DOCSLIB.ORG

Re: Notice of Intent for Remediation General Permit, 263 Monsignor O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Re: Notice of Intent for Remediation General Permit, 263 Monsignor O CDW CONSULTANTS, INC. CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS April 30, 2020 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Mail Code OEP06-4 Boston, MA 02109-3912 ATTN: Remediation General Permit NOI Processing Re: Notice of Intent for Remediation General Permit 263 Monsignor O’Brien Highway, Cambridge, MA 1 McGrath Highway, Somerville, MA CDW Project # 1476.10 To Whom It May Concern: CDW Consultants, Inc. (CDW) is submitting this Notice of Intent (NOI) on behalf of Somerbridge Hotel, LLC for a Remediation General Permit (RGP) under EPA’s National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The RGP is required to discharge groundwater encountered during construction activities for development of a new hotel at the above-referenced site. Construction activities will take place on a property which consists of two parcels of land (the “Site”), one in Cambridge, MA and one in Somerville, MA, totaling approximately 0.75 acres (32,670 square feet). The parcel at 263 Monsignor O’Brien Highway is shown on the City of Cambridge Assessor’s Maps as Parcel 7-35 and is also known as 241 and 245 Monsignor O’Brien Highway. The second parcel is known as Parcel 115-B-8 on the City of Somerville Assessor’s Maps, and is located at 1 McGrath Highway in Somerville, MA. The property is listed as a disposal site under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan and has been listed as one since December 1993 and again in February 1995 with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) under Release Tracking Number (RTN) 3-10317 and 3- 10852, respectively. Known contaminants in groundwater at the Site include non-chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), petroleum hydrocarbons, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), poly-chlorinated biphenyl’s (PCB’s), and heavy metals. The VOCs, petroleum, and PCB’s were likely attributed to the historical use of reconditioning used metal drums which included cleaning, rinsing, and repainting the barrels. In addition, a portion of the site served as a gasoline station starting in 1967 until approximately 1988. The dewatering is occurring in conjunction with a Release Abatement Measure (RAM) and EPA TSCA Risk Based Cleanup Plan to manage contaminated soils during excavations for the building foundations and utilities. 6 Huron Drive, Natick, MA 01706 508-875-265 www.cdwconsultants.com To obtain more updated groundwater quality, CDW collected groundwater samples for VOCs, total metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), total phenols, chloride, total cyanide, total suspended solids (TSS), total residual chlorine (TRC), trivalent chromium, hexavalent chromium, 1,4-dioxane, EDB, and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) (Table 1). Our proposed groundwater treatment system for this project consists of a frac tank and bag filters to remove suspended solids along with dual carbon treatment units, and ion resin exchange filter and a cartridge filter before entering a catch basin in Monsignor O’Brien Highway and ultimately discharging to the Charles River. Dewatering will be intermittent and will not be encountered at all locations during construction. CDW reviewed online databases including the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (NHESP), Massachusetts Geographical Information Systems (MassGIS), Cambridge GIS Viewer, and Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information Viewer (MACRIS). Based on these findings, the Site and the location of proposed discharge, do not appear to be located within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (Appendix A). Historical Site information from MACRIS showed that there is a historical location listed at the Site, a Boston and Lowell Railroad Retaining Wall from the 19th century. At this time, CDW’s opinion is that dewatering of the Site will not affect the retaining wall (Appendix C). In addition to the NOI application form, we have attached: ñ Figure 1A: Water Flow Schematic and Discharge Location ñ Figure 1B: Water Flow Schematic and Discharge Location ñ Figure 2: Water Treatment System Schematic ñ Figure 3: MassDEP Priority Resource Map ñ Appendix A: Endangered Species Act Documentation ñ Appendix B: StreamStats Flow Statistics Report ñ Appendix C: Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information Report ñ Appendix D: Effluent Limitations Calculations Table 1: Influent & Effluent Data Table ñ Contest Analytical Influent Data Report ñ Contest Analytical Effluent Data Report Please call if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, CDW CONSULTANTS, INC. Shelby Amsel Environmental Scientist cc: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Division of Watershed Management 205B Lowell Street, Wilmington MA, 01887 MAG910000 Appendix IV – Part 1 – NOI NHG910000 Page 14 of 24 II. Suggested Format for the Remediation General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI) A. General site information: 1. Name of site: Site address: Street: City: State: Zip: 2. Site owner Contact Person: Telephone: Email: Mailing address: Street: Owner is (check one): □ Federal □ State/Tribal □ Private City: State: Zip: □ Other; if so, specify: 3. Site operator, if different than owner Contact Person: Telephone: Email: Mailing address: Street: City: State: Zip: 4. NPDES permit number assigned by EPA: 5. Other regulatory program(s) that apply to the site (check all that apply): □ MA Chapter 21e; list RTN(s): □ CERCLA □ UIC Program NPDES permit is (check all that apply: □ RGP □ DGP □ CGP □ NH Groundwater Management Permit or □ POTW Pretreatment □ MSGP □ Individual NPDES permit □ Other; if so, specify: Groundwater Release Detection Permit: □ CWA Section 404 MAG910000 Appendix IV – Part 1 – NOI NHG910000 Page 15 of 24 B. Receiving water information: 1. Name of receiving water(s): Waterbody identification of receiving water(s): Classification of receiving water(s): Receiving water is (check any that apply): □ Outstanding Resource Water □ Ocean Sanctuary □ territorial sea □ Wild and Scenic River 2. Has the operator attached a location map in accordance with the instructions in B, above? (check one): □ Yes □ No Are sensitive receptors present near the site? (check one): □ Yes □ No If yes, specify: 3. Indicate if the receiving water(s) is listed in the State’s Integrated List of Waters (i.e., CWA Section 303(d)). Include which designated uses are impaired, and any pollutants indicated. Also, indicate if a final TMDL is available for any of the indicated pollutants. For more information, contact the appropriate State as noted in Part 4.6 of the RGP. 4. Indicate the seven day-ten-year low flow (7Q10) of the receiving water determined in accordance with the instructions in Appendix V for sites located in Massachusetts and Appendix VI for sites located in New Hampshire. 5. Indicate the requested dilution factor for the calculation of water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) determined in accordance with the instructions in Appendix V for sites in Massachusetts and Appendix VI for sites in New Hampshire. 6. Has the operator received confirmation from the appropriate State for the 7Q10and dilution factor indicated? (check one): □ Yes □ No If yes, indicate date confirmation received: 7. Has the operator attached a summary of receiving water sampling results as required in Part 4.2 of the RGP in accordance with the instruction in Appendix VIII? (check one): □ Yes □ No C. Source water information: 1. Source water(s) is (check any that apply): □ Contaminated groundwater □ Contaminated surface water □ The receiving water □ Potable water; if so, indicate municipality or origin: Has the operator attached a summary of influent Has the operator attached a summary of influent □ A surface water other sampling results as required in Part 4.2 of the RGP sampling results as required in Part 4.2 of the than the receiving water; if in accordance with the instruction in Appendix RGP in accordance with the instruction in so, indicate waterbody: □ Other; if so, specify: VIII? (check one): Appendix VIII? (check one): □ Yes □ No □ Yes □ No MAG910000 Appendix IV – Part 1 – NOI NHG910000 Page 16 of 24 2. Source water contaminants: a. For source waters that are contaminated groundwater or contaminated b. For a source water that is a surface water other than the receiving water, potable water surface water, indicate are any contaminants present that are not included in or other, indicate any contaminants present at the maximum concentration in accordance the RGP? (check one): □ Yes □ No If yes, indicate the contaminant(s) and with the instructions in Appendix VIII? (check one): □ Yes □ No the maximum concentration present in accordance with the instructions in Appendix VIII. 3. Has the source water been previously chlorinated or otherwise contains residual chlorine? (check one): □ Yes □ No D. Discharge information 1.The discharge(s) is a(n) (check any that apply): □ Existing discharge □ New discharge □ New source Outfall(s): Outfall location(s): (Latitude, Longitude) Discharges enter the receiving water(s) via (check any that apply): □ Direct discharge to the receiving water □ Indirect discharge, if so, specify: □ A private storm sewer system □ A municipal storm sewer system If the discharge enters the receiving water via a private or municipal storm sewer system: Has notification been provided to the owner of this system? (check one): □ Yes □ No Has the operator has received permission from the owner to use such system for discharges? (check one): □ Yes □ No, if so, explain, with an estimated timeframe for obtaining permission: Has the operator attached a summary of any additional requirements the owner of this system has specified? (check one): □ Yes □ No Provide the expected start and end dates of discharge(s) (month/year): Indicate if the discharge is expected to occur over a duration of: □ less than 12 months □ 12 months or more □ is an emergency discharge Has the operator attached a site plan in accordance with the instructions in D, above? (check one): □ Yes □ No MAG910000 Appendix IV – Part 1 – NOI NHG910000 Page 17 of 24 2. Activity Category: (check all that apply) 3. Contamination Type Category: (check all that apply) a. If Activity Category I or II: (check all that apply) □ A. Inorganics □ B. Non-Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds □ C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report Metropolitan Boston Transportation Commission
    SENATE No. 686 Cfre Commontocalti) of egasgacbusettg % REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN BOSTON TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Created by Chapter 121 of the Resolves op 1957 January 1958 * BOSTON WRIGHT A POTTER PRINTING CO., LEGISLATIVE PRINTERS 32 DERNE STREET 1968 Cl')t CommoniuealtJ) ot spassacimsetts * RESOLVE OF AUTHORIZATION. [Chapter 121] Resolve providing for an investigati )N AND STUDY BY A SPECIAL COMMISSION RELATIVE TO THE CREATION OF A METE DPOLITAN RAPID TRANSIT COMMISSION TO STUDY THE EXTENSION OF RAPID TBANSI' ERVICE THROUGHOUT THE AREA SERVED BY THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHO TY AND RELATIVE TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE BOSTON METROPOLI AN AREA Resolved, That an unpaid special comr ion to consist of two members of the senate to be designated by the president thereof, three members of the house of representatives to be designated by the ipeaker thereof, and two persons to be appointed by the governor, is hereby es stablished for the purpose of making an investigation and study of the subject mai tter of current house document numbered 862, relative to providing for the creationn of a metropolitan rapid transit commis- sion to study the extension of rapid transi?it service throughout the area now served by the metropolitan transit authority: and of the investigation proposed by em- rent house document numbered 1736. ulative to transportation facilities in the Boston metropolitan area. Said commission shallbe provided with quarters in the state house or elsewhere, and may expend for clerical and other services and expenses such sums as may be appropriated therefor. Said commission shall report to the general court the re- sults of its investigation and study, and its recommendations, if any, together with drafts of legislation necessary to carry said recommendations into effect, by filing the same with the clerk of the senate on or before the fourth Wednesday of January in the year nineteen hundred and fifty-eight.
    [Show full text]
  • EA Cover Jan 2012 No Cut Lines
    US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Commonwealth of Massachusetts Massachusetts Department of Transportation Highway Division and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation Rehabilitation and Restoration of the Longfellow Bridge Bridge No. B-16-009 = C-01-002 (4FO) January 2012 Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation Rehabilitation and Restoration of the Longfellow Bridge (cover photo and historic photo below courtesy of Historic New England) 3.14.1 Endangered Species 25 How to Read this Environmental Assessment and Programmatic 3.14.2 Fisheries and Wildlife 25 Section 4(f) Evaluation iii 3.14.3 Vegetation 25 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Project Summary 1 Chapter 4 Alternatives Evaluation 27 1.1 Overview 1 4.1 Introduction 27 1.2 Project History 5 4.1.1 Constraints 27 1.2.1 History of the Bridge 5 4.2 Alternatives 31 1.2.2 History of the Project 5 4.2.1 No Build 31 1.2.3 Longfellow Bridge Inspection and Interim Repairs 5 4.2.2 Bridge Demolition and Replacement 31 1.2.4 Additional Studies Completed 6 4.2.3 Bridge Superstructure Replacement 32 1.2.5 State and Federal Documentation 6 4.2.4 Rehabilitation and Restoration 32 1.2.6 Longfellow Early Action Contract 6 4.2.5 Options for Allocation of User Space 35 1.3 Condition of the Bridge 7 4.3 Options for Addressing Pinch Point Restrictions 42 1.4 The Accelerated Bridge Program 9 4.4 Traffic Summary 47 1.5 Conformance with Transportation Improvement Plans and Land Use 4.5 Maintenance of Services During Construction 48 Plans 9 4.6 Conclusion and Definition of
    [Show full text]
  • Ellin Reisner, Ph.D. 51 Mt. Vernon Street Somerville, MA 02145 [email protected]
    Ellin Reisner, Ph.D. 51 Mt. Vernon Street Somerville, MA 02145 [email protected] July 23, 2010 Secretary Ian Bowles Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs MEPA Office Attn: Holly Johnson, MEPA Analyst EEA #13886 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 RE: EEA #13886 Dear Secretary Bowles, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Green Line Extension (GLX) FEIR. First, as a strong advocate for the project I want to note that I am appreciative that MassDOT has heard the concerns of the community and agreed to relocate the Maintenance Facility to Option L and has worked to respond to requirements set forth in the certificate that was previously issued. I look forward to continue working with Mass DOT, the MBTA, and fellow members of the Design Working group to ensure that the best decisions are made to move the project forward successfully and on time. There are still a number of important issues that need to be addressed to fully comply with the Certificate and move the project forward successfully, but none that should result in delaying the project any further. My comments will address the following: Ensuring maximum accessibility to stations Integrating design and construction of the Community Path with the GLX Refinement of Option L Maintenance facility Design (incorporating Option L alternative configuration Compliance with public participation requirements set forth in the Certificate and in 301 CMR 11.01 (1) (a). o Mitigation for businesses and residents during construction and when service is operating o Public Involvement from Design through construction Designing GLX to enable future expansion to Porter Square, as well as adding an interim station between Lechmere and Washington St.
    [Show full text]
  • GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY Transit Oriented Development Best Practices February 2007
    FEBRUARY GREATER CLEVELAND 2007 REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY TOD in Practice San Francisco, CA Dallas, TX Boston, MA Baltimore, MD St.Louis, MO Portland, OR Washington DC Lessons Learned Establishing Roles Developing the Development Using Regional Strengths 1240 West 6th Street Cleveland, OH 44113 216.566-5100 TRANSIT ORIENTED www.gcrta.org DEVELOPMENT BEST PRACTICES 2007 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 1240 West 6th Street, Cleveland, OH 44113 216.566.5100 www.gcrta.org Best Practices Manual GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY Table of Contents PAGE Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 TOD in Practice .................................................................................................................3 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA): San Francisco Bay Area, CA................................................................................5 Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART): Dallas, TX..............................................................15 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA): Boston, MA................................23 Metro: Baltimore, MD ..................................................................................................32 Metro: St. Louis, MO....................................................................................................36 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (Tri-Met):
    [Show full text]
  • Boston a Guide Book to the City and Vicinity
    1928 Tufts College Library GIFT OF ALUMNI BOSTON A GUIDE BOOK TO THE CITY AND VICINITY BY EDWIN M. BACON REVISED BY LeROY PHILLIPS GINN AND COMPANY BOSTON • NEW YORK • CHICAGO • LONDON ATLANTA • DALLAS • COLUMBUS • SAN FRANCISCO COPYRIGHT, 1928, BY GINN AND COMPANY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 328.1 (Cfte gtftengum ^regg GINN AND COMPANY • PRO- PRIETORS . BOSTON • U.S.A. CONTENTS PAGE PAGE Introductory vii Brookline, Newton, and The Way about Town ... vii Wellesley 122 Watertown and Waltham . "123 1. Modern Boston i Milton, the Blue Hills, Historical Sketch i Quincy, and Dedham . 124 Boston Proper 2 Winthrop and Revere . 127 1. The Central District . 4 Chelsea and Everett ... 127 2. The North End .... 57 Somerville, Medford, and 3. The Charlestown District 68 Winchester 128 4. The West End 71 5. The Back Bay District . 78 III. Public Parks 130 6. The Park Square District Metropolitan System . 130 and the South End . loi Boston City System ... 132 7. The Outlying Districts . 103 IV. Day Trips from Boston . 134 East Boston 103 Lexington and Concord . 134 South Boston .... 103 Boston Harbor and Massa- Roxbury District ... 105 chusetts Bay 139 West Roxbury District 105 The North Shore 141 Dorchester District . 107 The South Shore 143 Brighton District. 107 Park District . Hyde 107 Motor Sight-Seeing Trips . 146 n. The Metropolitan Region 108 Important Points of Interest 147 Cambridge and Harvard . 108 Index 153 MAPS PAGE PAGE Back Bay District, Showing Copley Square and Vicinity . 86 Connections with Down-Town Cambridge in the Vicinity of Boston vii Harvard University ...
    [Show full text]
  • Green Line Extension Project EEA #13886
    Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Statement Green Line Extension Project EEA #13886 Volume 1 | Text October 2009 Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (DEIR/EA) AND DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION FOR THE GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROJECT CAMBRIDGE, SOMERVILLE, MEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS STATE PROJECT NO. 13886 Prepared Pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 771, Section 119 (23 CFR 771.119); 49 U.S.C. Section 303 [formerly Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f)] and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act M.G.L. CH 30 Sec. 61 through 62H by the FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and the COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS (EOT) Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Green Line Extension Project Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations Secretary’s Certificate on the EENF Executive Summary 1 Introduction and Background .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Project Summary .................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3
    [Show full text]
  • Wig Zamore 13 Highland Ave #3 Somerville MA 02143 Logan Health Study
    Wig Zamore 13 Highland Ave #3 Somerville MA 02143 Logan Health Study CAC (DPH) Logan Airport CAC (Noise Study) MBTA Rider Oversight Committee MAPC MetroFuture Steering Com. (pre-2003 to 2008) Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership Mystic View Task Force (of Somerville) Move Massachusetts Board 617-625-5630 [email protected] July 23, 2010 Ian Bowles, Secretary EOEEA Attn: Holly Johnson, MEPA Analyst 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston MA 02114-2524 Via Email: [email protected] Re: Green Line Extension Project Final EIR EOEEA #13886 Dear Secretary Bowles and Analyst Johnson, Thank you very much for your attention to this and many other public comments on the Green Line Extension, GLX, the most important sustainable transportation project undertaken by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in a generation. Before making more specific comments, I especially want to commend the efforts of those MassDOT personnel and consultants who are working on and championing this project despite a chronic and severe shortage of state transportation resources, both financial and staff. Given our ongoing environmental challenges and the need to grow out of a severe regional and global recession, all of us must take responsibility for accomplishing this project in a manner that is effective, efficient and expeditious. The GLX is the state’s and the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization’s largest SIP transit commitment. Every effort should be made to restore its lapsed schedule so that completion can be accomplished by the legal December 31, 2014 deadline. With transportation accounting for 70% of US petroleum use (see EIA chart next page) and a dominant share of our balance of payments indebtedness, it is necessary to shift our urban transportation mode shares as quickly as possible to clean transit, that can be powered without petroleum, and simultaneously to expanded walk and bike modes that are eminently compatible with transit.
    [Show full text]
  • 150 Second Street, Cambridge, MA 02141, MAG910502
    Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 465 Medford St. Suite 2200 Boston, MA 02129-1400 Tel: 617.886.7400 Fax: 617.886.7600 HaleyAldrich.com 12 September 2011 File No. 30194-503 US Environmental Protection Agency Industrial NPDES Permits (CIP) 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023 Attention: Ms. Shelly Puleo Subject: Notice of Intent (NOI) Temporary Construction Dewatering 150 Second Street Cambridge, Massachusetts Ladies and Gentlemen: Dear Ms. Puleo: On behalf of our client, 150 Second Street, LLC (150 Second Street), and in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Remediation General Permit (RGP) in Massachusetts, MAG910000, this letter submits a Notice of Intent (NOI) and the applicable documentation as required by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for temporary construction site dewatering under the RGP. Temporary dewatering is planned in support of the proposed site development which includes construction of a 3-story building with one level of below-grade parking located at 150 Second Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts as shown on Figure 1 – Project Locus. We anticipate construction dewatering will be conducted, as necessary, during foundation construction and below grade excavation. The site is bound by Bent Street to the south, Second Street to the west, Charles Street to the north and commercial space, beyond which is First Street, to the east. Site grades range from approximately El. 19 to El. 21.1 The site is currently an active construction site, as former buildings were recently demolished. A Site and Subsurface Exploration Location Plan is included as Figure 2. Site History According to available Sanborn Maps, other historic plans, and Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • TCRP Report 102 – Transit-Oriented
    TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH TCRP PROGRAM REPORT 102 Transit-Oriented Sponsored by Development in the the Federal United States: Transit Administration Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2004 (Membership as of January 2004) SELECTION COMMITTEE (as of January 2004) OFFICERS CHAIR Chair: Michael S. Townes, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA J. BARRY BARKER Vice Chair: Joseph H. Boardman, Commissioner, New York State DOT Transit Authority of River City Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS MEMBERS KAREN ANTION MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT Karen Antion Consulting SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, DC GORDON AOYAGI Montgomery County Government E. DEAN CARLSON, Director, Carlson Associates, Topeka, KS RONALD L. BARNES JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads Central Ohio Transit Authority DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN LINDA J. BOHLINGER GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Director, Metrans Transportation Center and Professor, School of Policy, HNTB Corp. Planning, and Development, USC, Los Angeles ANDREW BONDS, JR. BERNARD S. GROSECLOSE, JR., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Prof. of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University JENNIFER L. DORN JAMES R. HERTWIG, President, Landstar Logistics, Inc., Jacksonville, FL FTA HENRY L. HUNGERBEELER, Director, Missouri DOT NATHANIEL P. FORD, SR. ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Metropolitan Atlanta RTA RONALD F. KIRBY, Director of Transportation Planning, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments CONSTANCE GARBER HERBERT S. LEVINSON, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, CT York County Community Action Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings Volume 34 – 1951–1952 [PDF]
    The Proceedings of the Cambridge Historical Society, Volume 34, 1951-1952 TABLE OF CONTENTS OFFICERS ........................................................................................................5 ​ PAPERS LAWRENCE LOWELL,PRESIDENT ...............................................................7 ​ BY JULLIAN LOWELL COOLIDGE FROM A DANA HILL WINDOW ...................................................................19 BY HELEN INGERSOLL TETLOW FOUR YEARS AT HARVARD COLLEGE: 1888-1892 .......................................37 BY CHARLES LANE HANSON MEMORIES OF NINETEENTH CENTURY CAMBRIDGE ...................................59 BY LOIS LILLEY HOWE MOUNT AUBURN"S SIXSCORE YEARS ......................................................77 BY OAKES I. AMES FREDERICK HASTINGS RINDGE ..............................................................97 BY JOHN W. WOOD CAMBRIDGE, A PIONEER HOME OF ELECTRONICS ....................................111 BY HAROLD B. RICHMOND A TRIBUTE TO SAMUEL ATKINS ELIOT .....................................................125 BY LOIS LILLEY HOWE ANNUAL REPORTS ............................................................................................127 ​ MEMBERS .........................................................................................................137 ​ THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY PROCEEDINGS FOR THE YEARS 1951-52 LIST OF OFFICERS FOR THESE TWO YEARS President: Hon. Robert Walcott Vice-Presidents: Miss Lois Lilley Howe Mr. Bremer W. Pond Mr. John W. Wood Treasurer: Mr. John T. G. Nichols
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Route 28 Corridor Transportation Plan: an Emerging Vision
    Toward a Route 28 Corridor Transportation Plan: An Emerging Vision Project Manager Mark Abbott Project Principal Efi Pagitsas Contributing Analysts Seth Asante Mary McShane Mark Scannell Alicia Wilson Cover Design Kate Parker-OʼToole The preparation of this document was supported by Massachusetts Highway Department SPR Contracts #31049, #33097, and #39687. Central Transportation Planning Staff Directed by the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. The MPO is composed of state and regional agencies and authorities, and local governments. Draft – December 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES…………………………………………………………...vii 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Study Area and Brief Profile of Route 28 Corridor.......................................................1 1.2 Route 28 Advisory Committee ......................................................................................3 2 CONCERNS OF THE STAKEHOLDERS...........................................................................5 2.1 Corridor Urban Design ..................................................................................................5 2.2 The “Big Picture” vs. Mitigation of Development Impacts...........................................6 2.3 Land Use, Smart Growth, and Sustainable Transportation............................................6 2.4 Public Transportation.....................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • The Foundry Works Operator RFP Submission
    FOUNDRY OPERATOR RFP RESPONSE PREPARED FOR Thomas Evans Cambridge Redevelopment Authority PREPARED BY The Foundry Works Team Molly Akin Rex Baker Gillian Grogan Magali Maïza Andrew Meyer In Partnership with Fab Foundation March 6, 2018 255 Main Street, 8th floor Thomas Evans, Executive Director Cambridge, MA 02142 Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Dear Mr. Evans, The Foundry Works Team is pleased to submit this Letter of Interest and the accompanying proposal to The Foundry Building Operator Request for Proposals. The Cambridge Redevelopment Authority has defined an ambitious mission for the Foundry: to serve as a nexus for entrepreneurship, technology, workforce education and the arts. Our team possesses the skills and flexibility required to carry out this mission with financial sustainability. The vision defined for the Foundry requires a creative economic and programing approach, as we present here, in order to successfully curate tenants, uses, and programs that meet community needs within an inclusive and energizing space. Industry Lab LLC, Molly Akin and Magali Maïza, in partnership with the Fab Foundation, have combined their respective expertises to propose an operating model adapted to the unique and comprehensive mission of the Foundry. The Fab Foundation brings extensive experience in funding, equipping and operating innovative community fabrication facilities and curricula, with the goal of democratizing access to the tools of technical invention. We acknowledge that we’re a newly constituted team, but in many ways, we’ve been preparing for this project our whole lives. We believe in it. To each of us, the Foundry project represents an opportunity to create something beautiful and daring: a space where all Cambridge residents feel comfortable arriving, learning, playing, and working.
    [Show full text]