Colony and Worcester runs) - Arlington-Boston Bike Path - Route 128 Add-A-Lane (general purpose or HOV) - Randolph to Canton - Interstate 93 Industriplex Interchange - South Boston Piers Transit Way - Newburyport Commuter Rail Extension - SIP Amendment commitment - Worcester Commuter Rail Extension - SIP Amendment commitment - Milford Commuter Rail Extension - Faster Commuter Rail Service to Rockport, Haverhill, Lowell, and Franklin - New buses to the MBTA fleet - 200 buses and 200 old buses to be rehabilitated In addition to the projects listed in the 1999 Build Conditions, HOV lanes will be constructed by 1999. These lanes include five miles of contraflow lanes on the Southeast Expressway and an extension of the existing HOV lane on Interstate 93 north of Boston toward Route 128. An analysis for 1999 Build over 1999 No Build was done for the Southeast Expressway HOV lane that shows a decrease in VOC emissions of 69 kilograms per day and a decrease in CO emissions of 486 kilograms per day. An analysis of the Interstate 93 HOV was not done and, therefore, its benefits have not been included in the results of this conformity analysis. In addition, the transportation control measures listed on page B-11 are not the type of project that can be included in a regional model. Therefore, the benefits of these programs are not included in the results of the system-wide analysis in Table B-2. Development, transportation and emissions estimates are shown in Table B-2 for the 1990 Base Year, 1999 and 2020 No Build Year, and 1999 and 2020 Build Year. As shown in Table B-2, the 1999 Build scenario shows a reduction in emissions in all three of the criteria pollutants - VOC, CO and NOx over the 1999 No Build conditions and over 1990 Base Year conditions. Each of the projects in the 1999 Build scenario can be expected to produce at least one of B-13 the following three types of results which allow for the reduction in emissions: - decreased vehicle miles of travel - reduced congestion and waiting time - Increased travel speed In addition to physical improvements, the state, the Boston MPO, various agencies and municipalities are taking other measures to reduce the number of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) by single- occupant vehicles (i.e. increased marketing by the MBTA to promote transit, the construction and upgrading of bikeways, Boston and Cambridge parking freezes and residential parking stickers, private transportation management associations). The MPO's commitment to both kinds of measures has been demonstrated by the implementation of the transportation control measures contained in the SIP, as discussed above. In comparing the 2020 Build to No Build conditions, 2020 Build shows a decrease in VOCs and CO over 2020 No Build. 2020 Build shows an increase in NOx over 2020 No Build conditions. This is due to an increase in travel speeds throughout the region. It must be noted again that the effects of the transportation control measures including the high occupancy vehicle lane on Interstate 93 north of Boston and those TCMs listed on page B-11 are not included in the results. However, the majority of the TCMs are aimed at reducing the single-occupant vehicle and are therefore expected to reduce emissions of all three pollutants. The calculations done by the SEP Steering Committee for the 1993 SIP revisions to show a VOC reduction of 15% by 1996 and VOC and NOx reductions of 3% each year until 1999 were reviewed. In those calculations a 2.4% per year increase in VMT statewide was proposed to allow for growth. The proposed VMT estimated for the 1993 Boston Area Transportation Plan shows an increase of only 1.4% per year from 1990 through 1999 with an increase in VMT of 0.5% per year from 1999 through 2020. The Transportation Plan for the Boston MPO region does not increase the frequency or severity of existing violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and in fact contributes to a reduction of VOCS, CO, and Nox. It also shows a decrease in emissions over 1990 Base Year conditions. In summary, the 1993 Transportation Plan has met the four criteria outlined in the Interim Conformity Guidelines and is therefore found to be in conformity with the 1982 State Implementation Plan. B-14 TABLE B-2 RESULTS OF THE CTPS MODEL BOSTON MPO AREA NETWORK ANALYSIS: 1990 BASE YEAR, 1999 & 2020 BASE, AND 1999 & 2020 BUILD SCENARIOS **The effects of TCMs are not included" 1990 Base 1999 No 1999 Build 2020 No 2020 Build Build Build Population 2,921,708 2,961,274 2,961,274 2,906,361 2,906,361 Employment 1,715,037 1,870,098 1,870,098 1,979,892 1,979,892 Vehicle Miles Traveled 61,063,159 69,256,654 69,071,130 76,599,776 77,231,783 Vehicle Hours of Travel (000) 1,963,321 2,280,493 2,268,398 2,655,798 2,645,817 Average Speed (mph) 31-10 30.37 30.45 28.84 29.19 VOC Emissions (kg/day) 156,782 87,333 86,890 65,174 65,141 CO Emissions (kg/day) 1,898,688 837,958 833,127 791,475 786,924 Nox Emissions (kg/day) 179,308 133,458 132,663 120,580 121,728 B-15 TABLE B-3 CHANGES IN EMISSIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT SCENARIOS Change in VOC Emissions: % Change 1999 No Build to 1999 Build (kg/day) -443 -0.51% 1990 Base Year to 1999 Build (kg/day) -69,892 -44.58% 2020 No Build to 2020 Build (kg/day) -33 -0.05% 1990 Base Year to 2020 Build (kg/day) -91,641 -58.45% Change in CO Emissions: 1999 No Build to 1999 Build (kg/day) -4831 -0.58% 1990 Base Year to 1999 Build (kg/day) -1,065,561 -56.12% 2020 No Build to 2020 Build (kg/day) -4551 -0.58% 1990 Base Year to 2020 Build (kg/day) -1,111,764 -58.55% Change in NOx Emissions: 1999 No Build to 1999 Build (kg/day) -795 -0.60% 1990 Base Year to 1999 Build (kg/day) -46,645 -26.01% 2020 No Build to 2020 Build (kg/day) 1148 0.95% 1990 Base Year to 2020 Build (kg/day) -57,580 -32.11% B-16 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR CONFORMITY DETERMINATION B-17 Click HERE for graphic. B-18 Click HERE for graphic. B-19 B-20
