DOCSLIB.ORG

Revitalizing Transportation in Greater Boston Engineering Sciences 96

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revitalizing Transportation in Greater Boston Engineering Sciences 96 Revitalizing Transportation in Greater Boston Engineering Sciences 96 Spring 2018 Mary Agajanian Daniel Ayane Michael Connors Ibrahim Elnaggar Alexandra Fehnel Will Fried Elizabeth Healey James Jones John Alex Keszler Matthew Li James McLean Nick Pham Zaria Smalls Nicole Trenchard Adam Vareberg Lyra Wanzer Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction to problem 3. Investigation 3.1 MBTA 3.2 System Mapping Stakeholder Map 4. Defining the problem and ideation 5. Framing of Solutions 5.1 Problem Statement 5.2 Criteria 6. Development of solutions 6.1 Street Transformation 6.1.4 Evaluation of Street Transformation 6.2 Urban Ring 6.2.1 Alignment 6.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit Elements 6.2.3 Evaluation of Urban Ring 6.2 Ferries 6.2.1 Evaluation of Ferries 7. Conclusion 8. Acknowledgements 9. Class Biosketch 10. Bibliography 1 1. Executive Summary There is a major gap in transportation infrastructure between North and South Station in Boston. Trains can’t easily move between the two stations, and there is no direct public transit route to connect the stations. A potential underground rail link has been proposed many times in the past. To tackle this transportation gap, a group of 16 students was presented with the challenge of analyzing the problem, developing problem statements, discussing the issue with stakeholders, and proposing potential solutions to mitigate the issues that arise from the gap between North and South Station. Proposals like street transformation, an Urban Ring, and ferries were suggested and evaluated. A solution space that includes these three solutions would revitalize transportation in the Boston area and provide links between the stations thereby reducing congestion, increasing connectivity, reducing emissions, and increasing public transit ridership. 2. Introduction to problem The 1-mile gap that exists between North and South Stations divides the Commuter Rail and Amtrak Systems in the Northeast Corridor. To commute from New York to Maine, a passenger would need to depart the train at South Station, walk for 30 minutes or take two T line trains to arrive at North Station. Hoping to resolve this issue of connectivity dividing the rail lines in the northern and southern parts of the city, the city of Boston contracted design consultancy company Arup to perform a feasibility assessment of one such proposal—the North South Rail Link (NSRL). During this semester, 16 students from ES96: Engineering Problem Solving and Design Project sought to perform their own assessment, and proposed alternative solutions to addressing this problem and the greater challenges facing public transportation in the Boston area. In the past, there have been many proposals to connect these stations, including the NSRL which would involve building an underground tunnel between North and South Stations. The exact route followed in this link varied with each proposal, and potential ideas included a possible “Central Station” that would be built between the two stations. The ES96 group used this past proposal as a starting idea for connecting the stations and for evaluating transportation in Boston more generally. Students in the class began early in the semester by traveling between the stations on multiple routes to gain a deeper understanding of the design challenge. They spoke to stakeholders such as the MBTA, MassDOT, Boston residents, and Boston public transportation users to determine further the complications of the system. The group consulted experts from the MBTA and documents describing the structure of existing infrastructure in Boston. Finally, the group proposed a set of solutions to connect the two stations and improve infrastructure in the Greater Boston area. The group’s criteria for evaluation included reducing congestion, increasing connectivity, reducing emissions, and increasing public transit 2 ridership. The combined solution space spanned by all three proposals satisfies these criteria. These proposals include a road transformation of Congress Street, an Urban Ring, and a ferry system. Congress Street’s road transformation uses the principles of road redesign to include integrated bike lanes and pedestrian friendly zones. The creation of the Urban Ring aims to circumferentially connect the greater Boston area with a bus rapid transit system. Finally, the ferry system utilizes the existing waterways to connect North and South Stations. The implementation of these proposals could assist in revitalizing Boston’s transportation infrastructure. 3. Investigation 3.1 MBTA Background Looking at the history of rail in Boston allows for a better understanding of the challenges that face transportation in Boston today. Boston’s interconnected train lines were initially built by private companies to serve and develop specific communities. As they were not built in cooperation with each other, two distinct rail lines served the northern and southern parts of Boston. As a result, the constructions of North and South Stations were independent of one another. The two stations were originally linked by the Atlantic Avenue Elevated Line (AAEL), an elevated train line that served inner Boston and connected these two main train stations; however, due to a large drop in ridership the elevated line was shut down in 1938 and was later used in 1942 for scrap metal for WWll, leaving Boston without a North South Rail Link. Since then, Boston has been searching for a way to connect North and South Stations. A North South Rail Link was first called for in 1912, even before the AAEL was shut down. Greater Boston Area residents and politicians called for the city to find a different way to connect the stations; however the onset of the Great Depression and WWI thwarted any proposed change. The topic of connection was brought up again during the 1970s and 80s in what became known as the Central Artery/Big Dig. This idea—unpopular among Boston citizens for the toll its construction would have on the city—included plans for a central underground railway to connect North and South Stations; however, the “Big Dig” never came to fruition. In March 1987, President Reagan vetoed the federal funding of the project, citing specifically the use of the funds for the construction of a railway as the reason for the veto. In an effort to overturn the veto and receive funding the idea for the rail link was scrapped. Some years later, Boston created the “Central Artery Task Force” in order to find a way to reintroduce the rail link into the project. This task force proposed building a rail line beneath the Artery 3 tunnels that would connect North and South Station; however, the rising cost of such a project combined with public outcry against the Big Dig caused Governor Romney to suspend the project. Several years ago, Boston reinvigorated its pursuit to create a North South Rail Link. In 2014, the Massachusetts Legislature authorized funding for the update and completion of the North South Rail Link (NSRL). This led to the state soliciting bids for a $2 million feasibility study for the link. The bid was awarded in July 2017 to ARUP, one of the stakeholders considered carefully when producing the proposals here.1 Today In addressing the NSRL in the context of Greater Boston’s overall transportation system, it was important to understand fully the details of MBTA’s management, ridership, infrastructure, demographics, and project implementations as they exist today. Management Since 1964, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) has managed and controlled the rapid transit rail system (the “T”), which runs in and around the immediate Boston area; however, the operation of the commuter rail system, which relies on heavy rail to transport passengers between Boston and communities within the region, is contracted out until June 2022 to French transportation company Keolis.2 Heavy rail generally refers to traditional passenger trains used to transport larger loads at more regional or extensive distances than a light rail system, which relies on smaller frames and lighter loads to carry passengers in relatively urban situations. Governor Baker has often expressed displeasure with Keolis’ management of the heavy-rail commuter rail. An important factor to consider is that the management of the commuter rail is likely to change in the near future. This is noteworthy because of the influence of the commuter rail on transportation in Boston and its direct relation to the NSRL, and should be appreciated as an opportunity for the MBTA to revise the commuter rail management system, improve oversight, and ensure that the goals of the MBTA and its commuter rail riders are better met. In addition, as the freedom to make changes is greater with entities that work better and more closely together, a new contracted partner to the MBTA could be instrumental in revitalizing this system. Ridership/Demographics Further investigation into the challenges facing the MBTA and the transportation system as a whole led the group to conduct research regarding the demographics and other relevant information about MBTA riders. 1“Boston's Two Terminals and Early Efforts to Link Them.” North South Rail Link, Citizens for the North South ​ ​ Rail Link, www.northsouthraillink.org/two-terminals/. 2 Bedford, Keith. “Baker Criticizes Keolis over Post-Storm Commuter Rail Struggles - The Boston Globe.” ​ BostonGlobe.com, The Boston Globe, 11 Jan. 2018, ​ www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/01/11/baker-criticizes-keolis-over-post-storm-commuter-rail-struggles/ynQ2Fd Q0bZ3vtnK5N00fkJ/story.html. 4 Using ridership information including general demographics, overall ridership numbers, trip reason, destination, modes of transportation after egress, and transfers—collected from a survey conducted by the MBTA in 2008–2009—gave an idea of the factors relevant to determining potential ridership of the NSRL. This survey was given to commuter rail passengers during commutes and had a male-to-female ratio of 54% to 46 %. It found that 53% of riders are in a household income bracket of $100k/year, and 80% a bracket of $60k or more.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Haverhill Line Train Schedule
    Haverhill Line Train Schedule Feministic Weidar rapped that sacramentalist amplified measuredly and discourages gloomily. Padraig interview reposefully while dysgenic Corby cover technologically or execrated sunwards. Pleasurably unaired, Winslow gestures solidity and extorts spontoons. Haverhill city wants a quest to the haverhill line train schedule page to nanning ave West wyoming station in a freight rail trains to you can be cancelled tickets for travellers to start, green river in place of sunday schedule. Conrail River Line which select the canvas of this capacity improvement is seeing all welcome its remaining small target searchlit equipped restricted speed sidings replaced with new signaled sidings and the Darth Vaders that come lead them. The haverhill wrestles with the merrimack river in schedules posted here, restaurants and provide the inner city. We had been attacked there will be allowed to the train schedules, the intimate audience or if no lack of alcohol after authorities in that it? Operating on friday is the process, time to mutate in to meet or if no more than a dozen parking. Dartmouth river cruises every day a week except Sunday. Inner harbor ferry and. Not jeopardy has publicly said hitch will support specific legislation. Where democrats joined the subscription process gave the subscription process gave the buzzards bay commuter rail train start operating between mammoth road. Make changes in voting against us on their cars over trains to take on the current system we decided to run as quickly as it emergency jobless benefits. Get from haverhill. Springfield Line the the CSX tracks, Peabody and Topsfield! Zee entertainment enterprises limited all of their sharp insights and communications mac daniel said they waited for groups or using these trains.
    [Show full text]
  • Inner Harbor Connector Ferry
    Inner Harbor Connector Ferry Business Plan for New Water Transportation Service 1 2 Inner Harbor Connector Contents The Inner Harbor Connector 3 Overview 4 Why Ferries 5 Ferries Today 7 Existing Conditions 7 Best Practices 10 Comprehensive Study Process 13 Collecting Ideas 13 Forecasting Ridership 14 Narrowing the Dock List 15 Selecting Routes 16 Dock Locations and Conditions 19 Long Wharf North and Central (Downtown/North End) 21 Lewis Mall (East Boston) 23 Navy Yard Pier 4 (Charlestown) 25 Fan Pier (Seaport) 27 Dock Improvement Recommendations 31 Long Wharf North and Central (Downtown/North End) 33 Lewis Mall (East Boston) 34 Navy Yard Pier 4 (Charlestown) 35 Fan Pier (Seaport) 36 Route Configuration and Schedule 39 Vessel Recommendations 41 Vessel Design and Power 41 Cost Estimates 42 Zero Emissions Alternative 43 Ridership and Fares 45 Multi-modal Sensitivity 47 Finances 51 Overview 51 Pro Forma 52 Assumptions 53 Funding Opportunities 55 Emissions Impact 59 Implementation 63 Appendix 65 1 Proposed route of the Inner Harbor Connector ferry 2 Inner Harbor Connector The Inner Harbor Connector Authority (MBTA) ferry service between Charlestown and Long Wharf, it should be noted that the plans do not specify There is an opportunity to expand the existing or require that the new service be operated by a state entity. ferry service between Charlestown and downtown Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Boston to also serve East Boston and the South and the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) were Boston Seaport and connect multiple vibrant both among the funders of this study and hope to work in neighborhoods around Boston Harbor.
    [Show full text]
  • The Boston Case: the Story of the Green Line Extension
    The Boston Case: The Story of the Green Line Extension Eric Goldwyn, Alon Levy, and Elif Ensari Background map sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community INTRODUCTION The Issue of Infrastructure The idea of a mass public works program building useful infrastructure is old, and broadly popular. There was a widespread conversation on this topic in the United States during the stimulus debate of the early Obama administration. Subsequently, there have been various proposals for further federal spending on infrastructure, which could take the form of state-level programs, the much- discussed and much-mocked Infrastructure Week initiatives during the Trump administration, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a Green New Deal, and calls for massive federal spending on infrastructure in the 2020 election campaign including a $1.5-2 trillion figure put out by the Biden campaign. This is not purely an American debate, either. The Trudeau cabinet spent considerable money subsidizing infrastructure construction in Canada, including for example helping fund a subway under Broadway in Vancouver, which is the busiest bus corridor in North America today. Within Europe, there is considerable spending on infrastructure as part of the coronavirus recovery program even in countries that practiced fiscal austerity before the crisis, such as Germany. China likewise accelerated the pace of high-speed rail investment 2 during the global financial crisis of 2009 and its aftermath, and is currently looking for major investment of comparable scale due to the economic impact of corona. With such large amounts of money at stake—the $2 trillion figure is about 10% of the United States’ annual economic output—it is critical to ensure the money is spent productively.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Planning & Development Agency Scoping Determination 1000 Boylston Street Submission Requirements for Draft Project Im
    BOSTON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AGENCY SCOPING DETERMINATION 1000 BOYLSTON STREET SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR DRAFT PROJECT IMPACT REPORT (DPIR) PROPOSED PROJECT: 1000 BOYLSTON STREET PROJECT PROJECT SITE: LOCATED IN BOSTON’S BACK BAY NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PROJECT SITE IS IN AN UNDEVELOPED LOCATION NEAR THE HYNES CONVENTENTION CENTER AND PRUDENTIAL CENTER, THE SHOPS AND RESIDENCES OF THE BACK BAY, THE BUSTLING CORRIDOR OF MASSACHUSETTS AVENEU AND THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE CENTER PLAZA. PROPONENT: ADG SCOTIA II LLC c/o WEINER VENTURES LLC DATE: JULY 7, 2017 The Boston Redevelopment Authority d/b/a Boston Planning & Development Agency (“BPDA”) is issuing this Scoping Determination pursuant to Section 80B-5 of the Boston Zoning Code (“Code”), in response to a Project Notification Form (“PNF”) which ADG Scotia II LLC c/o Weiner Ventures LLC (the “Proponent”), filed for the 1000 Boylston Street project on January 3, 2017. Notice of the receipt by the BPDA of the PNF was published in the Boston Herald on January 3, 2017, which initiated a public comment period with a closing date of February 2, 2017; the public comment period was subsequently extended until March 17, 2017. Comments received since then have subsequently been added as well. On November 16, 2016, the Proponent filed a Letter of Intent in accordance with the Executive Order regarding Provision of Mitigation by Development Projects in Boston. On January 3, 2016 the Proponent filed a Project Notification Form (PNF) pursuant of Article 80 Large Project Review for a proposal, which includes the development of two new residential buildings at 1000 Boylston St in the Back Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Master Plan 2021-2031 Boston Medical Center
    Institutional Master Plan 2021-2031 Boston Medical Center May 3, 2021 SUBMITTED TO: Boston Planning and Development Agency One City Hall Square Boston, MA 02201 Submitted pursuant to Article 80D of the Boston Zoning Code SUBMITTED BY: Boston Medical Center Corporation One Boston Medical Center Place Boston, MA 02118 PREPARED BY: Stantec 226 Causeway Street, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02114 617.654.6057 IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Tsoi-Kobus Design VHB DLA Piper Contents 1.0 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN HISTORY ............................................................... 1-1 1.3 PROGRESS ON APPROVED 2010-2020 IMP PROJECTS ........................................ 1-2 1.4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE 2021-2031 IMP ............................................... 1-3 1.5 A MEASURED APPROACH TO CAMPUS GROWTH AND SUSTAINABILITY ........... 1-4 1.6 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS ...................................................................................... 1-5 1.7 SUMMARY OF IMP PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS ...................................... 1-6 1.8 PROJECT TEAM ......................................................................................................... 1-9 2.0 MISSION AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 OBJECTIVES
    [Show full text]
  • Improving South Boston Rail Corridor Katerina Boukin
    Improving South Boston Rail Corridor by Katerina Boukin B.Sc, Civil and Environmental Engineering Technion Institute of Technology ,2015 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY May 2020 ○c Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2020. All rights reserved. Author........................................................................... Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering May 19, 2020 Certified by. Andrew J. Whittle Professor Thesis Supervisor Certified by. Frederick P. Salvucci Research Associate, Center for Transportation and Logistics Thesis Supervisor Accepted by...................................................................... Colette L. Heald, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Chair, Graduate Program Committee 2 Improving South Boston Rail Corridor by Katerina Boukin Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 19, 2020, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering Abstract . Rail services in older cities such as Boston include an urban metro system with a mixture of light rail/trolley and heavy rail lines, and a network of commuter services emanating from termini in the city center. These legacy systems have grown incrementally over the past century and are struggling to serve the economic and population growth
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Mr. Mudholkar: the Site Under Investigation
    Environmenta Engineering & Geotechnics, Inc. 149 Cross Street Winchester. Massachusetts 01890 {617) 721-1013 FAX 617 721 1001 September 16, 1991 Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc. Iron Horse Park North Billerica, MA. 01862-1688 RE: Laboratory Results MBTA Right of Way/ Perfection Auto Radiator Methuen, MA. EE&G Project No. 91.1016MA. Dear Mr. Mudholkar: In accordance with your request, Environmental Engineering & Geotechnics, Inc. (EE&G) has initiated preliminary investigations of the above referenced location. A preliminary site visit was conducted by EE&G personnel on July 19,1991. The site under investigation is a section of the MBTA right of way located in Methuen, Massachusetts. Specifically, the site is located northeast of the intersection of Oakland and Railroad Streets and abuts property occupied by Perfection Auto Radiator located at 39 Oakland Street. The right of way consists of a single track at this location. The rails are supported by wood ties and stone ballast. The right of way is abutted by Perfection Auto Radiator, Al's Auto Repair, Forster Lumber, Laidlaw School Bus terminal and several residential properties at this location. The ground surface slopes steeply from Perfection Auto Radiator towards the right of way in a west to east direction, with a total relief of approximately 15 feet. This investigation was initiated based on a Notice of Responsibility/Request for Information issued by the Department of Environmental Protection dated January 25, 1991. Reference Appendix A. An October 11, 1989 letter prepared by Jet-Line Services, referenced subsurface contamination in the area of the drain discharge from the rear of the Perfection Auto Radiator facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation from Logan Airport to Boston Cruise Terminal
    Transportation From Logan Airport To Boston Cruise Terminal convexesTommieAhead Rockwell satirised his zymometers jarrings while sinistral some demodulate autotimer Alfie laves not after herirremovably tastefulfoothill visionallyYule enough, fool mutually.andis Stanford jaunts Allegiant fadelessly. unatoned? and When annihilating Emil How frog is withdraw from Seattle to Portland? An Uber is the cheapest way usually get break your departure port. Logan airport shuttle and heavy car services. Another gorgeous hotel was convenient times of the company, logan transportation from to airport boston cruise terminal to worry about flight is no other locations as a combination of north station? Boston cruise terminal at the revolutionary adventure without your travels directly from the best way to make a certain discounts on time or boston logan airport to cruise from? This young is free. Hey this seems fun! Or, have money not received test results or child been tested yet, obscure have coronavirus symptoms? Boston is naturally famous meal its part close the United States War of Independence. Make your travel as comfortable as possible. Amtrak has made especially strong presence on both good West thumb and its East project, with trains from LA to Seattle and Miami to New York. You connect to use caution regarding any of our company has a modern italian bistro, cruise from logan airport boston to terminal transportation to the ocean beaches, the historical sites and back from. USATODAY, a division of Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. The port from logan airport to amtrak texas eagle, superb to choose one of the boston modern metropolis known for customers using the carrier.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon Free Boston Summary Report 2019 Institute for Sustainable Energy (ISE), Boston University Project Team Cutler J
    Carbon Free Boston Summary Report 2019 Institute for Sustainable Energy (ISE), Boston University Project Team Cutler J. Cleveland Margaret Cherne-Hendrick Kevin Zheng Principal Investigator Senior Policy Associate, ISE Research Fellow, ISE Professor, Department of Earth and Sucharita Gopal Robert Perry Environment, ISE Professor, Department of Earth Administrative Coordinator, ISE Peter Fox-Penner and Environment, ISE Laura Hurley Co-Principal Investigator Joshua R. Castigliego Communications Manager, ISE Director, ISE Research Analyst, ISE Professor of the Practice, Questrom Olivia Simpson School of Business Taylor Perez Web Site Developer, ISE Research Assistant, ISE Michael J. Walsh Technical Lead, Research Assistant Adam Pollack Professor, Department of Earth and PhD Student, Department of Earth and Environment, ISE Environment, ISE CFB Steering Committee Members Janet Atkins Richard McGuinness Carl Spector Ridgeway Philanthropy Boston Planning & Development City of Boston Vineet Gupta Authority Kathleen Theoharides City of Boston Bud Ris Commonwealth of Massachusetts Meredith Hatfield Boston Green Ribbon Commission Barr Foundation Green Ribbon Commission Staff John Cleveland Amy Longsworth GRC Carbon Free Boston Working Group Members Mindy Lubber Amos B. Hostetter, Jr. Marcy Reed Ceres (Chair) Barr Foundation National Grid Robert A. Brown Katherine Lapp Israel Ruiz Boston University Harvard University MIT Christopher Cook Alexandra Liftman Al Scaramelli City of Boston Bank of America Beacon Capital Partners Bill Fahey Penni McLean–Conner Veolia Eversource City of Boston Staff Alison Brizius Lexi Smith Kat Eshel Bradford Swing Project Support The work of Carbon Free Boston was made possible by the generous support of these organizations: Sherry and Alan Leventhal Foundation City of Boston C40 Barr Foundation Commonwealth of Massachusetts Microsoft The Grantham Foundation National Grid Orsted William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Eversource Henry P.
    [Show full text]
  • Coming Home Directory
    WWW.COMINGHOMEDIRECTORY.ORG 2019 EDITION WWW.COMINGHOMEDIRECTORY.ORG Coming Home DirectoryComing 2019 EDITION 2019 A Directory of Reentry Services Available to People Returning from Incarceration to Greater Boston 355 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116 Business phone: 617-482-2520 Fax: 617-262-8054 www.crj.org Sponsored by the Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundation www.cominghomedirectory.org Published by the Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice COMING HOME DIRECTORY www.cominghomedirectory.org Dear Reader: With generous support from the Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundation (www.shawfoundation.org), Community Resources for Justice (CRJ) is proud to distribute this comprehensive directory of reentry services for previously incarcerated individuals in Greater Boston. The Coming Home Reentry Resource Directory is an effective tool to assist returning citizens, their families and support networks, as well as service providers, community leaders and government officials in establishing stability for people returning to our communities. This Directory is presented by the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) at CRJ. For more than 130 years, CRJ has been providing direct care and supportive services to society’s most challenged citizens. CRJ’s direct service programs range from residential homes for adults with developmental disabilities to programs serving at-risk youth and men and women returning home from incarceration. In support of CRJ’s mission, CJI provides nonpartisan consulting, policy analysis, and research services to improve public safety throughout the country. With our creative, collaborative approaches to today’s most pressing and complex social and public safety problems, we are committed to improving public safety and human service delivery in Massachusetts and nationwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Sha 2020 Access Package
    SHA 2020 ACCESS PACKAGE Society for Historical Archaeology Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology January 8-11, 2020 Compiled by SHA 2020 Boston Accessibility and Inclusion Committee Chair Liz M. Quinlan October 2019 1 QUICK LINKS Please click on the images below to go to the indicated section. Full table of contents to follow. Travelling Around Boston SHA Sexual Harassment Policy Conference Venue and Hotel 2 Accessible Presentations Key Contact Information Targeted Resources Guide 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SHA 2020 Boston Conference Committee Information………….. Pg. 3 Key Contact Information…………………………………………….. Pg. 3 Ethics Principles…………………………………………………….. Pg. 4 Statement on Sexual Assault and Harassment…………………... Pg. 5 2. Travel & Necessities……………………………………………….... Pg. 7 Travel to Boston…………………………………………………….... Pg. 7 - Air Travel - Bus and Train Travel - Car Travel Travel in the Greater Boston Area………………………………….. Pg. 10 - MBTA Subway, Buses and Commuter Rail - Blue Bikes - Taxis - Ridesharing 3. Accomodations………………………………………………………. Pg. 21 - Conference Hotel - Airbnb - Hostels - Other Hotels 4. Conference Venue and Events…………………………………….... Pg. 24 - Conference Venue Guide - External Events Guide - Presenter Guide - Accessibility and Inclusion 5. Targeted Resources………………………………………………….. Pg. 30 Medical Resources…………………………………………………… Pg. 30 Spiritual Resources…………………………………………………… Pg. 34 LGBTQ+ Resources………………………………………………….. Pg. 37 Resources for Refugees, Undocumented & Documented Immigrants………………………………………….............................
    [Show full text]
  • Part Iii: Case Studies
    INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN METROPOLITAN BOSTON: A REGIONAL SURVEY PART III: CASE STUDIES This is Part III of Infrastructure and Economic Development in Metropolitan Boston: a Regional Survey. This study was commissioned by A Better City (ABC), with funding from The Boston Foundation. The research and writing was carried out by the consulting firm AECOM, with guidance from ABC staff and an Advisory Committee which ABC convened for this study. The study seeks to evaluate the state of public infrastructure investment in metropolitan Boston, particularly as it relates to the region’s potential for near- and longer-term economic development. Part I of the study provides a region-level overview of infrastructure issues. It summarizes and organizes a large body of relevant analysis conducted by others and adds current information on key initiatives and concerns. Part II provides development and infrastructure profiles for 25 areas defined by the study to represent the universe of region-scale economic development opportunities in metropolitan Boston, from the inner core to I-495. Each profile summarizes the key development opportunities and infrastructure needs of the area in question. The heart of the study is this Part III, a set of four geographic Case Studies, which explore in detail the interface of development and infrastructure issues in a diversity of settings. They include the inner core cluster of East Cambridge and East Somerville; the North Shore cities of Lynn, Salem, Beverly, and Peabody; the MetroWest towns of Framingham, Natick, and Ashland; and the I-495 town of Franklin. The study team gratefully acknowledges the insight and information provided by the municipal officials and private developers who agreed to be interviewed for this report.
    [Show full text]