Undergraduate Thesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNDERGRADUATE THESIS The Implications of Improved Access to Public Transportation: The Green Line Extension 11.ThU | May 21, 2009 Student Name: Margot Spiller Thesis Advisor: Professor Joseph Ferreira 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 5 Background 5 Purpose of this Thesis 8 LITERATURE REVIEW 10 Transit Development Theories 10 Defining and Measuring Access 13 Impacts of Transit Stations on Surrounding Neighborhoods 14 RESEARCH QUESTION 19 METHODOLOGY 21 Choosing the Station 21 Collecting the Data 22 Application to the Green Line Extension 23 Evaluating the Analysis 23 RESULTS 24 The Green Line Extension in Context 24 Variables Used to Evaluate Station Areas 25 The Existing Conditions of the Green Line Extension Station Areas 26 Comparison of the Green Line Extension to an Existing Station 30 Results of Davis Square Analysis 33 DISCUSSION 48 Discussion of the Davis Square Analysis Results 48 Application to the Green Line Extension 52 CONCLUSIONS 56 BIBLIOGRAPHY 58 APPENDIX 60 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Travel Impacts of Land Use Design Features 15 Table 2 – Census Variables Used to Test for Gentrification 16 Table 3 – Census Variables Used to Track Transit Impacts 26 Table 4 – Population Density of Green Line Extension Station Areas 28 Table 5 – Socioeconomic Characteristics of Green Line Extension Station Areas 29 Table 6 – Travel Behavior of Green Line Extension Station Areas 30 Table 7 – Characteristics of the Davis Square Area in 1980 32 Table 8 – Population Density from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 35 3 Table 9 – Percentage of Vacant Housing Units from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 36 Table 10 – Median Non-Condo Housing Value from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 37 Table 11 – Median Rent from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 38 Table 12 – Unemployment Rate from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 39 Table 13 – Workers with White Collar Jobs from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 40 Table 14 – College Graduates from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 41 Table 15 – Median Household Income from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 42 Table 16 – Median Family Income from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 43 Table 17 – Percentage of Commutes via Automobile from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 44 Table 18 – Percentage of Commutes via Public Transportation from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 45 Table 19 – Percentage of Commutes Longer than 30 Minutes from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 46 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Distance Criterion for Public Transport Access 14 Figure 2 – Transit Proximity Impacts on Travel Behavior 15 Figure 3 – Inner Core Towns and Existing Transit Services 25 Figure 4 – Proposed Green Line Extension Stations Accessible by Somerville 26 Figure 5 – Land Use Categories of Somerville Parcels for 2005 28 Figure 6 – Land Use of Somerville in 1971 32 Figure 7 – Population Density from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 35 Figure 8 – Percentage of Vacant Housing Units from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 36 Figure 9 – Median Non-Condo Housing Value from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 37 Figure 10 – Median Rent from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 38 Figure 11 – Unemployment Rate from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 39 Figure 12 – Workers with White Collar Jobs from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 40 Figure 13 – College Graduates from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 41 Figure 14 – Median Household Income from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 42 Figure 15 – Median Household Income from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 43 Figure 16 – Percentage of Commutes via Automobile from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 44 Figure 17 – Percentage of Commutes via Public Transportation from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 45 Figure 18 – Percentage of Commutes Longer than 30 Minutes from 1980-2000 for Davis Square and Control Areas 46 4 Introduction Background Densely populated metropolitan areas present unique challenges to urban planners in terms of economic development, land use patterns and transportation infrastructure, among other considerations. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council has defined an “Inner Core” region of twenty cities and towns in the Boston area that exhibit these characteristics because of their urban and populous nature. Among these communities is the town of Somerville, which is the target of a proposed transit infrastructure extension. Somerville is located in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, two miles north of Boston. With 77,000 residents in 4.1 square miles, Somerville is the densest city in New England. Almost one third of the population is foreign born, and certain areas of the town have high concentrations of moderate and low-income residents. As of the 2000 census, the median income for a household in the city is $46,315, and the median income for a family is $51,243 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Twelve and one-half percent of the population and 8.4 percent of families are below the poverty line, and out of the total population, 14.3 percent of those under the age of 18 and 13.6 percent of those 65 and older are living in poverty. Furthermore, more than one fourth of the town’s households do not own a car (STEP 2008). Because of these factors related to median income and minority populations, much of Somerville has been designated by the State as environmental justice population areas 1. Environmental justice regulations are in place to ensure that the programs and activities of the Federal government do not disproportionately affect the human health or environment for minority and low-income populations in the United States. 1 Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”, requires that each Federal agency shall, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” (Center for Environmental Excellence). 5 Despite these considerations, the majority of Somerville does not have adequate access to public transportation. With only one transit station in Davis Square, many residents resort to buses and automobiles to reach their destinations. This constrains the already congested roadway network, leading to unreasonably long travel times for the relatively short distances of many trips within the Inner Core (Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), 2-2). Bus service is further hindered by overcrowding, unreliability, and the fact that transit patrons often have to make multiple connections to reach their destinations. These factors lead to inadequate access to Boston and other destinations, hampering economic development and employment opportunities. Beyond inadequate access, Somerville has suffered major environmental impacts from the 46-acre MBTA Commuter Rail Facility located in its boundaries, as well as the infrastructure of I-93, Route 28 and other major arterials that bring with them large volumes of regional traffic. Somerville is located in an area designated non-attainment for ozone by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a classification of “serious” (VHB 2-3). The leading sources of ozone precursor emissions within the area are motor vehicles. The community’s concern of air pollution is furthered by the area’s increased rates of chronic diseases such as cancer death, asthma and obstructive pulmonary diseases. In the early 1990’s, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts committed to implementing a number of Boston region transit improvements as mitigation measures for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. This commitment was embedded in the State Implementation Plan to ensure air quality conformity. Among the proposed improvements was an extension of the Green Line through Somerville and Medford (Green Line Extension 2008). The Green Line Extension would have multiple stations within or within walking distance of Somerville, including Union Square, Washington Street, Gilman Square, Lowell Street, Ball Square and College Avenue. 6 The goals of the extension are to improve mobility and regional access for residents in Cambridge, Somerville and Medford. Improved mobility in the area will allow residents to more easily travel through the study area and to downtown Boston (VHB 2-4). In turn, residents would benefit from greater employment access and reduced commuting times. The Extension also plans to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transportation system by expanding the viability of multiple mode choice options. Residents will benefit from multimodal connections between commuter rail, bus services and light rail that will improve mobility and flexibility in route choice. By improving access and mobility, the project also aims to improve air quality and minimize environmental impacts. Mobility improvements will help to move the area towards compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards, as well as improve the overall environmental conditions in the study area. Advocates of the extension believe that train service is a crucial component to the city’s future economic viability, as it will help businesses grow and bridge critical tax dollars for the city to pay for needed services. Often cited is the transformation that has occurred in Davis Square, an area of Somerville that changed dramatically after the Red Line was extended into Davis Square in 1984. Beginning in the 1950s, the area fell into decline, and by the early 1970s the area was characterized by empty storefronts and deteriorating buildings and infrastructure (MassGov). Today, Davis Square is known as a vibrant urban center that boasts a mix of retail, office, institutional, residential and entertainment uses.