DOCSLIB.ORG

Green Line Extension Project EEA #13886

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 Permits and Approvals ............................................................................................................ 1-7 1.4 Consistency with Federal, State, and Local Planning ............................................................. 1-8 1.5 Public Involvement and Agency Coordination ........................................................................ 1-9 1.6 Requirements of Secretary's Certificate ............................................................................... 1-15 2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Project Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Need for Transit Improvements .............................................................................................. 2-2 2.4 Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................................. 2-6 3 Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.3 Project Elements ..................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Ridership Methodology ......................................................................................................... 3-11 3.5 Baseline Alternative .............................................................................................................. 3-12 3.6 Build Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 3-16 3.7 Project Description – Preferred Alternative ........................................................................... 3-39 3.8 Community Paths ................................................................................................................. 3-56 3.9 Coordination with Regional Projects ..................................................................................... 3-60 3.10 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 3-63 4 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Land Use ................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.3 Socioeconomic Conditions ................................................................................................... 4-22 4.4 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................... 4-25 4.5 Existing Transportation Systems .......................................................................................... 4-29 4.6 Traffic .................................................................................................................................... 4-40 Table of Contents i Prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. – 10/15/2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Green Line Extension Project Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4.7 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 4-57 4.8 Noise .................................................................................................................................... 4-62 4.9 Vibration .............................................................................................................................. 4-70 4.10 Stormwater ........................................................................................................................... 4-76 4.11 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................. 4-79 4.12 Fish, Wildlife and Plants ....................................................................................................... 4-80 4.13 Parks and Recreation ........................................................................................................... 4-81 4.14 Visual Environment ............................................................................................................... 4-83 4.15 Historic and Archaeological Resources ................................................................................ 4-83 4.16 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................. 4-99 5 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Land Use ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts ........................................................................................................ 5-10 5.4 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................... 5-20 5.5 Traffic .................................................................................................................................... 5-34 5.6 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 5-79 5.7 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 5-103 5.8 Vibration .............................................................................................................................. 5-120 5.9 Stormwater ......................................................................................................................... 5-132 5.10 Fish, Wildlife, and Plants .................................................................................................... 5-139 5.11 Parks and Recreation Areas ............................................................................................... 5-141 5.12 Visual Environment ............................................................................................................. 5-144 5.13 Historic and Archaeological Resources .............................................................................. 5-148 5.14 Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................... 5-160 5.15 Indirect and Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................... 5-169 6 Draft Section 61 Findings and Mitigation Commitments ........................................... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Project Benefits ....................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 Project Mitigation ...................................................................................................................
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]
  • CHAPTER 2 Progress Since the Last PMT
    CHAPTER 2 Progress Since the Last PMT The 2003 PMT outlined the actions needed to bring the MBTA transit system into a state of good repair (SGR). It evaluated and prioritized a number of specific enhancement and expansion projects proposed to improve the system and better serve the regional mobility needs of Commonwealth residents. In the inter- vening years, the MBTA has funded and implemented many of the 2003 PMT priorities. The transit improvements highlighted in this chapter have been accomplished in spite of the unsus- tainable condition of the Authority’s present financial structure. A 2009 report issued by the MBTA Advisory Board1 effectively summarized the Authority’s financial dilemma: For the past several years the MBTA has only balanced its budgets by restructuring debt liquidat- ing cash reserves, selling land, and other one-time actions. Today, with credit markets frozen, cash reserves depleted and the real estate market at a stand still, the MBTA has used up these options. This recession has laid bare the fact that the MBTA is mired in a structural, on-going deficit that threatens its viability. In 2000 the MBTA was re-born with the passage of the Forward Funding legislation.This legislation dedicated 20% of all sales taxes collected state-wide to the MBTA. It also transferred over $3.3 billion in Commonwealth debt from the State’s books to the T’s books. In essence, the MBTA was born broke. Throughout the 1990’s the Massachusetts sales tax grew at an average of 6.5% per year. This decade the sales tax has barely averaged 1% annual growth.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 FMCB Annual Report
    2020 FMCB Annual Report This report fulfills the requirements of Section 207 of Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2015 specifying that the MBTA Fiscal and Management Control Board (FMCB) report annually on, among other things, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s “own-source revenue, operating budget, capital plan and progress toward meeting performance metrics and targets.” This final report is presented to the Legislature after five and a half years of governance by the FMCB, with just under six months left in our extended term. 2020 was an extraordinary year, marked by an unprecedented global pandemic, nationwide protests, political and racial tensions, and substantial changes in the ways we live and work. Due to the widespread adoption of teleworking and the closure of hotels, restaurants, and other sectors to slow the spread of COVID-19, MBTA ridership fell sharply. By the end of October, Commuter Rail ridership was down 87% compared to 2019, with the system carrying only 8.5% of its pre- COVID morning peak ridership. Ferry ridership stood at 12% of pre-COVID ridership, with the MBTA paying to operate 112 trips daily with an average of seven riders per trip. Ridership at gated rapid transit (subway) stations was still roughly one-quarter of pre-COVID levels. Even bus ridership, which serves our most durable, transit-dependent customers, had fallen to about 45% of the baseline by October. This decline in ridership, of course, had significant implications for own source revenue. In November 2020, fare revenues were down 78% compared to November 2019. Parking and advertising revenues dropped in line with fares, while real estate revenues remained more stable.
    [Show full text]
  • See Paul Carafotes at Boston Super Megafest
    .25¢ www.TheSomervilleNews.com Vol. 40 No. 42 • NOVEMBER 9, 2011 Somerville’s only independent community newspaper [email protected] Inside: Winners: Ward 4 and Ward 7 In an election for the ages, re- the goal. I'm happy to be sults have shown a clear sign there. Some people ran some that voters were satisfied with good races, pulled some good their Aldermen. Perhaps it votes, but the people of was the plethora of major Somerville were obviously sat- votes that occurred, including isfied,” he said. the Assembly Square bond “It's a good team,”he said of his vote and the move to the GIC. fellow incumbents. But the incumbents won out William White could not be Clinton comes to in the end. reached in time for print dead- Tufts Aldermen At Large Dennis line of this publication. page 5 Sullivan,Jack Connolly,Bruce Ward 4 has a new Alderman Desmond and William White in Tony Lafuente, who de- all secured their seats on the feated Christine Barber 857 Board for another two years. to 623 in unofficial results in Tony Lafuente is the new Alderman for Bob Trane narrowly won his re- “I'm humble and grateful for Ward 4. the battle for Walter Pero's election bid in Ward 7. the overwhelming vote that vacated seat. Voting machines I've received. I'm looking for- ly counts,” said Connolly, who in Precinct 3 of Ward 4 suf- neighbors in Ward 4 have placed ward to returning to City Hall remains one of the most elect- fered a computer glitch, their trust, and that is a job that and doing the people's busi- ed aldermen in the history of which caused all ballots to be I will do.” He said that he would ness,” said Sullivan.
    [Show full text]
  • No Action Alternative Report
    No Action Alternative Report April 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2. NEC FUTURE Background ............................................................................................................................ 2 3. Approach to No Action Alternative.............................................................................................................. 4 3.1 METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS .................................................................................... 4 3.2 DISINVESTMENT SCENARIO ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 4. No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 TRAIN SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 4.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE RAIL PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................... 9 4.2.1 Funded Projects or Projects with Approved Funding Plans (Category 1) ............................................................. 9 4.2.2 Funded or Unfunded Mandates (Category 2) .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Report
    July 24, 2015 Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office – Holly Johnson, MEPA #14590 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 RE: The Station at Riverside, MEPA #14590 Dear Secretary Beaton: The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) regularly reviews proposals deemed to have regional impacts. The Council reviews proposed projects for consistency with MetroFuture, the regional policy plan for the Boston metropolitan area, the Commonwealth’s Sustainable Development Principles, the GreenDOT initiative, consistency with Complete Streets policies and design approaches, as well as impacts on the environment. BH Normandy Riverside, the Proponent, proposes to redevelop an MBTA property at Riverside Station on Grove Street in Newton, off Exit 22 of Interstate 95 (Route 128). Since the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) filing in 2011, the proposed project has been downsized, but still is a significant development project in Greater Boston. The current proposal is for a mixed-use redevelopment in and around the current parking lot for the MBTA’s Riverside Station, the western terminus of the MBTA Green Line "D" Branch light rail line. The project site is defined as the 22.35 acres owned by the MBTA, which currently consists of the MBTA rail yard operations, a Green Line maintenance facility, a bus terminal facility, and surface parking. A 9.38-acre parcel will be leased to the Proponent for redevelopment. An Intermodal Commuter Facility (ICF) will be constructed on approximately 2.11 acres and will be operated by the MBTA. The MBTA will continue its operations on the remaining approximately 10.86 acres.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal and Management Control Board Transportation Board Room June 25, 2018 12:30 P.M
    MBTA Logo, Charles D. Baker, Governor, Karyn E. Polito, Lieutenant Governor, Stephanie Pollack, MassDOT Secretary & CEO, Luis Manuel Ramírez, General Manager & CEO, MassDOT logo Fiscal and Management Control Board Transportation Board Room June 25, 2018 12:30 p.m. MEETING MINUTES Present: Director Steven Poftak, Director Brian Lang and Director Monica Tibbits-Nutt Quorum Present: Yes Others Present: Secretary Stephanie Pollack, MassDOT Director Joe Sullivan (departed at 1:34 p.m.) Luis Ramirez, Jeffrey Gonneville, Marie Breen, Owen Kane, Mike Abramo, Nathan Peyton, David Abdoo, Jackie Goddard, Evan Rowe, Scott Hamwey, Jessica Casey, Beth Larkin, Heather Hume, Laurel Paget-Seekins, Kat Benesh, Dan Grabauskus and David Scorey At the call of Vice Chair Poftak, a meeting of the Fiscal and Management Control Board (Board) was called to order at 12:36 p.m. at the State Transportation Building, Transportation Board Room, 10 Park Plaza, Boston, Massachusetts. Vice Chair Poftak opened up the public comment period for items appearing on the agenda. The first speaker Richard Prone, MBTA’s Duxbury Advisory Board Representative, commented on the addition of commuter rail evening trains. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4510, Boston, MA 02116 www.mbta.com Next, Louise Baxter, from TRU, read testimony of behalf of the TRU, relative to AFC 2.0 and the Better Bus project. Lastly, Marilyn McNabb commented on the Ride’s transition to Transdev. Next, was the approval of the meeting minutes of June 11, 2018. On motion duly made and seconded, it was: VOTED: to approve the minutes of June 11, 2018. Director Tibbits-Nutt abstained from voting.
    [Show full text]
  • Citi Frozen Fenway 2014 Faqs WHAT FANS NEED to KNOW
    Citi Frozen Fenway 2014 FAQs WHAT FANS NEED TO KNOW What time will gates open for games on Dec 28, 31; Jan. 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 11? Fenway Park gates will open one hour prior to the start of the games. December 28: gates will open at 5:30 p.m. December 31: gates will open at 9:15 a.m. January 2: gates will open at 2:30 p.m. January 4: gates will open at 3:00 p.m. January 7: gates will open at 3:00 p.m. January 8: gates will open at 12:30 p.m. January 9: gates will open at 6:30 p.m. January 11: gates will open at 2:00 p.m. What time will gates open on the two Community Skating and Sledding days on December 29 and January 1? Fenway Park gates will open at 8:30 a.m., a half hour before the first Community Skating and Sledding time. Patrons with tickets to one of the Community Skating and Sledding days are asked to arrive 30 minutes before their scheduled time. Session times are indicated on all tickets. What time will gates open for New Year’s Eve at Fenway Park on December 31? Gate E will open at 4:30 p.m., a half hour before the first New Year’s Eve skating time. Patrons with tickets to one of the New Year’s Eve skating sessions may enter anytime after 4:30 p.m. Designated skating sessions are indicated on all tickets. Will ice skates be provided at the ballpark for the community skating days and New Year’s Eve event? Skates will not be provided at Fenway Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Better T in the Era of Covid-19
    Building a Better T in the Era of Covid-19 MBTA Advisory Board September 17, 2020 General Manager Steve Poftak 1 Agenda 1. Capital Project Updates 2. Ridership Update 3. Ride Safer 4. Crowding 5. Current Service and Service Planning 2 Capital Project Updates 3 Surges Complete | May – August 2020 Leveraged low ridership while restrictions are in place due to COVID-19 directives May June July August D Branch (Riverside to Kenmore) Two 9-Day Closures C Branch (Cleveland Circle to Kenmore) E Branch (Heath to Symphony) Track & Signal Improvements, Fenway Portal Flood 28-Day Full Closure 28-Day Full Closure Protection, Brookline Hills TOD Track & Intersection Upgrades Track & Intersection Upgrades D 6/6 – 6/14 D 6/20 – 6/28 C 7/5 – 8/1 E 8/2 – 8/29 Blue Line (Airport to Bowdoin) Red Line (Braintree to Quincy) 14-Day Closure Harbor Tunnel Infrastructure Upgrades On-call Track 2, South Shore Garages, Track Modernization BL 5/18 – 5/31 RL 6/18 -7/1 4 Shuttle buses replaced service Ridership Update 5 Weekday Ridership by Line and Mode - Indexed to Week of 2/24 3/17: Restaurants and 110 bars closed, gatherings Baseline: limited to 25 people Average weekday from 2/24-2/28 100 MBTA service reduced Sources: 90 3/24: Non-essential Faregate counts for businesses closed subway lines, APC for 80 buses, manual counts at terminals for Commuter Rail, RIDE 70 vendor reports 6/22: Phase 2.2 – MBTA 6/8: Phase 2.1 60 increases service Notes: Recent data preliminary 50 5/18-6/1: Blue Line closed for 40 accelerated construction Estimated % of baseline ridership
    [Show full text]
  • Green Line Extension Profile
    Green Line Extension Cambridge to Medford, Massachusetts (January 2020) The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) are jointly constructing an extension to the existing Green Line Light Rail Transit (LRT) route from a relocated Lechmere Station in Cambridge to College Avenue in Medford and Union Square in Somerville. The Green Line Extension (GLX) will operate on the exclusive right-of-way of the MBTA Commuter Rail System, adjacent to existing commuter rail service. The project includes six at-grade stations and one elevated station; 3.7 miles of at-grade guideway and one mile of elevated guideway; reconstruction of eight bridge structures to maintain grade separation on the route; and the purchase of 24 light rail vehicles. The GLX project will improve mobility for residents of Cambridge, Somerville and Medford by providing a one-seat transit ride to Downtown Boston and the greater Boston metropolitan area. It will serve some of the region’s most densely populated communities not currently served by rail transit. Approximately 75,300 residents live within one-half mile of proposed stations, 26 percent of whom do not own or have access to an automobile. The project will reduce transit travel time in the project corridor by approximately 13 to 17 minutes because it will be built on fully grade-separated right- of-way through congested built-up neighborhoods, eliminating the need for passengers to make bus-to- rail transfers. Hours of operation in the opening year will be from 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. on weekdays and weekends.
    [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]
  • 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]